D. Wilson.

The community profile provides information on the resource, social, economic, cultural and institutional/legal conditions in the community. The community profile identifies key issues to be addressed by a fisheries and coastal management plan. The preparation and adoption of the co-management plan and agreement requires the involvement and support of all stakeholders. This is provided by community organizations with members who are empowered to participate in the co-management programme (DENR et al., 2001b).

The co-management plan provides a way of organizing all stakeholders in order to prioritize issues, define policies, implementation and make more informed decisions for the sustainable use and management of fisheries resources (Table 10.1). The co-management planning process involves several activities including:

• Establishing a co-management body;

• Agreeing on rules and procedures for negotiation;

• Developing a mission statement;

• Establishing a management unit;

• Negotiating co-management plans and agreements;

• Plan – goals, objectives and activities;

• Monitoring and evaluation plan;

• Developing a co-management agreement;

• Establish a co-management organization;

• Revenue generation and self-financing;

• Legal support;

• Publicizing.

Negotiation is at the heart of the co-management process. Any plan or agreement is only as good as the process that generated it. The challenge for the planning process is to develop a partnership among the stakeholders in which there is sharing and negotiation undertaken in an efficient and equitable manner (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000).

Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2000) have identified several important points to be remembered:

• There are many management options, good and bad;

• Given the complexity of ecological and social systems in fisheries, the best approach is adaptive management ('learning-by-doing');

• Conflicts of interest between the stakeholders are inevitable but can be managed, and all the more if recognized early on;

• Even when a satisfactory management solution has been found, it will not remain valid forever; conditions will change and the solutions will have to change in response;

• All the stakeholders (especially the professional experts) should adopt a mature, non-paternalistic attitude, and acknowledge the legitimacy of interests and opinions different from their own; and

• All stakeholders should be given a fair means to have their claims and issues heard and discussed.

The co-management plan includes explicit identification of management strategies and actions, as well as co-management roles and responsibilities among the partners. The co-management plan should be structured around the key components of capability building, resource management, community and economic development, livelihood development and institutional development. The co-management plan should reflect the community's vision for the future. Initially, the plan may be focused on a specific issue or problem, such as reducing illegal fishing; but in better prepared communities or in more mature stages of the programme, the co-management plan may cover several issues or problems in a more integrated manner.

In developing the goal, objectives and activities, transparency is important if the management system is to be a learning one. This is particularly important for a process with uncertain outcomes. Therefore, documentation of process, plan, and outputs of and inputs to the process are necessary for the system to work. Transparency is also important if stakeholders are to be properly informed so they can participate fully. For some stakeholders, the process must go further, educating them to prepare for participation.

10.1. Adaptive Management

As presented in this handbook, the co-management plan is based on an approach called adaptive management. Adaptive management is 'the integration of design, management and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn' (Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998). It is 'an approach based on the recognition that the management of natural resources is always experimental, that we can learn from implemented activities, and that natural resource management can be improved on the basis of what has been learned' (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000). Adaptive management supports the need to develop plans and agreements that can be renegotiated to meet changing needs and conditions (Box 10.1).

Adaptive management takes the view that fisheries management can be treated as 'experiments' from which managers and fishers can learn. Adaptive management differs from the conventional practice of fisheries management by emphasizing the importance of feedback from the fishery in shaping policy, followed by further systematic experimentation to shape subsequent policy, and so on. In other words, it is iterative, repeating a process of steps to bring the manager and fisher closer to a desired result. Each iteration should involve making progress in reaching established goals and objectives. The important point is that effective learning occurs not only on the basis of management success but also failures. However, learning from failures presupposes that what is learned can also be remembered. Organizations and institutions can learn as individuals do, and adaptive management is based on social and institutional learning. The mechanism for institutional learning involves documenting decisions, evaluating results and responding to evaluation. Institutional learning must be embedded in both fisheries managers and the fishers, and the knowledge held by each must be respected and shared.

For example, of particular importance are environmental fluctuations. Many areas are seeing decadal-scale shifts in marine ecosystems, as well as large, infrequent disturbances. How can we best respond to such changes? Some government agencies keep records or maintain disaster-response plans. But fishers themselves maintain institutional memory of such fluctuations, along with response mechanisms. Perhaps a combination of agency institutional memory and fishers' knowledge can help provide adaptive responses for ecosystem changes.

The success of adaptive management will depend on fisheries managers and fishers keeping an open mind to work together and share knowledge. Recognition that non-scientific forms of knowledge may nevertheless be valid and important can promote understanding in a genuinely participatory manner (Box 10.2).

The adaptive management framework involves first thinking about the situation in the fishery, collecting information about the fishery, and developing a specific assumption about how a given intervention will achieve a desired outcome. The intervention is implemented and the actual results are monitored to determine how they compare to the ones predicted by the assumptions. The key is to develop an understanding of not only which interventions work and which do not, but also why.

