ReviewEvolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning
Introduction
Many resources are too complex to be governed effectively by a single agency. Governance of many kinds of fisheries, forests, grazing lands, watersheds, wildlife, protected areas and other resources, requires the joint action of multiple parties. The concept of governance suggests that we look beyond government, toward public–private–civil society partnerships, as a way of dealing with the shortcomings of single agency, top-down management (Pierre and Peters, 2000, Kooiman, 2003). Co-management, or the sharing of power and responsibility between the government and local resource users, is an arrangement whereby such partnerships can come about. Increasingly, co-management is being combined with learning-based approaches. Adaptive management, or learning-by-doing, was originally formulated as a way to deal with uncertainty and complexity, in place of set management prescriptions (Holling, 1978). It has become collaborative in practice, and time-tested co-management increasingly relies on learning-by-doing. Thus, co-management and adaptive management have been evolving toward a common ground: adaptive co-management. Knowledge generation and learning have become central issues in such adaptive co-management (Olsson et al., 2004a, Olsson et al., 2004b, Armitage et al., 2007).
Kooiman (2003) recognizes three models of governance: hierarchical governance characterized by state intervention, self-governance, and co-governance consisting of collaboration and interplay among different actors. The market/private sector dimension can be added to co-governance, as there is a growing emphasis on incentives and entrepreneurship to achieve conservation objectives. Co-governance is particularly appropriate when user involvement leads to more legitimate management measures and to increasing compliance (Kooiman, 2003). In addition to legitimacy and compliance, justice, equity, and empowerment are also relevant because the basic idea behind co-management is that people whose livelihoods are affected by management decisions should have a say in how those decisions are made. Hence, co-management is not merely about resources; it is about managing relationships (Natcher et al., 2005).
Many researchers have warned against seeing co-management as a panacea for legitimacy (Jentoft, 2000, Mikalsen et al., 2007). As well, Béné and Neiland (2004) argue that the track record of co-management is weak in poverty reduction and empowerment of the marginalized. Co-management, and decentralization in general, often lead to reinforcement of local elite power or to strengthening of state control. Regarding the former, the exclusion of marginal stakeholders who are poor and politically weak may have negative impacts on equity and community welfare, as seen in fishery cases in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Philippines (Wilson et al., 2006) and in India's Joint Forest Management (Agarwal, 2001, Nayak and Berkes, 2008). Regarding the latter, co-management can lead to regulatory capture, as seen in a range of cases (Castro and Nielsen, 2001, Nadasdy, 2003). It can be used as a pretext to co-opt community-based management and extend the power of the state (Lele, 2000, Gelcich et al., 2006, Nayak and Berkes, 2008).
There is no single universally accepted definition of co-management but many (Armitage et al., 2007). The term refers to a range of arrangements, with different degrees of power sharing, for joint decision-making by the state and communities (or user groups) about a set of resources or an area. Co-management shares many features with other kinds of partnerships and co-operative environmental governance arrangements involving multiple actors (Berkes, 2002, Plummer and FitzGibbon, 2004).
A close relative, multi-stakeholder arrangements, are characterized by strong horizontal linkages among user groups at the same level of organization, as well as vertical linkages across levels of organization, between stakeholders and government. Many multi-stakeholder bodies are advisory and show a low degree of power sharing. There are other forms of arrangements with horizontal and vertical linkages: policy networks, polycentric governance systems and epistemic communities (Berkes, 2002). These tend to consist of policy makers and technical experts, and may not formally include community representation. By contrast, the hallmark of co-management is to have at least one strong vertical linkage involving the government and a user group, and some formalized arrangement for sharing power and responsibility (Pinkerton, 1989, Berkes, 2002, Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004). Most authors do not regard mere consultation or ad hoc public participation as co-management. Most definitions of co-management require some institutionalized arrangement for intensive user participation in decision-making.
