COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT OF PROTECTED AREAS: TAILORING THE APPROACH TO THE CONTEXT

Issues in Social Policy
By Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, IUCN

Return to the IUCN Social Policy homepage
 Visit the Theme on Indigenous & Local Communities, Equity & Protected Areas
Visit the Working Group on Collaborative Management of Natural Resources

Contents

Acknowledgements
Cover story
Abstract
1. Background
2. Stakeholders
3. Collaborative management (CM)
4. Tailoring collaborative management
5. Main assumptions and consequences
6. Potential benefits, costs and obstacles
7. Process
7.1 Preparing for a partnership
7.2 Developing the agreement
7.3 Implementing and reviewing the agreement (learning by doing)
8. Conclusions
Notes
References


Click on the arrows below to return to the contents.

Acknowledgements

A first draft of this document was prepared for the workshop "Collaborative management of protected areas: exploring the opportunities in Uganda" held in Mbale (Uganda) in October 1995. The workshop was organized by Uganda National Parks with the technical assistance of IUCN and the Makerere University Institute for Environment and Natural Resources. Financial assistance for non-local costs was provided by WWF International, which is here gratefully acknowledged.

A financial contribution to publish this document is being kindly provided by GTZ, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit. DANIDA, the Danish International Development Agency, is the main financial supporter of the IUCN Social Policy Group. I am very pleased to acknowledge here their generous, crucial contribution to this as well as to all other initiatives of our group.

I am extremely thankful to Fikret Berkes, Jill Blockhus, Barry Dalal-Clayton, Bob Fisher, Mark Freudenberger, Stephan Fuller, Don Gilmour, Pascal Girot, John Griffin, Paul Holthus, Graeme Kelleher, Ashish Kothari, Jeff McNeely, Marshall Murphree, Magnus Ngoile, Michel Pimbert, Adrian Phillips, Mark Poffenberger, Mohammed Rafiq, Yves Renard, Pedro Rosabal, Andrea Simoncini, John Temm, Nicolas Winer, and Marjia Zupancic-Vicar for the information they provided me and for the generous and insightful comments they offered to previous drafts of this document. Many thanks also to Susan Broomfield who expertly - and with great sense of humour - took care of the lay-out and publication matters.

This work is dedicated to Valeria and Gino.


Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend
Head, IUCN Social Policy Group


A note on editing

For lighter reading, all the relevant literature is referred to in the notes rather than within the text. In turn, the notes guide towards the appropriate references.


Cover Story

For the first time in about three years Caleb was entering the forest without feeling 'illegal'. No forest ranger could stop him, ask questions he could not answer and take away the small bundle of vines he had managed to collect. Moving fast, the naked feet fitting swiftly into the undergrowth, he reached an area where he knew he could find some more vines. He recognized one by its thorns and started pulling it out from the mass of leaves, grass and mushy moss around the foot of the tree.

The stem was solid and woody and the thorns abundant throughout, but his hands seemed not even to notice. He pulled the vine with sudden draws, bending it as it came, twisting it around, as if shaping an eight. It might have been about five meters long. A small one. Still, a good one for the basket he had promised to make for his friend, perhaps even for the new engozi the families were planning to complete in the next few months.

After the forest had become a national park, Caleb had been afraid he would not even be allowed to make a new engozi. All the time he had spent learning the skills, getting his hands harder than the vines- would all that have been wasted? And how could the people do without the engozi? How could they transport the sick to the health center, seven hours on difficult terrain?
The engozi was the only way, and there was not a single family which, at one time or another, had not asked for it.

The vine was now bundled, and he took off again. In the left pocket of his shirt he could feel the 'identity card' they had given to him that morning. There was a picture on it, it had come out dark and he looked rather sluggish. But he was now a 'legal' vine collector. He had been recognized for his capacity to make useful objects; the whole village had chosen him.
Him and a few others only.

The new park ranger had smiled when handing over the card. The man could not be trusted yet, but as far as rangers went, that one was not among the worst. Perhaps there was something fishy about the deal, but the card was fine. He could even consider helping, as the village elders had requested from him, to keep an eye open for fires, and for people who might come from the villages in the valley for wild meat. How did they call it?
Collaborative management?

Who knew what that really meant...


Abstract

The term 'collaborative management' of protected areas refers to a partnership by which various stakeholders agree on sharing among themselves the management functions, rights and responsibilities for a territory or set of resources under protected status. The stakeholders primarily include the agency in charge and various associations of local residents and resource users, but can also involve non-governmental organizations, local administrations, traditional authorities, research institutions, businesses, and others.

This document addresses conservation professionals - in particular governmental agency staff - interested in pursuing the collaborative management option. It offers a broad definition of the approach and provides a number of examples of how it has been specifically tailored to different contexts. General assumptions, consequences, benefits, costs and potential draw-backs of collaborative management are reviewed. A process by which an agency in charge of a protected area can pursue the approach is illustrated. The paper ends by posing a number of questions on the future of collaborative management as a viable and effective option in protected areas.


1. Background

Protected areas(1) (PAs) cover approximately seven percent of the terrestrial surface(2) and one percent of the world's shelf and maritime environments along coastal areas(3) (not considering Antarctica). They span an immense variety of ecological habitats and social contexts, from some of the least explored areas in the world to densely populated territories, highly affected by human presence. It is estimated that about half of existing PAs, and possibly eighty percent of the ones in Latin America, have people living in them(4). Throughout Europe, PAs are commonly inhabited by legal residents. In India alone, the number of people living inside PAs - often right in their 'core' - is estimated at between 3.5 and 4 million(5).

Most protected territories are under common property regimes, i.e., they are state-property or communal property, the latter being an effective control exercised by the members of a specific community(6). In some cases there exist disputes between the state and local communities (often indigenous) for the control of the protected territory(7). In particular, this is true for territories officially owned by the state but de facto controlled by local residents, who exploit their natural resources in a more or less organized way. When the state or community control is ineffective or breaks down, the territory becomes open access - the condition that inspired the coining of the expression "tragedy of the commons"(8). Besides common property, protected territories can also be found under private ownership or mixed ownership status. In fact, the concept of protected area blurs into the concept of productive reserve for privately-owned territories where biodiversity is economically exploited (e.g., for wildlife ranching or tourism).

Responding to varied ecological and social circumstances and ownership regimes, the IUCN has developed a classification of protected areas that comprises six categories - from strict wilderness reserve to managed resource protected area(9). In addition to those, the UNESCO has developed the concept of Biosphere Reserve - a protected area including a 'core' dedicated to conservation, a 'buffer zone' suited for research, recreation and tourism, and a 'transition zone', which comprises agriculture, settlements and other human uses of natural resources(10). A large number of Biosphere Reserves simultaneously belong to other national systems of protected areas (e.g., where the 'core' is a national park).

Apart from PA category, the management status of a protected area varies according to the political and socio-economic conditions of the host country. In some cases a PA possesses its own Management Authority, with full autonomy, a large work-force and extensive budget. In others, a PA is protected only on paper - there is no demarcation, rule, or management practice to reflect a special status on the ground. What many PAs have in common, however, is that the responsibility for their management is fully assigned to a specific agency, which is often a public body, such as a state National Park agency, a Ministerial Department, an ad- hoc Authority or a para-statal institution(11). At times the agency put in charge by the government is a non- governmental organization (NGO)(12). In general, the agency has the mandate of conserving the area for its own intrinsic value (habitat, species and genetic diversity). Increasingly, the mandate also includes benefiting present and future human generations, especially the ones living within or close to the PA.

