Dr. Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend

The designation of geographical entities in this publication and the presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or GTZ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or GTZ.

This publication has been made possible by funding from the Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

CONTENTS

Abbreviations

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Practitioners engaged in promoting and facilitating co-management initiatives should know (and usually do know!) that their specific context of work is much more important than any externally devised instructions and guidelines. In other words, co-management processes are invariably experimental and ideas, tools and lessons learned—those of this document included—need to be adjusted and bent around specific situations and environments. With this spirit in mind, this document may actually be of some use.

The advice and technical inputs of Eileen Babbit, Didier Babin, Marco Bassi, Dianne Buchan, Christian Chatelain, Paul Chatterton, Kevin Clements, Emmanuel de Merode, Alex de Sherbinin, M. Taghi Farvar, Andrea Finger-Stich, Hillarie Greening, Alain Karsenty, Lisa Naughton, Tom Nesbitt, Josiane Olff-Nathan, Elinor Ostrom, Yves Renard, Farhad Vania and Jacques Weber, as well as the conversations with these experts and friends, were very important in the preparatory phases of the first Congo Basin workshop, in 1999. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of these colleagues, as well as to Thomas Barton and Will Allen, who generously dedicated their time to set an earlier version of this paper into Word format and post it in the Internet. M. Taghi Farvar has offered extremely valuable comments and advise for this latest version of the document. To him goes my heartfelt appreciation.

The generous professional and personal encouragement of Kirsten Hegener and her colleagues at the Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) has made possible both the co-management project in the Congo Basin and this publication. Jean Claude Nguinguiri, the Coordinator of the Co-management Project and Network in the Congo Basin, has contributed his unfailing support with competence and sincere dedication. I would like to thank them both most warmly.

Daniel Ngantou, Roger Kouokam and their colleagues of the Waza Logone project welcomed the workshop at Maruoa with kindness and remarkable hospitality, as did Mambo Okenye for the subsequent workshop in Buea. The workshop participants– Emmanuel Tabi Arampe, Emmanuel Arrah, Karin Augustat, Gervais Bangaoui, Moussa Boukar, Sylvain Dangolho, Ousmane Doubla, Arrison Ebong, Valentine Eyabi Nzo, Mohammed Taghi Farvar, Yolande Fouda, Cyprian Jum, Gilbert Koumba-Safou, Roger Kouokam, Monono Matanga, Peter Mbile, Luc Mendouga, Georges Mouncharou, Vincent Ndangang, Placide Nzamba, Mambo Okenye, Pierre Oyo, Phil Rene Oyono, Josiane Olff-Nathan, Emmanuel Sama, Dagobert Samba, Peter Sanga, Francis Sangwa, Marcel Taty, Bertin Tchikangwa Nkanje, Belmont Tchumba, Elise Pierrette Toko Meno and Maurice Yonta– enlivened the learning process with their knowledge, their doubts, their queries and their capacity to identify quickly the strong, the weak and the amusing side of every idea. Many thanks to them all! This work is dedicated to them, and to the colleagues facing similar co-management challenges throughout the world.

Readers are fully authorised to reproduce this document in part or in total for non-commercial purposes, provided the source is quoted. Their comments and suggestions for improvement will be very much appreciated and acknowledged in future versions of the document. Comments and suggestions may be sent by e-mail to: gbf@iname.com

1. INTRODUCTORY OVERVIEW

1.1 Co-management

(also called: participatory management, collaborative management, joint management, mixed, multi-party or round-table management)

Co-management is:

• a pluralist approach to managing natural resources (NRs), incorporating a variety of partners in a variety of roles, generally to the end goals of environmental conservation, sustainable use of NRs and the equitable sharing of resource-related benefits and responsibilities
• a political and cultural process par excellence: seeking "democracy" and social justice in natural resource management
• a process that needs some basic conditions to develop, among which are: full access to information on relevant issues and options, freedom and capacity to organise, freedom to express needs and concerns, a non-discriminative social environment, the will of partners to negotiate, confidence in the respect of agreements, etc.
• a complex, lengthy and sometimes confused process, involving frequent changes, surprises, sometimes contradictory information, the need to retrace one’s own steps
• the expression of a mature society, which understands that there is no "unique and objective" solution to manage natural resources but, rather, a multiplicity of different options compatible with both indigenous knowledge and scientific evidence, and capable of meeting the needs of conservation and development (and that there also exists a multitude of negative or disastrous options for the environment and development)

Natural resource management (NRM) is a major political arena. In the past, many traditional societies formed relatively closed systems in which natural resources were managed through complex interplays of reciprocities and solidarities. These systems were fully embedded into local cultures and accommodated for differences of power and roles (including decision-making) within holistic systems of reality and meaning. Dialogue and discussion among interested parties on the basis of field experience (what some, today, refer to as "co-management") were widely practiced in some of these societies. In others, different social values (religious authority, caste predestination, cultural norms, etc.) determined most NRM decisions and the related sharing of costs and benefits. Communal property was generally widespread, and constituted a crucial element in the cohesion and sustainability of traditional NRM systems. Local knowledge and skills, built through extended historical experience, were another cornerstone. Most importantly, local communities tended to create themselves around a body of natural resources that they could manage together. In other words, in traditional societies the units of natural resource management and the units of social life tended to coincide.

The historical emergence of colonial powers and nation states, and their violent assumption of authority over most common lands and natural resources induced nearly everywhere a demise of traditional NRM systems. The monetarisation of economic exchanges weakened local systems of reciprocity and solidarity, as did the incorporation of local economies into increasingly more global systems of reference. In addition, the rise in power of modern "scientific" practices induced severe losses in local knowledge and skills. This generalised break down of local NRM systems ended up inducing the disempowerment and "de-responsibilisation" (see Banuri and Amalrik, 1992) of local communities. Attitudes of confrontation and reciprocal mistrust between them and the representatives of the state became widespread. Community-based trial and errors and the detailed discussion of local NRM practices, whenever existed, were largely substituted by the coercive imposition of practices through laws, rules, extension services, the police and the army.