The term co-management is relatively recent. Pinkerton (2003) traces the earliest use of the term to the late 1970s, in the management of salmon under the Boldt Decision by the US Treaty Tribes in Washington State. However, the practice of formalized power sharing in resource management goes back to earlier times. In the area of fisheries, the earliest documented legal arrangement seems to be the Lofoten Islands cod fishery in Norway in the 1890s (Jentoft and McCay, 1995), and Japanese inshore fisheries under Japan's 1901 Fisheries Act and its subsequent revisions (Lim et al., 1995). In the area of forest management, government–community partnerships existed in the community forests of the Kumaon Himalayas, India, from the 1920s and the 1930s (Agrawal, 2005), and in the council forests of Kirinyaga, Kenya, from the 1930s and the 1940s (Castro and Nielsen, 2001). India's Joint Forest Management started in 1972 in West Bengal State as a revenue sharing arrangement to replant degraded forest areas (Agarwal, 2001). The earliest wildlife co-management started in the 1980s in northern Canada and Alaska (Kendrick, 2003) and in Africa for revenue sharing from safari hunting (Getz et al., 1999, Frost and Bond, 2008). Watershed co-management is probably most advanced in the United States (Brunner et al., 2005) and river basin co-management in Europe (Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004, Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). There are early examples of co-management of protected areas, such as the Kakadu National Park in Australia, but protected area co-management did not become widespread until the 1990s (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2004).
The early literature depicted co-management as a class of relatively simple partnership arrangements, for example, in the implementation of indigenous land and resource claims (e.g. Berkes et al., 1991). However, the wide range of international experience accumulating since the 1980s indicates that co-management has become more complex and dynamic than might be concluded from this earlier literature and evolved in diverse directions (Plummer and Armitage, 2007a, Plummer and Armitage, 2007b). This paper provides a critical review of some of the ways in which the theory and practice of co-management have evolved, and different aspects have come to the forefront. In particular, the paper analyzes the role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations, social learning and adaptation, and the emergence of adaptive co-management.
Section snippets
Many faces of co-management
Different aspects (or “faces”) of co-management have emerged in the literature with the unpacking of the concept over the last two decades. The earlier interest in the legal aspects of collaborative arrangements has been replaced by a greater emphasis on process and learning (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005), and on a number of areas that characterize complex adaptive systems: issues of scale, multiple perspectives and epistemologies, path dependence, and uncertainty (Berkes, 2007a). The different
Expanding the range of knowledge for co-management
Managing ecosystem services and human well-being is an information intensive endeavor (MA, 2005). It requires knowledge of social–ecological systems in their full complexity in order to monitor resource availability, make decisions about allocation, and respond to feedback from the ecosystem at multiple scales (Berkes et al., 2003). Because of this complexity, it is difficult for any one group or agency to possess the full range of knowledge needed to manage resources. Rather, knowledge for
Bridging organizations and leadership
Bringing together science and local knowledge can be facilitated by bridging organizations that provide an arena for knowledge co-production, trust building, sense making, learning, vertical and horizontal collaboration, and conflict resolution. Bridging organizations can respond to opportunities, serve as catalysts and facilitators between different levels of governance, and across resource and knowledge systems (Folke et al., 2005). They are similar to boundary organizations, as originally
Social learning and adaptation
Social learning is of interest to a number of disciplines, including education and business management. In environmental management, learning-based approaches, in place of set prescriptions, were originally proposed as a way to deal with environmental uncertainty. With its focus on learning-by-doing through iterative practice, evaluation and action modification, social learning came to be considered a defining feature of adaptive management (Holling, 1978, Lee, 1993). But how does learning
Adaptive co-management
Social learning is at the heart of iterated rounds of problem solving, along the lines of Fig. 3, which characterizes many long-standing co-management cases. The unfolding of co-management experience since the 1980s suggests the evolution of co-management into what might be called adaptive co-management. As noted by an anonymous referee, “Quite a few scholars and practitioners of adaptive management now practice what is called here adaptive co-management without calling it that.” Adaptive
Conclusions
In most kinds of co-management, there are multiple government agencies and multiple local interests at play, rather than a unitary state and a homogeneous “community”. Instead of focusing on the formal structure of co-management and its power sharing arrangements, one can regard power sharing as the result, rather than the starting point of co-management (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). To do so, co-management can be examined as a problem solving process (rather than a static arrangement) involving
Acknowledgements
Many of the ideas in this paper were developed jointly with Lars Carlsson, Per Olsson, Carl Folke, Derek Armitage, and Nancy Doubleday. For helpful comments and suggestions on the paper, I thank Ryan Plummer, Derek Armitage, Carol Colfer and two anonymous referees. I thank Christian Orozco Quintero for drawing the figures. My work has been supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Canada Research Chairs program (http://www.chairs.gc.ca).
