Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Regional conservation planning strategies for British Columbia: the case of the Sunshine coast McMullen, McMullen, Mark Edward Mark Edward 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0537.pdf [ 4.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0087409.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087409-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087409-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087409-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087409-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087409-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087409-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0087409-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0087409.ris

Full Text

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANNING STRATEGIES FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA:THE CASE OF THE SUNSHINE COASTbyMARK EDWARD MCMULLENB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1989A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHEFACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESThe School of Community and Regional PlanningWe accept this thesis as conforming tothe required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAOctober 1994© Mark Edward McMullen, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of 1a PiThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate &Ct&1D€P ii, )7&fDE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThe thesis takes a normative, yet pragmatic approach, in examining how the protectionof habitat and ecological functions can be improved through changing current uncoordinated,sectoral decision-making processes into a holistic, cooperative approach to guide planning atthe local level. In rapidly growing regions on the urban/rural fringe such as the SunshineCoast, towns, rural areas and large wildernesses form a complex matrix of land uses acrossthe landscape which require the integration of provincial and local government planning.Thus, a case is made for a decision-making process that generates a conservation strategy,integrating local and provincial planning at the scale of regional districts in British Columbia.The literature is reviewed to identify principles for a conservation strategy approach todecision-making which include: a consensus-based process, cross-sectoral governmentcoordination, broad-based public involvement, and non-governmental partnerships forimplementation.Secondly, the literature pertaining to several regional approaches to conservationplanning is reviewed including: parks system planning, landscape ecology and bioregionaltheory. From these two sources of literature, a hybrid model of the regional conservationplanning strategy is formed. Using criteria derived from this hybrid model to evaluate theeffectiveness of planning processes, the provincial conservation planning framework isevaluated. The policies of the Commission on Resources and Environment, the provincialgovernment’s Land and Resource Management Planning process and the Protected AreasStrategy are evaluated according to the criteria. Fourthly, conservation planning on theSunshine Coast is examined, and a case study of the Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy isevaluated against the criteria. By evaluating both the provincial planning framework and thelocal case study, conclusions can be drawn on the need for regional conservation planningstrategy processes in rapidly developing areas at the urban/rural fringe. Finally,recommendations are made for changes to provincial and regional district policies to facilitatemore effective conservation planning for the Sunshine Coast Regional District and otherregions in British Columbia.11TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT iiTABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF FIGURES vACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viCHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION 1PROBLEM CONTEXT IPURPOSE 4OBJECTIVES 4ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 5SCOPE 7METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION 8CHAPTER 2- CONSERVATION STRATEGIES: FROM GLOBAL RECOGNITION TOLOCAL IMPLEMENTATION 10GLOBAL RECOGNITION OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 10CANADIAN RECOGNITION OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 12BRITISH COLUMBIA’S RECOGNITION OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 14CHAPTER SUMMARY 16CHAPTER 3- TOWARDS A CONSERVATION STRATEGY PROCESS FOR DECISION-MAKING 17INTRODUCTION: PRINCIPLES FOR A CONSERVATION STRATEGY PROCESS 17MULTIPLE-STAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS PROCESS 18CROSS-SECTORAL AGENCY COORDINATION 31BROAD-BASED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 37NON-GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 43CHAPTER SYNTHESIS: CRITERIA FOR CONSERVATION STRATEGY PROCESS 48CHAPTER 4- REGIONAL APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION PLANNING 50INTRODUCTION: REGIONS AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 50EVOLVING PERSPECTIVES ON REGIONAL PLANNING AND CONSERVATION 53INNOVATIVE REGIONAL APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION IN CANADA 64CHAPTER SYNTHESIS: CRITERIA FOR A REGIONAL PLANNING APPROACH 68CHAPTER 5- BRITISH COLUMBIA’S CONSERVATION PLANNING FRAMEWORK 71RECENT PROVINCIAL ADVISORY INITIATIVES ON CONSERVATION 71COMMISSION ON RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 72SUB-REGIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING 78PROTECTED AREAS STRATEGY 83EVALUATION OF THE PROVINCIAL CONSERVATION PLANNING FRAMEWORK 87CHAPTER SUMMARY 104111CHAPTER 6 - THE SUNSHINE COAST.106INTRODUCTION 106THE SECHELT INLETS COASTAL STRATEGY: A CASE STUDY 115EVALUATION OF THE SECHELT INLETS COASTAL STRATEGY 131CHAPTER SUMMARY 141CHAPTER 7- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 143CONCLUSIONS 143RECOMMENDATIONS 146BIBLIOGRAPHY 149APPENDIX I CARING FOR THE EARTH: A STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVING,SUMMARY OF PRIORITY ACTIONS 163APPENDIX H ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATION IN PROTECTED AREAS ONVANCOUVER ISLAND 167ivLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Models of Agency Coordination 36Figure 2: Ladder of Participation 41Figure 3: Biogeoclimatic Zones of B.C. 58Figure 4: Ecoregions of B.C. 59Figure 5: Elements of a Provincial Land Use Strategy 75Figure 6: Provincial Land Use Planning Hierarchy 80Figure 7: Major Land Use Planning Projects in British Columbia 82Figure 8: The Sunshine Coast Regional District 107Figure 9: The Sechelt Inlets Area 118Figure 10: Chronology of the Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy 120Figure 11: The Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy Area Designation Map 122vACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to thank Professor Tony Dorcey for his insights on planning and the veryhelpful guidance he provided to me in writing my thesis. I also thank Sheane Reid of theSunshine Coast Regional District who provided encouragement and helpful comments,particularly with respect to the case study. Thanks also go to Professor Tim McDaniels forhis role as external departmental examiner and Joe Truscott who provided comments on theprovincial policy framework. I also thank all of those interviewed for their comments andopinions on the case study of the Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy. Lastly, I would like tothank my co-workers at the Sunshine Coast Regional District for their encouragement.viCHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTIONPROBLEM CONTEXTOver the past two decades, conflict over conservation and land use planning hasincreased dramatically. In particular, the harvesting of old-growth forests and the spread ofsuburban and industrial development along British Columbia’s south coast and southerninterior have been the focus of political controversies which have increasingly polarized pro-and anti-development constituencies for each type of development. As a number of veryhigh-profile protracted conflicts have arisen in response to resource extraction anddevelopment plans, many more local disputes receive continued regional attention without thepossibility of resolution in sight.While the Government of British Columbia is reluctant to delegate decision-makingpower to local communities in light of broader provincial interests, the provincial governmenthas moved to encourage consensus-based sustainable land use planning through a number offorums and institutions. The B.C. Round Table on the Environment and Economy (B.C.Round Table) has provided a starting point for coming to a consensus on broad policydirections for the province while the B.C. Forest Resources Commission was given a mandateto research potential forest management and crown land planning strategies. As these nonpartisan advisory bodies were developing policy recommendations, the Parks and Wildernessfor the ‘90’s planning process brought public input to government agencies developing aProvincial Parks and Wilderness Areas System Plan. In 1992, the Protected Area Strategyprocess was launched. Concurrently, the Ministry of Forests was undertaking the Old Growth1Strategy process which sought to define what old growth was, what economic and socialvalues were placed on forests, and their ecological importance.Finally, while these advisory bodies were making recommendations with implicationsfor land-use and conservation planning for crown lands, the Government of British Columbiacreated the Commission on Resources and Environment (C.O.R.E.) in January, 1992 toundertake a provincial land use plan and prepare reports on several specific issues such asmining in the Tatshenshini/Alsek River watershed. C.O.R.E. has been mandated to create theprovincial land use plan based on regions which are at the scale of the Ministry of Forest’shuge forest regions. The Vancouver Island C.O.R.E. table struggled over broad land useplanning for huge areas of crown lands while the settled coastal areas of Vancouver Islandrequire much more intensive planning due to the great biological productivity of the coastaland lowland environment. As with the settlement areas on the east coast of VancouverIsland, many of the low elevation coastal areas of the Sunshine Coast are either private ruraland residential land or crown lands with many competing uses. Given this existing pattern ofcompeting uses along the coastline, the possibility of creating large protected areas is limited.In fact, less than one percent of the low-elevation Nanaimo Lowland and four percent of theGulf of Georgia ecosections 1 are proposed to be protected by C.O.R.E. and the ProtectedAreas Strategy (P.A.S.), well below the provincial government’s 12 percent goal for protectedareas (C.O.R.E., 1994c; British Columbia. P.A.S. Office, 1993a). Further, Harding and1 The ecosection is a basic ecological landscape unit developed by the Ministry of Environment Lands andParks. The Protected Areas Strategy states as a goal that at least 12 percent of the province should beincluded in protected areas and that there be adequate representation of each ecosection with that 12 percent.See British Columbia, Protected Areas Strategy Office. A Protected Areas Strategy for British Columbia,Victoria: Queen’s Printer, 1993a.2McCallum (1994b) note several of the most endangered ecosystems (due to fragmentation bydevelopment and lack of protected areas) are located in the coastal douglas fir and coastalwestern hemlock biogeoclimatic zones which characterize the East Coast of Vancouver Islandand the Sunshine Coast.As these provincial initiatives were being undertaken to address conflict over crownland use planning, local governments have been pressured by urban development in fast-growing communities, leading to site-specific conflicts over such issues as the creation of golfcourses, logging in community watersheds on crown land and logging and development ofprivate forest lands. The Sunshine Coast provides a classic example of how the interfacebetween crown land and rural and urban areas complicates conservation planning in manyregional districts along the Strait of Georgia and in the Southern Interior. Two related factorsincrease the complexity for planning. Firstly, the rapid influx of urban residents isheightening differences between how people use and view the role of public and private landon the Sunshine Coast. Secondly, between this juxtaposition of land-uses and residents, thereis an increased likelihood for institutional problems over the division of land-use andconservation planning responsibilities between local and provincial government. Given thiscontext, several conservation and crown land use conflicts have persisted on the SunshineCoast. Logging on crown land in the Chapman Creek community watershed, localizedconflicts over rapid residential development along coastal and watercourse areas and theSunshine Coast Regional District’s ongoing concerns over coastal resource use and the lack ofprotected wilderness areas are examples of such conflicts. Clearly, it can be seen that thejuncture of the provincial and local government planning mandates often provides fertile3ground for conflict. Thus, the focus of this thesis is on the creation of regional conservationplanning strategy processes to resolve these disputes and preserve habitats and ecologicalfunctions at the local and regional level.PURPOSEGiven the problem context, the purpose of the thesis is to demonstrate how aregional2conservation planning strategy can improve planning for the protection of habitatand ecological functions in the Sunshine Coast Regional District and in other rapidly growingregions on rurailurban fringes throughout British Columbia.OBJECTIVESThe primary objective of the thesis is to evaluate regional conservation planningstrategies possible in the British Columbia context by focusing on the following subsidiaryobjectives:1) To review the literature pertaining to regional conservation planning strategies.2) To evaluate existing provincial conservation planning institutions and determine howthese can work jointly with regional districts in conservation planning.3) To evaluate how the Sunshine Coast Regional District undertakes parks andconservation planning.2 The term ‘regional” is being used to describe areas such as the Sunshine Coast Regional District.Regions such as the Sunshine Coast are at the scale of most regional districts and Ministry ofForests’ Districts in southern British Columbia while the “regions” which C.O.R.E. is using for itsProvincial Land Use Strategy are closer to scale of the Ministry’s of Forests’ very largeadministrative Forest Regions.44) To make recommendations on how the Government of British Columbia and theSunshine Coast Regional District and other regional districts can undertake moreeffective conservation planning.ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONSThe thesis is based on the assumption that conservation planning includes not onlyplanning for protected areas, but also sustainable land use planning which seeks to maintainhabitat and ecological functions over the entire land base. As the definitions of sustainabledevelopment vary widely and even the same definition may be interpreted differently byindividuals, this thesis will not focus on the definition debate which could easily be thesubject of a thesis unto itself.Secondly, the application of the conservation planning strategy approach must beexplained. The term, “conservation strategy” is broadly defined in the World ConservationStrategy of 1980 and its successor document, Caring for the Earth: A Strategy forSustainable Living of 1991 as a means of integrating conservation and development andinstilling a new ethic of sustainable living (IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991). More specifically,Caring for the Earth gives definitions of the words, “conservation” and “strategy” with“strategy” defined as:A combination of communication and consensus building, information assembly andanalysis, policy formulation and action planning and implementation to enable asociety to conserve its natural capital and to achieve sustainability by integratingeconomic development and conservation of natural capital; andConservation defmed as:The management of human use of organisms or ecosystems to ensure such use issustainable. Besides sustainable use, conservation includes protection, maintenance,rehabilitation, restoration and enhancement of populations and ecosystems (IUCN,UNEP, WWF, 1991, 210).5Richardson (1989, 30) notes there are many forms of conservation strategies anddefines a conservation strategy as “identifying and addressing conservation and environmentalprotection issues in a comprehensive, integrated fashion rather than piece meal.” Thesedefinitions allow for much flexibility in designing conservation strategies to address extremelyvaried landscapes, social systems and cultures throughout the world. However, in spite of thedifferent forms of conservation strategies, the above definitions indicate that conservationstrategies involve participatory, consensus-based planning for sustainable development whichshould be undertaken at various geographic scales.Thirdly, the term “regional” is used in this paper to refer to “sub-regional” in thecontext of C.O.R.E.’s planning framework which has created large regions and proposes subregional planning processes. Thus, Provincial Forest Districts or regional districts such as theSunshine Coast Regional District may be considered as regions unto themselves in the contextof this paper.Fourthly, while planning is likely to have as many definitions as planners, there is acommon reference to the linkage of knowledge to the manner in which society prepares forfuture action. Forester (1989, 3) notes, “Planning is the guidance of future action” whileFriedmann (1987, 48) concludes, “At the most basic level, planning was said to be an attemptto relate scientific and technical knowledge to actions in the public domain.” As thesedefinitions of planning are necessarily broad, for this thesis planning will be defined as thelinking of knowledge of conservation in transforming public and private use and managementof the land, lakes, watercourses and the coastal foreshore which are the basic mediums of6ecosystems. Given the above definitions, a regional conservation planning strategy will bedefined as:A consensus-based process of making broad long-term policies with a wide range ofparticipants representing all sectors of government and society for parks and land-useplanning for the protection of habitat and ecological functions within a region.Thus, the literature relating conservation strategy processes for decision-making andregional perspectives on conservation planning is reviewed to derive the hybrid model of aregional conservation planning strategy.SCOPEThe thesis evaluates the general provincial framework for conservation planning