PART III IMPLEMENTATION6. Community Entry and Integration: Centre de recherches pour le développement international

Implementing community-based co-management is always context-specific. For example, one community may have an existing and well-functioning fisher organization while another needs assistance in organizing. Another community may have a specifically defined set of objectives while another needs to develop a plan and strategy. During the 'beginnings' or pre-implementation phase, a preliminary plan and strategy is prepared to guide the implementation phase in the community. The goals and objectives identified in the preliminary implementation plan and strategy will be reflected in the types of implementation activities which will be undertaken and in the timeline for implementation. However, it is important to be flexible and adaptive as needs, issues and opportunities will change.

The implementation activities to be discussed below are present in some form in most community-based co-management programmes. It should be noted that the implementation of community-based co-management is not a linear process but involves a number of activities that may or may not occur sequentially or concurrently. Every community has its own unique situation and context and this should determine the activities in the co-management implementation process for that particular community. The implementation activities presented below should be adapted to the community.

The implementation phase generally begins when resources are available and the partners are ready. Implementation activities may be started with the resources (money, time, personnel) currently available. In other cases, implementation may not begin until adequate funding is obtained.

The general types of implementation activities include: (i) community entry and integration (Chapter 6); (ii) research and participatory research (Chapter 7); (iii) environmental education and capacity development (Chapter 8); (iv) community organizing (Chapter 9); (v) co-management plan and strategy (Chapter 10); (vi) conflict management (Chapter 11); and (vii) co-management plan implementation, including evaluation (Chapter 12). Each of these implementation activities will be discussed in the following chapters.

J. Parks.

Community entry and integration is normally led by the external agent. Community entry and integration establishes the initial working relationship between the community and the external agent and/or government involved with the programme (the implementation phase may be led by an external agent and/or government; for ease of comprehension, only the term external agent will be used in this publication) (Table 6.1). The external agent may introduce a community organizer or extension worker to the programme (Box 6.1).

Table 6.1. Community entry and integration.
Stakeholder	Role
Resource users/community	• Attending meetings and briefings • Prepare workplan
Local government	• Attend courtesy calls • Participate in meetings and discussions • Assist in organizing community meetings • Assist in identification of community boundaries • Assist preparation of workplans
Other stakeholders	• Attend meetings and briefings • Provide support
Change agent/community organizer	• Organize courtesy calls to government leaders • Orient to situation • Organize community meetings • Observation • Identify stakeholders • Prepare workplan

Community entry and integration entails a number of activities to initiate the project including:

• Formally introducing the programme to the community;

• Answering questions about the programme;

• Establishing rapport with the community;

• Participating in community life;

• Identifying roles of programme partners;

• Core group formation;

• Organizing and attending meetings, training and awareness-raising sessions;

Box 6.1. Community Entry and Integration in Vietnam.

The Center for Rural Progress and the International Marinelife Alliance-Vietnam, Vietnamese NGOs, initiated community-based coastal resource management projects in two villages in Vietnam. In assessing the lessons learned, it was reported that when the project initiator is coming from outside the community, the key is the ability to build a strong relationship directly with the community and local authorities. This allows for a certain level of legitimacy when working at the village level and sets the groundwork for a strong partnership. A major part of the project is the training and hiring of local authorities and members of community organizations to work on the local assessment. The 'newly-trained' people can facilitate the field work and make positive contributions which enhance the overall project. A further spin-off is that by training and working directly with these people, their own capacity is strengthened.

Source: Center for Rural Progress and the International Marinelife Alliance-Vietnam (2003).

• Collection of baseline data on the community;

• Stakeholder identification;

• Meeting with local leaders and government officials;

• Obtaining government approvals; and

• Initiating the programme with the community.

As with other activities of the co-management programme, the timeframe for community entry and integration will depend on the level of effort needed and objectives and outcomes set by the community, the programme and the community organizer (CO).

6.1. The Community Organizer

The community organizer (CO) is usually a staff member of the external agent or a government staff person, such as from the fisheries or extension department (Box 6.2). The CO may come from within or outside the community. The CO is a facilitator (a person who enables organization to work more effectively) for the co-management programme. In many cases, the CO will work and/or live in the community for many months or years to plan and implement co-management. The CO will continue to work with the community until the CO and the community feel that external assistance on a daily basis is no longer needed for sustainability of the programme. The CO should facilitate rather than impose.

Box 6.2. No Community Organizer.

In a number of cases, there may be no CO to facilitate the co-management programme. There may only be a willing government fishery officer or college teacher to facilitate the programme. Co-management can still move forward. Most important, the individual will need to be open-minded, creative and respectful. The fishery officer or teacher can initially serve to mobilize and energize the co-management programme. This individual will need to learn new skills, such as community organizing and participatory research, in order to support the co-management programme. This can be achieved by seeking out assistance and information from NGOs or projects functioning in the area or country. The development of a network with other individuals or organizations working on the same issues can help in the learning process.

The external agent and CO will play a central role in facilitating the co-management programme due to their knowledge and experience in community organizing, participatory methods, mobilization, education and information dissemination, and planning. The external agent and CO should have a phase-out strategy from the start of their involvement with the programme as the goal of their effort is to empower the community to manage the co-management programme and their resources themselves. The community should not become dependent upon the external agent to lead the co-management programme. As stated earlier, the role of the external agent should be to facilitate the co-management programme. The external agent and CO may need to continue to visit the community and provide assistance as needed after the phase-out (Boxes 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6).

Box 6.3. Case Study: The Local Community Organizer Model in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Philippines.

The Local Community Organizers (LCO) model was implemented in Bolinao, Pangasinan, Philippines. It shows that while a CBCRM project may be externally initiated, promoting self-reliance and development of local capacity to prepare local organizations for the eventual phase out of the NGO or a project is important. With the LCO model, fisherfolk leaders were nominated by their organizations as 'community scholars' who learned the skills and attitudes of a community organizer. They were regarded as representatives of the PO, not the NGO; they regarded organizing as a learning opportunity that was awarded to them as a public trust. The LCO development emphasized sharing, confidence-building and learning-by-doing activities. The advantages of the LCO programme come from three aspects: local organizers are given opportunities to make unique contributions to organizing work, it is replicable and it is sustainable. With the LCO model, training and organizing became continuous and integrated in the learning process. Local leaders were movers and doers in organizing their own communities. Expanding organizing work was more cost-effective too because the LCOs organized adjacent communities by themselves. When Haribon Foundation, the facilitating NGO in Bolinao, eventually phased out, the PO federation continued to work on their own even up to now. For KAISAKA, the PO federation, their work continues even with the termination of the CBCRM programme.

Source: Arciaga et al. (2002).

Box 6.4. Local Community Organizers, Philippines.

