27. Given the fact that co-management is a fairly recent approach to the management of small-scale fisheries in sub-Saharan Africa, one should be cautious of drawing firm conclusions on lessons presented below. In addition the scepticism of fishers regarding the sincerity of devolving management responsibility should be taken into account in the design of co-management arrangements. Government officials at all levels need to move beyond the rhetoric of co-management and genuinely embrace the concepts and principles of co-management if fishers are to be convinced of its benefits. This requires willingness on the part of government to make institutional changes that may be fundamental. Co-management will not work if used as a framework for government to impose its own rules. Furthermore, government needs to recognize that traditional systems can play a role in co-management.
28. For co-management to be embraced by fishers, they need to be integrally involved in all aspects of the co-management process. This includes policy formulation, problem identification, and assessment of alternatives as well as developing the rules for the fishery. As capacity of partners increases and as trust develops, responsibility can be increased at the local level. Evidence from experience in sub-Saharan Africa suggests that where fishers participate in developing the rules, compliance is increased. Where initiated by government, it seemed to have less success. However, the latter may be linked to the fact that governments may not have fully grasped the implications in terms of their new roles and responsibilities and modus operandi. It was also acknowledged that governments do not have the resources to police and enforce rules. When communities are empowered, and given rights over resources, they may assume enforcement responsibilities. In some cases though, community involvement in enforcement could lead to problems of marginalization and even pose a danger to individuals charged with enforcement. This reinforced the importance of active participation in setting the rules and agreeing on the sanctions.
29. Co-management is a time-consuming process, which can take over five years before a fully functioning system is in place. In certain sub-Saharan African countries, co-management has been hastily introduced without the necessary capacity building and preparation. Adequate time and resources need to be devoted to raising awareness and building capacity of resource users to ensure active participation. A balance needs to be struck between the responsibilities given to local institutions and resources needed to fulfill these responsibilities. It was agreed that for co-management efforts to be sustained, a long-term commitment and support from government and donors was required.
30. It was stressed repeatedly by the panel that capacity building through information dissemination, awareness raising and training was a critical requirement of any co-management intervention. Another important lesson arising from the case studies was the importance of clarifying and agreeing on objectives of co-management. Where objectives amongst partners differed, this led to breakdown in trust and even conflict. Mechanisms for conflict management will therefore need to be given high priority in the design of co-management arrangements.
31. Experts recognized the potentially important role of NGOs in facilitating and supporting co-management efforts in sub-Saharan Africa. Although caution was expressed with respect to involving NGOs, which lacked capacity, it was also acknowledged that NGOs from other sectors such as agriculture, primary health care and development could be engaged in assisting with the process. Appropriate training would need to be provided for these NGOs.
32. It was also found to be extremely difficult to get a community of fishers to support co-management if the benefits were not clear. Furthermore, if participating in co-management meant a loss of or reduced access to the resource, alternatives such as livelihoods or gear changes would need to be identified or incentives provided. Experience from Malawi suggested that restrictions on access were unacceptable because "they would lead to hardship and possible social disruption whose duration could not be predicted". Financial arrangements to bridge the gap between when losses are incurred by fishers and others dependent on the fisheries and when the gains are made by improved fisheries management could make the difference between fishers embracing the change or resisting and rejecting it.
33. A fundamental requirement for advancing co-management as a feasible alternative in Africa would be to put in place appropriate monitoring and evaluation procedures. This would not only involve monitoring the resource and various socio-economic indicators, but also ongoing monitoring of the benefits and costs of the co-management process itself. This would enable adjustments and improvements to be made.
34. While co-management appears to be a promising alternative to centralized and traditional forms of management in the sub-Saharan African context, the expert panel cautioned against assuming that it was appropriate for all small-scale commercial operations and all fishery types.
