implementation phase only. Governments have been wary of power-sharing, preferring instead to retain the ability to set management objectives and determine
what knowledge to include in the decision-making process. Predominantly for reasons of efficacy rather than democracy, stakeholders are involved at the end of
the process to ensure that the government’s objectives rather than government plus local people’s objectives are implemented as efficiently as possible. One of
the risks of this form of co-management is that it builds false expectations of true empowerment and participation in the decision making process and fails to deliver
on these expectations. At the other extreme, Empowering fisheries co-management does indeed
deliver in regard to those expectations of empowerment and involvement. It is a bold move by the government to relinquish control and to empower communities
to influence their own future by setting management objectives and identifying the knowledge base for decision-making.
2.2.2 Components of Co-management
According to Raakjaer Nielsen et al. 2004, empowering fisheries co- management requires the following:
1. Re-evaluating the logic for management and a change in the knowledge base for management.
2. Restructuring of the institutions and organisations that support management. 3. Change in attitude from both governments and fishing communities towards
their roles in management. 4. Willingness from both sides to move in this direction.
5. Capacity building both within government and the fishing communities. This list may be rather uncomfortable reading for a government
accustomed to setting its own agenda as it highlights that the outcome is not clear at the beginning of the process. Raakjaer Nielsen et al. 2004 emphasise that
there will be a lot of “muddling through” but that it promises to improve implementation, compliance and the management of the natural resource for the
long term. Berkes et al. 2001 agree that the path for co-management in each context cannot be mapped out in advance, rather co-
management is a “a participatory and flexible management strategy that provides and maintains a
forum or structure for action on participation, rule making, conflict management, power sharing, leadership, dialogue, decision-making, negotiation, knowledge
generation and sharing, learning, and development among resource users, stakeholders and government p202.” Raakjaer Nielsen et al. 2004, Johannes
1998 and Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy
NRTEE, 1998 all make special reference to the need for traditional ecological knowledge to be included in the decision making process. Not only does this
involve the community and use types of information that they can readily understand as opposed to complex bio-economic models but it can also help to
cut through the constant problem that resource managers face of making decisions about complicated ecosystems without full scientific data.
Berkes et al. 2001 state that co-management offers the potential for a more open, transparent process that can save money, make maximum use of
traditional ecological knowledge, can increase compliance and give a powerful incentive to view the resource as a long term asset worth looking after. However,
they caution that true power sharing may not be the ideal route in every context. Some communities may have had a long history of dependence on the government
and may lack the leadership, social organisation and community institutions to take on the new responsibilities. Actions by a certain user group may undermine
the process and co-management may result in shifts in power bases that are unacceptable to certain interests.
Whatever the context, one crucial aspect of co-management is capacity building. If collective action is to successfully manage a common property
resource, there needs to be cooperation and trust within and among local communities Jentoft, 2000. Self-governance and civil organisation does not
come easily in all communities, making capacity building all the more important. The United Nations Development Programme UNDP defines capacity building
as the “sum of efforts needed to nurture, enhance and utilize the skills and capabilities of people and institutions at all levels
— nationally, regionally, and internationally
— so that they can better progress toward sustainable development” cited in Berkes et al. 2001. It is noteworthy that capacity building
commonly refers to the process of creating institutions from scratch and the UNDP now prefer to use the wider term capacity development which is the
process “through which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives
over time”UNDP, 2009. According to the UNDP, capacity development is more than communities receiving technical assistance, skills and knowledge and is
concerned with values and mindsets being changed over the long term. Whatever terminology is used, increasing capacity in coastal communities is a major priority
for most CBRM programs but capacity and institution building can take years. A case study of Orion in the Philippines shows that the process of community
organizing, capacity development, establishing community based management, implementing community based management and developing non-fishing
livelihood alternatives took 10 years, which is consistent with studies in St. Lucia and Bangladesh Berkes et al., 2001.
Raakjaer Nielsen et al. 2004 and White and Courteney 2002 add the caveat that some of the issues facing fishing communities are local e.g. bombing
of reef habitats and lack of infrastructure and some global e.g. predatory foreign vessels, decline of migratory stocks and global warming. Co-management needs
to be wider than the local scale to tackle global problems.
2.2.3 Co-management in Indonesia