In the Philippines, some NGOs select members from the community to act as local community organizers or LCOs. The tasks of the LCOs are essentially the same as the external COs, although they would usually focus on explaining the project objectives and activities to different community members thereby increasing awareness among the people. They also play a critical role in continuing the task of meeting people in the community, even informally, while the CO is away. In Bolinao, Pangasinan, Philippines, the LCO was distinguished from the leader of the community organization. The former was involved in expanding community organizing tasks in other villages, i.e. externally focused, while the latter led internal organizational tasks and activities. The LCOs in Bolinao were not employed by the NGO but rather considered as 'community scholars' and were given a small allowance for doing their tasks (Arciaga et al., 2002). In Taytay, Palawan, Philippines, the LCOs were employed by the project implemented by an NGO and thus paid for their work. However, their tasks were similar to those implemented by the Bolinao LCOs.

Box 6.5. Local Community Organizers, Africa.

In Africa, different from Asia, many of the co-management programmes have been initiated and facilitated by government staff rather than NGOs. In South Africa, many of the co-management programmes (for example, Sokhulu Mussel, Klienmond Inshore Fishery, Kosi Bay Gillnetting, Amadiba Tourism) have been initiated and facilitated by provincial and national government officials. These individuals have acted as catalysts for partnership development with local leaders and fishers. This role has been particularly significant with respect to securing funds for project activities, lobbying for access rights, mediating disputes, implementing training initiatives and exploring alternative economic opportunities.

Source: Sowman et al. (2003).

Box 6.6. Case Study: Community Fisheries Facilitation in Pursat Province, Cambodia.

The term community facilitation is used in Cambodia to describe the community extension work of supporting organizations. Facilitation in Khmer is translated to samrob samrourl. Samrob means 'to make things go together in the same direction' while samrourl means 'to make things easy'. Thus, samrob samrourl is simply 'creating a process of doing things together in the same direction in an easy way'.

In Kampong Por commune in Pursat Province, the Cambodia Family Development Services (CFDS) has been working to improve the poor's conditions and spur their empowerment. Pursat is one of the six provinces surrounding Tonle Sap Lake. The programme is focused on helping villagers in the planning, organizing and facilitating of participatory local development, which is from the village to the provincial level. The programme is a strategic part of CFDS's vision of a Cambodian civil society of a fair, just and peaceful society, which will be achieved through an acceleration of economic growth to raise the living standards of all Cambodians.

The CFDS programme also supported a pilot project in developing a community fishery in Anlong Raing as a model of community fishery in Pursat. Until the change in government policy in 2001 towards fishery reform, there was little or no external support for the fishers and their communities. In addition, the outdated fishery law and lack of control and management of fishing lots, pollution and degradation of ecosystem and biodiversity has contributed to the heavy burden of most fishers for survival. Thus, the community did not benefit from the rich resources of Tonle Sap and currently they are being asked to take on the responsibility to manage their own community without building any capacity to take on the new task. The CFDS programme is an opportunity for them and the community to become better engaged with the Department of Fisheries in Pursat and the provincial officials looking for future collaboration in supporting the community fishery to build necessary knowledge, skill and attitude towards effective and sustainable management of resources in their community.

Sources: Cambodia Family Development Services, unpublished programme documents; Rivera-Guieb (2004).

The CO may be male or female depending upon the context of the community. One or more COs may live in the community. Often the external agent will provide technical support to the CO with other staff members who may have specialized skills. Many COs have a college degree in social work or community development, although those with other degrees make excellent COs. The external agent will need to train the CO on their philosophy of co-management and on methods and tools to be used. Many external agents have developed a specific co-management, community organizing or development process which they follow in their work.

The CO should have the following skills:

• Open-minded;

• Creative;

• Respectful;

• Sensitive to local culture and gender;

• Sense of humour;

• Modest and humble;

• Puts people at ease and does not set himself or herself apart or act superior;

• Facilitate and guide rather than lead the process;

• A clear understanding of the different theories of development;

• Familiarity with the concept and process of community organizing and participation processes;

• Social and community relationship skills such as skills in establishing rapport, conflict management and group maintenance;

• A clear grasp of community-based co-management concept and process;

• The ability to work with teams of professionals involved in the management of marine and coastal resource;

• A clear perspective of when to phase-out and to 'let go';

• Interviewing and documentation skills;

• Ability to facilitate group meetings and discussions;

• Communication skills (DENR et al., 2001c).

Among the many skills and qualities a CO should have, the ability to dialogue – a fundamental aspect of community work – is one of the most crucial yet difficult tasks. Dialogue is an interchange and discussion of ideas based on a process of open and frank questioning and analysis in both directions between the community workers and the people. Community organizers cannot do their task if they do not take the time to listen to the people and constantly look for venues to interact with people. These may be in the form of meetings or house visits. The key element is to be able to dialogue with people in informal and intimate ways. A CO does not decide in advance what the community needs to know but dialogues with them to understand their needs.

The external agent should make logistical and administrative arrangements to support the CO. In many cases, the CO will need to travel to several communities or government offices. Resources will need to be made available for travel. Arrangements for communication through telephone and internet will need to be made for the CO. The external agent will need to provide back-up to the CO in case of sickness or other problems and in case a CO needs to be changed for any reason. In some situations, a CO may not be acceptable to the community and will need to be replaced. The external agent will need to make arrangements to pay the CO's salary and provide benefits.

Before entering the community, the CO should become familiar with the area, including its history, resources, culture, economy, social structure, problems, needs and opportunities. This information may be obtained from secondary data sources such as reports and publications and from key informant interviews with those knowledgeable about the area such as local elected officials, other NGO staff that may have worked in the area and government agency staff.

In conducting community entry, the CO should:

• Know the audience;

• Know the background of the community and its leaders;

• Initiate informal discussion with local government officials;

• Become acquainted with leaders and key informants;

• Know the potential topics they might want to discuss;

• Prepare appropriate techniques (for example, interviews and visualization techniques);

• Prepare secondary materials as background information.

6.2. Integration

In order to be effective, the CO will need to integrate himself or herself in community life in order to have knowledge about community members; their culture, livelihoods, institutions, social structure and environment; and their needs, behaviour and problems. This is a critical time for the CO as he or she must be accepted by the community. There must be credibility, trust and respect between the CO, the community members and government. This will involve long days and nights of listening, observing, talking and involvement in community activities. It will involve explaining the co-management programme and adapting to local conditions. The CO must become accustomed to local culture and traditions. This can take several months.

In order to gain this mutual trust and respect, the CO should observe, participate and hold informal conversations with a wide range of community members (Box 6.7). The CO should become a part of the community and participate in local economic and social activities. This may involve going to the fish landing site and talking to fishers, asking fishers to go fishing, talking to fish buyers and sellers in the market, attending local meetings, meeting women as they wash cloths, singing karaoke. It involves being available and observant.

Box 6.7. Observation.

