This overview is about promoting people’s participation in the management of natural resources, with a special focus on collaborative management systems.
The word ‘management’ is used here in its broadest sense to include management systems that are unstructured, simple and barely visible, all the way through to highly structured and technically complicated forms of administrative and operational control. Within this range, there are many different ways people go about managing natural resources such as water and land, and the stocks of plants and animals that inhabit such environments. Governments, private organizations, groups of resource users, families or individuals solely or cooperatively direct, control or regulate the use of natural resources under various formal and informal arrangements. In some cases, there may be no management at all.
The rationale for promoting collaborative management is based on the assumption that effective management is more likely when local resource users have shared or exclusive rights to make decisions and benefit from resource use. There is an increasing interest in strengthening or creating collaborative management systems as a strategy for promoting rural development and resource conservation through empowerment and partnerships.
Participation can be seen primarily as a means to achieve specific goals such as building a better management structure, obtaining improved goods and services, and getting natural resources into a ‘good condition’. Participation to achieve specific purposes more efficiently requires that judgements be made about what represents ‘better management’, ‘improved services’ and ‘good condition’. The efficiency argument draws attention to the fact that participation is all about negotiating goals (Patrizio Warren, pers. comm., 1997).
Alternatively, the most important feature of participation can be seen as its potential to enhance the power of resource users to influence things (Nelson and Wright, 1995). In this case, the purpose of the participatory process is seen as increasing the skills, knowledge, confidence and self-reliance of resource users to collaborate and engage in sustainable development. Participation becomes an end in itself rather than just a means to achieve other things.
Both arguments propose that the management of natural resources can be improved through people’s participation, whether or not participation is a means or an end.
Unfortunately, participation is a vague label that can mean a little or a lot. It can include situations in which someone takes part in joint action, shares something in common, or is actively involved with other members of a community in decisions that affect them (The New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 1993). This general definition is open to wide interpretation and allows for many different activities to be labeled as forms of ‘participation’. Indeed, it is a concept that is widely used in development literature and practice but obeys no single definition (Oakley, 1988).
The purpose of this chapter is to describe briefly the type and nature of participation used in the process of promoting and supporting collaborative management. Following chapters provide an overview of this process, a description of the actors involved and the environment in which the process occurs, and a discussion about some of the practical aspects of managing a support programme.
This overview focuses on the process and practical aspects of promoting and sup-porting collaborative management of natural resources in ways that are acceptable to government and resource users. Collaborative management of natural resources 1 refers to:
This definition contains a number of special terms that may not be familiar to the reader. An expanded definition is provided in Box 1.1, including explanations of the key terms and ideas.
The definition above covers a wide range of activities and programmes that have been promoted in recent years under various titles, such as:
Such programmes include situations in which stakeholders work together on the management of a single resource (such as a park, block of forest, fishing area or irrigation scheme), and where stakeholders cooperatively address management issues of common interest (such as water conservation and delivery, minimization of soil erosion, and elimination of pests) over multiple properties.
BOX 1.1 |
EXPLAINING COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT |
|
Collaborative management implies that there are two or more separate parties involved. The concept of a stakeholder is useful to help explain this point. A stakeholder can be defined as any individual, social group or institution who possesses a stake (or interest) in the management of the natural resource concerned (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). The interest may arise for a variety of reasons, such as being dependent on the resource for subsistence or commercial survival, having cultural or historical ties to it, living nearby, or holding delegated responsibilities for its welfare. Stakeholders can be thought of as those parties who are affected directly or indirectly by management decisions, in a positive or negative way. It includes those who can influence such decisions, as well as those who would like to influence decisions. So, collaborative management is something that is done by multiple stakeholders. This feature alone represents a major difference in relation to more conventional forms of management, where one party retains sole responsibility for decision-making and other stakeholders remain at the periphery Commonly, the approach to management is tied to tenure, which defines the bundle and allocation of rights and privileges to use the resource (Fisher, 1995). In general terms, various tenure systems can be grouped into the four categories of state, private, communal and open-access property.2 Of course, the recognition of tenure depends on who you are. The state may not recognize some private or communal rights that are accepted by local resource users, and conversely, local users may not respect some claims of ownership made by the state through its various government bodies. At various times, new claims emerge and old ones are questioned. When disputes about rights and privileges exist, management is problematic because there will be a lack of confidence in whether decisions made by either party will be agreed to or followed. Collaborative management implies that government and resource users agree about tenure, thus providing a foundation of confidence and legitimacy for management. If disagreements arise, collaboration implies that there will be a willingness to resolve differences and an effort to negotiate an acceptable tenure arrangement. Whether it is active or passive, the hand of government is usually present in some way in collaborative management systems, even if it is restricted to approving the allocation of rights and privileges for using and managing the resource. Often, governments are interested in setting limits on use rights and the way resources are exploited by those who hold rights. These limits can be set and imposed by the government alone, or they can be established through a negotiation process that allows the participation of those who will be affected. Collaborative management implies that a participatory process is followed because rights and limits to exploitation are central to management, as they determine who will benefit, by how much and under what constraints We would argue that some degree of power-sharing in making decisions and controlling outcomes is a pre-condition for any system of collaborative management. Meaningful participation in a negotiation process is impossible without some power to influence the results. Without power there is no bargaining position, and negotiation becomes a one-sided affair These ideas provide the ingredients for the definition of collaborative management provided in the text. |
There are many ways for people to participate in decisions about the use of natural resources. There are extreme approaches, such as going to war or to court, and various passive and active approaches, provided in specific decision-making processes. Box 1.2 provides some examples of the various ways to participate in decision-making.
