Thirty Years in Support of ParticipatoryNatural Resource Management: the experience ofthe Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)

Caribbean Natural Resources InstituteTechnical Report

387No.

Civil Society & Governance

Thirty years in support of participatory naturalresource management: the experience of the CaribbeanNatural Resources Institute (CANARI)

Acknowledgements:This document was prepared by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute(CANARI) through the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation-funded project “Climate change and biodiversity in the insular Caribbean:Going from strength to strength”. It also draws on a self-profile of CANARIproduced for the International Institute for Environment and Development.

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)Trinidad and Tobago2009

Acronyms and abbreviations ii

1. A study of CANARI by CANARI, how come? iiCaribbean challenges 4Background and acknowledgements 5

22. Tell me, has CANARI really made a difference? 1

CANARI has made the case for collaborative management and participatory governance 7CANARI has made people aware of the positive linkages between poverty reduction and environmental management 8CANARI has contributed to building the capacity for participatorymanagement 10CANARI has influenced changes in public policy in several countries of the region 11CANARI has created bridges and changed relationships in ways that have made natural resource management more inclusive 12

3. The evolution of CANARI’s mission and approach 3A consistent and coherent mission 13Approaches evolving over time 14

4. What works: Reflections from CANARI and its partners 15INSTITUTIONAL STRATEGIES 16

A strategic focus 16Adaptive management and learning by doing 17

METHODS AND APPROACHES FOR PROGRAMME DELIVERY 17Action learning 17Focusing on key change agents 18Developing the capacity of partner organisations 19Building strong strategic alliances 19Communicating and disseminating 20Working regionally 20

INTERNAL ORGANISATION AND GOVERNANCE 20An effective governance structure 20A multi-disciplinary team, open to continuous learning and committed to excellence 21Effective succession planning 22Effective fundraising 22Effective financial and other management systems 23Strategic use of resources 23

Table of Contents

4

5. In conclusion 23

References 26

Appendix 1: The evolution of CANARI and its mission 28

Appendix 2: CANARI today 33Programme 33Communications and target audiences 33Geographic scope 35Internal governance 36Staff 37Associates 38Strategic alliances and partnerships 39Funding 39Internal systems 41

Filing and library 41Internal policies and procedures 41Financial management systems 41

5

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ALG Action learning groupCANARI Caribbean Natural Resources InstituteCARICOM Caribbean CommunityCBO Community-based organisationCCA Caribbean Conservation AssociationCERMES Centre for Resource Management and Environmental StudiesCIDA Canadian International Development AgencyDFID Department for International DevelopmentECNAMP Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management ProgrammeEMA Environmental Management AuthorityEU European UnionFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGFS2S Going from Strength to Strength (project)GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische ZusammenarbeitHIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus - Acquired immunodeficiency syndromeIIED International Institute for Environment and DevelopmentIUCN International Union for Conservation of NatureMDG Millennium Development GoalNGO Non-governmental organisationOECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean StatesPRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy PaperSEDU Sustainable Economic Development UnitSMMA Soufriere Marine Management AreaUK United KingdomUSD United States dollarUWI University of the West Indies

6

Caribbean challengesThese are times of great uncertainty, at global, regional,national and local levels. The impacts of the globaleconomic downturn are being felt within the Caribbean,particularly in terms of shrinking fiscal revenue, reducedtourism arrivals and investments, lower remittances fromCaribbean nationals living overseas, reductions in theprice of export commodities such as oil and methanol(Trinidad and Tobago) and bauxite (Jamaica), and the lossof traditional markets for agricultural products (e.g.bananas and sugar). These are accompanied by a growingawareness of the actual and potential threats of climatechange and the scale of the interventions that will benecessary to increase resilience, particularly of coastalcommunities and ecosystems.

These multiple crises demonstrate the intricacy of thelinkages between natural resource management andhuman development, especially when one considers theconnection between poverty and the environment, withthe negative impact that environmental degradation hason people living in poverty, but also with the potentialcontribution that good environmental management canmake to poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods.However, experience has shown that sustainabledevelopment and natural resource management are

complex processes that require the participation of allsectors of society, under new forms of governance that arebased on the principles of equity and sustainability.Coherent institutional frameworks that facilitate linkagesbetween environmental management, adaptation tochange and poverty reduction, at local, national andregional levels, are more necessary than ever.

In the Caribbean, with this region’s huge ecological,social, cultural and economic diversity, effectiveenvironmental management also demands intense,constant and effective collaboration between countriesand institutions, across linguistic and political barriers.Indeed, one of the few, perhaps the only positive sign ofthe current crisis is a seemingly greater impetus towardsregional integration, at least in terms of developingcommon policies and a degree of harmonised regulationof the financial sector. In this context, all initiatives andarrangements that bring the region together in the face ofthese formidable challenges are worthy of support, andthere is a need to identify the conditions and approachesthat make regional collaboration effective, efficient andsustainable.

1. A study of CANARI by CANARI, how come?

7

The loss of preferential markets for Caribbean bananas has had aserious impact on livelihoods in islands such as Saint Lucia.

Source: CANARI

Charcoal production is common in rural communities in theislands of the Caribbean. Making this a sustainable activity

can contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods.Source: CANARI

Responding to present and future challenges will requirecapacity, at all levels and in all sectors of society, to leadand contribute to participatory processes, to build andsustain effective partnerships, to react more quickly toshifts in the external environment, to identify suitablesolutions to environmental problems, and to communicatescientific and other research findings more effectively topolicy makers. While ‘capacity-building’ is integral to thediscourse of development agencies, the region hasregrettably not yet focused on a much-needed, systematiceffort towards strengthening institutions and organisationsand building the skills that are needed, in government, inthe private sector, in academia and in civil society.

While the region needs quality support to meet thesechallenges, it remains unclear how the donor communitywill react to the current crises; although there willundoubtedly be cutbacks in aid budgets and philanthropicgiving, there are as yet few indicators as to how donorfunding will be prioritised, and there is a concern that theregion will once again fall foul of what is perceived as‘donor flavour-of-the month syndrome’. For example, theregion fared poorly when poverty reduction and theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) were the mainfocus of donors because most of the countries in the regionare classified as middle-income developing countries. Itcame back into the spotlight as the emphasis switched toclimate change and, more recently, sustainable productionand consumption, but one still misses the long-termstrategic partnerships that can really meet the needs andpriorities of this region, and that would help transform aidinto a genuine investment in sustainable development andin the institutions on which such development depends.

It is against this background that CANARI has seen theneed to document its own experience, not to suggest thatparticular models are better than others, but to reflect onand learn from that experience, and to offer insights,lessons and examples. This document, it is hoped, willtherefore serve as a basis for further exchanges and willprove useful to partners in their own efforts towardsbuilding institutions that contribute effectively toequitable, sustainable development in the Caribbean andother regions.

Background and acknowledgementsThis document is the product of converging efforts byCANARI, the International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED) and the John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation (the MacArthur Foundation). In

2006, IIED embarked on a project to analyse what makeslocal organisations effective and the nature of the local,national and international support that strengthens, scalesup, or multiplies such local action. For this purpose, itcommissioned a series of self-profiles of local organisationsthat contribute to poverty reduction and environmentalmanagement. As part of this global project, IIEDapproached CANARI, a partner in a number of IIEDprojects, to provide a self-profile.

This appealed to CANARI, both because of its longtradition of self-analysis and because it is currentlyengaged in a regional project, Going from strength tostrength (GFS2S), with complementary objectives.GFS2S, which is funded by the MacArthur Foundation,seeks to identify and build the capacities thatconservation- and development-oriented civil societyorganisations need to participate effectively in naturalresource management in the Caribbean. GFS2S alsoincludes a case study component, and it was thereforedecided that one of the case studies would focus onCANARI and that some of the research and analysiscarried out for the IIED-sponsored project would informthe preparation of a more comprehensive documentsummarising the history and achievements of theorganisation, and identifying some of the main lessonslearned from its experience over the past three decades.

This work has resulted in two complementarypublications. One is the case study prepared for the IIEDproject (in press) and the other is the present document,which is being released thanks to the support of theMacArthur Foundation. Both publications werecoordinated by Sarah McIntosh, CANARI’s ExecutiveDirector, who also acted as lead author, and edited by YvesRenard, CANARI Associate and former ExecutiveDirector. Dr Steve Koester, Professor and Chair at theDepartment of Anthropology, University of ColoradoDenver, took the lead on two activities:

• a desk review and analysis of documents relating toearlier processes of self-analysis and strategic planningwithin CANARI; and

• in-person and telephone interviews with a small selec-tion of people who have interacted with CANARI,mainly in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and SaintLucia, as research partners and/or beneficiaries ofcapacity building activities.

Special thanks are due to CANARI Partners, Staff andAssociates who contributed at various stages to the

8

development of the case study, and also to those who wereinterviewed and who provided such valuable insights intohow CANARI has supported and can continue to supportits partners at national and community levels, including:

• Julian Alexis, General Manager, Soufriere Fishermen'sCooperative, Saint Lucia;

• Noel Bennett, Rural Sociologist, Forestry Department,Jamaica;

• Donna Brown, President, Sundew Tourguide Services,Trinidad and Tobago;

• Christopher Cox, Programme Director, CaribbeanEnvironmental Health Institute, Saint Lucia;

• Lucius Ellevic, General Manager, LaborieCooperative Credit Union, Saint Lucia;

• Felix Finisterre, Independent Consultant (and sinceappointed Elected Partner, CANARI), Saint Lucia;

• Lyndon John, Assistant Chief Forest Officer, ForestryDepartment, Saint Lucia;

• Vijay Krishnarayan, Deputy Director, CommonwealthFoundation, UK (and former Executive Director,CANARI);

• Patricia Lamelas, Executive Director, Center forConservation and Eco-Development of Samaná andits Environs (CEBSE), Dominican Republic (and for-mer CANARI Elected Partner);

• Farah Mukhida, Executive Director, Anguilla NationalTrust, Anguilla;

• Susan Otuokon, Executive Director, JamaicaConservation and Development Trust, Jamaica;

• Fitzgerald Providence, Programme Manager,Integrated Forest Management and DevelopmentProgramme, Forestry Department, Saint Vincent andthe Grenadines;

• Yves Renard, Independent Consultant and Director,Green Park Consultants (and CANARI Associate andformer Executive Director), Saint Lucia.

• Dennis Sammy, Manager, Nature Seekers, Trinidadand Tobago;

• Allan Smith, Independent Consultant, Saint Lucia(and CANARI Associate);

• Patricia Turpin, President, Environment Tobago,Trinidad and Tobago;

• Kai Wulf, Manager, Soufriere Marine ManagementArea, Saint Lucia; and

• Judy Williams, Secretary-General, GrenadaCommunity Development Agency, Grenada.

It will also be evident to the reader of this case study thatthere are many people, both within and outside theCaribbean region, who have contributed over the past 30years to CANARI’s formal and informal processes of self-analysis, reflection, experimentation and learning. Theyare too numerous to mention by name, but CANARI isgrateful for their contributions to these processes and fortheir continuing interest in and support to the organisationand its mission.

9

CANARI is a regional non-profit organisation dedicatedto working at multiple levels to develop, test, promote andsupport local, national and regional efforts aimed atimproving the management of natural resources and thelivelihoods of those who depend on them, throughinclusive, participatory approaches. Its geographic focus isthe islands of the Caribbean, including all independentcountries as well as the dependent territories of France,the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates1. The organisation’s principal means of achieving itsobjectives are by working with local partners to build theircapacity to contribute to sustainable livelihoods andenvironmental management, and by identifying andpromoting the adoption of suitable policies andgovernance arrangements.

Assessing and documenting the impact of an organisationdedicated to capacity-building and policy change is not aneasy task. Like many others in these fields, CANARI isaware that it is hard to quantify and at times even simplyto identify outcomes, in part because the nature of fundingmeans that much work is done under projects, makinglong-term monitoring and evaluation difficult, and in partbecause policy and capacity changes always come as aresult of several factors, making it impossible to attributethe change to a single source. In order to deal with thesechallenges, CANARI is in the process of developing amonitoring and evaluation framework that will encompassorganisational, programme and project evaluation andwill attempt to assess and document both the long- andshort-term results of its work.