This is not the place to discuss in detail the historical development of protected areas - in practical and conceptual terms - in different countries. Two main strategic models, however, emerged in the 1960s and 70s: 'exclusive' management and 'inclusive' management(13). In the first - largely adopted in the US - management plans were developed with the intention of de-coupling the interests of local people from protected areas, with options ranging from an open anti-participatory attitude to the outright resettlement of the resident communities. This stance was common to both state-owned and privately-owned reserves, such as territories bought by conservation NGOs to prevent their exploitation by private developers. In the second model - more frequently adopted in Western Europe - the interests of local societies were central to the PA ("the well-being of those who live and work in the National Parks must always be a first consideration..."(14), private ownership of land within protected areas was common and local administrators were largely involved in management planning.

While an 'exclusive' management approach is generally successful in preserving areas of wilderness and scenic beauty, the 'inclusive' approach is obviously the model of choice for PAs that include human residents and affect local livelihood in important ways. With or without the explicit intention of following the US experience, it is the former model that spread most extensively in the countries of the South(15), regardless of the social context in which the protected areas were being developed.


2. Stakeholders

Regardless of whether the responsibility of managing a protected area is fully assigned to a specific agency, it is a fact that such management - or mismanagement - affects various groups in society. First among all, these groups include the communities who live within or close to PAs and, in particular, the people who use or derive an income from their natural resources, the people who possess knowledge, capacities and aspirations that are relevant for their management, and the people who recognize in the PA a unique cultural, religious or recreational value. Many such communities possess customary rights over the protected territories and resources, although official recognition of those rights may be uncertain or nil.

In addition to local residents and resource users, other social actors may have an interest in protected area management (see box 1). In particular, these actors include the governmental agencies dealing with various resource sectors (e.g., forests, freshwater, fisheries, hunting, tourism, agriculture) and the administrative authorities (e.g., district or municipal councils) dealing with natural resources as part of their broader mandate. They include the local businesses and industries (e.g., tourist operators, water users) who can be significantly affected by the status of natural resources in the PAs. They include those research institutions and non-governmental organizations (e.g., local, national or international groups devoted to environment and/or development objectives) which find the relevant territories and resources at the heart of their professional concerns. Last but not least, they include - as individuals - the local staff of the public agency in charge of management and the staff of environment and development projects possibly established to support the PA.


Box 1

Social actors potentially stakeholders
in PA management


In this document, the various institutions, social groups and individuals who possess a direct, significant and specific stake in the protected area will be referred to as its 'stakeholders'. As mentioned, the stake may originate from institutional mandate, geographic proximity, historical association, dependence for livelihood, economic interest and a variety of other capacities and concerns. In general:

Not all stakeholders are equally interested in conserving a resource nor are they equally entitled to have a role in resource management. For the sake of effectiveness and equity, it is necessary to distinguish among them on the basis of some agreed criteria (see box 2 ).

Social actors who score high on several accounts may be considered 'primary' stakeholders. 'Secondary' stakeholders may score high only on one or two. In collaborative management processes, primary stakeholders would assume an active role, possibly involving decision-making (e.g., they could hold a seat on a management board). Secondary stakeholders would be involved in a less important way (e.g., they could hold a seat in a consultative body).

Stakeholders organized in groups and associations (e.g., a village council, a fishermen's society, a local chapter of a union of Indigenous Peoples) generally possess an effective representation system. In other cases, the stakeholders cannot count on an institutional structure capable of conveying their interests and capacities in an effective manner. In fact, it is an unfortunate development of recent history that many communities who did possess traditional institutions for resource management have seen them devalued and weakened by modern state policies(16) that do not recognize them nor assign to them any meaningful role(17). In some cases, effective traditional systems of resource management still exist, but their communication with outsiders (and thus their recognition) is quite problematic(18).


Box 2

Possible criteria to distinguish among stakeholders


Some may argue that elected administrators at various levels are the ones to represent local interests and concerns, including concerns regarding PA management. There is some truth in this, insofar as the formal procedures of democracy (e.g., periodic elections) are respected - but there are also obvious limitations. For instance, indirect representation systems are rarely appropriate to convey the specific, detailed concerns of small groups of stakeholders, and surely cannot deliver the full range of knowledge and skills of local resource users (see box 3). In general, an appropriate representation is crucial to assure the participation of stakeholders who do not enjoy a high social status (19).

The relationship between the agency in charge of the PA and its other stakeholders is often not as good as would be desirable. It is not uncommon, for instance, that the agency in charge sees the local community primarily as a potential threat to the protected area(20), that the indigenous inhabitants of the area are not recognized in their role in maintaining biodiversity (21), or that local residents see the creation of a protected area as an oppressive development, bringing in foreign values and depriving them of wealth and culture(22). Not surprisingly, conflicts and misunderstandings between agencies and local residents are the cause of some of the most serious failures in the management of protected areas (23). In addition, if the agency has full jurisdiction within the PA and no say in what happens in its surroundings, while other stakeholders have no say within the PA but control whatever happens around it, various types of problems 'at the boundary' become likely. For instance, conflicts may arise between the agency in charge of the PA and various public authorities (e.g., national, district or municipal governments).


Box 3

Forms of representation


At times, the conflicts are 'resolved' with violent means: the residents are forced to resettle out of a territory or kept out of it by armed guards. At times a war of attrition goes on for years - the agency in charge ends up spending considerable resources to survey the PA and enforce its rules against a tide of 'encroachers' and 'poachers'. Sometimes a relationship between the agency and other stakeholders does not even exist: useful knowledge and skills are wasted and problems go unrecognized until it is too late to prevent serious damage(24). Most unfortunately, the great potential for cooperation between agencies and other stakeholders to fend off external threats to natural resources (e.g., urban expansion, industrial and commercial enterprises, major infrastructures, large-scale timber extraction - often the main enemies of conservation) may never be realized.


3. Collaborative management (CM)

The term 'collaborative management' (also referred to as co-management, participatory management, joint management, shared-management, multi-stakeholder management or round-table agreement) is used to describe a situation in which some or all of the relevant stakeholders in a protected area are involved in a substantial way in management activities(25). Specifically, in a collaborative management process, the agency with jurisdiction over the PA (usually a state agency) develops a partnership with other relevant stakeholders (primarily including local residents and resource users) which specifies and guarantees their respective functions, rights and responsibilities with regard to the PA.

In general, the partnership identifies:

Collaborative management regimes and other similar arrangements can and do operate also in territories that do not have a protected area status, and can apply to virtually all types of natural resources. Forests, fisheries and coastal resources, grazing lands, wildlife and even non-renewable resources (e.g., oil and mineral deposits) are included in existing management agreements among various parties(26).

The focus of this document on the management of PAs should not in any way obscure the fact that collaborative management produces equally effective results in non-protected territories - such as communal lands(27) or private land-ownings that depend on a shared resource(28).

Collaborative management is not a new approach. Partnerships for resource management exist in various forms in many countries(29) and many professionals involved in protected area management are aware of their potential and limitations. For instance, at the 1992 World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas, in Caracas, it was fully recognized that modern management demands the involvement of local residents, NGOs, and regional and local governments; that it needs to consider a diversity of institutional arrangements; and that it greatly benefits from more administrative and financial autonomy for individual PAs(30). Biosphere Reserves, in particular, have been designed to be "demonstration sites of harmonious relationships between man and the natural environment"(31). They should be managed with the active involvement of local authorities, NGOs and economic operators, in addition to that of local communities, scientists and conservation professionals(32).