In such situations, as in all societies structured around large power differentials such as feudal hamlets in Europe or colonial possessions in Africa and Latin America, the "weapons of the weak" have rarely included a frank and open discussions above-board. On the contrary, the disadvantaged groups, whenever they did not resort to violence, attempted to protect themselves and gain access to natural resources by means of subterfuge, lies, passive resistance, ridicule, feigned misunderstanding, theft, raids and the like (see Scott, 1985).

In some societies characterised by large power disparities, the recent development of democratic systems and the state of law allowed a number of social movements, unions, consumer and minority groups to adopt a transparent and direct strategy of confrontation, sometime even in an overtly legal manner. In others, the conditions for this to happen are still far on the horizon Whether an above-board dialogue and confrontation is the best strategy to protect the interests of the less privileged groups can be assessed only within a specific context.

Some such groups opt for an all-out confrontation with little to no open space for compromise (this is the choice of some Indigenous Peoples still fighting for the basic recognition of their ancestral rights). Others attempt to find a place at the negotiation table with more powerful actors (business, the government and the like) and encounter all sorts of obstacles and difficulties. In some cases, all groups and individuals with interests and concerns about a given territory, area or set of resources understand that co-operation is necessary for NRM effectiveness and efficiency, and agree to pursue that cooperation in the interest of everyone. This latter attitude may not yet be the most common, but it is spreading. In fact, many contemporary NRM situations show an evolving mixture of the old and the new. Some elements of traditional NRM systems persist, others are crushed by the powers of modernisation, and still others adapt and evolve incorporating new traits and ingredients.

From the point of view of development and conservation professionals— to whom this document is primarily addressed— the history of co-management is rooted in decades of field-based and theoretical efforts by individuals and groups concerned with:

– equity and social justice

– sustainable use of natural resource

– community-based and community-run initiatives

Many political battles have been fought for and against co-management in the field as well as within national and international organizations. The following schematic figure summarises some of the arguments voiced by participants in the battles and debates.

Some arguments for and against CM

Main CM values and principles

• recognising different values, interests and concerns involved in managing a territory, area or set of natural resources, both outside the local communities and within them
• being open to various types of NRM entitlements beyond the ones legally recognised (such as private property or government mandate)
• seeking transparency and equity in natural resource management
• allowing the civil society to assume ever more important roles and responsibilities

• harnessing the complementarity of the capacities and comparative advantages of different institutional actors
• linking entitlements and responsibilities in the NRM context
• appreciating that the process is more important than the short-term products
• learning-by-doing through on-going revisions and improvements in NR management

There are no blueprints or universally applicable paths for a CM initiative. On the contrary, there is an enormous variety of options that can suit a specific context. In order to allow comparisons and to break down the process into manageable units, however, four key CM components and three main phases in a CM process can be identified:

Four inter-related CM components

Three main phases in a CM process

1.2 Concepts and approaches contributing to understanding and practicing co-management

• adaptive management
• pluralism
• governance
• patrimony
• management of conflicts
• social communication

Many other relevant concepts and practices– such as participatory action research, environmental stewardship, gestion du terroir, etc. – exist, but will not be explored here.

Concepts and approaches —> adaptive management

The adaptive management approach is based on scientific findings on ecosystems and on field-based experience gained in several environments.

Its central tenets are that natural resource management is always experimental, that we can learn from implemented activities, and that NRM can be improved on the basis of what has been learned. For this to happen, NRM activities have to state explicitly what they aim to achieve, including indicators and monitoring and evaluation methods (see for instance Holling 1978 and Wilston 1986).

Basic elements of adaptive management

• explicit NRM objectives and explicit hypotheses on how they are to be achieved (including monitoring indicators)
• prompt collection of data on the monitoring indicators
• ongoing evaluation of monitoring data and NRM results
• coherent changes in NRM practice in line with the results obtained and the lessons learned

The stages of adaptive management (adapted from Taylor, 1998)

• appraisal of the NRM situation and problems; generally in workshops, with several institutional actors
• design of NRM activities; also generally in workshops, on the basis of a comparison of several possible options
• implementation of NRM activities closely following the chosen plan (which may include zoning the land and experimenting with different activities in different zones—a procedure known as "active management")
• monitoring the achievement of the expected results on the basis of indicators drawn up for the expected changes
• evaluation of results to test the effectiveness of the activities implemented
• adjusting activities in line with lessons learned; this may include the re-formulation of the problems, the NRM objectives, the activities and indicators, etc.

Concepts and approaches —> pluralism

A pluralist approach focuses on the recognition that in any society there exist various actors, interests, concerns and values. In particular:

• there are different categories of social actors– for example governmental and non-governmental, groups and private individuals, local communities and outsiders with entitlements to local resources– bearing important complementary capacities for natural resource management.
• communities are social actors in themselves and provide the most natural and effective unit of identity, integration and defence for many under-privileged groups and individuals (see Farvar, 1999). Yet, communities are not homogenous entities, and their internal sub-divisions should be recognised. In other words, while keeping their basic cohesion and identity, a plurality of values, interests and concerns should be recognised within any local community (see Agrawal, 1997).

A multiplicity of views and voices in the negotiation process is a fundamental pre-condition for equity and justice. It does not follows from this, however, that all views and voices are equal, that they all carry the same weight or are all equally entitled to participate in the negotiation of the co-management plans and agreements.

