REFLECTIONS ON DEMOCRACY IN THE CARIBBEAN — CO-MANAGEMENT ASAN INSTRUMENT OF CHANGE.

Janice CumberbatchCANARISt. Lucia

AbstractThis paper sets out the rationale for field research on co-management in the Caribbean. It draws upon and adds to the bodyof literature advocating people-centred development and strongerdemocracy. The proposed research will seek to examine ways ofachieving stronger democracy in the region through theinvestigation of existing collaborative management arrangements.It is based on the assumption that the seeds of what people wantand need are already present in some of their social and economicactivities and therefore can be transformed into new socio-politicalsettings.

IntroductionFor years now people have been complaining about the inadequacy of democracy in the

Caribbean, and indeed in the rest of the world. People basically want the decision makingprocess to be increasingly transparent and the leaders to be more accountable. They also wishto have their demands heard and needs met more effectively and efficiently. Essentially, it ismost frustrating to take a trip to the polling stations once every five years, place an X next tothe name of a person, and then have no real means of removing that person (short of somethingcriminal) if he or she performs inadequately. Indeed to exercise the franchise is unhappily torenounce it. The representative principle steals from individuals the ultimate responsibility fortheir values, beliefs and actions. (Barber, 1984:145)

Needless to say there have been calls for change. For example, some call for a changeof administration only to realise that most politicians amount to the same when holding the reinsof power. Others call for a change of system only to be accused of advocating communism,which, up until recent global events, was the dreaded sourge of this region. People appear towant more of the services performed by the government but less government, or government ina different form. While it is indeed necessary to expand the benefits provided by the state,alternative mechanisms are needed to provide state services. (Berger & Neuhaus, 1984:250)

For the past two decades political scientists and social scientists have been arguing thatwhat is needed is the strengthening of democracy. They argue that the political apparatus hasbeen guided by an ideology of production-centred development which emphasises legal charters,formal authority, control structures, and budgetary processes - a development which displacespeople and whole communities from their means of life, leaving them hungry and jobless.

1

In response, these advocates call for a alAray florri the current development path toa people-centred development which is pro-community, pro-nature and pro-future. Adevelopment system which would seek to:

a) return control over resources to the people and their communities, to be used inmeeting their own needs.

b) broaden political participation, building from a base of strong people'sorganizations and participatory local government.

c) the opportunity for people to obtain a secure livelihood based on the intensive, yetsustainable, use of renewable resources, building from the values and culture ofthe people.

d) build within people a sense of their own humanity and their links to earth, itsresources and the natural processes through which it sustains all life.

e) promote active mutual self-help among people, working together in their commonstruggle to deal with their common problems. Recognising the importance of selfrespect of the individual and the self determination of the community, it does notlook to international charity as the answer to poverty; rather to the productive useof local resources to meet local needs. (Adapted from the Manila Declaration onPeople's Participation and Sustainable Development).

There is reason to believe that such a paradigm is currently emerging from a globalprocess of collective social invention. It can be observed in the work being done by NGOs andCommunity Based Organisations (CBOs) in communities across the region and in the movementsfor collective self-empowerment and social change being undertaken by dis-enfranchised citizensin Central and Latin America. It assigns to the individual the role not of subject, but of actorwho defines the goals, controls the resources and directs the processes affecting his or her life.People-centred development places substantial value on local initiative and diversity. It thusfavours self-organising systems developed around human-scale organisational units and self-reliant communities (Korten, 1984: 300).

This paper draws upon and adds to the body of literature advocating people-centreddevelopment and stronger democracy. It provides a brief but critical discussion on democracyand investigates one formula for improving democracy in the Caribbean, namely the existingcollaborative management arrangements. The basic argument is that the seeds of what peoplewant and need are already present in some of their social and economic activities and thereforethese can be transformed into new socio-political settings, making life more meaningful for thelarge majority of our populations.