Observations are qualitative descriptions of what is seen and heard and are obtained by attentively watching and recording the surroundings. Observations provide insight into activities that are difficult for people to describe and provide information on relevant activities, stakeholders and material culture. Directed observation looks at a specific activity, such as fish landing, or tries to answer a specific question, such as, 'How are cooperative meetings conducted?' Continuous observation seeks a broader understanding of activities and takes note of all regular activities throughout the day and night.

Pay attention to everything and use all senses to observe. Introduce yourself and explain what you are doing. Ask questions concerning things relevant to the parameters being investigated, particularly activities which are not recognized. Take notes and take photographs (if possible). Fully record the activities taking place. Sketch as many things as possible. If possible, play an active role in the activity.

Be aware that observation can sometimes be intrusive and may involve time from local people. Interacting closely with particular stakeholders can affect their activity and interactions with other stakeholders, particularly when there are conflicts between and within groups.

6.2.1. Courtesy call

The CO should make courtesy calls to elected and traditional leaders. Elected leaders include those at provincial/state, municipal and village government levels, for example, a provincial/state governor, a municipal mayor or a village council person. Traditional leaders include village chiefs, village elders, religious leaders and senior fishers. The purpose of the courtesy call is for the CO to:

• Introduce himself or herself;

• Introduce the programme and its objectives;

• Introduce the concept of co-management;

• Introduce the approach to be taken to community participation and activities;

• Determine the role of elected and traditional leaders and government;

• Open communication and dialogue;

• Determine the level of support;

• Encourage participation and cooperation; and

• Determine the needs of the leaders (government and traditional).

This should not be a one time visit but the start of a long-term relationship. Depending upon their interest, the leaders should be actively consulted and brought into the co-management programme. There may be a need for frequent visits to inform and discuss programme activities and needs.

It is important to note if the leaders are male-dominated; it is the role of the CO to consciously seek out and consult women members of the community, even if they do not play formal leadership roles.

At this early stage, the CO may also make courtesy calls on government offices and staff for the same reasons as the leaders. This may include, for example, provincial/state and municipal fisheries office, environment and natural resource office, economic development office, agriculture office and local government office.

The significant role of government and traditional leaders in co-management should be recognized. If any leaders show lack of or limited support, consider having someone from the community or someone who is known or respected by the leader and is supportive of the project visit with the leader and introduce co-management and the programme. Consider consulting with other leaders or government officials who could provide alternative channels to gain cooperation of the non-supportive leaders.

6.2.2. Community meetings

In a similar fashion as the courtesy calls on government and traditional leaders, the CO needs to inform the community about the programme. Community meetings are one method of doing this (Box 6.8). The community meetings should have the same general purposes as the courtesy calls, that is:

• Introduce himself or herself;

• Introduce the programme and its objectives;

• Introduce the concept of co-management;

• Introduce the approach to be taken to community participation and activities;

• Determine the role of community members;

• Open communication and dialogue;

• Determine the level of support;

• Encourage participation and cooperation; and

• Determine the needs of the community members in terms of training and awareness raising.

These community meetings can be part of previously organized meetings, such as government, social or religious gatherings. They can be meetings organized by the CO specifically for the purpose of informing community members about the programme. Or these meetings can be informal where the CO meets with groups of people in daily settings such as the market or fish landing site. The CO should hold as many meetings as needed to ensure that community members are informed and aware of the programme, are familiar with the CO and know how to contact the CO.

The meeting agenda should include an introduction of people associated with the programme (CO, government and community leaders, external agent), a presentation about the programme and open discussion about the programme and any inputs and concerns from the meeting participants.

The CO should have a formal presentation prepared which covers the above topics about the programme. A formal presentation will ensure that the same information about the programme is presented at each meeting.

Box 6.8. Community Meetings.

Community meetings can be one of the most important tools for community information gathering and for the communication of information. Community meetings can serve a wide variety of purposes:

• Give and receive information;

• Discuss issues of relevance;

• Gain a consensus on an issue;

• Identify problems and solutions;

• Plan activities, negotiate conflicts;

• Validate interpretations of studies and evaluations.

A community meeting generally involves a large number of people but, if well designed, can be participatory by encouraging two-way communication. Smaller focus-group meetings can be even more participatory as the information sharing may be more equitable when there is a particular issue or purpose or when the group members are comfortable speaking to each other. The output of focus-group meetings can be presented to larger group meetings, giving a 'voice' to those in the community who do not feel comfortable speaking up at large group settings. Regular small group meetings can foster a cooperative approach to decision-making and discussion.

A lot of careful planning goes into a successful meeting.

• Have a clear purpose and know what is to be accomplished.

• Obtain the approval and involvement of local leaders and be aware of community protocol.

• Arrange a time and place for the meeting, taking into account the activity patterns of the participants. The time and place of a meeting can encourage or discourage attendance.

• Check whether food and accommodation will be needed, especially for outsiders.

• Inform the community of the meeting through posters, public announcements, radio, word of mouth.

• Plan and prepare handouts and material to be distributed and presented.

• Use the language of the community.

• Plan smaller, more limited group meetings (if necessary) and develop feedback mechanisms.

• Skilled facilitation is crucial. Identify a skilled and respected person to facilitate the meeting.

• Plan the meeting process to encourage discussion. Think of two-way communication and how to encourage participation. Prepare some leading questions to encourage discussion.

• When facilitating the meeting:

• Make the purpose of the meeting clear in the introduction and explain the process of the meeting.

• Prepare and check all presentation equipment and materials.

• Begin and end more or less at the stated time.

• Start with issues on which it is easy to reach an agreement or to accept differences of opinion.

• Allow conflicting opinions to emerge and try to have these differences either resolved, or accepted by the group.

• Have a recorder keep notes of the meeting.

• At the end of the meeting, summarize the proceeding, outline the decisions that have been made, and identify next steps.

• If appropriate, confirm the time and place of the next meeting.

Consider that there may be factions of the community that are unable or unwilling to speak out at a large group meeting. Separate meetings with these people can be held, and their perspectives can be brought back to larger group meetings. Large group meetings are not an appropriate venue for resolving conflict and this should be done in a smaller group setting. Several meetings may be needed to obtain the desired results.

Beware of hidden agendas and groups who may want to use the meeting for their own purpose. The facilitator must have enough authority to keep the meeting on track and enough sensitivity to include people in the discussions. The group may see the facilitator as the 'expert' to carry the whole meeting. The facilitator should keep handing the questions back to the group.

Source: Townsley (1996).

Published materials about the programme (including purpose, objective, partners, role of community, co-management) should be available. The presentation and published materials should be easily understood and in the local language.

As an alternative method, and as will be discussed below, the CO may need to conduct a household census. In doing so, the CO will have the opportunity to meet with community members at each house and provide an explanation of the programme.

6.2.3. Key informants

The CO should identify key informants in the community that can provide reliable information on a variety of topics and issues (Box 6.9). There may be one or more key informants for each topic and issue. Key informants are purposely selected community members who are able to provide information on a particular topic based on their knowledge, skills or experience with that subject. It is felt that community members can provide accurate, relevant and detailed information about their community.