Collaborative management is not an approach applicable and effective in all cases. For instance, in situations that require rapid decisions and actions, e.g., to block the fast ecological deterioration of an area, it is better to act than to wait for a general consensus on what to do... about a devastated territory. On the other hand, practical experience has shown that it is advisable to pursue a management partnership:

In addition, it is particularly appropriate to pursue partnership agreements when one or more of the following conditions apply:

For Renard(33), at least a 'mild' version of collaborative management - i.e., the consultation and the seeking of consensus of stakeholders in PA management - is essential in all cases. The 'strong' version of CM - i.e., the inclusion of stakeholders in a management board or outright devolution of specific authority and responsibility - may or may not be appropriate according to the specific conditions at stake (see Figure 1).

In the specific case of wildlife of national interest, Murphree (1996) reviews a large body of experience and concludes that: "...policy and programmes that have a development focus and confer strong authority and responsibility status on legally-sanctioned communal natural resource regimes are most likely to produce robust, cost-effective and efficient, non-subsidized systems and institutions for the use of wildlife in sustainable development."


4. Tailoring collaborative management

How could a collaborative management partnership develop? In the ideal case all the major stakeholders - including the agency in charge of PAs in the country - would together review relevant background data and issues, consult with various institutions and individuals, agree on declaring a specific territory under protected status and negotiate a share of management rights and responsibilities that reconcile the interests and capacities of all parties. The parties would then develop a permanent or semi-permanent body - in which each of them would be fairly and equitably represented - to remain in charge of implementing, monitoring and reviewing the agreement. In such an ideal case, all the stakeholders would take the initiative to declare the protected status and develop the partnership, and would possess the will, political standing, organizational capability and resources (e.g., time, knowledge, skills, information, means of traveling to and attending meetings) to contribute to decision-making and implementing activities. Unfortunately, even in relatively favorable circumstances, this is rarely the case(34).

For most protected areas, 'site identification' is done by national decree and one agency (usually a state agency) is officially in charge and has full discretion to decide if and how to involve other stakeholders in management. According to its perceptions of what is possible and desirable in legal, political, financial and social terms, the agency may:

If we choose to interpret the term 'partnership' in a broad and encompassing sense, we could picture the area of collaborative management as 'in between' the extremes of full control by the agency in charge (whether or not enacted in a benevolent way) and full control by other stakeholders (e.g., by local residents over private or communal property). In Figure 1, a portion of the continuum between 'actively consulting' and 'transferring authority and responsibility' is identified as such. Notice that Figure 1 refers to possible de facto situations seen from the perspective of the agency in charge. The perspectives of other stakeholders, including local communities, could also be illustrated and given historical examples, such as the state takeover of innumerable communal forests or the selling of land by communities who, for many reasons, are unable and/or unwilling to manage them(35).

Some maintain that it is not appropriate to use the term 'collaborative management' for a situation in which stakeholders are merely consulted and not given a share of authority in management, and have proposed different terms for different levels of involvement(36). It is difficult, however, to identify a sharp demarcation between various levels of participation in management activities. For instance, a process of active consultation with local stakeholders may result in the full incorporation of their concerns into a PA's management plan. Conversely, a lengthy negotiation in which various stakeholders hold seats in a decision-making body may leave many local demands unmet(37). Is the second necessarily more 'collaborative' management than the first?

We propose here to use collaborative management as a broad concept spanning a variety of ways by which the agency in charge and other stakeholders develop and implement a management partnership. We will also speak about it in a pragmatic, de facto sense, regardless of the de jure condition it corresponds to, it ignores or it contradicts(38). It does not need to be stressed that collaborative processes and partnerships are strengthened by supportive tenurial rights, policies and legislation. Yet, more often than one may think, there is a schism between policy and practice.

Let us consider the participation continuum shown in Figure 1, and see how a few real examples may fit the scheme.

The Amacayacu National Park is a lush tropical mosaic of hills and swamps in the Colombian Amazon, inhabited by the Ticuna People. Managing the park involves activities aimed at "linking with local communities", such as providing information on policies and environmental problems and support to small income-generation projects(39). The intent is to respect the local culture while pursuing conservation objectives, and to address as much as possible the needs of the inhabitants of the protected area. Since all decisions are controlled by the Park's staff, although several activities inform and benefit local stakeholders, we could site Amacayacu just to the right of the left extreme, which represents 'full control' by the agency in charge. This is not yet an example of management partnership with local stakeholders, but it is an important show of attention, concern and desire to develop a positive relationship.

In a more participatory vein, a process of wide consultation with local stakeholders gathered in a specific Advisory Committee was sustained in Jamaica during the establishment of the Blue Mountains National Park(40). As other social actors than the public agency in charge had a chance to influence management decisions, a partnership began to develop.

In Uganda, a pilot agreement has been signed between Uganda National Parks and a few local parishes on the border of Bwindi Impenetrable Forest(41) - one of the most famous and valuable National Parks in the country, including the habitat of the rare mountain gorilla. The agreement foresees that a limited number of certified local users can extract a limited quantity of specific resources (e.g., vines, honey, medicinal plants) from the National Park(42). In exchange the people in the parishes agree to comply with rules and restrictions and to assist in conserving the habitat as a whole. Similarly, in Mt. Elgon National Park agreements are being signed between Uganda National Parks and local parishes, assigning some surveillance responsibility to local groups, which, in turn, are allowed to gather natural resources that can be extracted in a sustainable way (e.g., bamboo shoots)(43). The agreements are developed through long series of meetings in which various details are discussed in depth. Since nearly all management authority and responsibility are retained by the agency in charge, Bwindi and Mt Elgon would still be sited towards the left side of the spectrum in Figure 1. Yet, the agreements satisfy at least some of the needs of local stakeholders and give them a status and a voice that may grow with time.


Figure 1

Participation in protected area management - a continuum
in PA management

A schematic representation of participation in PA management (sharing of influence and control) seen from the perspective of the agency in charge. The representation refers to de facto situations, regardless of underlying tenure rights, policies and legislation. Obviously, if supportive policy and legislation exist, they do strengthen a management partnership.


In Australia, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (a major source of revenue to the country - more than one billion Australian dollars per year(44) ) is managed by a specific Authority with hundreds of staff and a budget larger than the national budgets of some small countries. In the last decade or so, this Colossus has been moving along the participation continuum from the left to the right. In fact, it passed from a situation in which the Authority widely consulted local stakeholders (including the people living in or close to the Park and whose livelihood depends on Park resources) to the frequent use of workshops among local stakeholders to agree on specific management decisions (e.g., zoning arrangements) to a situation in which some stakeholders (e.g., representatives of the Aboriginal Peoples from the area) sit permanently in the Management Board of the Authority itself. This latter development happened as a ruling by the Australian High Court repealed the concept of terra nullius (no-man's land) held true at the time of the colonial conquest of Australia, and thus recognized some of the tenurial rights of Aboriginal Peoples(45). The development also built on the positive experiences of collaborative management regimes established elsewhere in the country (e.g., in Coburg and Kakadu National Parks(46)) and on the positive experience of the Authority itself in its interaction with local stakeholders. The trend appears to be from informal to formal mechanisms, from advisory to power-sharing roles, from a management focus to a policy and planning focus(47).

