PART II PRE-IMPLEMENTATION5. 'Beginnings' or Pre-implementation: Centre de recherches pour le développement international

Coastal Resources Institute, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai.

'Beginnings' can be considered to be the pre-implementation phase of the community-based co-management programme. Beginnings of the co-management programme can be external to the community or internal to the community. Beginnings can have several activities including problem recognition and consensus, taking collective action, seeking information, community meetings and discussion, assessing the need and feasibility of co-management, preliminary plan and strategy, seeking funding and developing linkages (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1. 'Beginnings' or pre-implementation.
Stakeholder	Role
Fishers	• Participate in discussions, meetings and dialogue • Communicate needs and problems • Provide inputs into initial agreement
Fisher leaders	• Seek information • Seek assistance • Lead preliminary plan and strategy • Organize meetings • Organize agreement • Develop linkages • Proposal and funding
Other stakeholders	• Participate in discussions, meetings and dialogue • Communicate needs and problems • Provide inputs into initial agreement
Government	• Provide information • Identify and provide assistance • Organize meetings • Organize agreement • Participate in meetings • Support community efforts • Develop linkages • Proposal and funding
External agent	• Provide information • Identify and provide assistance • Organize meetings • Organize agreement • Participate in meetings • Develop linkages and networking • Proposal and funding

5.1. External and Internal Beginnings

Community-based co-management may have a number of different types of beginnings, that is, the way in which a community-based co-management programme is initiated. The beginnings of co-management may be a response to conflict, an environmental crisis, new legislation, a conservation or development initiative, to take advantage of a funding opportunity, for political purposes, or to claim resource rights. The beginning of a co-management programme is often highly site- and context-specific and may involve a variety of different stakeholders. The actual beginning of a programme may originate from several different sources and combination of stakeholders and finally evolve into an action. The beginning phase of co-management may be time-consuming, difficult and costly. It is not possible to present all the possible scenarios of the beginnings of a co-management programme. In real life, all of the activities described below may not be undertaken or they may not be undertaken in the order described. For the sake of simplicity, two types of beginnings will be discussed. The co-management programme may be: (i) initiated external to the community, or (ii) initiated internally in the community. Several examples will be provided to help illustrate the range of possible beginning scenarios.

5.1.1. External beginnings

A community-based co-management programme, initiated externally to the community, is one in which the idea for the programme originates outside of the community. For example, the programme may begin where an external agent (i.e. NGO, academic or research institution) and/or government agency identifies a problem(s) (for example, poverty in fishing communities, overfishing, destructive fishing), plans to address the problem through co-management, further identifies an area or community in the country to focus the programme, then establishes the programme. In another case, the programme may be initiated as part of a larger donor-assisted development programme in the country in which community-based co-management is the intervention approach. Or it may be that the government has declared a protected area and wants to develop a co-management partnership to manage the area (Boxes 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4).

Box 5.1. External Beginnings: Laughing Bird Caye and Friends of Nature, Belize.

Laughing Bird Caye is a sand and shingle island surrounded by a broad lagoon filled with a variety of coral reef structures located approximately 19 km from the town of Placencia. The area has traditionally been a fishing ground for local fishers. In the late 1970s, resorts in the area began to take tourists to the area. In the mid-1980s, local residents became concerned about declining resource conditions in the area, as well as talk about private development and an oil storage concession. In 1991, several community leaders organized the Friends of Laughing Bird Caye (FOLBC) to begin a consultation process in the community about the creation of a protected area and a national park. Through the efforts of FOLBC, the caye was declared a protected area in 1992. Working with the Department of Forestry, the FOLBC continued the consultation process to establish a management plan and buffer zone. FOLBC was registered as an NGO in 1996. In 1996, the caye was declared a national park and in 1998 a World Heritage Site. FOLBC continued its lobbying efforts for conservation of the area. In 2000, FOLBC signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Forestry to co-manage the national park. Under its co-management agreement, the renamed Friends of Nature (FON) assumed control of the regulations on zoning and the behaviour of users. FON is authorized to police within the management zones. FON appointed an advisory committee composed of people from the local villages in the area to assist in formulating policy on management. FON conducts environmental education programmes and maintains consultations with users of the national park and community members.

