ABSTRACT
The closing words of this volume are written while its authors are scattered in various continents attempting to do, in practice, what this volume has advocated and described. From the variety of our experiences, a few points seem evident to us:
The wonderful and arresting complexity of each real-life context makes each “co-management case” unique and requires, each time, unique study and care. An appreciation of this complexity, a grounding in history and the experience of local communities, and a basic awareness of the relevant biological diversity and ecosystem functions are the necessary starting point for anything that hopes to be effective.
On the basis of this appreciation and understanding, the most important ingredients to get co-management moving are humane qualities rather than intellectual qualities or technical proficiencies: a positive attitude, good will, curiosity, attention, care, honesty, appreciation, respect, patience… even humbleness, but also conviviality, perseverance, determination and, more often than not, courage. It is only by building upon these qualities that people can effectively respect and recognise each other’s arguments and entitlements, listen, think and organise together, and take new and effective action.
A further crucial ingredient is the concrete ability of people to become involved. It may be hard for some of our readers to imagine this, but some powerful obstacles to co-management include being perennially sick—weak with parasites and malaria, light-headed because of lack of food, depressed because of a succession of disasters in the family. They include being unable to reach a meeting because of lack of means of transportation or sheer time, as… if one goes to a meeting, who else will tend the field, fetch the water, care for the children or the sick? These are important considerations to keep in mind when we compare cases in resource-rich and resource-poor environments and when we set forth to “save biodiversity” in the midst of the downtrodden of this world. There are prerequisites for co-management, and those begin with adequate local capacities, from the most basic to the sophisticated. https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781849772525/9ad2fbc8-1fc9-4c37-b4ca-c2014519e19d/content/fig12_1_C.jpg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/>
Then there is what in this volume we have referred to as a “learning attitude”, the openness to novelty, the willingness to experiment, and the curiosity that motivates people to carry out action-research and not be satisfied with easy explanations, platitudes and common scapegoats. We believe that one of the powerful advantages of co-management is the wise merging of local and nonlocal knowledge and skills—those grounded in the tradition and the accumulated experience of indigenous peoples and local communities and those extracted by formal scientists through a careful analysis of different cases and contexts. We have referred to this wise merging as syncretic solutions—they appear as made up of bits of incompatible nature, but prove surprisingly fresh and effective. A learning attitude is essential for adaptive management, but it must concern more than environmental interventions and their results. Adaptive management has to include adaptive governance—striving for lively institutions, capable of responding through time to the changing conditions that embed both conservation and livelihoods in a given environment.…
A learning attitude and the willingness to merge knowledge from various sources and origins are a good part of what constitutes a “co-management process” but not all of it. Fortunately, one does not need to reinvent hot water at every turn, as much has been learned about experiences, methods, tools and institutions that help people to exchange ideas in constructive settings and effectively understand, plan and act together. We believe that much of the usefulness of this volume rests on the fact that it offers a variety of lessons and tools distilled from experience, and many examples from the field. The lessons and tools are not meant to be “applied” but considered, adapted, modified and used only with wisdom and under intelligent surveillance. Similarly, the examples are not meant to be “copied” but taken into consideration as a pool of ideas and insights. We have gone into some depth to describe issues to be examined and dealt with in preparing partnerships, negotiating agreements, developing co-management organisations, and learning by doing, and we hope that the relevant descriptions, checklists, tools and examples will be useful and inspiring. Indeed, we trust to have convinced at least some of our readers that co-management depends upon on-going learning, and that the best results can be achieved by developing policies and programmes on the basis of lessons learned in practice. The ball is now in the court of communities, field-based initiatives, policy-makers, professional networks and training institutions… and much needs to be accomplished.
A crucial role is played by the context in which the specific situation we would wish to see evolving into co-management happens to exist. A web of political and socio-cultural ties and economic opportunities and constraints is what makes it possible or impossible to work, reap just returns and invest in a better future. It is what makes the difference between building upon quicksand or on solid ground, acting in fear or security, sustaining results or seeing them wither because of lack of recognition and support. All of us engaged in field-based initiatives have to recognise, first and foremost, whether we are not attempting to co-manage… a handful of dust. Is there a sufficient economic basis for local livelihoods? And, if yes, is there a way to secure the conditions that make such livelihoods possible? Too often, the local producers carry out most of the work and bear most of the risks and yet receive minimal returns, dictated by wholesalers and market speculators.… Too often the ones who dare speak the truth and organise for change are the first ones to pay. Practitioners should make an honest assessment of whether the necessary conditions for co-management are in place. If the answer is no, those conditions should be tackled first.
Ultimately, the success of a co-management setting is determined by what local actors see as important, and affecting their lives. The results of co-management should be tangible in the sense that the relevant parties should be able to figure out whether the agreement they have developed actually solves their problems. And yet, the satisfaction of a group of parties or even a “local majority” is not all. A balance must be struck between local meaning and values and broader, nationally or internationally declared, liberating principles. Such principles enrich and improve the life of everyone and preserve values greater than any one of us, such as respect for biological diversity and human rights. In this sense, co-management may offer safeguards against both the narrow-mindedness and selfishness that can accompany localised decisionmaking, and the abstract rhetoric and impositions possibly related to decisionmaking on a large scale.…