Attribution is particularly challenging in the case of anadvocacy organisation. In CANARI’s case, there wereinstances, especially during the early days of its fieldexperiments in community-based resource managementand its advocacy of participation, when its work wasclearly going against the tide and the Institute found itselfalone promoting changes in the ways natural resourceswere being managed – and at times even in open conflictwith environmental agencies, especially in government. In

such conditions, it was easier to relate a given change toCANARI’s efforts. But attitudes and policies have evolved;while the dominant approaches to natural resourcemanagement in the 1960s and 1970s were characterised bytop-down interventions and the frequent exclusion ofpeople and communities as a result of conservationinitiatives, there are many organisations, at all levels and inall the main sectors, which have now adopted andadvocated approaches and methods similar to those ofCANARI. It is therefore not possible to attribute the policychanges that have occurred in the past thirty years, butonly to identify those to which CANARI may havecontributed.

Nevertheless, by adopting the outcome mappingphilosophy of ‘contribution not attribution’, one canidentify a number of key areas in which CANARI hasmade a substantial impact.

CANARI has made the case forcollaborative management andparticipatory governanceWhile there have been many voices and actors advocatingparticipatory natural resource management in theCaribbean over the past thirty years, one of CANARI’ssubstantial contributions has been the articulation of therationale for these approaches, and the demonstration oftheir benefits, in a Caribbean context. In the early days,this was achieved through long-term involvement in

2. Tell me, has CANARI really made a difference?

1 CANARI’s predecessor was working almost exclusively in the eastern Caribbean.

10

CANARI’s early workunder the People andthe Sea projectinvolved working withlocal communities onsustainableharvesting of seaurchins, animportant fishery inSaint Lucia. Source: Allan Smith

experimental field projects (forest management inDominica, coastal resource management anddevelopment in Saint Lucia), the lessons of which weredocumented and disseminated through publications, studytours and training activities.

Over time, CANARI decided to become less involved indirect field testing, and began to act more as a facilitatorof collective analysis and learning among practitioners inthe region. Training workshops and action learninggroups (ALGs) are central to this process, combined withsupport for activities at community level via small grants,training and mentoring, and with the continueddocumentation of case studies from the region2. In recentyears, with the growing interest in and adoption ofparticipatory approaches among a wide range ofinstitutions (and certainly as an indicator of the growth ofthat interest), CANARI has also been called to play afacilitating and advisory role in a number of interestingprocesses, in policy development (e.g. forest policy reviewand formulation in Trinidad and Tobago), in managementplanning (e.g. Centre Hills in Montserrat and AripoSavannas in Trinidad and Tobago), and in developingmultistakeholder institutional arrangements.

A critical element in this approach has been thefacilitation of the design and establishment of new,collaborative institutional arrangements. Perhaps the bestdocumented case is that of the Soufriere MarineManagement Area (SMMA) in Saint Lucia, which is agood example of how a participatory conflict resolutionand planning process can lead to the creation of aninstitutional partnership involving government agencies,

non-governmental organisations (NGOs), user groups andthe private sector. CANARI was directly involved, incollaboration with Saint Lucia’s Department of Fisheriesand the Soufriere Regional Development Foundation, infacilitating these processes. Since then, through its trainingand technical assistance activities, the Institute has helpedin the creation or strengthening of several similararrangements throughout the region.

Thanks to all these activities, a rationale has emerged, onethat is rooted in Caribbean realities and experiences.Evidently, the discourse and the approaches have changedover time – from a somewhat naïve and narrow emphasison ‘community-based management’ in the early 1980s toa broader understanding of policy, governance andpartnerships – but, throughout the three decades of itsexistence, CANARI has clearly made the effort to distillessons learned from field work, to identify the costs andbenefits of various approaches, and to base its capacity-building and advocacy work on articulated rationales anddocumented experience.

CANARI has made people aware of thepositive linkages between povertyreduction and environmentalmanagementSeveral partners of CANARI have indicated that it wasthrough their involvement with the Institute that theylearned to perceive marginalised resource users asstakeholders whose knowledge and interests are critical toeffective resource management, and whose rights andresponsibilities should be taken into account whendesigning new management arrangements. For example, aparticipant in a collaborative project aimed at developinga management plan for an environmentally sensitive areacontaining a number of long-term residents without title tothe land noted that “in one of the workshops, severalsquatters that live in the Aripo Savannas were invited tothe workshop, and they were able to express their views.Some of them had been there over twenty years. Theywere able to express their opinion and they came tounderstand the importance of the area that they were on.So much so that last year it was designated by the EMA3

as an Environmentally Sensitive Area, and based on thatthe EMA decided that they would redraw the boundaryfor some of these squatters4”.

2 See http://www.canari.org/publications.asp for many of these case studies and other CANARI publications.3 The Environmental Management Authority, the governmental agency responsible for environmental management in Trinidad and Tobago.4 This perception about the redrawing of the boundary is not entirely correct since the EMA’s decision to redraw the boundary pre-dates the meeting alluded to.However, the creation of a space in which the squatters felt comfortable to contribute did result in others shifting firmly-held opinions about squatters and facilitatedthe building of a consensus between all stakeholders that community members, including squatters, could act as an effective ‘human buffer zone’.

11

Allan Smith and a colleague on Maria Island in Saint Luciaconducting field research, which was an important component ofCANARI’s experimental field projects. Source: Janice Cumberbatch

Even before the international community began to focuson poverty reduction as the main agenda of developmentcooperation, CANARI’s work was already driven by astrong commitment to ensuring that approaches to naturalresource management contribute to reducing poverty andenhancing livelihoods and reflect the needs and views ofthose whose livelihoods depend on the resource. From itsearliest years, at a time when few organisations wereinterested in approaches that linked conservation andpeople, CANARI had started to work with small sawyersand poor charcoal producers to identify strategies thatwould benefit both the resource and the users. This hasremained a consistent element of its field and policy work,including projects with sea urchin harvesters in SaintLucia, seaweed harvesters in Trinidad, and fisherfolk andnon-timber forest product harvesters throughout theregion.

Although the term ‘poverty reduction’ has only recentlyentered into CANARI’s discourse, it is clear thatCANARI’s work has helped in developing a positivelinkage between natural resource management andpoverty reduction, in at least three ways:

• by helping to dispel the prevalent myth that poor peo-ple invariably destroy natural resources, showinginstead, as in the cases of the Mankòtè mangrove inSaint Lucia or Fondes Amandes in Trinidad, that usersof natural resources employ coherent strategies thatshould provide the starting point for any improvementin management, and that poor people should be actorsand partners, not victims or villains;

• by illustrating the negative impacts that top-down andnarrow approaches to conservation and natural

resource management can have on poor communities,especially through their exclusion of traditional usesand users; and

• by promoting sustainable uses of resources for revenuegeneration and employment creation, in forestry (fromthe Cottage Forest Industries project in Dominica inthe 1980s to the tour guiding and agro-forestry actionlearning projects under the current Forests andLivelihoods Programme, aquaculture (mainly with sea-weed management and cultivation projects) andtourism (for example with the collaboration with theSaint Lucia Heritage Tourism Programme or the US-funded community-based tourism training pro-grammes in Grenada after Hurricane Ivan and region-al training workshop in collaboration with theCaribbean Tourism Organisation).

CANARI has contributed to building thecapacity for participatory managementMuch of CANARI’s work over the past three decades hascontributed to building capacity for participatory naturalresource management, through five main, complementarystrategies:

• encouraging changes in the world views and enhanc-ing the skills of key individuals involved in resourcemanagement in governmental agencies and civil socie-ty organisations through training activities and thepreparation and dissemination of written and audio-visual materials;

• encouraging changes in the policies, structures andcultures of organisations and institutions and support-ing their formulation and implementation of projectsand programmes in participatory resource manage-ment;

• facilitating action learning, communication and net-working, and creating a sense of community, amongkey actors and practitioners committed to exploringand promoting more inclusive and participatoryapproaches to natural resource management and sus-tainable development;

• strengthening the management capacity of key organ-isations and institutions and helping them to enhancetheir effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability;

• encouraging continuous participatory evaluation andadapting accordingly.

12

Understanding the perspectives of different stakeholders, includingsquatters, was an important part of the management planning

process for the Aripo Savannas. Source: CANARI

CANARI typically implements several of these strategiesin tandem. Ways and examples of the varied (andsometimes unanticipated) ways in which CANARI’sinterventions appear to have contributed to building thecapacity for participatory natural resource management atindividual, organisational and institutional levels include:

• many colleagues in the region are making use ofCANARI’s guidelines and other materials in supportof their work, and these guidelines have in someinstances contributed to the design and establishmentof entirely new programmes and institutions, as in thecase of the Saint Lucia Heritage Tourism Programme;

• CANARI’s capacity-building activities have con-tributed to a shift in the attitude of individual staffmembers in a large number of organisations – and byextension in the culture of their organisations and thepartnerships in which they are involved – as in the caseForestry Department in Jamaica, with the example ofthe development of the Local Forest ManagementCommittees (Geoghegan 2004). As recalled by a gov-ernment forester, CANARI’s workshops “providedlong term benefits in the approach to the work that wedo – especially in forest management – so people thatare not necessarily community-oriented persons havecome back from the workshops and have been able toappreciate in a much more direct way the role that thelocal community can play in moving things forward.People who have been sceptical about communityinvolvement have become advocates of participatoryapproaches”;

• these shifts in organisational culture have often led tothe adoption of participatory approaches to strategicplanning and programme implementation, as in thecases of the Trinidad and Tobago EnvironmentalManagement Authority (where several of the key per-sons in the Biodiversity Department have been trainedby CANARI and have applied learning to the planningand management of Environmentally Sensitive Areas),the Department of Environment in Montserrat (whichhas developed a participation strategy to guide all itsactivities following its involvement in CANARI-facili-tated processes), Environment Tobago and NatureSeekers, both in Trinidad and Tobago, the Saint LuciaNational Trust, and the Jamaica Conservation andDevelopment Trust (which have all applied new – andmore participatory – approaches to strategic planningand evaluation);

• several community leaders participating in CANARIworkshops and field experiments have acquired theconfidence and capacity to play lead roles in participa-tory management and local governance, as in the caseof the community foresters involved in the CottageForest Industries project in Dominica in the 1980s orthat of a participant in a recent regional training activ-ity who has since agreed to take over the leadership ofher national fisherfolk organisation;

• several organisations that have received training ortechnical assistance from CANARI have applied thetools and methods they acquired to the design, negoti-ation, review and implementation of co-managementarrangements and agreements, as in the SMMA inSaint Lucia, the collaborative arrangement betweenNature Seekers and the Forestry Division in Trinidad,or the arrangement at Warmmae Letang that is facili-tated by Dominica’s Forestry, Wildlife and ParksDivision (Perry Fingal 2009).

CANARI has influenced changes inpublic policy in several countries of theregionCANARI has also facilitated a wide range of policy andmanagement planning processes, particularly relating toforestry, protected areas, tourism and fisheries. Recentexamples include facilitation of the process to developrevised Forest and Protected Areas Policies for Trinidadand Tobago; management planning for the Centre Hills inMontserrat and the Aripo Savannas in Trinidad andTobago; and facilitating capacity building of theCaribbean Regional Fisherfolk Network to enhance itscapacity to inf luence regional policy. The policydocuments and management plans that have emergedfrom these processes increasingly reflect a consensus onthe part of all stakeholders (typically the formal managers,the resource users, and those with a research orconservation interest) that an ecosystem-basedmanagement approach should be adopted and livelihoodconcerns should be factored into the management of theresource and the governance arrangements.

Thanks in part to the work of CANARI and its partners,the language of livelihoods and sustainable use is nowenshrined in many environmental policy andmanagement documents in the Caribbean, but this hasnot yet been translated and incorporated into the mainpolicy documents and processes that guide development atnational and regional levels. Firth (2005) found that

13

“despite the fact that national poverty reduction strategiesand plans (PRSPs) are intended to reflect the priorities ofpoor people, such as poverty-environment linkages, theseissues have largely been neglected. This reflects a generalshortcoming of PRSPs in that the approach largelyexcludes the need to integrate poverty alleviation policieswith environmental policy measures. The policies alsoreflect a limited recognition of the role that naturalresources serve in poverty reduction, particularly for therural poor”, as illustrated by the fact that CANARI israrely invited to consultations relating to regional ornational poverty reduction strategies and has been largelyunsuccessful in attracting poverty reduction practitionersand policy-makers to its workshops and consultations.Similarly, national and community-based civil societyorganisations involved in natural resource managementare insufficiently involved in the main policy processes intheir countries, and much work is still needed to advocateand promote these linkages. Overall, the institutionallandscape in the region remains one in which there are fewmechanisms for inter-sectoral collaboration, especiallybetween the environment and development sectors, and,in many cases, collaboration is viewed as ceding power.

