THE THEORY OF CO-MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPLICATION IN SOUTH AFRICA’S PFM POLICY
5.2. THEORIES OF PARTICIPATION AND CO-MANAGEMENT
5.2.2. The concept of co-management
in projects at the implementation stage because implementing agents seek to avoid these limitations becoming a reality in development, and this is believed to be the reason why
“participation remains rhetoric rather than a reality”.
In addition to these four limitations, a variety of other factors can also potentially affect the success of a participatory programme. These factors include: trust between stakeholders;
definition of the resource; security of tenure; degree of organisation and cohesiveness of community management bodies; fulfilment of needs; and locally acceptable returns on investment in the collaborative process (Hobley 1996; Murphree 1993 and Campbell et al., 2001; Grundy and Michell, 2004; and von Maltitz and Shackleton, 2004). In addition, the success of a participatory management programme such as PFM depends on the following three factors, namely (Grundy and Michell, 2004:686):
a. Power and the ability to control use of resources b. The social cost involved in resource conservation
c. The value (both direct and indirect) of the resource to users.
Because these factors vary across different regions, it is suggested that it is unwise to apply a blanket participatory method across the country. Rather, it is advisable to assess each individual situation and develop a plan of action with the local people that is appropriate to their social and economic circumstances and which addresses the local environmental context.
Carter (1996) maintains that the success of any participatory forestry approach depends largely on its ability to be flexible to local situations.
Co-management can be broadly defined as a management strategy that involves more than one party in managing natural resources that is an alternative to conventional top-down approaches.
The numerous terms given to co-management give an indication of the spirit of the approach.
According to Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) these terms describe a situation in which “some or all of the relevant stakeholders in a protected area are involved in a substantial way in management activities”. Similarly, in his work on Community Based Conservation (CBC) in Africa, Hackel (1999:726) defines CBC as “wildlife conservation efforts that involve rural people as an integral part of a wildlife conservation policy”. Implicit is the idea that natural resource management operations or activities should be shared through the creation of a partnership, with all parties making a substantial contribution (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996;
Turner et al., 2001). By involving local communities in decision-making, it is assumed that local communities will accept management measures more readily (Hara and Raakjær Nielsen, 2003). Turner et al. (2001:41) have noted that parties engaged in co-management usually comprise “the state or other official, public agencies, and local people who use, own or have other (potential) interests in the natural resources”. However, where community-public-private partnerships exist, more than two parties may be involved in the management process.
According to this approach, conservationists can no longer be regarded as “gatekeepers to a discussion table that does not have a place set for those whose homeland’s future hangs in the balance” (Alcorn, 1993 in Neumann, 1997:570).
The objective of this approach is to work towards sustainable development by improving access to natural resources, promoting economic development and economic wellbeing whilst also achieving biophysical sustainability (Treseder and Krogman, 2002). In trying to meet these disparate objectives, one of the fundamental goals of the approach is to improve the relationship between management authorities and resource users.
Despite being a relative newcomer to the South African policy arena, co-management has a longer history in other countries17. It was recognised at the 1992 World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas in Caracas that:
17 Within the forestry sector, since 1988 in India as joint forest management (see Khare et al., 2000 and Sekhar, 2000 for a review of the process); in Nepal as community forestry (Sekhar, 2000; Nepal, 2002); and in Thailand and China as co-management (Nepal, 2002). McCracken reflects that similar initiatives have been attempted in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda (Grundy and Michell, 2004).
“modern management demands involvement of local residents, NGOS, and regional and local governments; that it needs to consider a diversity of institutional arrangements; and that it greatly benefits from more administrative and financial autonomy for individual protected areas” (Barzetti, 1993:86).
Co-management, like participation, is not an uncontested concept. As Goodwin (1998:483) remarks regarding local participation:
“[Its] apparent inclusiveness masks the fact that the concept covers a whole range of approaches to public involvement that are essentially differentiated by the amount of control and influence over decision-making that they offer participants, and the function they are seen as serving by the various interests taking part”.
Similarly, Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) states that there are different versions of co- management, and has proposed a co-management continuum which expresses these versions (see Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2. The Collaborative Management (Co-management) Continuum (Borrini- Feyerabend, 1996:11).
Two extremes are presented: strong co-management and weak co-management. The former extreme, which Sowman (pers. comm., 21/09/2005) prefers to call ‘collaborative co- management’, describes a form of co-management that “includes stakeholders in a
C O L L A B O R A T I V E M A N A G E M E N T
Full control by the agency in
charge
Shared control by the agency in charge and other stakeholders
Actively consulting
Full control by other stakeholders
Sharing authority and responsibility in a formal way (e.g. via seats in a management body Negotiating
(involving in decision-making)
and developing specific agreements Seeking
consensus
Transferring authority and responsibility
No interference or contribution from other stakeholders
No interference or contribution from the agency in charge
Increasing contributions, commitment and accountability of stakeholders Increasing expectations of stakeholders
management board or outright devolution of specific authority and responsibility” (Borrini- Feyerabend, 1996).
Here, full control sits with other stakeholders rather than with the management agency. The latter weak or mild co-management extreme describes a management situation where the agency in charge has full control. It is a weak form of co-management because according to Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) “consultation and consensus seeking of stakeholders in protected areas management” is the only way in which other stakeholders are included in management processes.