andthe Sunshine Coast Regional District’s Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy as a case study. Theprovincial framework and the Sunshine Coast Regional District’s approach to conservationplanning are evaluated as both provincial and local settlement planning are juxtaposed in therapidly developing regions at the urban/rural fringe of British Columbia’s south coast andsouthern interior. However, the numerous provincial statutes and institutions directly andindirectly related to conservation planning are only summarily examined as they give contextto the local case study of the Sunshine Coast.Secondly, this thesis does not deal with changing the existing division of powersbetween the federal and provincial governments under the Constitution Act (1982) noraboriginal land claims which will affect crown land ownership and planning jurisdiction atsome date in the future upon settlement.7METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATIONIn Chapter 2, the international and national experience with conservation strategies isreviewed to help create principles for a conservation strategy approach. From the principlesof conservation strategy process, the general literature relating to consensus-based decision-making, public participation, cross-sectoral agency coordination, and non-governmentalpartnerships is reviewed in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, the literature relating to perspectives onregional planning including parks system planning, landscape ecology and bioregional theoryis reviewed to explain the need for linking a conservation strategy approach to regionalplanning. From the literature review above, a hybrid model of the regional conservationplanning strategy is formed by combining the principles of a conservation strategy processwith perspectives on regional approaches to conservation planning. The principles of aconservation strategy process and a summary of the perspectives on regional conservationplanning are synthesized respectively at the conclusion of Chapters 3 and 4 to form a set ofcriteria for determining good conservation planning process. In Chapter 5, the provincialframework for conservation planning, including the Protected Areas Strategy and sub-regionalLand and Resource Management Planning (L.R.M.P.), is also evaluated against these criteriato determine how well the provincial government’s conservation planning policies support aregional conservation planning strategy approach. This evaluation is more qualitative innature than that of the case study and is based on a review of the provincial government’spolicy documents and other professional and academic reviews.In Chapter 6, these criteria are used to evaluate the case study, the Sechelt InletsCoastal Strategy in the Sunshine Coast Region based on an examination of official8government minutes from meetings, subsequent local and provincial policy changes andinterviews of key government and non-governmental stakeholders. Lastly, conclusions andrecommendations regarding the S.C.R.D.’s approach to conservation planning and provincialinstitutional reform for conservation planning in areas such as the Sunshine Coast are made inChapter 7.9CHAPTER 2CONSERVATION STRATEGIES:FROM GLOBAL RECOGNITION TO LOCAL IMPLEMENTATIONIn defining a regional conservation planning strategy model, the development ofconservation strategies from the global to the local level is examined. From this examination,the literature points to the need for conservation strategy approaches at the local and regionallevels.GLOBAL RECOGNITION OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIESThe World Conservation Strategy (W.C.S.’), completed in 1980 by the collective workof the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), World Wildlife Fund ForNature (WWF) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), forms the firstinternationally-recognized “conservation strategy.” Unlike national parks systems plans whichput a great emphasis on acquiring limited representative “islands” of major natural regions orecosystems, conservation strategies address major social and economic factors affecting landuse and ecosystems. For example, the W.C.S. requires that all major sectors of society mustbe involved in linking conservation and development by stating in its summary:The World Conservation Strategy is intended to stimulate a more focused approach tothe management of living resources and to provide policy guidance on how this can becarried out by three main groups:- government policy makers and their advisors;- conservationists and others directly concerned with living resources;- development practitioners, including development agencies, industry and commerce,and trade unions (IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1980, v).10The W.C.S. goes on to outline 20 major areas of required action, of which two dealwith decision-making processes. The W.C.S. goes on to state, “Local Communityinvolvement and consultation and other forms of public participation in planning, decision-making and management are valuable means of testing and integrating economic, social andecological objectives” (IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1980, 13). While the W.C.S. recognized theimportance of local participation, it appears as just one element of the W.C.S. whichotherwise focused on national conservation planning initiatives. Although the W.C.S. lookedat the global level, it provided a framework for carrying out its principles for successivelysmaller geographic areas. Unfortunately, the W.C.S.’s call for the creation of national andregional conservation strategies was not heeded by major nations such as the United Statesand the former U.S.S.R., while in Canada, only some of the provinces have createdconservation strategies (Nelson, 1991).However, in the decade after the creation of the W.C.S., many scholars,environmentalists and government officials have begun to realize increasingly thatconservation issues must be dealt with at smaller geographic levels to help protect habitat andecological functions “on the ground.” With regards to the W.C.S., Nelson and Eidsvik (1990,67) state:Stronger and more effective effort is, however, much needed at the regional and locallevel. Regional strategies must address the complex interaction between natural andhuman stresses on the ground. They must deal with the stresses and concerns inparticular places-watersheds, natural or physiographic regions or urban regions wherepeople attempt to both use and conserve resources ...“11The need for a regional approach is made more apparent as there is increasedunderstanding of the complexity of biophysical systems and actual increases in complexity ofhuman systems. Thus, although the adage, “To think globally, but act locally,” has becomesomewhat of a cliché, there is a growing recognition that conservation strategies can be mostconcretely applied at the local and regional level.During the intervening years between the 1980 W.C.S. and its 1991 successor, CaringFor the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living, the idea of “Sustainable Development” waspopularized by the publishing of Our Common Future by the World Commission onEnvironment and Development (W.E.C.D.) in 1987. The W.E.C.D. defined sustainabledevelopment as development which “...meets the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (W.C.E.D., 1987, 8). However,with the broadening public discussion on the relationship between sustainability anddevelopment, more and more divergent views of “sustainable development” arose fromdifferent sectors in society. It can be seen that as the broad concepts of sustainabledevelopment have been articulated over the past decade, the world conservation communityhas realized that concrete action “on the ground” must be taken at the local level.CANADIAN RECOGNITION OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIESSince work commenced on the World Conservation Strategy, a number of conservationstrategies have been undertaken in many forms by national and international agencies. InCanada, provincial governments have been primarily involved in the preparation ofconservation strategies while various line agencies of the federal government have undertaken12supportive policy initiatives such as Environment Canada’s State of the Environment Reports.In the forum of the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers (C.C.R.E.M.),the federal and provincial governments agreed that the W.C.S. should be implementedindividually by each of the provinces and by individual departments within their respectivejurisdictions (McCorkell-Hoy and McKechnie, 1987, 95). For its part, in 1982, the FederalGovernment published the report, The World Conservation Strategy: Federal Review whichmade 22 major recommendations for policy changes in various federal departments. Fouryears later, in 1986, the Federal Government published World Conservation Strategy -Canada: A Report on Achievements in Conservation which outlined policy actions taken sincethe W.C.S. came into being such as the Inquiry on Federal Water Policy, Federal Policy onLand Use, and the creation of the Canadian Heritage Rivers System (Mckechnie and Pollard,1986). In spite of this federal action, the distribution of legislative power between the federaland provincial governments under the Constitution Act makes the support of provincialgovernments vital in fulfilling the federal government’s conservation objectives. Yet, by1990, only P.E.I. had completed a conservation strategy while Alberta, the Yukon and theNorth West Territories were the only other jurisdictions in which conservation strategies werelikely to be completed (Manning, 1990, 26).Canada’s response to the World Conservation Strategy and Bruntland Commissioncame from C.C.R.E.M. which created the National Task Force on the Environment and theEconomy in 1987. The report of the Task Force recommended that “round tables” be createdto help reach consensus in the development of strategies for achieving sustainabledevelopment (Manning, 1990, 27). Since 1987, round tables have been created in most13provinces, and have been effective in focusing the public’s and policy-maker’s attention onthe need for consensus-based strategies for sustainable development.BRITISH COLUMBIA’S RECOGNITION OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIESThe British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (B.C. RoundTable) was created in January, 1990 with “the mandate to develop a strategy for sustainabledevelopment in British Columbia, to propose better ways of resolving conflicts over theenvironment and the economy, and to increase public understanding of sustainabledevelopment issues” (B.C. Round Table, 1992b, 3). The B.C. Round Table, an advisory bodycomposed of a wide cross-section of government, communities, industry and conservationinterests went about this task by developing recommendations on environmental anddevelopment policies using a consensus-based approach to decision-making. Working on thismodel, the B.C. Round Table accumulated a wide range of information on environment anddevelopment issues while seeking public opinion by holding 26 meetings throughout theprovince. During its first two years of existence, the Round Table published numerous papersdealing with sustainable development, including an interim report, Towards a Strategy forSustainability in 1992 which made twelve major recommendations on steps required to reacha sustainable society. The first four recommendations explicitly required greater involvementof communities and local government as follows:1. The Round Table recommends that the ‘principles of sustainabiity’ be appliedin decision-making by all levels of government and by the private sector inBritish Columbia.2. The Round Table recommends that participatory and consensus-based decisionmaking processes be included as an integral part of the planning and14management of the environment, economy and social systems in BritishColumbia.3. The Round Table recommends that the Government of British Columbiaencourage the establishment of local round tables as a means of involving thepublic in achieving sustainability.4. The Round Table recommends that the Government of British Columbia reviewthe balance of decision-making responsibilities among provincial, regional andlocal bodies and seek to enhance local and regional decision-making mandates,where appropriate (B.C. Round Table, 1992a, 18).Thus, the B.C. Round Table recommends a strategy which addresses economic andsocial issues as part of the environment, realizing that these issues are inextricably linked atthe provincial and local levels.With this in mind, the B .C. Round Table has begun to promote local and regionalround tables as a vehicle for discussing issues and making consensus-based recommendationsfor land use planning and resource allocation. In 1992, the Local Round Tables Task Forcepublished, A Guide to Establishing A Local Round Table which supported the creation oflocal round tables which could deal with local and regional environmental issues. Withregards to Local Round Tables, the Local Round Table Task Force states:Local Round Tables can be said to represent ‘communities’... [which] are definedbroadly to encompass a collection of people with some form of geographic affiliationand with common concerns... The basis for organizing a local round table should beflexible to meet the needs of the community involved (B.C. Round Table, 1992c, 3).Given this support, round tables have been created at the municipal level in Richmondand in rural regions such as Howe Sound and Anahim Lake and in much larger regions suchas the Georgia Basin over the past two years. While support was growing for the creation oflocal round tables, the Government of British Columbia created the Conunission on Resources15and Environment (C.O.R.E.) in January, 1992 with former Ombudsman, Stephen Owen, ascommissioner with a mandate to create a comprehensive land-use strategy for BritishColumbia. Given the importance of C.O.R.E.’s mandate for sustainable land use planning,C.O.R.E. and associated provincial conservation planning initiatives will be reviewed inChapter 5.CHAPTER SUMMARYFrom the initial recognition of the need for a World Conservation Strategy at theglobal level, there has been a trend towards developing conservation strategies at the nationaland, in the case of Canada, at the provincial level where the legislative authority for mostconservation planning lies. Moreover, at the provincial level, there has been a growingrecognition that the local and regional levels are often most appropriate for melding concreteland-use planning with the broader policies derived through conservation strategy processes.Given this, the conservation strategy approach to decision-making is the focus of the literaturereview in Chapter 3. From this review, principles and criteria are developed for evaluatingconservation planning processes. Secondly, in Chapter 4, three perspectives on regionalapproaches to conservation planning are examined to develop further criteria for evaluatingthe adequacy of the region used. Together, these two sets of criteria are utilized to evaluatethe effectiveness of conservation planning at the provincial and local levels.16CHAPTER 3TOWARDS A CONSERVATION STRATEGY PROCESS FORDECISION-MAKINGINTRODUCTION: PRINCIPLES FOR A CONSERVATION STRATEGY PROCESSThe World Conservation Strategy provides a framework for more concrete planning atthe smaller geographic scale to bring together diverse stakeholders in dealing with anincreasingly complex planning environment. The literature on conservation strategiesrepeatedly documents that the process of reaching consensus is as important as the productionof the document itself (McNeely, 1989; Sadler, 1990; IUCN,UNEP,WWF, 1991). This is truefor a range of scales from broad provincial sustainable development strategies to localconservation strategies for habitat protection.Mason and Mitroff (1981) have written of “wicked problems” which are complexproblems complicated by six characteristics; interconnectedness, complicatedness, uncertainty,ambiguity, conflict and societal constraints. To deal with these problems,Mason and Mitroff (1981, 13) go on to give two recommendations for policy making:1. There must be a broader participation of affected parties, directly andindirectly, in the policy-making process.2. Policy making must be based on a wider spectrum of information gatheredfrom a larger number of diverse sources.Given that conservation planning has the characteristics of a wicked problem, it can beseen from the literature that a conservation strategy approach provides a method for17structuring a decision-making process. To deal with the wickedness of conservation planningat the global down to the local level, the literature points to four key inter-related principlesfor the conservation strategy process:1. A Multiple-Stakeholder Consensus Process2. Cross-Sectoral Agency Coordination3. Broad-Based Public Involvement4. Non-Governmental Partnerships for ImplementationIn the literature related to these four principles for conservation strategy process andperspectives on regional planning (reviewed in Chapter 3), it will be shown that melding agood conservation strategy process and regional planning can best achieve protection ofhabitat and ecological functions. From the review of the literature related to the fourprinciples of conservation strategies in Chapter 3 and perspectives on regional planning inChapter 4, criteria are developed to evaluate the case study of the Sunshine Coast and thebroader provincial framework for conservation planning.MULTIPLE-STAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS PROCESSConservation Strategies and Consensus ProcessesThe first principle, a multiple stakeholder consensus process, is the most importantprinciple as it relates to the other principles of conservation strategy processes. The WorldConservation Strategy states that cross-sectoral decision-making and public participation are18part of the six national priority actions for implementing conservation strategies while Caringfor the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living advocates consultation and consensus-building as the first step in the creation of a conservation strategy.Academic and professional authors are increasingly advocating a consensus-basedapproach in the face of protracted political conflict. McNeely et al.