Adaptation is about systematically using the results of the monitoring to improve the intervention. If the intervention did not achieve the expected results, it is because either the assumptions were wrong, the interventions were poorly executed, the conditions at the intervention site had changed, the monitoring was faulty, or some combination of these problems. Adaptation involves changing the assumptions and the interventions to respond to new information obtained through the monitoring efforts.

Finally, learning is about systematically documenting the process that was followed and the results that were achieved. This documentation will help to avoid making mistakes in the future.

10.2. Preparing for the Planning Process

(The source for much of this section is: Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000.)

Prior to beginning the negotiation, rules, procedures and equity issues need to be considered. Any negotiation is based on cultural and political realities. There may already exist in the community procedures for developing and negotiating plans and agreements that are simple, effective and inexpensive. These procedures may or may not be suitable for the co-management planning process. In cases where they are not suitable or where no procedures exist, new procedures will need to be designed. The CO may propose a schedule of meetings, some rules and procedures for participation, and a structure for a co-management body to conduct and oversee the planning process. The CO should present this proposal to representatives from the local government and community organizations. They may discuss and modify them, but a first meeting among the co-management stakeholders is proposed. The CO should work with the stakeholders to obtain an agreement on the place, date, hour, participants, agenda, logistics and facilities needed for the meeting that will begin the actual co-management process. It is important to consider fairness and equity issues; that is, to ensure that the previous less empowered segments of the community are fully involved in the process (Boxes 10.3 and 10.4). This is done through the community organizations, but also by recognizing entitlements and promoting fair negotiations (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000).

Edmunds and Wollenberg (2002) have identified a number of steps for negotiation, especially for disadvantaged groups:

• Neutral conditions are created including time, place, language, terms of communication, materials for illiterate participants and information sources.

• Inform participants fully about to whom conveners and facilitators are accountable.

• Create possibilities for disadvantaged groups to pursue alliances with more powerful groups in negotiations.

• Acknowledge the right of disadvantaged groups to identify 'non-negotiable' topics or items they view as inappropriate for discussion in the negotiation.

• Acknowledge that each group may not fully and unconditionally support proposed agreements. Encourage stakeholders to express their doubts about agreements. View 'consensus' as likely to mask differences in perspective and discount the input of disadvantaged groups.

• Assess the likelihood that agreements may need to be renegotiated in the future.

• Prepare disadvantaged groups to the possibility that the good will demonstrated among groups may not last.

• Stakeholders share information fully and openly.

• Assess the legitimacy of processes, decisions and agreements in terms of the role and implications for disadvantaged groups. Analyse the reasons for participation or non-participation of each group in negotiations, their objectives and strategies, how groups are represented, and the history of relationships underlying agreements.

• Open communication among the groups.

10.3. Establish a Co-management Body

A co-management body is established to conduct and oversee the planning process. The co-management body provides a discussion forum where different viewpoints are aired, options evaluated, conflicts managed, and plans and agreements negotiated. This may be a formal body or an informally organized or temporary body to facilitate the planning process. The co-management body may eventually become the co-management organization (see Section 10.12). Community representation in the management body is essential.

The co-management body is composed of representatives from the community, community organization(s), local government and the external agent/CO. Leaders of the co-management body are elected from among the representatives. The co-management body has the task of developing a mission statement; preparing the plan, including reviewing issues, problems and opportunities and defining goals, objectives and activities; holding community consultations on the plan; finalization, submission and adoption of the plan; and preparing a co-management agreement (Box 10.5)

The co-management body should hold frequent community consultations and meetings throughout the planning process to obtain input from the community on issues that develop in the process and to keep them informed, interested and active in the process. It is especially important for community members to participate in establishing the mission, goal and objectives for fisheries management. Decisions will need to be made about which meetings will be open to the public during the planning process and which will be closed, not for lack of transparency but to expedite decision-making.

10.4. Agreeing on Rules and Procedures for Negotiation

(The source for this section is: Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000.)

All stakeholders should be sent an invitation and a proposed agenda for a first meeting of the co-management body. The first meeting should address procedural issues (Box 10.6). The first meeting should set a calm and productive atmosphere in order to help the stakeholders find out where they stand, establish working relationships, and start to own the process. Substantive issues should be addressed at subsequent meetings which may only be attended by co-management body members. The CO and other core group members can describe the work so far, including research activities, community organizing and funding support. Each stakeholder representative can introduce themselves and their organization and how they became the representative.

The use of an external facilitator is recommended. The CO or a community member or leader could facilitate the meeting but an external facilitator brings an independent and objective perspective to the process. The facilitator can help:

• Define rules and procedures;

• Arrange logistics for meetings;

• Ensure that the process is transparent and representative;

• Ensure that everyone has a fair chance to participate;

• Ensure open communications;

• Provide information and options;

• By not stating his or her opinion and not deciding anything;

• Let everyone know when an agreement has been reached.

Those present at the meetings are representatives of the stakeholders in the co-management programme. It is the task of all representatives together to identify their role and responsibility in terms of substantive issues and decisions.