Democracy - a discussionAbraham Lincoln described democracy as government of the people, by the people and

for the people. In reality it is government on behalf of the people, in which some of the people,chosen by all, govern in all public matters all of the time (Duncan, 1992:48).

That this is unsatisfactory to a large number of persons can be seen in the industrial

2

struggles, strikes, sit-ins, work-ins, demonstrations, marches, campaigns and so forth, designedto advance specific or general demands, oppose governmental policies, protest against givenmeasures, etc. The question therefore is how can people participate more fully in the issueswhich affect their lives, e.g. resource management and social service delivery.

This is the point at which the alarm bells are vigorously and sonorously rung -- bellswhich toll the collapse of effective government, the collapse of a stable and productive economy,and the descent into anarchy and dictatorship with the collapse of high culture or the descent intocommunism. However, if the current political apparatus is closely examined, it becomesapparent that far from creating anarchy, greater involvement of people would indeed improvethe efficiency of the system.

That the current political system is inefficient and ineffectual is no secret. It is insteadthe topic of discussion in nearly every national and regional forum set up to discuss "the issues".Nor, it would seem, is the reason for this crisis a mystery. Numerous reasons are put forward,

ranging from the lack of vision of politicians and bureaucrats to the greed of rich people whoare corrupting and controlling the political institutions. Some argue from the oppositeperspective and posit instead that it is the greed of poor people who are demanding too manyentitlements from the system. While there might be some validity in these commonly expressedreasons, might it not be that the political structure is becoming obsolescent?

Society is always in a state of flux. Sociologists have over the decades described societyas moving from one form to another. As a rule they described the change as being the movefrom traditional to modern society. Durkheim for example, believed that society changed frombeing organic to mechanical -- his way of describing the increasing complexity anddifferentiation of society structures. For Weber there was a state of increasinginstitutionalisation, bureaucracy and formalisation -- a process of rationalisation. While thevarious theorists have proposed different mechanisms of change, in every case the changes aremanifested through the adjustment of the various social structures -- values, norms, collectivitiesand roles -- to the new state. However, it is not an instantaneous change in which all structureschange all at once, and therefore there are instances of disequilibrium.

In this instance, what is being witnessed is a political system which has not adjusted tothe new social, cultural and political diversity which currently exists. The current system hasnot been designed to deal with the competing and often contradictory demands from gay activists,ethnic sub-sub-minorities, regional power blocs, feminists, cultural and linguistic groups, anti-nuclear campaigners and single parents. As a result, whatever the government does happens toolate and is often the wrong response. People who desperately need help do not get it. Peoplewith no need at all receive lush benefits. Instead of customized services for real individuals, thegovernment service factories churn out their mass product for dehumanized clients (Toffler,1984:246).

There is therefore need to design an appropriate process for making collective decisions.The almost automatic response of those in authority is to attempt to strengthen the centre of

3

government, adding more and yet more politicians, bureaucrats, experts and computers in thedesperate hope of outrunning the acceleration of complexity. This of course leads to ever-greatercentralization, technocracy and totalarianism.

On the other hand, there is the response which favours reducing the decision load bysharing it with more people, allowing more decisions to be made down below or at the peripheryinstead of concentrating them at the already stressed and malfunctioning centre. This, if handledcorrectly can lead toward a new, more advanced level of democracy .

The argument for the latter is clear. Unchecked by democratic dissent and unrefreshedby new ideas from below, the actions of the central authority become increasingly error prone,dangerous, self-amplifying and often self defeating: By contrast, increasing channels forfeedback, and especially negative feedback, between citizens and government decision makersdecreases the risk of error. It also means that errors once made can be quickly and more cheaplycorrected (Ibid, 248).

There are also benefits at the individual level. Firstly, the majority of individuals insociety stand to gain self-esteem and growth toward a fuller affirmation of their potentialities byparticipating more actively in meaningful community decisions. Secondly, the full fruition ofan individual's faculties requires the responsibility and stimulus which come from grappling withproblems that reach beyond his or her personal interest (Duncan, 1992:49).