Equity is profoundly different from equality!

Concepts and approaches —> governance

Adequate governance depends on the legitimacy of the political system and on the respect shown by the people to its institutions. It also depends on the capacity of such institutions to respond to problems, and to achieve social consensus through agreements and compromise.

Governance:

• is neither a system of rules nor an activity; it is a process
• is not based on domination but on compromise
• involves both private and public actors
• is not necessarily formalised, and is generally based on an on-going interaction

A comparison adapted from Karsenty (1998):

Concepts and approaches —> patrimony

A patrimonial representation of a territory, an area or a set of resources

• links past, present and future generations of managers;
• focuses on the owner’s obligations more than on the owner’s rights;
• promotes a common vision of sustainability that reconciles the needs and opinions of various actors.

distinctive features of the notion of patrimony
in comparison with the notion of property

(Karsenty and Marie, 1998)

Various stages of patrimonial mediation (adapted from Weber, 1998)

• Launching: identifying actors, debating current trends for the status of natural resources and the acceptability of such trends; communicating one’s own point of view and listening to the points of view of others.
• Establishing long-term patrimonial objectives and legitimating them by culturally appropriate "rituals" that make them inalienable, non-negotiable and difficult to violate.
• Elaborating medium-term NRM scenarios by the actors, to achieve their patrimonial objectives; defining acceptable resource uses, as well as access and control; agreeing on tools, methods, responsibilities and needed technical support.
• Setting up NRM organisations: deciding on executive, decision-making and advisory bodies and their operating rules (on the basis of a discussion of the variety of possible types); legitimising but not ritualising the specific NRM bodies, rules and adopted strategies.

Concepts and approaches —> conflict management

(from Babbit et al., 1994)

Conflict management is a non-violent process that promotes dialogue and negotiation. It implies:

• taking care of disagreements before they generate hostility
• helping the institutional actors to explore a multiplicity of options for agreement and subsequently select an option everyone can live with
• recognising and intervening on the underlying causes of conflict, with a view to preventing them in the future

Modern processes of conflict management are quite close to processes of negotiating a co-management agreement; both express the same values (dialogue, transparency, pluralism, fairness, etc.), have the same main constituents and can be facilitated in similar way.

Main constituents of modern approaches to conflict management

• some concerned social actors
• a common area of interest and some points of conflict (different values, interests and needs of the various actors involved)
• a forum for negotiation and some basic rules for the concerned actors to meet and discuss issues together
• some reliable data on the points of conflict
• various options for action generated by the concerned actors and discussed among them
• a written agreement on one of these options
• the legitimisation of the agreement
• the implementation of the agreement

Many traditional systems of conflict management obtained effective results via values, constituents and processes that do not fit the above description and list. Such culturally specific ways (which may used a variety of methods and techniques, from non-verbal social pressure to trance induction, from chance decisions to linguistic reframing of issues) should be recognised and responded to in a sensitive and inclusive manner. If they are sufficient and effective to deal with the conflicts at hand, by all means they should be given the way. However, when traditional systems do not suffice and/or when conflicts involve a variety of non-traditional partners, it may be appropriate to consider also the modern approaches.

Whenever the conflicts are serious and the parties involved are distant and hostile, the presence of a facilitator, mediator or arbiter is highly recommended. A conflict-management instructor could also be called upon. Their role is similar, but not exactly the same. These people could come from official state agencies or non-governmental organisations. They could also be private individuals (religious authorities, retired judges, local wise-men and women, etc).

Facilitators

assist only in the running of the process. They never allow themselves to be drawn into the arguments.

Mediators

act as facilitators, but also help develop a wide range of options for the parties to discuss and choose from. They help conflicting parties to reach an agreement satisfactory for everyone.

Arbitrators

act as judges: they listen to the various parties, review pertinent documents and issue a decision, which is treated by all concerned as an expert opinion or an obligation, depending on what was decided in advance.

Instructors

help the institutional actors (usually in separate sessions) to learn the elements of conflict management. Hopefully, the IAs will succeed in applying those to their own conflict situation.

Some suggestions on how to overcome such special circumstances are offered in section 6 in this paper. They are, unfortunately, no guarantee of success. Here are five main checkpoints for effective conflict management (adapted from Lewis, 1996):

• Shift the attention from positions to underlying interests. "Interests" are people’s fundamental needs and concerns. "Positions" are the proposals that they put forward to try to satisfy those interests. As many different positions can satisfy the same basic interest, focusing on interests can open the way for conciliation and compromise.
• Appreciate the merits of fair compromise. A conflict management effort in which all interests are satisfied is much more likely to result in a lasting and satisfactory resolution than one where the interests of only one side are addressed. A fair compromise may be the best way to serve everyone’s needs in the long run, especially when overt conflict is replaced with the stability and predictability of a mutually agreeable solution. On the other hand, an unfair compromise, which may seriously curtail the entitlements of one or more social actors without effective compensation, may just be a recipe for brewing even more serious conflicts in the long run.
• Address both the procedural and substantive dimensions of conflicts. Procedural issues can include a group’s need to be included in decision-making, to have their opinions heard and to be respected as a social entity. "Substantive" refers to interests that relate to tangible products, such as availability of firewood, protection from predatory animals or stopping a major source of pollution.
• Include all significantly affected institutional actors in arriving at a solution. Failure to involve all affected stakeholders in a co-management initiative generally leads to unsustainable solutions and to new conflicts arising in the future.
• Understand the power of various institutional actors, and take that into account in the process. There are often extreme differences in power between different stakeholders. Each party’s approach to the conflict will depend on their view of the power they have in relation to the other stakeholders. For example, a group that feels powerless to influence an outcome through a bureaucratic process may choose to use illegal activities instead.

