Ecosystem Management:

Meeting the Challenges of Community Initiatives

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Proceedings of a WorkshopCornwall, OntarioMay 10, 1995

An initiative of Ecosystem Management: New Forms of GovernanceA project of the Institute for Research on Environment and Economy

Published by the Institute for Research on Environment and EconomyISBN 0-88927-001-5© 1995 by the Institute for Research on Environment and Economy

Printed in Canada

The Origins of This Workshop

In 1994, the University of Ottawa's Institute for Research on Environment and Economy (IREE)initiated a research project entitled "Ecosystem Management: New Forms of Governance." Theoverall objective of this project is to develop resource materials to support and encourage newforms of ecosystem management. These guidance documents will be targeted at communityorganizations and local governments. They will reflect the current themes of sustainability and bebased on the experiences of successful ecosystem management initiatives across Canada.

The following specific objectives were established for the first year of the project:

1. to conduct a selective review of public policy initiatives pertaining to ecosystem managementand new forms of governance across Canada;

2. to identify public policy practitioners and other stakeholders involved in ecosystemmanagement initiatives;

3. to host a workshop discussing innovative approaches to ecosystem management, and solicitinginput on the needs/requirements of stakeholders to continue moving forward with thedevelopment of new governance approaches; and

4. to develop the first in a series of resource materials.

The workshop was held on May 10, 1994 in Cornwall, Ontario. Its proceedings are contained inthis publication.

Acknowledgements

The Ecosystem Management: New Forms of Governance project is funded by the J.W.McConnell Family Foundation of Montreal. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

The workshop also benefited greatly from its association with the St. Lawrence EcosystemConference, held May 10-12 in Cornwall, Ontario. In particular, we wish to thank Robert Lawnand the St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences for the logistical assistance

provided.

Finally, the workshop group moderators and rapporteurs were invaluable in facilitating discussionand assisting in the recording and synthesis of ideas. The speakers and workshop participantsgenerously shared their perspectives and experiences and offered insightful questioningthroughout the day. These contributions led to a lively and productive session.

ContentsExecutive Summary Résumé Introduction

1. Abstracts

Presentation Abstracts Perspective Papers-Summaries

2. Discussion Groups

Introduction Group One: Dealing With Conflict and Consensus Building Group Two: Community-Based Models and New Roles for Government Group Three: Community-Based Processes and Ecosystem Analysis Group Four: Promoting Open, Transparent and Accountable Decision Making

3. Presentations and Perspective Papers

Presentations

Meeting the Challenges of Ecosystem Management through Community-Based InitiativesCatherine Dowling

An Organizing Agency's Viewpoint: The B.C. Commission on Resources and EnvironmentJoan E. Vance

Ecosystem Management: New Forms of GovernanceJim Ellsworth

Emerging Organizational Forms for Community Environmental Management: Examples fromthe Clean Annapolis River ProjectStephen Hawboldt

Perspective Papers

A Local Politician's ViewpointSandra Lawn

Multi-Stakeholder Community InitiativesRozlynne Mitchell

Appendix A: Workshop Evaluation

Executive Summary

A workshop entitled "Ecosystem Management: Meeting the Challenges of Community-BasedInitiatives" was convened by the University of Ottawa's Institute for Research on Environmentand Economy in Cornwall, Ontario on May 10, 1995. The workshop drew together a wide rangeof individuals interested in learning from the experiences of others, and in exploring the elementsof successful community-based ecosystem management initiatives. It provided an opportunity toconsider existing barriers to more effective ecosystem governance, and potential solutions.

This proceedings document includes the workshop presentations and perspective papers preparedas background for the session, as well as a summary of the afternoon discussions.

Morning presentations

The past decade has brought increasing recognition of the need to find new ways to managehuman activities as they affect the environment. An ecosystem approach, while providing a newframework to comprehensively address complex human/environmental management issues, posesseveral challenges to traditional decision making and governance institutions.

In the workshop's opening presentation, Catherine Dowling discussed the potential forcommunity-based initiatives to respond to these challenges. Jim Ellsworth and Stephen Hawboldtwith Environment Canada's ACAP initiative and Joan Vance of the CORE process in BritishColumbia then drew on their experiences to highlight elements of successful communityinitiatives, and to identify constraints to effective ecosystem governance.

In the second half of the workshop, small group discussions yielded a wealth of insight onimplementing effective community-based multi-stakeholder processes.

Discussion themes

Summarizing discussions such as these is a difficult task, as there is always a risk of looking toohard for commonality while overlooking interesting ideas and perspectives.

The objectives of the workshop were to identify barriers to community-based ecosystemmanagement and to discuss possible solutions. This overview highlights those issues whichspurred the liveliest discussions. The groups often agreed on the importance of these issues andoffered several options to addressing them. The conclusions we draw from the discussion are ourown.

Overall, the discussions seemed optimistic. Existing barriers to ecosystem management were notso much seen as obstacles preventing new approaches from emerging, but as challenges that, witheffort and commitment, can be addressed. As one participant noted, change is being demanded bythe public and old institutions cannot "dam the flood." One of the key challenges for ecosystemmanagement is to find ways existing institutions can adapt themselves in order to support andbenefit from this potential flood of strong community involvement.

There was enthusiasm from individuals who have had involvement in a "good" process, and whotherefore have seen what can be achieved through a cooperative approach. Others came to theworkshop with the legacy of a frustrating experience and were looking for suggestions fromothers on how to design more effective processes.

On a more precautionary note, some participants warned that the very success of communityempowerment is a threat to the established governance system, and a backlash of resistance hasbeen seen. This tension needs to be resolved for community-based initiatives to reach their fullpotential.

Defining boundaries for community-based initiatives challenges participants to consider definitionsof human communities and consider their relationship to the boundaries of natural systems.Participants stressed that initiatives are most effective when they can relate to a common "sense ofplace," and that community definition is likely to involve both natural and human system elements.Groups also expressed concern that community-based multi-sectoral models may not be directlytransferable to large urban centers. This is an important issue, given trends in human habitationtoward greater urban concentration.

Integration with existing governance structures

In order for the new models to effectively change the way in which decisions are made and carriedout, there needs to be a reassessment of roles and responsibilities. The groups expressed diverseopinions on how new supportive roles might evolve, and the relationship that communityprocesses should have to traditional institutions. Some participants felt that the success ofcommunity-based initiatives can be attributed to their autonomy from government. Otherparticipants saw the long-term viability of the new approaches to be dependent on betterintegration of community initiatives with government bureaucracy and elected representatives.

A change in attitude is required to move away from adversarial models to those that are mutuallysupportive and collaborative. The need for better communication between interest groups andelected representatives was noted as an essential starting point, and municipal staff in particularcould play a proactive role in disseminating information to all parties working at the local level.

While the focus of this workshop was on community-based initiatives, participants recognizedthat not all issues can be dealt with at a local level. Linkages with other governance processes arecrucial.

Functioning effectively

The workshop discussions covered a wide range of challenges to effective functioning of amulti-sectoral process. Crucial to a successful initiative is the careful consideration of anappropriate group structure, a rational decision making approach, and adequate resources.

The nature of the issues, the type of process, and the character of the community all need to beconsidered in determining who needs to be involved to meet the mandate of the process. To reachcommunity consensus on an issue, representation is required by any sectors which have an interestin the process outcome, or which have the power to block the process. Failure to bring thesesectors to the table or to keep them participating in good faith may mean that it is not possible tocontinue with the approach. As the process proceeds it is important to maintain transparency bybuilding links between the representatives involved, specific sectors, and the community at large.

In other circumstances, such as where the focus is on community stewardship or the assessmentof a proposed undertaking, the challenge is to stimulate interest from diverse sectors and toprovide meaningful opportunities for involvement.

In order to promote involvement, the process sponsor needs to understand the agendas of variousinterests and link them to the issues and process at hand. Sectors and individuals will choose to beinvolved only if they view the alternatives to participation as less desirable.

A serious barrier to reaching common ground in some cases is the difference in impact of issueson the various stakeholders or sectors. The groups offered several solutions for dealing with this:

* focus the process initially on option development, not impacts;

*identify potential impacts as part of the information gathering process-at a minimum, these willcontribute to more informed decision making; and

*acknowledge that some issues are beyond the scope of the process, and provide mechanisms toresolve these issues at another level.

Although groups agreed that consensus-based decision making is a goal to strive for inmulti-stakeholder processes, they recognized that it is not always possible nor even appropriate insome circumstances. Participants need to understand what the fall-back decision mechanism willbe.

It is critical, however, that the community "buys into" the process. This requires that it bedesigned with input from participants, and that a clear understanding exists of participants' rolesand responsibilities, as well as of potential outcomes. It must also be made clear whether theprocess is advisory or if some decision-making authority is being delegated.

Governments can support grass roots initiatives by resisting the imposition of unnecessarybureaucracy, and by encouraging each community to develop an approach that suits itsuniqueness.

Workshop participants identified a variety of resources which exist or are required to supportcommunity-based initiatives and new collaborative processes. A common discussion theme wasthe value of understanding group dynamics and developing the interpersonal skills required towork cooperatively. External facilitation, when skillfully applied, was seen as an asset in helpinggroups function effectively. Similarly, an accepted "code of conduct" can be a valuable tool tohelp set expectations for participant behavior.

It was recognized that it takes time for group processes to work effectively, and thatconsideration must be given to ensuring adequate financial support.

Conclusion

It is clear from this workshop that while community-based multi-sectoral processes will be asdiverse as the circumstances and individuals involved, there is much to gain from building on theexperiences of others. To capitalize on the potential offered by the new collaborative approach,there must be careful consideration given to the design of the process its integration into existinginstitutions and decision making.

Secondly, communities need to share their experiences with a wide audience, and to learn as newapproaches evolve.

And finally, while it is not possible to design a model process, new initiatives could benefit greatlyfrom improved access to those targeted manuals and resources which are available. Guidancedocuments that draw on the range of community-based models and set out a logical approach todeveloping and sustaining initiatives would be a valuable addition to these resources.

RésuméLe 10 mai 1995, à Cornwall, l'Institut de recherche sur l'environnement et l'économie del'Université d'Ottawa organisait un atelier intitulé Ecosystem Management: Meeting theChallenges of Community-Based Initiatives. Cet atelier rassemblait de nombreux participants etparticipantes intéressé(e)s à s'informer des expériences de chacun et à explorer les élémentspropres aux Initiatives de gestion communautaire des écosystèmes. Cet exercice a donnél'occasion de considérer les obstacles actuels à la gestion communautaire ou governance efficacedes écosystèmes et à l'élaboration de solutions potentielles.

Ces actes du colloque comprennent les présentations faites durant l'atelier, les documents detravail qui ont servi de base de référence aux discussions ainsi qu'un résumé des discussions tenuesdurant l'atelier.

Thèmes des discussions

La dernière décennie a suscité une reconnaissance accrue de l'importance d'élaborer de nouvellesvoies pour gérer les activités humaines qui concernent l'environnement. L'approcheécosystémique, qui propose un nouveau cadre de compréhension de la gestion des rapportscomplexes entre la gestion des activités humaines et de l'environnement, pose plusieurs défis auxprocessus de décisions traditionnels et aux institutions de governance.

Dans la présentation d'ouverture à l'atelier, Catherine Dowling a élaboré sur le potentiel desinitiatives de gestions communautaires de répondre aux défis institutionnels posés par l'approcheécosystémique. Par la suite, Jim Ellsworth et Stephen Hawboldt du Programme d'action pour laCôte Atlantique (PACA) et Joan Vance du Comité de ressources et d'environnement (CORE) dela Colombie-Britannique ont décrit les éléments marquants de leurs expériences dans desinitiatives communautaires réussies, tout en identifiant les contraintes encore présentes pour unegestion communautaire efficace de l'écosystème.

Dans la deuxième partie de l'atelier, des petits groupes de discussion ont exposé plusieurs idéessur la façon d'implanter un processus communautaire et multi-sectoriel efficace.

Résumer des discussions comme celles-ci est une tâche difficile; une recherche intensive du senscommun des propos tenus risque de marginaliser des idées et des perspectives intéressantes. Lorsde l'atelier, les objectifs étaient d'identifier les barrières à la gestion communautaire desécosystèmes et de discuter de solutions possibles à ces obstacles. Dans ces actes du colloque quidoivent servir de vue d'ensemble de l'atelier, nous soulignons les défis à la gestion communautairequi ont surgi des discussions les plus animées. Sur l'importance de ces défis, il y eut plusieurs foisconsensus et plusieurs options furent considérées. Les conclusions des discussions présentées icisont de nous.

De façon générale, l'optimisme était de mise lors des discussions. Pour les participants etparticipantes, les barrières existantes à une gestion communautaire efficace ne sont pas desobstacles insurmontables à l'émergence de nouvelles approches, mais plutôt des défis qui, avec uncertain effort et de la volonté, peuvent être surmontés. Comme le soulignait un participant, lademande de changement provient du public lui-même et les vieilles institutions ne peuvent pasempêcher le courant de la rivière de passer. En restant avec cette analogie, un des défis majeursconsiste à trouver des voies dans lesquelles les institutions actuelles pourront s'adapter et profiterdes supports et bénéfices émergeant du flot d'un engagement communautaire solide dans lagestion de l'écosystème.

L'enthousiasme provenait particulièrement des participants et participantes qui avaient étéimpliqué(e)s dans des processus de gestion communautaire réussis qui mettaient en valeur

l'approche coopérative. Toutefois certain(e)s participant(e)s sont venu(e)s à l'atelier avec uneexpérience passée frustrante et venaient y chercher des suggestions pour concevoir un processusde gestion communautaire plus efficace.

Sur un ton plus prudent, certain(e)s participant(e)s ont fait une mise en garde contre certainesréactions négatives face au succès des initiatives communautaires perçues comme une menace parles institutions établies; des mouvements de résistance ont été signalés. Cette tension doit êtrerésolue pour que les initiatives communautaires puissent atteindre leur plein potentiel.

Dans le but de définir les limites propres aux initiatives communautaires, les participants etparticipantes ont dû considérer les définitions associées aux communautés humaines ainsi que lesrelations de ces dernières avec les frontières des systèmes naturels. Pour les participants etparticipantes, les initiatives communautaires connaissent plus de succès lorsqu'elless'accompagnent d'un sentiment d'appartenance à un lieu géographique ainsi que d'une définition dela communauté qui intègre à la fois des éléments du système naturel et d'autres du systèmehumain. On exprima aussi des préoccupations concernant le modèle communautairemulti-sectoriel; il pourrait ne pas être directement transférable à de grands centres urbains. Cedernier point est un élément important étant donné la tendance actuelle des habitations vers uneplus grande concentration urbaine.

L'intégration avec les structures de governance existantes

Pour que les nouveaux modèles changent de façon efficace l'orientation dans la prise des décisionset dans l'exécution de celles-ci, il est nécessaire de redéfinir les rôles et les responsabilités desparties prenantes : politiciens, fonctionnaires et experts techniques. Plusieurs opinions furentémises sur la façon dont les nouveaux rôles de soutien peuvent évoluer ainsi que sur la relationentre les processus communautaires et les institutions traditionnelles. Quelques participant(e)sétaient d'avis que le succès des initiatives communautaires dépendait de l'autonomie de celles-ciface aux gouvernements. D'autres participant(e)s posaient que la vitalité à long terme desnouvelles approches dépendait d'une meilleure intégration entre les initiatives communautaires, labureaucratie gouvernementale et les élu(e)s.

Pour se distancer du modèle de confrontation et adopter un modèle de collaboration et de soutien,un changement d'attitude s'impose. Une meilleure communication entre les groupes d'intérêts etles élu(e)s a été identifiée comme le point de départ essentiel. À cet égard, les fonctionnairesmunicipaux pourraient jouer un rôle particulièrement actif en distribuant l'information aux partiesimpliquées au niveau local.

Malgré l'accent mis sur les initiatives communautaires lors de cet atelier, les participants etparticipantes ont reconnu que ce ne sont pas toutes les situations qui peuvent être résolues auniveau local. Les liens avec les autres paliers de gouvernement sont cruciaux.

Fonctionner efficacement

Une vaste gamme de défis concernant le fonctionnement efficace des processus multi-sectorielsfurent discutés lors de cet atelier. Pour la réussite d'une initiative, une attention particulière à lacomposition du groupe, une approche décisionnelle rationnelle et des ressources adéquates furentidentifiées comme fondamentales.