In the Annapurna Conservation Area (Nepal), a large scale attempt at integrating conservation and local development is being promoted by the King Mahendra Nature Conservation Trust(48). Local, regional and national organizations discuss on an on-going basis the specific management decisions to be taken at various levels (including decisions over distribution of tourism revenues). The main aim is to involve in management all the relevant parties, so that their interests, concerns and capacities are fully taken into account. Several committees participate in developing specific agreements and dedicated agents called lami (match- makers) facilitate the process. This participatory management experience, which we could place somewhere in the center-right of Figure 1, is also pursued in the buffer zones of other Parks in Nepal(49) and is building on several years of positive results in community forestry initiatives in the country(50).

In India, beginning in the 1970s, the expansion of an informal grassroots forest protection movement eventually triggered the issuing of a national resolution in June 1990. The resolution provided the authority for communities (not 'stakeholders' in general - the private sectors remained out of the scope of this resolution) to participate in the management of state forests. Subsequently, sixteen state governments issued resolutions extending rights and responsibilities to small communities for state forest protection under what is now called the Joint Forest Management (JFM) program. As part of the programme, forestry department officials and ad- hoc local committees in villages sited close to the forests develop together management agreements and micro- plans. Over 10,000 village committees are currently active, representing a significant but still limited percentage of the potential and need in the Indian federation(51). The Joint Forest Management program has achieved impressive results in forest conservation, but is limited by local people's lack of secure tenure to the resources they are managing. The state regulations, in fact, do not usually address the long-term rights of participating communities(52). Building on the JFM programme, increasing debate on the possibility of Joint Protected Area Management (JPAM) is also taking place and is now being actively promoted in some selected PAs(53). As the Indian JFM programme spans a variety of situations - from nearly none to a substantial sharing of authority in forest management(54) - and as the experience in PAs is still in an experimental, pilot phase, we need to consider the Indian examples on a case-by-case basis. They potentially fit nearly the whole of the participation continuum of Figure 1.

In Canada, many areas proposed for conservation purposes included both Inuit and First Nations territories. For several years, the land claims of these Aboriginal Peoples have been negotiated inside and outside of courtrooms. Today, several collaborative management agreements spell out the results of the negotiations and meet the specific needs of different Aboriginal Peoples and resource conservation environments(55). Management Boards, on which sit both representatives of government agencies and Aboriginal Peoples, deal with a full range of management matters, from long-term strategic planning to daily operations. The Boards, established by legislation, have formalized the right of aboriginal stakeholders to participate in management. Five major agreements exist so far, all with legislative backing(56), and under their umbrella several communities have, in turn, prepared their own management plans. These plans may be considered CM agreements in their own right, as they generally take into account the interests of non-indigenous stakeholders. In the participation continuum of Figure 1, the Canadian example could be placed in the center-right, although some non-aboriginal groups have failed to be recognized as legitimate stakeholders. As a matter of fact, some aboriginal groups have fought to exclude from the agreements other stakeholders, such as sport hunters(57).

In Mexico, National Parks such as Barranca del Cupatitzio and Lake Camecuaro are administered by independent trusts composed of community members. In the state of Oaxaca, when the creation of a Biosphere Reserve that would have included sections of community land was being discussed, several local communities created an organization to evaluate the pros and cons of the proposal and manage the funds devoted to its establishment(58).

In Italy, the law that regulates the establishment and management of regional parks in Liguria foresees a Management Board comprising representatives of regional and local authorities, NGOs, universities and local grassroot groups(59). National agencies are nowhere in the picture and the principle of involving local stakeholders in park management is central to the law. Despite this, conflicts between the representatives of grassroots groups and regional and local administrators are common, and decision making on the basis of a majority vote can end up leaving local demands unmet. For example, in the Regional Park of Monte di Portofino - a promontory of great scenic and biodiversity value in the heart of the Ligurian coast - some maintain that the organizations of local residents are marginalized by the regional and local administrators, who tend to vote following political party lines(60).

In the UK, the North York Moors National Park includes land that has been settled and farmed for millennia. The landscape includes large areas of semi-natural vegetation - such as ancient woodlands - interspersed with grazing areas, hedgerows, farmland and some small towns and villages. The relationship between the Park and the local people is so close that the Park Management Plan is included as part of the general plan of Town and Country Development, which is prepared with the extensive involvement of the public. In fact, the majority of the North York Moors is under private ownership (a factor common to many National Parks in Europe) and the management plan is therefore dependent on the co-operation of the landowners. Management Agreements can be signed between the landowners and the Park Authority and they are considered to be legally binding contracts(61). The agreements are entirely voluntary, although the Park Authority can provide some financial incentives and compensations in return for agreed works or management practices. Land use changes can be controlled in part by the Park Authority, but farming activities generally remain outside these controls (the Authority, however, is promoting traditional, environmentally-sound farming practices).

The examples from Mexico, Italy and the UK could be situated close to the extreme right of the participation continuum of Figure 1.

In South Africa, the National Parks Trust has negotiated an agreement with a private group - the Conservation Corporation - for the management of the Ngala Game Reserve. This has led to the establishment of the first 'Contract Reserve' between Kruger National Park and a private enterprise. Signed in 1992, the agreement foresees that the Conservation Corporation has exclusive rights for operating tourist activities over 14'000 hectares of Kruger National Park. The Corporation pays dues to the Park, who uses them for wildlife management, research, educational programmes and community-based projects in areas bordering the PA(62).

In Panama, an Indigenous reserve known as Kuna Yala is managed in a manner similar to a Biosphere Reserve(63) and is under the control of the local Kuna people. Funding from outside has helped develop a variety of projects but most of the technical expertise is indigenous and - most importantly - the will to maintain the area under protected status and the daily decision making are all local(64).

In Tanzania, local user groups in the Babati district are being entrusted with full decision-making power about conservation and resource use in the communal forests close to their villages. The forestry department and the Swedish aid agency worked with the user groups to develop management tools and criteria, but the actual decisions are left to them. For their local 'communal forests', this is foreseen by and fully in agreement with Tanzanian law. Discussions are currently being held to extend their management responsibility to nearby state-owned resources(65). Some pilot experiences, in fact, are occurring in the south of the district (Duru- Haitemba) where several village forests controlled by local communities have been declared Village Forest Reserves and will be gazetted nationally while planning, management, patrolling and enforcement of rules (established as village by-laws) will remain with the locals. In this sense, local groups are recognized to have not just some 'rights' and 'responsibilities' but full authority and control over the local resources that they themselves wish to place under protection(66).

In the participation continuum of Figure 1, the Ngale game reserve, the Kuna Yala reserve and the village reserves of Duru-Haitemba would be located at the very right extreme.

Two main observations can be made at this point. The first is that collaborative management processes and agreements are tailored to fit the unique needs and opportunities of each context. In other words, there is no 'right place' to be in the participation spectrum of Figure 1. Approaches to stakeholder participation in different protected areas need to fit their specific historical and socio-political contexts and cannot be appreciated outside of such contexts.