Source: Pomeroy and Goetze (2003).

Box 5.2. External Beginnings: Community-based Coastal Resource Management (CBCRM) Work in Pagaspas Bay, Batangas, Philippines.

A Filipino NGO called CERD started its CBCRM programme in Calatagan, Batangas province in 1992. CERD first asked the permission of barangay (village) officials to conduct a study in some portions of Pagapas Bay. Their staff stayed in the community for almost 8 months. Subsequently the research results were presented to community members in a bay-wide consultation. Farmers, fishers, teachers, students and local politicians attended the consultation. The various stakeholders agreed that illegal fishing was the main cause of poverty in Pagaspas Bay and they agreed to work together to solve this problem.

CERD staff trained some young people in the community and formed a drama group. These young people led other community members in requesting the local government to declare Pagaspas Bay as a marine reserve. Recognizing the strong commitment of the people to protect the bay, the local government eventually decided to declare Pagaspas Bay and the entire municipal waters of Calatagan as a 'marine reserve and in the state of rehabilitation'.

The next steps led to the formation of several fisher organizations along the bay. These steps were:

1. Selecting potential fisher leaders in the community that served as the core group;

2. The community organizers of CERD and the local leaders explained the benefits of organizing and invited interested people to attend a founding congress of a proposed fisherfolk organization;

3. The first municipal-wide congress of fishers was held and, subsequently, the Samahan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda sa Calatagan (SAMMACA) was formally organized;

4. Education and environmental awareness activities were held, e.g. basic course on marine ecological awareness and women's orientation; and

5. To expand organizing work and at the same time localize decision-making processes, barangay organizations of fishers were formed and became part of the municipal-wide SAMMACA.

Source: Aleroza et al. (2003).

In the case of a programme which begins externally to the community, there may or may not be early consultation and collaboration with the community in designing and preparing for the programme. In many externally initiated programmes, the details of the programme objectives, intervention approach (co-management) and the specific areas of the programme are decided in the design phase away from the community. For example, an NGO might specialize in co-management and have the resources to undertake a co-management programme in a community. The NGO would then conduct a community scoping activity (e.g. a needs assessment) to determine the feasibility of undertaking a co-management programme in the community. Once a programme community or area is identified, it is recommended that community members be consulted and allowed to participate as early in the programme life as possible in order to obtain their input, support and 'buy-in'. Although the project idea may not originate with the community, the sooner they are aware that their community has been selected as a programme site, the sooner the community members can help shape specific programme objectives and strategies. If the programme objectives and strategies are kept relatively general at this early stage, community members can be given an opportunity to provide input into further programme design and planning and gain a sense of ownership of the project. Programme sustainability has been shown to improve when community members are given the opportunity to participate early in the programme design and planning stages and have an incentive to want to participate (Pollnac et al., 2003).

Box 5.3. External Beginnings: The Sokhulu Subsistence Mussel-harvesting Project, South Africa.

The Sokhulu Tribal Authority lies on the north coast of KwaZulu-Natal between St Lucia and Richards Bay, immediately to the southwest of the Maphelane Nature Reserve, which forms part of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park World Heritage Site. Prior to the promulgation of the Marine Living Resources Act in 1998, mussel harvest was controlled by a licence and bag-limit system and by specification of implement type. Traditional methods and quantities of mussel harvesting by subsistence gatherers were illegal under the legislation and were prevented by active law enforcement by the provincial conservation authority, the Natal Parks Board (NPB). Large-scale illegal harvesting of mussels by subsistence gatherers occurred at night along the coast, and conflict existed between subsistence gatherers and licensed recreational gatherers, and with the authorities. Violent clashes erupted between the Sokhulu community and gatherers and the NPB. The management staff felt that this situation could not persist and that the Sokhulu community should be approached in an attempt to try to find a solution. With outside funding, the NPD staff met with the local chief and an agreement was made to assemble all gatherers to discuss the matter. The meeting was well attended and an open and frank discussion was held on the problem. Despite some wariness on the part of the gatherers, they agreed to form a joint committee with the NPB staff to share information and generate an understanding between staff and the Sokhulu gatherers. The first few meetings were facilitated by an independent person, but once the initial mistrust and conflict was overcome, external facilitation was not necessary. Agreements were made to develop a sustainable harvesting system and to increase the capability of members of the fishing community to participate in management decisions. Decision-making within the subsistence zone is a joint endeavour, with the gatherers involved in decisions about the quota and in setting collecting rules.