What needs to be done therefore, is to develop a democratic process in which all thepeople govern themselves, at least in some public matters some of the time. This, accompaniedwith a consciousness of the need to safeguard resources for future generations, creates a largenumber of citizens who, whatever diffetences they may have, would attempt to manage a numberof critical public affairs in such a way as to safeguard survival.

The answer is of course education which can challenge the individual to engage co-operatively in the solution of concrete problems affecting the individual and the individual'simmediate community. Such education helps to equip persons to empower themselves, a centraltheme of people-oriented development and a requisite for the practise of democracy.

Participation at this level promotes strong democracy which looks to wage a second warfor suffrage, a second campaign to win the substance of citizenship promised but never achievedby winning of the vote. It requires institutional change organised around achieving strongdemocratic talk (deliberation, agenda setting, listening, empathy;) strong democratic decisionmaking (public decision, political judgement, common policy-making); and strong democraticaction (common work, community action, citizen service) (Duncan, 1992:266).

The forms which such governance processes can take vary substantially. The ones beingconsidered in this discourse can be grouped under the term collaborative management, or co-management.

4

The argument for Co-managementThere is an important distinction between government acting to meet the needs for people

and government acting to create an enabling setting within which people can be more effectivein meeting those needs for themselves. There is a growing realization that in nearly every areaof resource and social services management - from forestry to public health - there areopportunities for creating enabling settings which allow people to meet their own needs. Italmost inevitably requires fundamental reorientation in the purposes, structures and operationsof government bureaucracies - away from direct service delivery or resource management to localcapacity building and support (Korten, 1984:302-3).

CollabOrative management', or co-management as it is known, involves sharedresponsibility between the state, the community' and intermediary institutions such as NGOs andprivate sector bodies. Co-management is a tool which can be used to manage natural resourcesor social services. At the same time, the process of achieving co-management can also be a goalin itself, because the process involves community participation and responsibility which in turnhelp to strengthen the process of democracy.

The rationale for co-management is that it ensures that people woril be allowed todevelop not as subjects, but as actors who define the goals, control the resources and direct theprocesses affecting their lives. This also aids the security of sustainability to the extent thatpeople would be given the means, i.e., education and instruments of management to take controland take care of their natural and social environments.

The objectives of co-management include community empowerment; the sustainabledevelopment of the resources and the social services being managed; shared responsibility,involving some degree of community authority based on appropriate and formal legal instrumentsand institutional arrangements; and enhanced and equitable social and economic benefits withinthe community.

Much emphasis must be placed on promoting and strengthening the communityorganisations developed by persons who are directly affected by, or are involved in the situation.These organisations are important because they represent the way the people do things at a locallevel, and in many cases contain the seeds of what is needed for the sustained development or

In Canadian Fisheries Management Literature, co-management is used as the shortenedform of "cooperative management" . Here the term "collaborative" is used to avoid confusionwith cooperatives which are a distinct type of organisation, and also because collaborationcaptures the spirit and nature of the relationship between the state and the community.

2 The term "community" is used here in its broadest sense to mean any group of peoplewho share a common functional link, including place of residence, occupation or interest. Usingthis definition, a community can, for example, be a village, a professional association, or agroup of fishermen (Geoghegan, Renard & Smith, 1991:2)

5

management of a natural resource or social service.

The examples which follow portray a number of variations of co-:management'arrangements. This is not an exhaustive list, and is gathered from the reports of seminars andconferences as well as published case studies. In some cases the authors do not refer to thesituations described as co-management but as self governance or self help. However, they havebeen included here because they display many of the characteristics described aboVe.

The main reason for providing these examples is to present a brief indication.of the rangeand extent of collaborative management arrangements in the Caribbean and Latin America. Itis projects such as these that will form the subject of analysis in the research outlined in the finalsections.