(1990, 56) comment, “Thenational conservation strategy process places government in partnership with NGO’s, citizen’sgroups, universities, industry, financial institutions... It therefore provides an important (andgenerally non-threatening) forum for reaching national consensus about policies on the use ofbiological resources. Few better mechanisms exist.” In Canada, Michael Kelly (1987) of theEnvironment Council of Alberta has noted the importance of bringing stakeholders togetherwhile the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and Economy (1992a) has advocated amulti-stakeholder consensus-based approach to achieving sustainable development in itsreport, Towards a Strategy for Sustainability. Stakeholder participation should include allmajor interests in order to create a successful conservation strategy. Although broadly-basedpublic involvement is necessary, there is a need for ongoing involvement in reaching anagreement among the major stakeholders groups to build a commitment to a conservationstrategy. Given this, the nature of conflict, the causes of conflict, and methods ofproductively managing conflict through principled negotiation are examined in the followingsection.19Literature on Consensus-Based Decision-MakingNature of ConflictIn a liberal democracy, non-violent conflict among various groups over policy issues isnatural, and conflict is necessary for constructive social change to take place. While conflictis quite normal, the interests of all the stakeholders are often threatened when conflictcontinues with no mutually-acceptable change in government policy being achieved (Susskindand Cruikshank, 1987; Deutsch, 1973). The approach and optimism regarding the use ofconsensus-based processes depend on one’s view of the fundamental causes of conflict.Dorcey and Reik (1987) cite four major causes of environmental conflicts:1. Cognitive conflicts are rooted in different understandings of the facts.2. Value conflicts stem from different preferences about the outcome.3. Interest conflicts occur when there are disagreements about the distribution ofthe costs and benefits.4. Behavioral conflicts are rooted in personalities, experiences, and circumstancesof the interested parties.From the above, it can be seen that conflict among stakeholders stems from bothsubstantive issues and procedural and personal issues. Procedural and inter-personal issuescan cloud the substantive issues, to the point where they can be equally or more importantthan the substantive issues. To address these causes of conflict, the literature on consensusbased decision-making is reviewed below.Consensus-Based Decision-MakingIncluded under the title of alternative environmental dispute resolution, consensusbased decision-making has been increasingly used by the public sector in the United States in20lieu of the traditional approach of drafting legislation awaiting court challenges (Wondolleckand Crowfoot, 1990; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987). In British Columbia, the B.C. RoundTable and the Commission on Resources and Environment have both heavily advocated andrelied upon consensus-based approaches for advising on public policy and crown land-useplans respectively.Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 11) define consensus-building as a process which“requires informal, face to face interaction among specially chosen representatives of all‘stakeholder’ groups; a voluntary effort to seek ‘all-gain’ rather than ‘win-lose’ solutions orwatered-down political compromise, often with the assistance of a neutral facilitator ormediator.” Cormick (1992) notes that consensus involves neither simple majority rule norcomplete unanimity on all aspects of a conflict, but means “substantial agreement” on apackage of items under negotiation. In short, consensus can be generally defined asagreement achieved through various types of consultation and negotiation in whichstakeholders participate voluntarily to reach agreement over a group of issues to fulfil allstakeholders’ core interests.Preconditions for Consensus-Based Decision-MakingSusskind and Cruikshank (1987, 17) break disputes into two categories ofdistributional and constitutional rights disputes. The distributional dispute can be successfullynegotiated as it involves such things as the allocation of resources, use of land and thecreation of regulations and standards while constitutional or fundamental rights disputes areproperly left with courts and national politicians to decide. As the distributional dispute often21involves a package of related items, there are possibilities for compromising on small itemswhile achieving each stakeholders’ fundamental interests.A key to the stakeholder’s willingness to negotiate will often depend upon theexpectation of the benefits of negotiation over non-negotiation. Fisher and Ury (1981) statethat each negotiator should develop a theoretical “Best alternative to a negotiated agreement”or “BATNA” to ascertain what a non-negotiated outcome would mean to the stakeholder thathe or she represents. However, stakeholders may not wish to negotiate if they canconfidently forecast a BATNA which is relatively good compared to any conceivablenegotiated settlement. Aside from the degree of the stakeholders’ motivation to enter into anegotiation, certain conditions for commencing a consensual process must be present.Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 133) give several preconditions for successful unassistednegotiation including:1. The number of actors and issues must be relatively small in number.2. The stakeholders must be able to open channels of communication topromote joint problem-solving.3. The uncertainty of unilateral action must be relatively high for allstakeholders.Expanding upon this, the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and Economy (1991a, 25)lists a number of conditions which affect the willingness of stakeholders to support aconsensus approach.1. There must be an unresolved conflict or potential for conflict.2. All key stakeholders must have an incentive to seek a decision by consensus.3. All stakeholders must support the consensus process.224. There must be a political will to see the process through.5. The presence of a champion is a boon.Therefore, it can be seen that the likelihood of success of a consensus process isdependent upon the type of issue, the stakeholders’ real and perceived incentives, and externalpolitical support.A Range of Consensus-Based ProcessesThe literature generally divides consensus-based processes into two broad groups;unassisted negotiation and assisted negotiation which includes facilitation, mediation,arbitration or involvement of other intennediaries. While the B.C. Round Table (1991a) andDorcey and Reik (1987) found that unassisted negotiations were more commonly used, thebroad scope and multi-sectoral approach of regional conservation planning strategies wouldlikely require a form of assisted negotiation to help conduct a process involving widelydivergent groups. However, the literature notes that unassisted negotiation and mediator-assisted negotiations are most frequently used in environmental planning (Bingham, 1986,Dorcey and Reik, 1987; Dunster, 1988; Wondolleck and Crowfoot, 1990; B.C. Round Table,1991a). Regardless of the approach used, there are a number of procedural characteristicswhich are required for most successful consensus-based approaches whether they involveunassisted principled negotiation or a form of assisted negotiation. These characteristics fordetermining the success of principled negotiation will be examined to develop questions forevaluating consensus processes for regional conservation planning strategies.23Principled Negotiation TheoryPrincipled negotiation is central to most forms of consensus-based decision-making.Roger Fisher and William Ury (1981, xii) define principled negotiation as a method “todecide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what eachside says it will do and won’t do. It suggests that you look for mutual gains whereverpossible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based onsome fair standards independent of the will of either side.” It is widely agreed amongpractitioners and researchers of consensus processes that all stakeholders must voluntarilyenter into the negotiations with the intention of meeting their respective interests instead ofarguing positions (Fisher and Ury, 1981; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987, B.C. Round Table,1991 a; Cormick, 1992). In an attempt to develop criteria to measure the factors necessary forsuccessful regional conservation strategies, general characteristics relating to the structuring ofconsensus processes will be reviewed using Susskind and Cruikshank’s three phaseconsensus-building model which includes:1) Prenegotiation Phase2) Negotiation Phase3) Implementation or Post Negotiation Phase.Using this model, the literature related to the major characteristics of successful consensusbased processes is outlined below.24Prenegotiation PhaseThe preparation for negotiation is often as important as the negotiation itself. Withinthe prenegotiation phase, the literature provides for five key characteristics. The firstcharacteristic is the identification of all stakeholders. The involvement of all parties is vitallyimportant so that there is no omission from the process of a stakeholder group which mightthen work against an agreement in which its interests were not addressed. Although allrelevant stakeholders should be identified and invited to participate in the negotiationvoluntarily, Wondolleck and Crowfoot (1990, 85) report that reluctant, but powerful,stakeholders in public environmental issues sometimes have to be pressured politically tobecome involved. With respect to the number of stakeholders, Bingham (1986, 100) hasfound that there was no substantial difference in the resolution rate of environmental conflictwhether 2 or 10 stakeholders were involved. Where there are numerous interests and theidentification of stakeholders may be difficult (as is the case with conservation planningstrategies), an assisted approach such as facilitation could be used to identify all the relevantstakeholders and bring them into the process (B.C. Round Table, 1991a). Dorcey (1986, 134)calls for increasing the opportunity for negotiation at all levels, and particularly at the lowerlevels of the governance hierarchy. Thus, increased representation of stakeholders at the localand regional levels could be achieved and possibly lead to a reduction in policy conifictsmigrating up the governance hierarchy.A second major characteristic of the prenegotiation stage involves the design of theprocess by the stakeholders themselves. In a study of 17 cases of consensus-basedenvironmental decision-making, the B.C. Round Table (1991a and 1991c) has found that most25processes evolved through the direction of a few key people in each process withoutassistance. However, the failure to call upon assistance when needed can contribute toincreased costs and length of negotiations. Thus, while many decisions can be made withoutcostly intermediaries, most groups of informed stakeholders should carefully consider whetheran intermediary is required.The third major characteristic of the pre-negotiation phase involves the selection ofappropriate representatives of the stakeholders (Wondolleck and Crowfoot, 1990, 83;Bingham, 1986, 114; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987). The B.C. Round Table (1991a, 17)found that the involvement of the principals holding the decision-making power was asignificant factor in the likelihood of success of the negotiation and the speed at which thenegotiation was expedited. Yet, the B.C. Round Table (1991a, 19) also notes that governmentdecision-makers are often concerned about limiting the discretion which the law providesthem by entering into consensus agreements. Echoing this concern, Susskind and Cruikshank(1987) note that consensus-based agreements should be informal and subject to adoption bythe formal decision-makers. However, the likelihood of meaningful participation is oftendependent on the political commitment of the formal decision-makers. In an analysis of 161negotiations on environmental policies and site-specific disputes in the United States,Bingham (1986) notes that negotiations with authority to make direct decisions havesomewhat higher rates of agreement than do negotiations intended for the formulation ofrecommendations to a higher authority.It is also often difficult to bring the principal decision-maker for each stakeholder tothe table in regional processes, especially in large government departments and companies.26Conversely, in loosely formed local citizens groups there is quite often no clear leader. Giventhese problems, it is important that centralized government agencies give decision-makingpower to trusted local representatives with an explicit understanding of the agency’s interests.In the case of local citizen groups, it is important that the representatives be accountable to,and make regular communication with, their respective stakeholder groups. With respect tothe role of the representatives, Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 105) note, “Their [therepresentatives’j task is not to speak for their constituents, but to speak with them.” Giventhese issues, the relationship of representatives and stakeholders should be made clear whilegovernment agencies should strive to guarantee that agreements will be implemented.Access to information and other resources by stakeholders is the fourth majorcharacteristic which affects the quality of a consensus process. There are often disparities inthe various resources of participants in terms of staff, available time of the participants,expense money, and information. Dorcey (1986) notes that informing the bargaining processis one of the key requirements for facilitating successful negotiation while Bingham (1986)and the B.C. Round Table (1991a) note the provision of objective information through jointfact finding should be made a priority. In negotiations involving public agencies, funding canbe provided to assist stakeholders with less resources, helping to “level the playing field” withrespect to logistical costs. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 115) advocate joint fact-findingby commenting, “The point is that assumptions, opinions, and even values can change in theface of believable information; in order to achieve this important end, such assumptions mustbe identified and scrutinized.” Therefore, the generation and sharing of information areimportant for creating consensus processes.27The bounding of the issues at the beginning of consensus approach is the fifth majorcharacteristic of the prenegotiation stage. The stakeholders themselves must decide upon thescope of issues which are to be considered (Wondolleck and Crowfoot, 1990, 85; B.C. RoundTable, 1991a). Although Bingham (1986, 118) notes that changing the scope of the issuemay be required later in the process when the stakeholders’ interests become more clear, thedefinition of the scope of the negotiation should be agreed upon at the outset of the process.Aside from framing the scope of and geography of the issues, the setting of an agenda with adeadline for conclusion of negotiation has been found to improve the efficiency of consensus-based processes by reducing the likelihood of prolonged negotiations (Dorcey and Reik, 1987;B.C. Round Table, 1991a, 25). The bounding of the issues by the participants, thus forms animportant part of the process.Characteristics of a Successful Negotiation PhaseAs noted above, this review focuses on how the structure of the overall process affectsthe success of consensus-based decision-making within the context of regional conservationplanning strategies. Thus, an examination of the negotiation phase, itself, is quite limited. Inoutlining a methodology for principled negotiation, Fisher and Ury (1981) note four keythemes; people, interests, options for mutual gain, and objective criteria.People: separate the people from the problemFisher and Ury place a greater emphasis on the “people” aspect of negotiations thanother authors such as Susskind and Cruikshank (1987), Bingham (1986) and Cormick (1992),28and note that negotiators have the two major interests: the relationship with the negotiatorsand in the substance of the conflict which may become entangled. On the human side ofnegotiations, Fisher and Ury (1981) draw attention to the negotiators’ need to attend to thepersonal perception of the conflict, acknowledge the role of emotion, improve communicationand actively build a relationship. Dorcey and Reik (1987, 20) concur in their study ofnegotiated environmental disputes in Canada and recommend “improving the interaction skillsof participants” as one of the two most important methods of improving the productivity ofnegotiation.Interests: focus on interests, not positionsThe search for options for mutual gain forms the second phase of the actualnegotiation process delineated by Fisher and Ury. The key to principled negotiation isidentifying and negotiating to protect interests instead of positions which are likely to bemutually exclusive or even needlessly damaging to other stakeholders’ interests. By breakingdown positions into packages of issues, there is a greater possibility that each stakeholder canobtain substantial fulfilment of its interests. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 121) have foundthat agreement is much more likely when there is a package of several issues wherebydifferent scenarios can be created.Options for mutual gain: generate a variety of possibilitiesUnlike zero-sum victories achieved through a simple majority of votes, consensus isless easily envisioned as it involves negotiations and compromise in positions, often involving29several options and stakeholders in which there is no lone loser. Negotiation should focus ona package of items on which there can be some compromise on specific issues, but wherethere are enough options that stakeholders’ main interests will still be addressed (Cormick,1992). Fisher and Ury (1981) and Sloan (1992) go further by stating that “options for mutualgain” may be possible whereby each stakeholder can obtain more than they would in theabsence of a negotiation.Objective Criteria: decisions based on some objective standardThe creation of objective criteria forms an important part of both assisted andunassisted negotiations. Stakeholder’s acceptance of the type and quality of data used helpsgive the stakeholders more confidence in the negotiation. Throughout the process, Fisher andUry recommend that there be joint fact-finding to help create mutually acceptable objectivecriteria. With respect to the traditional approach of measuring options, Susskind andCruikshank (1987, 114) state, “Advocacy science -my expert versus your expert- here operatesat its worst... advocacy science tends to undercut the credibility of all technical evidence,whereas the point of joint fact-finding is to develop a shared base of knowledge.” Byagreeing on a set of objective criteria, there is avoidance of costly debates on the validity ofdata at the later stages of a process.ImplementationThe literature indicates that this part of a consensus-based decision-making process isoften neglected with too little effort in planning for the who, what and how of implementation30(Wondolleck and Crowfoot, 1990; Bingham, 1986). With respect to the enforcement ofagreements, Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 131) note that agreements can be legallyenforceable or more often they can be self-enforcing agreements that require a series ofreciprocal actions. In enforcing agreements, clearly established processes of monitoring arevery important with consequences for not meeting agreed-upon goals or targets. If thestakeholders have agreed upon objective criteria and methods of collecting and analyzinginformation during the negotiation, the task of monitoring is made much easier. Theagreement should also include a mechanism for reconvening negotiations if the agreementinvolves an on-going policy or broad plan instead of a “one-time only” decision (Susskindand Cruikshank, 1987, 132).From the above review of the literature, it can be seen that a consensus process is anintegral part of a conservation strategy approach and forms the basis for the three otherprinciples of conservation strategies; cross-sectoral agency coordination, public involvement,and establishing implementation partnerships.CROSS-SECTORAL AGENCY COORDINATIONConservation Strategies and Cross-Sectoral Agency CoordinationAs the provincial, and to a lesser extent, the federal, governments hold responsibilityfor a wide range of conservation planning and environmental protection functions, it isimportant that these agencies coordinate their activities. Given this, it is not surprising thatone of the World Conservation Strategy’s six priority actions for national governments is“Improving the capacity to manage: legislation and organization.” Caring for the Earth: A31Strategy for Sustainable Living also supports increased coordination under the principles forsustainable living of “Providing a national framework for integrating development andconservation” and the “review of the adequacy of legal and administrative controls, and ofimplementation and enforcement mechanisms, recognizing the legitimacy of localapproaches.” In the Canadian context, Kelly (1987) calls for horizontal integration ofresource management through an interdisciplinary approach to conservation strategies.Literature on Cross-Sectoral Agency CoordinationInter-agency coordination is a prerequisite for a conservation strategy approach asgovernment agencies have the legislative mandate to manage resources and enforce laws onboth private and public lands. The literature on inter-agency coordination points to the factthat coordination is best founded on mutual understanding of each various agency’s technicalissues and corporate cultures, and by focusing negotiations on a group of inter-relatedconservation issues normally under the purview of separate sectoral agencies.The lack of coordination among government agencies partly stems from thereductionist sectoral view that has evolved with a complex industrial society. Thereductionist view posits that the “environment,” “society” and “economy” are equal partsinstead of the social and economic systems being an integrated subsystem dependent upon theecosphere (Rees, 1990; Hopwood, 1993). Flowing from this world view, the division ofFor full listing of the nine principles of sustainable living and their respective priority actions in Caring forthe Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (IUCN,WWF,UNEP, 1991), refer to Appendix 1.32provincial and federal governments into numerous agency divisions within “environmental,”“social” and “economic” systems reflects this split between environment and economy andtheir increasing demands on the environment for resources. This sectoralization ofgovernment functions has also developed as methodology to study and undertake highlycomplex tasks. Although a profound, long-term change in our society’s world view isrequired, immediate first steps can be taken to reduce sectoral divisions and improvecoordination.Multi-disciplinary, and ultimately transclisciplinary planning, should be encouraged tohelp improve sectoral. agency coordination. Saha and Barrow (1981) note that unlike amultidisciplinary approach where experts in technical fields work on a project and meetoccasionally in planning teams, a transdisciplinary approach involves a number of technicalstaff working on a project, having a broad understanding of the basic premises lying behindeach sectoral discipline in addition to their own speciality. This approach is particularlyuseful in the development of conservation strategies given their complex and cross-sectoralnature. By taking a transdisciplinary approach with each agency participant gaining a moreholistic understanding of other specializations, the cause of inter-agency coordination will befurthered.A second concept, “social learning,” also plays an important part in both inter-agencycoordination and public involvement by both facilitating the transdisciplinary approach andimproving the understanding of each agency and the constituents which it represents. Central33to “social learning” is the idea that group action is linked to increasing group knowledgeinstead of non-participatory sectoral learning. Social learning theory, comprehensivelyarticulated in the early 1970’s by Dunn (1971), Schon (1971), and Friedmann (1987) positsthat action is linked to knowledge through iterative communication among small groups ofpeople where knowledge is not gained through traditional research abstracted from thebroader context of a situation. In this light, Friedmann defines social learning as “a complex,time-dependent process that involves, in addition to the action itself, political strategy andtactics (which tells us how to overcome resistance), theories of reality (which tells us whatthe world is like) and the values that inspire action” (Friedmann, 1987, 181). With thisattention to context, it is realized that the agency representative or decision-maker cannotseparate his or her values from the conclusions drawn.While social learning and transdisciplinary planning provide alternative methods ofparticipation for individual civil servants or government experts in a project, the overallrelationship of agencies also discourages coordination. Mulford (1988) has formulated threemodels of coordination (see Figure 1) of rural development which include:1. Mutual AdjustmentEach agency focuses on its own clients and fulfilling the goals of its sectoralmandate. Differences of opinion with other agencies are resolved throughadhoc bargaining. Informal committees are examples of mutual adjustment.2. AllianceIn this model, lying between the mutual adjustment and corporate models,agencies give up some of their autonomy to a coordinating body withrepresentation from the different agencies in a negotiation process especially atthe regional and local levels. Steering committees or coordinating councils areexamples.343. CorporateIn this model, there is a centralized hierarchy within which sub-agenciesfunction within the bounds set out at the top of the hierarchy. Formal,immutable rules govern the action of a small number of agencies.Of the above models, Mulford (Ibid., 68) recommends the alliance model for regionalor local planning initiatives as it balances the need for some formal planning, but has a lessformal hierarchical structure than the corporate model which places all organizations underone central authority. Exemplifying Mulford’s alliance model, Wolfe et al.(1987) note theimportance of facilitating “linked management” of existing agencies in the Fraser RiverEstuary Management Program (FREMP) without creating a completely new governmentcoordinating body. Within the linked management model, Wolfe et al.(1987) identify threegeneric factors for creating successful coordination:1. Management systems with political commitment.2. Continuity of joint management for implementation.3. Improved communications between agencies and the public.In evaluating FREMP, Dorcey (1986) notes that there must be a leadership andaccountability role amongst the agency participants to assist in agency coordination.Although the importance of the Fraser River Estuary and complexity of development andinstitutional issues has required a great deal of effort in planning for sectoral agencycoordination, inter-agency coordination in most other areas of the province remains an issue.35CoiporatetotIaUonParticipadngdevelopwrittenexpectations&ireCoodnatingMuAdjustmentçcInformal unwrittenexpeconsAoNoFigure1:ModelsofAgencyCoordinationSource:Mulford(1988)JIiceAuthorityC.’SocialPowerFormalltion:Sanc’dons:EEnde:Central authoritydevelopswrittenexpectationsHighAnkomalconitteeAlthough areas such as the Sunshine Coast do not have the same degree of development andinstitutional complexity, provincial agencies and regional districts expend less effort incoordinating their conservation planning. Thus, before engaging in public participationprocesses and consensus-based decision-making with non-governmental stakeholders,government agencies must gain a better mutual understanding of their respective technicaldisciplines and internal management regimes and establish processes for inter-agencycommunication.BROAD-BASED PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTConservation Strategies and Public InvolvementThe third main principle of the conservation strategy approach is broad-based publicinvolvement. This principle is reflected in the World Conservation Strategy which presents“Building support for conservation through participation and education” as the fifth of sixpriorities for national action. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living sets outits seventh principle of sustainable living, “Enabling communities to care for their ownenvironments” and includes the following priority actions in support of broadly-based publicinvolvement:1. Enhance participation in conservation and development.2. Develop more effective local governments.Although similar to the principle advocated in the World Conservation Strategy,Caring for the Earth emphasizes participatory processes at the community level instead of thenational level. This emphasis reflects the global conservation community’s increased37emphasis on “bottom-up” planning, based on the realization that concrete action forsustainability is best instituted at the local and regional level. Speaking to the need for publicinvolvement in conservation strategies, McNeely et al. (1990, 56) state, “The first requirementfor a successful NCS [national conservation strategy] is the participation of the widestpossible range of actors in defining the issues and identifying the courses of action.”Similarly, but emphasizing the local level, Dunster (1990) concludes that building broad-based local support is necessary for creating and implementing forest sector conservationstrategies. In a different view on the need for public involvement, Kelly (1987) notes thatpeople do not necessarily trust the views of “experts,” and thus they should be involved inorder to gain better results as well as to increase public acceptance of the strategy.Literature On Public InvolvementSince the 1950’s there has been an increasing demand for greater direct publicinvolvement in government decision-making, particularly in environmental planning.Increasingly, citizens were not simply satisfied with elected representatives making decisionsfor them and subsequently announcing their decisions. This move to participation has beenpartly attributed to a reaction against synoptic or strategic planning carried out by bureaucratsreporting directly to elected representatives who failed to represent many interests in anincreasingly pluralistic society (Davidoff, 1965; Parenteau, 1988; Benveniste, 1989). Also,the public’s growing consciousness of the complexity of government and the less direct roleof elected representatives in formulation of policy, produced increased pressure to move fromrepresentative to participatory democracy at the community level (Parenteau, 1988).38In addition to increased pressure for participatory democracy, beginning in the 1960’s,environmental activists became increasingly dissatisfied with representative democracy. Thisdissatisfaction helped foster the emergence of a new environmentalist world view among asignificant part of the population. In a series of three annual studies of citizen attitudestowards the environment in Germany, the United States and Great Britain, Milbrath (1984)has found that increased support for societal changes required a shift to a “NewEnvironmental Paradigm” which included; concern over human degradation of nature,economic growth vs. environmental protection, generalized compassion, risk adversity, beliefin limits to growth and public participation. Similarly, O’Riordan (1976) defines two worldviews, the emerging “ecocentric mode,t’ and the dominant “technocentric mode.” LikeMilbrath, O’Riordan (1976, 10) notes the importance of public involvement by stating:The call for participatory democracy is not new though it has taken on a new urgencyin recent years. Participation here is regarded as a necessary mechanism in the designof a better community, for the participatory experience reflects the basic themes ofenvironmentalism.Commenting on the antecedents of modern western environmentalism, Parenteau(1988) notes the ascendance of well-informed special interest groups of private citizens byconcluding, “The shift to the local level and the rising quality of participants in the publicconsultation process promote mediated cooperation among partners.” While the division ofsociety into two model world views oversimplifies the conflicting values underlyingindividual planning conflicts, these models help illuminate the need for public involvement ina conservation strategy approach.Given the rationale of direct participation in environmental planning, the appropriateform of participation and processes for facilitating it are explored. Arnstein (1969) outlines a39model called the “ladder of citizen participation” which represents eight rungs of publicinvolvement. These rungs are placed into three groups; non-participation, degrees oftokenism and citizen power and are illustrated in Figure 2. Non-participation is oftencharacteristic of technocratic synoptic planning while the degrees of tokenism representmethods of taking public opinions into consideration without any devolution of authority tocitizens.4 On the highest rungs of Arnstein’s ladder under degrees of citizen control appear“citizen control,” “delegated power” and “partnership” which give either joint or sole authorityto make decisions jointly with, or independent of, elected representatives and civil servants.“Citizen control,” can be described as a state where citizens assume complete control of agovernment function while the “partnership” and “delegated power” models of participationare where citizens share formal decision-making power with government agencies. AtArnstein’s “partnership” rung of participation, citizens groups can contribute to policyformulation as stakeholders representing sectoral interests in negotiations.Although meaningful public involvement is required, there is the question of when andwhat type of involvement? In answering this question, several authors have recommended alegislated right to participate in forestry, crown land and environmental planning in BritishColumbia via a range of processes from public hearings to community forest boards (Vance,1990; Brenneis, 1990, Brenneis and M’Gonigle, 1992; Gunton and Vertinsky, 1991). Ifagencies are mandated to provide more meaningful public involvement, they will eitherArnstein notes that ‘consultation’ involves methods such as attitude surveys, public hearings andneighbourhood meetings. These are common approaches of municipal government planning in BritishColumbia. “Informing,” on the other hand, involves more limited involvement, usually late in the planningprocess, with little opportunity for the public to change the outcome. Vance (1990) attributes this form ofconsultation to most planning at the B.C. Ministry of Forests’ district level.40Figure2:Ladderof ParticipationSource:Arnstein(1969)DegreesoftokenismNonparticipationDegreesofcitizenpowerCITIZENCONTROL8DELEGATEDPOWER7PARTNERSHIP6PLACATION5CONSULTATION4INFORMING3THERAPY2MANIPULATION1have to carry out separate involvement processes, or combine their existing mandatedparticipation into a conservation strategy process. Thus, a conservation strategy process couldact to coordinate, or, possibly, reduce duplication of the public involvement processes ofseparate agencies.Secondly, with respect to the type of involvement, a conservation strategy approachshould include both the consultation and the partnership rungs which Arnstein (1969)identifies in her ladder of participation. Partnerships could be achieved through the inclusionof citizens and other non-governmental organizations as stakeholciers in the consensusdecision-making process, while consulting could be utilized to assist the general public makeinformed comment on the strategy. It is argued that consulting, when used with the higherforms of involvement such as partnerships, does not constitute “tokenism” as it would be inthe absence of opportunities for organized citizen group involvement as stakeholders in aconsensus-based process. In fact, the use of consultation helps citizen groups and otherstakeholders confirm the interests of non-aligned or less politically active members of thecommunity while these individuals can become informed on the conservation strategy andoffer comment which would not otherwise be conveyed to the stakeholders. Regardless of theparticular arrangement for citizen group involvement, citizen groups should be included asstakeholders. Susskind and Cruikshank (1987, 246) note the importance of public involvementin creating a consensus-based process by stating:Our view of why social reforms often fail is that they are imposed from above. Ineffect, the government attempts to instill new values. But a stubborn fact of humannature tends to intervene. Very few people can be convinced to change theirunderlying sense of right and wrong... in response to governmental edict. Thus,reforms emerge, and may even be institutionalized, but they nonetheless fail because42human nature is resistant. If the vehicle of reform fails to address such underlyingmotivations, it is doomed.Thus, it may be appropriate to use several forms of participation to gain input fromthe various public interest groups as well as the less active citizenry to ensure better decisionsand build support for the conservation strategy.NON-GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIPS FOR IMPLEMENTATIONConservation Strategies and Non-Governmental PartnershipsAside from the commitment to the principles of consensus process, cross-sectoralagency coordination and public involvement, conservation strategies require that governmentsforge implementation partnerships with non-governmental organizations and privateindividuals. While governments are expected to implement planning initiatives, nongovernmental participation in the implementation of a plan has too often been neglected. Byundertaking partnerships with non-governmental stakeholders, there is often increasedcommunity