Source: Harris et al. (2003).

Once a community is identified, an externally initiated programme may assist community members in problem identification, consensus building, accessing information and initial action planning. In some cases, an externally initiated programme, due to funding or donor demands, may immediately initiate implementation activities such as community organizer integration or education and capacity building (Box 5.5).

Box 5.4. External Beginnings: The Lake Malombe and Upper Shire River Fisheries, Malawi.

The Shire River and Lake Malombe are natural outlets of Lake Malawi. Biological studies suggested that fish stocks, such as the commercially important cichlid (Oreochromis spp., locally known as chambo) have been declining. This was attributed to the increase in use of narrow meshed seine nets which catch juvenile chambo. The livelihoods of fishers and their families were threatened by this decline in the fishery. Traditional management structures had largely died out with the commercialization of the fishery and government measures to regulate entry to the fishery and protect breeding and juvenile fish through closed seasons and legal mesh sizes proved ineffective. The Fisheries Department, with guidance and assistance from outside donor agencies, introduced the concept of co-management as a guiding principle of fisheries management under a pilot Participatory Fisheries Management Programme (PFMP). The strategy employed to implement the PFMP involved the creation of a Community Liaison Unit composed of fisheries extension staff and Beach Village Committees representing the fishing communities. The co-management strategy which was to be employed under the PFMP did not come from the fishing communities, and this caused some initial problems based on mistrust, struggles for power, and lack of a true partnership between the government and fishing communities. Although many of these issues have been resolved over time, the 'top-down' approach to initially implementing co-management was problematic.

Source: Hara et al. (2002).

Box 5.5. Selecting a Community with the Potential for Successful Implementation of Co-management.

With limited resources (financial, funds, time, people), initiators and facilitators of co-management often ask how they can select a community with greater chances for successful co-management. While there is never a 100% guarantee for success and sustainability of a co-management programme, there are a few characteristics about communities that can be considered before programme initiation. This is based on work by Ostrom (1990, 1992), Pomeroy et al. (2001), McConney et al. (2003b), Sverdrup-Jensen and Nielsen (1998) and Sowman et al. (2003). The characteristics include:

• Clearly defined boundaries;

• Group/community homogeneity;

• High dependency on the resource that is threatened/in crisis;

• Strong community ties to the sea and the resource;

• Individual incentive to participate due to livelihood being threatened;

• Existing organization to engage in co-management;

• Legal right to organize;

• Existence of decentralized authority;

• High level of indigenous knowledge about the resource;

• Supportive government and community leadership;

• Defined resource property rights;

• Resources are sedentary creatures that do not range far in their life cycle, distribution corresponds with human settlements, fall under one jurisdiction.

5.1.2. Internal beginnings

A community-based co-management programme initiated internal to the community begins from the fishers and other stakeholders in the community (Boxes 5.6 and 5.7). For example, the fishers, bearing different interests, concerns and capacities, come together to join forces and agree on a way to solve specific conflicts and problems and to claim specific rights. In contrast to the external beginning of a programme, this can be considered as a 'bottom-up' beginning for co-management. While ideally all stakeholders would be involved in deciding what to do, in reality a few stakeholders hold most of the authority and the means to set the co-management programme in motion. This type of beginning may be more promising in terms of sustainability of the programme as the fishers themselves have recognized a problem, they have an incentive to take action, and they take the lead to finding a solution. This is not to say that an internal beginning always leads to improved programme sustainability as compared to a programme with an external beginning. Additionally, to distinguish between an externally-initiated and an internally-initiated programme may be difficult because of highly complex interactions and interlocking relationships and interests between an external agent and the community. For example, a programme of the national government may want to expand its operation to a new community which has long recognized their problems but is not able to do anything about it. In this case, the idea to initiate some kind of management already exists in the community and this is put into action by an external institution with a similar idea and interest. The important point, whichever type or combination of beginning, is that the fishers and other stakeholders have an incentive (economic, social, political) to want to participate and are given the opportunity to take ownership of the co-management process early in the project life.