Examples of Co-management

Marfa Cano Neighbourhood, Cartagena Colombia.

A group of families got together to construct their homes and their neighbourhocid in anorganized and homogenous fashion, using a self help construction system. It was based on theinitiative of a group of members who were 'leaders of those families. They created their owntraining system for promoting coexistence and their own‘values and capabilities. They designedtheir own "co-existence ethic" with rules. covering the areas of housing; basic services, etc., aswell as community and vehicular areas. .

Eventually they were successful in securing government support for legalizing theirorganization as a neighbourhood (barrio).

SUCCESS FACTORS:Presence of a strong charismatic leader who organized the group.Identification and implementation of a group mobilization strategy.Establishment of normative and operational regulations for the governance of theneighbourhood itself.Successful strategy of leadership to achieve government acceptance and backing (Takenfrom the Proceedings of the Workshop on Self-Governance and Entrepreneurship, 1992).

Water User Association, Ysura, Dominican RepublicThe farmers of Ygura organized to manage, operate and conserve the irrigation system.

The system covers 8,000 hectares and involves 4,465 farmers. They produce 18 agriculturalproducts and have independent marketing for the local market. It has been in existence now forfour years, and is directed by a council, whereas it was previously 'administered by the statewhich constructed the project. It has seven associations for each irrigation channel , and the stateorganizes them and transfers the system to the beneficiaries free of charge. There is • an

6

agreement with various institutions to provide training.

SUCCESS FACTORS:Administered by beneficiaries.The beneficiaries loves their project and is more dedicated to work.Decision making is democratic and participatory.Strong support in training, assistance and technical advisory services from the outset.Members of technical-administrative team receive salaries.70% self-financial, with an upward trend (Taken from the Proceedings of the Workshopon Self-Governance and Entrepreneurship, 1992).

Co-management of the White Sea Urchin Resource in St. LuciaA management strategy was developed for the exploitation of the white spilled sea urchin

(Tripneustes ventricosus) on the island of St. Lucia. The strategy was developed in response toa situation of continued over harvesting, which had resulted in Government's closure of thefishery to allow the recovery of the stock. The collaborating actors are the department offisheries, a group of local sea egg divers and a regional NGO, the Caribbean Natural ResourcesInstitute, CANARI.

Biological research was undertaken by CANARI and the divers to determine thepopulation density, size distribution of the populations and reproductive status of the sea eggpopulations in three selected sites on the south east coast of St. Lucia. It was determined thatthe conservation efforts in the Maria Islands Nature Reserve and the community management ofthe resource at Laborie had been successful in maintaining viable stocks, while the severedepletion of the Aupicon stock was the result of uncontrolled exploitation and the absence of anyform of management.

It was decided that management of the sea egg resource of St. Lucia was possible ifeffective local community systems based on the cooperation of the users exist; if local residentsand users of the resource are involved in planning, designing and management of a reserve thatinclude the said resource; and if year round indiscriminate harvesting of the sea egg is curtailed.

SUCCESS FACTORS:The existence of self-imposed regulations and collective management actions in Laborieoffered an excellent opportunity for the formulation of a new and improved managementregime in Aupicon.Resource users were able to participate effectively in co-management because theirinterests were represented and they were organized as a group with a common goal.The combination of scientific and popular knowledge perceptions in the formulation ofmanagement plans.Proper definition of the roles of the various interest groups, and their formalparticipation.The small well-defined nature of the resource.

7

Integrated management of Common property Fuelwood Resources from Natural andPlantation Forests in St. Lucia

The overall goals of the project were to ensure the protection of the Manktoth mangrovewhile simultaneously providing the local resource users — especially the charcoal producers --with the maximum opportunities for socio-economic benefits derived from the sustainable useof the mangrove and other alternative resources.