10.5. Meetings to Review the Situation and Develop Priority Issues

Several meetings may be needed to agree on the rules and procedures. Subsequent meetings should be aimed at establishing a basis of common interest and concerns among all the representatives. This can be facilitated by reviewing the community profile which provides detailed information on the ecological, economic, social and institutional/legal situation and trends, and problems, needs and opportunities.

The community profile should not define or limit the discussion. The facilitator can use participatory tools such as brainstorming, trend analysis, problem ranking, SWOT analysis, problem trees and webs, and site visits to work with the co-management body to better define the situation (Box 10.7). The facilitator helps the representatives develop a consensus on critical problems, threats, needs and opportunities.

The cumulative result of the analysis and assessment exercises is the identification of priority issues to be addressed in the co-management plan.

10.6. Developing a Mission Statement

(The source for this section is: Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998, Chapter 2.)

Before developing a plan, it is important to have a clear understanding of the body's mission, that is, a vision for the future. A mission statement does not focus on specific details or tactics but rather on the desired outcomes and general strategy for getting there (Box 10.8). A mission statement describes:

• Purpose: What the body is seeking to accomplish.

• Strategies: The general activities or programmes the body chooses to undertake to pursue its purpose.

• Values: The beliefs which the members of the body have in common and try to put into practice while implementing the strategy.

A meeting or series of meetings are facilitated to develop the mission statement. While the co-management body may be the focus of this effort, the community is involved through visioning workshops where they identify desired outcomes or vision for the fisheries (Box 10.9).

First, the representatives need to agree on the purpose – that is, what is hoped to be accomplished and what problems need to be solved to get there. For example, to improve fisheries management and increase people's standard of living. The purpose statement should indicate a change in status (to improve) and a stated problem or condition that needs to be changed (fisheries management, standard of living). The facilitator should work with the co-management body to state and agree on what the purpose should be.

Once a purpose is agreed upon, broad strategies need to be considered that will move the process forward – what will actually be done. For example, marine protected areas could be established at specific sites for marine conservation or there could be lobbying of the national fisheries agency for fisheries policy change. Although generally several strategies can be used to achieve a given purpose, only one or two strategies should be employed at the start. Each strategy should describe a specific set of actions that can be taken to achieve the stated purpose. The co-management body should brainstorm different strategies and rank each alternative based on: (i) what is needed to undertake the strategy; (ii) whether skills and expertise exist to do it; and (iii) whether or not it is enjoyable to do it. Each alternative can be ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 and the strategy(s) with the highest total is selected.

Once a purpose and strategy have been agreed upon, it is time to discuss values – the beliefs that will guide the work. Value statements should outline a belief that the body holds that will influence what it will do or what it will not do to achieve its purpose. Representatives should suggest and discuss values that are important to them. General agreement is reached on those values important to the co-management body. Unlike the purpose and strategy, there may be multiple values.

Once a purpose, strategy and values have been agreed upon, they should be written into a formal mission statement. The draft mission statement can be written by one or two people and circulated for review and comment. An example of a mission statement is:

We, the people of Hung Thang village, wish to promote our health and well-being by finding ways to better manage our fisheries resources upon which our children and their children's livelihoods depend, now and in the future.

Once a mission statement has been agreed upon, it should be posted for the community to see and the representatives should discuss it with their organization's members. There should be broad public consensus and affirmation on the mission statement.

It should be noted that if substantial disagreement exists among the representatives at any point in developing the mission statement, the leaders will need to make a decision about the mission statement or the co-management body will need to be divided to make decisions and reach consensus.

Upon broad community agreement, there should be a ceremony where the co-management body representatives sign a written document that outlines the mission statement including what is to be achieved and how it will be accomplished. This should be done in writing to formally define the partnership and provide clarity. Such a ceremony helps raise the mission statement to a higher symbolic level, making it valid. With this common ground, it can help all stakeholders reconcile controversies and conflicts that may arise (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000).

10.7. Establishing the Management Unit

Fisheries management has traditionally focused on managing individual fish stocks. Recently, however, there is agreement that fisheries management requires the management of a larger coastal and marine area or ecosystem. This management unit needs to be clearly defined to include natural and human components, such as ecosystems, human uses and political boundaries (Berkes et al., 2001). The management unit will be the legal area covered for co-management under the plan and agreement.

In the community entry and integration phase, area boundaries were identified (see Chapter 6, Section 6.2.5). These boundaries were mapped and include political, ecological, geological, fishing tenure, fishing gear area and management. More information was obtained in the research activities from the Resource and Ecological Assessment, Socio-economic Assessment and Legal and Institutional Assessment.

The co-management body will need to identify and select the management unit. A complex web of ecological, geological, social, cultural, economic and political factors influence the process of identifying and selecting the management unit. The management unit must be small enough to be easily managed but large enough to address ecological management issues. The larger the management unit and the more people involved, the more difficult management becomes. Starting small is often advisable.

At the initial establishment of the management unit the right scale of stakeholders and resources may not be identified. The spatial scale of the management unit can always be changed later as the co-management programme matures. The programme can be expanded to address new stakeholder or multi-municipal issues such as bay-wide management or upland or watershed issues.