6.2.4. Preliminary community profile

At this early stage, the CO may want to develop a preliminary community profile including information on community demographic characteristics (population, age, sex, education, occupation), history, conflicts, and problems and needs. This will allow the CO and others, such as the core group, to have a better understanding of the community and how to direct activities. Some of this information may have been collected in the 'beginnings' or preimplementation phase. A more detailed community profile will be conducted under the research activity (see Chapter 7, Section 7.4).

Box 6.9. Key Informants.

Different types of people have different types of knowledge. If you ask the same question to a child, a woman, a less educated person and an older man, you may get four different answers. The type of knowledge people have is related to their age, sex, education, occupation, social status and history.

In working with key informants, first identify the type of information that is needed. Ask a village leader to identify individuals in the community that hold key positions or are widely respected. Alternatively, ask a broad sample of people to name others in the community who know most about a topic. Choose who among these people can provide relevant information based on the information needed. Meet key informants in a place convenient to them and that allows for undisturbed discussion. Begin with open-ended questions (questions which encourage follow-up discussion) and become more specific through the interview. Ask the key informant to identify someone else that could be helpful in giving information about the topic.

Source: IIRR (1998).

Community demographic characteristics are available from census information. Current census information should be available at provincial/state and municipal government offices. In most cases, the village council secretary also holds the village census and other information. A census is usually conducted every 10 years. Some municipalities collect certain demographic information (such as population, birth and death rates) on an annual basis. In the beginnings phase of the programme, a preliminary problems and needs identification may have been conducted. If so, this will provide the CO with valuable information to direct activities.

If a research or development project has been conducted in the community, information on community demographics and problems and needs may be available in reports or publications of the project; for example, an academic thesis from a local university or work done by an NGO. The CO should ask government staff and local people if they are familiar with any recent studies and seek them out to supplement census data.

If information on community demographics and problems and needs is not available, is out-of-date or is questionable, the CO may want to conduct a household census. This is more easily done if the community is small. A short, one-page, household census can be conducted relatively quickly and inexpensively. The census is conducted for every household in the community. (Alternatively, a census could be conducted of only fishing households by asking a first question on whether fishing is an occupation of the household and surveying only those households that answer yes to this question.) It would allow the CO to have a current community profile, target specific information on households (for example, location of all fishing households), allow the CO to visit and introduce himself or herself at all households, and gain an understanding of problems and needs. The census form should be short and may include questions on:

• Household size;

• Age of each household member;

• Sex of each household member;

• Education of each household member;

• Religion of household;

• Ethnicity and origins of household (migrants usually have different social networks and dynamics in the community);

• Primary and secondary occupation of household;

• Problems and needs;

• Member of a community organization;

• Which organization;

• If fishing household, type of fishing gear used.

The census questionnaire should be prepared to be conducted in 10–15 minutes. If the community is small enough, the CO should be able to conduct the census alone. This will allow the CO to walk the whole community, observe and meet people. The census data can be analysed and reported in tables.

The CO should prepare a short history of the community. The history can include when the community was formed, population and other demographic trends over time, political history, major conflicts and resource use patterns. This information can be obtained from secondary sources, community leaders and the core group members. This report should be short as more detailed information on the community will be prepared as part of the research activities of the implementation phase.

A preliminary community profile report is prepared and shared with leaders and the community as an initial output. The report describes the community in general terms and can serve to direct initial co-management planning and activities.

6.2.5. Area boundaries and management unit

A preliminary identification of resource management boundaries should occur. These boundaries will serve later to establish the resource management unit during the co-management plan activity. Thus, the emphasis here is on mapping boundaries to serve as information for later planning. The boundaries should make sense from a biological or ecological standpoint (they would cover the fishing area of local fishers or the essential elements of the coastal ecosystem), from a social standpoint (they would cover political jurisdictional boundaries, as well as traditional tenure areas) and from an economic standpoint (they would ensure that benefits are enjoyed by those who bear the costs).

An effective management unit would comprise a series of nested management units composed of different scales. The complexity of natural and social systems requires that management be addressed simultaneously at different scales. Ecosystems and social systems tend to be organized hierarchically. Each level in the hierarchy is independent, to some degree, on the levels above and below, but also dependent on these levels. Co-management institutions involve horizontal (across space, i.e. networks of communities involved in fisheries management) and vertical linkages (across levels of institutions or organizations, i.e. multistakeholder bodies or networks of government agencies).

The management unit should not be so large as to be unmanageable, nor so small as to be ineffective. It should be large enough to accommodate an ecosystem or habitat, and small enough to accommodate a management unit in charge. The management unit may be started from a small and clearly defined geographic area or ecosystem, or from a recognized social unit (i.e. local government) and its management area.

Local community members have a great deal of knowledge about characteristics of boundaries and features and should play active roles in this preliminary and later boundary identification. Resource mapping is a useful participatory technique to identify boundaries (Box 6.10).

There can be several types of boundaries: political, ecological, fishing tenure, fishing gear area, planning and management. These should be identified. The boundaries may be different but overlap.

Political boundaries represent the local government's authority over land and waters. Coastal terminal points on land must be determined and validated before delineating political boundaries. Agreement between adjacent local governments is necessary to finalize the coastal terminal points. National government authority defines the local government's authority over waters.

Ecological boundaries represent the aquatic ecosystems in the area. If no resource and ecological assessment information is available, it may be possible to identify the ecological boundaries in a preliminary way through resource mapping with local fishers and other resource users. Traditional fishing tenure areas and fishing gear use areas can also be identified through resource mapping with fishers.

Planning and management boundaries are usually based on specific issues or problems that are addressed later in the planning process. A planning boundary should be sufficiently inclusive to ensure that important impact-generating uses and activities are included, but not so large as to dilute the programme. A management boundary denotes the area within which specific regulatory, developmental or other management activities are designed to occur in order to reduce adverse impacts on coastal resources, reduce risks of hazards or increase opportunities for optimal resource use. Planning and management boundaries should be developed and validated with community participation and input during the plan preparation (DENR et al., 2001b).

Boundaries need to be identified on a map. A base map is prepared which shows general political and geographic/physical features to serve as reference points. The base map can contain new information and serve to map management strategies. If available, a topographic map and a nautical chart can provide useful information. A global positioning system (GPS) electronic device can assist in identifying boundaries and locating important features.

Box 6.10. Resource Mapping.

Resource mapping is a participatory method that allows community members to identify, locate and classify past and present resource occurrence, distribution, use, tenure and access, and to reveal the significance the participants attach to them. It can allow the establishment of relations between information sets and their spatial location. Resource mapping can apply to all ecosystems known to the community and the scale of the maps can be set/adjusted depending on the required level of detail.