References (97)
Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework
World Development
(2001)- et al.
Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning
Global Environmental Change
(2008) Co-management from the top? The roles of policy entrepreneurs and distributive conflict in developing co-management arrangements
Marine Policy
(2007)- et al.
Co-management: concepts and methodological implications
Journal of Environmental Management
(2005) - et al.
Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes
Global Environmental Change
(2000) - et al.
Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management
Environmental Science and Policy
(2001) - et al.
Step zero for fisheries co-management: what precedes implementation
Marine Policy
(2007) - et al.
The CAMPFIRE program in Zimbabwe: payments for wildlife services
Ecological Economics
(2008) Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management – prospects of user participation
Marine Policy
(2000)Limits to governability: institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance
Marine Policy
(2007)
User participation in fisheries management. Lessons drawn from international experiences
Marine Policy
Conservation and development interventions as networks: the case of the India ecodevelopment project
World Development
Leaning on user-groups: the role of civil society in fisheries governance
Marine Policy
A resilience based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world
Ecological Economics
Exploring co-management theory: prospects for socio-biology and reciprocal altruism
Journal of Environmental Management
Some observations on the terminology in co-operative environmental management
Journal of Environmental Management
Social capital and the environment
World Development
Public involvement in EA in Canada: a transformative learning perspective
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Cross-scale linkages and adaptive management: fisheries co-management in Asia
Marine Policy
Capturing the Commons. Devising Institutions to Manage the Maine Lobster Industry
Environmentality. Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects
Building social capital through participatory research: an analysis of collaboration on Tohono O'odham tribal rangelands in Arizona
Society and Natural Resources
Adaptive fisheries co-management in the western Canadian Arctic
Empowerment reform, yes… but empowerment of whom? Fisheries decentralization reforms in developing countries: a critical assessment with specific reference to poverty reduction
Aquatic Resources, Culture and Development
From Participation to Governance
Integrating epistemologies through scenarios
Co-management
Alternatives
Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up
Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the many faces of co-management
Community-based conservation in a globalized world
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Sacred Ecology
Synthesis: adapting, innovating, evolving
Cross-scale institutions and building resilience in the Canadian North
Communicating traditional environmental knowledge: addressing the diversity of knowledge, audiences and media types
Polar Record
Adaptive Governance: Integrating Science, Policy and Decision Making
Adaptive Collaborative Management Can Help us Cope with Climate Change
Social learning
The Complex Forest: Communities, Uncertainty, and Adaptive Collaborative Management
Researchers, indigenous peoples and place-based learning communities
Society and Natural Resources
Incorporating participatory approaches and social learning
Keep it simple and be relevant: the first ten years of the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op
Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive co-managers: a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management
Ecology and Society
Cited by (1643)
Building trust in environmental co-management: Social embeddedness in a contested German biodiversity conservation governance process
2024, Environmental Science and PolicyNetworking in action: Taking collaborative capacity development seriously for disaster risk management
2024, Progress in Disaster ScienceMore is better? Stakeholder participation in regulatory rule-setting towards green transition
2024, Journal of Environmental Management