1. INTRODUCTION The postindustrialization perception of communities as obstacles to conservation success has fostered a dichotomous view of communities and natural resources (West et al. 2006; Agrawal 1999). This interpretation of nature-environment dissociation was embedded in intrusive natural resource governance and conservation strategies. Natural resource management authority was vested in a central agency, which primarily reflected some aspect of the state, focusing on scientific data and within the legal boundaries of state policies (Berkets et al. 1991; Ostrom 1990). State management of common resources has produced less than satisfactory conservation outcomes (Agrwal and Gibson 1999), attributed largely to the multifaceted, complex, and dynamic nature of natural resource systems that require the participation of multiple stakeholders for sustainable management (Berkes 2009 ). Aware of their role in the sustainability of natural resources, communities and civil society have called for a role in natural resource management, pushing scholars and policymakers to reshape how they think about the role of communities in natural resource governance (Berkes et al . 1991). This approach has consequently fostered a strong vertical linkage for community-civil society-government cooperation in natural resource governance. Scholars have advanced co-management as an alternative to the stationary, centralized, and singular approach to natural resource management. Co-management (also known as collaborative, joint, or participatory management) is seen as a special type of management regime that implements joint institutions to govern natural resources. Institutions, in this context, refer to those constraints on resource use and interaction that the community implements... at the heart of the paper... and to the governance of natural resources. Focus group discussions targeted sample community members to establish the historical and developmental context of community institutions. To observe key processes of residents' interactions within governance and resource settings, we used participatory and independent observations. Being one of the few Belizean researchers in these communities and having prior knowledge of these informants, many indicated that it was much easier to discuss the complexities of culture and history with our team. Although our study's approach limits the generalizability of our findings and recommendations, policy recommendations can be considered in socio-ecological systems that adapt to similar contexts. Our study is also limited by the chronic absence of peer-reviewed literature on Belizean communities, particularly those in co-management.