support for the protection of habitats and ecological functions. Furthermore, theinvolvement of non-governmental stakeholders and individuals can help protect habitats wheregovernments do not have the resources or the political support to intervene. Caring for theEarth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living (1991) directly calls for monitoring of conservationstrategies with several recommended actions including: (1) Promotion by partners andsponsors, (2) Adoption- formal undertakings by governments, organizations, communities andenterprises to implement the strategy, and (3) Implementation of the priority actions, at theinternational, national, and local levels. Thus, Caring for the Earth recommends monitoringand emphasizes the need for commitment of government and non-governmental institutions to43the process of implementing the strategy. Given this, Dunster (1990) advocates theinvolvement of forest industry and local communities in creating forest sector conservationstrategies while McClellan (1990) reports that the Prince Edward Island Conservation Strategyrelies heavily on the support of non-governmental organizations for implementation of thestrategy.Literature on Non-Governmental PartnershipsThe major shortcoming of most strategies is that there is insufficient commitment tothe implementation of the document. This concern is particularly acute with conservationstrategies as they, by definition, are long-term, cross-sectoral documents with no single entitysolely responsible for their implementation. Downs (1972) has explained the short-termcommitment to enviromnental issues by developing a model termed the “issue attention cycle”which outlines typical stages in public and political awareness as follows:1. The pre-problem stage2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm3. Realizing the costs of signcant progress4. Gradual decline of intense public interest5. The post-problem stageAlthough the issue-attention cycle is a very general model, it does have some importin the analysis of the conservation strategy approach. In the case of conservation strategies,the creation of the document by the stakeholders would likely fall into the “alarmed discoveryand euphoric enthusiasm” stage while the implementation too often falls into the “realizing44the cost of significant progress” and “gradual decline of intense public interest” stages. Thekey, then, is for the design of an implementation process which helps establish a long-termcommitment. To do this, citizens and non-governmental organizations must have an activerole in managing both public and private lands and ecological resources. Private stewardshipprograms, co-management and state of the environment reporting are examined as methodsfor creating commitment through partnerships with government for the implementation ofconservation strategies.For protecting habitats, particularly on private lands, the literature points to theconcept of private stewardship. Private stewardship refers to the management of private,communal and sometimes public land by non-governmental organizations and individuals forthe preservation of its ecological function (Stewardship ‘94, 1994) and is based on twofactors. Firstly, there are thousands of smaller areas of great ecological importance located onprivately owned lands, especially at lower elevations and adjacent to water bodies.Purchasing such a multitude of sites is often not feasible nor required to protect manyecosystems. Also, governments do not have the administrative resources to protect ecologicalattributes on all crown lands, let alone, private lands (Hoose, 1981; Stokes et al., 1989).Secondly, the active education and voluntary participation of property owners in protectingthe ecological attributes of their lands can provide the most long-lasting method of protectinglandscapes. Concluding on the experience of voluntary conservation in Ontario, Hilts andVan Patter (1990, 27) note:Finally, there is the relationship that exists between voluntary stewardship and land-useplanning. While stewardship programs appear to complement land use planning, withvoluntary programs having the ability to engender wider support and eventually lead tothe adoption of planning controls, the opposite is not true.45Similarly in British Columbia, although the creation of development permit areasspecifying additional regulations for the protection of habitat under the Municipal Act isincreasingly being undertaken by municipalities, opposition towards, and disregard for, theregulations have often been encountered until grassroots support is built (Stewardship ‘94,1994). Given this resistance, there has been growing movement towards the use of alternativemechanisms for the protection of landscapes at the local level. The utilization of a widerange of other instruments such as covenants and the purchase of property development rightsby community land trusts and other non-governmental organizations has been extensivelyemployed throughout the United States since the 1960’s and, to a lesser extent, in Canadasince the 1970’s (Hoose, 1981; Brennen et a!., 1984; Hilts et al., 1986; Stokes et al., 1989;Hilts and Van Patter, 1990).Partnerships can also be used for monitoring specific resources and habitats as well asvarious ecological indicators. For example, fishermen have participated in monitoring fishstocks as part of larger co-management agreements (Pinkerton, 1989) while the FederalDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans’ Salmon Enhancement Program pairs governmentresource managers with non-governmental organizations in improving habitat. In addition topartnerships for protecting habitats and monitoring certain species and ecological functions ina region, the establishment of a comprehensive conservation monitoring program is important.Although, State of the Environment Reports (SOER) have been utilized in Canada since 1986(Sheehy, 1989), the first SOER for British Columbia and the Lower Fraser Basin were onlycreated by the governments of Canada and British Columbia in 1993 and 1992 respectively.There have been even fewer SOER for smaller regions given the lack of government funding46and personnel. However, the SOER for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo undertaken bythe University of Waterloo (1987) is an exception and example of one of the mostcomprehensive SOER completed for a region (Elkin, 1990). Given the potential for thisapproach, Elkin (1990, 60) advocates linking conservation strategies to state of theenvironment reporting by stating: “It is important to stress that state of the environmentreports and national conservation strategies are not different and conflicting approaches to thestudy of the same human situations. What is important is the interface between these tools[state of the environment reports and conservation strategies].” Thus, the measurement ofspecific ecological indicators such as water quality objectives, the listing of habitats requiringprotection from development, enumeration of threatened and endangered species andevaluation of government commitment to the regional conservation planning strategy’sobjectives could be considered in SOER reports undertaken by non-governmentalorganizations.In short, with increasingly limited government resources accompanied by greaterdemands for conservation planning, the creation of implementation partnerships forimplementation can help realize the strategy’s goals. Partnerships allow for the protection ofprivate lands and more comprehensive monitoring than could normally be expected.Moreover, by linking partnerships for implementation to the participants in conservationstrategy, the goals of the strategy can be diffused among the general population over a longertime period than could be expected by a conservation strategy based solely on governmentimplementation.47CHAPTER SYNTHESIS: CRITERIA FOR CONSERVATION STRATEGY PROCESSFrom the literature review, it can be seen that a multiple-stakeholder consensusprocess forms the key principle which directs the other three related principles of aconservation strategy approach. By involving the major governmental and non-governmentalstakeholders, the other principles of public involvement, cross-sectoral agency coordinationand non-governmental partnerships are furthered. Thus, the combined application of theprinciples of a conservation strategy process are required for effective conservation planningfor the protection of habitat and ecological functions. The principles for the conservationstrategy process are used as the first four criteria for measuring whether a planning processfollows the model regional conservation planning strategy approach. From the literaturerelating to each of these criteria, subsidiary questions are derived to help answer whether theprovincial framework for conservation planning and the case study, the Sechelt Inlets CoastalStrategy, satisfy the criteria.The first criterion, multiple-stakeholder consensus process, is the most important ofthe four process criteria. From the review of the literature on consensus-based decision-making, several questions for ascertaining whether a conservation planning process meets thiscriterion are posed.Does the process include representatives of all major stakeholders?Is there negotiation on the process before the substantive issues are negotiated?Is there sufficient third-party assistance, technical information and other resourcesprovided to all stakeholders?Are the stakeholders encouraged to undertake principled negotiation?Is there an implementation agreement with stakeholder and political commitment?48The second process criterion, cross-sectoral agency coordination is vitally importantas numerous provincial agencies and local governments are involved in conservation planning.To help ascertain whether this criterion is satisfied by a conservation planning process, thefollowing additional questions should be answered.Is there a lead agency or prominent individual occupying a leadership role for theprocess?Do the agency participants strive for a transdisciplinary approach?The third criterion, broad-based public involvement, must be included in a process toensure that a full range of public interests and values are incorporated into a regionalconservation planning strategy. Two additional questions help confirm whether this criterionis being fulfilled.Are major citizen group stakeholders involved in the decision-making process outlinedunder the first criterion?Is there a consultation and information program for members of the general public,many of whom may have unique interests not represented by stakeholder groups?The fourth criterion, non-governmental partnerships, provides a means for evaluatingthe long-term commitment of those outside government to implementing conservationplanning. The literature provides for two main questions to determine whether a processencourages non-governmental partnerships.Are there non-governmental stakeholders involved in conservation projects or areprojects being proposed as a result of the process?Is non-governmental assistance in monitoring anti implementation proposed or beingundertaken?49CHAPTER 4REGIONAL APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION PLANNINGINTRODUCTION: REGIONS AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIESWhile the need for a conservation strategy approach has been demonstrated in Chapter3, the rationale for undertaking a regional approach to conservation planning is explained inChapter 4 to create a hybrid model of the regional conservation planning strategy. Thus, inaddition to the four principles for a decision-making process for conservation strategies, theliterature on three perspectives on the use of regions for conservation planning is reviewed.The three perspectives include: parks system planning (an institutional perspective),landscape ecology (a biophysical perspective) and bioregional theory (a sociologicalperspective).Before examining these perspectives, the general literature on conservation strategies issummarized. As there has been growing recognition at the international level of the need forlocal and regional conservation strategies to complement national or provincial conservationstrategies, planners have begun to realize the value of smaller regional conservation strategieswhich integrate land-use planning and resource management. This growing recognition isdemonstrated in Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living which places moreimportance on local and regional conservation strategies than the World ConservationStrategy. Caring for the Earth sets forth nine principles for sustainable living of which twodeal with the need for local conservation planning.5 Of these, the fourth principle,For full listing of the nine principles of sustainable living and their respective priority actions, refer toAppendix 1.50“Conserving the Earth’s vitality and diversity” sets out priority actions for the protectionof biodiversity which include:1. Adopt an integrated approach to land and water management, using thedrainage basin as the unit of management.2. Maintain as much as possible of each country’s natural and modifiedecosystems.3. Complete and maintain a comprehensive system of protected areas.4. Support management of wild renewable resources by local communities; andincrease incentives to conserve biological diversity.The eighth principle, “Providing a national framework for integrating developmentand conservation”6includes several priority actions relating to local implementation ofconservation strategies which include:1. Develop strategies for sustainability, and implement them directly and throughregional and local planning.2. Review the adequacy of legal and administrative controls, and of theimplementation and enforcement mechanisms, recognizing the legitimacy oflocal approaches.In elaborating on the latter principle, Caring for the Earth (1991, 66) states:National [provincial and state in federal nations] strategies should be extended byregional and local-use plans enabling a society to translate the goal of sustainabilityinto specific objectives and to integrate a wide range of decisions. Each plan shouldbe a joint project of government and people who live in the region.The general literature on conservation strategies also supports the creation of strategiesat the regional level. Richardson (1989, 31), calls for the linking of conservation strategies to6 According to Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living, the national framework approachshould apply to provincial governments in federal countries such as Canada (IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991,64).51concrete land use planning by stating, “The ideal complementary relationship would see theconservation strategy contributing some of the goals of the land use plan, and the plan asserving as one of the instruments for carrying out the strategy...” Similarly, Nelson andEidsvik (1990, 71) comment on the need for integrating regional planning with conservationstrategies by stating:A more concrete framework for the preparation of conservation strategies is providedby the watershed or river basin... Catchment areas are natural units in which water,forests, wildlife and other resources can be understood in terms of limits andecological characteristics....In addition to the emphasis on linking land use planning to conservation strategies atthe regional level, numerous authors note that protected areas form a core part of conservationstrategies (McNeely, 1990; Nelson and Eidsvik, 1990). Although the above authorsemphasize different roles for the conservation strategy, a conservation strategy process andconcrete regional conservation planning are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the major benefitof developing a conservation strategy at the regional level is that most of the majorstakeholders can be more easily brought together. From the literature, it can be seen thatpractitioners of, and scholars studying conservation strategies advocate the use of regionsbased on watersheds or other biophysical parameters with protected areas and complementaryland-use planning being two of the most important aspects.52EVOLVING PERSPECTIVES ON REGIONAL PLANNING AND CONSERVATIONThe theory supporting the creation of conservation strategies at the regional scale isbased on the assumption that such regions present a balance between the local community andthe larger state for planning. In this light, Lewis Mumford states:In its recognition of the region as a basic configuration of human life; in itsacceptance of natural diversities as well as natural associations and uniformities; in itsrecognition of the region as a permanent sphere of cultural influences and as a centreof economic activities, as well as an implicit geographical fact - here lies the vitalcommon element in the regionalist movement. So, far from being archaic orreactionary, regionalism belongs to the future. (Lewis Mumford in Branch, 1988).Although Mumford was commenting primarily on regional urban planning in the1930’s, he notes the importance of taking into account the inter-relationships of biophysicaland socioeconomic factors. However, it was twenty-five years later, when Ian McHarg,writing Design with Nature (1969), advocated an ecological approach to urban developmentbased on map overlays describing physiography, geology, hydrology, vegetation and soils aswell as anthropogenic features.At the national, provincial and the community levels, regions are often used as a basefor planning and environmental management, but the term “region” remains difficult to defineas there are many different types of regions and various scales of regions. Regions areusually defined by type according to a combination of the following: physiography, ecology,culture, economic activity, or political and administrative jurisdictions. Unfortunately,existing political and administrative regions often do not reflect the natural or human regionsdescribed above. This points to the question of which of these sets of characteristics shouldbe used to define the boundaries and scale of a region for a regional conservation planningstrategy? Related to this question, a range of disciplines, methodologies and theories linking53the region to conservation planning began to emerge in the 1970’s. Three relatively recentperspectives on the use of regions for conservation planning, namely parks system planning,landscape ecology and bioregional theory are examined below to illustrate the need for aregional conservation planning strategy approach.Parks System PlanningBeginning in the 1970’s, the Canadian Parks Service began to define and delineate“Natural Regions” for its national parks system plan based on very large biophysical regions(Olsen and George, 1983). Using the concept of natural regions, the Canadian Parks Servicehas created thirty-nine terrestrial natural regions of which eight are entirely or partially withinBritish Columbia. To complete the national parks system, at least one park (and