CANARI has created bridges andchanged relationships in ways thathave made natural resourcemanagement more inclusiveVery few linkages – and at times even high levels ofmistrust – exist between stakeholders who need tocollaborate in order for natural resource management anddevelopment strategies to be implemented effectively. Forexample mistrust often exists between:

• government and civil society;

• different agencies within government;

• regional and national NGOs that regard each other ascompetitors;

• researchers from outside the region and stakeholderswithin the focal country or countries;

• academics from different (and sometimes even thesame) universities within the region;

• different factions within communities, especially aroundissues of partisan politics and sometimes religion;

• civil society and the private sector.

This lack of collaboration in natural resourcemanagement is a symptom of dominant power relationsand of systems of governance that concentrate authorityand resources in the hands of powerful stakeholders.CANARI’s work has helped to change this reality bycreating bridges between actors and approaches that werenot previously well connected, and by contributing to theempowerment of the weaker stakeholders as well as tochanges in power relations and dynamics. This has beenachieved through linkages between:

• science and popular knowledge, with a recognition anda demonstration of the value of that knowledge in tra-ditional management systems, and of the benefits ofpromoting a dialogue between these two knowledgesystems. This has manifested itself in particular in thework on community-based mapping that CANARI hasconducted, building on the experience gained in thePeople and the Sea project in Laborie, Saint Lucia;

• resource users, government agencies, non-governmen-tal organisations and the private sector, through theirparticipation in action learning groups, consultationsand joint planning processes, and their representationin co-management bodies;

• resource users, practitioners and policy-makers thoughpolicy review exercises;

• resource users and regional policy making bodies, forexample through building the capacity of theCaribbean Network of Fisherfolk Organisations to par-ticipate in the Caribbean Fisheries Forum;

• researchers and practitioners in different disciplinesand countries, for example in the assessment of thecurrent status of research and the research needs relat-ed to climate change and biodiversity in theCaribbean;

• seasoned practitioners and newly-formed communitybased organisations, through mentoring programmessuch as those initiated under the Forests andLivelihoods Action Learning Projects.

• people involved in communications from very variedperspectives, as in the case of CANARI’s collaborationwith Panos Caribbean and the CommonwealthFoundation in designing and hosting a workshop forartists, media workers, NGOs and community-basedorganisations (CBOs) on the subject of climate change.

14

3. The evolution of CANARI’s mission and approach

A consistent and coherent mission

Since its earliest days (see Appendix 1 for details), theorganisation has been dedicated to linking naturalresource management with development (Geoghegan1994). CANARI’s predecessor, the Eastern CaribbeanNatural Area Management Programme (ECNAMP), ajoint programme of the University of Michigan and theCaribbean Conservation Association (CCA), began inDominica with a focus on forest management andprotected area planning. ECNAMP’s interest in andemphasis on community-based natural resourcemanagement manifested itself principally in its work inDominica, where it collaborated with the Forestry,Wildlife and Parks Division and with local sawyers intesting and promoting sustainable timber harvesting andforest management, and in Saint Lucia, where it facilitatedcollaborative projects with resource users, communitygroups, non-governmental organisations and governmentagencies on the south-east coast of the island. Out of thework in Saint Lucia grew regional activities aimed atdisseminating lessons learned and building the capacity ofother organisations interested and involved inparticipatory approaches.

CANARI has continuously worked to advance theapplication of this fundamental concept of participatorymanagement and governance through a programme ofapplied research, repeatedly testing ‘experiments’,analysing them, identifying lessons learned, and thenbuilding on these to refine or develop new, more nuancedways of meeting these dual aims. As a review of CANARItechnical reports, published articles, internal assessmentsand successive strategic plans would illustrate, thisresearch programme, with a central place given toempirical evidence and primary data, has been theimpetus behind the organisation’s ongoing evolution inconceiving and implementing participatory approachesaimed at integrating resource management with grassrootssocial and economic development.

In 1992, following a number of internal changes, CANARIrestructured itself and developed a mission statement thatemphasised the importance of community participation,stating that its purpose was to “strengthen the capacity ofCaribbean communities and their institutions to managethe natural resources critical to their development”. Thiswas achieved through an emphasis on co-management, anapproach Geoghegan broadly defined as “approaches tonatural resource management that support the activecollaboration of all relevant sectors and interest groups”(Geoghegan 1994). Projects fostering this approach focusedon parks and protected areas as well as common propertyresources, and the organisation continued its core activitiesin research, documentation, information, training andtechnical collaboration.

This compilation by Geoghegan of an historical overviewformed part of an intensive participatory evaluation andstrategic planning process, which also included casestudies to assess impacts, a survey of external perceptionsand expectations, a management review and aperformance evaluation, that resulted in a comprehensiveten-year strategic plan covering the period 1996-2005(CANARI 1996). When this plan was formulated, themission had evolved slightly to read: “to create avenues forthe equitable participation and effective collaboration ofCaribbean communities and institutions in managing thenatural resources critical to development”.

Towards the end of the 1996-2005 strategic plan period, anew, comprehensive participatory review process wasundertaken to develop a five-year strategic plan (2006-2010), under funding from the MacArthur Foundation.This strategic review of CANARI’s activities over theprevious five years included written surveys, interviews,focus groups, a number of internal meetings and a regionalmeeting that included international and regional partners.As a result, the mission statement remained substantiallyunchanged, currently reading “to promote equitableparticipation and effective collaboration of Caribbeancommunities and institutions in managing the natural

15

resources critical to development”, and a short visionstatement was adopted:

• A socially cohesive Caribbean region with a reinvigo-rated sense of community and collective responsibilityfor its natural and cultural assets, forged through equi-table participatory processes of visioning, decision-making and management.

• Institutions, policy and practice which ref lect aCaribbean model of development based on sustainableuse of natural resources to meet the livelihood needsand aspirations of Caribbean people.

Approaches evolving over time

Publications and reports spanning the period 1995 to thepresent show how CANARI and its partners havecontinued to test, analyse, evaluate and seek to improve onthe organising principles and programme elementsdescribed by Geoghegan (1994). The evolution of theorganisation and its approaches has occurred over a 30-year period of global economic and environmentalchanges that have directly inf luenced dominantmainstream development models, national developmentpolicies and donor priorities. As such, CANARI’sevolution in participatory resource management is also atestament to its f lexibility in responding to these changingconditions and accompanying challenges and to its abilityto integrate its own learning as well as lessons from others,without allowing itself to be excessively influenced by thechanging discourse and fancies of internationalorganisations and development partners.

The need for a progressive change in emphasis from co-management between resource users, civil society andgovernment to a more inclusive view of participatorymanagement that includes both publicly and privatelyowned resources was highlighted in a 2001 internalmidterm review. It was motivated by the organisation’scontinued search for socially just approaches todevelopment linking livelihood needs with forms ofgovernance that facilitate participation; by a growinginterest in the business and livelihood dimensions ofnatural resource management (Perry-Fingal 2005); and bya recommendation of the mid-term review of the strategicplan that CANARI place a new emphasis on improvingthe socio-economic and environmental benefits fromresource management (CANARI 2002).

The organisation’s original focus on ‘communities’ wasrevised as well, as it came to recognise the false sense of

homogeneity this term implies (Brown 1995). Theemphasis shifted instead to ‘stakeholders’, defined as“those who have influence on, or can be affected by, themanagement process”. This concept is moreencompassing, acknowledging individuals and groups whodirectly or indirectly influence or are affected by the useand management of a resource (Geoghegan and Renard2002). As such, the term stakeholder encompasses groupsof people beyond a local, geographically definedcommunity, and implicitly recognises the distinct interestsand forms of power that characterise the relationshipbetween a particular group and a resource, and betweendifferent resource users.

Geoghegan and Renard (2002) highlight this shift fromcommunities to an emphasis on stakeholders as one of theessential components of CANARI’s conceptual frameworkfor participatory planning and resource management,along with the recognition that:

• resource management is, in effect, the management ofthe relationship between people and resources;

• relationships among and between stakeholders andtheir relationships to natural resources are governed bya host of formal and informal institutions includingcultural norms as well as laws;

• these institutions are complex and dynamic;

• management is the task of transforming these institu-tions to achieve defined goals including meetinghuman needs, poverty alleviation and social justice;and

16

A wide range of stakeholders from government, civil society and theprivate sector in Montserrat were engaged in a process of planninghow the last remaining forest on the island should be managed to

benefit people. Source: CANARI

• for this process of transformation to occur the com-plexity and coherence of existing institutions and thediversity and interests of various stakeholders must beacknowledged.

In addition to describing CANARI’s conceptualframework, Geoghegan and Renard (2002) delineate fourlessons about protected area management based onCANARI’s experience and the experiences of resourcemanagers and development workers involved in CANARItraining workshops. The lessons were:

• the need to recognise the diversity of stakeholders andtake into account the full complexity of their interestsand relationships with the resource and with oneanother;

• the importance of suitable institutional arrangementsto the long-term success of participatory management;

• the need for transparent, negotiated processes fordetermining priorities in the face of inadequateresources; and

• the relationship between successful participatory man-agement and the provision of appreciable benefits forlocal communities.

HighlightsTwo strong characteristics emerge from this brief historicaloverview. One is CANARI’s emphasis on criticallyassessing its work, on extracting, documenting anddisseminating lessons learned, and on applying them tosubsequent projects, with a continuous comparison andevaluation of ‘locally-driven’ experiences and lessonslearned with concepts from ‘outside’ the organisation5.Although it may not have used the concept explicitly,CANARI probably meets the criteria of a ‘learningorganisation’, an organisation that is committed toinnovation, that recognises that change usually comesfrom the margins, that knows that there is as much tolearn from failure as there is to learn from success, andthat the best way to gain new knowledge is throughexperimentation and mutual learning.

The other characteristic, according to Geoghegan (2009),is that CANARI’s history and mission have helped “tocreolise or transform the externally created, virtualiseddevelopment and conservation models of transnational

development and conservation agencies into approachesthat are appropriate to the social, economic andenvironmental realities of the Caribbean”. InGeoghegan’s view, CANARI accomplishes this byreinterpreting these externally conceived visions in theprojects and programmes it engages with on the ground.The approaches CANARI promotes are based on aconcept of participatory resource management thatassumes resource and livelihood sustainability areinextricably linked. As she explains, CANARI’s “work isbased on the idea that the region’s development dependsto a significant degree on the ability of local people, andespecially the poor, to have access to natural resources andto make use of them for their livelihoods”.

After three decades of focused efforts aimed at fulfilling adedicated mission and at building an efficient and effectiveorganisation, CANARI finds itself confronted with anumber of challenges in its own institutional development.Some of these challenges are not new, while others havesurfaced more prominently in recent times:

• securing adequate funding, particularly for core costs;

• reducing the relatively high turnover of technical Staffand consequent overload on those that remain;

• balancing effective implementation of projects with theability to stay abreast of relevant literature and initia-tives outside the region;

• effectively evaluating the outcomes and impact of itswork;

• incorporating the findings of its evaluations and iden-tified stakeholder needs in the development of newprogrammes and projects;

• developing a communication strategy and puttinggreater emphasis on communications research;

• keeping an appropriate balance between the need towork with and influence mainstream processes andestablished institutions, and the benefit of exploringnew grounds and testing new approaches;

• understanding why relatively few ‘conservation’ or‘development’ NGOs in the region are thriving andwhat distinguishes those that do from those that arestruggling.

17

5 Such concepts are derived from relevant literature; CANARI’s long-standing relationship with scholars such as Fikret Berkes (who was highly influential inencouraging CANARI to adopt this approach); collaboration with academic institutions such as University of the West Indies Sustainable Economic DevelopmentUnit (SEDU), St. Augustine campus and the Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), Cave Hill campus; and interactions at eventssuch as the International Association for the Study of the Commons Conference.

18

Appendix 2 presents the current status of CANARI, witha focus on describing and analysing its structure,resources, strategies and systems, which is likely to be ofparticular interest to managers of other civil societyorganisations. The present section offers an analysis of theInstitute’s experience, seen in particular through the eyesof CANARI’s partners.

Institutional strategies

A strategic focus

An obvious lesson from CANARI’s history, which is alesson that can certainly be drawn from the history of allthe organisations that have been able to achieve significantresults in their work, is that it is essential to remainfocused. This fidelity to its mission is seen by CANARI’spartners as an essential strength that has enabled it tocontinue and grow in relevance. “They have remainedfocused despite so many other things – they havemaintained their focus in working with natural resourcemanagement and people”, says one of CANARI’spartners, “I think that it’s easy to get caught up in otherthings because there are so many other issues. I think focushas been a big part of it”.