Although Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) acknowledges that co-management could theoretically be interpreted as something that occurs between these two extremes, she proposes that the concept should be used in a broader, more encompassing sense and argues that co-management is a term that should be used when referring to either end of the continuum also. The inference here is that it is not necessarily the kind of participation in which one engages that defines whether or not co-management is taking place, but rather the outcomes of the process. This is because, although all stakeholders may actively participate in a decision-making arena, this may still leave local needs and demands unresolved (Dryzek, 1996). Similarly, consensus seeking and consultation may result in local community concerns being included into a park’s management plan, and should therefore be considered a form of co-management. Figure 5.2 illustrates the broader, more inclusive interpretation of co-management that Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) advocates. This figure refers to possible management situations as seen from the perspective of the agency in charge.
Borrini-Feyerabend’s (1996) inclusive interpretation of co-management is not the mainstream conceptualisation of the concept. Borrini-Feyerabend’s (1996) interpretation has been critiqued and other writers suggest that co-management is a term given to a form of management that exists between the two extremes of complete state control on the one hand and total control by local communities (whether users or owners) on the other (Turner et al., 2001; Sihlophe, 2002;
Grundy and Michell, 2004). It is debatable whether total control by the state, where they actively consult with local community and other stakeholders, could still be termed a form of co-management; similarly whether full control by the community is in fact a form of co- management. Turner et al. (2001) contests that if co-management is merely consultation with stakeholders, or a form of participation with local owners or users where the final control
remains under state authorities, this could be interpreted as tokenism. Real co-management requires that “local users or functional groups have real influence on management decisions”
(Turner et al., 2001:41-42). Co-management “involves a formal sharing of powers and responsibilities, and a strong motivation for common understanding” (Turner et al, 2001:41).
Sihlophe (2002:4) expresses the concept well when he states that co-management takes place when “stakeholders agree on sharing among themselves the management functions, rights and responsibilities for a resource or set of resources in a specifically defined geographical area”.
It is often thought that the strong version is the ideal version of co-management to work towards; however Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) states that this is not necessarily the most appropriate form. One form of co-management may be ideal for one park whilst it may not work for another area. According to Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) there is no ‘right’ place to be on the continuum, as the style and extent of participation employed should be a factor of social, political and historical contexts. She also notes that a management authority’s position on the continuum should not be regarded as fixed (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996). Co-management should rather be seen as a process upon which management embarks; where it is to be expected that the rate and direction of change in the form of co-management being practiced fluctuate over time.
These descriptions of the term express the idea that co-management is a process, where contributions from all parties are respected and valued, and where the hierarchy of power and control over the management process has been levelled. There is debate about using the word
‘equal’ to describe the partnership between parties. Grundy and Michell (2004:682), in writing about participatory forestry, suggest that the concept of participation being “an equal partnership between forest owners and users” is flawed. The varied nature of the participants involved (in terms of cultural and educational backgrounds, for example) makes an equal sharing of management unrealistic. They note, however, that despite the level at which it takes place, participation in the context of forestry is a:
“special requirement of forest management in order to build trust, to ensure management decisions are credible and acceptable to stakeholder groups, to make use of a broad range of ideas, skills and inputs, and to minimise conflict in decision-making” (Grundy and Michell, 2004:682).
This is different to the nature of participation required by co-management as understood by Borrini-Feyerabend (1996), because there is an inference that as long as other stakeholder
groups are not being compromised in any way, the state (or other controlling agency) does not necessarily have to elicit the active involvement of other stakeholders.
Borrini-Feyerabend (1996) provides a concise account of the occasions when pursuit of a management partnership such as co-management is advisable. Firstly, she states that co- management is necessary when it is believed that the active involvement and commitment of stakeholders is crucial for the management of the protected area, invariably the case when areas are either occupied or privately owned. Secondly, a collaborative approach is necessary when local people require access to the resource in order to sustain their livelihood and maintain their cultural practices. Borrini-Feyerabend (1996:8) also lists further particular occasions when partnership agreements should be pursued, namely when:
a. “The local stakeholders have historically enjoyed customary/legal rights over the territory at stake
b. Local interests are strongly affected by the way in which the protected area is managed
c. The decisions to be taken are complex and highly controversial (e.g., different values need to be harmonized or there is disagreement on the ownership status of the land or natural resources)
d. The agency's previous management has clearly failed to produce the expected results
e. The various stakeholders are ready to collaborate and request to do so f. There is ample time to negotiate.”
The difficulty in arriving at a uniform and precise definition of co-management is largely a result of the difficulties associated with interpreting and applying the concept of participation.
This difficulty is a common characteristic of co-management and could be why some writers have preferred to use alternative terms to participatory management, such as co-management, shared management and joint management (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996; Khare et al., 2000;
Sekhar, 2000; Horn, 2002a; Nepal, 2002; Hauck and Sowman, 2003; Grundy and Michell, 2004). These terms avoid the confusion and complications that result from the lack of definitional clarity given to concept of participation. It could be argued that co-management is an appropriate management strategy for South Africa on the whole, particularly in the contemporary socio-political context of democratisation. However, the appropriateness of the approach to the southern Cape context is questioned by respondents in this research due to the varied interpretations of the levels of poverty in the area.
The concept of co-management has suffused international natural resource management literature and discourse since the mid 1980’s. International trends, in addition to internal
democratic transition, have, in turn, influenced South African resource management policy.
Co-management has become an influential approach in the management of natural resources such as game reserves, indigenous forests and coastal zones. It is an approach that demands a significant change in environmental governance and management practices. In the context of forestry, Hobley (1996) notes that for the most part, conventional foresters find the switchover from controlled scientific management to devolved communal responsibility to be a challenging task, and Grundy (2002) questions whether forests and woodlands can be managed simultaneously for production, conservation and development, as is proposed by co- management theory.