preferablymore than one park) should be located in each region to represent the typical biophysicalaspects of that region.Following national parks system planning nearly twenty years later, in the late 1980’s,B.C. Parks divided British Columbia into a system of fifty-nine regional landscapes tofacilitate the completion of a provincial parks system through the Parks Plan ‘90 process.B.C. Parks (1990b, 8) has defined regional landscapes by stating:Regional landscapes are land and marine geographic segments of the province that areeach reasonably distinct in terms of the occurrence and patterns of the majorconstituents of the natural environment. A regional landscape can be readily describedby its general location (northern, southern, coast or interior), terrain appearance andtypical landforms, typical vegetation, typical wildlife occurrences, presence offreshwater and saltwater bodies, and the general climate.54The provincial parks system framework provided for more numerous, yet smaller, regionscontaining fewer different ecosystems than at the national parks system level, thus allowingfor more ecosystem representation within protected areas representing these smaller regions.In parks system planning theory, practitioners talk of “representativeness” whereby plannersattempt to protect an area which is representative of a given region. In attempting to protectrepresentative landscapes, planners also use the term, “of provincial significance” or “nationalsignificance” to indicate the importance of the site filling a gap in the system plan. However,at larger geographic scales such as those used at the national parks system level, theaggradation of these regions is so great that large parks and protected areas do not necessarilyrepresent nearly all the ecosystems in the region.Given this problem, the ecoregionlecosection system was developed by the WildlifeBranch of the Ministry of Environment in the early 1990’s.7 Within the 33 ecoregions inB.C., there are 105 ecosections. Unlike biogeoclimatic zones which closely follow micro-climatic differences related to elevation, the ecoregion system amalgamates relatedbiogeoclimatic zones which are associated by similar elevation-related sequences inwatersheds. Comparing the map of British Columbia’s biogeoclimatic zones in Figure 3 tothe map of ecoregions in Figure 4 it can be seen that British Columbia’s division intoecoregions and ecosections is based roughly on watersheds and mountain divides. By usingthe ecoregion/section system for developing the Protected Areas Strategy (P.A.S.) andThe ecoregion classification system is based on the biogeoclimatic zone ecosystem classification systemdeveloped by Vladimar Krajina during the 1960’s which has been used extensively by the Ministry ofForests since 1975 (Meidinger and Pojar, 10, 1991). As the name indicates, biogeoclimatic zones are basedon dominant vegetation associations that are resultant from physiographic features and climatic conditions.The size and location of British Columbia’s 14 biogeoclimatic zones are largely influenced by elevation and,thus, one large watershed may include numerous biogeoclimatic zones.55C.O.R.E.’s regional planning, the provincial government is attempting to delimit ecosystemswithin regions for the identification of protected areas for representation of the mostecosystems possible (Searle, 1993, 20).However, although the ecosection/region system for analyzing the need for provincialparks is useful, the literature on parks planning points to several concerns over relyingcompletely on this approach. Firstly, even if all ecosections (or natural regions) arerepresented, the parks system will not protect all ecosystems if the regions themselves, do notadequately cover all the variations of the ecosections. The inability to represent all thevariants of ecosections is based in the fact that humans cannot even identify, and thusrepresent, all ecosystems. Adding to this difficulty, is the fact that ecologists have found thatecosystems tend to be in a state of flux (both natural and human-induced) instead of staticequilibrium. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a growing consensus that surroundingland uses must be planned to protect the integrity of a park’s ecosystems as incompatibleadjacent land uses have often led to damage of parks via water and air quality degradation orendangerment of migratory animal species (McNamee, 1989, Morrison and Turner, 1994).Gardner (1990), notes that the representative “natural region” approach taken by the CanadianParks Service does not support integration with adjacent land-use planning, and recommendsthat inter-agency coordination be brought into the national parks system planning process tocreate a range of methods for protecting parks and adjacent areas.Given these shortcomings in parks system planning, the Canadian EnvironmentalAdvisory Council (CEAC, 1991, 43) advocates in the report, A Protected Areas Vision For56Canada, that an ecosystem management approach be taken with the followingrecommendations:To ensure proper management of protected areas, protected areas agencies should:- Identify appropriate ecological goals for each protected area and its adjacentlands, and develop strategies to achieve these goals.- Adopt and promote an ecosystem management philosophy that recognizes theessential roles and contributions of all protected areas supporters as well asregional, local and other groups whose interests are affected.- Substantially increase research on ecological relationships, and on the impact ofactivities in and adjacent to protected areas.- Establish cooperative management regimes around protected area, including thedesignation of buffer zones and development of compatible land-use strategies,by working with local and regional residents.- Improve consultation and cooperation with government agencies responsible forrenewable and non-renewable resource activities to ensure that such activitiesare managed appropriately within the vicinity of protected areas.Eidsvik (1985) notes this general philosophical shift among managers of protectedareas from preservation of isolated ecosystems to an ecosystem management approach.Although protected areas have traditionally been seen as the focus of conservation and remaina key part of conservation strategies, they are not the answer to sustainable development inthemselves.5713512S121Y11g/aclrsandicefieldsALPINETUNDRA[ZJSPRUCE—WILLOW—BIRCHBOREALWHITEANDBLACKSPRUCE— —00SUB—BOREALPINE—SPRUCESUB-BOREALSPRUCEMOUNTAINHEMLOCKENGEIMANNSPRUCE—SUBAIJINEFIR4OFigure3:MONTANESPRUCEBUNCHGRASSPOPJDEROSAPINEINTERIORDOUGLAS-FIRCOASTALDOUGLAS-FIRINTERIORCEDAR—HEMLOCKCOASTALWESTERNHEMLOCKc0CBiogeoclimaticZonesofB.C.SourceB.C.Ministryof Forests(1992)l35i25-aiim0ffOr050DlLOGPreparedbyCerradLanCrrtographrcsLId,1989,1992fortheProeorceofRrLtOrhColumbmMoostryofForestsResearchBraoyh.MOrLsiryofFrirecrs,31BashoeSqeore,VictorLo,BC.VOW3E7IonNelsonLowlandl<nlcnkcMOunitSilSCussciRangesskw0RangesMusuwOFaoth,tlsUoun3oryRangesl3ckieyRangesliecatinSunuegolePlcteccK;tiatNectiakoW,ndwa!dQueenChoniotteMtslecateDepness’onWesten’sl’sctcRange!CcrtnnnrlOICope—NunlinensPocicRorngesCorntlnerntolRiseNOR1I-EASTOuterFoni—GeorgoIowlondeewardlslonrdMOurnldIsloedMOcStnatofCecingaVoricOcine’slOr’dShelf//,///EasternPacificRangesNOrnnooriOLowICn’ds”/NorthwestCcscodeRongesFraserRiverL0wn0C05OkcnogarrRangeiiic:crnOrnincCOMountains--SikuniniIjealtonPlctecalilRosges—-—,—HCtr0t;i5—--_—PeaceLowiond-kOtinO,F’iatevuNectnokoLowlianaUpperPrasenTrencnPlateauQicesnetHighland‘Chilcolnin-CanibooBoseNorthernContinentalRanger,Corb00BasinShoswapFigure4:EcoregionsofB.C.Source:B.C.MinistryofEnvironment,LandsandParks(1992)Nelson and Eidsvik (1990) conclude that the creation and management of protectedareas is an important part of conservation strategies, but these will be threatened if compatibleplanning is not undertaken in the surrounding region or watershed. Thus, it can be seen thateffective parks system planning should be based not only on ecological classification systemssuch as the ecosection approach which take into account watershed boundaries, but shouldalso include complementary planning on public and private lands.Landscape EcologyUnlike the parks system planning methodology, landscape ecology is a scientificdiscipline which looks at protecting ecosystems over the entire landscape rather thanpreserving only pristine fragmented parks for representation of landscapes. Thus, thediscipline of landscape ecology provides an example of how conservation planning is comingto rely on natural science disciplines which take holistic, less sectoral, views of biophysicalsystems at the regional level. Forman and Gordon (1986) define a landscape as “.. aheterogenous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems that is repeated insimilar form throughout. Central to this concept is the existence of clusters of ecosystemsfound throughout the landscape.” Zonneveld and Forman (1990) and Crow (1991) definelandscape ecology as a new discipline which uses a transdisciplinary approach in integratingthe numerous natural and social sciences, recognizing the importance of human activities onthe landscape.60Silva Consultants Ltd. (1992, 7), has summarized three key principles for landscapeecology:1. Time and Space: While disturbances to ecosystems affect the whole landscapefor some time into the future, the effect diminishes with distance and time ofthe initial incident.2. Heterogeneity: A landscape contains not only a variety of species, but alsosmall ecosystems or “patches”. As many organisms may require a variety ofpatch types, a diversity of patches is required for a healthy landscape.3. Connectivity: The diversity of patches in an ecosystem must be connected so asto allow the movement of various organisms from one patch to another.Riparian corridors provide the single most important means for ecosystemconnectivity. In addition to their importance to ecosystems, riparian zones areextremely important for many forms of recreation which places additionalpressure on these zones.Of Silva’ s key principles, connectivity is considered the most important by landscapeecologists (Forman and Gordon, 1986; Zonneveld and Forman 1990; Crowe, 1991). Fromsmaller urban wildlife corridors to rivers systems, the importance of maintaining corridors atthe regional level is being seen as increasingly important (GVRD, 1993; Adams & Dove,1989; Zonneveld and Forman, 1990).8 The importance of corridors is based on the conceptthat isolated “islands of green” or parks of varying sizes cannot alone ensure the protection ofecosystems.Fiedler et al.(1992) have noted that over the past decade ecology has taken on a newparadigm whereby undisturbed ecosystems are no longer viewed as being at constant balanceor equilibrium, but are in various states of flux. Given this new view of ecology, many8 The Greater Vancouver Regional District has recognized the importance of ecological corridors in the LowerMainland’s regional landscape by designating wildlife corridors connecting Green Zone areas. See CreatingVancouver’s Green Zone (G.V.R.D., 1993).61ecologists now emphasize the conservation of ecological processes and broader biosphericcontexts instead of rigidly preserving a limited number of specific species or specificattributes of an ecosystem in perpetuity. Thus, landscape ecology increasingly involves thestudy of “patch dynamics” or the relationships of a matrix of local ecosystems at differentstates (Ibid. 73).In the British Columbia context, Hammond (1991, 204) advocates a landscape ecologyapproach to forest planning in which preservation of biodiversity is undertaken throughout acontinuum of geographic scales from the stand level to large watershed/landscape, butemphasizes the importance of planning at the landscape level. Hammond goes on to define aforest patch zonation system which includes ecologically responsible human use zones,landscape corridors and old growth protection nodes and large ecological reserve areasranging in size from 12,000 to 100,000 ha.In viewing the conservation of ecological systems through this new paradigm ofecology, there is a growing consensus that regional landscapes are the most appropriate levelfor study, management and protection. Conservation biologist, Reed Noss states, “Theregional landscape (generally in the range of 1000 to 100,000 km2) is a convenient scale atwhich to integrate planning and management for multiple levels of [ecological] organization.It is at the scale of a constellation of national forests, parks, and surrounding private lands, orof a large watershed or mountain range” (Noss, 1992, 241). Similarly, Saiwaser (1991) andNelson (1991) advocate the creation of conservation strategies as a means of protectingbiological diversity and process at the regional level, providing a “safety net” that goes wellbeyond the confines of individual parks and protected areas. Thus, landscape ecology62recognizes the need for protecting ecological functions at the regional level, which provides abalance between planning for parks and conservation planning at the national and provinciallevels.Bioregional TheoryWhile landscape ecology primarily provides a natural science methodology formanaging ecosystems at the regional level with the recognition of human impacts, bioregionaltheory takes a less formal view in the study of natural regions. On one level, bioregionalismis related to classical anarchism, and thus supports the ideal of self-reliance and self-governance by regional residents (Aberle, 1985, Gardner and Roseland, 1989). On a secondlevel, bioregional theory, argues that the relationship between natural and social regions hasbeen closely related since the beginnings of humanity and that the ecological, economic andpolitical crises facing societies throughout the world are often due to the decoupling ofhumans from their environment (Sale, 1985). Thus, bioregional theory focuses planning onregions which are delimited by biophysical, social and cultural characteristics defined by theregion’s own residents. Given this, Aberle (1985) recommends that aboriginal people be atthe centre of defming and governing bioregions.While bioregional theory is very philosophical and idealistic, it helps further the idealof public involvement in conservation planning by illustrating the connection of ecosystemsand peoples’ sense of place. The theory supports not only a “bottom-up” definition of aregion, but also “bottom-up” governance, which relates to the increasing call by individuals63and environmental non-governmental organizations for public participation, decentralizationand sustainable development.INNOVATIVE REGIONAL APPROACHES TO CONSERVATION IN CANADAGiven the review of general literature on conservation planning strategies, severalinitiatives in Canada are examined which illustrate the importance of the principles ofconservation strategy processes and regional conservation planning.The South Okanagan Conservation StrategyWorking cooperatively, the Nature Trust of B .C. and the Ministry of Environmentdrafted the South Okanagan Conservation Strategy (SOCS) in 1990, the first regionalconservation strategy in British Columbia. In this strategy, the Nature Trust merged its SouthOkanagan Critical Areas Program with the Ministry of Environment’s Okanagan EndangeredSpaces Program in order to more effectively preserve animal and plant species in the region(B.C. Ministry of Environment, 1992). While the SOCS covers a small part of the OkanaganThompson Plateau Ecoregion, the SOCS does address the need for management strategies forprivate and public lands outside of protected areas and for preserving ecological processeswhich support individual species. In this regard, the SOCS contains a fundamental element ofa conservation planning strategy by making recommendations for overall land use whichmaintain ecological process at the landscape or regional level.The SOCS thoroughly inventories flora and fauna species in the local ecosystem andmakes recommendations on a number of specific habitats. It, however, does not fully take64into account the institutional context or involve ongoing participation of government agenciesand local communities which have important land-use planning functions. While the SOCSsteering committee, composed of the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Nature Trust of B.C.,Royal B.C. Museum, U.B.C. and the Ministry of Environment, does represent a number oforganizations that study and/or protect wildlife, there is no permanent forum for involvingother agencies and groups’ activities which have the most effect on wildlife and habitats.Given this lack of wider involvement, three of the SOCS’ seven objectives, “encouraginginter-agency cooperation,” “encouraging balanced sustainable use of public and private landsand promotion of public awareness of habitats,” will be difficult to fulfil.9The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto WaterfrontAfter many years of rapid population growth and degradation of the Lake Ontarioshoreline, local concerns over federal policy regarding the waterfront led the federalgovernment to create the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Wateifront (RoyalCommission) in 1988 (Williams, 1991, 25). Although the Royal Commission had themandate to study only the waterfront of Metro Toronto, the Royal Commission’s area ofstudy was extended greatly to include the five Regional Municipalities centred on MetroToronto at the request of the Ontario government (Royal Commission, 1990, 11). With thisnew role, the Ontario government entered into the regional study based on concerns that theland use in the entire region had adverse effects on adjacent ecosystems and particularly waterFor a full description of the SOCS’ objective see p.7 of the South Okanagan Conservation Strategy (B.C.Ministry of Environment, 1992).65quality. By including land use and conservation planning in the entire Greater Toronto Area,the Royal Commission provides an example of the use of bioregions for a large planningstrategy. In adapting bioregional theory to frame an actual planning strategy, the RoyalCommission (1990, 22) uses a pragmatic, though limited, definition of a “bioregion”:The Greater Toronto Area [GTAJ waterfront being investigated by the RoyalCommission is part of a region that includes the watersheds of the rivers leading intoLake Ontario from the GTA. Anything that happens within this area is tiedecologically to the health of the waterfront. Therefore, to truly understand thewaterfront itself, we must gain an understanding of the biological region, or bioregion,in which it lies.The Royal Commission (1990, 22) goes on to note the importance of linking the biophysicalregion to the socioeconomic region by stating:Most of the bioregion now falls within the commuter and economic orbit of Toronto.In this sense it is our home-the ecosystems in which we live, work and play.Although the Royal Commission acted as a temporary advisory body, it made policyrecommendations on a regional approach, supporting federal/provincial agency