A group of participants or key informants are invited to a mapping exercise. The group may be stratified or grouped by age, fishing gear type or gender depending upon the needs of the resource mapping. Prepare a base map of the area showing general boundaries of the area so that participants can have reference points (alternatively, the participants can prepare the base map, identifying boundaries and features). Collate a checklist of resources or features to be mapped. Consider that only a limited number of topics can be mapped. Position the paper so that it can be seen by all. Ask the participants to locate on the map the listed resources and features. Allow for additions as needed. Use symbols and colours to represent various sets of information and generate a corresponding legend. Validate the findings. A facilitator should guide the discussion and a single documenter should write on the map. Make copies of the map when completed and share with a wider forum. Repeat as necessary for other resources and features.

Variations of resource mapping include:

1. Stratified resource mapping which involves dividing participants into groups according to gender, age, ethnic origin or other categories. This is useful in identifying relationships of social groups and resources.

2. Gendered mapping highlights men's and women's access to, control over and perceptions regarding the importance of certain resources. Gendered mapping is usually conducted among separate groups of men and women.

3. Two-stage resource mapping involves transposing the information from the sketch map to a conventional topographic map or nautical chart. Two-stage resource mapping may be used by the community in dealing with formal institutions on particular issues related to tenure, usage rights, right of way, etc.

Source: IIRR (1998).

Where possible, base maps and other spatial data should be put in geographic information systems (GIS) to serve as an important starting point for planning, in the same manner as land and sea use maps are developed (DENR et al., 2001b).

6.2.6. Problems, needs and opportunities identification

If a household census is not conducted or if no current information on community problems, needs and opportunities (PNO) is available, the CO will need to begin to identify community PNO. This PNO identification drives the co-management programme as it provides focus for developing the programme action plan, strategy and activities. PNO identification allows the community, working with the CO, to define, analyse and rank community problems, needs and opportunities. This is done according to the importance, the urgency of finding solutions, the number of people affected, and the probability of resolution or taking advantage of the opportunity through community action. A PNO identification may also identify new or different problems and needs which were not anticipated or earlier discussed.

The CO can assist in identifying problems, needs and opportunities through community meetings and group discussions. The idea is to identify, group and rank problems, needs and opportunities in order of priority. There are several methods which can be used for PNO identification (Boxes 6.11, 6.12, 6.13 and 6.14). These methods should encourage people to confront their own problems and needs.

Box 6.11. Prioritizing Problems, Needs and Opportunities.

One possible method for problem, need and opportunity analysis and prioritizing is criteria ranking (IIRR, 1998):

• While it may be possible to work with the entire community at one time, it is often impractical.

• Identify manageable size groups within the community to work with. While they do not have to be homogeneous, they should have common interests.

• Identify a time and place for a meeting. It should be a safe and relaxed atmosphere that will allow for open and free discussion.

• Explain the objective of the meeting and begin with a general discussion on the project and community.

• Get the members of the group to brainstorm and suggest both community and fisheries (or coastal resource) problems and needs. Ask them to write these on pieces of paper and put them on a board.

• Get the group to classify the problems and needs into related groups.

• Suggest and explain possible criteria for ranking the problems:

• Extent or scope;

• Degree of impact on a particular resource;

• Occurrence or regularity;

• Other criteria may be suggested.

• Let the participants analyse each problem according to the criteria set.

• Ask the participants to compare each problem. Score each problem using a predetermined scale (e.g. 1–5, where 5 is the highest score).

• Add the total score for each problem and place the sum in the second to the last column. The sum reveals the relative importance of the problem across all criteria and determines how it ranks compared to the other problems.

• Use the last column to rank the problems.

• Some of the descriptions may be qualitative, e.g. degree of impact and occurrence. Ask for an explanation and clarify meanings.

Another useful and rapid prioritizing method is called pairwise ranking. Pairwise ranking is used to determine the main preferences of individuals, identify their ranking criteria and easily compare the priorities of different individuals. Pairwise ranking generally involves the following steps (adapted from Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998):

• Begin by identifying all of the goals (and/or associated objectives) to be prioritized.

• Then record each of these items on a separate index card with a pen.

• With the help of those involved in the ranking exercise, list out each possible pairing between any two of the goals/objectives in your set.

• Next, working down the list of possible pairings, place the first pairing (index cards) of goals or objectives in front of each respondent and ask her/him to choose the more important goal/objective between the two. Record the choice in a table. Ask the respondent to explain why s/he made the choice and record the response in a second table. Alternatively, a focus group can act as a single respondent if it is able to come to consensus on choices.

• After this, present and choose between the next pair of choices, recording the response and reasoning. Continue through the list until all possible combinations of pairings have been chosen with the respondent and the table of responses has been completed for the individual.

• Without the respondent looking on, quickly tabulate and score the overall preferences by counting (sum) the number of times each item was chosen over any other. Record these scores in the table and list out the most preferred (highest score) to least preferred (lowest score) goals/objectives based on the total score.

• Crosscheck the results by asking the respondent what s/he thinks is the most important preference out of all of the potential goal/objective choices.

• Repeat the exercise for the necessary number of respondents.

• Finally, tabulate total preference scores across all respondents to determine the group's overall preferences. List these overall preferences from highest to lowest and begin to discuss how to divide the ranked items into higher and lower priorities.

When identifying community problems, needs and opportunities, listen to the community. The community knows its problems, needs and opportunities. Formulate the PNO in a clear and specific manner. As a CO and facilitator, consider what your capabilities are and think about which problems should be solved first. Be honest and realistic about what can be done. The CO should be guided not by what is important to them but by what is important to the community and what can be handled now (Rivera-Guieb and Marschke, 2002).

The output of the PNO identification should be a report made available to all stakeholders. The report should be reviewed and verified with the stakeholders. The report may be revisited before the co-management plan and strategy is prepared since time may pass between the activities. The PNO identification activity should be conducted on a regular basis to evaluate changing problems and needs in the community.

6.2.7. Identify potential leaders

The CO should identify candidates in the community who could become leaders in the co-management programme and help in their training and preparation. Leaders may already have stepped forward in the 'beginnings' stage, and others may come forward later. The CO may want to identify other candidates to develop diversity in leadership and to serve specific activities. Fishers tend to be independent people but co-management requires leaders to lead the process and the organizations which are involved in co-management. Leaders are needed to motivate, inspire, manage and energize the organization and process (Box 6.15). Leaders may have some natural ability to lead, but leadership can also be learned through experience (Box 6.16).

Box 6.12. Problem Trees and Solution Trees.

Problem trees are diagrammatic presentations of a problem, its cause and effects. These are done after a community has identified and prioritized its problems. The focus is on one problem, its cause and effect, at a time. The problem tree can serve as the focus for developing a plan of action to resolve the problem or need.

• Draw a large tree on a board with the problem on the trunk.

• Let the participants brainstorm over the causes of the problem by asking the question 'why?' Draw a root for each cause, and write the cause on the root.

• Repeat the question 'why?' for each cause to identify secondary causes. Write these lower down the roots below the primary causes.