In CANARI’s view, “focus” comes from a strong sense ofvalues, vision and consensus on strategic directions. In theorganisation, these are revisited at regular (average five-year) intervals, and refined if necessary through aparticipatory process involving all Staff, Boardmembers/Partners and usually a significant number ofCANARI partners and beneficiaries. CANARI’sexperience shows that focus also comes from an ability tomanage the many opportunities and solicitations thatcome from outside, especially those that are generated bythe donor community and the international institutions. Itis easy – but not necessarily beneficial – for anorganisation to follow the ever-changing trends in theglobal agenda and to participate in a plethora ofinternational meetings and processes, and effective changeagents on the ground are probably those who remain

faithful to their own agendas and mission and who devoteenough time and resources to their programmes, while ofcourse being aware of and informed by larger, oftenexternal processes.

Adaptive management and learning by doing

One of CANARI’s strengths is its emphasis on criticallyassessing its work, extracting and documenting lessonslearned, and applying them to future work. This approachwas implicit when the organisation began as ECNAMP inthe late 1970s, and became instilled and explicitlyarticulated in each of CANARI’s strategic plans since1995. It is now institutionalised as ‘adaptive management’and ‘action learning’.

Adaptive management is used at both strategic andoperational levels and is based on a willingness to criticallyevaluate performance and act on the findings. WhenCANARI began, there were few examples of effectiveparticipatory resource management, and CANARI‘learned by doing’. Lessons derived from theseexperiments, as field projects were then called, led tochanges in strategic emphases, from community topartnerships, and from co-management to broaderparticipatory planning, governance and policy-makingprocesses.

CANARI’s also employs an adaptive approach to themanagement of the organisation, leading to constantlyevolving structures, systems and procedures. At theoperational level, there have been continuous reviews withchanges made as needed and with staff members beingencouraged to seek more effective ways of operating. Atthe governance level, the Partnership system whichemerged as a result of these internal processes hasstrengthened relationships between Staff and Boardmembers and has resulted in a more effective andequitable form of governance, without losing the essentialelements of oversight and accountability.

4. What works: Reflections from CANARI and its partners

19

Methods and approaches forprogramme delivery

Action learning

Action learning, with the facilitation of group reflection tothink through problems and find solutions, has become akey element and instrument of CANARI’s approach toresearch and adaptive management. In summarising thework of Revans (1979), Raelin (1997) and Koo (1999),McIntosh, Leotaud and Macqueen describe actionlearning as “a means of development, intellectual,emotional and physical, that requires a group of subjects,through responsible involvement in some, real complexand stressful problem, to achieve intended changesufficient to improve observable behaviour”. It combinessources of knowledge with group questioning or reflectionand applies it in attempting to solve problems (McIntosh,Leotaud and Macqueen 2008). This concept of actionlearning was first applied formally by CANARI in theCaribbean component of the Who Pays for Water project– a multi-island project aimed at strengthening thecapacity of regional and national institutions in assessingthe potential of payments for watershed services as ameans of improving watershed management andcontributing to local livelihoods. The project’s primaryobjective was to build a community of change agents, theAction Learning Group, prepared to adapt and shape newwatershed market initiatives and disseminate lessonslearned in their countries (McIntosh, Leotaud andMacqueen 2008). It has subsequently been adopted inother CANARI projects under the Forests and Livelihoodsand Civil Society and Governance programmes.

Participants in action learning activities described howworkshops are organised around a case study of aproblem, and how they have learned by interacting withdifferent stakeholders in the field, including professionalnatural resource managers, representatives of civil societyorganisations, and resource users. We would “go to the sitewhere they are practicing the things we are discussing”,says one participant. “Usually we have a session withpeople from the local community so they explain whatthey’re doing in a direct way – we don’t just read thematerial of what has been done in a case study; we actuallygo. And people can actually explain what they are doing.So, it’s a hands-on approach; it’s not just theory. I think itis one of the unusual ways that CANARI contributes.They explain what is happening but they get us to touchthe ground so to speak”.

ALGs are also very useful as forums for the exchange ofideas and reflection among a diverse group of people, asone participant explains: “The CANARI projects that justrecently started with action learning – the first workshopwas in Jamaica, and we had a panel discussion with someof our partner organisations. So, that gives us theopportunity too to look at things from a differentperspective. People from other organisations or countriesask questions that we might not have asked or thought of.In that way it gives us different perspectives”. Therelationship between CANARI and participants in theseprocesses is described as one of sharing: “They don’t usethe approach of talking to you – like this is what we’velearned and this is it. Their approach…is definitely aboutsharing and working both ways, and one that helps you tothink about what you’re doing and if there is some way to

CANARI brought stakeholders from government agencies, donors,regional technical assistance agencies, civil society organisations,and local communities together to explore whether payments forwatershed services could benefit poor people. Source: CANARI

Members of CANARI’s action learning group on Forests andLivelihoods listen to the ideas of community members working to

develop sustainable livelihoods from the use of forests. Source: CANARI

perhaps do it better”. Along these lines, one NGO leaderdescribes his organisation’s interaction with CANARI as a“symbiotic relationship”, and it is clear that the emphasison adaptive management and action learning isempowering for both the individuals who take part and fortheir organisations

Focusing on key change agents

The notion of ‘change agents’ is one that managementpractitioners and partners of CANARI have little difficultyto embrace, since most were working on natural resourceissues prior to their involvement with CANARI and somewere actually involved in pioneering participatoryprocesses. Their relationship with CANARI was, in mostcases, long-term and had been developed through acombination of on the ground collaboration, training andworkshop opportunities, ongoing technical support, and ina few cases co-authorship of reports and articles.

This is seen as a deliberate and effective strategy onCANARI’s part, as testified by one of the region’s leadingNGOs: “I think CANARI’s strategy has been to stay closeto a group of one or two key organisations in a country andwork to build those organisations. I think that has been atremendous asset to the region”. By focusing on targetingkey change agents at local, national and regional levelsand establishing long-term relationships with them, ratherthan just targeting those in formal positions of power andinfluence or short-term project beneficiaries, CANARIfeels that it is able to optimise the impact of its work onpolicy and practice in the region.

Developing the capacity of partner organisations

The small CBOs and NGOs that CANARI has workedwith over the years often lack the internal capacity tosustain themselves. CANARI has therefore seen the needto complement its collaboration on and capacity buildingfor participatory natural resource management throughworkshops focusing on organisational and institutionaldevelopment, including financial management,incorporating participatory processes in their ownorganisational governance (developing and working withcommunity boards), succession planning, humanresources development, proposal writing and strategicplanning. CANARI’s support to these organisations isoften complemented by small grants aimed at helpingthem accomplish these tasks and initiate programmes.

As one of the beneficiaries of this work explains: “We hada project proposal with CANARI and the funding was

supposed to be to help an organisation evaluate itsstrategic focus and part of it was to evaluate our financialprocesses. And they did evaluate our financial processes,they made a stakeholder analysis and they made sometremendous recommendations for a way forward. Weweren’t doing so well before CANARI did that particularwork”. These activities actually serve to enhance partners’capacity in several other ways as well, for example inbuilding alliances and improving communication withgovernment. “Also regarding the policy development”,says one NGO colleague, “they (CANARI) have helped usa lot in working with those areas. And how to work withthe government and how to network with otherorganisations in the country in order to achieve our goalsin the management of natural resources”.

Building strong strategic alliances

The focus on key change agents and the provision oforganisational support are part of a broader strategyaimed at developing and nurturing strong strategicalliances, both individual and organisational, at national,regional and international levels. The benefits of thisapproach have come not from the number of thesealliances, but from their quality, strength and durability.Throughout its history, CANARI has been particularlycareful not to enter into partnerships that did not have thepotential to remain and grow, and has tried to fosterrelationships that result in true alliances, i.e. that yieldbenefits for all partners.

Within the Caribbean, CANARI’s work has undoubtedlycontributed to developing and fostering an informalnetwork of CBOs, NGOs and government agenciesconcerned with the management of natural resources andinterested in participatory approaches, and many seethemselves as members of such a network as a result oftheir collaboration with CANARI and its emphasis onregional workshops where individuals from differentcountries have an opportunity to meet and work on acommon problem. As a member of a partner organisationcommented, “… there is a connection by people from thedifferent islands that under normal circumstances wouldnot be done. CANARI provides that connection. It is likea portal that provides links to different people. ThroughCANARI I have had connectivity that is tremendous andwe can share skills.” Another explained, “We are able tosee ourselves as a group of technical experts. We operate asa kind of fraternity of peers who provide differentperspectives on issue. It has been quite a rewardingexperience. I’ve learned quite a lot. The interactions

20

provide you with a contrast to the work that you’re doingas well as a chance to point out the similarities andchallenges we face in the Caribbean…”

Communicating and disseminating

Communication is key to advocacy and capacity-building,and it involves the dissemination of CANARI’s work viapublications, technical reports, policy briefs, videos, and awebsite as well as through the workshops, training andtechnical assistance mentioned above. CANARI’s partnershave described its numerous reports and publications oflessons learned, specific participatory techniques andstudies of resource issues as one of the Institute’s primaryachievements, and even organisations with fewprogrammatic links with CANARI are making use of itspublications. Some interviewees mentioned that CANARIhas also assisted them with disseminating informationabout their own work, and specifically communicatingtheir work to government policy makers. Over the years,CANARI has become more systematic and rigorous in itsapproach to evaluating the effectiveness of itscommunications and views this as an area for continuousreview and improvement.

Working regionally

CANARI has embraced a regional approach, and as suchworks throughout the English, Spanish, French andCreole speaking islands. This is at times challenging, but itis seen as a positive factor by many actors in the region.“The Caribbean is a very special region”, says the leaderof a national NGO, “and even though we are of differentlanguages and cultures, we have very similar problems andchallenges, and working together we can do a lot.” Or, inthe words of another: “I think I have learned a lot fromCANARI. They have also helped me to establish a betterworking relationship with the rest of the Caribbeanpeople. Not only the countries and organisations, but thepeople – to have a better understanding of the culture andthe way we should work together.”

Internal organisation and governance

An effective governance structure

CANARI’s internal governance arrangements, with aPartnership arrangement involving elected Boardmembers and senior Staff, have proven effective.However, the Institute has recently engaged in internaldiscussions on the benefits of the Partnership structure,

asking itself whether it is the Partnership concept per sethat creates such an effective working relationship betweenElected Partners, other Partners and Staff, or whether itcould be equally well achieved under a more traditionalBoard structure. This has revealed that the keys to thesuccess of the relationship may lie in the following:

• the concept of a partnership, which embraces andfacilitates inputs from all Staff;

• handpicking new Elected Partners (or Board membersbefore the Partnership was established) rather than theopen elections typical of membership organisations,which ensures that there is a balance of skills and expe-rience and everyone has something of value to con-tribute;

• the “energetic” process (an Elected Partner descrip-tion) by which CANARI Staff engage the ElectedPartners. This draws on Staff experience of facilitatingparticipatory processes under programme activitiesand mainly comprises brief presentations, followed bystructured discussions designed to find creative solu-tions to problems, review and refine strategic objec-tives, and discuss potential new areas of activity. Thisprovides a rare opportunity for mutual learning andopen and constructive exchange of views between peo-ple from different disciplines, perspectives, organisa-tional structures, countries and cultures.

It appears therefore that the Partnership’s success is basednot so much on its structure as on the commitment of allto the concept and the processes used to achieve it inpractice. In a region where relationships between non-profit Boards and Staff are often fraught with conflict,these conclusions could be useful and relevant to otherorganisations, including membership organisations.

A multi-disciplinary team, open to continuouslearning and committed to excellence

Human resources are critical to any organisation. As oneobserver explained, “CANARI has had the ability to hirepeople that believe in their mission and that identify withthe region and that are able to accomplish the high goalsthat CANARI sets for itself and others. So, I think that’swhat has allowed them to do their job”. This same persondescribes the result that comes from having this kind ofStaff: “I think CANARI has a high profile. It is wellrespected throughout the region. Because everything theydo has this qualitative… how do you say, non-biased veryprofessional. I don’t know… everything they do is good

21

22

work”. Others describe CANARI Staff as being preparedand able to reach out: “Externally they reach out andshare the work they do…there is a strong emphasis onpreparedness…and to reach out to people from differentbackgrounds.” CANARI staff members are described asbeing “down to earth…able to reach out to people indifferent projects and interact with people on differentlevels… They are able to manage and negotiate all thosedifferences, and this means you must be keen on details.”