coordinationfor conservation planning, with an emphasis on water quality. Unfortunately, localgovernments were not formally part of the Royal Commission, but optionally participated inthe study. Thus, the federal and provincial governments have committed themselves to adoptmany of the Royal Commission’s recommendations while only two of the five RegionalMunicipalities (Toronto and Durham) have begun to use the ecosystems approach in theirplanning (Williams, 1990, 28). The Royal Commission, however, provides an example of thebioregion concept being applied to a study of several watersheds occupied by a largecommunity.66Greater Vancouver’s Green Zone: An Example of a Regional District InitiativeThe Greater Vancouver Regional District’s Green Zone program which was developed outof the G.V.R.D.’s Creating our Future process (G.V.R.D., 1992 and 1993) is seen as anexample of a local government effort to identify areas for preservation through a variety ofgovernmental and non-governmental measures. The key to the Green Zone was the explicitrealization by the G.V.R.D. that conservation must be linked to the broader region with theutilization of a range of planning functions and government bodies. In fact, the G.V.R.D. haslinked the proposed Green Zone to a greenline around not only parks, but also agriculturalland, many riparian habitat areas, mountain watershed areas and multiple-use recreation areas.Inside the greenline, the G.V.R.D. has recognized that conservation involves various forms ofland protection aside from outright acquisition. Two Green Zone conferences were open to awide range of individuals and governmental and non-governmental stakeholders, and thusprovided a mechanism for the public to present information on what areas should bepreserved in a range of forms such as parks, multiple-use forests, community watersheds,riparian habitat areas and farmland. Secondly, the Green Zone process emphasizedcoordination of the land use planning of the G.V.R.D.’s municipalities by requesting thatmember-municipalities create inventories and orientate municipal planning to the protection oflands designated as green zone. Thus, the G.V.R.D. has attempted to look beyond thenumerous municipalities, provincial jurisdictions and various land tenures to protect habitat,ecological functions and outdoor recreation areas.67CHAPTER SYNTHESIS: CRITERIA FOR A REGIONAL PLANNING APPROACHThe literature related to three regional approaches to conservation planning, landscapeecology, bioregional theory and parks system planning points to several benefits of planningfor smaller-scale regions. Firstly, using smaller regions based on a system of ecoregions andecosections for shaping regional conservation planning strategies allows for better protectionof ecosystems through improved representation in protected areas. Secondly, comprehensiveplanning of land use in watersheds allows for much more accurate determination of how landuses and resource practices affect protected areas and overall ecological functions. Thirdly,planning which takes into account the cultural and socioeconomic linkages in definingregions, helps bring together different stakeholders who are more likely to have somecommon interest in their region.Thus, in addition to the first four criteria derived from the literature on conservationstrategy processes in Chapter 3, the remaining criteria for a regional conservation planningstrategy approach are related to the adoption and nature of a regional planning approach.Flowing from the literature on the three perspectives on the use of regions described in thischapter for a regional conservation planning strategy approach, three additional criteria arederived for evaluating the suitability of regions used for a conservation planning process.The fifth criterion, utilize watershed boundaries for defining the region, has anhistorical basis in regional planning theory and is common to all three perspectives onregional planning for conservation. Parks system planning at the national level is based onthe representation of natural regions, while in British Columbia it is now based on ecoregionsand ecosections. Both of these approaches have incorporated watershed boundaries into their68biophysical classification systems. Similarly, landscape ecology emphasizes the use ofwatersheds for bounding the study of the matrix of land uses affecting habitat and ecologicalfunctions, while bioregional theory states that watersheds should be used in conjunction withcultural attributes to define regions. From the literature on bioregional theory and landscapeecology, a subsidiary question relating to the spatial orientation of the region emerges.Is the region based on a watershed (or basin) also shaped by the geographic limits ofa recognizable community?The sixth criterion, integrate conservation and land-use planning, is mainly derivedfrom the literature on landscape ecology and from critical scholarly and professional reviewsof parks system planning. Landscape ecology is based on the premise of researching andplanning for the protection of habitats and broader ecosystems in the context of the “realworld” landscape which includes protected areas and a variety of human land uses. In thereview of parks system planning, the literature points to the need to undertake compatibleland-use planning adjacent to protected areas and to link protected area planning to thegeneral planning in the region in which they are located. A subsidiary question to ascertainwhether conservation and parks system planning is being integrated with overall land-useplanning is:Are both private and public lands included in the planning process?The seventh criterion, utilize an ecosystem classification system, is derived from theliterature on landscape ecology and particularly from parks system planning. A system suchas the biogeoclimatic zone system dividing British Columbia into 14 zones and their69combined 124 subzones and variants provides a systematic framework for identifyingecosystems. The more recent ecoregion system with its 110 ecosections provides anotherframework based on associations of biogeoclimatic zones in watersheds at a more generallevel. Either of these systems should be used as a foundation for determining which habitatsand landscapes are most threatened within the planning region. By doing this, areas ofpotential conflict and priorities for policy discussion can be formulated by the stakeholders inthe planning process.70CHAPTER 5BRITISH COLUMBIA’S CONSERVATION PLANNING FRAMEWORKRECENT PROVINCIAL ADVISORY INITIATIVES ON CONSERVATIONA brief description of recent provincial initiatives in conservation planning is requiredto give context for conservation planning at the local and regional district level. Within theprovincial government, the need for a strategic approach to conservation planning becameevident during the 1980’s as conflicts over the creation of parks and utilization of resourcesincreased dramatically. To address these problems, the provincial government launched anumber of advisory conunissions related to conservation planning. The first of these, theWilderness Advisory Committee (W.A.C.), was created by the provincial cabinet in 1985 andreported on 26 study areas and made recommendations on protection of large areas by avariety of designations (British Columbia, W.A.C., 1986). Although the W.A.C. receivedsubmissions from over one thousand individuals and organizations and made numerousrecommendations at its conclusion in 1986, it was several years until the provincialgovernment moved to undertake comprehensive planning for provincial parks beginning withthe Parks Plan ‘90 process in 1989.10After several years of increasing government indecision and public controversy overthe creation of protected areas and forestry practices, the provincial government moved tocreate the B.C. Forest Resources Commission in 1989. The B.C. Forest ResourcesCommission (B .C.F.R.C.) was established as an independent provincial advisory body to the10 The Parks Plan ‘90 process was eventually merged into the Protected Areas Strategy in May, 1992. See thefollowing thesis section on the Protected Areas Strategy.71provincial government to make recommendations on forest planning policy. Within two yearsof its creation, the B.C.F.R.C. received over 1700 submissions from individuals andorganizations through a series of public forums throughout British Columbia andcommissioned numerous professionals and academics to write background studies on forestand conservation planning for crown land in British Columbia (B.C.F.R.C., 1991c). From thiswork, the B.C.F.R.C. recommended a major restructuring of forest planning and managementbased on a new province-wide crown land-use planning process based at the forest region anddistrict level in its report, The Future of Our Forests, (B.C.F.R.C., 1991c). Also in 1991, keyrepresentatives of a wide range of provincial environmental, professional and industryorganizations reached consensus at the Dunsmuir II workshop and produced the DunsmuirAgreement which recommended the creation of a provincial land-use commission to developprovincial sustainable land-use goals and regional plans (C.O.R.E., 1993c). In December,1991, the B.C.F.R.C. commissioned a final major report, Land Use Planning for BritishColumbia (Ibid., 1991d), which further examined a provincial land-use planning process forcrown lands in British Columbia, proposing small independent land-use commissions,reporting to the Provincial Cabinet.COMMISSION ON RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTFlowing from the recommendations of the B.C.F.R.C. and the Dunsmuir Agreement,the provincial government created the Commission on Resources and Environment (C.O.R.E.)in 1992 with a mandate which included making recommendations to cabinet on a provincialconflict resolution system, reports on specific resource management and planning issues, and72crown land-use planning based on large regions.1’ The mandate and the role of C.O.R.E.was formalized by the passage of the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act inJuly, 1992. The commissioner’s mandate, defined in Section 4 of the Act, emphasizes theimportance of regional planning and community involvement by stating:(1) The commissioner shall develop for public and governmentconsideration a British Columbia-wide strategy for land use and relatedresource and environment management.(2) The commissioner shall facilitate the development and implementation, andshall monitor the operation of;(a) regional planning processes to define the uses to which areas of BritishColumbia may be put,(b) community-based participatory processes to consider land use andrelated resource and environmental management issues and(c) a dispute resolution system for land use and related resource andenvironmental issues in British Columbia.C.O.R.E. is independent of the provincial line agencies, but advisory to government asSection 3(1) of the Act states, “The commissioner shall advise the Executive Council in anindependent manner on land use and related resource and environmental issues in BritishColumbia and on the need for legislation, policies and practices respecting these issues.” Toassist in making recommendations on planning to the provincial government’s line agenciesand guide C.O.R.E.’s regional planning processes, in August, 1992, C.O.R.E. (1992) proposeda Land Use Charter which laid out the fundamental principles for the substance and process11 The regions selected were at the scale of Forest Regions not the Forest Districts as members of theB.C.F.R.C. had recommended in their comments on Land Use Planning for British Columbia (B.C.F.R.C.,199 id).73of provincial land-use planning. From these principles and consultation with provincialagencies and comment from non-governmental stakeholders, C.O.R.E. derived 45 Land UseGoals for provincial land use and resource planning under the headings of resource lands,human settlement, protected areas, coastal and marine areas, transportation, energy,sustainable economic development, sustainable environment, outdoor recreation, culturalheritage and aboriginal peoples (C.O.R.E., 1994a). In outlining the major elements of aprovincial land-use strategy, C.O.R.E. reflects the traditional separation of settlement planningfrom the provincial crown land and resource planning (see Figure 5). Yet, in regions suchas the Sunshine Coast, settlement areas and crown lands subject to provincial resource agencyresponsibility are highly interconnected over wide areas.C.O.R.E.’s Land-Use PlanningLand-use planning based on regions is central to C.O.R.E.’s mandate, with fourregions, the Cariboo/Chilcotin, the West Kootenay, East Kootenay/Boundary and theVancouver Island regions subject to C.O.R.E. regional processes. With these regionsgenerally based on Forest Regions or agglomerations of several Forest Districts, mapping is atthe scale of 1:250,000 to 1:500,000, with the finest level of mapping detail being 250 ha.blocks of land. (Brown, 1994). Thus, given the necessarily small scale for planning suchlarge regions, C.O.R.E. (1994b) has developed eight very broad land-use designations for theVancouver Island Region including: protected areas, regionally significant land, multipleresource use area (crown land), multiple resource use area (crown foreshore), multipleresource use area (private land), cultivation use area, settlement land and lakes.74Figure5:ElementsofaProvincialLandUseStrategySource:C.O.R.E.(1994a)STRATEGICGOVERNMENTDIRECTIONANDLEGISLATIONPRINCIPLEStSTRATEGYREVIEWitNationsgementmentsModificationsCharterMONITORINGAuditsandAnalysisIENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTGOALS POLICIESAPPROVALSELEMENTSOFAPROVINCIALLANDUSESTRATEGYReviews&PermittingRESEARCHrANDINVENTORYOPERATIONALPLANSOPERATIONALGUIDELINES&CODESTENURESe.g.ParksandTransportation/REGIONALPLANSCOREProcessGeorgia&FraserBasinInitiativesLandandResourcementPlansSUB-REGIONALLOCALLocalResourceUseandCOREPlansI...SETTLEMENTPLANNINGRegionalDistrictMunicipalPlanning policies within these land-use designations, (particulary settlement land, cultivation-use areas and multiple resource-use areas) are very general and will require planning at themore local level. Given this, C.O.R.E. realizes the importance of sub-regional planning basedon its province-wide Land-Use Goals and Land-Use Charter. Brown (1994) notes thatplanning must be undertaken through a hierarchy of regional scales from the large C.O.R.E.regions to local areas, respectively guiding broad provincial objectives to detailed siteplanning.Of the four regional processes, the Vancouver Island Region will be used as anexample for examining the C.O.R.E. regional planning processes as it was the only regionwith a plan completed at the time of writing, with biophysical and settlement patterns closelyresembling those of the Sunshine Coast. The importance of conservation planning for privatelands and foreshore areas along the East coast of Vancouver Island is borne out by the factthat the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan only recommends protection of less than 1 percentof the Coastal Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zone and under twelve percent of the low elevationvariants of Coastal Western Hemlock Zone which hug Vancouver Island’s settled east coast(C.O.R.E., 1 994c) (see Appendix II). With respect to the limitation of protecting thesepopulated coastal areas along the Strait of Georgia, C.O.R.E. (1994b, 118) states:Representation in some ecosystems, however, remains low, particularly in thedrier low elevation ecosystems in the north central and eastern portions ofVancouver Island. This is largely because good options for protected arearepresentation of these ecosystems are scarce, due to past development andsettlement... It is suggested that representation needs in these poorly representedecosystems can be addressed, to a degree, through a number of initiatives,including: implementation of the PAS goal to protect special features; thenegotiation of conservation covenants on key private lands; possible exchangeof Crown lands for suitable private lands; and parkland acquisition throughRegional Parks that include the goal of improving ecosystem representation.76Thus, it can be seen that the protection of these ecosystems is limited by the fact thatthey occupy some of the most heavily populated, fastest growing regions of the province andare largely located on private lands. Given this, a sub-regional approach focusing on theparticipation of individuals, local communities and private resource users is vital.C.O.R.E.’s Regional Decision-Making ProcessesAlong with C.O.R.E.’s mandated role for provincial land use and conservationplanning, C.O.R.E.’s second major role is the fostering of participatory cross-sectoral planningprocesses. While C.O.R.E. has a broad mandate for facilitating “shared-decision making” andestablishing a “conflict resolution system” for British Columbia (C.O.R.E., 1992), the focus ofthis brief description will be on the use of these principles for regional land-use planning.For each region, a regional table representing major sectors in society was established byC.O.R.E. staff. In the Vancouver Island process, C.O.R.E. worked with dozens of groupswith interests in provincial land-use, and through a series of meetings with these groupsestablished 14 sectors which each represented numerous groups with similar interests. Aftercreating this table of key sectors, C.O.R.E. guided the sector participants in developing aprocess design and subsequently, with the assistance of government agencies, providedtechnical assistance for general policy and land designation negotiations. However, while thisprocess did bring together all the major stakeholders, the table only succeeded in developing ageneral policy statement, a 2020 Vision Statement and a number of sectoral scenarios. As thetable was not able to develop a plan and specific policies in the time allotted, C.O.R.E. staff77used the information and policies generated by the table to recommend a land-use plan whichit presented to the Cabinet and public in February, 1994 (C.O.R.E., 1994b).Although C.O.R.E. (1994a, 62) notes that the Land Use Goals will be addressed byamending provincial policies, the question of the role of local government is highlighted bythe statement:However, the key question in relation to human settlement goals is the exact natureand effect of the goals on local governments. At the present time C.O.R.E.recommends that the Goals be considered advisory guidelines for local governments.C.O.R.E. recognizes the right of democratically elected local governments to makelocal land use decisions. However, C.O.R.E. recommends that the province follow theprecedent of numerous other jurisdictions and set these Land Use Goals as goals forlocal government.By this statement, C.O.R.E. indicates the importance it places on sustainable land-useplanning at the local level, but suggests a top-down approach for ensuring that local planningmust conform to the provincial Land Use