The second observation is that, no matter where in the participation continuum a conservation initiative is 'born' or 'set', its position may change. As in the case of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority(67), intervening changes in legal, political, socio-economic and ecological factors induce consequent modifications to the institutional setting and/or practice of conservation. In addition, a process of "learning by doing" may lead towards a better recognition of specific needs and opportunities for involving stakeholders. The change, in one direction or the other, could be slow and progressive or jumpy, skipping one or more stages in the participation continuum of Figure 1 (e.g., from consultation of stakeholders to devolution of responsibility). Also, feed-back from one situation (e.g., sharing of power and responsibility) may strengthen some previously elusive stage (e.g., reaching a consensus among stakeholders). A collaborative management regime may thus present different characteristics not only from place to place but also, in a specific location, over time. It should be definitively considered more as a process than as a 'fixed state of affairs'.

Potential advantages for conservation exist in all types of management arrangements, but so do potential problems. For instance, when control is fully in the hands of local institutions, these may be co-opted by powerful individuals for their private interests, which may win over the interests of both conservation and the national and local communities. Conversely, when control is fully in the hands of public agencies, local knowledge and skills in resource management can go unrecognized. In some cases, local biodiversity may even decline as a result of the removal of people from a given territory(68). An institutional arrangement that facilitates a balanced agreement among various interests and concerns would seem a very sensible solution. Yet, if the bearers of the interests and concerns (the stakeholders) are not effectively organized, capable of conveying their positions and willing to develop an agreement, the time and resources invested in a CM process may be wasted.


5. Main assumptions and consequences

If there are many ways of interpreting what collaborative management is all about, a few basic principles and assumptions appear common to most collaborative management cases. Among these are the following:

Moving from the left to the right of the participation continuum sketched in Figure 1, what accompanying phenomena can be expected? First of all, stakeholders are likely to increasingly contribute to management - for instance by providing knowledge, skills, time, labor and various resources in cash and kind. Some may contribute by foregoing benefits and sustaining opportunity costs. Others may take on the responsibility of daily surveillance of the PA (e.g., for early warning of fire and natural disasters, and to watch over illegal trespassing and extraction of resources), or the responsibility of monitoring biodiversity and social indicators. Secondly, the agency and other stakeholders are likely to increase their capacities in various areas related to management as a consequence of their enhanced communication, dialogue and common work. Both of the above are likely to increase the commitment of stakeholders towards the management initiative. In other words, the accountability of stakeholders is likely to increase(70).

Not least, when stakeholders get more involved in management, their expectations are likely to rise, and this needs to be taken into serious consideration. When the agency with jurisdiction over the PA seeks consensus over a certain agreement, it also takes on a primary responsibility of making such an agreement effective. For instance, the agency in charge needs to make sure that the agreement can be respected through time. It would be detrimental to craft difficult compromises just to see them nullified by a lack of means to implement them or by a judicial dispute that could have been foreseen well in advance. Yet, this does not mean that policy and laws must always precede practice. In several countries, pilot collaborative management initiatives conceived to experiment beyond existing policies have opened the way to substantial policy and legal change(71). In fact, one can find examples of collaborative management cases all along the participation continuum of Figure 1, which developed (at least for a while) along with supporting, neutral or even unfavorable legislations and policies.

Importantly, many collaborative management agreements depend on the good work, energy and commitment of one or more individuals and/or on the presence of dedicated projects. If the individual(s) are transferred or stop contributing, or if the project ceases to function, the process may be blocked, derailed and/or simply fail. In India, for instance, some describe the transferring of dedicated forestry officials as a virtual disease for JFM(72). These risks point to the need of institutionalizing the process, making it as soon as possible as independent as possible from individuals and outside inputs.


6. Potential benefits, costs and obstacles

By examining and comparing numerous field-based experiences(73), it is possible to derive a series of key potential benefits, costs and obstacles in collaborative management processes.

Potential benefits are likely to include:

But collaborative management is not a panacea and, in fact, a number of costs and potential obstacles need to be evaluated before embarking on specific processes. These include:


7. Process

As agreements for collaborative management need to be tailored to specific contexts, so do the processes to develop them. In other words, there is no 'right process' to develop a 'right CM agreement' although an agreement is often as strong - or as weak - as the process that generated it.

As mentioned in section 4 of this document, in the ideal case all the stakeholders would declare together an area under protected status, they would take the initiative to meet and negotiate a fair share of management rights and responsibilities, and would possess all the resources and capacities to carry it through. Unfortunately, this is far from common. We will here assume to start from a more typical situation: a formally-declared protected area under the authority of a governmental agency with no other stakeholder currently involved in management. We will also assume that the agency is ready and willing to develop a management partnership. In such a situation, three basic phases in the process can be broadly identified(82): 1. preparing for the partnership; 2. developing the agreement; 3. implementing and reviewing the agreement ('learning by doing'). These phases are schematically illustrated in Figure 2 and will be described below.

The initiative to develop a partnership may also come not from the agency in charge but from the stakeholders themselves - e.g., by local residents claiming specific rights and determined to solve specific conflicts and problems, or by NGOs and research institutions promoting the conservation of a territory currently in a management limbo. These are equally, if not more, interesting and promising points of departure. Yet, the ways by which such stakeholders may approach a partnership can vary widely in response to specific socio-political contexts and will not be discussed here.

It should be noted that the point of departure may be a de facto situation in which some stakeholders (e.g., local residents and business interests) are in control of the protected territory. In that case other stakeholders, possibly including the agency with official jurisdiction, may step into the picture in a more or less progressive way. As mentioned, we will not discuss such a situation. However, the process we will explore below - a governmental agency in charge promoting a management partnership with stakeholders - could be of interest regardless of the initiating institution or point of departure.


Figure 2

Possible phases / steps in a collaborative management process


7.1 Preparing for a partnership

Is developing a partnership agreement an appropriate and viable course of action? The agency in charge of the protected area may begin by considering what resources are available to support the process. Neither exploring nor setting up a collaborative management regime is easy or inexpensive. An agency- sponsored collaborative management team (CM team) should be appointed to the task, and assigned adequate time and resources. If possible, the team should include the staff in charge of management planning, legal matters and relationships with local people. When the initiative is taken in concert with stakeholders, it is important to involve their representatives in the CM team. Conservation projects - or integrated conservation and development projects - can play a useful role here to overcome the 'culture of distrust' that often inhibits positive relationships between governments and local groups(83). In fact, many specific projects and conservation initiatives have provided the impulse - and the funding - for CM processes to unfold.

Whether or not a CM Team is appointed, it is often the case that enthusiastic individuals are the prime movers of CM processes. At times they are community leaders, at other times project staff and consultants, but more and more often they are staff of the agencies in charge, who go beyond the call of duty for the long- term benefits of the PAs they are entrusted with. It may seem odd that government staff initiate a process to relinquish some of their powers. Indeed, this is still the exception rather than the rule, but conservation professionals are increasingly aware of the benefits to be gained in co-management agreements. What may actually pose a problem, however, is that government staff - themselves representing a major stakeholder in the process - assume also the role of process facilitators. This can be avoided by appointing professional facilitators.

We will here assume that an ecological analysis of the situation (values, priorities, threats, impacts of current activities) has been previously carried out by the agency in charge, although, at best, it would be carried out side by side the process described herein(84). The CM team could then begin with an initial attempt at identifying which groups and individuals possess interests and capacities relative to the PA (preliminary stakeholder identification). This is a snapshot of the interests at stake and of who is actually or potentially capable of playing a role in PA management. See box 4 for a list of questions that may help in this task.