In most cases, political boundaries will define the management unit. The smallest unit of government, municipality or district, in which the national government has already given some level of management responsibility over coastal waters, becomes the management unit. When possible, biological (fish migration, spawning area, coral reef) and social (use areas, tenure areas) considerations should be included in making a decision about the size of the management unit.

It will be necessary to secure legal protection for the management unit. It may be possible to approve ordinances at the local government level. In other cases, assistance from national government may be required.

10.8. Negotiating Co-management Plans and Agreements

(The source for this section is: Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2000.)

As will be discussed below, the co-management plan is composed of a goal, objectives and activities. Before discussing each of these components, various methods and tools for stakeholders to agree on a course of action are presented.

For each component of the plan, the stakeholders have to identify what needs to be done to progress towards the desired future. The objectives have to be translated into activities and workplans that answer specific questions such as who needs to do what, by when, where, how, and with what financial and human resources. This is the moment when issues become concrete, numerous strategic options and choices are apparent to everyone, different points of view abound and conflicts surface (Box 10.10).

Working groups can be formed for each activity, making sure that those most directly affected are represented in the relevant working group. It is also a good idea for each group to have its own facilitator or moderator, perhaps someone who takes on a neutral role learnt from the professional facilitator.

The groups need to come to terms with the various options open to them to achieve the same objective and select the one best suited to the conditions and needs of the given context. The tools already used to arrive at the mission statement (e.g. brainstorming, problem analysis, SWOT) can help again, but other techniques can also be used, such as:

• Discussing the hypotheses and basic assumptions relating to each option, i.e. why it is thought that a certain action will lead to a certain outcome, such as the probability that fish catches will increase if an area is closed to fishing.

• Comparing the expected impacts of various options, whether environmental, social or economic.

• Comparing the feasibility of various options, including questions of cost and timescales.

• Effective conflict mediation on the basis of an agreement that satisfies every party (a win–win solution) is likely to be more long lasting and more satisfactory than a win–lose situation.

• Facilitating the achievement of satisfactory compromises through the use of flexible instruments, such as spatial zoning and/or detailed conditions for the use of the resources at stake.

• Asking the stakeholders to devise (and estimate the feasibility) of incentives that would encourage them to agree on a given option.

• Calling for expert opinion on controversial issues.

If the small working group cannot arrive at a consensus on any of the options, it can present them all to the whole co-management body and ask for the advice of everyone. The body may compare the different options according to criteria such as cost, equity or ecological benefit, and may pursue the discussion, perhaps proposing additional compensation or incentives as one option. The aim is to achieve a consensus on the most appropriate course of action for each activity.

10.9. Co-management Plan – Goals, Objectives, Activities

(The source for this section is: Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998, Chapter 4.)

The co-management body has reviewed the situation and identified problems, threats, needs and opportunities. The challenge now is to design a management plan that will enable the community to address the situation. The management plan includes goals, objectives and activities (Boxes 10.11 and 10.12). Since there are usually limited funds and resources available to address needs and problems, it is important for the plan to be focused on specific strategies. In addition, goal and objectives need to be clearly stated.

In developing the plan, a number of participatory tools and methods can be used including focus group discussions, problem trees and preference ranking. It is important for the whole community to be clear about the goal and objectives and about what can be achieved in order to focus strategies. The more participatory the process of setting goal and objectives, the greater the community acceptance and legitimacy of the co-management programme. Often the process of arriving at consensus regarding goal and objectives is an effective means of promoting an exchange of information and understanding among stakeholders. If a trained planner is not available, a plan can still be prepared based on the stakeholders' knowledge and participation.

As discussed in Berkes et al. (2001), fisheries management makes use of objectives in situations when a biological assessment, a Stock Assessment Driven management approach, is not feasible or affordable. Through a Management Objective Driven (MOD) approach, the focus of management is how to determine when the desired objective has been achieved; that is, how to measure successful management. This approach requires the knowledge and information to identify variables that relate to the objectives, followed by the setting of target points on those variables. This MOD approach ensures that the management system focuses on the acquisition and analysis of data that relate to the objectives and control system. (For more on fishery management objectives see Berkes et al. (2001, Section 3.6, pp. 58–66).)

A goal is a general statement of the desired state towards which the stakeholders are working. A good goal meets the following criteria:

• Visionary: inspirational in outlining the desired state towards which the stakeholders are working.

• Relatively general: broadly defined to encompass all activities.

• Brief: simple and succinct so that all stakeholders can remember it.

• Measurable: defined so that changes can be accurately assessed.

Although in some instances there may be multiple goals, it is usually easier to have only one goal. An example of a goal is:

To ensure the availability of fish for our grandchildren and our grandchildren's grandchildren

Review the goal with the management body and put it in a place where everyone can see it on a regular basis and gain inspiration from it.