• Ask the participants to identify effects or impacts of the problem by asking 'what happened?' Draw a branch for each effect and write the effect on the branch.

• For each effect, repeat the question 'what happened?' to reveal secondary effects. Place them higher up the branch.

• Continue until the participants can no longer identify any effects of the problem.

• Repeat for other problems.

• Participants can write all the causes and effects they identify on separate cards and pin them on the tree. Participants can then easily move cards around as they see links among the causes and effects.

• In a similar fashion, a solution tree can be developed by the group to identify strategies toward overcoming the problem and achieving a better outcome.

Source: IIRR (1998).

Box 6.13. Brainstorming.

Brainstorming is a group activity where selected members of the community take turns in sharing their ideas relating to a certain topic or question. Brainstorming encourages participants to think critically and creatively rather than to simply generate a list of options, answers or interests.

• Set the objective of the activity (e.g. problems and needs identification).

• Based on the objective, determine the individuals and groups that should be involved in the activity.

• Invite the participants and set a time and place.

• Explain and discuss the objectives and mechanics of the session so that everyone understands the process.

• Introduce the topic.

• Ask each participant to give or share their ideas relating to the topic.

• Write down all ideas on a board or paper.

• With the participants, sort, classify and synthesize ideas written on the board.

• Discuss and analyse the results.

• In problem identification, ask the participants: Who is affected? How many people are affected? How? How does the problem affect the community? How do community members feel individually and collectively? Which problem is the most urgent? Which problem is the most manageable to try to solve, considering group resources and limitations?

• The problems or ideas can be classified, segregated or synthesized. They can also serve as the starting point of a new brainstorming session.

• An alternative when participants are hesitant to speak out is to use idea cards. Cards are distributed to each participant and they are asked to write their ideas on the card. The cards are collected and put up on a board and discussed. The cards can be moved around and grouped on the board as needed.

Source: IIRR (1998).

Box 6.14. Guidelines for Facilitating Focus Group Discussions.

Focus group discussions are small discussions with four to eight selected members of the community who are chosen for their knowledge or involvement in a specific issue.

The approach involves:

• Establishing the objectives of the discussion;

• Selecting participants based on knowledge and involvement in the issue;

• Planning the timeframe for the discussion;

• Designing focus group guidelines and following guidelines for leading group discussions;

• Questions should be phrased to discover the community attitudes and perceptions about the issue.

The following are some standard operating procedures for facilitating focus group discussions:

• Always begin by introducing the facilitator and participants;

• Start each session with a cultural ritual or prayer if appropriate for the group;

• Make sure the language used is understood by participants or use a translator;

• Start the session by explaining the objectives, describing the agenda or activities and identifying the desired outcome;

• Explain the process the group will go through, the roles of the participants and the expected timeframe;

• Have someone besides the facilitator document the discussion and outputs in meeting minutes and give a copy to the group;

• Always include the names of participants and date on any output;

• Be resourceful and creative and use interesting audio-visual aids;

• Be sensitive to participants' needs; take breaks when needed; allow the agenda to change if other important issues are raised;

• Choose an appropriate time and place for the community to participate;

• Do not rush the participants; work at their speed;

• Encourage participation by all, control participants who dominate the group;

• Listen carefully to participants and do not interrupt;

• Settle disagreements through dialogue and consensus-building, exhaust all arguments until a resolution is reached;

• Be gender- and culture-sensitive and create an environment of respect.

Source: IIRR (1998).

Box 6.15. Long-term 'Champions'.

In cases of co-management in South Africa, an important role was found to be played by one or two dedicated persons intimately involved with a project. A project 'champion', whether in the community, in the responsible management agency, or in an external NGO or academic institution, was key to motivating partners, encouraging commitment and providing continuity and support to the partners during the ups and downs experienced in the planning and implementation of the co-management arrangements. These 'champions' or mentors frequently facilitate communication and interaction between communities and relevant government departments and other stakeholders and broker the co-management arrangements. They also play an important role in keeping local users up to date on relevant legislative, administrative and political changes and initiatives.

Source: Sowman et al. (2003, pp. 317–318).

Box 6.16. How to Spot Potential Local Leaders.

• Conduct a community study and develop a community profile;

• Immerse yourself among the people;

• Observe people's activities and be willing to learn from them;

• Observe individual people's activities and their relationship to people;

• Build rapport with initial contacts;

• Ask trusted persons to vouch for contact persons;

• Take advantage of 'message bearers' and 'go-betweens' when communicating with people.

Source: Almerigi (2000).

A good leader:

• Is willing to share power with the group;

• Listens;

• Communicates;

• Collaborates;

• Expresses the values of the organization;

• Pulls together strengths and talents of the group;

• Has a caring and positive attitude towards people;

• Values consensus;

• Is open-minded, flexible and willing to compromise;

• Leads by example; and

• Considers the group over self.

A leader is a steward, or caretaker of an organization, one who has been entrusted to work for the benefit of all (Almerigi, 2000).

6.2.8. Assessing existing organizations

As will be discussed further, a community organization(s) is one of the foundations of co-management. Existing organizations in the community are identified and assessed to determine their potential to participate in the co-management programme.

Organizations are groups of individuals bound by a common purpose to achieve objectives (North, 1990). Organizations can be formal (i.e. those registered with government) and informal (i.e. those that are traditional). Organizations may be called cooperatives, associations, councils or nongovernmental organizations, and may exist for a number of purposes including resource management, fishing, religious, youth, women, sport, marketing, etc. An organization may have a formal management body and rules or may be an informal grouping of individuals for a specific purpose. In co-management, community organizations and their representatives participate in decision-making and managing and protecting the fisheries and aquatic resources. Before deciding to form a new organization, the CO should identify and assess the existing organizations in the community. Organizations may exist in the community that are already capable of engaging in co-management or just need to be strengthened. In some cases there may be existing organizations providing services or operating projects in the community. If these services can be useful to the project, the CO should consider the possibility of executing a memorandum of agreement with the organizations so as to avoid duplication of services and interventions.

Secondary data and the community census can provide information on organizations in the community. The CO may also want to interview community leaders and key informants to identify community organizations. Formal organizations may be easier to identify than informal organizations. It will be important to talk to a wide range of individuals in the community to identify all organizations.

For each organization the following information should be obtained:

• Name;

• Address/location;

• Purpose;

• Years in existence;

• Formal/informal;

• Contact person;

• Names of management members (president, vice-president, treasurer, secretary, board members);

• Number of members (male/female);

• Annual reports;

• Strategic plan/rules/regulations;

• Meeting schedule.

Several factors to be considered in assessing existing organizations include:

• Does the organization represent the different sectors in the community (e.g. youth, fishers, women, etc.)?

• Was the organization formed to address issues related to co-management or resource management?

• Does the organization have a mechanism to deal with dynamics/issues within the group (e.g. interpersonal conflicts, delineation of roles and functions, etc.)?