Box 4

A snapshot of the interests at stake


In most cases, the basic stakeholders in the PA are the people living within or close to the territory, usually grouped under the term 'local community' (or communities). Often, these people are directly dependent on the PA's resources for their livelihood, cultural identity and well-being. Yet, communities are complex entities, within which differences of ethnic origin, class, caste, age, gender, religion, profession and economic and social status can create profound differences in interests, capacities and willingness to invest for the management of natural resources. What benefits one group and meets conservation objectives may harm another. For example, wildlife revenues may accrue to men, while more abundant wildlife may be only a cost to women (e.g., because of crop damage). Even people sharing the same livelihood basis or personal characteristics (e.g., farmers, unemployed youth) should not be assumed to speak with one voice. In other words, local communities generally include a variety of stakeholders. Their internal differences and conflicts need to be recognized, together with the practical necessity of negotiation. In addition, change is always present in communities, needs and interests evolve and new dynamics need to be understood and dealt with. In particular this is true today when, under the pervasive influence of markets, political processes and the media, many traditional respectful attitudes to nature are being replaced by the values of the consumer society(85).

If it is rare that local residents can avoid diverging perspectives and conflicts, these can only multiply when non-local stakeholders enter the picture. District administrators expecting to hold their post for just a couple of years, international conservation advocates, tourists and entrepreneurs, staff of national NGOs - they all bring forth particular views, capacities and interests. They all enrich and complicate the process and outcome of management.

Most importantly, the CM team should identify existing local institutions and assess their interest and capacity to contribute to the management of the PA. Local institutions with an explicit experience in resource management - e.g., forest users groups, fishermen associations, water committees, peasant saving societies - are particularly valid partners in CM agreements. Some local institutions regulate their own protected areas, such as sacred groves, community hunting territories or restricted fishing spots. These could be made to complement and/or strengthen conservation in the government-declared PA.

Once the stakeholders are broadly identified, the team may wish to review and analyze the history of land and resource uses in the areas and the origins of conflicts - if any exist. Conflict analysis is particularly relevant as it allows to explore various elements of social and ecological significance. The review is easier and more meaningful when done with the active participation of stakeholders, although care must be taken not to rekindle or exacerbate old or present controversies. In addition to the review, some contexts may require some specific research into one or more areas which appear particularly promising or controversial. The results of the review and research should be made public.

Once a preliminary picture of the relationship between people and the specific protected territory has been drawn, it may be appropriate to assess whether a collaborative management process is needed. This can be approached by asking questions such as: "Are the commitment and contributions of stakeholders necessary to the effective management of the PA?", "Are the resources in the protected areas essential for local livelihood and cultural survival?", "Do stakeholders possess customary or legal rights over the resources at stake?" (see section 3). Ultimately, a judgment should be made as to whether the expected benefits are likely to justify the time and resources to be invested. If they are, a more detailed feasibility analysis may follow to ascertain that the conditions for the functioning of an agreement are in place. This will involve legal, political, institutional, economic and socio-cultural considerations. Some questions useful to consider in such an analysis are listed in Box 5.

What can be done when the desired feasibility conditions are not in place? One strategy is to proceed towards the partnership and, in parallel, attempt to modify the conditions. For instance, pilot agreements may be developed while changes in the relevant legislation and policies are being discussed, or a vacuum of competence may be filled in a temporary way, while people and institutions are being trained. At times it can be useful to identify the feasibility obstacles and bottlenecks and call for a relatively large meeting of stakeholders (e.g., including the representatives of several government sectors) to identify and discuss potential solutions.

Different stakeholders should be equitably represented in developing a management partnership. In practice, however, what does 'equitably' mean? Are all stakeholders equally entitled to take part in discussions and possibly, in management roles? For instance, in dealing with the coastal resources of a small Caribbean island, is a recently migrated hôtelier interested in developing the beach front as much a stakeholder as the fishermen families who have lived on the island for generations? If a forest constitutes a crucial water catchment for several communities downstream, are these communities to be considered stakeholders as much as the communities upstream - the ones living side by side with the forest and directly depending on its resources for their livelihood and income? If a management agreement for a protected area has to be signed between a state agency and local residents, should parish-level representatives be involved or village-level representatives? These are simple examples of the many and quite complex questions that may surface. As a first step towards answering them, the CM team may identify and discuss some considerations and criteria, such as the ones listed in section 2 of this document.


Box 5

Examples of collaborative management
feasibility questions

Legal feasibility


Political feasibility


Institutional feasibility


Economic feasibility


Socio-cultural feasibility


The process of figuring out the respective rights and 'weights' of stakeholders regarding decisions on the protected area at stake is usually referred to as stakeholder analysis. After the preliminary identification, this involves contacting the stakeholders - in particular the ones standing out as primary potential partners. The CM team may wish to discuss with them their interests and capacities (i.e., what could they take responsibility for) with regard to the PA, and introduce the possibility of a management partnership.

If the agency in charge is ready to move beyond active consultation, there should also be a discussion of the full range of stakeholders to be involved and the level of representation. This is not a simple step, and difficulties may arise before agreeing on who is and who is not a 'legitimate stakeholder', at 'what level' stakeholders should be involved (e.g., as a village or as different groups of resource users within the village?) and so on. In fact, in a participatory stakeholder analysis, care must be taken so that people and groups with a limited capacity to assert and represent themselves are not overpowered by others. This would lead to inequities in the short term and unsustainable agreements in the long term. It should be noted that many traditional community institutions are not necessarily democratic and, in fact, effectively marginalize the less powerful local groups. Women, in particular, have often borne the costs of agreements stipulated by men(86).

It is important that the final number of stakeholders involved in management is well balanced: not too many so as to complicate and slow down the process and not too few so as to leave out some key players(87). It should be clear, however, that the groups and individuals who believe themselves to be 'legitimate stakeholders' are allowed to claim such a status and to argue their case on the basis of explicit criteria (again, such as the ones listed in section 2 of this document).

More than merely 'contacting' the stakeholders, it is important that the CM team builds trust and rapport with them, and sincerely hears their views, concerns and aspirations(88). This can be done with the help of participatory appraisal exercises, as appropriate, to explore relevant knowledge and perceptions of issues, problems and opportunities relevant for the PA, with full sensitivity towards the local context and culture. This phase of the process requires time and sincere commitment on the part of the CM team. Participatory appraisal exercises carried out in a token fashion (to 'tally out' visited communities in a list of potential stakeholders) can be ineffective or even counterproductive.

Since some relevant stakeholders may not be fully able to represent their interests and concerns in a forum with others, some support may need to be offered to help them to organize and identify a representative to bring forward their position (it should not be assumed that unorganized stakeholders do not exist or do not count - on the contrary!). This is a most important and too often overlooked element of preparation. If a group of people is without anyone to represent their interest or lacks the resources to travel to a meeting, it would have done them little good to have been identified by the CM team as a 'legitimate stakeholder'. On the other hand, the support provided to them should not be such as to distort the purpose of organizing and attending meetings. Again, providing enough time for the organizing process to develop at its own pace is a paramount consideration.

Time should also be allowed for stakeholders to develop a consensus (as far as possible) among themselves. This is particularly important in cases in which decision making is traditionally carried out following specific procedures (e.g., via extensive rounds of consultations in indigenous communities). Questions and dilemmas may rise regarding democratic procedures within stakeholders groups. These can only be approached in a case-by-case manner.