Objectives are specific statements detailing the desired accomplishments or outcomes to be achieved (Box 10.13). Realization of objectives should lead to the fulfilment of the goal. A good objective meets the following criteria:

• Impact oriented: represents desired changes in critical factors that affect the goal.

• Measurable: definable in relation to some standard scale (numbers, percentages, fractions or all/nothing states).

• Time-limited: achievable within a specific period of time.

• Specific: clearly defined so that all people involved have the same understanding of what the terms in the objectives mean.

• Practical: achievable and appropriate with the context of the community.

For priority issues identified earlier, write down one or more draft objectives. Each priority issue can have more than one objective associated with it, depending upon what is to be accomplished. There are trade-offs between having too many objectives and having too few. If objectives are getting too long and complex, divide them. A general rule is to have between one and three objectives for each priority issue. Once an objective has been written, it is useful to write down some notes outlining why and how the objective was developed. Also, write down all the assumptions that describe why the objective was developed.

Activities are specific actions or tasks undertaken to reach the objectives (Boxes 10.14 and 10.15). A good activity meets the following criteria:

• Linked: directly related to achieving a specific objective.

• Focused: outlines specific tasks that need to be carried out.

• Feasible: accomplishable in light of resources and constraints.

• Appropriate: acceptable to and fitting with community cultural, social and biological norms.

For each objective, write down a list of the major activities that will help it to be achieved. Try to arrange the activities in the sequence in which they will need to occur to achieve the task. Improved fisheries may require a long string of activities over an extended period of time before the desired objective is achieved. For each activity include:

• Who will do the activity?

• How will the activity be carried out?

• Who is responsible for the activity?

• When will the activity take place?

• Where will the activity take place?

• Underlying assumptions;

• Prerequisites.

Each activity and its associated task must be assigned to a specific person or persons to be completed by a specific date in a specific location. Each task must also have a budget to pay for it.

Once the goal, objectives and activities are identified, they are combined into a co-management plan. The simultaneous use of multiple types of activities is often required for effective management since no single strategy is likely to completely address a problem. To determine the appropriateness of any one or a combination of activities for any particular management problem requires more detailed analysis of the actions needed to fully implement the activity.

Tasks should be organized in a timeline which shows at what point in time each task should be undertaken and who is responsible for each task. Timelines can be prepared for the programme as a whole or for individual people within the programme.

A budget should also be created. The budget can be organized by objective, with each activity having an associated cost for staff salaries, equipment, supplies, travel and so forth. The subtotal cost for each objective as well as the total programme cost should be calculated. Income and costs should be compared to ensure that there are enough funds to undertake the programme.

In summary, the management plan summarizes all the activities and indicates (DENR et al., 2001b):

• What is the goal and objective to be achieved?

• What is the specific activity for achieving the goal?

• What is the expected output (what will be produced or changed)?

• What is the timeframe (over what period will this strategy be implemented)?

• Who are the participants (whose cooperation is needed to effectively carry out this action)?

• Who is the lead person or organization (who is responsible for implementation)?

• What are the funding needs and sources?

10.10. Evaluation and Monitoring Plan

(The source for this section is: Margoluis and Salafsky, 1998, Chapter 4.)

10.10.1. Evaluation

Managing fisheries resources is a continuous, iterative, adaptive and participatory process comprised of a set of related tasks that must be carried out to achieve a desired set of objectives. Plans must be monitored if they are to be kept on track, and evaluated if there is to be learning from successes and failures. The planning cycle includes the process of assessment, monitoring and evaluation. Effective plan assessment and evaluation involves several steps: (i) preliminary appraisal; (ii) baseline assessment; (iii) monitoring; and (iv) evaluation. Information for each of these steps is essential to maximize chances that the plan will be effective for the adaptive management process and to acquire lessons learned.

Evaluation consists of reviewing results of actions taken and assessing whether these actions have produced the desired outcomes – this helps to adapt and improve by learning. Evaluation is a routine part of the adaptive management process and is something that most fisheries managers already do where the link between actions and outcomes can be simply observed. However, the links between actions and outcomes is often not so obvious. Faced with the daily demands of their jobs, many fisheries managers are not able to monitor systematically and evaluate the results of their efforts. In the absence of such evaluations, resources can be wasted on activities that do not achieve the objectives. Evaluation can be:

• Formative or ongoing evaluation. A continuous, ongoing monitoring and evaluation process during the implementation process where indicators of performance are obtained and systematically compared with objectives. The results are used for taking appropriate actions to make improvements.

• Summative or post-evaluation. Undertaken after the project's implementation where the focus is on deeper analysis of results and outcomes and for determining the level of achievement of objectives and the impact of the project. The results are used for future planning.

Monitoring and evaluation are processes which assist in answering the questions: Are the activities working or not? And what actions are needed to make them work? Monitoring answers the question: How are we doing? Evaluation answers the question: How did we do? If the plan has measurable objectives and indicators to evaluate the plan, ongoing monitoring can provide information required to evaluate effectiveness and performance of the plan. (For more information see Berkes et al. (2001, Chapter 5, pp.101–128).)

