| Co-management is a governance approach that emphasizes sharing of decision-making power and authority between communities and state agencies. Over the past decades, this approach has been applied to the management of various types of common pool resources including fisheries. However, several challenges remain to be analyzed, particularly in the fisheries sector, to strengthen co-management as a balanced governance approach that promotes community empowerment and government efficiency. This study attempts to evaluate the results from the implementation of fisheries co-management projects in Bangladesh, with particular attention to the development and sustainability of local forums, commonly known as Community-Based Organizations (CBOs). Furthermore, the study investigates six cases from three different wetland areas of Southern Bangladesh including floodplains, Ox-bow lakes (locally called Baors), and rivers. The main objectives and key research questions surround (i) institutional structure and process, (ii) community participation in CBOs, and (iii) capacity-building approaches used in the co-management of fisheries. A set of qualitative and participatory research approaches and methods were used over a period of 18 months to gather data in the field and office. Interviews were held with those involved in the co-management processes, including local participants, such as fishers, and external stakeholders, such as officials. In total, 111 respondents were included in data collection processes. Additionally, seven focus group discussions were conducted at the local level, and two at the official levels (both district and central levels). Findings from the research indicate that the establishment of local organizations was a key element across all six co-management sites. The local institutions, however, were not well supported in the process, especially after the completion of the project implementation period, due to their weak institutional base, and financial and institutional capacity constraints. In most cases, formal rights to manage designated fisheries areas were not established even though co-management programs were in force for well over a decade. Linkages with external authorities, which are fundamental to harness resources and funding, were found to be weak. The co-management sites also suffered from lower participation of poor fishers and women in leading organizational positions at local levels. Co-management could not influence the rigid power structures in the local communities, as local elites captured and dominated the CBO. Training for human resource development was not linked to the real needs of participants, and thus was not useful. In many cases, the local institutions were incapable of protecting local fish stocks. Livelihood returns from fishing were also unsatisfactory, leading to reduced participation of fishers in the activity of the CBOs. Moreover, corruption marred the CBOs, and ultimately their success. Given this experience, sustainability of co-management remains a challenge for fisheries systems, which places the CBO at higher risk of collapse, especially when external project support (i.e., funding and technical) from governments, or donors are discontinued. This research suggests that a strong institutional base with a small infusion of funds is needed to offer continuity to these local CBO forums, which may have bigger impacts on fisheries management and livelihoods in rural areas. A conclusion can be made that CBOs should be considered in a broader development context, and that a project-based approach may not help sustain this type of grassroots process of institutional building.;Key words: Co-management, CBOs, fisheries, leadership, institutions, members, organization, and participations.. |