Box 5.6. Internal Beginnings: San Salvador Island, Philippines.

San Salvador Island, with an area of 380 ha, forms part of the Masinloc municipality in the province of Zambales, on the western coast of Luzon, about 250 km north of Manila. White sand beaches surround the island, as do fringing coral reefs. In the late 1980s, when resource overexploitation, degradation and use conflicts reached a crisis point in San Salvador, some residents went in search of solutions to their problems. The highly centralized national government of the Philippines at that time was too distant to control the situation, while the San Salvador fishers themselves were too fragmented to embark on any collective action to avert resource degradation. Understanding that a serious problem existed that threatened their livelihood, several fishers and other community members requested the mayor to assist the village. External change agents were instrumental in helping to initiate new resource management measures. A Peace Corp volunteer who arrived in San Salvador in 1987 conceptualized the Marine Conservation Project for San Salvador, a community-based coastal resource management project for coral reef rehabilitation. In 1989, a local NGO led the project to establish a marine sanctuary. The NGO also assisted in environmental education, planning and leadership development.

Source: Katon et al. (1999).

Box 5.7. Internal Beginnings: Hulbot-hulbot Fishing in Palawan, Philippines.

Sometime in November 1995, three commercial fishing boats entered the municipal waters of Sitio Honda Bay in Puerto Princessa City, Palawan. The three boats used a gear locally known as hulbot-hulbot which involved dropping 1-tonne cement anchors on corals to scare the fish out of their hiding places and drive them into waiting nets. Even though the villagers knew the operations were illegal, they were either complacent or afraid of the operators. Before long, however, fish catch of the small local fishers began to drop dramatically. At first, only a handful of women from the area went to the NGO, Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc. (ELAC), to ask for some advice. They were on the verge of tears as they told their story of resource destruction. The consultation with ELAC led to action planning which included both legal and metalegal actions. Meetings with local and national government officials led to community action against the hulbot-hulbot fishers, and their eventual departure from the area. This initial action led the community to further organize into a Task Force Honda Bay which established a community monitoring and evaluation programme. Against this backdrop of activity, ELAC expanded its activities to include a broader based community-based coastal resource management programme for Honda Bay which included community organizing, policy advocacy, environmental education and paralegal training, socio-economic and marine resource profiling, land tenure issues and microenterprise development.

Source: Galit (2001).

5.2. Problem Recognition and Consensus

The beginning phase of a community-based co-management programme usually starts when fishers and other stakeholders are concerned about or recognize a resource(s) problem and/or conflict that may threaten their livelihood, income and/or social and community structure. This is especially true where the fishers are highly dependent on a resource(s), availability of the resource(s) is uncertain or limited and the users are highly identified with their fishing area (Runge, 1992). If the resource(s) problem, such as decreasing or no fish catch, repeatedly occurs over a period of time, if it exists within a single community of fishers and if the users are unable or unwilling to move to another fishing area, the fishers are more likely to take action to deal with the problem (Gibbs and Bromley, 1987; Ostrom, 1992). At this point, fishers may individually and collectively begin to discuss the problem informally, either while fishing, at the landing area, or while relaxing after fishing. Different points of view, interests and concerns about the problem may arise in the discussions. Fishers may also discuss the problem at more formal community or government meetings or with respected community members or government officials. After a period of discussion, the fishers may come to a consensus that there is a problem that needs solving and informally (or formally) organize themselves to take action.

5.3. Taking Action

With an informal consensus among the fishers and other stakeholders about the problem, an informal (or formal) agreement is reached that action needs to be taken. At this early stage, the development of the co-management programme is often based more on informal than formal relationships among people. The fishers may initially organize themselves and assign individual tasks to begin developing a plan and strategy for action. At this early stage, an enthusiastic individual(s) may step forward to lead the process. This individual is often visionary, dedicated and enthusiastic, and may have worked for a long time to prepare for co-management. A senior fisher, representative of a community organization, community leader or government official may be asked to assist. The leaders are usually self-selected based on strong personal motivation. These individuals may later become part of the core group which guides the whole co-management programme (see Chapter 6 and Box 3.2). The initial leaders will need to be willing and able to dedicate energy, time and creativity to the co-management programme.