There are several approaches that may be used to evaluate co-management plans at the local level:

• Performance evaluations are designed largely to determine the quality of implementation of specific activities and the degree to which the goal and objectives are achieved. There is a focus on accountability, meeting budget commitments, quality control and terms of reference.

• Process evaluation examines the means by which goal and objectives are achieved. The evaluation is used to assess such means as the clarity of goal statements and legislative mandates, measures of rationality of organizational structures and the process of information flow, adequacy of yearly budget allocations, number of permits issued/denied and availability of trained staff.

• Management capacity assessments are designed to evaluate the adequacy of plan implementation, policy framework and supporting institutional structures against a set of structures. The focus is on evaluating governance processes, management structures, policy tools, management options and strategies, regulatory mechanisms and policy enforcement, and human and institutional capacity.

• Outcome evaluations assess the socio-economic and environmental impacts of a co-management plan. The focus is on measured impacts on people and the environment and generally requires rigorous scientific methods to distinguish between outcome of interventions and other variables that may contribute to a measured outcome. Environmental or socio-economic conditions measure such things as the extent of protected habitat or the number of jobs created.

10.10.2. Monitoring plan

Adequate monitoring of co-management plans allows fine-tuning of project strategies and activities to more effectively respond to both environmental and human impacts. The preliminary appraisal and baseline assessment are done early on during the community entry and integration and research activities. Information from these activities serves both the monitoring and evaluation steps. Monitoring makes it possible to learn if fisheries management measures and alternatives are working or not.

The monitoring plan is the outline of the steps to undertake to ensure that the programme is on track. If monitoring is not undertaken, it will not be possible to know whether the goal and objectives are being achieved or what needs to be done to improve the programme (Box 10.16). In a general sense, monitoring provides a way of establishing the success of management measures. There are two primary reasons to monitor a programme. The first is to convince other people that you are doing what you said you would do. This type of monitoring is typically done to satisfy donor requirements or to help conduct a performance evaluation. The second reason is to learn whether the actions taken are working or not working so that corrective action can be taken if needed. With the second reason, monitoring is undertaken to determine whether the programme is being effective and to learn how to improve.

Monitoring can be used to track process (governance aspects of co-management such as how planned activities are proceeding and level of participation) and results (outcome or impacts of the processes on behaviour change and socio-economic and biophysical conditions). Monitoring can show the community that their efforts are having positive effects on the resource they are managing. This will sustain and encourage participation by community members.

Monitoring data can be used for:

• Improving management decisions;

• Measuring project progress;

• Assessing effectiveness or impact of an activity;

• Determining lessons learned that can be used in future activities.

Baseline data, collected from the REA, SEA and LIA (community profile), at the start of implementation provide a basis for comparison. Baseline data are essential to the interpretation of monitoring data because they provide a 'before' situation from which to measure progress. Baseline or control sites are used to eliminate the normal range of variation encountered due to change. The variables to measure and the desired level of information to be collected must be balanced against cost. Sampling procedures will differ between environmental and socio-economic data.

It is important to note that the timescale of many fisheries management projects is very long, that is, changes may not be apparent for many years. Thus, monitoring should have both short-term (1–3 year) and long-term (10–20 year) time frames.

Monitoring should, wherever possible, be done by the community, not by outsiders. This is called Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) (Vernooy, 1999). PM&E should be seen as a learning process to build skills and knowledge. In general, monitoring activities are more effective as a means of feedback and encouragement if they are designed, implemented and interpreted by the community. The community may need assistance to develop a monitoring plan, identify indicators and interpret the results. A participatory monitoring programme may take longer to establish but creates ownership, skills, confidence and credibility in the community.

The first step in developing a monitoring plan is to determine the audience for the information generated by monitoring. The audience can be internal (members of the co-management organization) or external (donors, policymakers). The priority need for information is to monitor the project's progress in achieving the goal and objectives. Additional information needs may include problems or threats that are not being directly addressed by the project but have an impact on meeting the objectives. For example, the international demand and trade for a certain fish species may be driving illegal and over-fishing in the area. While it is beyond the ability of the project to address this threat, information may be monitored to see if it does become necessary at some time in the future to design activities to deal with it.

Once what needs to be known has been determined and the general monitoring strategy has been identified, the next step is to develop specific indicators for each information need that will be followed throughout the life of the project. An indictor is a unit of information measured over time that documents changes in a specific factor (Box 10.17). A given goal or objective can have multiple indicators. The best indicators are those that are linked to the goal and objectives so that assessing them helps to measure reduction in the problem or threat. A good indicator meets the following criteria:

• Measurable: able to be recorded and analysed in quantitative or qualitative terms.

• Precise: defined the same way by all people.

• Consistent: not changing over time so that it always measures the same thing.

• Sensitive: changing proportionately in response to actual changes in the item being measured.

In some cases, the selection of the indicator is directly related to the goal or objective, in other cases it may require a bit more thought to develop the indicator.