Concepts and approaches —> social communication

Social communication is vital for any activity in which the participation of local people is envisaged and sought.

It is people who bring about development and manage natural resources. There can be no change for the better without involving them, mobilizing their capacities and energies and enhancing their knowledge and skills. Social communication caters to all these human dimensions. It is about fostering the discussion of problems, opportunities and alternative options for action, i.e. providing the conditions for informed decision making. Interpersonal communication— including one-to-one dialogue and group meetings—is a main component of social communication, and often has remarkable effects, such as raising morale, enhancing the sense of one’s own value and dignity, and promoting social solidarity and collaboration.

There are various types of communication media, including:

• traditional (e.g., the spoken word, writing, theatre, songs, the arts)
• graphic (e.g. diagrams, illustrations, pictures, compositions, maps)
• electronic (e.g. film, videos, audiocassettes, television, radio, the Internet)

Providing communities with the access and skills to control and effectively use both traditional and modern media is an essential component of community development, and thus of sound management of natural resources (see Annex 1 for street theatre and community radio, two examples of participatory methods in social communication). Local media refers to communication material produced locally, whether traditional or modern (electronic). Development and natural resource problems place great strains on communities, and their local media are usually employed to channel the ideas and feelings that accompany their efforts and struggle for change. In fact, there is a close link between traditional media and local culture, including the social patterns to accommodate change.

The challenge of cross-cultural communication is to bridge local and outside knowledge. For expert professionals this challenge is mostly about learning to listen. This does not mean that expert professionals cannot set up information campaigns or training programmes— on the contrary! Such initiatives may be important as part of a social communication campaign, but they should be developed with respect, intelligence and care. In particular:

• "Communication occurs when people have something in common." (Fuglesang, 1982). If we wish to communicate with people we need to understand the language(s) by which they describe their own reality, including fundamental beliefs, values and concepts (such as time, space, matter).
• Effective communication processes and tools do not discriminate against the weaker and less powerful in society (e.g. people who do not feel confident enough to attend meetings, who are not literate, who live far from main centres, etc.). In this sense audiovisual presentations, such as picture stories and community radio programmes, or "broad participation events", such as street theatre, are much less discriminatory than others.
• Any information conveyed should be truthful, fair and reasonably complete. Information depends on context, and decisions are conditioned by the perception of available alternatives. Fairness in communication is thus a complex phenomenon, depending on completeness of information as much as on strict adherence of information to "facts".
• Most importantly, a social communication campaign should include plenty of occasions for dialogue and discussion, and the opportunity for everyone to express their own views, to ask questions and to dissent. This, in fact, represents the main difference between social communication and conventional information, education and training initiatives. While in the latter information flows from one node to others, in the former information flows in all directions and is actually generated as part of that very flow and exchange (e.g. by social dialogue and debate).

Taking into account concepts, approaches and values in a co-management process: a schematic view

2. THE PREPARATORY PHASE

The typical situation in the beginning

• different social actors are concerned about a territory, area or set of natural resources; they may include local communities, government representatives at different levels, traditional authorities and elders, user groups within local communities, NGOs, individuals, private businesses, and so on; the number of interested actors is historically increasing as a result of recent processes such as the decentralisation of government authority, the privatisation of previously state-controlled economies, the emergence of new democratic institutions, etc.
• there are different points of view on that territory, area or set of natural resources, as well as different interests and concerns and different assigned values
• there is some (perhaps minimal) form of management for that territory, area or set of natural resources, even when is may be hardly discernable by non-local people

What can be done to promote co-management?

• the first task is a realistic assessment of the need for co-management and of the feasibility of the process
• if co-management is deemed to be needed and feasible, the next task is to identify the human and financial resources necessary to support it
• once such resources are identified and secured, a Start-up Team should be established to take on the task of promoting and facilitating the process through which stakeholders will negotiate a pluralistic and flexible management system. (Over time, such a system will need to respond to the changing needs of both the concerned ecosystem and society.)
• the initial phases of the process may sometimes be long, difficult, costly and even arduous. Yet, the participants can look forward to a positive outcome that, in addition to a judicious management of natural resources, will bear upon some of the most important aspects of social life– such as democracy, equity, culture and development.

2.1 Assessing the need for co-management and the feasibility of the process

2.2 Assessing the available human and financial resources

People engaged in promoting and supporting the CM process need knowledge and skills in the ecological, social and economic disciplines. They also need the capacity to communicate with all concerned stakeholders and to obtain and maintain their confidence and trust. And they need energy, passion, willingness, creativity, sacrifice and continuity. Their work is certainly not routine work… In other words, the co-management process needs "champions"!

Are such human resources locally available? Are there individuals willing to become part of a Start-up Team to prepare and launch the co-management process (see sections 2.3-2.10)? Are there financial resources to support the co-management preparatory phase (including visits of the Start-up Team to the potential institutional actors, participatory assessment exercises and a social communication campaign)? Are there financial resources to support the negotiation phase (including meetings, independent facilitation and the technical support that may be required along the way)?

The initiators of a CM process— which may be local individuals (e.g. an enlightened politician), local associations and NGOs, governmental agencies (e.g. the agency managing a protected area) or conservation and development projects supported by donors— need to dedicate time and care to assemble the necessary human and financial resources before embarking on the initiative.

2.3 Establishing a Start-up Team

A Start-up Team (or Initiation Committee, Launching Committee, etc.) is a small group of people (perhaps 4 or 5 individuals) who accepts to be in charge of the CM preparatory phase.