This initial action may involve seeking information and/or assistance on what to do next or may involve putting together a more formal plan and strategy. Information may be sought from people in other communities about whether they have a similar problem and what they have done about it. Or information and/or assistance may be sought from the government (local, provincial/state and/or national) and/or an external agent (NGO, academic or research institution, religious institution) on possible solutions or courses of action to deal with the problem. At this stage, the group of fishers may discuss and identify other stakeholders who should be included in this process. In some cases, the plan of action may be limited to just the fishers and specifically designed to solve a single problem or issue, leaving the government and other stakeholders initially outside of the programme.

It should be recognized that co-management is a political process in which different stakeholders in the process may have different aims ranging from more equity in management to co-opting the rights of others. Power differences among stakeholders must be understood and recognized in order for the process to develop.

5.4. Information

Information is important at this early stage. The fishers are seeking information on who can help them, what assistance different institutions and organizations can provide, what has been done elsewhere, what has worked and what has not worked and where funding support can be obtained. This information may be available from individual people or institutions, or in publications or other forms of media (Box 5.8). This is an especially critical time in the programme as the fishers may not know exactly what they want or need or who can best assist them. They may have to talk to a number of people and institutions before they identify someone who can provide them assistance. It is often easy for the fishers to get discouraged if it becomes difficult to find assistance. The government may not be capable at this time of providing the assistance that the fishers need. NGOs with experience on fisheries and coastal issues may not be operating in the area. The fishers will need to be creative and diligent in their search for assistance. For example, an NGO which deals with health issues may be operating in the community and, while they do not deal with fisheries issues, they may be able to network with other NGOs to identify an NGO capable of assisting the fishers. Or government may have an extension agent who is willing to learn and assist. Or a lecturer at the local college or university may be interested and willing to assist.

Box 5.8. Sources of Information and Assistance on Fisheries and Coastal Resources and Management.

• National fisheries agency

• Local extension agent

• University

• High school

• NGO

• Mayor

• National environmental agency

• Doctor

5.5. Community Meetings and Discussion

The fishers may be organized enough to utilize the information obtained to prepare a preliminary project plan and strategy. However, in many cases, an external agent and/or government official may enter the community at this point to begin to provide assistance. Outside assistance is often needed as the fishers may lack the capability to act collectively. However, in situations where fishers are motivated by a crisis, for example, they can act collectively, although the effort may not be sustainable. The external agent and/or government official may organize community meetings and one-on-one and small group discussions to introduce themselves, provide information and discuss the local situation (Box 5.9). The meetings and discussions are meant to begin to gather and organize information on the local situation and fishers attitudes and perceptions regarding the resource and management. They are also meant to begin to inform and educate the fishers about the resource and possible solutions to problems, such as co-management. They are also meant to open and maintain communication among the various stakeholders. These meetings and discussions may initially be rather informal and unstructured as everyone gets to know each other and to establish rapport and to determine if they can and want to work with each other. There may be one or several meetings and discussions depending upon the needs of the community. If not satisfied or confident in the external agent or government official, the fishers may look for other sources of assistance.

5.6. Assessing

Box 5.9. Community Meetings and Small Group Discussions.

Community meetings and small group discussions should be open and allow the participants to voice their views and ideas. It is especially important in this early stage of co-management that participants have a free exchange of ideas and feel that someone is listening to them. The meeting and discussion should be for the participants, with the external agent and/or government facilitating it for the participants. There should be an exchange of information from the external agent and/or government and they should share their insights and information to increase the level of awareness of the participants and on their role as co-managers.

the Need, Feasibility and Suitability of Co-management

At this stage, the idea of co-management may be introduced and discussed. It is important to assess the need for, feasibility of and suitability of co-management for the community. The decision to engage in the co-management programme is both technical and political, and should be based on an analysis of technical and political needs (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004).

