Rising to the challenge: A framework for optimising value in collaborative natural resource governance Emmanuel Yeboah-Assiamah a, ⁎, Kobus Muller a , Kwame Ameyaw Domfeh b a School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University, South Africa b Department of Public Administration & Health Service Management, University of Ghana Business School, Ghana abstract article info Article history: Received 26 October 2015 Received in revised form 4 January 2016 Accepted 30 January 2016 Available online xxxx Complexities of the post-NPM era have resulted into a new governance approach based on ‘collaboration’,a network-based model that links various stakeholders [state and non-state actors], ostensibly to maximise public value. The ‘consensus model’ has its underpinning ‘rules of the game’; without which collaborative outcomes may end up being conflictual and counter-productive. Adopting a critical stage review, this paper draws mainly from theoretical and recent empirical literature to unpack the factors that catalyse successful collaborative natural resource governance. We reflect on these to design an ‘ABC framework’ aimed at providing signpost to agencies, governments and conveners of collaboration on how to execute this socio-technical process to maximise value. The framework hinges on three broad pillars: Adopting and advancing human skills, Building integrity and legitimacy and Creating a sense of attachment to the resource in question. We discuss these with specific indicators synchronized from recent natural resources collaboration experiences in the literature. © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Collaboration Environmental governance Complexities Stakeholders Co-management Natural resources Mostly people and communities hold on to a perception that “their interests directly conflict with the other party's interests, even when creative win-win solutions are possible” (Bazerman, 1986:128) 1. Introduction A much trumpeted approach to forest resources governance, espe- cially from the 20th century is one that adopts a network governance approach, a multi-actor regime (Muller, 2010). This approach has be- come very popular and emanates mainly from lessons derived from the failure of the former approach, which tended to be too bureaucratic, centralised, state monopolised and, worse of it all, regarded local com- munities as destroyers of the environment and resources (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999). The thinking of that time was based on “environ- mental management” that depended much on the technical know- how and expertise of state agencies, a bureaucratic and monopolised environmental approach; however, there has since been a paradigm shift towards what is known as environmental governance. The term governance suggests that various actors including state agencies are in- volved. According to Mitchell (2013), the concept of environmental management involves “actual decisions and actions concerning policy and practice regarding how resources and the environment are ap- praised, protected, allocated, developed, used, rehabilitated, remediated and restored, monitored and evaluated” (Mitchell, 2013:7). The notion of management connotes a hierarchical, top-down policy process where state agencies are pervasive and mostly influence policies through command and control as well as a great deal of reliance on ex- pert knowledge. However, with the ‘age of networks’ that developed mostly in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there has been a paradigm shift towards an emphasis on a ‘people’, ‘stakeholders’ and ‘communi- ties’, where policies regarding natural environmental resources are de- vised through a deliberative democratic process (Chambers, 2003). This approach has become, inter alia, known as collaborative environ- mental governance or co-management. For the purpose of this paper, co-management and collaborative natural resource governance have been used interchangeably to mean the new governance system that emphasizes on different stakeholders [forging allegiance between state and non-state actors] to prudently and methodically govern natu- ral resources. (See Tables 1–3.) Singleton (1998:7) defines co-management as associated with “gov- ernance systems that combine state control with local, decentralised decision making and accountability and which, ideally, combine the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses of each”. The process through which state agencies forge links with resource communities, local leaders and groups and local institutions promises value to both state agencies and local communities. However, in most cases, it appears that state agencies tend to be oblivious of the cumulative net value of col- laboration, and are often tempted to think that value flows only to their partners or community members. Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) pro- vide a critical teaser that if we were to ask for a fundamental reason as to why agency staff would want to collaborate with other actors or com- munity members to manage natural resources, we are likely to hear Forest Policy and Economics 67 (2016) 20–29 ⁎ Corresponding author. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Policy and Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.008 1389-9341/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.