Tools for the Guidebook for evaluating fisheries co-management effectiveness
Task 1.2: Clarify the purpose and scope and scale of the evaluation
This Guidebook is based on two basic purposes for conducting the evaluation:
- determining the appropriateness of the co-management system and process; and
- determining the achievement of the goals and objectives of the co-management plan.
The information generated by the evaluation will be used to adapt and improve the process, management, planning, accountability and overall impact of the co-management system. However, there may be more specific reasons for conducting the evaluation: perhaps there are already problems or issues that have been noticed; donors and government policymakers may need a review to highlight problems and to set priorities; or to promote better management policies and practices more generally. Leaders of the co-management system may wish to use the results of an evaluation to improve their performance or to report on achievements. Increased interest in evaluation is in part due to increased demand for accountability and transparency. Broadly speaking, an evaluation can:
- provide direction for the achievement of goals and objectives;
- enable and support an adaptive approach to management;
- assist in effective resource allocation;
- promote accountability and transparency; and
- help to involve the resource users and stakeholders.
Both stakeholders and those who initiate and commission the evaluation should be clear about the purpose of conducting the evaluation. They should identify the specific questions they would like the evaluation to provide answers to. This will allow all those involved with the fisheries co-management system, and those in the evaluation team, to understand and agree on why the evaluation is being done. Moreover, the co-management system that is being evaluated needs to be clearly defined. It may be a system operating at a fishery, community or sector level, or it may be a spatially defined area (e.g. a territorial use right in fisheries or “TURF”).
The scale of the evaluation is identified as the fishery, community(s) or sector boundaries and territory under the co-management system. This information should be available in the fisheries co-management plan. It allows the evaluation process to have a clearly defined area or territory within which to undertake the evaluation and to accurately identify the stakeholders who are involved in the co-management system.
Suggestions
- Be clear about the scope of the fisheries co-management system and/or the fisheries co-management plan that is being evaluated. It is not the entire fisheries management system that is being assessed.
- Use only the tools that are appropriate to the context (e.g. gender, indigenous people, etc.).
- Avoid a mismatch of scope and scale. Don’t try to cover everything and be aware of gaps in the co-management system.
- Brito, C. & Ivanovic, C. (2021). Step it up with equality – Key elements for gender mainstreaming in FAO projects. Santiago: FAO.
- Cox, T. R., Butler, J. R., Webber, A. D. & Young, J. C. (2020). The ebb and flow of adaptive co-management: A longitudinal evaluation of a conservation conflict. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, pp. 453–460.
- Cucuzza, M., Stoll, J. S. & Leslie, H. M. (2021). Evaluating the theoretical and practical linkages between ecosystem-based fisheries management and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 126, Article 104390.
- FishForever. (2019). Global monitoring and evaluation plan. Milestones, outcomes & impacts. Edited by C. Cox, J. Van der Berg & A. Valdivia. (Updated October 2020). Arlington, Virginia: Rare.
- Hoque, E. (2008). Evaluating co-management as a tool for the reduction of poverty and inequality in Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary. In: Connecting communities and conservation: Collaborative management of protected areas in Bangladesh, pp. 99–119. United States Agency for International Development.
- IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). (2004). Managing evaluations: A guide for IUCN programme and project managers. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.