|
BOX 1.2 |
|
SOME DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING |
FORCING A SAY:WAR |
OPPORTUNITIES TO SETTLE DISPUTES:COURT-ORDERED ARBITRATION |
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFLUENCING DECISION-MAKERS:ELECTIONS |
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARING OR TAKING DECISIONS:ADVISORY COMMITTEES |
The approaches presented in Box 1.2 have different levels of participation, corresponding to different underlying objectives for participation in each process. These characteristics provide a basis for making a classification of participatory approaches (see Figure 1.1).
Clearly, some of these approaches are more suited to promoting collaborative management than others. The two most appropriate approaches for supporting the collaborative management of natural resources are catalyzing group decisions and sharing decision-making.3
The use of various approaches in supporting collaborative management is dealt with further in following chapters.
Development programmes
Development programmes concerned with natural resource management can similarly be classified by the type of participatory approach predominantly used for making decisions about the nature of assistance provided at specific sites. A simple classification, which recognizes four basic types, is provided in Box 1.3.
|
Box 1.3 |
|||
|
FOUR TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES 4 |
|||
|
PARTICIPATORY APPROACH USED |
CHARACTERISTICS |
||
|
1. TOP-DOWN INTERVENTIONIST |
INFORM OR PERSUADE |
Decisions are made by a small set of powerful stakeholders (such as government, international donor projects or private enterprise groups), according to their own agendas, knowledge and value systems. There is little or no participation from other stakeholders, hence planning is top-down. |
|
|
2. MODIFIED TOP-DOWN INTERVENTIONIST |
CONSULT |
Same as the above, except that there is an attempt to obtain information from other stakeholders about their interests and knowledge before decisions are taken. There is some participation as a result of this information gathering, but planning is still top-down. |
|
|
3. PARTICIPATORY INTERVENTIONIST |
SHARE DECISION-MAKING |
The programme is designed and owned by a small set of powerful stakeholders, but it is implemented by using bottom-up planning. Stake-holder groups are engaged in assessments, and joint decisions are taken about programme activities at specific locations. These activities are co-managed by the programme and beneficiaries, and they are evaluated jointly. |
|
|
4. CATALYTIC AGENT |
CATALYSE GROUP DECISIONS |
The programme is designed and owned by local stakeholders with the help of outside facilitators. The interests and judgements of local stake-holders are given primacy in decision-making, and management of activities shifts rapidly to local institutions. |
|
Development programmes that aim to support collaborative management ultimately need to have the characteristics of either a ‘participatory interventionist’ or ‘catalytic agent’. This is because collaborative management involves multiple stakeholders who share decision-making power. Supporters must be prepared to either share decisions with others or facilitate local decision-making and action.
Using such approaches, development programmes act as one of the stakeholder groups that has interests and something to contribute. It enters a particular setting with resources and either preconceived ideas (such as a project) or the desire to coordinate negotiations and arrangements between others instead of intervening itself (Jean Bonnal, pers. comm., 1997). This provides an important distinction between programmes. Some support collaborative management, using the participatory approaches described above. Others merely provide token opportunities for participation and retain decision-making power over what happens to the resources concerned.
However, it is worth noting that over the last ten years or so, there has been a definite shift in development programmes from the ‘top-down interventionist’ to the ‘participatory interventionist’ type. This is an encouraging sign, reflecting the increasing acceptance of the rationale for people’s participation in natural resource development.
The nature and scope of support offered by the ‘participatory interventionist’ or the ‘catalytic agent’ is discussed briefly in the following section.