The group is usually selected by the initiators of the CM process, and/or is self-selected on the basis of a strong personal motivation. When the initiator is a donor-supported project, one or more project staff may become members of the Start-up Team (at times this helps assure the public perception of an impartial Team), but they should not be the majority.

Most importantly, all institutional actors should trust and feel capable of communicating with at least one person in the Start-up Team, even if they do not feel represented by him/her.

Some key characteristics of appropriate Team members are: diversity, credibility, personal motivation.

Some key qualities of a good Team are: being active, efficient, fair, multi-disciplinary, and transparent in decision-making; acting on the basis of consensus and collaboration; being determined to launch but not to lead or dominate the CM process.

The tasks of the Start-up Team

The Start-up Team is entirely responsible for one phase of the process only: the one in which the partnership is prepared and rooted in the local context. After that, the stakeholders themselves need to take control.

During the preparatory phase, the main tasks of the Team are:

2.4 Gathering information and tools (such as maps) on the main ecological and social issues

The Start-up Team may wish to begin its work by gathering existing information and tools to describe the main ecological and social issues (problems, opportunities, history, existing conflicts, existing power relations, etc.) and the existing descriptions and delimitations of the territory, area of natural resources of interest. Maps (including old maps) are particularly valuable tools in this sense.

A preliminary outline of the issues at stake can be summarised in a short report, written if appropriate, to be offered to the institutional actors at the beginning of the negotiation process. The report may summarise the particular NRM context from various perspectives (historical, social, legal, political, institutional, etc.). The report would benefit from the inputs of various social actors, which can be gathered during the preparatory phase (see later). Yet, the members of the Start-up team should refrain from stating or rephrasing the positions of various parties and give only a matter-of-fact account. If there are controversies, the report may mention them, and say what they are about.

Not only the report, but also the maps and other relevant data and information must be made available to all stakeholders, particularly to local communities who may otherwise be deprived of the information they contain. In fact, the Start-up Team may wish to constitute a small reference library at the disposal of all institutional actors during the negotiation phase.

2.5 Identifying in a preliminary way the natural resource management unit(s)

2.6 Identifying in a preliminary way the institutional actors to participate in natural resource management

Usually, several communities, organisations, social groups and individuals possess a direct, significant and specific stake in the identified NRM unit(s). In other words, there are many "potential institutional actors" in natural resource management. Among them, only some will be willing and capable of investing time and resources, organising themselves, taking action to get their interests and concerns socially recognised and being ready to take on some NRM responsibility. Those will be the true "institutional actors" in co-management plans and agreements, the ones that the Start-up Team needs to contact and involve in the process. And, in case of nested NRM units, such true actors need to be identified at each level (e.g. for the micro-catchments as well as for the river watershed and for the island as a whole).

How can the Start-up team identify the potential institutional actors in a specific context? There is no recipe for that, but a checklist may help.

Identifying the potential institutional actors: a checklist

• Are there communities, groups or individuals actually or potentially affected by the management decisions? Are there historic occupants (e.g., indigenous communities or regular transients) and traditional resource users with customary rights of ownership or usufruct? Are there recent migrants? Non-resident users of resources? Absentee landlords? Major secondary users of local resources (e.g., buyers of products, tourists)? Are there local associations or NGOS concerned with natural resources? Are there businesses and industries potentially impinged upon by the NRM decisions? Are there research, development or conservation projects in the area? How many employees (national and international) live in the area because of such projects? Are these people active in natural resource management?
• Who are the main traditional authorities in the area at stake? Are there government agencies officially responsible for the management units or resources at stake? Are there respected institutions, to which people recur in a variety of needs and circumstances?
• Who has access to the land, area or resources at stake? Who is using the natural resources at present? In what ways? Has this changed over time?
• Which communities, groups and individuals are most dependent on the resources at stake? Is this a matter of livelihood or economic advantage? Are these resources replaceable by others, possibly in less ecologically valuable or fragile areas?
• Who upholds claims, including customary rights and legal jurisdiction over the territory, area or resources at stake? Are there communities with ancestral and/or other types of acquired rights? Are various government sectors and ministry departments involved? Are there national and/or international bodies involved because of specific laws or treaties?
• Which communities, groups or individuals are most knowledgeable about, and capable of dealing with, the territories or resources at stake? So far, who has a direct experience in managing them?
• What are the seasonal/ geographical variations in resource use patterns and interests of the users? Are those interests geographically and seasonally stable (e.g., are there seasonal migration patterns)? Are there major events or trends currently affecting local communities and other social actors (e.g., development initiatives, land reforms, migration, important phenomena of population mobility or natural growth or decline)?
• Are there other co-management initiatives in the region? If so, to what extent are they succeeding? Who are their main partners?

At times the "potential institutional actors" are not clear about their own interests and concerns in a NRM unit. Even more often, they are not organised to communicate and promote them and/or are not willing to take on NRM responsibilities. For their preliminary stakeholder analysis, the members of the Start-up Team may begin with a list of social actors obviously possessing major interests, concerns, capacities and/or comparative advantages in natural resource management. Through contacts and meetings with them, that list will be modified. Likely, not all the ones initially identified may be willing to organise and invest time and resources in management, but new and possibly less obvious social actors might be.

A fairly usual dilemma in stakeholder analysis presents itself when, within an identified potential institutional actor (let us say a community in the vicinity of a forest), the Start-up Team discovers a variety of different interests, concerns and capacities vis-à-vis the natural resources. Should one or several institutional actors be invited to participate in the negotiation process? There is no simple answer to this question. The Start-up Team may wish to explore the pros and cons of the dilemma with the most directly concerned people and groups as part of their own process of self-organisation (see below). For instance, a united community has more weight at the discussion table than several people who cannot get themselves together. And yet, the community may be willing to speak as one voice in certain occasions and as many in others… In other words, the people who find themselves united as "one stakeholder" for some decisions may need to split and regroup on another one. This phenomenon, at times referred to as "multiculturality" of stakeholders (see Otchet, 2000), should be acknowledged and recognised as normal.