En déterminant qui doit être impliqué pour exécuter le mandat d'un processus multi-sectoriel, ilfaut considérer la nature du problème, le type de processus utilisé et les caractéristiques de lacommunauté. De plus, en vue d'atteindre le consensus de la communauté sur un sujet, tous lessecteurs qui ont un intérêt face au processus ou tous ceux et toutes celles qui peuvent le bloquerdoivent nécessairement être représenté(e)s. L'impossibilité d'amener à la table un partenaireimportant ou de conserver la participation à part entière de celui-ci ou de celle-ci peut signifierqu'il sera impossible de continuer avec cette approche. Pour qu'un processus semblable soitcrédible, il faut que tous les secteurs nécessaires soient identifiés et qu'ils s'impliquent. La

transparence durant tout le déroulement du processus est importante. À cet effet, il faut créer desliens entre les représentants et représentantes impliqué(e)s, les secteurs spécifiques et lacommunauté entière.

Dans d'autres circonstances, telles celles de déterminer l'élément central de l'initiative, laresponsabilité communautaire ou l'évaluation d'un projet proposé, le défi est de stimuler l'intérêtdes divers secteurs et d'offrir des occasions significatives à la participation.

De façon à promouvoir la participation, le promoteur du processus communautaire doitcomprendre les divers agendas associés aux intérêts multiples et relier ces agendas aux questionset processus en jeu. Les secteurs et les individus vont choisir de s'impliquer seulement s'ils voientque les alternatives à la participation sont moins désirables.

Les participants et participantes à l'atelier ont identifié les différences potentielles dans l'ampleurdes impacts sur certains décideurs ou secteurs comme étant une sérieuse barrière, dans certainscas, pour atteindre le consensus. Plusieurs approches ont été suggérées pour aborder ce problème:

*initialement, mettre l'accent du processus sur les options et non sur les impacts;

*identifier les impacts potentiels comme faisant partie du processus de collecte de donnéescontribuant au moins à un processus de décision mieux informé; et,

*reconnaître que certaines questions ne relèvent pas du processus et fournir des mécanismes pourrésoudre ces questions à un autre niveau.

On admet que le consensus dans la prise de décision est l'idéal pour un processus communautaireimpliquant plusieurs parties prenantes, toutefois les participants et participantes ont reconnu quecela n'est pas toujours possible, ni même approprié dans certaines circonstances. Les participantset les participantes ont besoin de comprendre ce que sera le mécanisme de la fonction de repli.

Il est essentiel toutefois que la communauté adhère de plein gré au processus. Cela implique quele processus soit construit avec les contributions des participants et participantes et que le rôle, lesresponsabilités et les aboutissements potentiels soient définis sans équivoque. On doit comprendreclairement si le processus est de nature consultative ou si certains pouvoirs décisionnels lui sontdélégués.

Les gouvernements peuvent supporter des initiatives de type communautaire en résistant àimposer une bureaucratie non nécessaire et en encourageant chaque communauté à développerune approche qui convient à ses particularités.

Les participants et participantes à l'atelier ont identifié une multitude de ressources existantes, ouessentielles, pour appuyer des initiatives de gestion communautaire et des nouveaux processus decoopération. Un thème commun à la discussion fut la pertinence de bien comprendre lesdynamiques de groupe et de développer des habilités interpersonnelles nécessaires au travailcoopératif. Des mécanismes d'aide externe, quand ils sont appliqués habilement, sont perçuscomme des mesures avantageuses pour aider les groupes à fonctionner efficacement. De même,un code de conduite accepté de tous et de toutes peut être un outil valable pour aider à organiserles attentes des participants et participantes.

On a reconnu qu'il faut du temps pour qu'un processus de groupe fonctionne efficacement et qu'ilfaut prendre en considération les questions relatives au support financier adéquat.

Conclusion

À la suite de cet atelier, il paraît évident qu'aussi longtemps que les processus communautairesmulti-sectoriels seront tout aussi variés que les circonstances qui les ont vu naître et les individusqui y sont impliqués, il y aura beaucoup à gagner à construire avec l'expérience d'autrui. Pourbénéficier du potentiel offert par cette nouvelle approche de collaboration, il faut prendresoigneusement en considération la forme du processus et son intégration dans les institutions et

les mécanismes de décisions existants.

Deuxièmement, les communautés ont besoin de partager leurs expériences avec une largeaudience et de continuer à apprendre de l'évolution des nouvelles approches.

Et, finalement, même s'il n'est pas possible d'esquisser un modèle unique de processus de gestioncommunautaire, les nouvelles initiatives peuvent profiter grandement d'un accès croissant auxmanuels-clés et aux ressources disponibles. Des documents guides, conçus sur la base decommunautés modèles et qui établiraient une approche logique du développement et desinitiatives durables, seraient une addition valable à ces ressources.

Introduction

The purpose of the Workshop

"In many ways, sustainability begins at the local level where issues regarding the protection ofecosystems, the maintenance of a viable economy, and ensuring social well-being are felt mostacutely. It is often at the local level where the motivation to address these concerns andaccommodate competing priorities amongst them is the strongest." 1

While there is growing agreement on the importance of community involvement in decisionmaking and action for sustainability, many barriers remain. Existing institutions often do not fosterthe integrated, multi-stakeholder, cross-jurisdictional approach required. In spite of thesechallenges, however, a wide range of community-based initiatives are thriving across Canada.These experiences are available as new models of ecosystem governance and much can be learnedfrom them.

The purpose of this workshop was to share insights from some of these experiences and to buildfrom them. The workshop was convened with the following objectives:

*to identify barriers to implementing new forms of governance;

*to identify existing solutions and propose new ones where needed;

*to identify existing resources that support new approaches; and

*to identify resources which need to be developed.

Workshop participants brought a diversity of backgrounds and experiences to the discussions.They included federal, provincial and local government officials, agency and nongovernmentorganization (NGO) representatives, academics, and members of the public. All participantsshared an interest in exploring innovative, inclusive ecosystem management processes.

Workshop format

The day-long workshop was divided into two parts. The morning session included a series ofpresentations and a question and answer period. The afternoon session consisted of smallbreakout group discussions focusing on the practical issues of implementing community-basedinitiatives.

Coordination with the St. Lawrence Ecosystem Conference

This workshop was held concurrently with the International Conference on the St. LawrenceEcosystem, "Sharing Knowledge, Linking Sciences." Workshop participants had an opportunityto attend Conference sessions on May 11 dealing with a variety of natural and social sciencetopics pertaining to the upper St. Lawrence. An overview of the Governance Workshop waspresented to the full Conference during a panel discussion on Friday, May 12.

I. Abstracts

Presentation Abstracts

The complete text of the presentations and the perspective papers may be found in Part III ofthese proceedings.

Catherine Dowling

Catherine Dowling opened the workshop with an introduction to the Ecosystem Management:New Forms of Governance project. Her presentation discussed multi-stakeholder,community-based processes in the context of an ecosystem approach.

An ecosystem approach can be characterized by six elements including natural environmentplanning units, a holistic interdisciplinary approach, cross-scale considerations, inclusivemultidisciplinary decision making, adaptive and flexible management, and an underlyingsustainability ethic. Each of these characteristics poses challenges to traditional governanceinstitutions and decision-making processes. Innovative approaches to joint decision making withaffected communities can be an effective way to meet some of these challenges. Community-basedmulti-stakeholder processes are changing the way issues are defined, options are evaluated andsolutions are implemented.

Joan Vance

Joan Vance of British Columbia's Commission on Resources and Environment discussedexperiences of the Slocan Valley Pilot Project. Ms. Vance focused on the techniques used toinvolve all stakeholders in complex resource management and land use decision making.

New forms of governance and governance structures are being implemented in British Columbiato complement and support the application of ecosystem-based management. One of theseinnovations is the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), established in 1992 as apermanent independent statutory body. Through CORE and a complementary set of land usepolicies, B.C. is developing a comprehensive Provincial Land Use Strategy consistent with anecosystem approach. The role of planning has been expanded to become a more effectivedecision-making tool, and significant steps have been taken to broaden processes to include thefull range of stakeholders. Localized governance approaches have gained considerable ground inthe province. Some remaining constraints to effective governance for sustainability include overallpolicy integration, and coordination among agencies and between levels of government.

Jim Ellsworth

Jim Ellsworth of Environment Canada then presented an overview of the Atlantic Coastal ActionPlan (ACAP) and discussed new roles for government in supporting community-based initiatives.

Approaching ecosystem management initiatives as vehicles for serving as opposed to governingcan be an effective means of navigating the web of jurisdictions, authorities, and vested interests.These initiatives provide a systematic means of facilitating collective community anticipation andidentification of and intervention in problems and opportunities, in order to promote the conceptof sustainability. The initiatives participating in the Atlantic Coastal Action Program areeffectively using this approach. Reviewing these experiences leads to an understanding of the

misconceptions and "elephant traps" potentially associated with ecosystem managementinitiatives.

Stephen Hawboldt

Steven Hawboldt described the activities of the Clean Annapolis River project, one of theACAP-supported sites. This initiative depends on strong community partnerships to develop andimplement an environmental restoration program.

The Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) is a charitable, community-owned corporationcreated to actively promote and assist with the wise use of the resources of Nova Scotia'sAnnapolis River. This community-based environmental management group is described as anorganization capable of achieving its objectives by effectively harnessing the energies of the oldand new world, gaining acceptance in the policy community of bureaucratic structures, andexploiting the opportunities left by inadequate traditional organizations. The initiative ischaracterized by a commitment to a collaborative approach, multiple partnerships in all activities,and a philosophy which stresses constructive solutions. CARP is one of the initiatives benefitingby association with Environment Canada's ACAP process. The strength of that process lies in itscapacity to respond to the unique needs of diverse communities without imposing unnecessarybureaucratic definitions of grass roots management.

Perspective Papers-Summaries

In addition to the presentations, workshop participants were provided with perspective paperssubmitted by Sandra Lawn and Rozlynne Mitchell. Ms. Lawn is a former local governmentpolitician and is the Empowerment Director at the St. Lawrence River Institute of EnvironmentalSciences. Her paper presents a local politician's view on the barriers to new forms of governancefor ecosystem management. Ms Mitchell's paper is based on her involvement with the HoweSound Round Table in British Columbia. She discusses the role of local round tables in land useand resource planning, and highlights five key challenges these processes face.

These presentations and papers provided an excellent overview of the diversity of communityinvolvement in resource management. They highlighted some of the challenges and opportunitiesof adopting a community-based approach to ecosystem governance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II Discussion Groups

Introduction

In the morning session, the workshop focused on the institutional challenges of an ecosystemapproach, and considered program and institutional examples (ACAP and CORE) which supportinnovative community-based decision making and action.

The afternoon small group discussions allowed participants to explore in further detail thepractical challenges of community-based ecosystem management. Participants were organizedinto four discussion groups. Each group considered a set of questions along one of the followingthemes:

Group 1: Dealing With Conflict and Consensus Building

Group 2: Community-Based Models and New Roles For Government

Group 3: Community-Based Processes and Ecosystem Analysis

Group 4: Promoting Open, Transparent and Accountable Decision Making

Each group was facilitated by a moderator, and a rapporteur assisted in recording the discussion.At the end of the day, the moderators provided short summaries of the group discussions to thefull workshop.

The following sections provide an overview of the discussion in each of the breakout groups. Therange of thoughts expressed has been synthesized somewhat; where the group dealt with an issuethroughout their discussion, for example, the comments have been consolidated. Althoughconsensus was not reached on all points, the group moderators often found common groundamong participants. Where possible, this is reflected in these notes. A summary of key discussionpoints and selected participant quotes have been included in the side bars.

Group OneDealing with Conflict and Consensus Building

Moderator:

Tony Dorcey, Westwater Research Center

Rapporteur:

Brigitte Diogo, University of Ottawa

Participants:

Amanda Brady, Environment Canada Maxine Cole, Assembly of First Nations Robert Hélie, Environment Canada Doug Hyde, Resource Futures International Stephen Peck, Thompson, Gow & AssociatesMonique Rolf Von Den Baumen, Ministry of Natural Resources, PembrokeYolaine St-Jacques, Centre Saint-Laurent Dana Vocisano, J.W. McConnell Family FoundationA.R. Davis, Environment Canada John Romagnoli

Is consensus a necessary condition for governance consistent with an ecosystemapproach?

It was generally agreed throughout the discussion that consensus is a fundamental component ofmulti-stakeholder decision making. However, the group further recognized that decision makinghappens at many levels within a process, and consensus is not always required. Given the natureof the consensus approach, there are implications for how it can and should be used. There areadministrative decisions, for example, in which all participants need not be involved.

One level where consensus is crucial is at the outset of the process, where there must beagreement on the ground rules, and a common expectation of outcomes.

It was suggested that consensus building tends to be a gentle process, occasionally becoming orrequiring a more formal process.

The group understood that there is a clear need for having the required people at the table to dealwith the issues that are before it. Additionally, full consensus can sometimes be better achieved bybreaking into subcommittees, where detailed discussion and issue resolution can take place. Thefollowing example of this process was discussed and considered to be a valuable approach.

Group A works toward producing a consensus position on a specific issue. This "product" ispassed on to each of the other subgroups in turn for modification and ratification. The productof this process is brought back to group A for ratification. If necessary, the subgroup processcan be repeated.

It was stressed that it is necessary to understand from the outset the breadth of constraints on theprocess. These constraints include the limits on the power of the group to make decisions, andconstraints of time and resources.

The group then discussed situations where reaching full agreement may not be possible.

*At some point it may be necessary to let go of the consensus goal and to choose an alternativeprocess (or fall back option) in order to reach a final decision. This process could mean (forexample) holding a majority vote, or preparing a minority position statement.

*Caution was expressed that fall back mechanisms may have an adverse impact on processdynamics. For example, if a participant expects to be able to sway a majority of the table to hisposition, he may have little incentive to work toward consensus. Attempts at consensus buildingcould become an artificial, time consuming process.

*Conversely, a clear understanding of the alternative decision-making process may provide therequired incentive to drive consensus building at the table.

The group also identified two key advantages of a consensus building approach:

*identifying problems and solutions can lead to a sense of ownership of both by all stakeholders;and

*whether or not consensus is reached, the process itself clearly lays out the trade-offs for thedecision makers.

What role is there for an independent facilitator?

It was suggested that while groups may be able to manage well on their own, there can be abenefit to having a facilitator working with them. This is particularly true when the facilitator isviewed as a resource by the participants. In the absence of a facilitator and possibly as a groupmatures, participants themselves can informally act as mediators when required.

To be helpful the facilitator must be "good." The group identified the following characteristics ofa good facilitator:

*independent, unbiased, neutral

*brings an understanding of the issues or knows when to ask sufficient questions to becomeinformed

*understands stakeholders' interests

*is able to read the group, and knows when to engage in the process and when to sit back

The group felt that facilitation is particularly helpful in the early phases of group dynamics. In the"storming" stage, a facilitator can help participants to manage conflict and to productively getthrough this difficult phase.

Besides mediating, a facilitator can also participate in decision making. The potential for this moreactive role could be explored at the outset of the process, or at least as the need for it arises.

The group stressed that participants in a process should agree on the choice of facilitator. Itshould be clear from the outset that if the group is dissatisfied with that choice, a change will bemade. It was felt that, in a group operating without facilitation, much depends on the personalityof the chairperson.

How can the distribution of the potential financial impacts of alternativesolutions be dealt with in the multi-stakeholder process?

The group recognized that dealing with the financial impacts of process outcomes can be verydifficult. Initial progress can be made by focusing on potential solutions to such financial issuesrather than on personal interests. The value in this is that participants may develop a vestedinterest in reaching those solutions.

Once options are identified, they can be assessed in terms of the potential distribution of costs andbenefits. The consensus building process can then encourage participants to look at the fullimplication of choices. The process may result in a choice that is not considered "optimal" by all,but is one which reflects a more equitable distribution of impacts.>

The group also recognized that some distribution issues may have to be considered outside thescope of the table. B.C.'s economic transition policy was offered as an example. This policyreflects the need to address the impact of new forestry practices and land use decisions on forestryworkers. It responds to an issue which could not be resolved at the local level.

How can a local multi-sectoral process come to terms with perceived or legalrights to resource use and control?

As discussed above, the group recognized that community-based processes may have nojurisdiction or power to influence resource rights. Again, it is important for the processparticipants to recognize this.

Without this jurisdiction, it may be difficult to get some parties or interests to the table. Some mayneed to be convinced that there is a clear potential benefit to participating.

The group concluded that where questions arise as to the perception of rights or interpretation ofrights, the issue must be dealt with up front in the process. If the process is not about negotiationof those rights, there must be a clear way to reassure parties that rights will not be compromisedin any way. Processes which involve native land claims typify this.

One participant put it this way: (where there are native land claims involved) "You are askingthem to sit down and talk about selling the furniture, when we have not even agreed on who ownsthe house. Until title for the house has been settled, very limited progress can be made."

Another participant expressed the view that the issue goes beyond legal rights, to the generalrights and values that people hold. In his view, a challenge that new forms of governance mustface is addressing peoples' expectations. He put it this way: "There are always expectations abouthow the future will unfold. The process may be about adjusting those expectations. If you can getagreement that you are going to change the rules of the game, then you have a process that islegitimate."

Discussion on this topic pointed to the interdependency and hierarchical nature of issues. In somecases it may be necessary to reach resolution on outstanding issues for further progress. In othercases, perhaps the process can go ahead and make recommendations-a wish list, or somethingmore real like interim agreements.

While there are often questions that are unresolved at a higher level, it was felt that it is stillpossible to acknowledge outstanding issues and address what is feasible at a more local level. Itwas noted that the local organization can make recommendations for higher level change; there isno harm in this and it can be a positive thing.

Multi-sectoral processes and existing governance institutions

A fundamental point to recognize is that a consensus process may lead to recommendations forbroader change in governance institutions, in order to implement a solution that the consensusprocess deems to be ideal.

The group then considered whether changes need to take place to facilitate the use ofconsensus-based approaches. Experience has shown, some felt, that governance approaches arechanging and that decision making can be improved. Examples noted included:

*direction through the National Round Table on Environment and Economy that there should bemore local control;

*Ontario's new Planning Act, Bill 163, enables local level control of land use decisions; and

*senior levels of government are not able to meet peoples' needs. Gradually this will push changeto occur

As one participant expressed,"Within the existing institutional framework, community-basedprocesses are happening, whether or not they are accommodated by the frameworks. Ten yearsago you didn't see these things."

It was felt however that change is likely to happen slowly. It was noted that Manitoba iscontemplating change in response to round table processes in that province. In Alberta, adevolution of power to local levels is also occurring, though this is perhaps budget-driven.

One participant noted that "there seems to be a backlash developing against multi-stakeholderdecision making. These processes empower people who have not previously had that power.Those in power in a traditional sense are not sure they like it. We now see corporations,government departments and local governments concerned that they have lost control of theagenda."

The example of the B.C. Round Table was discussed in this context. In B.C., the round tableprocess was changing the provincial discussion on sustainability, a discussion to which thegovernment had to respond. However, the Round Table's economic strategy for sustainability wasnot what the NDP government wanted to go to an election on. This may have been an importantfactor in the powers that be ending the process.

The very success of initiatives such as the CORE process is threatening to those who traditionallyhave had the power. As a result, they are changing the process in such as way as to regain control.For example, the Ministry of Forests is regaining control of the agenda by moving to the LocalResource Management Plans (LRMPs), which they direct.

Some expressed a view that governance is evolving and will continue to do so; existinginstitutions "can't resist change, can't dam the river."

The group questioned whether there are steps that can be taken that are not as threatening totraditional power holders but that can make the process of consensus building more effective. Nospecific suggestions were offered.

In contrast to the potential downside, the appeal of multi-stakeholder management approacheswas also discussed. Using the example of Quebec's ZIP process, it was noted that one reasonthese processes are popular with governments is that they have many volunteers putting theirminds toward the resolution of issues. Governments don't have the required internal resources,and can benefit from this input.

Collaborative approaches may create the forum to vent old conflicts or bringtogether confrontational attitudes. Is this to be avoided?

The group concluded that conflict is not something to be avoided, but it does need to beconstructively managed. In fact, conflict can lead to "creative aggression," an important part of amulti-stakeholder process. What should be avoided is unhealthy conflict. Old differences, forexample, need to be vented before people come together, in order to get on to the business athand.

Ground rules and education on process dynamics can help move individuals from a "positionstage" to an "interest stage." At that point participants can recognize what others are at the tablefor. Good facilitation can guide the process so that people can respectfully disagree with eachother. In this way, participants can learn from one another, and in moving from their originalpositions become more productive.

What skills are required of participants, and governments or agenciessponsoring these processes?

The way this question was phrased led to a general discussion about the role of governments inthese processes. The opinion was offered that in order for these processes to be effective,governments should not simply be playing a supporting role, but rather should be participating atthe process table. Others noted that the role for government may depend on the objectives of theprocess. If the process is established to provide advice to government, then the governmentshould be an observer only.

The group agreed that skills required by all participants include respect, patience, tolerance,equity, and empowerment. In addition, there should be no exclusive ownership of the process, asall participants need to feel a commitment to it. To that end, because information is fundamentalto the process, the assembling and distribution of information should be as inclusive as possible.

It was also agreed that good people skills and an understanding of group dynamics are importantin determining what is "normal" as the process develops through various stages. A variety ofresources are available to help understand the kind of group dynamic issues which might beencountered, such as "highjacking" of the process by individuals or subgroups. The NationalRound Table on the Environment and Economy has accepted the principles of round tablesestablished by the B.C. Round Table. These are considered to be very useful guides.

The discussion then focused on the importance of determining when a consensus approach isappropriate. The group felt that consensus-based decision making is appropriate when acollaborative process has been established. There are certain expectations participants have withsuch a process. It may be helpful at the outset, then, to talk about what is meant by consensus andwhat it may take to work toward it.

There are also situations where consensus is not appropriate. For example, if the issue is one ofimplementation and the intent is not to open up discussion on previous decisions, then the focusinstead can be on developing partnerships to get on with the implementation task at hand.

The following points were raised in a discussion on the effective functioning of community-basedgroups:

*coordination and process support is a key to success, as is the commitment of sufficiently seniorpeople from government and organizations;

*expectations of the costs of the process need to be clarified at the outset, and decisions made onthe funding available;

*planning of the process is crucial, and participants need to recognize that these processes taketime and commitment; and

*effective leadership is a essential component of a good process. The challenge is in finding it.

The need to properly resource these initiatives raised a number of issues, including an observationthat the full cost of shared decision-making processes may include implications for othergovernment services. For example, B.C.'s CORE process in itself does not cost a lot, but $10million may be required outside the CORE budget to support the demands of the process on thegovernment. Government cannot necessarily afford to unleash this pressure.

Finding seed money to get a new process going can be a very big challenge. It was felt by somethat upper tier governments could facilitate local processes by providing initial support funding.

The need to keep participation from NGOs and community members on a volunteer basis wasacknowledged, but participants also saw a growing need for private sector contributions, in-kindcontributions, and mechanisms to match private sector funding with resources available through government.

Group TwoCommunity-Based Models and New Roles for Government

Moderator:

Catherine Dowling, IREE

Rapporteur:

Shona MacLachlan, IREE

Participants:

Ruth Carrière, Environment CanadaHelen Cooper, Ontario Municipal BoardMuriel Constantineau, Environment Canada Jim Ellsworth, Atlantic Coastal Action Plan-Environment Canada Ellen Hayakawa, Environment Canada Steve Hawboldt, Clean Annapolis River ProjectDeborah Irwin, City of Ottawa Sandra Lawn, St.Lawrence River InstituteAdele Freeman, Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Diane Nolan, Nolan MarketingKay Stone, United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengary

Can community-based models be integrated into existing institutionalstructures?

Discussion began with the premise that, as communities become more involved in ecosystemmanagement, this may require a sharing of decision-making power and a rethinking of the role ofgovernment. The group agreed that existing institutional structures would probably have to bechanged.

It was suggested that we can learn from the community-based models that have already beenimplemented. The example of the Don Watershed was offered to demonstrate that the MetroToronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) has developed an open process of publicinvolvement, and has provided the opportunity for participants to be integrated into the process.The Don Project has been fairly successful, as evidenced by the fact that its participants feel theMTRCA has made some reasonable strides in community-based planning.

The Atlantic Coastal Action Plan (ACAP) was cited as another example of a community takingownership of the process. The ACAP program was begun by Environment Canada as asustainable ecosystem initiative. Experience from this program has indicated that, from an agencyperspective, it is a lot easier and more efficient to work with one consensus agenda than numerousspecial interest agendas.

A further example was given from the municipal level, where traditionally it has been difficult todevelop a community-based model because of competing special interest groups. The difficultyhere is in trying to get representatives of the community that do not represent special interestgroups to come to the table. The group agreed that a municipal council would recognize thelegitimacy of a community-based group over a special interest group.

It was suggested that traditional methods of governance are based on decision makers havingcomplete control. Therefore, we should be thinking of ways to demonstrate to them thatcommunity-based models are more effective than traditional approaches. Decision makers need to

be shown that input from consensus-based groups should assist in making more informeddecisions. It was also pointed out that decision makers need to be part of the community and notset apart from its constituents.

The group next offered suggestions on how municipal governments could be made more effective.Traditionally, decision makers have reacted adversely to special interest groups appearing beforethem. It was agreed that communication is an essential building block of cooperativecommunity-based planning, and that we therefore have to develop a system where the communityand the decision makers truly understand and have respect for each other. Politicians need tounderstand the issue that is in front of them before a decision can be reached, and communitygroups need to understand that politicians have limited time to spend on each issue that comesbefore them.

It was also felt that municipal governments could be more effective if their staff were moreproactive in the process. It is largely the staff who perform the role of information gatherers, andit is their responsibility to ensure that both council members and the community are made awareof the issues.

In general, the group concluded that a new way of thinking and mindset is required from thepeople who make up the organizations that have traditionally been the decision makers. It wassuggested that a vertical integration from the grass roots level right up through the municipal,provincial and federal levels of government would be required. This new attitude would befocused on the empowerment of the people.

How do community-based processes work, and what are some of theirdifficulties?

The group focused its discussion on how we can learn from community-based processes that havealready been implemented to help us plan more effective processes.

All agreed that the definition of community or the makeup of stakeholders at the table wasessential to the success of any community-based process. It was suggested that community shouldbe defined as "everybody who has a responsibility," which means the stewards, bureaucrats,businesspeople, politicians, etc.

Others stated that time should not be spent on defining the community explicitly because one cannever include everybody anyway. It needs to be recognized that, as with the ACAP experience,not all of the community will be represented at the table. The example of landfill siting was alsooffered. In this scenario, it is not known who the potentially affected people will be until thepotential sites are announced. Since it is impossible to identify those people at the outset, how canthey be brought into this type of process? As a solution, it was suggested that groups shouldtarget who they think may be involved, and join their agendas (attend their meetings, forexample).

The group agreed that a huge sector of the population will never be part of the process. However,it was recognized that an important aspect of a community-based model is that the opportunity isgiven to all community members to participate in some form, if they so choose. The group alsonoted that it seems to take a crisis situation to get people involved. A crisis forms the commondenominator for people to rally around, and indeed, it is more difficult for people to cometogether if there is not a crisis.

It was suggested that once the stakeholders are identified and are at the table, the success of theprocess depends on the degree of trust between them. The question of what to do with peoplewho act as "bullies" and try and block the process was asked, and it was suggested that thecommunity as a whole needs to apply pressure on these individuals. This again raises the questionof whether consensus can work in every circumstance. In certain cases, an adversarial type ofdecision-making structure (i.e., a tribunal or board) can better bring resolution and closure to an

issue.

The ACAP experience shows that specific training requirements also need to be provided tocommunity-based processes. Skills that were identified by the group as being necessary includethe understanding of human dynamics, facilitation and conflict resolution, and effective listening.Problems generally arise from communication problems and not from the lack of good science oradequate funds; therefore, future processes should learn from these mistakes.

Finally, someone suggested that the process must be flexible to accommodate differentcommunities and types of issues. "You will never get it perfect."

How can links between community recommendations and action bestrengthened?

Once a community-based process is established, how can we make it work? Jim Ellsworth stated,"Inevitably, the bureaucrats, managers, politicians and scientists have to let go and share theauthority and decision making that has normally been their sole prerogative, and trust that if theylet other people participate as equals, the decision that is arrived at is better." The group agreedthat this is the change in attitude that traditional decision makers have to recognize ifcommunity-based processes are to be successful.

Links between community recommendations and action can be set forward at the beginning of theprocess. For example, in B.C.'s Commission on Resources and Environment, themulti-stakeholders signed a formal code of conduct at the beginning of the process. Establishingground rules at the beginning of the process ensures that governing agencies will understand the"neutral" position they play.

It was also suggested that links can be strengthened by always looking toward the future and bynot continually laying the blame on past decisions and players.

Can or should community-based initiatives be independent of government?

The Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) in Nova Scotia was offered as an example of aninitiative that is independent of regulatory agencies. Since there is no agency that can be dependedupon for support, the program must be independent and self-reliant. It must use innovativemethods to advance its agenda. The reason that this project is successful is because the localgovernment does not perceive the program as a "threat" to their mandate.

Another successful project that was mentioned was the Waterfront Regeneration Trust underDavid Crombie. It was noted that the best thing about his mandate was that he had no power.

However, the group also realized that it is imperative for politicians to be involved at the locallevel if the project is to succeed. They noted that politicians do not need to be involved with everymeeting and decision of the community group; community groups must recognize when the inputof politicians is required.

How can government institutions/programs change to support holisticapproaches, and to respond to interdisciplinary solutions?

Traditional government institutions have departmentalized structures. Some group members notedthat this stems from our education system which is based on the same model. To developecosystem initiatives at the community level, government institutions and the people thattraditionally make decisions need to develop the capability to respond to interdisciplinarysolutions. The group noted that, unfortunately, not enough people who make decisions recognizethat there are problems with traditional forms of governance.

However, various institutional changes are slowly taking place. Some decision makers areacknowledging that public input needs to be integrated into the process, and that dialogues with

the public need to be established. Scientists and managers are realizing that their traditional skillsneed to be augmented with communication and facilitation skills. Others are calling for disciplineswithin the government agencies to better communicate with each other.

Scientists and technicians need to bring to the table the best up-to-date information available. Thisinformation must be communicated to the public in a language that everybody understands. Ourtraditional decision-making models are based on the premise that the more knowledge one has ofan issue, the better any decision about it will be. What needs to be recognized is that decisions arejust as much value-based as knowledge-based.

As community-based planning initiatives (e.g., model forests, land use/resource planning,watershed plans, environmental quality monitoring, etc.) become more common, participants mustrecognize that to achieve a healthy ecosystem, all disciplines need to cooperate. This recognitionis required at the grass roots level right up to national/international level of governance.

There are different models of community-based initiatives. How muchguidance is required for these groups?

The group agreed that people need some guidance to provide a starting point for discussion; theyneed something to react to as the basis of participation. The group also cautioned againstsituations in which the governing agencies merely defend their position in front of the community.

In ACAP, Environment Canada prepares a package for each project that includes databaseinformation and software. The integration and analysis of the information, however, is undertakenby the ACAP participants. In this type of project, the community leads the technical analysis, andEnvironment Canada provides support. In cases where the community lacks the resources toperform this function, partnerships are developed with local colleges, who assume theresponsibility for monitoring and analysis. The process would differ depending on the role of thegoverning agency.

The group discussed the advantages of community-based monitoring programs. In ACAP, theGIS and databases become a community resource that can be shared with municipal or provincialgovernments. The ACAP experience indicates that the community will take ownership of theproject if they undertake the responsibility for the monitoring, compilation of the data bases, andthe analysis. It is their community, and they have a vested interest in ensuring that they trust theresults, since the end product is a healthier community.

One group member recounted that the real power of voluntary environmental monitoring is thatthe community becomes educated about scientific issues that relate to them; this knowledge thenprovides the link between their activity and the environment in which they live. People begin tohave an understanding of the problems and realize that they can be part of the solution.

The group also discussed various visioning techniques that can assist community groups inpredicting different scenarios for their future. Common to these techniques is that they all providea means to transcend differences between people, and they all allow the community to plan for acommon vision.

Group ThreeCommunity-Based Processes and Ecosystem Analysis

Moderator:

George Francis, University of Waterloo

Rapporteur:

Harvey Lemelin, IREE, University of Ottawa

Participants:

Alan Clark, International Joint CommissionPhilippe Crabbé, IREE, University of Ottawa Sheila McCrindle, Environment Canada Kerry Knowles, Environment CanadaJosée Lafontaine, Environment CanadaDell Hallett, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Kevin Kennedy, Gartner Lee Limited Ray Tomalty, Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional ResearchKatherine Thibault, Environment Canada

What geographic scope is appropriate for community- based initiatives?

The group discussed what geographic scope is appropriate and how it is defined. It was notedthat one way to define the geographical limits is to refer to our sense of place. We should look tothe breadth of the area the community cares about. One group member noted that in today's ageof technology, many communities can be considered larger than previously thought, and this mayaffect how people view them. The definition of "community," then, must come from those whomake up the community; it can not be decided externally. It was also noted that the definition isnot static-it may change depending on the issue.

The community is also more precisely defined by the relationships of its people to one another,and to the issue that is confronting them, rather than by simply mapping out its geographic area.Still, many people, particularly in urban centres, do not have a very good idea of their owngeography. For example, many people do not know what watershed they live in until they sitaround a table to discuss water quality; suddenly they realize that they have an identification withother people at the table.

A community is also a network of social interactions. The social infrastructure is made up ofinstitutions such as families, social clubs, churches, education services and government agencies.What is important is the set of shared actions and shared values.

It was noted that if one uses a bio-physical definition, it immediately legitimizes the environmentas a player at the table; if a bio-physical definition is not used, one must constantly bring theenvironment back into the table's focus and specify its importance. Furthermore, we mustrecognize that the perception of a sense of place is influenced by local surroundings, major naturalfeatures and so on. A community is thus never totally detached from its surroundings, and thesesurroundings influence the community's cultural point of view.

The group agreed that the community must feel that it owns the project. This sense of ownershipwill result from the community setting its own geographical boundaries. In addition, after years ofdependence on government and experts telling them what to do, communities often lack theconfidence to take on an issue; they must therefore be allowed to regain it. As well, because

communities often have a general mistrust of government, consultants, and industry, particularattention must be given to finding people that the community has confidence in if third parties aregoing to be brought into the process.

In many cases the area of concern will be defined by the problem. Most multi-stakeholderprocesses already have a focal point; the question thus becomes, "Who is related to this issue inthe community, and what are the ecological pathways that are involved?"

It was also noted that it is very important to include the people that are causing the problem inyour definition of community. In some instances, however, like air pollution, it is very difficult toidentify the source(s).

The group agreed that in order to deal with and act on issues, they must have boundaries. In fact,sometimes the only way to proceed is by drawing arbitrary boundaries of what might be usefuland feasible. These may change over time. One way to make the setting of boundaries morepalatable is to emphasize that, ideally, everything must come together in some coherent way at thecommunity level.

Ecosystem management recognizes that natural systems functionsimultaneously at many different scales. Can this concept be incorporated intocommunity initiatives

?

By definition, community-based processes are often very localized. This sense of place is a focusof concern. Yet some of the natural processes that have to be dealt with unfold at time scales thatgo well beyond the community. In very extreme cases, they can unfold so fast that they areunnoticeable, or so slowly and over such a long period of time that they seem to be permanentand hence not worth worrying about. These concepts must be acknowledged.

In addition, the ecological processes involved are often subsets of larger processes that areunfolding. Thus, one way to define the spatial scale is to ask, "At what scale does the communityinitiative become inappropriate or unmanageable?"

It was suggested that because of the different scales involved, it may not be useful to concentrateall of a community's energy at the local level. Some members of the community should work onissues at the national or even international scale.

Some participants suggested that at times the community must be willing to acknowledge that theproblem goes beyond their ability to effect change. The issue can then be moved to a moreappropriate level for resolution.

Experience has shown that community interest rises and falls over short time frames. The groupdiscussed whether it is reasonable then to expect community initiatives to sustain themselves overa long time frame. For example, institutions tend to be charged with leading environmentalrestoration projects that will have to continue for more than one generation. It may be difficult tokeep a community-driven initiative going that long. As well, institutions have the mechanisms toaccumulate knowledge: libraries, personnel that work for many years before retiring, etc.Community initiatives are hardpressed to emulate these.

However, it was also suggested that we can no longer rely on institutions since they are limited inthe action they can take as government priorities shift. Communities may have to play a largerrole. One group member noted that, historically, knowledge was held at the community levelwhen there was no institutional framework in place. It was also noted that we can learn fromaboriginal communities that possess naturalized knowledge systems.

How important is the development of a common vision? Can the vision of thefuture of an ecosystem reflect environmental/economic/social linkages?

The group discussed the importance of visioning and the value in communities undertakingenvisioning exercises to provide focus. It is essential to be able to say, "These are the things thatwe are going to do." It is not so much the vision that comes out of the process that is crucial, butrather that the community is empowered and in charge of the process. The community is then ableto take action and make decisions.

However, a community vision should not be fixed in stone. The envisioning process has to berevisited from time to time in light of the results of the actions that have been taken. Communitiesmust not fall into the trap of "forever re-visioning" and never doing anything; they must not be inan eternal state of planning a plan. The vision should also not be constrained by technicalfeasibility. The technical aspects can be determined at a later date.

The group discussed methods of getting people to participate in visioning exercises. It wassuggested that simply holding a public meeting is not enough to ensure participation. Even if a lotof people show up, many do not have the gumption to get up and speak in public. Instead, onehas to go out into the community and talk to people in those places where they feel comfortable:the recreational groups, the snowmobile associations, and so on. It may take several workshopsand meetings to get a vision together.

It was recommended that a good facilitator is required to make sure that all points of view get outduring the visioning exercise. This will ensure that it is not dominated by a few individuals.

It was also suggested that it is prudent to undertake a profile of the community to understand whothe community is, and to identify if there are any barriers to its participation (such as language orliteracy) before the visioning begins.

A common vision is difficult to attain when interests are very diverse. In urban ecosystems, it is achallenge to get developers interested in ecosystem management. Developers tend to seecommunity-based initiatives and visioning exercises as "lose situations," for they often have tofund the studies requested by these processes. As a result, they tend to participate only if theyknow that something worse is waiting for them down the road if they don't.

However, an example was cited of a "win-win" situation in Vaughan, Ontario. The proposeddevelopment consists of a 9000 hectare site with a system of green corridors. Every house builtwill be no more than 5 minutes away from the green infrastructure. The projection is that this willincrease property values throughout the entire area.

How can technical information from a broad range of disciplines be effectivelyintegrated?

One group member noted that a major issue surrounding technical information is thatcommunities generally mistrust scientists and experts. A good example is native communities.Scientists have had a tendency to go into them, take information, and go away with results thatthe community never sees. The community's perception, as a result, is that they do not getanything out of it. Now native communities are saying, "You can come and work with us but onour own terms. We will tell you the problems we would like you to investigate, we will work withyou on these problems, and we will examine the outcomes together."

It seems clear that we need to accept a variety of learning and experience. We are past the timewhen we give a privileged position to science. Science in conjunction with experiential knowledgeshould be able to provide a basis for joint learning for community-based initiatives. It wassuggested that from the First Nations perspective, we are not searching for truth with theguidance of science, but rather we are looking to improve with it the quality of the discussion bywhich we interpret our surroundings.

There was a recognition amongst the group that technical people are only one component of themulti-stakeholder process. However, there is a valuable role for scientists and science to play:

*scientists should be able to respond to technical issues raised at the table;

*scientists can provide a range of technical alternatives to solve a problem;

*scientists can help determine the risks of certain solutions; and

*scientists can educate people on technical information, which may lessen the potential conflictamongst stakeholders.

It must not be forgotten that scientific expertise is extremely expensive to obtain. There seems toa growing recognition that local knowledge can be quite substantial, and can be integrated withscientific expertise. For example, people who have been in a community for 40 or 50 years havevery good knowledge of the changes that have occurred there over time. Additionally, expertise incommunities will grow as the highly educated baby-boomers retire and have more time at theirdisposal to become involved in community initiatives.

The group concluded that when taking on processes such as ecosystem management, one must becareful not to set up false expectations of what can be done with the scientific resources at hand,for there are often technical limitations to the help science can bring.

Group FourPromoting Open, Transparent and Accountable Decision Making

Moderator:

Sally Lerner, University of Waterloo

Rapporteur:

Karen Clark, IREE, University of Ottawa

Participants:

Sarah Climenhaga, World Wildlife Fund CanadaJohn Dauvergne, Industry Canada Brenda O'Connor, Environment Canada- Ontario RegionScott Findlay, University of Ottawa Joannie Vance, British Columbia Commission on Resources and EnvironmentPaul Crowley, IREE, University of OttawaErin Novakowski, University of Ottawa

How can the process initially identify interests, and who are the stakeholders?

The group first discussed the appropriateness of using the round table approach, which may notalways be suitable. To effectively employ the round table model, it must first be determinedwhether one can bring everyone to the table who needs to be there to make the requireddecision-that is, everyone who has a stake in it. It is important to remember that this includes allthose who can block the decision (i.e., those stakeholders who oppose theissue/development/project). If all parties can't be brought to the table, another forum for publicinvolvement should be used.

The group then focused on the challenges and solutions to effectively employing acommunity-based round table approach.

Identifying stakeholders

The simplest way to identify stakeholders is referred to as the "snowball" technique, where yousimply contact the people that you think have an interest and let them suggest additionalstakeholders. An example was cited from B.C.'s Commission on Resources and Environment(CORE), which convened many multi-stakeholder tables. When CORE went into a community, itadvertised and used telephone trees to reach out and identify the potential interests and players.

During CORE's pilot project in the Slocan Valley, exercises were conducted where people had tobe accountable to the rest of the table about who they represented and whether they were alegitimate constituency. CORE had a questionnaire form that asked who they were, who theirconstituency was, how many members they represented and what their names and addresses were.It was noted that this can work very well in a small community.

The group discussed another way to identify stakeholders, which involved looking at the threesectors that must be integrated in order to have sustainable development (environment, economy,social well-being). All three sectors must be equally well represented at the table. For example, inthe Slocan Valley Pilot Project, not all the environmental groups in the valley were needed tolegitimately represent the environmental interest at the table.

The group also noted that one should be looking for stakeholders who may not know that theycould or should be involved-for example, people whose interests may be affected but who do not

form a recognized or even self-recognized group. Stakeholders cannot be relied upon to come tothe table; they must be actively sought out to ensure a balance of interests.

A situation was discussed in which a cottagers' association hopes to set up a multi-stakeholderprocess to gain input into development options in their area. The most obvious stakeholders inthis case are the municipality, the association, and the developers; less obvious are theunemployed people who make up a large part of the year-round community.

In other circumstances, stakeholders simply cannot represent themselves. For example, in theCORE process in the Cariboo region, one stakeholder was the representative of "All Beings." Itbecame an important voice to inform people at the table.

It was suggested that sometimes the most effective way to bring stakeholders to the table isthrough an independent convenor. It was also noted that when a multi-stakeholder table isconvened, one must have an understanding of the social history of the area: rich vs. poor, Frenchvs. English, past conflicts, current interactions, etc. This background will provide insight into whypeople hold particular positions.

The group agreed that once the stakeholders have been identified, they should have the autonomyto configure themselves. Examples were cited of multi-stakeholder groups where the stakeholdersdid not have ownership of the project and thus felt that the governing agency still retained all thedecision-making power.

How does one encourage participation, and then select among those who comeforward?

Stakeholders must consider the option of either joining the multi- stakeholder process orremaining apart from it. The question they need to consider is, "What will happen if I don't sit atthe table?" If people feel they can get what they want without participating or negotiating, theywill not join the process. What needs to be explored with them is what will happen if they don'tparticipate. One member of the group recounted, "In the Slocan Valley it was pretty obvious whatwould happen if people did not sit down together. The environmental and watershed people knewthat their protests would land them in jail, that logging would continue out of their control, andthat it would be both expensive and a big hassle. The government knew that it would not be ableto get the wood out and keep up the logging schedule. There was a real incentive on both sides tonegotiate."

In other situations where some stakeholders are reluctant to become involved, it may be aquestion of measuring the alternative cost. Challenging decisions in court, for example, is anexpensive and time- consuming option.

Another method of bringing hesitant stakeholders to the table is to try and understand theinterests that underlie the positions that are being presented. There is often much more flexibilityto meet an interest than a position.

A situation might arise where some stakeholders do not come to the table because they think thatthe issues and hence the process is unimportant. The group suggested at this point that it may bevalid to proceed without them. However, if these parties are staying away because they don'tthink that their opinions will be taken into account, then there is something wrong with theprocess. In such a case, it should be re-examined.

A situation arose in the Slocan Valley Project where the parties came to the table and later thewatershed and wilderness sectors walked out. The remaining sectors discussed the question ofwhether or not they could proceed with the process; they ultimately concluded that they could notproceed without the absent parties. CORE, as convenor of the table, realized that at a minimumthe watershed sector had to return to the table to ensure adequate interest representation. Sincethe table was not deciding issues of wilderness protection (these were decided at the regional level

in another process), it was less important that the wilderness sector come back. The mediator ofthe table sat down with the representatives from the watershed sector and asked them toreevaluate their situation and to consider what would happen if they did not participate. Thewatershed sector assessed that they should return. At the same time, the other parties at the tablemade some decisions that permitted the watershed sector to feel as if their concerns were beingaddressed. Ultimately the wilderness sector also returned when they realized that it was the onlyway to have their viewpoint taken into consideration.

The group recommended that a useful tool when convening a round table process is to getstakeholders to commit to a code of conduct at the outset. This is to help ensure that everyone iscoming to the table in good faith. The code of conduct should set forth the appropriate ways forpeople to comport themselves-for example, using a pleasant tone of voice, and other suggestionsto assist in communications. It should be noted that ratifying a code of conduct does not ensurethat no one will try and block the process. If such a situation arises, a mediator is usually requiredto bring people back to the table.

What about the participation of First Nations?

As an example, the CORE process was cited as being without prejudice to the rights of FirstNations. It was clear throughout the process that every decision made would be subject tonegotiations on a government to government basis. Nonetheless, the table thought that it wasworth proceeding with or without the active participation of First Nations. Often First Nationschose not to participate in CORE initiatives, based on their legal advice; other times, they stayedaway for lack of resources. CORE recognized that First Nations were a special case and madeevery effort to help them.

What about the role of scientists?

As a starting point, the group agreed that scientists should not drive the process. There needs tobe an understanding that science is just one type of input into the decision-making process. Therewas also a recognition that processes which are more policy oriented should focus on the valuesand priorities of the people at the table.

The role of the scientist should be to give advice to the stakeholders so they can understand thetechnical issues. This allows the stakeholders to make better, more informed decisions.

It was was felt by some in the discussion group that scientists and experts continuallyunderestimate the intelligence and sensitivities of the public. These attitudes will need to bemodified if multi-stakeholder processes are to be successful.

How does one ensure transparency of process?

The group discussed the definition of transparency of process. Transparency can refer to themechanics of the process itself-for example, can the public attend and observe the process? Thegoal of transparency is to ensure that people understand how decisions are being made, so thatthey are empowered to participate. Once people understand a decision, they can take an informedposition on it. Transparency also means having complete access to information, and that theinformation be comprehensible. The group agreed that the level of openness required depends onthe level of trust in the community.

The nature of transparency will vary depending on the nature of the process. Some processes bytheir terms of reference may be less transparent. The federal interdepartmental committee reviewof the effects on competitiveness of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was cited as anexample. In response to concern (particularly by some environmental groups) about whatbureaucrats are deciding in the back rooms, the review group decided to give their proceedingsmore transparency by announcing their terms of reference and having regular debriefings on thedeliberations.

The group then discussed the need for transparency and the role of the media. Transparencyshould mean that the process is understandable to the broader community that it is serving.However, transparency in terms of throwing open the doors and inviting in the press may notalways be the most appropriate idea. In British Columbia, for example, the press is seen by someas a stakeholder in that it is controlled by big business and it tends to report in a way that distortsthe news in favour of big business. In other situations, industry may be uncomfortable with amedia presence because the press may simply be looking for sensationalist stories.

The group offered different methods of communicating the process to the broader community. Itwas agreed that enough information must get through to the public for the process to be judged aslegitimate, and to enable the public to buy in to the outcome. Joan Vance remarked, "Watching amulti-stakeholder process is a bit like watching paint dry. As such, you cannot depend on simplyhaving open meetings as a way of keeping the public informed. The table has to take a lot of stepsto keep the public informed." One way to communicate with the public at large is to assemble alist of interested people and to periodically distribute communiqués to them. Another method is tobuy a regular spot in the local newspaper and use it to inform the public.

Stakeholders must also take on responsibility to communicate with their constituents. To ensurethis, it is often necessary that the body sponsoring the table provide them with resources. Forexample, in the Slocan Valley, the wilderness sector had over 500 people signed on as theirconstituency, and they required communication resources. CORE provided them with money for anewsletter, for postage, for the rental of premises to hold meetings, and for long distance phonebills. It was felt that these were necessary so that the constituency and their representatives couldproperly inform one another.

What accountability does the process have to funding sources and to thebroader community?

The group agreed that it should be left to each table to decide how accountability should work.Stakeholders must recognize that they have a duty to inform and relate the concerns of theirconstituency. For example, in the Slocan Valley, a complaint was made that the "local enterprise"stakeholder was not representing all the small businesses in the area. CORE discussed how to fixthat. They went through the phone book, picked out every business, and wrote letters and metwith them. These constituents reaffirmed the local enterprise stakeholder and instructed him tobring to the table the divergent views of the constituency.

How does the process relate to the political process and the accountability ofelected officials?

Recommendations put forth by a multi-stakeholder process will have a certain standing withelected officials if the process carries the weight of legitimacy. However, given the nature of theparliamentary system in Canada, participation of a government official at a table does not implythat decisions will be binding.

It was noted that in situations where multi-stakeholder processes do have final decision-makingpower, there is always a possibility of different agendas. Some groups see the delegation ofauthority as a means to setting a new agenda; however, they must realize that they are alsovulnerable to having the agenda taken away from them by others who are better organized andhave more money.

The opportunities and risks of consensus-based decision making were discussed next. It wasagreed that a recommendation that comes from the consensus of a wide range of stakeholderscarries a lot of weight. However, one should be cautioned by the use of consensus, sinceconsensus is often time-limited and not open-ended. Stakeholders also need to understand that inorder to operate by consensus, it is key that people realize that they may not meet all of theiroriginal expectations, and that they may have to compromise.

The consequences of not being able to achieve consensus is not that the work is wasted, butrather that the ability to formulate a recommendation that is highly compelling to the decisionmaker is lost. Nonetheless, all the information that has been brought forth can then go to thedecision maker. For example, at some of British Columbia's regional CORE tables, some thoughtthat they could block consensus and then nothing would happen (i.e., status quo would remain).However, they were mistaken. The information generated through the process went to theCommissioner, who then made his recommendation to Cabinet as input to the final decision.

It was suggested that a good way to deal with an impasse is to send stakeholders home to writeout the problem and propose a solution that meets the interest of everyone at the table. Thisexercise, it seems, quickly shows people that problems are more easily resolved at the table.

The group then discussed ways to motivate stakeholders to volunteer their time to participate inthese processes. An obvious incentive is that they get an opportunity to participate in thedevelopment of policy in a subject matter of crucial importance and interest to them. Althoughgroups are acting only in an advisory capacity, governments risk losing credibility if they ignorethe recommendations of these round tables.

Some members of the group felt that the more politicians are involved, the less transparent aprocess will be because of their desire to maintain decision-making authority. In addition,politicians may not support a round table approach if they do not think the concept is wellaccepted in their constituency. The group felt that there is a need to educate politicians about thebenefits of a multi-stakeholder approach.

It was also suggested that the government has to clarify what is in fact negotiable to enablecitizens and bureaucrats to focus on what can be affected. One mistake noted from experiencewas that, in the past, it was not always made crystal clear who had final decision-making power.While this might be happening less frequently now, it is still something to be aware of. Themandate of the group must be clear when setting up the process.

Joan Vance recalled, "I was pretty open to a lot of delegation of authority just by who I was andwho my client groups were prior to joining the Commission. However, I came to have a personalview, after watching six multi-stakeholder tables, that you need the fall back of a decision makerwho is accountable to the public at large. Without that, you run into big problems with blockage."

Finally, the group agreed that processes can easily be hijacked by special interests. It may actuallybe a failsafe that the processes are only advisory. Some felt that it is perhaps dangerous to givefinal decision-making power to a group that is not legally accountable to an electorate.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. Presentations and Perspective Papers

Meeting the Challenges of Ecosystem Management through Community-Based Initiatives Catherine Dowling

An Organizing Agency's Viewpoint: The B.C. Commission on Resources and Environment Joan E. Vance

Ecosystem Management: New Forms of GovernanceJim Ellsworth

Emerging Organizational Forms for Community Environmental Management: Examples from the Clean Annapolis RiverProject Stephen Hawboldt

Perspective Papers

A Local Politician's Viewpoint Sandra Lawn

Multi-Stakeholder Community Initiatives Rozlynne Mitchell

Catherine Dowling

Meeting the Challenges of Ecosystem Management ThroughCommunity-Based Initiatives

Catherine Dowling is the manager of the Institute for Research on Environment and Economy'sproject, "Ecosystem Management: New Forms of Governance," and a Senior EnvironmentalEconomist with Gartner Lee Limited. Her broad experience includes ecosystem planning,socioeconomic impact analysis, and public consultation. Ms. Dowling has served as a boardmember of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and is the Chairpersonof the community-based Robinson Creek Restoration Project in Markham, Ontario.

Presentation speaking notes

(Material for this presentation was drawn from "Ecosystem Management: New Forms ofGovernance-A Background Paper," which was circulated to participants prior to the workshop.)

I would like to welcome you to Cornwall and today's workshop. I hope you will agree thatholding this workshop within the International Conference on the St. Lawrence Ecosystemprovides an excellent setting to think about an ecocosystem approach and community-basedprocesses.

The Ecosystem Management: New Forms of Governance project is a research initiative of theUniversity of Ottawa's Institute for Research on Environment and Economy. This is the first yearof our work and this workshop meets one of the key objectives of the project: to bring together agroup of individuals interested in advancing ecosystem approaches from a broad range ofperspectives.

I hope you will find this mix of academics, practitioners in public involvement, ecosystem scienceand management policy, and local government representatives and citizens both interesting andvaluable for your own interests.

I will begin this morning with an overview of the New Forms of Governance project's work todate. This will provide a context for our discussions later on and give you an appreciation of theperspective we have. We have distributed a Background Paper prepared for this workshop, and Iwill summarize the key points from that document. In particular, I will discuss a set ofcharacteristics which we think capture the themes of an ecosystem approach, and relate those tothe potential role for community-based initiatives.

Ecosystem approach

The ecosystem approach is a concept which originated in the natural science field and reflects anappreciation of the complex systems of the natural world. As the concept developed, theecological themes of interdependencies of species and cycles, and of connectivity over time andacross scales have been extended to human social systems. The ecosystem approach recognizesthe dynamics of natural environments and the interdependencies of environmental and humansystems. It is consistent with and supportive of the ethics of sustainability.

An ecosystem approach does not represent an "environment first" philosophy, or a hierarchy ofnatural systems over human socioecomomic systems. In contrast, meeting the challenges of anecosystem approach will lead to a new way of doing business, striving to find a balance whichensures ecological integrity while reflecting human values and needs.

Governance

In its broadest sense, governance refers to the complexity of formal and informal influences ondecision making. A governance institutional system refers to "The set of government andnon-government entities, policies, laws, rules, processes and programs by which decisions aremade and human activities are managed."

A sampling of opinions demonstrates the frustration with the current institutional frameworkwhen trying to meet the challenges many see as crucial for sustainability. As the British ColumbiaRound Table concluded, "The governance system, largely instituted in its present form over acentury ago, is not well designed to deal with the challenges of sustainability."

Community-based initiatives

Community-based initiatives are being viewed by many as an alternative governance model thatcan begin to operationalize the principles of an ecosystem approach.

These initiatives are more than a token "add on" of public consultation; they can be afundamentally different approach to decision making. The community-based initiatives we arelooking at often include a variety of elements along the public consultation continuum. They aredistinguished from more traditional processes, however, by commitments to relatively highdegrees of stakeholder involvement and to the sharing of decision-making authority.

The new approaches recognize that decisions are not made at a single point in the development ofinitiatives, be they resource management, environmental restoration, land use planning or othertasks. In these "joint decision making" models, stakeholders have a role in defining the issues anddeveloping solutions. In many cases stakeholders also have active roles in the implementation ofselected courses of action.

Characteristics of an ecosystem approach

In our background paper we discussed the following characteristics of an ecosystem approach,and the potential for community-based initiatives to meet some of the institutional challenges thisapproach implies:

*geographic area based on natural system boundaries;

*holistic and interdisciplinary;

*cross scale management;

*adaptive and flexible;

*consistent with sustainability ethic; and

*democratic, open decision making.

Each of these elements challenge the traditional decision-making process and the mindset many ofus have had toward governance, program delivery and evaluation. I will now briefly examine theinstitutional responses required to support an ecosystem approach, and relate these to potentialcontributions from multi-stakeholder, community-based initiatives.

Natural system planning units

There is strong rationale from an ecological perspective to manage natural ecosystems on thebasis of natural system boundaries. Yet with few exceptions, governance institutions bear norelationship to watersheds, bioregions or other natural system definitions. Prominent naturalfeatures such as rivers and lakes often have been used to delineate jurisdictions, leading toadministrative fragmentation of naturally similar systems.

The Fraser Basin Management Program in British Columbia is illustrative of a new governancestructure created to address such fragmentation. It provides a forum for watershed-widemanagement coordination.

Community-based ecosystem management requires not only consideration of the natural systemlinkages relevant to the issues at hand but also an understanding of the communities and humansocial/economic systems within that ecosystem.

Initiatives which are successful in capturing the imagination of communities are often ones whichhave related the natural environment to community "sense of place." The Don Watershed TaskForce, for example, began with a watershed focus but recognized that support for and local actionin regeneration will begin and be sustained through action at a neighborhood level. The Donregeneration planning process therefore speaks in part to watershed residents at a very local level.

Interdisciplinary approach

Traditional fragmentation of policy and programs along strong sectoral lines, though still the normin our governance structure, is inconsistent with the need to bring environmental, economic andsocial considerations to bear on decision making.

Multi-sectoral community-based processes are by design a collaborative effort which bringstogether a range of interests. All of these interests have a stake in the complex ecosystemmanagement decisions to be made. Often a valuable product of processes is the development of anecosystem vision which reflects natural and human system interdependencies. This integratedvision becomes the basis for goal setting and planning.

These new collaborations have demonstrated that not only do they offer a forum to bring new

perspectives to decision making, but they are also effective forums for building partnerships forimplementation of decisions. The Collingwood, Ontario Remedial Action Plan for example hasbeen an effective process in harnessing energies and action among governments, residents and theprivate sector for the restoration of Collingwood Harbour.

Community involvement can also bring renewed appreciation for the community, an introductionto a broad range of information on the local ecosystem, and access to, for example, the traditionalknowledge held within native communities. Mindsets which focus only on measurable science andtechnological solutions can be challenged and supplemented with this knowledge base.

Interdisciplinary approaches to program delivery

Governments are beginning to recognize that the single discipline, single target mandates ofprograms fall short of the needs of an ecosystem approach. The challenge is to realign programsand fill gaps in program goals and delivery.

Multi-stakeholder processes offer an opportunity to rethink the role of governments andgovernment programs. In the new approach, governments can be facilitators and supporters ofcommunity-based solutions. As a result, financial support from government may be less rigid, andfunction as a tool to build partnerships among stakeholders.

Cross-scale management

A cross-scale management approach recognizes that ecosystems function at once at differentgeographic and time scales. Coordination of policy and action is required across these geographicscales, and management processes must be able to respond to immediate as well as longer-term,slow change in system parameters.

Community-based management processes often imply a local scale for action. An important issuefor these initiatives is coordination with management and influences at broader scales. Localefforts to regenerate aquatic habitat along a stream reach, for example, can either be frustrated orsupported by land use policy in the subwatershed.

New forms of governance which are outside of the traditional political decision-making cyclesoffer a forum which may be better able to provide long-term continuity to management. Change inindividual attitudes and lifestyle, for example, are long-term strategies that will require individualand community support.

Adaptive management

An adaptive management approach is one which acknowledges that natural ecosystems and socialsystems are dynamic and unpredictable. Human intervention and attempts at management areregarded as experiments, a test of a hypothesis, and managers systematically observe the results ofaction and respond accordingly.

Our traditional management approaches and management institutions often strive for efficiency indelivering a single program target. This efficiency comes at a cost of becoming incapable ofresponding to unexpected events.

New forms of governance are needed which place emphasis on monitoring the results of actions,which allow questioning of the hypotheses' underlying policies, and which regularly examine theinstitutional structures and their ability to respond to information and change.

The community-based multi-stakeholder process can be an institution which supports the sociallearning that is so important to an adaptive management approach. The process itself provides aforum in which to gain an appreciation of many different perspectives on an issue, and thetrade-offs implied in adopting policy options. This information exchange has been cited as one ofthe most valuable outcomes of round table forums.

Similarly, community-based monitoring programs build a data base on which to assess progresstoward management goals. At the same time, this "participatory science" can enhance ecosystemawareness and build community support for an adaptive management approach.

Democratic involvement of stakeholders

The final characteristic of an ecosystem approach which I would like to briefly address is thedemocratic involvement of stakeholders in decision making.

The community-based ecosystem management initiatives we have reviewed vary in the degree ofstakeholder involvement and the degree to which stakeholders share decision-making authority.Along a continuum of public involvement, however, they all fall toward the right-hand side andare typically joint decision-making models. They have opened up the decision-making process to awider set of stakeholders, and in many cases have created new opportunities for involvement inthe implementation of policy.

The empowerment of stakeholders as partners in ecosystem management can help to address whatseems to be growing frustration with our traditional governance approach. Collaborativeapproaches can increase the transparency in decision making. They can engage stakeholders insetting priorities for ecosystems. This in turn can build support to monitor progress against thesepriorities and help ensure follow-through with policy decisions. Individuals regain a sense ofconnection to goals, promoting individual and community stewardship of the ecosystem. Newapproaches can focus on win/win solutions and avoid alienating interests. By discouraging anadversarial approach, energies and resources can be channeled into developing sustainableoptions.

Walking the talk

An key objective of the New Forms of Governance research project is to produce practicalresource material to support new ecosystem approaches, particularly at the local level. For thebalance of this workshop, therefore, we will focus on the implementation of community-basedecosystem management. How are these ideas being put into place? What can we expect fromthese processes, and what are their limitations? What are the challenges to establishing newprocesses, and to their effective functioning?

Joan E. Vance

An Organizing Agency's Viewpoint: The B.C. Commission on Resources andEnvironment

Ms. Vance holds an undergraduate degree in biology and a Bachelor of Law from McGillUniversity, with specialization in resource law. Ms. Vance's experience includes extensiveinvolvement with community organizing, and she has written and published a book on publicinvolvement in forest planning. Currently Ms. Vance is with the B.C. Commission on Resourcesand Environment. She was instrumental in setting up and facilitating the Commission's SlocanValley Pilot.

This workshop will provide an opportunity to examine common characteristics of effectiveecosystem management, and new community-based governance approaches or institutionsdesigned to achieve sustainability. I have been asked to provide the perspective of an organizingagency on new forms of governance for ecosystem management, and to discuss practical solutionsat the local level for surmounting barriers to their implementation.

In many jurisdictions, and certainly in British Columbia, the past decade has brought increasingrecognition of the need to find new approaches to regulating human activities in ecosystems. The

dominance of industrial forestry, which emphasized resource extraction with attendant ecosystemimpacts, has shifted to multiple resource use based on ecosystem management. The growing bodyof literature about the basis for ecosystem management has begun to define some of its majorcomponents, recently summarized in the Journal of Forestry:

*A key objective is the maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity.

*The essence of ecosystem management lies in its objectives and its wider spatial and time scales,not in particular management practices used to achieve those objectives. Protection andenhancement of ecosystem integrity and functions are essential.

*Landscape traits are emphasized-including connectivity, avoidance of fragmentation, protectionof waterways, and identification and protection of critical habitat components.

*Ecosystem management is by definition intensive forest management. Implementing it requiresmore intensive planning and coordination, more spatially detailed data, and more sophisticatedsilvicultural prescriptions. Such actions are expected, over time, to produce a richer mix ofresource benefits.

*A shift is planned toward the species composition of the primeval forest.

*Older stands will be increasingly represented, along with the development of structural traitsresembling old growth.

*Extensive units of mature forest will be minimally roaded or unroaded, and minimally affected bytimber management.

*It is expected to provide larger populations of scarce creatures-especially wide-ranging topcarnivores, forest interior dwellers, and creatures that depend on old growth conditions. It is alsosupposed to set the stage for reintroducing species that no longer inhabit these woods.

In British Columbia, the move to apply the principles of ecosystem-based management to crownland has come about as part of a government policy decision to promote sustainability. There alsohas been recognition that changes in management practices need to be matched with changes indecision-making processes within existing government structures. Many community groups andgovernment agencies have set out to incorporate new arrangements, structures, and participantsinto managing for sustainability. Much has been accomplished in a very short period, but newinstitutional frameworks, processes and tools are required, strengthened by a legislative base, tofully implement the policy.

What follows is a description of some new forms of governance and governing structures thathave been implemented in B.C. to complement and support the application of ecosystem-basedmanagement, and a consideration of some remaining barriers and practical solutions forovercoming them. While the focus is on communities, the broader provincial context is discussedwhere it affects local initiatives.

The development of a provincial land use strategy

The Commission on Resources and Environment was established in 1992 as a permanent,independent statutory body, to address conflicts over land use, resource management andsustainability issues. The Commission's primary responsibility as set out in legislation is to developfor public and governmentconsideration a coherent strategy for land use, and related resource andenvironmental management, which integrates and rationalizes existing programs and newinitiatives.

During the past three years, CORE's work has proceeded on a number of different fronts:establishing provincial direction with a Land Use Charter and provincial-level land use goals;developing land use plans for four different regions of the province; working to design and assistin development of community resource boards; working to increase coordination amongministries and agencies with responsibilities for land and resource management; and developing aprovincial land use strategy for government and public consideration.

Recommendations on the provincial Land Use Strategy are now complete. Volume one, ASustainability Act for British Columbia, and volume two, Planning for Sustainability, werereleased in October 1994; volume three, Public Participation, and volume four, DisputeResolution, were released in February 1995. The Land Use Strategy provides a comprehensiveframework for a sustainable future through the dynamic interaction of its five primarycomponents: provincial direction, coordination of government initiatives, participatory planning,independent oversight of land use planning and resource management administration, and acomprehensive and accessible dispute resolution system.

Many components of the Land Use Strategy are in place; for example, the provincial governmentland use policy framework is being filled in with the Protected Areas Strategy, the ForestPractices Code, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Forest Renewal Act and the Forest LandReserve Act. The next step is for government to take action on the remaining parts: completingthe policy framework, modifying institutional arrangements, and allocating adequate resources(e.g., technical information and staff). Of particular importance is the need to develop a legislativebasis for a provincial land use strategy to prevent reversals as a result, over time, of alteredpriorities, lack of coordination, and unforeseen social and economic developments. CORE hasrecommended that government enact legislation, in the form of a Sustainability Act, to confirmthe obligations to:

*develop and comply with sustainability principles, goals and policies;

*develop balanced land and resource use plans;

*involve the diverse interests of society in decision making;

*reach just settlements with First Nations; and

*monitor and adapt responses to achieve sustainability.

This does not mean more government or less government, but taking steps to ensure thatgovernment is directed and constrained to act responsibly now and in the future.

The role of planning has been expanded to become a more effectivedecision-making tool

Short-term planning leads to incremental decisions rather than holistic ones. But the effects ofincremental decisions are cumulative, and in resource management can lead to unforeseen and

undesirable outcomes. In B.C. the government has undertaken a program to develop land useplans covering large areas-regions or subregions-that provide direction for more detailed planningat the local level. One component of regional and subregional land use planning is to identify anddesignate large areas of land for protection or sensitive management based on, among otherfeatures, the need to protect biodiversity values over space and time. Even where areas of landhave been designated for integrated resource management or enhanced resource development,resource development will be managed in accordance with government guidelines (e.g., theregulations and standards set out in the Forest Practices Code and the Environmental AssessmentAct).

Planning at the local level has become an inter-agency initiative with substantial publicinvolvement. Local resource plans, while conforming with higher-level (regional and subregional)plans, establish strategic objectives in a smaller area in order to provide specific direction foroperational activities. Local resource plans are used to resolve conflicts for areas such aswatersheds, groups of watersheds, travel corridors, recreation areas and wildlife areas. They cancover areas as large as several hundred thousand hectares or as small as a watershed with adrainage of a few square kilometres. The use of planning as a tool to inform and guidedecision-making, with a series of nested plans moving from broader to more specific levels ofdetail, can assist in shifting the focus of ecosystem-based management into communities.

Significant steps have been taken to broaden decision-making to include thefull range of stakeholders

One of the most significant changes in governance has been the move from representativedemocracy towards participatory democracy. Public demand for participation has been motivatedby frustration with the way government goes about making decisions and doing business. Therehas been the appearance of leaving out interest groups, favouring the powerful, economicallystrong or the squeaky wheel, acting without all information, and not giving enough weight tocertain considerations such as biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems. Options that involve abasic change in direction have not always been considered. Options have been rejected beforeevaluation, apparently for reasons that are not valid.

Responding to public dissatisfaction, and recognizing that decisions which incorporate differentinterests are more stable and enduring, many government agencies have incorporated extensivepublic involvement into decision-making processes related to areas of public concern. This hasbeen most evident in the decentralization of health care services and establishment of regionalhealth boards, and in the move to have members of the public participate meaningfully in land useand related resource and environmental decision making. In this latter area the inclusion ofstakeholders with diverse interests in decision making has opened doors for proponents ofecosystem-based management, and reinforced the application of this approach.

The provincial government has supported public participation as a means of generating morebalanced, stable and enduring decisions. And community resource boards, local round tables andother community-based public advisory groups have emerged in B.C. as a highly effective meansof providing public advice and recommendations on complex land and resource decisions. Atpresent, there are an estimated 40 community resource boards or round tables in B.C., most beinggrassroots initiatives to which citizens volunteer time and resources to develop advice on variousland and resource decisions and to promote sustainability in their communities.

These groups provide a forum in which diverse community perspectives are brought together tohelp negotiate or otherwise develop resource management solutions that balance economic, socialand environmental interests, in keeping with the best overall long-term interest of the community.Although community groups vary significantly in the way they are organized and the functionsthey carry out, there are a number of common features that contribute to their success: they arevoluntary, purpose-driven, representative of the full spectrum of relevant interests,consensus-building, integrative, interest-based, and advisory to government.

Much work remains to be done to support the shift to participatory democracy. While there isstrong public support for community resource boards, as evidenced in the recommendations of thestakeholder tables for the four regional land use plans, government has not indicated whether itwill approve CORE's recommendations on the role of community resource boards in the LandUse Strategy. While recognizing that advisory processes involving many parties aretime-consuming, they are highly effective in making land and resource management decisions thatare democratic and fair, effective, integrated, efficient, informed, clearly understood andaccountable.

Failure to capitalize on the public's interest in advising government limits the effectiveness ofpublic involvement and gives rise to cynicism. Where public involvement programs are notwell-organized and clearly linked to the final decision outcomes, there may be an appearance ofconsulting to satisfy the government's need to say "we consulted." Without governmentparticipation in discussions to communicate its interests and limitations, decisions made at the topmay override the results of advisory processes.

There have been improvements in coordination and cooperation betweengovernment agencies.

There are pros and cons to focusing efforts on work at the local level. Proponents of the "small isbeautiful" philosophy may believe they can more successfully implement ecosystem managementby using localized governance approaches or institutions. However, efforts to work locally can beimpeded by higher-level institutions and legislative/policy frameworks. Impediments can arisefrom different causes:

1. A lack of higher-level direction coupled with a lack of authority to formulate a local-levelresponse.

There may be policy gaps that local officials do not have authority to fill at a local level. Forexample, policies that have province-wide impact, such as the Protected Area Strategy or anEconomic Transition Strategy aimed at mitigating negative impacts of reductions in harvestinglevels, must be established at the provincial level. Where policies are non-existent or inadequate,local officials may not have much discretion to develop a local policy that might establish aprecedent.

We found at the outset of the Commission's work that a lack of government policies in criticalareas impeded issue resolution at multi-stakeholder negotiating tables. For example, during theVancouver Island regional land use negotiation, representatives of the forestry unions would notagree to any protected areas in the absence of an economic transition strategy that would ensureno forest worker jobs were lost as a consequence of removing areas from commercial timberproduction. However, the government representative who was at the negotiating table had noauthority to develop an economic transition strategy in conjunction with other participants.Ultimately this contributed to impasse at the table.

2. Limitations in mandates of local-level agency staff constrain inter-agency coordination.

3. Poor coordination among government ministries with apparently conflicting mandates.

4. Areas of significant public interest for which no one has responsibility.

5. Other responsibilities overlapping or split among agencies and levels of government.

The traditional approach of assigning ministries' mandates based on resources that are part of acommon land and natural resource base has resulted in local-level agencies having authority fordifferent aspects of the same geographic area, with no corresponding mandate to coordinate withother agencies. This fragmentation can lead to inefficient actions or even conflicting decisions. Forexample, the Ministry of Forests may make decisions in planning and managing crown forests fortimber extraction, while at the same time the Ministry of Environment is developing wildlifemanagement plans and allocating water licences in a community watershed, and the Ministry ofMines is granting mineral exploration permits-all in the same area.

Mandates and responsibility are split between levels of government; other mandates overlap.Regional offices of the provincial government often deal with the same issues as theregional/municipal government itself. Interministerial coordination may be arranged informally,but government staff are still required to promote the mandates of their own agencies instead ofbeing required to balance different considerations in formulating a decision. But even if individualson interagency teams think in these terms, each agency's authority to act or to approveagreements usually rests with a higher level of management that is not directly involved with theissue. Roles and responsibilities of each level of government need to be clearly defined.

Some levels of government lack the authority to deal with problems that arise within theirboundaries, and more local levels cannot or will not act in a coordinated way. Solutions thatrequire simultaneous action by many agencies and/or levels of government are not coordinated,even where policy requires them. There are many different stakeholder groups which operate intheir own "arena" and avoid overlapping into other jurisdictions. This leads to a series of reactivepartial solutions rather than an integrated approach. For example, regional-scale urban planninghas been handled this way in B.C., and the government has stated its intention to address thisproblem by enacting a Growth Strategies Act this legislative session.

The common reality requires that rules, policies and agreements be developed jointly amongministries or agencies responsible for different uses. But the fact that governments are structuredhierarchically constrains them. The separation between authority and day-to-day involvementshifts the focus to controlling the process, rather than achieving a compromise. The extent towhich authority becomes detached from the issues on the ground may vary, but the underlyingproblem is one of structure. Effective government requires that representatives of differentagencies (including ministries) be empowered to work out compromises based on their differentperspectives.

CORE has been working with government and the public to improve the integration ofgovernment policies and coordination among agencies and between levels of government.

Jim Ellsworth

Ecosystem Management: New Forms of Governance Serving and assistingcitizen-based, sustainable ecosystem initiatives

Jim Ellsworth graduated from the Nova Scotia Agricultural College in 1975 and began his careeras a horticulturalist, working with Acadia University and later with the National CapitalCommission. Jim began his second career with Parks Canada in 1982. While there, Jim served assuperintendent of several National Parks and Heritage Canals in Nova Scotia, Ontario and theNorthwest Territories. Jim moved over to Conservation and Protection at Environment Canada in1992 as Head of the Coastal Ecosystems Division, Atlantic Region. Jim presently serves asmanager of the Atlantic Coastal Action Program.

There are many challenges facing ecosystem management initiatives. Many of those challenges are

being successfully addressed while many challenges remain in our way. As new forms ofgovernance, ecosystem management initiatives represent a challenge to existing power bases andthe standard operating procedures of many agencies. In every instance, there are forces whichsupport the change towards ecosystem approaches and forces which stand in the way. Thisecosystem management workshop presents an exciting opportunity to share successful approachesto increasing support for ecosystem management initiatives while neutralizing opposing forces.

New forms of governance may be an adequate description of ecosystem management initiatives;however, the terminology is politically incorrect. Marketing ecosystem management initiatives asvehicles for serving, as opposed to governing, can be an effective means of navigating the web ofjurisdictions, authorities, and vested interests. Sustainable ecosystem initiatives participating in theAtlantic Coastal Action Program, such as the Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP), areeffectively using this approach to harness and focus resources in addressing complexmulti-jurisdictional issues.

Sustainable ecosystem initiatives

Sustainable ecosystem initiatives provide a systemic means of facilitating the collectiveanticipation, identification and intervention in problems and opportunities, in order to promote theconcept of sustainable development. Intervention requires monitoring and a thoroughunderstanding of the relationships between social, economic and environmental factors.Stakeholders must be aligned behind interventions which are publicly supported, scientificallysound and economically feasible. Existing mental models which distinguish between the roles ofthe public, decision makers and knowledge holders need to be replaced in order to makealignment possible.

The public are typically on the fringe of environmental decision making, having neither the powernor the resources to make or influence decisions which affect them. Consultation processes wherethe public put forward their sectoral views and positions are seldom satisfying for the decisionmakers or the public. As a result, the public often resort to administrative and legal redressmechanisms for their grievances. Persuing these avenues is costly and seldom effective. They are agreat drain on the resources and the relationships of the public, knowledge holders and decisionmakers.

Frustration is not limited to the general public. Decision makers in government and business arefrustrated by the inability of existing policy and decision-making processes to reach timely andeffective outcomes. Similarly, scientists and other knowledge holders are frustrated in seeinginformation under-utilized due to ineffective processes. They are anxious to develop effectiveworking relationships with the public and decision makers.

The public, decision makers, and knowledge holders share a common desire for a proactivealternative environmental decision-making process which avoids the destructive conflictsprevalent in existing models. Sustainable ecosystem initiatives are meeting that need by providinga forum and a framework for effective ecosystem management.

Aligning stakeholders

As a prerequisite to success, sustainable ecosystem initiatives require changes in how the variousplayers perceive one another. Traditionally, relationships between the public, knowledge holdersand decision makers are linear and weak. Knowledge holders normally advise decision makers.The public normally live with the results after decision makers exercise their authority.Functioning as autonomous entities, the results produced in this linear relationship seldom meetthe expectations of participants.

Relationships must be strengthened amongst each of these groups before they can be strengthenedbetween the groups. For instance, knowledge holders include experts in a wide range of fields, aswell as holders of traditional and anecdotal knowledge. Decision making must move beyond the

traditional power base of politicians and managers in government to include an informed public.The public must move beyond their individual social, economic and environmental interests inorder to grasp the big picture.

Alignment requires a collective realization that everyone is a citizen, a knowledge holder, and adecision maker. This realization is anchored when scientists and managers allow the public toparticipate in activities and decisions which traditionally have been their sole prerogative. Theanchoring continues when citizens take responsibility for their part of the ecosystem.

Finally, alignment requires an inclusive definition of stakeholders which includes knowledgeholders, decision makers, and the public.

Stakeholder: anyone who is significantly impacted by a decision, anyone who can contribute toquality decisions, and anyone who can contribute to the implementation of decisions.

Developing and maintaining the alliance is very much dependent upon the cooperatives' ability tomeet the collective needs of participants, including:

*Recognition as an equal participant with an important contribution to make;

*Access to a common, comprehensive information base;

*An agreed-upon process and orientation to that process; and

*Common ownership of a vision, and clear statements of issues and objectives.

Aligning programs and services

The programs and services of government and non-government agencies are tailored towardssingle issues and single resource sectors. The bottom-up approach of weaving sectoral issues andinterests together within the holistic framework of an ecosystem serves to align the programs andservices associated with those sectors. In effect, ecosystem management initiatives do forgovernment what government can't do for itself, namely, service demand management andintegrated service delivery.

The work plans of ecosystem management initiatives represent advances in the areas of criticalneeds assessment, stakeholder consensus, strategic planning, and integrated service delivery.Initiatives attempt to host and facilitate joint ventures rather than direct and control the activitiesof other organizations. Although this approach is very effective, initiatives require timely,standardized and integrated responses to their work plans. The existing maze of programs,applications, forms criteria, deadlines, controls, processes, and slow turnaround times wastevaluable time and resources.

A whole new approach is necessary if we are going to enable ecosystem management initiatives totruly think strategically and act opportunistically.

Common qualities of ecosystem management initiatives

1. Their boundaries are defined pragmatically based upon the requirements of the matters in hand.

2. Their boundaries are small enough to enable stakeholders to:

1. conceptualize the ecosystem;2. identify the interrelationships between social, economic and environmental factors;3. identify relationships between past decisions and the current state of the ecosystem; and4. take ownership of ecosystem issues and their solution.

3. Their mission represents the pinnacle of a common hierarchy of purpose, and provides a focusand a framework to identify priorities and integrate activities.

4. They continuously communicate what they have done, what they are doing and what they areplanning.

5. They are advocates of informed decision making, and recognize that decisions are based onboth values and information.

6. They utilize a consensus approach to planning and decision making.

7. They continuously combine people, resources and ideas together in new combinations whichgenerate innovation and creativity.

8. They cut through the bureaucracy, rather then add to it, by proactively facilitating publicparticipation, maintaining a future focus, and "self correcting" quickly.

9. They develop and maintain beneficial interdependent relationships with individuals andorganizations.

10. Their objectives are complex, with social, economic and environmental dimensions.Collectively, the objectives represent a vision of sustainable development.

Common objectives of ecosystem management initiatives

Although each ecosystem management initiative is different, their objectives and activities can begrouped into five common key result areas. Each represents a line of business requiring a detailedimplementation strategy indicating who, what, when, where and how. Collectively they representthe distilled values and the aspirations of ecosystem stakeholders.

Sustainable Livelihoods: Ensuring a sustainable quality of life through the diversification andsustainability of livelihoods.

*Restoring traditional sustainable livelihoods,e.g., shellfish harvesting

*Assisting existing livelihoods in becoming sustainable, e.g., forestry

*Assisting in the introduction of new sustainable industries, e.g., geomatics

Natural Heritage: Ensuring all natural resources are recognized and respected as heritage

resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

*Sensitivity mapping/resource inventory and analysis

*The restoration and protection of fish and wildlife habitat

*The enhancement of biodiversity

Water Quality: Ensuring that water quality in the coastal areas and adjacent watersheds supportsthe needs of humans, fish, and wildlife, and can sustain commercial and recreational activities.

*Citizen-based water quality monitoring

*Pollution prevention within homes and industry

*Full value water pricing

Responsible Stewardship: Ensuring that citizens are empowered to take responsibility for theirpart of the ecosystem, and that they have the information and the skills required to carry out thatresponsibility.

*Environmental education activities

*Creating opportunities for meaningful citizen participation

*Communicating accomplishments and best practices

Ecosystem Planning: Ensuring that there are strategies in place for the restoration andsustainable development of ecosystems.

*Securing commitment to implementation

*Securing a role in implementation and evaluation

*Championing informed decision making

Elephant traps

There are several popular misconceptions surrounding ecosystem management initiatives. Eachmust be anticipated and averted in order to prevent the establishment of unrealistic expectationsand redundant performance criteria. Ecosystem management initiatives have a great deal ofpolitical and intellectual appeal. This appeal often generates unrealistic expectations and masksmany of the risks and complexities. If left unaddressed, these misconceptions can lead to theinitiative being written off as unworkable.

Trial participation

Individuals or organizations may wish to initiate an ecosystem management initiative with ideas oflimited participation on a trial basis. Ecosystem management initiatives are habit-forming and canbecome addictive. Once stakeholders have experienced this way of working together and the

results they can accomplish, they may not want to go back to traditional approaches. Stakeholdersmove to a new level of growth, and a sense of purpose that demands positive change. Oncebegun, the initiative cannot be discontinued without negative consequence.

Time

Most often, the time required to develop an effective ecosystem management initiative is severelyunderestimated. Organizing, team building, developing partnerships, assembling information,strategic planning and public participation all take a great deal of time. The integrated applicationof all of these activities is not something that can be mastered and carried out overnight.

Full stakeholder participation

It is often assumed that everyone will participate in an ecosystem management cooperative.However, all essential players will never be there right from the beginning. Just because they areessential to the process does not mean that they will get involved and take responsibility. Manywill be brought on board during the process. Some will feel that their interests are wellrepresented by someone else participating. Some don't believe the impact justifies participation.Some are unaware that they are affected by decisions. Some are unaware that they can influencedecisions, while others believe the decision has already been made. Many players will have to bebrought on board during the process.

Some players may never participate for a variety of reasons. Some will not welcome the changethat the initiative represents. Many will lack the maturity required to enter into interdependentrelationships with other stakeholders. Some will not want to risk moving from their fixedpositions by participating in a consensus process. They will maintain an independent, positionalapproach until they see if and how a cooperative approach works, or the dynamics of the situationforces them to come in from the cold. Change will make may stakeholders restless.

Performance criteria

Those expecting tangible short term goodies and mutual admiration societies from ecosystemmanagement initiatives will be disappointed. The process is often noisy and frustrating. Whendoing the slow, hard work of systemic change, tangible results are few and far between in thebeginning. Less tangible results like learning and the acceptance of responsibility go unrecognized.Initiatives should not be evaluated for their ability to "keep the lid on." Often they must provide aforum for creative conflict, before consensus is possible. Similarly, participants must takesatisfaction in learning as an outcome and an essential building block.

Those attempting to evaluate their performance must be familiar with high performancemulti-stakeholder systems and how they operate. This includes how they are different to standardorganizations and what they have to offer that others do not. Because ecosystem managementinitiatives deal with complex open-ended questions, they offer no means of external validation.The sole criteria for correctness is the participants' acceptance of the solution as correct.Ecosystem management initiatives are very similar to democracies in that, although they are slowand frustrating, they are a great improvement over all known alternatives.

Resources

Many will want to see all of the required mandate and resources identified and committed beforethe initiative begins. The reality is that the resources exist but need to be harnessed and focused.Like all new ventures, there are very few pioneers and risk takers in the early stages. Some willhave to champion the initiative and demonstrate success before others commit. Ecosystemmanagement initiatives do not start out with the experience, the skills, the abilities or the mandateto carry out ecosystem management. These must be attained incrementally in order to develop andmaintain local ownership of the issues and their solutions. In summary, cooperatives can notabandon what they seemingly can not afford.

Change

Initially, all participants in and supporters of the initiative will assume that they are the catalyticelement that will remain unchanged while causing change in others. In reality the combining ofpeople, resources, and ideas in new combinations will result in continuous learning andcontinuous change for all participants. While this change will be met with resistance, theresistance must be overcome. New ideas and new ways of making decisions will not be acceptedby all organizations or everyone within organizations all at once. As stated earlier, many will firstrock the traditional boat, and challenge the traditional power and influence bases. Change spreadsgradually. The first to change and to champion change must be comfortable with being in theminority.

Ecosystem management initiatives offer a new approach and a new frame of reference to makethis change possible. Change starts with the painful realization that change is necessary, and thatour isolated single solution approaches to complex ecosystem problems are ineffective. Allevidence suggests that many small isolated projects rarely add up to systemic change. We mustgive up something old to gain something new. Anticipating and managing people's reaction tochange is an essential part of the process.

Standard operating procedures

The old saying, "He who pays the piper calls the tune" is as true as it ever was. However,sponsors and funding programs should recognize that ecosystem management initiatives representa new model of client/partner. Sponsors and funding programs lacking an eclectic taste andrefusing to contribute to any tune other then their own theme song will miss out on manyinnovative and creative opportunities.

Sponsors must learn to tailor their funding programs and their criteria to ecosystem needs, ratherthen insisting that ecosystem needs meet their criteria. When ecosystem management initiativescome on the scene, they almost immediately come into conflict with "standard operatingprocedures" intended to meet the internal needs of agencies. Agencies may have to revisit timehonoured processes in order to meet the needs of ecosystem management initiatives. Thewillingness of agency management to adapt existing procedures may be taken as evidence of goodfaith.

Stephen Hawboldt

Emerging Organizational Forms for Community Environmental Management:Examples from the Clean Annapolis River Project

A native of the Annapolis Valley, Stephen Hawboldt became Program Director of the CleanAnnapolis River Project in October 1990. Stephen brings to the position a broad background insmall business management, municipal government, economic development, and communityparticipation. A graduate in carpentry from a local vocational school, Stephen has sinceundertaken undergraduate and graduate studies in business and economics at DalhousieUniversity. At present, he is completing a master's thesis on community-based environmentalmanagement.

Stephen sits on the Board of Directors of the Clean Nova Scotia Foundation, is a member of theNova Scotia Advisory Committee on the Agricultural Component of the Green Plan, andparticipated at the Sino-Canadian Symposium on Environmental Water Management.

Introduction

The late Eric Trist, teaching in the Environmental Studies program at York University, and

several colleagues with other institutions around the world postulated the arrival of this turbulentfield. Simply put, this is a societal state in which traditional, competitive, hierarchicalorganizations-most corporations, governments, not-for-profits and other institutions-try torespond to the vast, multi-sectoral problems that they have actually caused to arise. The result issystemic instability, as if the ground itself is moving, and societal issues that transcend the respondcapacity of these traditional organizations. To reply to the mega-problems of this emerging,turbulent field, Trist and his colleagues have suggested organizational forms that embodycollaboration, multi-stakeholder decision making, and non-hierarchical, holistic, andself-actualizing approaches to reduce instability. They see this emerging organizational field asoften embedded in the more traditional hierarchical structures of most corporations, governmentsand not-for-profits. Depending upon your time, space and intellectual orientation, this could begrossly simplified as the new world.

The old world, dominant or in isolated pockets, again depending upon your time, space andintellectual orientation, is still with us. Paul Pross, a political scientist at Dalhousie University, hasintroduced the concept of the policy community as a vehicle to explain the complex bureaucraticrelationships demanded in this old world. The effectiveness of a pressure group to achieve itsobjectives is a function of the acceptance of its legitimacy by the other actors involved in aparticular policy field, like environment.

Consequentially, the effective community-based environmental management group must be ableto harness the energies of both the old and the new world to achieve its objectives. On the onehand, it needs the capacity to gain acceptance in the policy community of bureaucratic structures.On the other, its goals will be advanced if it exploits the emerging opportunities offered by theturbulent field. My experiences as the Program Director of the Clean Annapolis River Project willhopefully shed some light on this complex, challenging and rewarding balancing act between thenew and old worlds.

Organizational form

The Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) is a charitable, community-owned corporationcreated to actively promote, encourage and assist with the wise use of the resources ofsouthwestern Nova Scotia's Annapolis River and its watershed. The group came into existencewhen two unrelated events converged.

As the oldest European settlement in Canada, the Annapolis River has a long and rich history.Prior to its European settlement in 1605, the region supported, for several thousands of years, adiverse Mi'kmaq culture. Imagine the amazement of a regional board of trade when theirapplication for the Annapolis to become the first heritage river in Canada was rejected. Theapplicant reviewers concluded that, after nearly 400 years of European occupation, the waterwayhad suffered too many developmental and environmental indignities to qualify. Arising from thatlost economic opportunity, the Board of Trade hosted a number of public workshops to look atthe problems and what could be done to reverse the damage.

At about the same time, an informal group of public and private sector environmental scientists,the Atlantic Estuaries Cooperative Venture (AECV), was becoming increasingly concerned aboutthe way in which we are misusing our resources. Believing that community approaches are likelythe most effective route to reversing these abuses, they sought out demonstration sites in whichthey might spark activity. They selected the Annapolis watershed due to its high level ofcommunity awareness, arising from the rejected heritage river designation.

Since its formation in March 1990, and a subsequent invitation in October 1991 to participate inthe Atlantic Coastal Action Program (ACAP), CARP has been involved in over three dozenprojects related to volunteer water quality monitoring, fish habitat restoration, public education,coastal zone management, private stewardship initiatives, and many other issues. The groupreceives in-kind contributions of about four times the cash value of the various projects. CARP

has been involved in numerous national and international initiatives to support communityenvironmental management. As well, the organization has received several provincial andinternational awards. I believe that there are several reasons for the successes that CARP isenjoying.

Rapid institutionalization

Due to its connection with the AECV group of concerned scientists, CARP gained very earlyaccess to a wide network of governmental and academic expertise and potential funders. Thisdirectly led to ACAP, which accelerated the process of institutionalization. This support affordedCARP the opportunity to articulate operating parameters, and turn them into "on the ground"projects and activities that lead to environmental improvement while building communityparticipation and stewardship. As a result, CARP participates in a very wide network ofsupporters in local, regional, national and international agencies, national and internationalfoundations, private corporations, and non-governmental organizations.

Collaborative approach

Environmental issues are an excellent example of problems that are so complex and multi-facetedthat it is all but impossible for a single organization to generate an appropriate response. Theseissues touch on the operations of our economic system, interact with social equity questions, andhave ecological dimensions. If these types of issues are to be adequately addressed then all of theparticipants must act together. A collaborative approach requires that each participant take intoaccount the needs of the other participants, reaching a kind of negotiated order that allows theagenda to be advanced. The analogy might be offered of a school of fish that responds as onewhen danger is present. Each fish knows that its safety depends upon cooperative action. To actindividually is to be exposed to the increased danger of becoming someone's lunch.

The design and execution of most of CARP's activities are built on collaboration. For example,farmers, scientists and environmentalists work cooperatively to find constructive solutions thatappropriately address problems, while respecting the realities and limitations that each participantfaces. The challenge is to show all participants that collaboration will lead to improvement, whilecompetition for individual advantage may actually make the situation worse.

Flat organizational structure

CARP operates within a very flat organizational structure. The membership meets annually toelect a Board of Directors to manage the affairs of the group. Each of the projects undertaken byCARP is supported by a Project Team, comprised of individuals who have a particular interest inthe project at hand. Operating within the policy and budgetary guidelines established by theBoard, the Project Team determines the details for the design, implementation and evaluation of aparticular project. The Project Teams, which may or may not include a Board Member, are inmany respects a mirror of the full Board but with the specialized task of delivering a particularproject.

No group or agency is guaranteed a seat on the Board, and Directors are elected based on theirpersonal commitment, not because of their affiliations. At both the Board and Project Teamlevels, scientists, farmers, civil servants, home makers, elected officials, artisans, and professionalswork together to seek solutions to mutual problems. This approach promotes dialogue anddiscussion among the different stakeholders, and fosters the meaningful involvement of a broadspectrum of the region.

At the staff level, the same flat organizational structure is maintained. The Program Directorprovides overall support but each Project Leader is charged with the responsibility of delivering aquality project on time and within budget. There are no secretaries within the organization. Theresponsibility and latitude afforded Project Leaders fosters ownership of each project and therelease of the creative energies that ensure a quality product. When this is combined with the

dedication of the Project Team, our various projects seem to take on a life of their own.

Multiple partnerships

Virtually all of the activities undertaken by CARP are built around the notion of multiple partners,each contributing cash or in-kind resources. We believe that this tack provides many advantages.It fosters the involvement of a broad spectrum of those actors who have an interest in a particularproject. Since each partner is often only able to make a small contribution, activities that a singleagency would find too expensive are made possible. Multiple partnerships are highlycost-efficient, and often the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

These types of approaches build community support and stewardship, encourage volunteerism,and help all participants to view issues in broader terms. As well, participants learn that byworking cooperatively they can define and implement their mutually chosen future.

Philosophical approach

The philosophical approach which CARP takes to solving environmental problems has played arole in the success of the organization. We believe that limited community energies and resourcesare best directed toward finding constructive solutions rather than blaming this or that sector ofthe economy. Because we have no regulatory authority, we cannot demand compliance. Instead,we need to give stakeholders a reason and opportunity to participate. The agenda which ispursued by CARP is set by the local community. We, as residents, are in control of the futures weselect. We believe that these approaches promote legal control and ownership-we decide theissues, how they are to be addressed, and the most effective methods to achieve the goals we haveselected. The activities undertaken by CARP are based on the best formal and informal scientificand environmental information available. We believe that someone who has spent a lifetime on theland has a profound understanding of the local environment. When this is combined with goodscience, the community's understanding of its resources is greatly enhanced.

Four-prong approach

To maximize opportunities for community involvement, CARP's various projects can be dividedinto four interrelated and somewhat arbitrary groups. Many people are interested in making adifference now-they want to be involved in finding solutions to local problems. Examples mightinclude our volunteer-based water quality monitoring program or our fish habitat restorationactivities. If citizens are to make informed decisions, they must have the best scientific informationavailable. Therefore, we have a series of problem definition projects that include our coastal zoneecological modelling and public input initiatives. To ensure that this information is available to aswide an audience as possible, CARP has initiated several public communications programs likethe Annapolis River Issues fact sheets or our other outreach activities.

Without a concentrated focus, it would be very easy for the diverse array of CARP's activities tobecome scattered and ineffective. To avoid that, we have integrated planning into our approaches.Approximately every two years, those directly involved in CARP undertake a strategic planningexercise in which we re-evaluate where we are, how we got there, where we want to be in thefuture, and how are we going to achieve these goals. This is a continuous, adaptive exercise thatforces us to look at ourselves and ask hard questions as to our strengths, opportunities and goals.At a macro level and as part of the ACAP process, CARP is in the process of producing acommunity-based sustainable development strategy for the Annapolis watershed. This will be aliving document that is being implemented as it is being developed. Our strategic planningprocesses are ensuring this flexibility.

Use of technology

The array of diverse and complex activities we are undertaking would be impossible to managewithout extensive use of computer-based management, spatial information systems andcommunications technologies. For example, our national and international links would be too

expensive without e-mail and high speed facsimile. Without computer-based data managementand spatial display capacity, the vast amounts of data our volunteers are collecting would beimpossible to record or analyse. Our ecological modelling capacity will allow us to play "what ifgames" which are designed to enhance community decision making. By using high quality wordprocessing, desktop publishing and graphics software, we are able to produce highly professionaltechnical and public presentation material in both print and electronic form. Computerizedaccounting and management control systems ensure that we have up-to-date financial informationavailable at all times.

The use of technology increases our organizational capacity while reducing operating costs. Weare able to present complicated scientific material in a format that is easily understood by thegeneral public.

Conclusion

While I have described to you the Clean Annapolis River Project, we are not alone. The ACAPprocess has created 12 other approaches to community environmental management. As well, thereare likely thousands of community groups like CARP around the world. I know of diverseinitiatives in Kenya, Sri Lanka, Nova Scotia, New England, the Baltic republics, Central America,and many other places. Next month, CARP's Vice-President is in New Zealand to talk aboutcommunity environmental management in Nova Scotia.

The strength of the ACAP process lies in its capacity to respond to the unique needs of diversecommunities without imposing unnecessary bureaucratic definitions of grass roots management.Instead, the ACAP process sets down generalized operating parameters that encourage eachcommunity to develop a response capability that suits its uniqueness. If one were to compare thethirteen ACAP sites, one would find a diversity and individualized expression that is reflective ofthe unique character of each of the participating regions. My wish would be for all private andpublic sector programs to encourage their clients to fashion their individual peg and the hole intowhich it must fit.

Selected References

Atlantic Estuaries Cooperative Venture. "Guiding Principles." Environment Canada, 1988.

Clean Annapolis River Project. Clean Annapolis River Project: 1993/94 Annual Report.Annapolis Royal: Clean Annapolis River Project, May 1994.

Clean Annapolis River Project. Clean Annapolis River Project: 1991 to 1993 Project Summary.Annapolis Royal: Clean Annapolis River Project, May 1993.

Clean Annapolis River Project. Introduction to the Clean Annapolis River Project. AnnapolisRoyal: Clean Annapolis River Project, 1993.

Daborn, Graham R., and Stephen Hawboldt. "Incorporating Volunteers in Support of Monitoringand Research on Coastal Zone Problem." Coastal Zone Canada '94: Conference Proceedings.Halifax: Coastal Zone Canada Association, 1994.

Donaldson, Carole. "An Ungodly Alliance: Working With Coastal Communities-A Practitioner'sPerspective." Coastal Zone Canada '94: Conference Proceedings. Halifax: Coastal Zone CanadaAssociation, 1994.

Donaldson, Carole. Working in Multistakeholder Processes. Dartmouth: Environment Canada,1994.

Donnelly, Ken. "Community-Based Planning for the Coastal Zone." Coastal Zone Canada '94:Conference Proceedings. Halifax: Coastal Zone Canada Association, 1994.

Ellsworth, James P. "Closing the Gap Between Community Expectations and Service Delivery:

Canada's Atlantic Coastal Action Program." Coastal Zone Canada '94: Conference Proceedings.Halifax: Coastal Zone Canada Association, 1994.

Emery, F.E., and E. L. Trist. Towards A Social Ecology. London: Plenum Publishing, 1972.

Hawboldt, Stephen. "CARP: Building Community Conservation." A presentation to the 1992Atlantic Planners Institute Annual Conference, "Municipal Reform and Environmental Quality:Strategies That Can Work," Halifax, NS, November 4-6, 1992.

Hawboldt, Stephen. "A New Approach to Partnership." A presentation to "Gaining FisheriesHabitat," Ottawa, ON, October 3-5, 1993.

Hawboldt, Stephen. "Environmentalism: An Engine Of Community Economic Development." Apresentation to "Grassroots Economic Development: Local Solutions and Local Strategies,"Halifax, NS, 1994.

Hawboldt, Stephen. "Community Conservation: A Model for Coastal Resource Conservation."Coastal Zone Canada '94: Conference Proceedings. Halifax: Coastal Zone Canada Association,1994.

Henderson, Hazel. Creating Alternative Futures: The End of Economics. New York: BantamBooks, 1970.

Henderson, Hazel. The Coming Economic Transition-Alternatives To Growth 1: A Search ForSustainable Futures. Ed. Dennis Meadows. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1977.

LURA Group. Sharing the Challenge-A Guide for Community-Based Environmental Planning,Section 1: The Multistakeholder Approach. Dartmouth: Environment Canada, 1992.

Pross, A. Paul. Group Politics and Public Policy. 2nd ed. Toronto: Oxford University Press,1992.

Stancioff, Esperanza, Kathleen Leyden,and Stephen Hawboldt. "Strengthening a Sense of Place inthe Gulf of Maine Among Watershed Citizen Volunteers." Cooperative Extension, University ofMaine, December, 1993.

Timberlake, Lloyd. Only One Earth: Living for the Future. London: BBC Books/Earthscan,1987.

Trist, Eric. "The Environment and System-Response Capability." Futures April 1980.

Trist, Eric. "Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains."Human Relations 36-3 (1983).

White, Judith C. "Atlantic Coastal Action Program-Cape Breton: Coastal Communities inAction." Coastal Zone Canada '94: Conference Proceedings. Halifax: Coastal Zone CanadaAssociation, 1994.

Sandra Lawn

Barriers to Local Government Innovation

Sandra Lawn's hands-on experience as a local politician began in 1967 when she was elected as aschool trustee; it ended in 1991 when she retired after 15 years as mayor of her community. Shecontinues to teach municipal administration at St. Lawrence College, and as a consultant, hasrecently visited many new council members across Ontario on behalf of the Association ofMuncipalities of Ontario.

Currently, she is Empowerment Director for the St. Lawrence River Institute of EnvironmentalSciences. Her opinions on the barriers to new forms of ecosystem governance have been distilledinto the following points for discussion.

People who enter politics to make their communities better soon learn that, in spite of rapidadvances in communications and administrative theory, there are many barriers to new forms ofecosystem governance.

Haudenosaunee partners speak of "respect, equity and empowerment" as the essential ingredientsfor the creation of a new vision. This model of a healthy ecosystem envisages a respectfulpartnership between governments, people and key sectors of society; the willing sharing andeffective communication of knowledge about the ecosystem; and the implementation of efficient,effective, sound policies for human behaviour within the ecosystem.

However, barriers to this new vision threaten the promise it presents. True respectful partnershipsare often prevented because of the entrenchment of our traditionally adversarial system offederal-provincial governments, mimicked at the local level. The adversarial approach to decisionmaking often creates a winner and a loser, not a group prepared to work together for progress.

True respectful partnerships are often caught in the quagmire of our system of land use planning;no one has real responsibility, and the community becomes frustrated by inertia. The financialplanning system is also antiquated as the inter-connections between environment, economy, andcommunity health are effectively ignored. The compartmentalization of decision making not onlyensures bad decisions but also establishes fertile grounds for virulent turf wars.

The sheer weight of the numbers of governments, agencies, boards, and commissions can be anobstacle furthered also by their multi-layered, multi-faceted nature. The University of Ottawa'sEcosystem Recovery on the St. Lawrence project has already identified over 140 suchdecision-making bodies in the Lake St. Francis portion of the St. Lawrence River Ecosystemalone.

There is considerable lip service paid to the need for communication and consensus building skills,but sadly it is often just that-lip service. Perhaps it emanates from a lack of shared vision or a lackof training, but the end result is ineffective or non-existent social learning and consensus building.The potential of television as an effective tool for the sharing of knowledge with society, is, forvarious reasons, untapped. New forms of governance must grow "from the ground up."

A distrustful, cynical public is an immobilized public. This state is often encouraged by adistrustful, cynical press. The media, by its very nature, must see this world through its ownnarrow filter. A paradigmatic shift is essential if society is going to make the necessaryadjustments; the media is an important facilitator in that process.

In spite of some government encouragement of community self-determination, a strongcentralizing tendency still exists. The "command and control" approach of huge, cumbersomebureaucracies that often see themselves serving best from distant, central headquarters, is anothersignificant barrier. The St. Lawrence River Institute of Environmental Sciences has witnessed thisfirst hand.

Communities themselves can be microcosms of hierarchical government, with decision makingvested in the hands of a few men who have little training or experience in knowledge sharing andteam building. Most Canadians live in large cities, where the barriers of specialization, large localgovernment bureaucracies, poor communication and the adversarial approach manifest themselvesas imitations of senior governments. "Community leadership is seldom challenged to think aboutconcepts of ecosystem health and a holistic approach."

Our 1849 local government structure and our 1867 system of federalism both perpetuate thenotions of the domination of nature and the superiority of human beings. These human laws couldnot contemplate the human destruction made possible when the enormous changes in humantechnology run headlong into the reality of Mother Earth. Our 1849 and 1867 laws were createdin simpler times; the overwhelming majority of Canadians lived on farms and the present day

urban/rural split in perceptions was non-existent.

If we now look beyond the structural barriers to respectful partnerships, we see the equity thatknowledgeable people bring to the creation of new forms of governance. As storehouses of vastamounts of our intellectual capital, our universities can generate highly specialized research thatcould have practical benefits, but only if expressed in a useful, communicable language. With ourcurrent abilities to store vast amounts of information we inevitably become data rich butknowledge poor. This dilemma is magnified by the strict adherence to the purity of academicdisciplines and wars about departmental turf.

If enlightened public policy is to be empowering, then barriers to effective public policy must besurmounted. Local policy instruments, such as strategic plans, official plans, zoning by-laws, etc.must be generated by the community itself, with facilitation by community members orconsultants.

I sense a huge paradigmatic shift in today's communities. There is little patience with unnatural,anthropogenic barriers to progress. These barriers to new forms of governance at all levels mustgive way to innovative solutions, and new and effective ways of ensuring a healthy ecosystem, asthe Haudenosaunee say, for "seven generations."

This Ecosystem Management Workshop is an excellent forum for sharing knowledge. It is alsoencouraging to note that we will not only identify barriers but also solutions. A productivedialogue on these issues will be most beneficial to a healthy ecosystem.

References

Keating, Michael. The Earth Summit's Agenda for Change. Geneva: Centre for Our CommonFuture, 1993.

Leiss, William. The Domination of Nature. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's UniversityPress, 1994.

Milbrath, Lester W. Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out. N.p.: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1989.

Rozlynne Mitchell

Multi-Stakeholder Community Initiatives

In 1990 Rozlynne Mitchell was appointed for a 4-year term to the British Columbia Round Table,where she was responsible for steering the Sustainable Communities strategy and the LocalRound Tables Task Force. She has worked with community-based multi-stakeholder initiativesthroughout the province, and was responsible for coordinating the establishment of the HoweSound Round Table. She is currently its Coordinator.

Current land and resource use is characterized by escalating conflicts among competing interestsas population and development pressures mount. Planning and management difficulties are furtheraggravated by limited financial and human resources for management activities, by incompletedata and information, by fragmented and overlapping jurisdictions which are narrowly defined andsector-based, and by minimal coordination between different levels of government as well asbetween different government agencies. These problems are further compounded by a pervasivesense of mistrust of centralized decision making.

Though some government bodies may question the significance or validity of round tableprocesses, these processes can play a recognized and crucial role in providing a long-term,multi-stakeholder view of resource management and community development. Stakeholders,

representing a diversity of interests, work with each other to assess the integrated management ofall the resources and interests in their area. This approach is not commonly found in government.

At the local level, round tables can provide an advisory function to government, the community,and other organizations based on an assessment of the region as an integral unit. Attempting towork from a bioregional perspective, many round tables recommend using natural and socialfeatures to guide management strategies. Because round tables are citizen-based andrepresentative of the community, they provide a unique opportunity to overcome the cynicismwith which people may view government initiatives and government in general. Round tables arenot an attempt to replace government; rather, they complement government initiatives byproviding a framework for long-term, multi-sectoral assessment of sustainability options. Theycan play a very important advisory role, filling a need which existing government structurescannot satisfy because they were designed according to other jurisdictional criteria.

The jurisdictional boundaries of most government agencies were historically drawn with a view tomanaging a particular resource or concern. Though defining jurisdictional boundaries according tothe management of a specific sector makes sense to those operating strictly within that sector, itdoes not make sense from an ecological or community perspective. Ecosystems are characterizedby highly interdependent relationships among animal and plant species, aquatic life, and thevarious climatic and physical factors which operate throughout the system at large. Managementbased on a bioregional framework acknowledges the ecological realities of natural systems, anduses naturally occurring features to define management units. Human settlement and economicforces, however, may suggest a different pattern and must be reconciled within these managementstrategies.

Round table processes offer a way to coordinate activities based on a common vision establishedby all community interests and perspectives.

Challenges facing local multi-stakeholder initiatives

There are a number of challenges currently facing local level, multi-stakeholder initiatives. Thefirst is defining the fit. How do participatory forms of governance fit into the existingrepresentative governance systems currently in place? Are local collaborative problem-solving,planning and consensus-building processes advisory or decision-making? What is the fit betweengovernment-initiated processes and community-initiated processes?

The second challenge is building credibility. How do multi-stakeholder processes build credibilityin the eyes of the community, local government and government agencies?

The third challenge involves streamlining and coordinating government programs andmanagement systems. They need to be more efficient and more accessible. How can they bedeveloped in order to encourage partnership building and responsibility sharing (sharedstewardship)?

The fourth challenge is improving the coordination of information sharing, technical assistance,and funding programs.

Finally, the fifth challenge has to do with the internal organization of multi-stakeholder processes:getting the right people to the table, maintaining participation levels, sustaining initiatives, andchoosing issues.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Workshop Evaluation

Participants commented at several points throughout the day on the value of workshops of thisnature and the importance of addressing ecosystem governance issues. In addition, participantswere asked to complete a workshop evaluation questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire isprovided below.

In summary, participants indicated that the background material and presentations were very goodto excellent, and served as a valuable backdrop to the afternoon discussions. Overall, theworkshop was an excellent opportunity to share experiences and discuss the difficulties andpotential solutions to ecosystem governance issues. Some participants expressed frustration thatthere was insufficient time for open, full group discussion, and felt that it would have been usefulto have more time, perhaps a second day, to synthesize and discuss the outcomes of the smallgroup sessions.

Comments on the resources which would be valuable to community organizations varied. Mostrespondents felt that there is a need to make existing reference materials more widely available,and that the emphasis of a resource guide should be on providing concise abstracts and a contextfor the reference materials. Some indicated that small communities may not have access toInternet technology, while others saw that approach as the best long-term solution for informationaccessibility. Respondents stressed that what is required is a step by step guide that can assistcommunity-based groups in designing and effectively implementing a process which meets their needs.

Ecosystem Management Meeting the Challenges of Community InitiativesCornwall Ontario, May 10, 1995

Evaluation Form

Thank you for participating in the workshop. We hope you found the day informative andinteresting. Please provide us with your comments on the workshop format and content. We alsowelcome your suggestions for resource materials that would support community-based initiatives.(Please check the appropriate box.)

1. Background Workshop Materials

How would you rate the usefulness of:

a. The Workshop Background Paper

Excellent Very good Average Poor

b. The Discussion Primers

Excellent Very good Average Poor

2. Morning Session Presentations

How would you rate the quality of the following presentations:

Catherine Dowling

Excellent Very good Average Poor

Joan E. Vance

Excellent Very good Average Poor

Jim Ellsworth

Excellent Very good Average Poor

Stephen Hawboldt

Excellent Very good Average Poor

3. Afternoon Breakout Group Discussions

How would you rate the format and content of:

Your group session

Excellent Very good Average Poor

The afternoon summary and discussion period

Excellent Very good Average Poor

4. Overall Workshop

How would you rate the overall workshop?

Excellent Very good Average Poor

Do you have any comments, or recommendations to improve the workshop program?

5. Building Resources For Community Initiatives

A goal of this project is to produce practical resource materials which will supportcommunity-based approaches to ecosystem management. Several suggestions were offered at theworkshop which complement ideas we have been developing. Please comment on the need forand potential usefulness of the following resources:

Annotated bibliography of reference materials

Needed Not very useful Already exists

Case studies focusing on different approaches to governance

Needed Not very useful Already exists

Annotated compendium of available manuals and guides

Needed Not very useful Already exists

"Home Page" on World Wide Web to facilitate access to these materials and exchange experiences

Needed Not very useful Already exists

Based on your experience with community-based initiatives, are there reference materials youwould recommend?

Other suggestions?

Thank You!

TABLE OF CONTENTS