We are concerned here with any situation where individuals or organizations wish to create, strengthen or guide a collaborative management system. Providing support includes helping, influencing and intervening in management. Help implies providing things that are requested, but a supporter may do things that were not asked for, or things that satisfy the supporter’s needs more than those of the beneficiaries. Stakeholders can hold different perspectives about what is good and bad support. This allows for disagreement about what support should be provided.
Supporters can choose to support the various interests of stakeholders according to what appeals to them or matches their expertise. Alternatively, supporters can assist other stakeholders to analyze, plan and implement any idea that stakeholders agree on. Either way, supporters attempt to:
A supporter's role largely depends on how rigidly the support prpgramme has been defined. The scope of this role lies along a spectrum that includes the:
These terms and the spectrum are explained further in Box 1.4.
|
Box 1.4 |
|
A RANGE OF POTENTIAL ROLES FOR SUPPORTERS OF COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT |
|
|
SPECIALIST |
CATALYTIC AGENT |
|
The supporter has a special capacity to provide specific types of assistance under certain conditions. Usually, the specially is limited to a particular sector (such as irrigation or forestry), or to activities that have some link to that sector. A needs assessment is undertaken, but only those initiatives within the scope of the pre-determined type of assistance are taken up for further planning. An example: A project implemented by a government forestry service has been designed to assist with the sustainable use of non-timber forest products. A complete needs assessment is done with forest users. The initiatives directly related to the use of non-timber forest products are taken up by the project, plus a few others that deal with health and reducing the workloads of women. These additional activities are done to increase the labour and time available for the special activities. |
The supporter has designed previously to assist in any feasible development activity of mutual interest. Usually, assistance is limited to building organizations and management skills, identifying sources of support and building strategic alliancies. A needs assessment covering all topics is facilitated and, after ranking priority initiatives are taken up for further planning. An example: An integrated rural development programme has been designed to improve living conditions in a certain district. Biannual planning exercises are done in villages. They can have any outcome, but there is a ceiling to the amount of money spent. PRA tools are used to make the planning process a conscious analysis of problems and priorities, rather than a reflex call for help. The result is a wide variety of activities implemented by different groups and institutional structures. |
It is possible for a support programme or project to adopt more than one role, or to switch from one role to another, depending on the circumstance. The choice of roles is an issues to be addressed in the design of a support programme (see chapter 2)
The work of supporters is complicated by the fact that collaboration and management occur in complex biophysical, socio and economic systems that are changing rapidly. As a result there is minimal certainty and a dearth of useful information for planning the next move (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991). The combination of these circumstance means that development programmes need to operate with imperfect and incomplete knowledge, and at the same time, that they need to learn many things along the way to improve understanding and performance over time. These conditions and needs necessitate the use of an action-learning process.
Action-learning has been widely adopted in rural development and conservation projects and has been variously labelled "action-learning", "action-research", experiential learning" and " learning by doing" (Gilmour and Fisher, 1991, Macadam 1991). It is based on the idea that successful development programmes require a capacity for embracing error, learning with people, and building knowledge and institutional capacity through action (Korten, 1980). The process specifies that learning and action are intertwined, and that development proceeds through conscious and deliberate cycles of planning, acting, observing and reflecting. These cycles provide guidance and structure to implementation and thus form a key part of the participatory process (see chapter 2).
The preceding discussions emphasized that collaborative management involves negotiations among multiple stakeholders, people's participation in management and learning through action. These three important features of collaborative management five rise to several key themes for supporting collaborative management (John Anderson, pers. comn., 1997). These are:
Action-learning cycle, the repertoire and objectives of participatory approaches, and the potential roles of supporters described above, represent some of the key ideas behind supporting collaborative management. The following chapter builds on these ideas and present an overview of the process that can be used to build, implement and dismantle a support programme.
1
Our definition excludes situations where local users are managing natural resources that are claimed under state ownership, without having prior government approval. Such systems, referred to as ‘indigenous’ or ‘traditional’ management systems, are often effective and involve a considerable amount of collaboration among users. However, our definition seeks to include only those collaborative arrangements that are legitimized and strengthened by government recognition. It should be stressed that identifying indigenous management systems and building upon their strengths are critical steps towards establishing management systems that do have government approval.2
State and private tenure are self-apparent. Communal property has a well-defined group of users, a well-defined resource that the group manages and uses, and a set of rules. Open-access refers to a situation in which exploitation of a resource is open to all. It is unlike communal property in that there is no user group, and no rules can be enforced about how the resource should be managed.3
A decision-making process could use a mix of approaches at the same time. For example, participants might be involved in persuading, informing and consulting each other in an overall process that leads to sharing a final decision.4
A specific development programme can have a mix of development activities, and decisions for each may be made in different ways. It is possible then for one programme to fit the description of more than one of the types described in Box 1.3, depending on the activity.