But, are interests and willingness sufficient to take on a management role? Shouldn’t the Start-up Team also ask, "Who are the social actors entitled to manage the unit(s) at stake?" –

It certainly should. And yet, the understanding of what constitutes a legitimate entitlement is an evolving socio-political phenomenon, best approached in a participatory way. The Start-up Team could begin by asking the potential institutional actors whether they consider that they have a fair claim to participate in the management of natural resources and, if so, on what grounds. In this way, the Start-up Team will obtain a list of factors and characteristics that at least some people recognise as legitimate "roots of entitlements" in the local context. Some examples of such factors and characteristics are listed in the box in the preceding page.

Not all societies or groups within a society recognise all NR management claims from all social actors. They may recognise some but not others. They may recognise claims only in combination with others (e.g. dependency for survival + long-term relationship with the resources + uses based on traditional technology and practices). Some social actors may recognise their respective claims, but other actors may deny them.

Given such a multiplicity of possible views, how can resource management claims be assessed vis-à-vis one another? Who can determine their respective value and "weight"?

In many contexts, such a process will unfold with great difficulties, if at all. It may be blocked by individuals with vested interests, or by too strong a power imbalance among the involved social actors (e.g. big business and national and local administrations versus a traditional community). It may lack the human or financial resources to allow it to take off. It may be impeded by a history of violence and bitter fights among relevant groups and factions. Or it may just be foreign to the local context because of a weak tradition of participatory democracy in the country.

Promoting and supporting co-management in a specific context means helping the aforementioned process (organising, negotiating and learning-by-doing) to start, and to develop in a fair way. In particular, it means to help local communities to identify and overcome obstacles such as the ones just listed above.

Towards empowered and responsible institutional actors: a schematic view

2.7 Launching and maintaining a social communication campaign

A social communication campaign is basically an on-going flow of information and dialogue between the Start-up Team and the institutional actors, and among the institutional actors themselves. It can be launched by some specific event (a fair, a public party, a community meeting, a travelling theatre piece, etc.), but it should also include an on-going component, to take care of communication needs that come up through time. In the preparatory phase, a social communication campaign promotes the critical understanding of the need for, the objectives and the process of co-management for the natural resource unit(s) at stake. This may lead to the adoption of CM concepts and practices but, even more importantly, should lead to their appropriation and transformation into the local socio-cultural context. In other words, a social communication campaign does not aim at "passing a message about an issue", as an information or education campaign would usually do, but at promoting its critical understanding and discussion in society.

To begin with, the Start-up Team may wish to identify where and how local people discuss and take care of NRM issues. Whenever applicable, the local media employed to convey this kind of information—from songs to gossiping and story telling, from sermons in a religious temple to drawings on walls—should be identified and possibly utilised (often within a spectrum of other media). As a communication campaign must make sense for the society much more than for the organiser of the campaign itself, the Start-up Team may have to abandon some favourite conventional means (e.g. pamphlets or microphone speeches) for more creative and effective ones (e.g. an environment-awareness game or lottery on local market days). Importantly, communication channels should always promote dialogue and discussion, and the Team should avoid any "teaching" or "preaching" attitude (see also section 1.2).

An important initial step in the campaign is the decision about a description (words, images, definition of problems, etc.) of the ecological and social issues to be tackled and the co-management process being promoted. For the latter, a culturally meaningful name or phrase in the local language, which would be perceived as appealing and inspiring (e.g. "Let’s manage the forest together!", "Our community in the 21st Century", "Solidarity and wise use of our wetlands" etc.) should be tested and adopted. The terms and phrases should not be too trite or resemble party slogans; on the contrary, they should convey the spirit of a-partisan collaboration, solidarity, working together for the common good. In particular, the name of the process is a main entry point for local acceptance and success. It is important to avoid picking a "good name" from the top of the head of some professionals. Instead, the name should evolve in conversations with members of local communities and various potential institutional actors. Possible problems and inadequacies with the translation of the names and descriptions in the local languages should be carefully considered.

2.8 Engaging the institutional actors

The main task of the Start-up Team is to contact the potential institutional actors identified so far and to inform them about the upcoming process of co-management and the opportunities it offers to all parties concerned about the NRM unit(s)at stake. A member of the Team (usually the closest and best trusted by the relevant people) meets with some individuals belonging to a community, an agency or a group identified as "potential institutional actor" and asks to be accompanied to visit the NRM unit(s) at stake. On the spot, issues and problems will naturally come up and will be discussed. Participatory appraisal exercises such as mapping, historical mapping, transect walks, interviews with spontaneous groups and key informants, etc. can be very useful to bring about the discussion. The next step will be meetings with more people broadly sharing the same interests and concerns as the ones initially contacted (i.e., part of the same "institutional actor" camp). In such larger meetings the identified NRM issues and problems will be re-introduced and discussed, and thereby validated or modified.

The goal of these meetings is for the potential institutional actors to identify and clarify their own NRM interests, concerns and capacities, as well as to decide for themselves (and for others) if and on what grounds they wish to claim any entitlement to manage. In addition, they may also clarify what type of entitlement they claim. Do they wish to take an advisory, executive or decision-making role? Do they simply wish to have a share in the benefits deriving from the natural resources? In this way, the Start-up Team deepens and refines its own preliminary situation and stakeholder analyses with the help of the stakeholders, while the institutional actors prepare themselves for the phase of negotiation.