• Does the organization have a legal personality and/or credibility in the bigger community?

• Is the leadership structure and pattern democratic enough to promote maximum participation from members?

For each organization, a profile with the above information is prepared which will assist in assessing the organization's capability to engage in co-management.

6.2.9. Formation of core groups

A core group is a small group of individuals from the community (perhaps four or five) who will initially work with the CO to guide the co-management programme. The core group should only operate until viable and functional community organization(s) and a co-management body are in place (see Chapter 10). The members of the core group should represent different sectors of the community. The core group is crucial as it gives initial real responsibility and power to the community members for management. The core group will be:

• A highly cohesive and committed group;

• The basic building block of the organization(s);

• A training ground for leadership;

• A forum for practising people's participation; and

• Initial co-management management team (Almerigi, 2000).

Depending upon the size of the community and the context, there may be several core groups established to address specific co-management activities or issues.

The core group can serve to:

• Facilitate the circulation of information among community members;

• Develop dialogue and provoke social discussion about community and resource management issues;

• Facilitate community organizing;

• Identify problems, issues and opportunities;

• Assist in programme decision-making;

• Identify stakeholders and stakeholder groups;

• Assist in the gathering of information.

The core group members may come forward by themselves and volunteer to be involved based on personal motivation, such as the initial leaders identified earlier, or they may be selected by the CO and/or community leaders. Depending upon the situation, the CO may be a member of the core group.

The following criteria can assist in choosing the core group members:

• Be credible to community members (either certain community groups or the majority of the community);

• Be accessible to community members;

• Represent a diversity of community interests and groups;

• Be well-respected;

• Be conscientious and resourceful in their work;

• Have good communication skills;

• Be open-minded and desirous of change (Almerigi, 2000).

Other criteria may be added for a specific context and community. Some key qualities of a good core group 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 co-management process (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000).

It can be expected that there will be differing levels of knowledge and experience among the core group members about co-management and the various activities associated with it. The CO will need to provide information and training to the core group on specific topics and issues, such as the co-management programme and various activities, as needed to assist them in their work. The core group may need to meet regularly during the initial phases of implementation to make decisions and guide the programme.

If core group members are hesitant to join in the co-management programme, consider having informal discussions with community members to find out probable causes why they are unwilling to participate. Consider any past experiences with co-management or development projects in the community and success or failure.

6.2.10. Identifying stakeholders

There are many potential stakeholders in community-based co-management. Stakeholders are individuals, groups or organizations of men and women, old and young, who are in one way or another interested, involved or affected (positively or negatively) by a particular project (Box 6.17). They may be motivated to take action based on their interest or values. Stakeholders may include groups affected by the management decisions, groups concerned about the management decisions, groups dependent upon the resources to be managed, groups with claims over the area or resources, groups with activities that impact on the area or resources and groups with, for example, special seasonal or geographic interests. Stakeholders are important because they can support or not support co-management, which can lead to its success or failure. Stakeholders of coastal resources include fishers, fisher households and fishing communities, but also include seasonal fishers, boat owners, fish traders, government, mangrove cutters, etc. Stakeholder groups can be divided into smaller and smaller sub-groups depending upon the particular purpose of stakeholder analysis. The identification of key stakeholders should be inclusive and detailed. More groups may mean more problems and discussion, but excluding certain groups could lead to problems in the long run. Ultimately, every individual is a stakeholder, but that level of detail is rarely required (IIRR, 1998). A key question to be answered in the co-management programme is: who are the stakeholders that are entitled to take part in discussions and in management?

Box 6.17. Identifying Potential Stakeholders.

• Are there communities, groups or individuals actually or potentially affected by the management decisions?

• Who are the main traditional authorities in the area at stake? Are there government agencies officially responsible for the management of the area? Are there respected institutions, to which people have recourses in connection with a variety of needs and circumstances?

• Who has access to the marine resources at stake? Who is using the resources? 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?

• Who upholds claims, including customary rights and legal jurisdiction over the area? Are there communities with ancestral and/or other types of acquired rights? Are various government sectors and ministerial 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 resources at stake? Who has direct experience in managing them?

• What are the seasonal/geographic variations in resource use patterns and user interest?

• Are there co-management initiatives in the region? If so, to what extent are they succeeding? Who are the main partners?

Source: Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2000, pp. 22–23).

Stakeholder analysis is conducted to identify potential partners for co-management (Box 6.18), to explore possible approaches in relating to a particular person or group who can be supportive or potentially hostile to co-management and to provide insights into the dynamics and relationships of individuals and groups with various interests in a particular resource or project. The stakeholder analysis is usually done by key informants from primary stakeholders. In some cases stakeholders may be easily identified through existing organized groups, while in others they may not be organized to currently engage in co-management (for example, a group of unorganized fishers using the same fishing gear type or fishing in the same area). The identification of not only groups with special interests and concerns but also those possessing specific capacities and knowledge for management can improve the list of key stakeholders.

Box 6.18. Stakeholder Analysis.

The process of identifying stakeholders and figuring out their respective importance regarding the resource is referred to as a stakeholder analysis.

The stakeholder analysis is best conducted in a participatory way with the core group and/or key informants (knowledgeable or important individuals in the community) from a single stakeholder group or from various stakeholder groups. The participants in the stakeholder analysis exercise need to be documented to objectively analyse the results.

• The resource, activity or project to be analysed is identified based on the PNO assessment (for example, fishing) (see Section 6.2.6). The objective(s) and intended outputs of the stakeholder analysis are identified.

• An understanding of the context of the resource, activity or project and how the overall system operates is undertaken including who are the main decision-makers in the system and interactions and interdependencies, especially ecological and human systems.

• The participants are asked to identify and list all stakeholders associated with the resource, activity or project. Write their names on paper circles. Larger circles are used to identify stakeholders with greater influence or power. (Alternatively, a focal group approach can be used by identifying a stakeholder group which plays a central role in resource use and management. Other stakeholders are then uncovered by identifying individuals, groups and institutions who have important relationships with the focal group with respect to resource management.)

• After an initial set of stakeholders is identified, they need to be verified. The stakeholders are questioned as to whom they perceive the other main stakeholders to be, and what the relations between different stakeholders are.

• Prepare a stakeholder analysis matrix with two columns (positively affected and negatively affected) and two rows (directly affected and indirectly affected). Place the circles in one of the four boxes on the matrix. Draw lines between the stakeholders to indicate the existence of some form of relationship. Use plus and minus symbols to indicate the nature of the relationship. An explicit investigation of the relationship between stakeholders can reveal information about the nature of conflicts and cooperative action, and the reasons and contexts behind them.

• Prepare a stakeholder analysis and coping matrix. This matrix has five columns:

1. Stakeholder group.

2. Describe the potential impact of the proposed action (for example, actions identified in the co-management plan) on the stakeholder group.