The ManicOtt mangrove was used extensively for a variety of potentially sustainablepurposes, including charcoal production, seasonal fishing, crab hunting, grazing and therapeuticbathing. The project sought to establish a 25 acre fuelwood plantation of fast growing Leucaenaleucocephala over five years at five acres per year on public land adjacent to the mangrove nearthe village of Aupicon. It provided a significant alternative source of fuelwood to the mangrovefor making charcoal. The forestry Department assumed principal responsibility for overseeingthe implementation of the plantation component of the project. The charcoal producers wereactively involved in the establishment, management and use of the plantation.

Later in the project land adjacent to the plantation was obtained on lease and used for acommunity vegetable garden to provide the charcoal producers with an additional economicalternative to charcoal production.

SUCCESS FACTORS:The use of local knowledge and expertise.Building upon existing management mechanisms and institutions.Clear definition of the community.Community perception of the resource as both valuable and scarce.Security of community tenure over the resources.

In addition to these full scale projects, there are also examples across the region ofsituations which suggest a move towards the collaborative management of various social services.For example, there are school boards comprising representatives from the ministry of education,the teaching staff, the parents and the pupils which have been given the mandate to decide certainmatters in the day to day running of the school. Likewise, a number of neighbourhoods haveentered into agreements with the police departments of the state to undertake the managementof the security in particular areas.

The role of participation in co-managementIn all of the above examples participation was a key element in the success of the

projects. This suggests that participation is a central part of co-management. Indeed, it is onlywhen participation is allowed that, potential stakeholders have the opportunity to identifythemselves and express their needs or their stake in the activity. In other words, participationis the means by which collaboration occurs. If there is no participation, there can be nocollaboration. However, there can be varying levels or degrees of participation, some of whicharguably do not allow the process of collaboration to occur. The following figure shows varyingdegrees of participation:

Figure 1

7

8

6

4

5

2

1

CITIZEN CONTROL

DELEGATED POWER

PARTNERSHIP

PLACATION

CONSULTATION

INFORMING

THERAPY

MANIPULATION

Degrees of Citizen Power

Degrees of Tokenism

Non-participation

Source: Arnstein (1969)

In the case of manipulation the community is involved to the extent that it suits the needsof the decision-makers. Therapeutic involvement aims to pacify the community that its viewsare being heard, but seldom are these views incorporated into the plans or project. Rung three,informing, occurs when the decision makers provide some information to the public. Howeverit is generally uni-directional, and the public is not allowed to respond.

9

The next three rungs show a quantitative increase in the cc znmunity's involvement.During consultation, the fourth rung, information is actually sought from the public andincorporated into the plan. However, more often than not, the plan is largely the brainchild ofthe decision makers, and the input from the public is used to support that plan. Placation occurswhen some sector of the community of the public actually gets its needs met in the project. Thissector may of course be in a strategic political or economic position and therefore it would be -prudent to satisfy them in this manner.

The last three levels signify a qualitative development in the level of communityparticipation. Rungs six, seven and eight signify what is considered as true participation. Apartnership requires that the community be involved at all stages of the programme and that theirinput is as important as that of the decision making body. Delegated power goes one step furtherin that the authority is handed over to the community to make the required decisions and theresources are made available for them to carry them through. The eighth rung, citizen control,can be considered the ideal state of participation. This would truly be a case of government ofthe people by the people. However, it is not likely to be easily attained in that it begins to begthe question of the role of the state.

More often than not, participation in the Caribbean region is of the first five types.Increasingly however, many organisations are attempting to bring about participation whichcomprises a partnership, delegated power or citizen control. This has been led to a large extentby non-governmental organisations, and many governmental agencies are becoming moreinvolved in participatory planning activities. This is especially so in the areas of resourcemanagement, health and education.