It is advisable to pursue co-management when:

• The active collaboration of the partners is essential for the management of the fishery and coastal resources;

• Access to the fishery and coastal resources is essential for livelihood, food security and cultural survival.

It is appropriate to pursue co-management when:

• The local stakeholders have historically enjoyed customary/legal rights over the area at stake;

• Local interests are strongly affected by the way in which the fishery and coastal resources are managed;

• The decisions to be taken are complex and highly controversial;

• Previous management approaches have clearly failed to produce the expected results;

• The various stakeholders are ready to collaborate and request to do so;

• There is ample time to negotiate.

It may be inappropriate to pursue co-management when rapid decisions are needed as in a crisis or emergency situation.

A judgment will need to be made whether or not the potential benefits of co-management outweigh the costs. If they do, a more detailed feasibility analysis may follow to determine that the conditions for co-management are in place (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996).

When a group of individuals has determined that co-management is needed and desirable, they may wonder whether it is feasible in the particular context. In this case, it may be expedient to ask the following questions (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000, pp.17–18):

• Is co-management legally feasible? Who has the mandate to control the resources? Can a co-management approach be accommodated with the existing customary/legal framework? Examine traditional and modern laws, regulations, permits, etc.

• Is co-management politically feasible? What is the history of resource management and use in the area? Examine current political will and stability, the capacity to enforce decisions, the confidence in the participatory process, the presence of phenomena such as corruption and intimidation, etc.

• Is co-management institutionally feasible? Is there a chance of building a co-management institution in the area? Examine inter-institutional relations and their possible conflicts, existing examples of multi-party resource management organizations and rules, the capacity of stakeholders to organize themselves and express their choice of representatives to convey their interests and concerns, etc.

• Is co-management economically feasible? Are there economic opportunities and alternatives to the direct exploitation of natural resources? Examine local opportunities to reconcile the conservation of nature with the satisfaction of economic needs, examine the extent of poverty in the region, the availability of capital for local investment, etc.

• Is co-management socioculturally feasible? Are or were there traditional systems of natural resource management in the context at stake? What are (or were) their main features and strengths? Are those still valid today? Are the traditional natural resource management systems still in use? Regardless of whether the answer is yes or no, why? Who is keeping them alive? What is specifically sustaining or demeaning them? If they are not being used any more, does anyone have a living memory of the systems (for instance, are there elders who practised them and still remember clearly 'how it was done')?

• Examine the current population status, population dynamics and structure, the main sociocultural changes under way.

• Examine social and cultural diversity amongst the institutional actors and the history of group relations among them.

• Examine factors affecting opportunities for social communication, including:

• Language diversity;

• Varying degrees of access to information;

• Different attitudes, for example, with regard to speaking in public or defending personal advantages;

• Traditional and modern media currently used in the particular context.

Feasibility conditions do not need to be absolutely ideal to decide to embark on a co-management process, but thinking about feasibility factors gives a good idea of the obstacles and issues to expect along the way.

Certain questions can be asked in order to determine whether the proper institutional structure and support systems can be set up to make co-management a viable option for the community.

• Is the unit (the issue, the resource, the geographic area) of co-management definable? Does it relate to stakeholder interests? Is the scale manageable?

• Can participants agree on a set of objectives for the co-management regime?

• Can criteria for membership as co-managers and stakeholders be established? At least one member of the co-management regime must be a government representing the public interest.

• Is there a legally mandated basis for the co-management regime, or can a mandate be created?

• Can the co-management regime be financially supported, and does it include financial or in-kind contributions from members?

• Can members agree on a process for consensus-driven decision-making to address administrative matters, such as information sharing, capacity building, public communication, dispute resolution, evaluation, and for revising the process to reduce the risk of unsustainability?

• Will the parties volunteer, recognizing that there is mutual value to be gained from the co-management system? (National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, 1998).

It should be noted that if a full-scale co-management is not relevant or feasible at the time, at a minimum it would be useful to begin to organize fishers so that they could engage in future programmes.

