The principle challenge in designing and scaling-up community-based NRM programs is the requirement for strengthening local organizational capacity. A recurring theme throughout this paper is that the supply of local institutions for collective action can be greatly facilitated by the adoption of decentralization policies and programs. However, institutions for collective management of natural resources will not automatically evolve through enactment of policies that decentralize resources and authority to local government and enable resource appropriators to design their own institutional rules. The joint products provided by NRM programs will inevitably necessitate the involvement of external implementing agencies for awareness raising, catalyzing group formation, soliciting commitment from all appropriators, and identifying subproject interventions through participatory micro-level planning.
Program strategies used by agencies will need to include incentives for group formation and strengthening, and also private incentives for adoption of new technologies. Tried and tested pathways to scaling-up programs are, unfortunately, still relatively ambiguous. It is known, however, that de-concentrated catalytic agencies working in nodal areas and using effective communications campaigns are an efficacious launch pad for scaling-up. Donors and governments must recognize that NRM programs cannot be viewed as isolated endeavors; systemic and enduring change is required in the structure of government agencies and the manner in which they conduct business. This will require a reform of public agencies to make them more client responsive and effective.
A final important point to note is that, given the immense contextual variables affecting program success, piloting programs on a small scale before attempting scaling-up is essential. The pilot can be used to fine-tune program strategies, incentives, and also to build the capacities of implementing agencies. Moreover, programs need to be adaptive and constantly learning from experiences. Therefore, starting implementation without a monitoring and evaluation system in place is inane and a waste of scarce resources. Monitoring of participatory processes and effectiveness of local institutions must be given much greater priority than previously.