The diversity and relevance of the collective skill set ofCANARI Staff is also mentioned as a positive factor:“They have different people within their association – withCANARI – with different experiences and skills. Andwhen these different people come together, they have adifferent approach. I know they have people with GPSskills and others about botany and wildlife, and all thesedifferent skills come together and I think that is why theyare effective”. Similarly, one partner comments onCANARI’s ability to “keep renewing their stock, and havecompetent people take the new space. It’s one of thereasons for their longevity… They are able to pull onpersons that have the required skills to positions that comeavailable. That was the signal to me that it’s anorganisation that has sustainable features in theirrecruitment – that they are able to give exposure toyounger people and talent”.

CANARI has also benefited from a very high level ofcommitment of all its staff members and this has been acharacteristic of the organisation since its inception. Itcontinues to be evidenced by people’s f lexibility andwillingness to work long hours when needed, withoutbeing asked to do so by their manager or, in the case ofsenior Staff, by the Partnership. However, it is an aspect ofCANARI’s functioning which has the potential to runcounter to the organisation’s stated value of equity andneeds constant monitoring since it tends todisproportionately affect those whose working lives mayalready be more difficult, such as those without stronglocal family support systems or single parents withchildren.

Effective succession planning

The transition from visionary founders and creativeinitiators to a sustained institution is one that often causesorganisations (whether for- or non-profit) to flounder orfail. CANARI is now in its third generation of ExecutiveDirector (fourth generation of leadership when includingthe period before the appointment of the first ExecutiveDirector) and has experienced a fairly high turnover of

Staff in recent years, yet the transition has been relativelysmooth, largely as a result of:

• its policy of identifying potential Staff, including theExecutive Director, through involvement in its work-shops and capacity building activities and, where pos-sible, ‘testing’ their competencies and values throughshort consultancies before recruitment is considered;

• strong support from and continuing involvement ofprevious Staff in their roles as Associates and throughthe development of close working relationshipsbetween former and current Staff (a characteristic ofthe organisation which has caused it to be dubbed bymore than one staff member as ‘Hotel California’based on the Eagles’ lyrics “You can check-out anytime you like, but you can never leave”).

Effective fundraising

For a non-profit organisation, successful fundraising is ofcourse an essential condition of effectiveness anddurability. CANARI has never been in a position where itcould be complacent about the source of its funding and,on reflection, this has served it well. Indeed, the skills it hasdeveloped as a consequence may become a criticalelement of its survival in the uncertain times ahead. Whenmoney was more easily available in the 1980s and early1990s, CANARI's work was so different from what otherorganisations in the region were doing, and what donorsexpected, that fundraising was already challenging, Whileothers were getting money almost by default, CANARIhad to ‘prove itself’, so the proposals and the networkinghad to be good. Now that participatory management is ofinterest to more agencies, but money is tighter, CANARIstill has to work hard to successfully raise funds withoutbeing diverted from its core focus. As a consequence, it hasalso avoided the trap of becoming over-dependent on oneor two sources of funding, which may be withdrawn atshort notice (with such over-dependency also threateningthe autonomy and freedom of the recipient organisation).

Yet, raising funds is much more than writing andsubmitting proposals, and CANARI’s experience in thisregard confirms that of all the other non-governmentalorganisations that have stayed in business for a long time.Fundraising is about building long-term relationshipsbased on trust, it is about establishing and managing goodcommunication networks that project the right image andyield relevant information, it is about delivering andproperly documenting the agreed services and results, andit is about demonstrating to the potential donor that its

23

support is a worthwhile (and valued) investment. In orderfor fundraising to succeed, the recipient organisation hasto be a ‘good grantee’, with effective systems; a goodunderstanding of the expectations, capacities andconstraints of the donor; and a commitment to make therelationship open, fair and effective.

But the commitment to openness, fairness andeffectiveness must also come from the donor agency, andCANARI’s experience has been varied in this regard. Themain issue is the complexity of grant application, fundingand reporting processes, which could in many cases besimplified, without sacrificing transparency oraccountability. The other conclusion from CANARI’sexperience is that it would be desirable for major donors toattempt greater coherence between their reporting formatsto reduce the complexity of financial and other record-keeping. In the absence of such coherence, it is much morecomplicated to run a small NGO than a small business, yetfew NGO managers, and even fewer of their governmentpartners, have any prior exposure to or understanding ofthe financial management and entrepreneurial skillsneeded.

Donors should also recognise that the sustainability of anorganisation is likely to be enhanced rather thancompromised by funding administrative costs and otheroverheads, particularly in early stages of development.This has been CANARI’s own experience as a grantee,but also as a manager of small grant funds, when even asum as small as USD 1,500, with few if any stringsattached, can make a big difference in helping anorganisation to secure essential equipment, facilitate theengagement of communities and build key capacities,which then enable them to access a wider range of fundingopportunities. CANARI’s research also indicates a needfor donors to reconsider their definition of a ‘sustainable’Caribbean NGO or CBO; in a region with little traditionof philanthropy and a limited market for goods andservices, particularly in poor communities, it is impossiblefor all existing NGOs and CBOs to generate sufficientrevenue to carry out their missions, unless they continue toget grant funding or subventions. This further reinforcesthe need for long-term donor commitment to the regionand a rethinking of the funding of core costs.

Effective financial and other management systems

CANARI makes every effort to ensure that projects arecompleted within budget and time frame or more moneyis sought to complete them, and that operational fundsand cash-flow remain at a level that permits it to meet its

salary bill and other routine overhead costs. Suitable andeffective financial management systems are an essentialcondition of good performance and effective impact; toomany Caribbean organisations unfortunately strugglebecause they fail to establish such systems.

Strategic use of resources

As a relatively small organisation, CANARI has toconsider how to achieve maximum impact with its limitedresources. Its philosophy in this regard has been relativelyunchanged over the years, namely to adopt and be guidedby a long-term perspective, including:

• building on the findings and outcomes of field experi-ments and demonstration projects to design futureactivities and to develop policy recommendations andcapacity building programmes;

• working closely over a long period with a relativelysmall core of identified ‘change agents’ throughout theregion, both to build their capacity and to solicit theirinputs into CANARI’s strategic focus and programmedevelopment;

• developing long-term relationships with donors, suchas Hivos, the Commonwealth Foundation and theMacArthur Foundation, regional partners such asCERMES and Panos Caribbean; and technical agen-cies such as the FAO.

CANARI has worked with key technical staff in forestry departments to build their capacity and support their efforts to

engage stakeholders in management of forests.Source: CANARI

24

There are of course many lessons that could be extractedfrom three decades of work and collaboration with a widerange of community, private sector, civil society, academicand governmental partners in this diverse region. Amongthose, a few can be highlighted here, with the hope thatthey could help to strengthen organisations andinstitutions in this region and to shape a new relationshipbetween them and their development partners. There isindeed little doubt that the many crises that the world andthis region are currently experiencing are in part theproduct of inadequate and unfair relationships.Rethinking aid and development cooperation – includingthe support that can be provided to change agents such asCANARI – must therefore be considered a priority andcollective responsibility.

CANARI’s mission – the promotion of equitableparticipation and effective collaboration in managing thenatural resources critical to development – remains highlyrelevant to the sustainable development agenda in theCaribbean. While approaches have evolved and thecontext and the issues that must be addressed havechanged over time, the concepts of equity, sharedgovernance, empowerment and sustainability, which havebeen at the heart of CANARI’s work throughout itshistory, remain just as valid today. It is thanks to this focuson its mission that CANARI has been able to have somebeneficial impact on the region, and it is thanks to itswillingness and ability to reflect, learn and adapt that ithas been able to remain relevant and useful. Its vision ofparticipatory management and shared governance is nowa vision that many actors have embraced.

In order to realise this vision, the Caribbean and itsorganisations need adequate and appropriate supportfrom external agencies, including donors, over a longperiod. The challenge of integrating conservation,livelihoods and poverty reduction requires a commitmentof both financial and technical resources over a time scale

concomitant with effecting, monitoring and evaluatingchanges in entrenched behaviours and systems.Attempting to achieve this with scattershot, short-termproject interventions is analogous to Sisyphus rolling hisboulder to the top of the hill only to watch it roll backdown again. Much of CANARI’s work, for example,focuses on participatory processes that engagestakeholders in visioning, strategic planning and dialogueabout areas of common interest. This can be highlysuccessful in building trust, identifying areas of commoninterest and forging consensus on how to handle conflict.But these processes take time and will often need to besustained and revisited as circumstances change and newareas of conflict emerge. The region’s experience withdonor interventions has been mixed, but there havenevertheless been good examples of longer-term donorprojects and programmes in the region, guided by locally-driven needs, within which donor-imposed conditionssuccessfully effected a mutually agreed behavioural orcultural change beyond the project timeframe6.

5. In conclusion

6 For example the Trees for Tomorrow project funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in Jamaica came with a gender and participatoryfocus that resulted in the appointment of the region’s first female Conservator of Forests and extensive work with community-based, national and regional partnersto entrench participation as an organisational culture. In the Dominican Republic, insistence of the German agency Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ) on an institution that would include government, civil society and private sector stakeholders, combined with technical support for the initialprocess, has resulted in one of the region’s most sustained and effective networks, Consorcio Ambiental DominIcano (CAD).

Participants at CANARI’s regional workshop on participatorywetlands management in 2006 visit the Nariva Swamp in

Trinidad to look at the how stakeholders are working together toaddress the management challenges at this Ramsar site.

Source: CANARI

25

Funding agencies and other external partners should makestrategic investments aimed at building local institutionsoperating at community, national and regional levels inthe Caribbean. One of the main reasons why CANARI(and more so its predecessor ECNAMP) was able to carryout medium- to long-term field experiments that testedinnovative approaches – often against the wishes of somelocal agencies that perceived the participatory approach asa threat – came from the programmatic support providedin the late 1970s and early 1980s by agencies such as theRockefeller Brothers Fund and the World Wildlife Fund-US. The MacArthur Award for Creative and EffectiveInstitutions, which CANARI received in 2009, providescomparable flexibility in that the awardee determines howthe funding should be used as well the approaches it willuse to achieve its objectives.. Such framework-type supportis essential to allow organisations to go beyond theexecution of discrete projects and to provoke meaningfulchange in policy and capacity, but it is only very rarelyavailable to Caribbean organisations. Funding agenciesactive in supporting conservation work in the Caribbeanalso tend to work directly with large international or NorthAmerican NGOs, while more investment is needed tobuild indigenous capacity.

The design of programmes and projects that are financedby external sources should be a collective exercise, drivenby needs and priorities on the ground. This is critical inorder to ensure that investments are targeted at thepriority issues and needs, but also that the approaches andinterventions are suited to local realities, and that existingand required capacities are taken into account. CANARIhas demonstrated that such participatory needsassessments and project design processes contribute tobetter and more sustained outcomes, particularly when

accompanied by participatory monitoring and adaptation.By contrast, inadequate project formulation andmanagement have typically resulted in poorly identifiedneeds, inappropriately designed implementationstructures, inf lexible disbursement and reportingarrangements and, on occasions, large amounts of unspentfunds being returned to the donor.

Approaches to conservation, natural resourcemanagement and sustainable development must betailored to local needs and conditions, and advocacyorganisations such as CANARI can play an essential rolein this respect. The concept of ‘creolisation’ can beborrowed from Geoghegan, who notes that it “signifies themelding of different influences that has characterisedCaribbean history... [and that it] can also be applied to someof the approaches to natural resource protection that haveevolved in the region, particularly over the past fewdecades” (2009). Taking inspiration from the process thatis at the roots of Caribbean societies – societies that havebeen constituted, or rather reconstituted, on the basis of amix of diverse ethnic, social and cultural influences andwith a political economy shaped by a very peculiar history(slavery, indentureship and dependency, emancipationand resistance) and ecology (island ecosystems, highdiversity, fragility) – what CANARI and several of itspartners have done has been to design approaches andpractices that borrow from many sources but are uniqueand suited to (as well as the products of) local needs andconditions. Many organisations – especially in the GlobalSouth – advocate the need for indigenous solutions andmethods but, in this globalised world, there are perhapslessons to be learned from an approach that sees‘indigenous’ as ‘creole’.

All organisations should practice and reflect, in theirculture, structure and operations, the values and missionthat they advocate and pursue in their own programmes.CANARI’s experience suggests that there are benefits tobe gained for an organisation, any organisation, to applyto its own strategies and behaviour the principles andmethods that it applies to the object of its work. Adaptivemanagement, participation, resilience, multi-stakeholderapproaches, equity, are concepts that CANARI hasconsistently applied to natural resource management inthe field and at policy level, but these are the very sameconcepts that it has also applied to its structure and itsoperations. Perhaps one of the secrets of a successfulorganisation – if success can be defined – is the coherenceand consistency between what that organisation does andthe way it does it.

