22. The Consultation considered co-management as a promising option for the management of small-scale fisheries in sub-Saharan Africa. For the purpose of the Consultation, this was defined as "a partnership arrangement in which government agencies, the community of local resource users (fishers), non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders (fish traders, boat owners, business people, etc.) share the responsibility and authority for the management of a fishery". The Consultation noted that the capability of the partners also needed to be considered within this definition.
23. Co-management had been initiated in several sub-Saharan countries in the latter half of the 1990s. This increasing trend was attributed to:
· economic restructuring which resulted in understaffing of government institutions;
· international markets expect standards of fish quality that require processes that demand greater stakeholder involvement;
· International Agreements and the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries that required changes in management approaches;
· Co-management that was often a condition of Donor Agencies;
· Changing government policies in a process of democratization; and
· Government decentralization.
24. The Consultation recognized that governments considered that changing to a co-management regime was risky as it was a new and uncertain environment. In some cases, there was also an unwillingness of communities to take on the responsibility as a result of a lingering attitude of dependency. Co-management was a long-term process requiring a substantial commitment of resources and its appropriateness was not universal across sub-Saharan Africa. Co-management described a process of addressing resource management problems, responding to changing conditions over time. It has attributes of democratization, power sharing, decentralization and social empowerment.
25. It was noted from the background document to the Consultation that there were several types of co-management. An instructive type of co-management arrangement differs from centralized government management only inasmuch as channels for dialogue with users have been established; the process remains one of government informing users of planned decisions. A consultative type of co-management arrangement exists when mechanisms for consultation between government and users have been established but where decisions are still taken by government. Cooperative type of co-management describes arrangements where governments and users co-operate on an equal basis in decision making. Advisory co-management arrangements are those where the users advise government of decisions to be taken and government endorses them. Finally informative co-management occurs when government has delegated responsibility to user groups who are responsible for informing government of their decisions. In accordance with this classification, most sub-Saharan co-management arrangements could be considered as consultative.
26. Existing co-management arrangements closely linked to the traditional system are not without their problems. Tensions could increasingly arise as the democratization process moves forward. It is likely that in the long term this process will undermine the authority of traditional leaders and that individuals outside the present power structures may, in the course of the democratization process, try to increase their own power at the expense of the traditional leaders. The outcome of such developments will have an impact on the resiliency of the co-management institution as it may change perceptions within the fishing community and the government on what are considered to be legitimate management institutions.