There are those who would argue that it is -only at and above the levt: ;menet sh"; thatco-management is occurring; that it is only at these levels that some degree of decision makingpower is shared between state mandated agents and the community of resource or social serviceusers. However, the levels of so-called token participation indicate first of all that there is areceptiveness to community participation by the state and secondly, that the community is in aposition where support to, and strengthening of, their organisation would allow them to takemore responsibility and become more involved. These phases can therefore be seen as precursorsas it were of co-management.

The characteristics of co-managementThe potential for varying degrees of participation is related to the fact that co-management

is a concept applicable to a variety of contexts. As the case examples indicated, co-managementinvolves a range of situations of collaboration and shared responsibility whereby the degree ofparticipation can vary considerably. What decides that there is in fact a co-managementarrangement is that there be a substantial decentralization of decision-making processes andultimately formalisation of the collaborative management agreement.

However, a great deal more is involved than the simple delegation of formal authority.

10

Basic styles and methodologies of decision-making must also change. For example, if expertdominated, non-consultative modes of central decision-making are simply replicated at lowerlevels, local decisions may be no more responsive to human needs than those made centrally.Decision-making must truly be returned to the people, who have both the capacity and the rightto inject into the process the richness - including the subjectivity - of their values and needs.Moreover, decision processes should be fully informed by whatever analysis available expertscan provide, but only as one of several data inputs available to the many participants (Korten -,1984:301).

Achieving a society which is both oriented to people-centred purposes and at the sametime consistent with existing technical, social, environmental and political realities is likely toinvolve structural and normative changes, as well as the development of new social and technicalcapabilities throughout the society. Clearly, public policy must focus on the creation of enablingsettings which encourage and support people's efforts to meet their own needs and to solve theirown problems at individual, family and community levels. It must also assist in the process ofbridging the gap between the micro community and the macro national policy levels, recognisingthat often the two are in conflict with each other. For example the pursuit of macro levelstructural adjustment policies have had negative impacts at the micro community level in theCaribbean and elsewhere.

The necessary mechanisms are built and institutionalised in local structures and valuesonly with time. Therefore, co-management is basically a long term process, but such aperspective is required to achieve sustainable development. It is a process rather than an event.Establishing a co-management process can be considered an event but it is supposed to go , -n.It requires interventions to establish as well as sustain it and the nature of interventions will bedifferent in each case.

Perhaps the most difficult part of co-management is the institutionalisation of the process.For co-management to have meaning and be truly effective, the state should pass on some of itspowers to the community. This requires legislation, i.e., co-management must have a basis inlaw at least two levels -- in the regulations which guide the collaboration, as well as in theformalisation of the authority of the community organisations. Needless to say, the state is notabout to willingly relinquish control of resource and social service management to communitiesunless it can prove efficient and effective. In fact, co-management like any other activitydesigned to empower communities is likely to be viewed as a subversive attempt to underminethe role of the state. However, it must be stressed that in a co-management arrangement, thestate plays the role of partner with the community, and it is therefore not an attempt to usurp thestate's role, merely to make it more efficient and effective in meeting the needs of the society.

It is therefore important, in fact crucial, that it be shown that social and economic benefitscan be derived from co-management. This is perhaps the only way to generate the community'sinterest and to obtain the cooperation of the state. In the case of the state, it must also prove tobe efficient. While in many cases it will prove less cost efficient to have communities managingtheir own resources instead of state appointed agents, the time factor involved in raising people's

11

awareness and training them to establish co-management arrangements may be seen as a negativefactor against co-management. Mediation and conflict resolution will also be critical since it willbe necessary to reconcile the national and community objectives, which in some cases will beconflicting.

It is clear then, that co-management is a process which must be helped if it is to occur,because if left to itself it would not happen in most cases. Moreover, the required changes aredifficult to achieve since they involve comprehensive shifts in structures, norms, and operatingprocedures, brought about only through long and often difficult processes of social learning.