It is particularly important to examine the grounds on which various actors base their claims to natural resource management, what we described before as the "roots of entitlements". These offer an overview of the main NRM stakes in the specific context, and inform the Start-up Team of controversies likely to surface during the negotiation phase.

2.9 Helping the institutional actors to organise

2.10 Preparing for the negotiation meetings: rules, procedures and equity considerations

This task is another of the Start-up Team’s most important duties. On the basis of the preliminary decisions on the institutional actors and the level of agreement to be reached, the Team proposes how the negotiation should be held— an advice charged with cultural and political implications.

Traditional societies have arrays of convivial procedures for negotiating agreements, such as a meeting of community elders or a larger gathering on the occasion of a religious festivity or a market fair. Many of those are simple, effective and inexpensive. If the Start-up Team is truly in tune with the stakeholders, it will consult them and eventually agree on whether any such culturally specific event is suitable for deciding on the issues at stake. In some cases, however, convivial gatherings may not be sufficient for negotiating a fair and sustainable NRM agreement.

For instance, the institutional actors may not share the same cultural backgrounds, values, attitudes and habits. A handshake equivalent to a sacred pact for some may just be a pleasant discussion of possibilities for someone else. Some people may not speak the same language, both literally and metaphorically, in the sense that the meaning of terms and concepts may need a careful "translation" between them. There may also be large power gaps or unsettled conflicts among the stakeholders, so that people may not feel comfortable, or even safe, to volunteer their views and expose their interests and concerns.

In such cases, the Start-up Team may well take a pro-active role to propose a schedule of meetings, some rules and procedures for participation, and some support in facilitating the negotiation. The institutional actors could well discuss and modify those, but it is important that en entity trusted by all parties takes the initiative to plan in detail at least the first meeting among the institutional actors. In other words, the Start-up Team should obtain an agreement on the place, date, hour, working language (or languages), participants, agenda, logistics and facilities necessary for the meeting that will launch the CM process.

But the Start-up Team needs to remember that its tasks are not only of a practical nature. Indeed the Team is also the prime guarantor of fairness and equity in the whole process. For that, it is never too early to carry out a specific reflection on equity, and on how it can be fostered throughout all the CM process. The results of such a reflection can be made explicit and incorporated into the rules and procedures of the negotiation phase.

Including equity considerations in the process towards empowered
and responsible institutional actors: a schematic view

Results of the preparatory phase

• information and tools (e.g., maps) on the main ecological and social issues at stake in the identified NRM unit(s), gathered together for the use of the parties in the negotiation
• a short report on the NRM context (e.g., listing historical, social, cultural, legal, political and institutional issues)
• one or more proposed NRM unit(s), identified on the basis of ecological and social considerations
• a preliminary analysis of relevant institutional actors, including entitlements, claims, power differentials and NRM conflicts, both existing and potential, among them
• a "name" and a description of the co-management process that are culturally valid and broadly understood and accepted in the context at stake
• a social communication campaign that opened and maintained two-way communication channels between the Start-up Team and the institutional actors, and fostered a broad discussion of NRM issues in society
• institutional actors reasonably well-informed, organised (e.g. they have identified their own representatives) and ready to negotiate co-management plans and agreements
• a set of suggested procedures for the negotiation process, including a first meeting among the identified institutional actors organised in detail
• ideas and concrete proposals on ways to promote fairness and equity in the negotiation process

3. THE NEGOTIATION PHASE

Negotiating among institutional actors: the heart of co-management

The co-management plans, agreements and organisations are as good as the process that generated them. It is wise to invest in this process!

Critical challenges

• to develop a partnership by which the benefits and responsibilities of natural resource management are shared in the most efficient and equitable manner possible, starting from a situation that may be neither efficient nor equitable. Also, sometimes:
• to develop a partnership among people who do not share the same culture (e.g. values, attitudes, capacities, ways of working, reference systems, languages), which means overcoming serious communication difficulties.

What does one need to remember?

• that there exist a multiplicity of good and poor NRM options (the terms good and poor referring to the goals and objectives to be defined, which themselves constitute a multitude);
• that– given the complexity of ecological and social systems– the best approach is one of adaptive management (learning-by-doing);
• that conflicts of interest between the institutional actors are inevitable but can be managed, and all the more so if recognised as early as possible (not every one has to share the same goals, it suffices that a compromise can be reached among all those concerned);
• that even when a satisfactory NRM solution will have been found, it will not remain valid forever; the conditions in the given context will change and the NRM solution will need to change in response to them– something everyone has to be prepared for;
• that many entitled institutional actors may not be able to prove and/or impose their claims on others, and that every effort should be made to be just and impartial.
• that all the institutional actors (and especially the professional experts!) need to adopt a mature, non-paternalist and non-ethnocentric attitude, and that they need to acknowledge the legitimacy of values, interests and opinions different from their own.

The negotiation meetings

Ideally, at the beginning of negotiations there are:

• some reasonably well-informed and organised institutional actors
• a discussion forum, a set of suggested rules and procedures, and a preliminary schedule of meetings and events
• available professional support to facilitate the negotiation meetings and mediate conflicts, if necessary

No matter whether the institutional actors are many or few, whether they are formally or informally organised, whether they feel in basic agreement or opposed by strongly contrasting values and interests, they need to meet and discuss issues of common concern. The goal of such meetings is usually a broad accord on:

• a long-term vision (ecological and social) for the NRM unit(s) at stake
• a short- and medium-term strategy to achieve such a vision, including co-management plans for the natural resources at stake and complementary agreements to address socio-economic issues related to such resources
• an evolving institution (organisations, rules, etc.) to implement the strategy and, on an on-going basis, review it as necessary

3.1 Agreeing on the rules and procedures of negotiation

All institutional actors will receive in advance a copy of the proposed agenda for the first of a series of meetings and an invitation for their chosen representative to participate in it. The note will make reference to the name and process description already adopted during the social communication work. The goal of the meetings to come may be set quite high, for example a series of meetings "..to understand the main challenges to our natural resources in the next twenty years, and prepare together to face them". It should be specified, however, that not only lofty goals but also substantive issues of relevance to the institutional actors will be part of the agenda. The conveners will be the Start-up Team as well as, whenever possible, some respected local authorities and personalities. The presence of a facilitator may be useful.