Once the indicators have been selected, the next step is to select methods that will be used to collect data to measure the indicator. There is usually a wide range of methods which can be used to assess an indicator. As such, it may be useful to select the specific method based on certain criteria:

• Accuracy and reliability: how much error exists in data collected by using the method? To what degree will results be repeatable?

• Cost-effectiveness: what does the method require in terms of resource investment? Are there cheaper ways to get the same data?

• Feasibility: do people exist in the community who can use the method?

• Appropriateness: does the method make sense in the context of the project? Is it culturally suitable?

For each method, tasks that need to be completed to collect the data need to be identified. These include:

• Indicator: number of reports of violations;

• How: key informants (interviews with police who receive reports of violations);

• When: monthly;

• Who: one co-management organization member;

• Where: co-management organization monthly meeting make a report.

10.11. The Co-management Agreement

(The source for this section is: Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000.)

The co-management plan developed by the co-management body needs to be binding. This is done by means of a formal agreement by the group of involved stakeholders and other external institutions (e.g. national government) as necessary (Box 10.18). The co-management plan should specify a share of functions, roles, benefits and responsibilities and be signed by each stakeholder group/partner involved. The more stakeholder groups and the more finances involved, the more advisable it is for the agreements to have a legal basis (e.g. as contracts). The signatories should be those stakeholders who are directly assigned a role and responsibility in the agreement.

All agreements should specify the activities to be undertaken, by whom and how, as well as the anticipated results and impacts to be monitored. They should also specify when those involved will meet again to assess whether the action has been effective and/or needs to be adjusted (evaluation).

Once the points of agreement are determined, all representatives must go to their constituencies for ratification. Copies of the agreement – written simply and in the local language – should be disseminated to the stakeholders and the public at large. It is important to keep the public informed on everything that happens in the negotiation meetings, and explain why agreements are reached on certain options. The social communication system set up earlier will be useful for this purpose (Box 10.19)

10.12. The Co-management Organization

As co-management is an adaptive process, the negotiation and implementation of the co-management plan and agreement is never finished. A relatively stable organization is needed to be in charge of the overall co-management programme (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000).

A co-management organization is established with the responsibility of managing the fisheries and to sustain the co-management programme, including the plan and agreement through time (Box 10.20). It has a mix of decision-making, advisory, operational and coordinating responsibilities. This is a permanent body. The functions of the co-management organization include (Heinen, 2003):

• Conflict management – to discuss and resolve conflicts among stakeholders;

• Policy-making – to prevent conflicts by translating the plans and agreements made into rules with appropriate penalties;

• Implementation – to ensure that management measures are followed by allocating funds and assigning people to different activities;

• Monitoring – to keep track of the effects and impact of the management measures;

• Revising co-management plan and agreements – to sustain and update plan and agreements;

• Financing and fund raising;

• Information and data collection and analysis;

• Education;

• Research.

The co-management body established earlier to conduct and oversee the planning process may serve as the foundation for the co-management organization or a totally new organization may be established.

The membership may be representatives of all stakeholder groups, representatives of only a few of them, or professionals who do not represent any of the stakeholders. The co-management organization, composed of stakeholder representatives, may serve to make all day-to-day decisions or the stakeholder representatives may only serve to make policy decisions and leave the day-to-day decisions to hired professionals. Composition of the co-management organization is crucial. It is important to know who is being represented and what the balance of power is among the different stakeholders (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2000). The most important requirement is that the stakeholders trust the people composing the co-management organization (Box 10.21).

The size of the co-management organization can vary depending on the stage of maturity of the co-management process. A small-sized co-management organization can manage a well-established system. However, a new co-management process has to involve the participation of as many stakeholders as possible. As a result, a co-management organization in its early stage may initially be composed of 10–20 people/representatives. Once the rules and systems are in operation, the co-management organization can be reduced if efficiency so requires. If appropriate and depending on finances, representatives may be compensated (Heinen, 2003).

In addition to the size of the co-management organization, decisions will need to be made concerning whether or not it will be legally recognized or informal. In addition, internal rules such as election of officers, length of membership, chairmanship, meeting schedule, training of members, decision-making by consensus, recourse of mediation or arbitration, reporting rules and other management issues will need to be decided upon. In situations where the stakeholders share the same norms and values, consensus building may be an appropriate management style. In situations where there is a lack of these shared values and behaviour, stronger leadership and power may be a more appropriate management style.

As already mentioned, it is essential that the co-management organization earns and maintains the trust of the stakeholders. To be effective, there must be open communication, transparency and accountability in all the decisions taken by the co-management organization.

Questions of finances are always crucial. How will the co-management organization sustain itself in the future? Does it have its own assets or are there income-generating activities? While the co-management process and organization may be financed initially from outside donor funding, this probably should not be considered as a secure long-term source of financing. Some type of self-financing mechanism will need to be established. This may include user fees, membership fees, trust fund, government line-item budget or other source.