CANARI believes that the traditional knowledge of local people isimportant in discussions about how to manage natural resources to benefit livelihoods and conservation. Source: Howard Nelson

26

Brown, N.A. 1995. Popular Participation and Empowerment in Natural Resource Management. CANARICommunication 56. CANARI, St. Croix and Saint Lucia.

Brown N.A., T. Geoghegan and Y. Renard. 2007. A Situation Analysis for the Wider Caribbean, IUCN Gland,Switzerland.

CANARI. 1996. Strategic Plan 1996 – 2005, CANARI, St Croix and Saint Lucia

CANARI 2002. Improving the socio-economic and environmental

benefits from natural resource management: Programme Framework, CANARI Internal Document.

CANARI. 2005a. Caribbean Natural Resources Institute Strategic Plan 2006 – 2010, CANARI, Laventille, Trinidad.

CANARI 2005b. Final technical report on DFID project R8317 Institutional Arrangements for Coastal Management inthe Caribbean, available at http://www.nrsp.org/database/documents/2314.pdf

CANARI 2008a. Minutes of the 14th Partnership meeting. CANARI internal document.

CANARI 2008b. Report on Caribbean component of IIED’s User guide to effective tools and methods for integratingenvironment and development. CANARI, Laventille, Trinidad.

CANARI 2009. Enhancing CANARI’s long-term financial and technical sustainability and the effectiveness of itscommunication strategies. Submission for the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions. CANARIinternal document.

Firth, D. 2005. Exploring the Poverty-Environment Nexus in the Caribbean: seeking strategies for integration andaction, CANARI internal document.

Geoghegan, T. 1994. Caribbean Natural Resources Institute: Historical Overview, 1977 – 1992. CANARI internaldocument.

Geoghegan, T. 2004: The challenge of building capacity for participatory natural resource management: the case ofJamaica’s national system of protected areas. CANARI Technical Report 333. CANARI, Laventille, Trinidad .

Geoghegan, T. 2009. Creolising conservation: Caribbean responses to global trends in environmental management.Chapter 5 in J.G. Carrier and P. West, eds. Virtualism, Governance and Practice: Vision and Execution inEnvironmental Conservation. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Forthcoming.

Geoghegan, T. and Renard, Y. 2002. Beyond Community Involvement: Lessons Learned from the Insular Caribbean.Parks 12(2):16-25.

Koo, L. 1999. Learning Action Learning. Journal of Workplace Learning 11(3):89-94.

McIntosh, S., Leotaud, N. and Macqueen,D. 2008. Who Pays for Water? A case study of action learning in the islandsof the Caribbean. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 4(1): 42-58.

Perry-Fingal, B. 1999. CANARI Institutional Review. CANARI internal document.

Perry-Fingal, B. 2005 Report on Review Activities for Strategic Planning Process. CANARI internal document.

Perry-Fingal, B. 2006. Warmmae Letand: A case study of community-based tourism within the Morne Trois PitonsWorld Heritage Site, Dominica. CANARI Technical Report 384. CANARI, Laventille, Trinidad .

Raelin, J. 1997. Action Learning and Action Science: Are they different?” Organisational Dynamics 26(1): 21-34.

Revans, R. 1979. The Nature of Action Learning. Management Education and Development 10:3-23.

References

27

Deve

lopm

enta

l Phase

Dominica Wildlands Program

1976-1977

Eastern Caribbean Natural

Area Manag

ement Program

(ECNAMP) 1978-1980

Con

solidation of programme,

includ

ing small office in St

Croix.

Hiring

of ‘staff con

sultants’ in

Saint Lucia and

Antigua

ECNAMP 1981-1984

Develop

ment o

f an institutional

identity

To link con

servation with rural

develop

ment (no

t explicitly stated

)

To assist the co

untries of the

Lesser

Antilles in

assuring tha

t na

tural areas

and resou

rces con

tribute to lo

ng-term

develop

men

t with

in culturally,

econ

omically and

eco

logically

consistent framew

ork(quo

ted in

Geoghegan 199

4)

To provide technical sup

port to CCA

mem

bers.

Assistance to governm

ents on

conservation for develop

ment that

benefits people

Increasing

focus on

econo

mic

benefits at com

munity level and

on

‘local participation’

Four pilot p

rojects, m

ainly in

Dom

inica, und

er th

e them

es of:

•natural resou

rce planning

•environm

ental education

•training

•

utilization

One reg

ional training worksho

p (held

in Dom

inica with field trip to

Guadelou

pe)

Four project areas:

•training

•planning

•environm

ental education

•ecod

evelop

ment (projects aimed

at providing sho

rt-run econ

omic

benefits to rural pop

ulations

throug

h actions th

at are

ecolog

ically sustainab

le over the

long

run (Geoghegan 199

5)

Field-based

participatory

dem

onstration projects and training

activities

University of M

ichigan’s Schoo

l of

Natural Resou

rces [UMSNR]

(technical inp

uts/project lead

ership)

The Rockefeller Bothers Fund [RBF]

(don

or)

Dom

inican Governm

ent.

Caribbean Con

servation Association

[CCA] (co-implementor)

UMSNR

RBF

CCA

Governm

ents of the Lesser Antilles

RBF and W

orld W

ildlife Fund

(US and

International)

UMSNR

CCA

UNEP Caribbean Environm

ent

Programme

Governm

ents and

communities/com

munity group

s in

Lesser Antilles(with a significant

portion of th

e field work taking

place

in Saint Lucia)

Mis

sion

Pro

gra

mm

es

Part

ners

, incl

udin

g d

onors

Appendix 1: The evolution of CANARI and its mission

28

Deve

lopm

enta

l Phase

ECNAMP 1985-1989 became

inco

rporated as an

independent organization

(1986)

Relationship with UMSNR

severed in 198

6Functional links with CCA

gradually broken with M

OU

cancelled in 198

9RBF withdraws as m

ajor don

orafter 1986

close out grant

Offices in St.C

roix and

Saint

Lucia

Board of D

irectors

Transition from ECNAMP to

CANARI 1989-1991

Shift to wider reg

ional focus on

all islands of th

e Caribbean

Nam

e changed

to CANARI in

1989

Develop

ment o

f internal policies

includ

ing personnel policy

defining working

con

dition

s and

benefits

CANARI 1992 -1995

Review of p

rogrammes and

operations, resulting in new

mission

statement in 1992. M

ore

in-depth review in 199

4Post o

f Executive Director

established

Staffing

and

financial operations

of Saint Lucia and

St C

roix

offices integrated

As ab

ove but with rem

it extend

ed to

all islands of th

e Caribbean

As ab

ove but increasing

focus on

capacity building of N

GOs and

national trusts

CANARI is ded

icated

to promoting

conservatio

n that ben

efits peo

ple, Its

mission

is to

stren

gthen

the

cap

acity

of Caribbea

n co

mmun

ities and

the

irinstitu

tions to

man

age the na

tural

resource

s critica

l to their

develop

men

t.(M

ission

statement

adop

ted 199

2)

5 programme them

es:

•parks and

protected

areas;

•coastal zon

e manag

ement;

community-based

resou

rce

manag

ement (CBRM);

•ed

ucation and training

; •

sustainable resou

rce use

Ability to im

plement con

strained

by

need

to find

addition

al sou

rces of

fund

ing

Programme them

es red

uced

to tw

o:•

parks and

protected

areas

•community-based

resou

rce

manag

ement, with a particular

focus on

marine and coastal

resources.

Programmes defined

as:

•research

•inform

ation and docum

entation

•training

Develop

ment and

promotion of co-

manag

ement w

ith con

centration on

national parks and

protected

areas

and com

mon

property resou

rces

(particularly coastal resou

rces)

RBF and W

orld W

ildlife Fund

(US and

International)

Governm

ents,

communities/com

munity group

s in

the island

s of th

e Caribbean

CCA

UNEP Caribbean Environm

ent

Programme

Collaboration with reg

ional

universities on

cap

acity building and

research

Transnational don

ors

Governm

ents, com

munities, N

GOs in

the island

s of th

e Caribbean

Reg

ional universities

Bi-lateral and

multi-lateral don

ors

Governm

ents, com

munities, N

GOs in

the island

s of th

e Caribbean

Reg

ional universities

Mis

sion

Pro

gra

mm

es

Part

ners

, incl

udin

g d

onors

29

Deve

lopm

enta

l Phase

CANARI 1995-2000

Develop

ment o

f 199

6-2005

strategic plan

CANARI 2000- 2005

Mid-term

review of strateg

ic plan

in 200

2Head office m

oved

to Trinidad

in2001

One-person office in Antigua

2003-200

5

To create aven

ues for the eq

uitable

participation an

d effec

tive

collaboration of Caribbea

nco

mmun

ities and

institu

tions in

man

aging the

natural resou

rces

critica

l to develop

men

t (CANARI

1996

)

Geographic scop

e: all the island

s of

the Caribbean.

As ab

ove but with specific goal To

foster the

develop

men

t an

dimplem

entatio

n of policies an

dap

proa

ches tha

t gen

erate eq

uitable

and sustainab

le ben

efits from

participatory na

tural resou

rce

man

agem

ent.” CANARI P

rogramme

Fram

ework 2002-200

5

Develop

ment and

adop

tion of policies

that sup

port increased

participation

and collaboration in m

anag

ing natural

resources throug

h ap

plied research,

analysis and

advocacy (CANARI

2006

)

•Policy processes:To develop

and promote policies that facilitate

socio-econ

omic and

environm

ental benefits from

participatory natural resou

rce

manag

ement.

•Institutional requirements:

To increase und

erstanding of the

requirements for stakeholder

participation in institutions th

atsupport effective natural resou

rce

manag

ement.

•Skills and m

ethods:

To increase th

e capacity of

individuals and

organisations to

implement p

articipatory natural

resource m

anag

ement throu

gh

advocacy and

technical

assistance activities.

Red

uced

emphasis on

field research

Bi-lateral and

multi-lateral don

ors

International N

GOs

Governm

ents, com

munities, N

GOs in

the island

s of th

e Caribbean

Reg

ional universities

Transnational don

ors and technical

agencies (e.g., DFID, M

acArthur

Foundation, IFAD)

International N

GOs (e.g., IIED, H

ivos)

Governm

ents, com

munities, N

GOs in

the island

s of th

e Caribbean

Reg

ional universities

Mis

sion

Pro

gra

mm

es

Part

ners

, incl

udin

g d

onors

30

Deve

lopm

enta

l Phase

CANARI 2005–present

Head office in Trinidad

One-person office in Barbad

os2007-present

CANARI is a regional non

-profit

organisation who

se m

ission

is to

promote eq

uitable participation and

effective collaboration in m

anag

ing

the natural resou

rces critical to

develop

ment.

CANARI seeks to achieve its mission

throug

h:

•ap

plied and

action research on,

and analysis, m

onitoring and

evaluation of, innovative policies,

institutions and

approaches to

participation and governance;

•sharing and

dissemination of

lesson

s learned, including

capacity building; and

•fostering partnerships, particularly

those that build on regional assets

and talents and con

tribute to

closer reg

ional coo

peration.

Geographic scop

e: all the island

s of

the Caribbean.

(CANARI 200

5a)

Areas of research focus identified as:

1.How

can equitable and

effective

participation in natural resou

rce

manag

ement b

est b

e achieved

?2.

To what d

egree does participatory

natural resou

rce manag

ement:

•Facilitate eq

uitable decision-

making abou

t prio

rities and

trad

e-offs?

•Improve livelihoo

ds?

•Con

tribute to con

serving natural

resources?

3.How

can lesson

s learned abou

tparticipatory natural resou

rce

manag

ement and

develop

ment b

emost effectively shared

toinfluence decision-making?

Them

atic programmes develop

ed in

2007/200

8:•

Forests and livelihoo

ds

•Clim

ate change and disaster risk

reduction

•Coastal and

marine governance

and livelihoo

ds

•Civil society and governance

Transnational don

ors and technical

agencies (e.g., EU, FAO, M

acArthur

Foundation)

International N

GOs (e.g., IIED, R

SPB)

Governm

ents, com

munities, N

GOs in

the island

s of th

e Caribbean

Reg

ional universities

Mis

sion

Pro

gra

mm

es

Part

ners

, incl

udin

g d

onors

The following have consequently been selected as the coreprogramme areas, with a number of cross-cutting themessuch as community-based tourism, gender, protected areasand communications research:

• Forests and livelihoods.

• Climate change and disaster risk reduction.

• Coastal and marine governance and livelihoods.

• Civil society and governance.