Main qualities and tasks of a good facilitator/ mediator

Facilitating meetings is a task firmly anchored in the culture of the actors concerned. As mentioned, many traditional societies do not need external facilitators and know well how to negotiate in convivial manners as part of normal life. An external facilitator may be important, however, when there are strong power imbalances, unresolved conflicts or communication problems among the concerned parties, and when the parties belong to quite different cultural backgrounds.

An external facilitator should be:

• recognised as independent
• generally respected by all those involved
• capable of relating with everyone
• able to listen
• able to pose the key questions (for example, on the root causes of the various problems and the feasibility of the options put forward)
• capable of getting the best out of the participants and helping them to see a different future for themselves and their communities

Tasks of an external facilitator:

• helping the Start-up Team and the institutional actors to identify and agree upon the rules and procedures of the negotiation meetings
• being responsible for the logistics of the meetings (e.g., agenda, seating arrangements, translation services, discussion tools, etc.)
• ensuring that the process takes place in accordance with the agreed rules (ensuring a comfortable situation in the meetings) and that everyone has a fair chance to participate
• checking out that the representatives of the institutional actors truly represent them (e.g., they are not merely self-appointed)
• promoting the best possible communication among institutional actors, e.g., by re-phrasing points, asking questions, suggesting the exploration of new ideas
• helping a group to be conscious of itself and of its goals, mission and opportunities
• helping a group to broaden its range of options
• pointing out the positive aspects of the process, i.e., when the actors’ old habits have given way to more constructive attitudes, for example:
• when the institutional actors actually talk to each other directly, if this was impossible before
• when new points of doubt and self-doubt are raised
• when the institutional actors clarify and enhance their perception of the others
• when new information is brought to the attention of everyone
• when an agreement that has a chance of being sustainable has been found.
• not stating his/her opinion on substantive issues and not deciding anything

The first meeting among institutional actors may begin with an introduction by the members of the Start-up Team, who will describe their work thus far. It is important to be transparent on who has facilitated and financially supported the Team’s work and why. The participants (representatives of the institutional actors) may then introduce themselves and mention how they have internally organised and identified the representatives who participate in the meeting. The facilitator and Start-up Team may then illustrate a proposed set of rules for the negotiation phase as well as procedures and a schedule of meetings. The discussion will then be opened to adjust and modify the proposed rules and procedures until a broad accord is achieved.

Example of rules for the negotiation process

(rules for negotiation processes are strongly dependent on the cultural milieu; it cannot be stressed enough that below is only an example of a set of rules, and that this example may be appropriate in some situations and entirely inappropriate in others)

• all main institutional actors should be present in the meetings and participate via their formal representatives
• participation is voluntary but whoever does not come is taken as not being interested in taking part in decisions; however, if more than X% of the institutional actors are not present for a meeting, the meeting will be adjourned
• language should always be respectful (people should refrain from insults and verbal abuse)
• everyone agrees not to interrupt people who are speaking (the facilitator will remind people of the need to be concise)
• everyone agrees on talking only on the basis of personal experience and/or concrete, verifiable facts
• everyone agrees about not putting forth the opinions of people who are not attending the meetings (and are not represented officially)
• consensus is to be reached on all decisions and voting should be resorted to in most exceptional cases only
• "observers" are welcome to attend all negotiation meetings (this rule needs to be carefully evaluated vis-à-vis the context, in certain environments confidentiality may be needed in certain delicate phases of the process)

Procedural and practical aspects such as the ones listed above are generally easier to deal with than questions of substance (e.g., what natural resource uses are allowed) and relationships among the institutional actors (e.g. who has a legitimate title to manage the resources). In the first meeting, it is good to limit the discussion to matters of rules, procedures and logistics. An initial meeting in a calm and productive atmosphere is a good way to help the institutional actors finding out where they stand, establishing working relations among themselves and starting to "own" the participatory process.

It may happen, on the other hand, that at the moment of discussing who shall attend the next meeting, some people object to the very presence of others and attempt to exclude them. The facilitator could help diffuse these potential disruptive objections by assuring that an inclusive approach at the discussion table does not mean that everyone present will equally share in entitlements and responsibilities for natural resource management. The people present at the meeting are representatives of social actors who organised to express their concerns. It will be the task of all representatives together to identify everyone’s role and weight in terms of substantive issues and decisions.

3.2 Developing a common vision of the desired future

One or more meetings can be devoted to establishing a base of common interests and concerns among all the institutional actors. In such meetings, the participants are encouraged to discuss their long-term wishes for the NRM unit(s) at stake, i.e. the kind of environment, natural resources and living conditions they would ideally like to leave to their children and grandchildren. On this basis, the facilitator helps the participants to develop a consensus on a "vision" of such a desired future, with specific descriptions– as visual and concrete as possible– of the ecological and socio-economic situation in the NRM unit(s) (see Annex 1 for some guidance on visioning exercises and Annex 2 for an example of "vision" of a rural community).

The social consensus on a vision of a desired future is extremely important for the negotiation of effective co-management plans and agreements. If conflicts and disagreements surface during the negotiation process, the facilitator will be able to bring back everyon