The logical question to be raised is from what sources will come the power to challengethese interests? Korten suggests that the question be addressed from the perspective of the longterm processes of re-creation by which human society has evolved - by which old ideas, socialtechniques, and technology have continuously given away to the new. Sometimes armed conflicthas proved necessary to clear way the old and to provide a setting for the new. However, it isimportant to bear in mind that conflict and confrontations themselves do not create the new.Indeed, in their more extreme forms, such as armed revolution, they can be highly destructiveof many of the very values, skills and leaders needed to create the new society they claim toseek. In a choice between destruction of the old and creation of the new as a social changestrategy, preference should normally go to the latter (Korten, 1984: 308).

As formidable as the achievement of the proposed reorientation may appear at first to be,encouragement is found in the successful experience of a few such agencies that have alreadyundertaken pioneering efforts to re-define their roles from managers of resources and deliverersof social services for the people, to strengthening of the people's capacity to manage their ownresources and social services. In fact the gestation process is already well along - an outgrowthof a collective act of human creation that has no visible organizational structure, no headquarters,and no budget; knows no national boundaries; and transcends traditional ideological and politicalaffiliations. Its participants act not as formal office holders, but as individual human beingsseeking the creation of a more human society. They come from among the marginalised and thepowerful, the poor and the wealthy, the illiterate and the well-educated. The majority are foundoutside the halls of power and the pages of the leading news magazines. With less stake inmaintaining the past they can sometimes see more clearly the nature of present realities. Lessin the limelight and thus less pressures to provide immediate solutions, they have more freedomto experiment in the creation of the alternative ideas, social techniques and technologies that arethe basic elements of the power-building process. Indeed, these three creative tasks define animportant part of the power building agenda of people centred development (add, 305-9).

It becomes very important then, that the experiences of these agencies and communitiesbe examined and documented if co-management is to be shown as a viable alternative to totalstate control of natural resources and social services.

12

SOCiaLTISMALAgraiaAs the previous section indicated, communities are playing a collaborative role in health

and housing in South and Central America; in security through neighbourhood watches; in themanagement of natural resources and parks and protected areas in the Caribbean; and ineducation through multi-interest boards of management. They all display varying degrees ofcollaboration, and indeed there will always be a different degree of collaboration requireddepending on the resource or social service to be managed.

However, if these processes are to be replicated across the region, as well as extendedinto other areas of public policy, then there must be an evamination and documentation of theseactivities. The existing examples must be classified according to the location of the project; thenature of the resource or social service; the parties involved; the form of agreement which existsbetween collaborating parties; the circumstances of the project; the level of co-management orparticipation; and the effectiveness of the effort. Such a classification would begin the processof answering the five questions posed by the CANARI research review. Only in this way canco-management develop to its full potential in the Caribbean and beyond.

The research in this particular instance is essentially in the field of the social sciences.Above and beyond the specific technical skills which management of the natural resource orsocial service will require, successful co-management arrangements will require the skills of thesocial scientist because it deals with people and their systems of social, economic and politicalorganisation.

This research agenda recognises that for co-management to be a success, social scientistsmust help social organisations build their capacity to use social science knowledge and data asa normal part of their operating routine. It acknowledges that the task is to demystify socialscience making it available and therefore turning agency personnel and in some instances thecommunity itself into more effective researchers. This involves disciplined observation, guidedinterviews and informal panels as well as formal surveys; emphasizing timeliness as well asrigor; employing oral in addition to written communication; offering informed interpretationwhich can substantiate extensive statistical analysis; making narrative and numericalpresentations; and giving attention to the processes unfolding and to intermediate outcome datarequired for rapid adaptation, rather than dwelling on detailed assessment of final outcomes.Rather than provide the static profiles found in • many socio-economic surveys, it involves a questto understand the dynamics of the socio-technical systems that govern community life, to providea basis for operational-level predictions of the consequences of given development interventions.It means identifying target group members and behaviours in terms relevant to program actionrather than aggregated statistics (adapted from Korten, 1984:186).