5.7. Preliminary Plan and Strategy

Out of these meetings may come a consensus for the development of a preliminary programme plan and strategy. The initial group of leaders will direct this planning. This preliminary plan and strategy will identify the next steps to be taken in setting up and implementing the community-based co-management programme, the partners and stakeholders, and the partners' initial roles and responsibilities. This preliminary plan and strategy will differ from the co-management plan and strategy to be developed later in the process and which will include more specific management and development activities.

An initial agreement for cooperation between the group of fishers and the community and the external agent or government is prepared. This agreement specifies the services and assistance to be provided and the role and responsibility of the partners. It encourages information sharing, coordination and participation in planning and implementation. The preliminary plan will also assess the human and financial resources currently available and needed to undertake co-management. Are there resources to undertake all activities, including the community entry and integration phase? Thought needs to be given to the human and financial resources needed to undertake co-management.

5.8. Seeking Funding

If necessary, a proposal for funding of the programme may be prepared (Box 5.10). While a co-management programme can proceed without outside funding, such as with resources (people and funds) available in the community, most often some additional funding is needed to carry out the programme (Box 5.11).

The initial group of leaders may request assistance from government or an external agent in preparing the proposal. The human and financial resources needed to prepare and implement the co-management programme are identified. The preliminary plan and strategy will provide information on the objectives and approaches to prepare the proposal and to estimate resource needs. Several potential funding sources will need to be identified and contacted. It may be necessary to contact other programmes or external agents with experience with co-management to provide information to estimate human and financial resource needs. Depending upon how organized the fishers are, they may lead this funding search, but in most cases it will be led by the external agent or government. In most cases, a legal entity, such as a community organization or NGO registered with government, will be needed in order to submit the proposal and for the donor to provide funding.

Box 5.10. Proposal Writing.

Successful grant writing involves the coordination of several activities, including planning/preparation, identifying a funder, searching for data and resources, writing and packaging a proposal, submitting a proposal to a funder, and follow-up with the funder. The proposal should include project goals and identify the specific objectives that define how the goals will be accomplished.

The proposal should include the following sections:

• Project title/cover page;

• Summary/overview;

• Background information/problem statement;

• Goals and objectives;

• Target audience;

• Methods/design/strategy;

• Staff/administration;

• Impacts/benefits;

• Available resources;

• Needed resources;

• Evaluation plan;

• Timeline/workplan;

• Budget;

• Appendices.

Box 5.11. Potential Funding Sources.

A number of potential funding sources exist at the local, national and international levels to support a co-management programme. These include:

• Government – local, state/provincial, national;

• Private philanthropic foundations;

• Individuals;

• Companies;

• International development agencies;

• Non-governmental organizations;

• Development banks;

• Coastal-dependent businesses (e.g. beach resorts, boat charter companies, dive companies).

5.9. Approvals

Initial approvals for the programme may need to be obtained from different levels of government and local community officials and leaders to move the programme forward and to submit a proposal.

5.10. Linkages

At this point, linkages are established and strengthened between and among fishers, other stakeholders, external agents and government so that a partnership is developed. Building partnerships is important to mobilize resources and energy of various stakeholders to achieve a common vision and goal. These are institutional and personal linkages meant to enhance the co-management programme. The development and strengthening of these linkages, at institutional, political and individual levels, is a continuous process during the life of the co-management programme. These linkages are important because they begin to give each partner a sense of the abilities and credibility of the other partners. Developing trust, credibility and friendship will often take time as the partners may not have worked directly with each other in the past or they may have reason for suspicion.

5.11. Moving to Implementation

This is now an in-between time before implementation. If resources such as money and people are available, initial implementation activities may begin. If resources are not available, implementation will need to wait until proposals are funded or other arrangements are made to obtain the necessary resources. This can be a frustrating time as the partners are ready to go but cannot yet activate their plans and strategies. At a minimum, regular communication must be maintained between the partners. The momentum of early interest and action must be maintained. Meetings can be held to update each other on the status of funding proposals and other issues. Partners may obtain and share new information on the resource, the community, possible solutions, co-management, or other topics of interest and concern.

The external agent or government may begin to assess the human and financial resources available for co-management and their own capabilities and needs to engage as a partner in co-management. The fishers may want to begin organizing themselves (if they are not currently organized) to participate in co-management.