Staff members still work across programme areas but withan overall programme leader taking responsibility forprogramme development and implementation. Thisfacilitates integration and linkages across programmes andprojects while also increasing organisational f lexibility andbuilding Staff capacity and commitment to CANARI’svalues.

Communications and target audiencesCommunications are a key element of CANARI’s work,and reviews of and feedback on CANARI’scommunication strategy, which encompasses print andaudiovisual materials, capacity building and traininginitiatives, as well as other forms of advocacy and policyinfluence (e.g. one-to-one meetings) have been for themost part favourable. The 2005 strategic review and workconducted under the United Kingdom Department forInternational Development (DFID)-funded InstitutionalArrangements for Coastal Management in the Caribbeancommunications research project (CANARI 2005b)indicated that CANARI’s publications were widely readand had contributed to CANARI’s reputation for seriousand relevant research. However, the readership had beenlargely confined to fairly technical audiences, such asgovernment technical officers, NGO leaders, academicsand students. In other words, the needs of policy makersand community-based organisations were not beingaddressed through print materials, although this wascompensated for somewhat by personal contacts andtraining programmes.

While this somewhat restricted focus could be seen as anoutcome of a conscious decision to focus on key ‘changeagents’ within government and civil society, thoseconsulted in 2005 viewed it as hindering the overalleffectiveness and impact of CANARI’s work. It had alsoresulted in CANARI having an ‘elitist’ image and aperception from some that too little had been done towidely publicise or disseminate that work. Those outside

31

ProgrammeCANARI’s programming is an integral part of its strategicplanning process, and the current programme is broadlydetermined by the objectives outlined in the 2006-2010strategic plan. Since then CANARI Staff and Partnershave engaged in several discussions about how to structurethe programme in such a way that it still functions wellfrom an internal project management perspective but canbe better understood by external partners, beneficiariesand donors. Initial discussions focused on whetherCANARI should retain a programming structure alongthe broad lines of research, communications/advocacy andcapacity building, which perhaps avoids the danger ofover-simplifying the complexities of the issues beingaddressed, or whether it should adopt a thematicprogramme structure (e.g. by ecological area), with cross-cutting elements (e.g. protected areas), which is easier forexternal target audiences to understand and provides aframework for building complementary and inter-relatedprojects. The consensus was that, in spite of inevitableoverlaps between programme areas, thematicprogrammes that provide a clear indication of desiredoutcomes (e.g. livelihoods or governance) would be best.

CANARI is working to build capacity for adaptation of coastallivelihoods under its Climate change and disaster risk reduction

programme. Source: Anguilla National Trust

Appendix 2: CANARI today

32

the immediate circle of partners and change agents wereconfused about CANARI’s precise role, resulting in asomewhat fuzzy image (Perry-Fingal 2005).

Some immediate decisions were taken to address theseconcerns:

• systematic inclusion of background and overview ofCANARI’s work in all its presentations and trainingprogrammes;

• greater attention to building up a database of relevantcontacts throughout the Caribbean; and

• development of a new visual image, starting with the2006-2010 plan document and the design of a newlogo, which would include the word CANARI and bet-ter reflect the focus on people in CANARI’s work (seebelow for old and new logos):

The question of who CANARI’s main target audiencesare, and how the organisation should prioritise the use ofits limited resources to communicate with them, has comeup a number of times since 2005, with the main debaterevolving around whether CANARI should dedicate moreof its resources to ‘protocol-type’ visits to and relationship-building with relevant government Ministers and regionalbodies. The conclusion from these discussions has beenthat CANARI’s strategy of identifying key change agentswithin all sectors, whether individuals or organisations(and not necessarily those with formal power), had beensuccessful and should be continued. CANARI’s principalboundary partners7 have been identified as:

• senior public servants in CANARI’s thematic areas ofwork;

• academic researchers and lecturers (inside and outsidethe region) working on cutting edge areas of research;

• research institutions;

• managers and senior technical personnel working inregional and international NGOs in the same field asCANARI;

• donors;

• CBOs who are considered as key change agents;

• technical assistance agencies;

• private sector: companies with strong corporate socialprogrammes, particularly in the tourism sector, andconsultancy firms working in natural resource man-agement;

• media houses and practitioners; and

• ministers of government (to a lesser extent) (CANARI2008a).

The absence of a comprehensive communication strategyfor the organisation however remains a gap, even ifCANARI’s overall approach to communications hasbecome both more strategic and more targeted in recenttimes, largely as a result of the findings of the DFIDproject mentioned earlier (CANARI 2005b), whichgenerated a number of creative experiments on which theorganisation continues to build. Areas in which CANARIis currently seeking to build its communication skills andto expand its programme are the use of video, andparticularly participatory video, as well as thedevelopment of short policy briefs as a response to topicalissues rather than solely as outputs of its projects. There isnow a greater focus on communications research, whichCANARI now tries to incorporate into all its projects andfor which it is also seeking dedicated funding.

7 Terminology adopted from outcome mapping to describe those stakeholders with whom the organisation interacts directly

Previous logo Current logo

CANARI targeted Community Based Organisations (CBOs) in aseries of national workshops under its Forests and Livelihoods

programme. Here CBO leaders in Tobago exchange ideas on a fieldtrip as part of a workshop held in 2009. Source: CANARI

33

Geographic scopeCANARI’s geographic focus remains the islands of theCaribbean, with research being conducted at the local,national and regional levels. CANARI and its partnerstestify to the benefits they have gained from the Institute’sregional approach8, such as the opportunities for exchangeof information and views with colleagues from othercountries and for practical exposure to relevantexperiences and examples through case studies and fieldtrips. Workshop evaluations also highlight how fewopportunities there are, other than those provided byCANARI, for individuals and organisations involved innatural resource management in the Caribbean toexchange views, work on common problems and sharelessons learned in an informal and open environment thatis conducive to breaking down traditional barriersbetween civil society and government and between peoplefrom different backgrounds and sectors. Manyparticipants in CANARI’s workshops and projects remainin touch with each other, creating an informal networkthat can be drawn upon as needed. The benefits toCANARI are great in terms of exposure to a wider set ofviews, approaches and case study examples. The regionalapproach also helps the organisation to distil whichcultural, political or socio-economic factors contribute toor detract from successful processes or outcomes.

CANARI however faces a number of challenges inimplementing its programmes at a regional level:

• the diversity of languages (Creole, Dutch, English,French and Spanish);

• the high cost of, and complex routes involved in, intra-regional travel, in spite of short distances;

• inadequate technological infrastructure and services tofacilitate effective use of alternatives to face-to-faceregional meetings;

• the fact that most funding agencies do not have pan-Caribbean programmes;

• the difficulty of attracting and retaining Staff who areinterested in and capable of working at a regional scale.

Internal governanceCANARI is legally a non-profit organisation registered inSaint Lucia, the United States Virgin Islands and Trinidadand Tobago, with its main office in Trinidad. It has 501(c)(3) status in the United States and charitable status inTrinidad and Tobago. The legal governing body is aBoard of Directors. Elected Board members hold thepositions of Chair, Treasurer and Secretary.

In 2001, CANARI established an innovative internaloperating structure, the Partnership, designed to leveragemore effectively the collective skills of elected Boardmembers and senior Staff, to improve the workingrelationship between the two groups, to give senior Staff amore formal role in governance, and to reflect better theparticipatory culture of the organisation. Under thePartnership structure, Board members are designated as‘Elected Partners’ and the Executive Director as‘Managing Partner’. Senior technical Staff withmanagement responsibilities can be appointed as ‘StaffPartners’.

Partners have collective responsibility for oversight of theInstitute and for ensuring the appropriate use of theInstitute’s funds. Elected Partners are authorised torepresent the Institute with the approval of the ManagingPartner. They are eligible for two two-year terms and mustthen step down for at least two years. Potential new ElectedPartners are identified by the entire Partnership and thenapproached by the person who knows them best, finallybeing formally elected at the Annual General Meeting.Their responsibilities were recently formalised in Terms ofReference and the Institute has also adopted a Conflict ofinterest policy. Expenses to attend meetings are coveredbut there is no remuneration for being a Partner.

The combination of CANARI’s long-standing reputationfor excellence and the person-to-person approach (fromStaff or Partner to potential new Elected Partners) hasresulted in CANARI continuously being able to attractpeople of an excellent calibre and with a high profilewithin the region. However, the emphasis on what skillsare considered desirable on the Board/Partnership hasshifted periodically. Following the move to Trinidad and

8 Both the value and the complexities of taking a regional approach are well captured in the following extract from a recent situation analysis of the Caribbean:“The 35 independent countries and territories that are covered reflect huge ecological, historical, political and cultural diversity but also many commonalities thatmake regional programming relevant and useful. The main defining characteristics of the region include high levels of biological diversity; small size (of islands,countries, markets and social institutions) and scarcity of many resources, resulting in frequent conflicts; economic dependency on natural resources; vulnerabilityto hazards and shocks; and openness to external forces (e.g. global markets, diseases such as HIV/AIDS, alien invasive species). … With the exception of Haiti,Caribbean countries range in the middle to high range on international development indices, but high levels of economic inequity mask persistent and in somecases increasing poverty. The main drivers of Caribbean economies are tourism, construction (much of which is tourism-related), mining and oil exploration. …..Theregion is heavily dependent on external trade, and the recent loss of preferential agreements with traditional trade partners has increased competition ininternational markets (Brown, Geoghegan and Renard 2007).

34

the period of transition (2001-2008) from the founderDirectors (Yves Renard and Tighe Geoghegan) to thesecond and third generation of Managing/Staff Partners(respectively Vijay Krishnarayan, Gillian Cooper andLyndon John; and Sarah McIntosh and Nicole Leotaud),there was a greater emphasis on Elected Partners withorganisational development and management skills. Withgrowing confidence in the management foundation thathas been established in Trinidad, the emphasis has shiftedcloser to that of earlier Boards, with a higher proportion ofacademics and well-known regional change agents. Thereare currently eight Elected Partners.

Partnership meetings are held twice a year over a 2-3 dayperiod at CANARI’s headquarters in Trinidad.Interactions between Partnership meetings usually fall intoone of the following categories:

• quarterly management committee telephone meetings(Managing Partner, Chair, Secretary, Treasurer);

• ad hoc telephone meetings of the human resourcecommittee, which also meets during Partnership meet-ings;

• emails from CANARI Partners to Elected Partners,updating them on important news (ranging from newprojects to new Staff); and

• information from Elected Partners about relevantactivities in their countries or sectors;

• interactions with individual Elected Partners withinthe context of programmes or projects in which they ortheir organisations are involved.

StaffCANARI’s Staff currently comprises the ExecutiveDirector/Managing Partner; Programme Director/StaffPartner; four Technical Officers (three at senior level); aFinancial Officer; and an Administrative Officer.

Staff members are both CANARI’s greatest asset and itsbiggest challenge. Many people who come into contactwith CANARI expect to find a much larger Staff, basedon the organisation’s outputs and influence over the years.Or, as Dr Koester put it when reflecting on the interviewsand desk review, “how did so few people do so much”?While most of the regional organisations in the Caribbeanpoint to funding as their greatest challenge, CANARI’sphilosophy has been, and continues to be, that goodtechnical Staff will pay for themselves. If an exceptionalperson is identified, every effort is made to bring her or

him on board, to find the funding to cover the salaryduring the initial period of orientation and training, and tobuild his or her capacity to develop fundable projectproposals in areas of interest to the organisation and theindividual concerned.

This strategy has served the organisation well, withCANARI Staff members being highly regarded in theregion and beyond, but it has not proven easy toconsistently find and retain as large a team of technicalStaff as would be desirable. Challenges relate mainly tothe requirement for Staff to be “rigidly flexible” (Perry-Fingal 1999) an approach that ensures the organisationremains committed to its purpose but is open to, and infact seeks, new ideas and new institutional arrangementsthat may lead to better, stronger forms of participatorygovernance. Staff members are also expected to be self-organising and independent yet team-oriented andparticipatory, and able to fit into an institutional culture ofexcellence and peer review of all major outputs. Thelinguistic and cultural diversity of the region served byCANARI is also a challenge, and in recent years, it hasproven difficult to consistently maintain a team with highcompetency in oral and written French and Spanish.

This creates an environment which several Staff membershave found initially (and sometimes persistently) unsettling.The ‘culture shock’ which some Staff describe havingexperienced at CANARI can be attributed in part to thetraditional Caribbean educational model, which focuseson academic excellence and much less on independentthought and risk taking. Criticism and punishments withinsuch systems can be harsh, making it difficult to adapt tothe concept that peer review is a constructive contributionto self- and organisational development. Similarly, forthose coming from the hierarchical structures that prevailin government, some private sector and even civil societyorganisations, the adaptation to a flatter structure thatseeks to treat and value everyone equally can bediscomforting. Others have found it difficult to adapt to asystem where the link between what you are doing, thebudget available for it, and the ability of the organisationto continue to employ you, are made explicit through therequirement to allocate all time to identified activities andto play a role in ensuring that budgets are not exceeded oradaptive steps are taken.