3. Describe the potential reaction of the affected group and the implications for the proposed action.

4. Can the proposed action be modified to reduce or mitigate the negative impact? If so, how?

5. Describe the recommended course of action (coping strategy).

Begin with the stakeholders identified as being directly and negatively affected, then move on to those indirectly and negatively affected, and so forth. Write the information to each question on the column of the matrix.

• After filling in the matrix, have the group discuss issues, problems and opportunities. Formulate courses of action for addressing various stakeholder interests, especially for those negatively affected.

• Repeat for other resource, activity or project.

This exercise can identify different stakeholders, give ideas on how to relate to particular stakeholders, and provide insights into the dynamics and relationships of different stakeholders. As a follow-up, the interests, characteristics and circumstances of each stakeholder group in relation to the resource can be investigated.

Stakeholder analysis should be done before initiating co-management. It should be repeated at key points in the co-management process to check on possible changes in the number and characteristics of the stakeholders.

Sources: Grimble and Chan (1995), IIRR (1998).

Once key stakeholder groups are identified, it is important to find out their interests and concerns, whether they are organized and capable of participating in management decision-making, and whether they are willing to participate. Those groups that are not organized or prepared to participate will require assistance to do so.

If a variety of stakeholders is identified in the stakeholder analysis, which will probably happen, the question arises as to who should be invited to participate in the co-management programme (Box 6.19). This can create a dilemma. While it is important to have a well-represented co-management programme, it is important to determine if all stakeholder sub-groups are entitled to be involved in the programme. Too many stakeholders can create administrative and resource allocation problems. It is important that the final stakeholders involved in co-management be well-balanced; not too many so as to complicate and slow down the programme and not too few so as to leave out some key stakeholders. As such, the issue of entitlement becomes a central question: 'Who is entitled to participate in co-management?' This question needs to be addressed initially by the core group, and later by the co-management body (Box 6.20). It is difficult and is often only accomplished

Box 6.19. Identification of Bona Fide Fishers, South Africa.

A significant problem in South Africa is the illegal harvesting of abalone and rock lobster along the southwest coast. A project was initiated in 1999 to bring all the conflicting stakeholders together to identify and implement a coordinated strategy to diminish poaching in the Hangklip-Kleinmond area. It was necessary to identify the 'real' fishers for the project. The decision was taken at the outset of the project that the identification of the fishers in the community would take place by the community itself. However, the criteria for making this decision, and for evaluating the decision, were not effectively defined by the project. As a result, conflict emerged as to the credibility and legitimacy of people applying for, and receiving, access to resources.

First, one of the groups of fishers usually did not participate in meetings and workshops. Their commitment to the process and their ability to fish the quota, if allocated to them, was never verified. Second, there were questions raised regarding people potentially benefiting from the process if they had been outside of the fishing industry for many years doing other employment. Finally, some of the leaders themselves had not fished for many years and had also been involved in other professions. This caused concern as to whether they were bona fide fishers, or whether they were businessmen with other priorities and interests. There was never finalization of the criteria to determine who qualified as a 'fisher' with the community. Therefore, when rights were allocated after the project was terminated, conflict broke out within the community as fishers argued that some of the quotas did not go to the 'real' fishers in the community. The identification of and agreement on criteria regarding who qualifies as a 'fisher' needs to be clarified for future resource allocation processes.

Source: Hauck and Hector (2003).

Box 6.20. Examples of Characteristics of Entitlements.

• Existing legal rights to resource, whether customary or modern law;

• Mandate of the state;

• Direct dependency on resource for subsistence and survival;

• Dependency for economic livelihood;

• Historical, cultural and spiritual relationship to the area;

• Continuity of relationship, e.g. residents versus visitors and tourists;

• Unique knowledge about and ability to manage the area;

• Proximity to the area;

• Degree of effort and interest in management;

• Loss and damage as a result of the co-management;

• Number of individuals or groups sharing the same interest or concern.

Source: Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2000).

through participation from and negotiation with groups and individuals to ensure equitable representation in the co-management programme. All who believe themselves stakeholders should be allowed to argue their case for entitlement. The stakeholders with recognized entitlements may be subdivided between 'primary' and 'secondary', and accorded with different roles, rights and responsibilities in co-management (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000). For example, full-time fishers may be recognized as primary stakeholders and seasonal fishers may be recognized as secondary stakeholders.

A problem to note on entitlements is that these are often based on legal and state-mandated rules and documents. In some cases, there are community members, the indigenous peoples among them, who cannot argue their rights to the resources within the legal framework. They would have their own traditional system of rights and rules. It is important for the CO and the core group to recognize the varying bases for claiming rights or entitlements to resources. Establishing equitable representation among stakeholders is necessary in a co-management process.

6.2.11. Workplan

A workplan outlines a set of planning activities to be undertaken during the preparation phases of implementation (for example, research activities), the sequence of activities, and individual responsibility for each activity. While the workplan may be revised later, it should set forth as precisely as possible what planning activities will be undertaken and by whom. The workplan should also indicate budgets and schedules for each activity (DENR et al., 2001b) (Boxes 6.21 and 6.22).

Box 6.21. Key Elements of a Workplan.

Title

Introduction

Objectives

Overview of tasks and outputs

Task 1: Prepare programme

Task 2: Identify stakeholders

Task 3: Collect and analyse secondary information

Task 4: Conduct research

Task 5: Prioritize issues

Staffing needs

Schedule of activities

Cost estimates

Deliverables

Source: DENR et al. (2001b).

Box 6.22. Workplan for the Pilot Project on Co-management of the Sea Egg Fishery in Barbados.

Background:

The fisheries authority and fishing industry are interested in instituting community-based co-management, involving fishers in all aspects of management. This may include monitoring urchin size, maturity and population density, determining when and where fishing would be allowed and otherwise regulating the fishery to the extent that fisher knowledge and observations could be the main inputs to management. This pilot project will assist the stakeholders in pursuing their shared interest in co-management in a manner consistent with the Barbados 2001–2003 Fisheries Management Plan. The Fisheries Division and Barbados National Union of Fisherfolk Organizations are already collaborating on surveys at sea.

Objective:

The objective is for the fisheries authority and fishing industry to collaboratively determine and demonstrate the feasibility of co-management arrangements for the Barbados sea egg fishery within the period of the 2001–2003 Fisheries Management Plan.

Workplan:

• Collaborative surveys going from design to execution.

• Workshop on data analysis, generation and use of information as a demonstration of shared learning and to evaluate further development of their collaborative processes.

• Public education will be offered via a newspaper supplement, TV promotion, Fisherfolk's Week panel discussion, brochure, poster, radio or other methods, the effectiveness of which will be evaluated.

Outputs:

• Data from the sea urchin surveys in which fishers participate.

• Understanding about how information for management decision-making can be generated, shared and used in co-management.

• Increased public awareness about sea urchin management, leading to better compliance.

Source: McConney et al. (2003a).