Several authors have conceptualised and discussed different structures to categorise co-management arrangements depending on the level of cooperation or power and authority sharing across stakeholder groups. It has been
29 observed that the stakeholder groups are broadly classified into two groups: government (agencies) and communities. Although there is no ideal typology or scale referred to in the literature to define and operationalise co-management, the researcher discusses a few that align with the current research objectives and have convincing arguments.
Berkes, George and Preston (1991) propose one of the earliest typologies in co-management. In principle, the authors modify Arnstein’s (1969) ladder for citizen participation to identify seven different levels of co-management based on the degree of community involvement. The levels of co-management are shown in Figure 2.2 and discussed briefly.
Figure 2.2 Co-management continuum (Source: Adapted from Berkes et al., 1991, p. 36)
Arnstein’s ladder is a widely used tool by planners and policy-makers especially when they focus on public and/or community participation for participatory management. Arnstein (1969, p. 217) identified eight different steps (manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control) being divided into three different degrees of participation (non-participation, degree of tokenism and citizen power). Berkes et al. (1991) modify these steps to fit within a seven-layer co-management spectrum. The figure above (Figure 2.2), indicates a lower level of co-management as represented by Arnstein’s contrived participation concepts of manipulation and therapy, which is marked by Arnstein as ‘non-participation’. At this stage, users are informed mostly through one-way communication. This one-way communication persists throughout the consultation and cooperation stages. Two-way communication starts at the ‘communication’ stage when government agencies consider local concerns within research agendas and explicitly use local knowledge. However, government agencies still possess all powers of decision-making, which is shared on an effective partnership basis at this higher stage of ‘advisory committee’. At this stage, a board representing community members and government officials searches for common objectives to be gained through negotiation and mediation. Management boards involve a one-step
30 advance in community participation rather than advisory committee where “the community is not only searching for common objectives but also acting on them” (Berkes et al., 1991, p. 8). Thus, the community is literally involved in policy-making and decision-making. The top most stage of co-management denoting ‘community control, partnership’ holds two different opportunities for community control and partnership. At this level, collaborative decision-making is institutionalised and a partnership is formed on an equal basis. Moreover, delegation of authority to the community empowers the community to make resource decisions where resources are manageable at a local level.
Keeping the essence of the typologies mentioned above, Pomeroy and Berkes (1997) illustrate a hierarchy of co- management arrangements, which is also informed by Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation.
Figure 2.3 Co-management continuum (Source: Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997, p. 466)
Although the diagram in Figure 2.3 is self-explanatory, the authors do not describe the different categories explicitly. According to Pomeroy and Berkes (1997), co-management ideally fits in between government-based and community- based management spectrums. Every shift towards community self-governance and self-management signifies more delegation of authority from the government and this involves the community actively in resource decision-making as well as the implementation processes.
31 Carlsson and Berkes (2005) identify co-management as connected with governance systems that combine ‘state’ and ‘communities’ which, in turn, advance decentralised decision-making with a greater sense of accountability. To elucidate the concept of co-management from institutional systems, these authors indicate four possible typologies (Figure 2.4). For simplification, they denote the government (state) by the symbol ‘S’ and the other stakeholders (communities) as ‘C’.
Figure 2.4 Typologies of co-management (Source: Carlsson and Berkes, 2005, p. 68)
The first typology in Figure 2.4, presents co-management as an exchange system whereby the state and community spheres frequently exchange information, goods and services. The second typology indicates an interception of state and community to jointly form cooperative units and participate in joint decision-making. The other two typologies, called ‘nested’ systems, reflect ownership criteria in which co-management results in either a state-nested system or a community-nested system. In the former, the state might be the de facto holder of all the legal rights in a certain area or a particular resource system. In the latter, community resource users might exercise all legal rights associated with an area or resource system.
In principle, the second structure presented, above, by Carlsson and Berkes informs the emergent framework of this paper. This framework is targeted towards democratic developing countries where critical tourism resources and community resources are fully owned by neither the state nor the communities. To some extent, this situation reflects the inappropriateness of the nested systems. Conversely, the exchange system (depicted in the first model) lacks the potential for optimum use of a shared decision-making platform. This is acknowledged by Carlsson and Berkes who agree that the exchange system represents the lower steps of (Arnstein, 1969) ladder of citizen participation. Thus, only the second structure, depicting an interception where each party retains authority and relative autonomy
32 remains viable for the current research context. Moreover, this joint form of cooperative structure can accommodate all the typologies identified in the previous two co-management arrangements as discussed above.
Beyond these issues, the typology identified embodies different features of the co-management processes. Plummer and Fitzgibbon (2004a) identify five key aspects of co-management approaches: pluralism, communication/negotiation, transactive decision-making, social learning and shared action/commitment. At the outcomes level, the authors propose three specific outcomes resulting from the application of co-management tactics, including efficiency of decision-making, increased capacity and legitimisation of actions. Pennington-Gray, Schroeder and Gale (2014) have tested Plummer and Fitzgibbon’s (2004a) co-management framework in connection with the management of tourism destinations. They found five key dimensions of co-management and linked those with Plummer and Fitzgibbon (2004a). Pennington-Gray et al. (2014) associated the outcomes of linkages specifically relating to the efficiency of decision-making, while resources, technology, skills, and knowledge all relate to increased capacity. Lastly, the authority of the co-management organisation supports the legitimisation of actions.
From an operational point of view, Pinkerton (1989) indicates a well-functioning co-management system should possess seven basic qualities: (1) data gathering; (2) logistical decisions; (3) allocation decisions; (4) protection of resource from environmental damage; (5) enforcement of regulations; (6) enhancement of long-term planning; and (7) more inclusive decision-making. Furthermore, Goetze (2004) observes that the design of a co-management system is dependent on particular resources or ecosystems (context-dependency) and the requirements specified by the local stakeholders. Thus, the co-management system lacks uniformity and varies widely from a practical standpoint. However, Goetze (2004) finds five basic elements, in requirement for an effective co-management system: reasons for initiating, legal bases, objectives, management focus and provisions for co-management.