7.2 Developing the agreement

Once the stakeholders have been identified, how can they communicate with one another, build trust among themselves, negotiate and agree on a common course of action? A substantial difference exists between pursuing a CM agreement to improve on a well-functioning situation or to solve an existing conflict. In the latter case, the activities described below are still valid, but the need for effective facilitation of meetings and expert mediation of conflicts is definitely greater.

The first step is usually an initial collective contact, a first gathering or workshop where the representatives of the agency in charge of the PA and various other stakeholders meet in a formal way. The agenda of the meeting should be made available to the stakeholders well in advance, to allow them time to discuss their views internally. It is advisable, however, that this first meeting be dedicated to procedural and not substantive questions. Procedural questions (e.g., when and where subsequent meetings will be held, who will participate, what forms of representation will be acceptable, who will facilitate the meetings, what language will be spoken) are usually easier to deal with than substantive questions (e.g., who will be allowed to collect what resources from the PA, who will share tourist revenues, who will be employed in surveillance jobs)(89). A productive first meeting is an important foothold for the subsequent ones in which specific and often sensitive problems, needs, resources and opportunities will be identified and discussed. The first meeting can also help establish a working relationship among the parties and spread among them a sense of ownership of the process.

After the first procedural meeting there are various possible courses of action, depending on the level of stakeholder engagement that is being sought. It may be that the first meeting is followed by extensive public consultations lasting several months (this was the case for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia). It may be that only two main parties are going to be involved (e.g., the agency in charge and a local community) and that substantive matters can be agreed upon in a few workshops. Or it may be that months or even years of negotiations are needed among a variety of parties. If stakeholders are expected and willing to take an active role in management, a series of planning meetings and workshops is usually held(90). Attention should be paid to the venue of the meetings (a 'neutral' forum such as a school building or theater should be preferred to a forum that some could see as partisan - such as a church or government office) and to the seating arrangement (a circular arrangement without hierarchical dispositions should be preferred).

Before entering into more specific considerations, it is important that all the parties are clear about what the meetings are set up to achieve. This is more easily said than done, since the parties may face incomplete legislation, a vacuum of policy and competencies, and complex decisions involving a variety of sectors and levels. The more complex the PA, the more vague the situation may be. For instance some Biosphere Reserves are "managed" by a consortium of parties with no real mandate except "coordinating", "providing impulse" and "watching over" an evolving situation. A PA managing body with a more substantial mandate could be seen as a sort of parallel government, which would be clearly unacceptable(91). In other cases, however, the parties face real decision-making competencies, including local regulations, concession of permits, sharing of revenues, research orientation, and - in general - primary responsibility for land use and management plans.

The meetings may begin with a free-flowing discussion on issues and opportunities in a non-committal form (i.e., anyone can launch ideas without being committed to agree on them later on). If this moment is truly open and visionary, it can actually free people from the sectored position they may be entrenched in. Various participatory planning techniques can be employed to facilitate the process(92).

Once all the key issues to be dealt with have been identified, options for action need to be considered, with different parties describing what role they could and wish to play. The discussion may involve extensive bargaining and compromising, the breaking down of large decisions into small or 'sectoral' decisions (with corresponding breaking down of a large group of stakeholders into smaller groups of stakeholders), examining the experiences and lessons learned in other protected areas, assessing competencies, requirements, procedures and regulations, and - importantly - making sure that every party in the agreement gains at least some benefits and responses to its concerns. In this sense, conservation incentives (e.g., local taxation, provision of services, concession of exclusive rights) are crucial to link the stakeholders' interest with the interest of conservation. In particular, alternate means of livelihood need to be developed when existing activities are limited or prohibited in the PA management plan. It should be noticed that the effectiveness of an incentive package depends on a number of factors, including the capacity of the relevant stakeholders to 'absorb' them (well-organized stakeholders are more capable of taking advantage of incentives), the time needed for the incentives to be felt and the equity of their distribution(93).

As the end goal is to identify a suitable sharing of functions, rights and responsibilities among the partners, some comparative advantages may have to be identified. For instance, what can the government side best contribute to a CM agreement? Besides a variety of technical and administrative functions, a primary responsibility of governments could be to ensure legal and policy frameworks and systems of enforcement that effectively protect against negative interference with the agreement (e.g., by external encroachers). In addition, government agencies are best positioned to provide economic incentives and financial support; to process and diffuse information (especially information on current socio-ecological changes never before experienced by the communities at stake)(94); and to integrate activities of various sectors (e.g., PA management and agriculture, fishery, forestry, education, training, health, credit schemes, etc.). As the impact of economic forces on CM agreements is considerable, market forces may need to be tamed for the benefit of conservation. This is another role only government partners can take on.

What could the non-governmental stakeholders best contribute? Depending on who they are, they may provide specialized knowledge and skills on both the ecological and socio-economic environment (ranging from the responsibility to monitor biodiversity change to the responsibility of assuring a steady flow of tourist income to the PA). In the case of local residents, surveillance for fire and other natural risks and for undue access to the PA is often a responsibility of great comparative advantage. Para-wardens and para-scouts can be appointed among the local residents with, at times, the power to arrest violators of CM agreements(95).

In the words of Kothari (1995): "Communities lack the resources to tackle threats or ecological issues at a regional scale, and in many places have lost their traditional ethos and institutions; government agencies lack the necessary micro-knowledge, on-the-spot human power, or even often the necessary mandate when other agencies overrule them. With rare exceptions, neither local communities nor governmental agencies are able to face on their own the onslaught of commercial forces, or able to check the destruction caused by some of their own members". Thus, there exist important mutual and comparative advantages to harness for PA management. The CM negotiation process should assure that these advantages are utilized and that the rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders are effectively linked and equitably distributed.

Many preparatory and planning meetings on PA management end up developing a zoning arrangement in which several sub-areas of the PA are designated and assigned specific regulations. The most typical example is a Biosphere Reserve, which from the inception foresees one or several 'core', 'buffer' and 'transition' zones. Mapping techniques of various sophistication (from hand mapping to GIS systems) can be of great help and - as it is around mapping and zoning that most sensitive issues arise - they need to be approached with care, honesty and as much precision as possible. Leases, concessions, use permits, licenses, identity cards, certificates and the like can be assigned to regulate the benefits and rights assigned to stakeholders.

At times, the representatives of some groups need to report to their constituencies and consult with them before deciding on a topic. At other times it may be necessary to call in expert advice, such as private consultants and entrepreneurs skilled at carrying out specific studies and especially identifying how natural resources can be utilized in an efficient way compatibly with conservation objectives. These are some of the reasons why a long time and several planning meetings may be necessary before an agreement is reached. At other times, the main problems and conflicts are rooted in the long-term violence (overt or hidden) exercised by one party over others. Visibility and the presence of independent parties may be needed to break the deadlock(96).

An important requirement for the success of participatory planning meetings is effective facilitation. A facilitator can make sure that all the stakeholders express their concerns, that no one dominates the meetings and that the discussion is adequately structured and proceeds towards the set objectives. An independent facilitator (someone considered 'without an axe to grind') can also help to manage conflicts, for instance by helping to translate the positions that stakeholders may present ("we want a road across the forest", "we want to eliminate access to this particular area", "we want the entry to the park to be free of charge") into fundamental interests ("we need access to the zone north of the forest because it is an important market for one of our products", "we need to maintain a viable habitat for this animal species", "we need to make sure that the local residents can benefit from the park"). It is usually easier to develop a long-term common vision from fundamental interests than from 'positions', and it is also easier to identify ways of achieving it.