Currently, the climate among Staff is one of collaborationwith relatively few – and then only minor - conflicts. Thiscan be attributed to a combination of factors including:

35

• identifying to new Staff in advance the areas of institu-tional culture that they may find difficult and provid-ing mentoring in the adaptation process;

• focusing on team-building, conflict management andmentoring;

• more regular project meetings, including financial andadministrative Staff;

• fortnightly Staff meetings to ensure that everyone isup-to-date on others’ activities and can input into deci-sion-making;

• short internal training and discussion sessions designedto nip incipient conflict in the bud;

• more widespread and greater confidence among Staffabout their ability to contribute to discussions;

• introduction of an adapted performance managementsystem which includes quarterly meetings andreward/recognition for achieving goals;

• fewer incidences of being under-staffed, which createsstresses on those that remain.

Nevertheless, CANARI continues to struggle to fullyidentify what combination of competencies and otherattributes make for a good fit between a potential technicalStaff member and the organisation. Although researchand communication skills are important, the followingfactors seem to be even greater indicators of lasting ‘fit’:

• a value system that includes an understanding of andcommitment to the values of participation and equity;

• broad-based academic background and work experi-ence rather than narrow focus on a single discipline orsector;

• openness to others’ perspectives, including throughpeer review, and to working in a multi-disciplinaryenvironment;

• willingness to work across projects and programmes;

• curiosity and a desire to continue learning;

• team-oriented but also self-organising and motivated;

• good understanding of the Caribbean political, socio-economic and cultural landscape, combined withexposure to and experience of working in other regionsand cultures.

Facility in spoken (and preferably written) Spanish, Frenchand/or Creole is also considered desirable.

AssociatesCANARI has created the position of Associate forindividuals who have a strong commitment to CANARI’smission, who have previously been members of Staff orElected Partners or have otherwise worked closely withCANARI, and whose expertise adds value to theorganisation and its programmes. These Associates haveplayed an important role in the organisation’sdevelopment since its move to Trinidad in 2001, acting asa source of support, expert advice and institutionalmemory on organisational issues, without ever interferingin day-to-day management. They have also played asignificant role as consultants on CANARI projects,bringing a range of relevant skills, not all of which areotherwise easy to find in the region. In turn, CANARI hashelped them to remain connected with regional processesand programmes of relevance to their individual work.

Strategic alliances and partnershipsCANARI’s strategic alliances with key individuals, otherinstitutions and organisations – international, regional,national and local – further expand its capacity to carryout its mission. Such alliances, which encompass bothformal partnerships and informal collaboration, enhancethe quality of research in the region, reduce duplicationand optimise the use of limited human and financialresources. CANARI’s partners include academicinstitutions; multi-lateral and bi-lateral agencies;international, regional and national NGOs; community-based organisations; and individual consultants.

In terms of international NGOs, CANARI’s relationshipwith IIED has been of particular value in stimulating newthinking about approaches to natural resourcemanagement and governance. Typically, IIED hasinvolved CANARI both in helping to conceptualise projectdesign and in implementing the Caribbean component ofa wider global project, for example the Who Pays forWater project on pro-poor payments for watershedservices and the User Guide to Effective Tools andMethods for Integrating Environment and Development.This has not only avoided the externally imposed solutionsto hypothesised problems described by Geoghegan (2009)but has also provided a wider global perspective, whichproject participants felt added new insights to thediscussions, even if some of the approaches used elsewhere(e.g. Costa Rica) proved not to be easily transferable to theinsular Caribbean. CANARI has also worked closely withthe University of the West Indies (UWI), and particularly

36

its Sustainable Economic Development Unit (SEDU) andits Centre for Resource Management and EnvironmentalStudies (CERMES), both of which share many ofCANARI’s values and interests.

CANARI’s relationships with other regional NGOs andCBOs are multi-faceted. They are variously beneficiariesof CANARI training and small grants; partners in thedevelopment of regional workshops and communicationcampaigns, such as those developed with Panos Caribbeanor on behalf of Christian Aid; the focus of CANARI casestudies; colleagues and collaborators on internationalprogrammes such as the new Caribbean Initiative of theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN);facilitators of regional and national processes whichCANARI is invited to contribute to (e.g. the Partnershipfor Sustainable Land Management coordinated by theCaribbean Network for Integrated Rural Development orthe Trinidad Sustainable Development Networkcoordinated by the Cropper Foundation); and part of aninformal information exchange network which operates onan as-needed or as- interested basis.

FundingCANARI’s programmes are supported by a diversefunding base, including grants from multi-lateral and bi-lateral institutions and private foundations. Its totalbudgeted expenditure for the current financial year (2009)is just over USD 1 million. CANARI supplements its grantfunding through training fees and short consultancies that

are consistent with its vision, mission and strategicobjectives. In general, CANARI only submits proposals forconsultancies when it has specifically been invited to bid,either as sole applicant or in a closed call for proposals.The current ratio of income is approximately 80% fromgrants and 20% from consultancies and training.

There are merits and disadvantages to both types ofincome. Grant funding provides greater scope forinnovative design and focus on strategic priorities as wellas a longer project time frame. On the other hand,complex proposal design and rigid donor reportingsystems can be onerous and a barrier to effectiveachievement of the outputs and outcomes, withoutnecessarily increasing accountability and transparency.The relationship between CANARI and the MacArthurFoundation is an example of how donor relationships canfunction optimally. The Foundation is always open toinnovative and creative ideas and will easily makesuggestions, but it recognises that it is not as well-placed asits grantees and their partners to determine what is mostappropriate. It has straightforward and relevant reportingrequirements and does not retain a final payment to assurecompletion of the project. The relationship is built onmutual trust and respect, which in turn engenders anincreased sense of commitment from the grant recipient toeffective and efficient use of resources. By contrast,CANARI is currently implementing projects underfunding from both the European Union (EU) and theFood and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) National ForestProgramme Facility, both of which have some complexand arcane rules which even the local programme officersof these organisations have had difficulty in interpreting.However, in these cases, the frustrations engendered bythe proposal design and reporting processes have beenoffset by the development of excellent relationships withthe national or regional offices and a mutual commitmentto try and minimise these frustrations.

The experience of funding under consultancy projects hasbeen mixed. These projects have provided excellentopportunities to test or apply participatory methodologiesand to develop new and productive relationships with keychange agents (for example, over the past couple of years,the Department of Environment in Montserrat; theEnvironmental Management Authority and ForestryDivision in Trinidad and Tobago; and the Royal Societyfor the Protection of Birds and Joint Nature ConservationCommittee in the UK for work in the UK overseasterritories). In some cases, such projects have also made asignificant contribution to administrative overheads and

CANARI facilitated a visit of key policy makers from the Caribbean to Costa Rica to study that country’s system of

payments for watershed services under the Who Pays for Waterproject in 2006. Source: CANARI

37

fund surpluses. However, in instances where CANARI hasnot had much input into the terms of reference, or whenthese have been poorly thought through or not based on awell-identified need, there have often been demands forchanges in approach or iterative processes of consultationor review that were not originally provided for and caneasily result in exceeding the budgeted costs if not carefullymanaged and re-negotiated.

CANARI has intermittently discussed the possibility ofsecuring a more sustainable funding base. The receipt ofthe 2009 MacArthur Foundation Award for Creative andEffective Institutions is enabling CANARI to explorestrategies to further secure its financial stability and abilityto pursue the type of regionally-relevant independentresearch on which its reputation is based. Approacheswhich are being examined include:

• development of an endowment fund, including alloca-tion of USD100,000 as seed funding and a target ofsecuring USD 1 million over 3 years (a target that mayprove ambitious in the current economic environment);

• exploration of the potential for partnerships, bothwithin and outside the region, to secure frameworkfunding to address key identified research and capaci-ty building gaps in the region;

• provision of systematic and regular avenues for techni-cal Staff to build competencies and remain at the cut-ting edge of current research in CANARI’s pro-gramme areas, primarily through ‘mini-sabbaticals’ of3-6 weeks to study in more depth a particular topic of

individual interest that can contribute to addressingcurrent or potential CANARI research areas;

• communications research to evaluate the effectivenessof past communication strategies of both CANARI andsome of its partners (e.g. CERMES), in relation to theirpolicy or other objectives, and to test and evaluate thecomparative cost-effectiveness (CANARI 2009).

Internal systems

Filing and library

CANARI has always placed a high value on implementingand maintaining systems that would preserve institutionalmemory, help it to meet any statutory requirements as wellas facilitate access to information, especially for Staff.These include idiosyncratic but highly functional librarymanagement and hard copy filing systems. Recently, adecision was taken to maintain comprehensive files only inelectronic format, with just key documents (e.g. contracts,project outputs and reports) kept in hard copy. Similarly,an electronic library of useful documents is graduallybeing developed. The greatest challenge in this area islikely to be lack of space, and the library and filing roomsare both bursting at the seams in spite of several rounds of‘weeding out’ duplicates and publications such as oldnewsletters on topics that are not of core relevance toCANARI or its library users. CANARI has discussed forseveral years the possibility of developing a project todigitise parts of its library and its own older publicationsbut this has never come to fruition, in part because untilrecently the library was maintained by part-time Staff,who combined that role with full-time academic studies.However, CANARI’s library advisors have consistentlyindicated that there are potential funding sources for this,so it is something that should be put back on the agenda,particularly as the only other comparable non-academic(i.e. NGO and accessible) library of its kind in the region,that of the CCA, is currently not being maintained andhas an uncertain future.

Internal policies and procedures

CANARI has consistently developed internal policies andprocedures to meet identified needs without burdeningitself with bureaucratic rules, and the Institute currentlyhas the following policy documents or manuals:

• Human resource policy (including subsections onworking hours, compensation, leave and benefits, andgrievances)

CANARI has partnered with the Royal Society for the Protection ofBirds (RSPB) to support participatory planning process for

biodiversity conservation in Montserrat. Source: Stephen Mendes

38

• Conflict of interest policy for Elected Partners

• Administrative policies and procedures

• Financial policies and procedures

• Library policy and procedures

• Information management policy and procedures

These are reviewed and added to as new areas areidentified, often during the process of orienting new Staff,an area of continuing weakness as the policies still need tobe compiled into a comprehensive and coherentpolicy/orientation manual.

Financial management systems

CANARI has paid attention to issues of financialmanagement and has maintained good financial recordsfrom the outset. However, this did not prevent it fromsuffering a number of cash flow crises. In recognition ofthe need to find a mechanism to cover more adequately itsoperational overheads, it adopted in the 1990s a system offull cost recovery whereby Staff time was no longercharged out to projects just at a percentage of actualsalaries but at a cost which included overhead recovery.The system however progressively became too complexand, in 2005, a new system was introduced to simplify thejob of the Financial Officer and facilitate both internalproject management and external reporting, withoutdiscarding the principle of full cost recovery. A key featureof this system, which is still being used with minorrefinements, is that all project activities are budgeted andaccounted for along the lines under which they have to bereported to the donor (all of whom have separate anddifferent reporting requirements). This has slightlyincreased the amount of time that Staff and the FinancialOfficer have to spend on timesheets and monthly record-keeping but vastly improved the ability to monitor whethera project is on track. It has also reduced donor reportingto a fairly routine and undemanding exercise, even in thecase of donors with complex reporting requirements.

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute

The Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) isa regional technical non-profit organisation which hasbeen working in the islands of the Caribbean for over 20years.Our mission is to promote equitable participation andeffective collaboration in managing the natural resourcescritical to development.Our programmes focus on research, sharing anddissemination of lessons learned, capacity building andfostering regional partnerships.

For more information please contact:

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)Fernandes Industrial Centre, Administration BuildingEastern Main Road, Laventille, Trinidad, W.I.

Tel: (868) 626-6062 • Fax: (868) 626-1788 Email: info@canari.org • Website: www.canari.org

This Technical Report was produced by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute

as an output of the project "Going from strength to strength: Building capacity for

equitable, effective and sustained participation of civil society organisations in

biodiversity conservation in Caribbean islands" funded by the John D. and

Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Citation: CANARI 2009. Thirty Years in Support of Participatory Natural Resource Management: the experience of theCaribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI). CANARI Technical Report No.387: 38pp

ISBN 1-890792-14-4