10.13. Revenue Generation and Financing

Co-management requires substantial financial resources to support the programme. Funds need to be available to support various operations and facilities related to planning, implementation, coordination, monitoring and enforcement, among others. Funding, especially sufficient, timely and sustained funding is critical to the sustainability of the co-management programme. In the early stages of implementation funding may have been obtained from a donor organization or a large development project. This source of funding may or may not continue in the long run. Programmes often fail when this outside funding stops. Funds also need to be made available on a timely basis to maintain cash flow for such things as staff salary and activities. The co-management programme must be supported and accepted by the community so that stakeholders will be confident enough to invest their own time and funds.

The co-management programme must be designed from the start with thoughts and plans for financing. Too much dependency on external sources will impact upon sustainability. As such, the co-management organization will need to consider how to generate revenue to finance the activities. Several sources of financing may be required. Financing mechanisms should be evaluated as part of a business plan that includes a sustainable financing strategy. The business plan should be based on an evaluation of the costs of operations for activities in the management plan. A range of potential alternatives can then be identified as potential financing sources for co-management. The choice of which financing mechanism(s) to utilize in a particular case should be based on analysing several feasibility factors (Spergel and Moye, 2004):

• Financial (funding needed, revenue generation, revenue flow, year-to-year needs);

• Legal (legal support for financing mechanism, new legislation needed);

• Administrative (level of difficulty to collect and enforce, complication and cost; potential for corruption, staff requirements);

• Social (who will pay, willingness to pay, equity, impacts);

• Political (government support, monitored by external sources);

• Environmental (impact).

Depending upon the situation, and the relationship with local government, several sources may be available (Spergel and Moye, 2004):

• Government revenue allocations;

• Direct allocations from government budget;

• Government bonds and taxes earmarked for conservation;

• Lottery revenues;

• Wildlife stamps;

• Debt relief.

• Grant and donations

• Bilateral and multilateral donors;

• Foundations;

• Non-government organizations;

• Private sector;

• Trust funds.

• Tourism revenues

• Fees (entry, diving, yachting, fishing);

• Tourism-related operations of management authorities;

• Hotel taxes;

• Visitor fees and taxes;

• Voluntary contributions by tourists and tourism operators;

• Cost recovery mechanisms.

• Real estate and development rights

• Purchases or donations of land and/or underwater property;

• Conservation easements;

• Real estate tax surcharges for conservation;

• Tradable development rights and wetland banking;

• Conservation concessions.

• Fishing industry revenues

• Fish catch and services levies/cost recovery mechanisms;

• Eco-labelling and product certification;

• Fishing access payments;

• Recreational fishing licence fees and excise taxes;

• Aquaculture licence fees and taxes;

• Fines for illegal fishing.

• Energy and mining revenues

• Oil spill fines and funds;

• Royalties and fees for offshore mining and oil and gas;

• Right-of-way fees for oil and gas pipelines and telecommunications infrastructure;

• Hydroelectric power revenues;

• Voluntary contributions by energy companies.

• For-profit investments linked to marine conservation

• Private sector investments promoting conservation;

• Biodiversity prospecting.

• Other sources

• Loans;

• Income derived from local enterprises such as handicrafts, aquatic products, visitor gifts (t-shirts).

10.14. Legal and Policy Support

The success of the plan and agreements depends not only on the research, organizing and planning activities, but also on the legislation which provides the legal basis for the plan and agreements. There is a need to review and confirm the legal basis for all plans, agreements and proposed activities at local, national and international levels. Without such a legislative framework, there is no basis within which policies can be formulated and actions taken. For the fisheries to be managed with some semblance of order, its basic principles should be expressed in the form of law and policy. Key national laws and policies, which should have been identified in the Legal and Institutional Assessment, are again analysed to determine support for the activity. Where devolution to local governments has occurred, the mandates and authorities of the local government are also analysed.

In some cases, there is an absence of a legal and institutional framework for co-management and certain activities. There may be a need for new national legislation and/or for ordinances to be adopted at the local government level to support an activity. These should be prepared and reviewed with officials and legal council. In addition, the legal framework for such issues as customary/traditional management arrangements, resource access/tenure rights and indigenous people's rights need to be reviewed and clarified. It is important to determine the constitutional and legal aspects of, for example, devolving rights to organize and manage resources to community organizations.

An ordinance to support a specific activity, such as a marine protected area, may start as a resolution in a committee of the co-management organization (Casia, 2000). The resolution is a recommendation or an expression of intent. It is not recognized as law until it is approved, in the form of an ordinance, at the local government level. The resolution receives a public hearing so that community members can provide inputs on the issues to be addressed by the proposed law. Most ordinances will include the following basic elements (Casia, 2000):

• Declaration of policy;

• Definition of terms;

• Prohibitions;

• Penalties;

• Exemptions.

10.15. Publicizing

The end of the negotiation process is usually a meeting in which the results are made known to the community. In addition, authorities from outside the community may be in attendance. At the meeting, the agreements are presented for all to see. This is an opportunity to celebrate the work that has been accomplished. All those involved are acknowledged. During this celebration, the organizations established and the plans and agreements made are reconfirmed by all the stakeholders.