Facilitators should be well aware of existing customs and institutions, in particular existing institutions for conflict management which can be called to act in difficult circumstances. They should be aware of the time needed to build trust and positive relationships among the parties, and be skilled to engage the parties in providing new options and suggesting compromises, such as temporary arrangements and solutions. The final agreement needs to be, however, quite specific, e.g., spell out who should expect what benefits and assume what responsibilities, who should do what, where, by what means, by when, etc.

Facilitators may need to work actively to prevent the process becoming unduly 'politicized' - as political positions are often rigid stands made for the sake of visibility and not conducive to agreements. This may also help to prevent personal interests taking the upper hand with respect to common concerns. These two points can be extremely delicate. Local politicians, for instance, may see the negotiation of a CM agreement as an excellent opportunity to exploit for their own partisan or private interests. Finally, facilitators should help the parties develop an agreement that is as equitable as possible (e.g., does not leave any major stakeholders out of the picture, humiliated, exploited or treated unfairly). Equitable agreements have much better chances of remaining valid through time.

Once an agreement (e.g., a consensus over a management plan and a given sharing of rights and responsibilities) is reached, it should not be written on stone, but it should certainly be written on paper and publicized as widely as possible within the relevant communities and among the relevant stakeholders. The agreement should be written in plain terms (clear and comprehensible to all) and in the local language (or also in the local language). Its importance should be underlined by means of a specific event or ceremony. As far as possible, the signatories should be people directly taking on management responsibilities and not convenient authorities representing them. The parties should commit themselves in public and the agreement should be given ample visibility (e.g., a copy of the agreement could be posted in local communities as well as in the premises of the agency in charge of the PA). It should be very clear that adjustments may take place during the implementation of the agreement, and review times should be scheduled in advance.

Some forms of agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding, are quite flexible and allow for regular revisions. Other forms - such as contracts among legally-recognized parties - are less so. The latter are usually required when the agreement foresees specific packages of economic or financial incentives for stakeholders(97). The agreement can also be formalized as a local by-law. It is useful that the agreement includes provisions for how to deal with exceptional situations (e.g., how to modify rights and responsibilities in case of acute ecological stress or social crisis).


7.3 Implementing and reviewing the agreement ('learning by doing')

In this phase the agreement (likely to include a management plan) is put into practice. If the agreement foresees the establishment of an advisory or management body - such as a local conservation council or an extended PA management board - this is the time to call them to work. The specifications of who is to be represented, what is the mandate, what are the tasks, etc. would have been reached in the planning phases. It is important, however, that a body entrusted with specific tasks is set up at the end and not at the beginning of the process of developing the agreement. In fact, it is through that process that the most useful information and appropriate guiding principles can be discovered. It is also important to ascertain that an eventual collaborative management body is created at the appropriate level, i.e., that it gathers representatives of stakeholders who can put into practice the agreement that has been developed. For instance, a PA management board at the level of the district may not be appropriate if the PA affects only one or two specific communities and businesses. It may be more useful to create instead an ad-hoc committee with direct representation of the social groups most directly affected.

During the implementation of activities, conflicting interpretations of the agreement may arise. For contract-type agreements, existing Contract Law or Environmental Public Law generally include procedures for dealing with conflicts(98). In less formal cases it is important to foresee in advance who is in charge of mediating among the various parties.

Monitoring of compliance should be done on a regular basis. In fact, since it is advisable to maintain an active channel of communication among all the parties, some monitoring meetings could be held at regular intervals. In case of violations of the agreement, enforcing mechanisms need to be applied. This is a crucial aspect for a CM agreement to remain effective: if some parties can go by without complying to the rules, others are likely to follow suit. Enforcing, in fact, is always a delicate task. The PA management may involve high stakes for some parties who are in the best position to apprehend violations but have no legal basis to do so. If local residents take the enforcement 'into their hands', e.g., they attempt to arrest people who came to cut timber or shoot wildlife, there are risks of violent clashes and the possibility of legal prosecution afterwards.

The implementation phases can provide inspiring examples of maturation and evolution of the management partnership. For instance, in an initial stage the emphasis may be on basic protection and the exercise of some rights of access to resources. This may be followed by an increased sense of legitimacy and responsibility on the part of the people exercising the access, with the development of more appropriate rules and - likely - more complex manipulation and technologies for the sustainable extraction and use of resources. At the same time, the area in which the collaborative management agreement applies may expand (new parishes or communities may join the agreement) so that the process may move in at least two dimensions - towards more complex management agreements and towards larger areas of application(99). This may also be accompanied by the development of new groupings of stakeholders or nesting institutions (e.g., federations of village fishermen associations). Flexible management budgets are very conducive to this maturation and a 'learning by doing' process and should be promoted as much as possible.

It is often in the implementation phase that the need for specific policy and legal change to support effective PA management becomes well recognized. These changes need to be pursued, as appropriate, by the management partnership (different stakeholders may be able to use different channels to achieve the desired changes). By such processes, several de facto management partnerships may also become de jure(100).


Box 6

Examples of CM process indicators


It is very difficult to develop detailed agreements and micro-plans before the full nature of a partnership is put into practice. In many cases, activities are started following a basic agreement, and the agreement itself foresees some reviews at specific times in the future (at best, these will include both participatory and independent reviews, and a comparison of their results).

In a typical review, a meeting is called in which the parties discuss whether the agreement needs to be modified as a consequence of ecological, socio-political or economic change, lessons learned, new opportunities, etc. The parties also discuss how the collaborative management agreement succeeds in getting closer to the common vision identified in the original planning meetings (e.g., is it fostering the conservation of the protected area? Is it meeting the needs and interests of various stakeholders?). Obviously, indicators of progress should be considered, and these should involve ecological and social variables, as appropriate, as well as indicators of the CM process itself (see box 6).

On the basis of such discussions, the stakeholders identify whether and what changes are needed, and who should do what to make them happen. As necessary, new arrangements are developed, i.e., the process returns to point 7.2 (or 7.1!) above. Likely, the time involved in modifying agreements is not as large as the time involved in developing an original one. At times, the implementation and development phases do actually merge. This is the case when the process is very complex, takes years to mature fully (e.g., because new actors keep entering the picture or relevant socio-economic conditions keep changing) and is constantly re-arranged along the way.


8. Conclusions

Professionals dealing with collaborative management processes have often the exciting and unsettling feeling of watching a phenomenon touching on the most significant aspects of life - democracy, equity, development and cultural survival - besides the specific concerns of conservation and sound management of resources. They can also see that the phenomenon is in full evolution and not easily circumscribed. For any protected area, in fact, a larger territory can be identified in which human interests and activities can affect and be affected by the existence of the protected area itself.

Experiences in partnership management in various locations allowed us to synthesize some general points for reflection. Among these are the conditions in which developing CM agreements is recommended, the basic principles, assumptions and consequences to be expected, and the potential benefits, costs and obstacles listed and discussed in this document. The CM process itself - preparing for a partnership, developing an agreement, implementing it and reviewing it on an on-going basis - is complex and context-dependent and cannot be summarized in any rigid, step-by-step guideline. This document provided, however, a number of general observations on such a process, in the case an agency in charge of a protected area - or another stakeholder - should wish to promote it. The observations are not necessarily valid nor to be taken equally into consideration in all environments.

If any conclusions can be drawn from the various considerations gathered in this document, they appear more meaningful in terms of questions than in terms of answers and positive statements. Here are some examples: