Prepared for Prepared by

w: www.econics.com e: info@econics.com t: +1 250 590 8143

DRAFT V1August 2015

Sustainable Watershed Governance

Funding Planning Meeting

Workshop Summary

Acknowledgements

On behalf of workshop participants, the authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the BC Real Estate Foundation

and the BC Ministry of Environment for financial contributions that made the event described in this report possible.

We also gratefully acknowledge our invited guest speakers for donating their time to provide invaluable background

on their successful programs, as follows:

• Mike Donnelly, Regional District of Nanaimo

• Brittany Xiu, Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona

• Todd Reeve, Bonneville Environmental Foundation

• Tim O'Riordan, University of East Anglia

• Don Pearson, Lower Thames Conservation

Our thanks to Steve Litke and the Fraser Basin Council for their research into the topic before the event and for

preparing and providing a summary of important contextual background at the start of the day.

Our thanks also to Victoria Advanced Technology Council for providing use of the Shaw Boardroom facility, and

particularly to Sean Bennett for support with information technology and facilities and Jill Kendrick for providing

catering.

Finally, many thanks to Jennifer Vigano from BC Ministry of Environment for assistance with note taking and

summarizing outcomes, which was invaluable for the preparation of this summary report.

2

Table of Contents Page #

1.0 Event Overview 4

2.0 Case Studies 6

3.0 Visioning Ideal Funding Models 7

4.0 Winning Conditions: Right Funding, Right Watershed 9

5.0 Outcomes and Next Steps 11

6.0 References 12

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda 14

Appendix 2: Summary of Workshop Evaluations 15

Appendix 3: Case Study Presentations Separate Cover

Appendix 4: Case Study Discussion Notes Separate Cover

3

1.0 Event Overview

There is growing interest in British Columbia in the concept of watershed governance. For success, sustainable

funding is critical, and there are currently knowledge gaps in this area. In regions that are proactively pursuing

watershed governance, it has become clear that key stakeholders, including local governments, are not fully aware

of their potential role and the available funding tools and opportunities. To move forward, we need to better utilize

existing mechanisms and explore and test new, innovative ones, such as social finance.

On 24 July 2015, a catalysing workshop was held to explore opportunities for sustainable watershed governance

funding. The small group attending included individuals from philanthropic funding agencies, NGOs, and the

Provincial government. Invited guests representing successful funding initiatives also joined to share their expertise.

The list of attendees can be found in Table 1, below. The meeting agenda can be found in Appendix 1 at the end of

this report.

4

Table 1: Workshop Attendees

Meeting Attendees

• David Hendrickson (BC Real Estate Foundation)

• Lynn Kriwoken (BC Ministry of Environment)

• Steve Litke (Fraser Basin Council)

• Tim Morris (Freshwater Funders Collaborative)

• Jon O’Riordan (POLIS)

• Jennifer Vigano (BC Ministry of Environment)

• Oliver Brandes (POLIS; Virtual Attendee)

• Kirk Stinchcombe (Econics; Facilitator)

Invited Guests

In Person

• Mike Donnelly (Regional District of Nanaimo)

• Tim O'Riordan (University of East Anglia, UK)

Virtual

• Don Pearson (Lower Thames Conservation, Chatham ON)

• Todd Reeve (Bonneville Environmental Foundation)

• Brittany Xiu (Conserve to Enhance (University of Arizona)

1.0 Event Overview (continued)

1.1 Workshop Objectives

The objectives of the event were as follows:

1. Though exploration of case studies, create a common understanding of the range of existing and potential

mechanisms for funding watershed governance in BC.

2. Catalyse an ongoing effort (such as a Sustainable Funding Task Force) to take the ideas generated during the

workshop so that they can be applied in BC.

3. Identify potential pilots of watershed governance to test sustainable funding models.

4. Develop an Action Plan identifying activities and deliverables to move implementation of sustainable funding

models forward beyond the workshop.

1.2 Workshop Venue

The event was held in the Shaw Boardroom at Victoria Advanced Technology Council’s (VIATeC) “Fort Tectoria”

building at 777 Fort Street. Fort Tectoria is a co-working space, event hub, and home to the VIATeC accelerator

program, designed to boost Victoria’s flourishing tech sector.

5

2.0 Case Studies

The event commenced with a series of case study presentations from individuals representing successful watershed

protection projects and programs from around North America and the UK. Table 2, below, provides a summary of the

case studies investigated. Appendix 3 provides copies of the presentations delivered by the guest speakers.

Appendix 4 provides additional notes on the discussions that followed the formal presentations.

6

Table 2: Case Study Guest Speakers

Program Speaker Organization Title Website

Drinking Water &

Watershed Protection

Program

Mike

Donnelly

Regional District of Nanaimo

Nanaimo BC

Manager of Water

& Utility Services

http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms.asp?wpID=1

748

Conserve 2 Enhance Brittany Xiu

Water Resources Research Center

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Outreach

Coordinator http://conserve2enhance.org/

Water Restoration

Certificates Todd Reeve

Bonneville Environmental

Foundation

Portland OR

CEOhttp://www.b-e-f.org/environmental-

products/water-restoration-certificates/

Community Interest

Companies

Tim

O'Riordan

University of East Anglia

Norfolk UKEmeritus Professor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi

ty_interest_company

Ontario Conservation

Authorities

Don

Pearson

Lower Thames Conservation

Chatham ON

General Manager http://www.conservation-

ontario.on.ca/

3.0 Visioning Ideal Funding Models

Successful watershed governance and protection programs will typically draw funding from a variety of sources

(Fraser Basin Council, 2015) as evidenced from the example provided by Conservation Ontario in its case study (see

Figure 1).

Workshop participants were asked to illustrate their vision for an ideal mix of funding sources using a pie chart

template provided by the facilitator. Some guidance was given on the characteristics of an imaginary place in BC

where this model might occur. Participants were asked to use a provided legend to select from standard colours that

represent specific funding sources so that the pie charts they created could be easily compared. The results are

provided in Figure 2 on the next page. Observations that emerged from the exercise included the following:

• participants commonly agreed that a large proportion of funding should come from local sources (e.g., regional

districts, municipalities);

• funding can be defined broadly to include a range of types of contributions (e.g., in-kind, materials, cash,

knowledge, skills);

• keep the vision simple – the more agencies involved in an initiative the more complex it will be;

• the funding mix will likely evolve over time (which is participants struggled to capture in a static pie chart);

• it is important to not confuse funding sources with mechanisms for managing funds (e.g., reserve funds, trust

funds, etc.).

7Figure 1: Example of a Program Funding Mix Pie Chart (Sourced from Conservation Ontario Case Study)

3.0 Visioning Ideal Funding Models (continued)

8

ColourFunding

Source

Federal

Provincial

Local

Regional

NGO/Phil.

Private Sector

? Other

Standard Legend

Figure 2: Participant Visions for Ideal Funding Model Mixes

4.0 Winning Conditions: Right Funding, Right Watershed

Questions where posed to participants about their vision for what the winning conditions would be for a successful

pilot project to fund watershed governance activities in specific watersheds. A roundtable discussion was then held.

The questions posed were as follows:

• Where is the right watershed for a pilot project(s)?

• What are the characteristics of this watershed?

• What do we want to accomplish in one year? Two years?

Responses were diverse, but the following themes emerged from discussion:

• The group wants to promote three to five pilot projects over the next two years under which new and existing

funding mechanisms would be promoted and tested in specific watersheds.

• This will then, ideally, lead on to ongoing, sustainable funding models for participating communities.

• Success would include demonstrating progress by 2016, with implementation occurring by 2018 at the latest.

• The opportunity to participate in a pilot project should be available to different types of communities, including

First Nations, in different parts of the province and facing different types of challenges. A competitive or

invitational RFQ-type process was discussed as one way to select pilot communities.

• Pilot projects will serve as models for other communities and watersheds in the province. As such, learning

opportunities and knowledge transfer is a key component of the project. The opportunity to present on the

program at the upcoming Watersheds 2016 conference was discussed.

• In parallel, the initiative will help inform Provincial policy about what future governance models might entail

under the new framework offered by the Water Sustainability Act (noting that testing funding arrangements

should be the main focus of the initiative).

9

4.0 Winning Conditions: Right Funding, Right Watershed (continued)

The group brainstormed collective knowledge about places in the province that might be likely to participate in a

pilot watershed governance funding initiative. Below is a list of places and groups mentioned, recognizing that none

of these have yet been contacted about the concept and more work needs to be done to determine their current

state of readiness or willingness to take part in such an initiative.

• Comox?

• Township of Langley?

• Coquitlam River Watershed Roundtable?

• Salt Spring Island (e.g., through the Islands Trust)?

• Nicola (e.g., under the Nicola Water Use Management Plan)?

• Shuswap Watershed Councils ?

• Salmon River Watershed Roundtable?

• Nechako Water Alliance?

• Okanagan (e.g., through the OBWB)?

• Cowichan Regional District or Water Board?

• Fraser Valley Regional District?

• Kettle River?

10

5.0 Outcomes and Next Steps

The final exercise of the workshop involved identifying next steps and who should complete them. Participants

brainstormed tasks that need to be completed in the areas such as: partnerships and outreach; administration;

technical; legal; and, financial. They then collectively organized these into a high level work plan for the next two

years. This exercise provided a key input into development of a project charter, which is provided under separate

cover from this summary as a stand alone document.

Finally, participants were asked to voluntarily fill out a workshop evaluation form. Five members completed this task

(the remainder were unable to do so due to end-of-day time pressures). The results are provided in Appendix 2, and

suggest that people found the event productive. All those who completed the form indicated that the workshop

meet their expectations and also all “strongly agreed” that the workshop was informative and useful.

The workshop Steering Committee will meet again via teleconference in early September to review outcomes and

determine next steps for this initiative.

11

6.0 References and Further Reading

Adaption to Climate Change Team (2015). Paying For Urban Infrastructure Adaptation In Canada: An Analysis of Existing and

Potential Economic Instruments for Local Governments. Simon Fraser University, June 2015. Accessed at http://act-

adapt.org/paying-for-urban-infrastructure-adaptation-in-canada-an-analysis-of-existing-and-potential-economic-in. Accessed

on 7 July 2015.

Brandis, O and O’Riordan, J (2014). A Blueprint for Watershed Governance in British Columbia. Prepared for the POLIS Water

Sustainability Project, University of Victoria. Accessed at http://poliswaterproject.org/sites/default/files/POLIS-Blueprint-

web.pdf. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Bonneville Environmental Foundation (2015). BEF Water Restoration Program. Website. Accessed at http://www.b-e-

f.org/environmental-products/water-restoration-certificates/. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Conservation Ontario (2015). Website. Accessed at http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Conserve 2 Enhance. Website. Accessed at http://conserve2enhance.org/. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Dutch Water Authorities (nd). Water Governance: The Dutch Water Authority Model. Accessed at

http://www.dutchwaterauthorities.com/wp-content/plugins/pdf-viewer-for-

wordpress/web/viewer.php?file=http://www.dutchwaterauthorities.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Water-Governance-

The-Dutch-Water-Authority-Model1.pdf. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Fraser Basin Council (2015). Financial Mechanisms and Models for Collaborative Watershed Governance in BC. May 2015.

Accessed at

http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/Water_BCWF/Financial_Mechanisms_and_Models_for_Watershed_Governance-May1-

2015_web.pdf. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Fraser Basin Council (2015). Financial Mechanisms and Models for Collaborative Watershed Governance in BC: Online Tools and

Resources. Accessed at http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/Water_BCWF/Tools_and_Resources-

Financial_Mechanisms_for_CWG_in_BC.pdf. Accessed on 7 July 2015.12

POLIS Water Sustainability Project (2015). Sustainable Financing For Watershed Governance. Webinar. Accessed at

http://poliswaterproject.org/webinar/826. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Regional District of Nanaimo (2015). Drinking Water & Watershed Protection Program. Website. Accessed at

http://www.rdn.bc.ca/cms.asp?wpID=1748. Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Wikipedia (2015). Community Interest Company. Accessed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_interest_company.

Accessed on 7 July 2015.

Z/Y Group (2015). Financing the Transition: Sustainable Infrastructure in Cities. Prepared for the World Wildlife Fund, March

2015. Accessed at http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/cities/financing_for_sustainable_infrastructure_in_cities/.

Accessed on 7 July 2015.

13

6.0 References and Further Reading (continued)

9:00 – 9:10 am Kick Off and Introductions Kirk S

9:10 – 9:30 am Overview Presentation Steve L & Kirk S

9:30 - 10:10 amRDN Drinking Water & Watershed Protection

ProgramMike D

10:10 - 10:50 am Arizona’s Conserve 2 Enhance Program Brittany X

10:50 – 11 am BREAK

11 – 11: 40 am BEF’s Water Restoration Certificates Kayla W

11:40 – 12:20 am UK’s Community Interest Companies Tim O

12:20 -1 pm LUNCH

1 to 1:40 pm Ontario Conservation Authorities Don P

1:40 – 2:30pm Visioning Ideal Funding Model(s) All

2:30 – 2:40 pm BREAK

2:40 – 4:00 pmWinning Conditions – Right Funding, Right

WatershedAll

4:00 – 5:00 pm Workplanning and Next Steps All

Appendix 1: Workshop Agenda

14

• Overall, did the workshop meet your expectations? Yes = 5/5

• Overall, I found the workshop informative and useful. 5/5 = Strongly agree

• The presenters were well informed and the information was at an appropriate level.5/5 = Strongly agree

• The facilitator was prepared and organized.5/5 = Strongly agree

• The facilitator provided clear instructions, answered questions and encouraged participation..4/5 = Strongly agree1/5 = Agree

Please rate the following using a 1 to 5 scale: 1 being the lowest or poorest, 5 being the highest or strongest (tick one box per line)

15

Average Score

(out of 5)

Pace of the workshop 4.0

Workshop content 4.6

Workshop organization 4.6

Quality of presentations 4.0

Facilitator 4.4

My participation 4.0

Handouts 3.2

Food 3.8

n=5

What is the single most important learning or discovery you made today about funding watershed governance

processes? [4 responses completed]

• “Possibility and potential! Mike and LG/RD perspectives were very important. Might want to consider adding

more “on-the-ground” LG perspectives in the future, with funding and experience.”

• “The importance of local government funding, but the compounding challenge of funding watershed governance

in remote regions/First Nations territories.”

• “Task Force has longevity; Task Force needs champions; At least one new funding tool tested successfully in a BC

watershed in 2 years.”

• “There is a review underway of the Conservation Authorities Act [in Ontario] that may be informative for BC.”

Appendix 2: Results of Workshop Evaluations