Beyond the need to research and document collaborative arrangements in the region, thereis also the larger question of how far reaching can co-management be? Is it sufficient to haveco-management arrangements scattered across the region, or will it develop into something largerand more integrated? Obviously co-management can impact on national policy to the extent thatit changes the locus of the management of vital resources and social services in a country.

13

Is it a social movement seeking to change the established order and to develop a betterone? Does it have a life cycle, i.e., has co-management developed in response to the economicdownturn in the region and will it disappear should the economic climate improve. Or does co-.management have the basis of a greater longevity than this because it responds to the obviousenvironmental degradation which will not be disappearing for some time to come?

As was stated earlier, society is in a constant state of flux. However it is not always outof control. Generally, a state of equilibrium can be discerned. In examining the changesbrought about by co-management, or those which lead to it, it is necessary to distinguish betweenthose changes which maintain the equilibrium of the system ;and changes which move the socialsystem from one state of equilibrium to another; In other words, there is a need to addreis thelarger sociological picture of social change and the mechanisms and vehicles of change toascertain where co-management fits in, as well as to determine the strength of its viability andlongevity.

As co-management arrangements become more and more institutionalised, will the processbe co-opted by the very system that it is attempting to improve and loose its creative edge?These are the fundamental questions which must be answered by any researcher seeking toinvestigate the collaborative arrangements in the region. The information collected on theseprojects and programmes, should be used to ascertain the nature of co-management in terms ofits long term viability in the Caribbean region.

14

REFERENCES

Arnstein, Sherry R. July 1969. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." AIP Journal, 34, 216 -224.

Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong democracy -- participatory politics for a new age. Universityof California Press. 320p,Berger, Peter & Richard J. Neuhaus. To empower people. in People centred development -- contributions toward theory and planning frameworks. Korten, David C. & Rudi Klauss (eds)1984. Kumarian Press. 333p.Duncan, Neville C. 1992. An introduction to Caribbean political analysis. University of theWest Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados. 112p.Gunder Frank, Andrd, & Marta Fuentes. 1988. Nine theses on social movements. IfdaDossier No. 63, January/February. pp.27-44.Geoghegan Tighe, Yves Renard & Allan Smith. 1991. Community participation in protectedarea management: some cases from the Caribbean. Paper presented at the Regional Symposiumon Public and Private Cooperation on national park Development. Tortola, WI August 23-25,1991. 7p.International Centre for Self-Governance, Institute for Contemporary Studies andPontificia Universidad Catblicia Madre y Maestra. 1992. Proceedings of the workshop onSelf-Governance and Entrepreneurship. Held in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, May 4-6,1992.Korten, David C. People-centred development: toward a framework. in People centreddevelopment -- contributions toward theOry and planning frameworks. Konen, David C. & RudiKlauss (eds.) 1984. Kumarian Press. 333p.Smith, A.H. & T. van't Hof. 1991. Coral reef monitoring for management of marine parks:cases from the insular Caribbean. paper presented at the IDRC Workshop on Common Propertyresources, Winnipeg, Canada, September 1991. CANARI Communication no. 36:14pp.Smith, A.H. & R. Walters. 1991. Co-management of the white sea urchin resource in St.Lucia. Paper presented at the IDRC Workshop on Common Property Resources, Winnipeg,Canada, September 1991. CANARI Communication no. 38:12pp.The Manila Declaration on People's Participation and Sustainable Development. IfdaDossier Nos. 75 & 76 January/April.Walters, B.B. & M. Burt. 1991. Integrated management of common property fuelwoodresources from natural and plantation forests in St. Lucia. Paper presented at the IDRCWorkshop on Common Property Resources, Winnipeg, Canada, September 1991. CANARICommunication no. 35:21pp.Toffler, Alvin. The crisis of democratic governance. in People centred development --contributions toward theory and planning frameworks. Korten, David C. & Rudi Klauss (eds.)1984. Kumarian Press. 333p.

15