Goals. However, C.O.R.E.’s recognition of theneed for sub-regional and local planning points to possibly more appropriate arenas for localgovernment involvement.SUB-REGIONAL LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNINGWhile C.O.R.E. has been created to make recommendations on improving provincialpolicies and developing broad regional land-use plans, the line agencies of the provincialgovernment have formed regional Inter-Agency Management Committees (I.A.M.C.) toaddress regional and sub-regional land use and resource management planning. I.A.M.C. arecomposed of senior regional managers of agencies involved in conservation, resource andland-use planning and who report directly to assistant deputy ministerial level. Two of the78key roles of the I.A.M.C. are guidance of sub-regional Land and Resource ManagementPlanning and coordination of the implementation of the P.A.S. at the regional level.The Land and Resource Management Planning (LR.M.P.) process has been designatedby the provincial government and C.O.R.E. as the principle sub-regional planning process forcrown lands, having evolved over the last three years from the Ministry of Forests’ ForestLand Management Planning (See Figure 6). L.R.M.P. processes are being undertaken byregional and local office line agency staff in Inter-Agency Planning Teams (IAPT), supervisedby regional I.A.M.C. and coordinated by the province’s Integrated Resource PlanningCommittee (I.R.P.C.) (British Columbia,I.R.P.C., 1994). While the exact relationship of subregional provincial planning processes such L.R.M.P. and C.O.R.E.’s regional processes hasnot been tested, C.O.R.E.’s regional plans are recognized to provide direction to subsequentL.R.M.P.’s while areas with completed L.R.M.P.’s will be used for development ofsubsequent C.O.R.E. regional plans (Owen, 1993). C.O.R.E. (1993c) suggests that subregional planning could be guided through a number of other flexible approaches such aslocal round tables, community resource boards created under provincial legislation or theextension of the scope of existing elected bodies such as regional districts. However, with theexception of several community pilot projects such as the Anahim Round Table and SlocanValley Resource Management Plans, sub-regional planning has been left to the L.R.M.P.processes. Thus, the L.R.M.P. process, initiated by the regional I.A.M.C. of line agencies, isthe principle process for providing stakeholder involvement at the sub-regional level.79Provincial Principles and Policies• Provincial Land Use Strategy:Regional Strategies• Regional Plans• Basin Management Initiativest‘4,Local Plans(as required)Site PlansFigure 6: Provincial Land Use Planning HierarchySource: British Columbia, Integrated Resource Planning Committee (1993)80L.R.M.P.’s have been initiated for crown land and resource management planning intwelve areas (usually consisting of one to several forest districts), representing 32 percent ofthe province, with planning generally at the scale of 1:100,000 to 1:250,000 (BritishColumbia,I.R.P.C., 1993d). As can be seen in Figure 7, the majority of L.R.M.P.’s arelocated in the less populated, northern parts of the province where crown land forms a greaterpart of the land-base, and there are smaller populations and less competition amongst interestsin land use. Of these twelve processes, the Kamploops L.R.M.P. is the nearest to completionand will also implement the Protected Areas Strategy (as in all areas not subject to C.O.R.E.regional land-use planning) (Kriese, 1994). Giving direction to the L.R.M.P. process, theprovincial government’s primary policy document, Land and Resource Management Planning:A Statement of Principles and Process (British Columbia,I.R.P.C., 1993d) defines L.R.M.P. as“an integrated, sub-regional, consensus-building process that produces a Land and ResourceManagement Plan for the review and approval by government.” The document outlines thefollowing principles for L.R.M.P.:Participation-Public Participation-Aboriginal Participation-Government Agency ParticipationDispute Resolution Process-planning for all crown land including provincial forests and aquatic land-possible participation of local governments to give context to local planningfor private landsPlanning Area and Scale-planning for all crown land including provincial forests and aquatic land-possible participation of local governments to give context to local planningfor private lands81REGIONAL PLANSA Vancouver IslandB Cariboo/Chi)cotinC Kootenay-BoundaryLAND AND RESOURCEMANAGEMENT PLANS1 Fort Nelson2 Fort St. John3 Dawson Creek4 Prince George5 Fort St. James6 Vanderhoof7 Kispiox8 Kalum South9 Bulkley10 Robson Valley11 Kamloops12 LakesMajor Land Use Planning Projects in B.C.LEGENDRegional PlansLand and ResourceManagement PlansYukon>C.NUSA.Figure 7: Major Land Use Planning Projects in British ColumbiaSource: British Columbia, Integrated Resource Planning Committee (1994)Although the L.R.M.P. process is initiated by the regional I.A.M.C., there is provisionfor stakeholder involvement and the incorporation of existing community round tables andresource boards. By doing this, established networks of stakeholders can be utilized forundertaking L.R.M.P.’s., saving organizational resources. Another innovative approach of theL.R.M.P. process involves the creation of numerous smaller resource units based onbiophysical and socioeconomic characteristics for which alternative scenarios are developedand negotiated upon, one-at-a-time. Lastly, the L.R.M.P. process allows for the integration ofimplementation of the Protected Areas Strategy and crown land-use planning.PROTECTED AREAS STRATEGYThe Protected Areas Strategy (P.A.S.) has evolved rapidly over a short period of timefrom being strictly orientated towards a parks systems plan to being part of the province’soverall land-use strategy. The P.A.S. has its beginning in the Parks Plan ‘90 process whichsought to meld public involvement, previous recommendations of the Wilderness AdvisoryCommittee and B.C. Parks’ analysis of representation and protection of unique special featuresites within a system of 59 natural landscapes.’2 From this effort, 108 potential provincialpark study areas for representation of the natural landscapes were selected while 539 othersmaller special feature sites were identified (B.C. Parks, 1990b). Also, during 1991, theMinistry of Forests’ Wilderness for the 90’s process identified fifty-nine study areas for thecreation of potential wilderness areas under the Forest Act (Searle, 1993). Given the12 Refer to Chapter 4 on parks system planning for a brief description of the regional approaches used in theParks Plan ‘90 and the Protected Areas Strategy.83emerging overlap of these sectoral agency efforts, the Parks Plan ‘90 process was mergedwith the Ministry of Forests’ Wilderness for the 90’s process to create Parks and Wildernessfor the 90’s in 1991. During 1991, B.C. Parks and the Ministry of Forests conducted a publicinvolvement process to solicit public input for additional information for further potentialparks and wilderness areas, management of these areas, and the overall system planningprocess. At open houses and meetings in 104 communities, 11,000 people attended, while3,500 written submissions were made to the two agencies, (B.C. Parks and Ministry ofForests, 1991) leading to the inclusion of some 295 preliminary additional study areas.However, while work was continuing on parks and wilderness proposals by the twosponsoring agencies, the creation of C.O.R.E. presented the most important change in thedirection of planning for protected areas. The P.A.S. created in May, 1992 to officially linkParks and Wilderness planning with the province’s overall land-use strategy. The firstcomprehensive statement on this linkage, Towards a Protected Areas Strategy for B.C.identifies 112 large and 72 small study areas throughout the province based on the work ofthe previous planning processes. More importantly, the document states the relationshipbetween protected areas and C.O.R.E. by noting:Recommendations on whether to designate all or part of large study areas will be theresult of comprehensive land and water use planning under the umbrella provided bythe Commission on Resources and Environment... Where study areas are already beingconsidered by local and sub-regional planning, that work will continue and may beenhanced by guidelines that evolve from the work of the Commission and from theProtected Areas Strategy... Small study areas, generally proposed as parks to meetrecreation goals, tend to involve only site-specific land use issues. Most of these willbe resolved through normal inter-agency referrals and review with interested parties(B.C. Parks and Ministry of Forests, 1992).84Thus, the provincial government had finally officially linked its protected areaplanning with broader crown land-use planning and other provincial strategies such as the OldGrowth Strategy. Going further to explain the role of protected areas in British Columbia’sland use strategy, the province published in 1993, A Protected Areas Strategy for BritishColumbia (British Columbia, PAS Office, 1993a) which explains the role of the P.A.S. assetting the direction for protected areas policy, future legislation and the identification ofstudy areas for C.O.R.E. and other sub-regional processes to consider for implementation.The P.A.S. recommends the designation and removal of future study areas based on theP.A.S.’s overriding goal of representation of ecosections and special features and proposesinterim management guidelines for use of lands within these areas (Mitchell, 1994).In undertaking these tasks, the provincial P.A.S. office mainly fulfils the function ofcross sectoral agency coordination for protected areas. At the provincial level, the P.A.S.office provides a secretariat to an assistant deputy minister’s committee which alsocoordinates L.R.M.P. policy for the province and reports to the Cabinet Committee onSustainable Development. Also, the seven regional Inter-Agency Management Committees(I.A.M.C.) who are responsible for guiding L.R.M.P.’s also guide Regional Protected AreasTeams (R.P.A.T.). R.P.A.T.’s, in turn, provide technical support for refining and designatingP.A.S. study areas through gap analysis’3 to the LA.M.C. and C.O.R.E. as well as coordinatethe limited public involvement in areas not subject to C.O.R.E. planning or L.R.M.P.’s.13“Gap analysis” is defined as “systematic application of goals and criteria to determine what resources orvalues are currently protected and what needs to be protected” (British Columbia. PAS Office, 1993b, 6).85Although C.O.R.E.’s regional planning and the sub-regional L.R.M.P. processes arecharged with implementation of the P.A.S., the work of the R.P.A.T. teams outside theseareas has involved limited public involvement, allowing non-governmental organizations andindividuals to make recommendations for “areas of interest.” Of particular importance, itshould be noted that the regions which do have the benefit of C.O.R.E. regional process orsub-regional L.R.M.P.’s are largely in the southern interior and mainland south coast wherethere are the greatest population densities and the greatest number of conflicting interests forthe use of public and private lands. In the Thompson-Okanagan, for example, the CanadianParks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) undertook the first of a series of eight regionalcampaigns for protected areas. CPAWS notes the very limited amount of protected areacurrently allocated on an ecosection and ecoregion basis, with less than 1 percent of theThompson-Okanagan Plateau Ecoregion being protected and less than 6 percent remainingroadless (CPAWS, 1992). Because of the level of agricultural, forestry and urbandevelopment in this region, CPAWS recognizes that many smaller protected areas and semi-protected wildlife corridors are required.From the above, it can be seen that the P.A.S. has evolved into a process for mainlyproviding assistance to those provincial agencies directly involved in comprehensive crownland use planning at the larger provincial regional level. Commenting on the P.A.S.,Morrison and Turner (1994, 355) state:Protected areas are an indispensable tool for preserving examples of much of BritishColumbia’s natural diversity. Protected areas alone, however, are not enough. Theywill succeed in attaining their conservation objectives only if management of thesurrounding land is compatible with those objectives... Other requirements are:comprehensive analysis of their ecological health; more active long-term managementprograms; regional strategies and greater cooperation with land managers beyond the86protected area boundaries; and the establishment of linkages between protected areasand buffer zones between protected areas and adjacent lands.Given this, government is challenged to find appropriate methods of integrating thework of the P.A.S. with planning at both the provincial level and local levels in the mostpopulated southern areas of the province.EVALUATION OF THE PROVINCIAL CONSERVATION PLANNINGFRAMEWORKThe evaluation of the provincial framework for conservation planning illustrates theneed for alternative conservation planning processes at the local level for rapidly developingregions at the rural/urban fringe in British Columbia. Thus, the following evaluation is notthe primary focus of the thesis, but instead provides the context for the case study of theSunshine Coast Region. As the evaluation is not the primary focus of the thesis and isqualitative in nature, it is based on published policy documents and reviews of parts of theframework by other authors.Within the provincial framework, C.O.R.E.’s regional planning, the sub-regionalL.R.M.P. process and the P.A.S. (in areas not subject to C.O.R.E. or L.R.M.P. processes) areevaluated. As these are complex and rapidly evolving processes, the following evaluation isbrief and based on policies which may have changed since the review of policy documentswas undertaken. The evaluation of these processes is conducted by measuring whetherprovincial policies utilize or support principles which satisfy the criteria derived from theliterature review. Given the rationale for each of these criteria in the literature, this87evaluation will help determine how well the processes support effective planning for theprotection of habitat and ecological functions.Multiple-Stakeholder Consensus-Based ProcessThe first criterion, multiple-stakeholder consensus-based process, is the mostimportant of the four process criteria as the three following process criteria are dependent onit. In general, C.O.R.E.’s policies for the conduct of its large regional planning processesmeet this criteria, but encounter difficulties in practice. The L.R.M.P. process is also basedon the premise that all major stakeholders should be involved in a consensus process. Thedesign of the L.R.M.P. process for incorporation of existing community round tables andresource boards provides a major improvement over previous government policies on publicparticipation in resource planning (see Brenneis, 1990; Duffy, 1990; Vance, 1990; Gunton andVertinsky, 1992). The P.A.S., when implemented through both C.O.R.E.’s large regionalplanning processes and the provincial government’s sub-regional L.R.M.P. processes, alsorelies on a consensus-based process. However, in the large provincial administrative regionsor sub-regions not subject to either C.O.R.E. or L.R.M.P. planning, the P.A.S.recommendations of the Regional Protected Area Teams (RPAT) can be implemented by theprovincial government’s regional Inter-Agency Management Committee (I.A.M.C.) without aconsensus-based process. Thus, the P.A.S. alone can not be evaluated against the criterion ofconsensus-based process. Aside from the general review above, several questions for morespecifically evaluating the effectiveness of the provincial framework in meeting the criterionare posed.88Does the process include representatives of all major stakeholders?Both C.O.R.E.’s regional planning and the sub-regional L.R.M.P. processes placeheavy emphasis on involving as many major stakeholders as possible. Due to the complexityand huge geographic size of C.O.R.E.’s regional processes, an extensive process ofaggradation of the various interests into a few groups has been required. In the case of theVancouver Island regional process, C.O.R.E. staff held meetings to allow the numerousdiverse stakeholders to select representatives for the 14 sectors at the table. In the L.R.M.P.process, the size of the plan area can range in size from one forest district to anagglomeration of districts, but the smaller populations and more local nature have allowed fordirect representation of more stakeholders (Kriese, 1994). Thus, the issue of accountability ofthe representatives can be less of a concern than in C.O.R.E.’s regional processes.Is there negotiation on the process before the substantive issues are negotiated?C.O.R.E.’s support of consensus decision-making is evidenced in the regional planningprocesses to a moderate degree. While the timeline for negotiations, the selection ofrepresentatives and the responsibility for drafting the final plan are vested in the C.O.R.E.staff, the design of the process for negotiation has been left mainly to stakeholderrepresentatives who created various subcommittees and working groups (C.O.R.E., 1994b).L.R.M.P. policy lays out a formal format for line agency initiation, process organization andresource unit “scenario development”, but allows for flexibility in designing the “buildingagreement stage” in which actual negotiation takes place (British Columbia,I.R.P.C, 1993d).89Is there sufficient third-party assistance, technical information and other resources providedto all stakeholders?With respect to assistance to individual representatives, Susskind and Cruikshank(1987) note their concern regarding “advocacy science” and state that assistance should belimited to process and basic logistical assistance to the group to allow representatives toattend meetings and conduct effective negotiations. C.O.R.E. provides facilitators for theregional round tables and also provides technical assistance from line agencies for generatingalternative plans for discussion. L.R.M.P. policy provides for existing line agencies toprovide much of the actual research as their local staff have the expertise, resources and localknowledge. However, provision for external socioeconomic analysis undertaken byconsultants is made by L.R.M.P. policy (British Columbia,I.R.P.C., 1993c). Also, the keypolicy document, Principles and Processes for L.R.M.P. (British Columbia,I.R.P.C., 1993d)states that assisted negotiation by external professionals should be an option. However, inpractice, Ministry of Forests personnel are the main source of facilitators, in addition toproviding other technical assistance due to the agency’s presence in most small communitiesand the lack of funds to hire outside professionals (Cooperman, 1994b, Kriese, 1994).Are the stakeholders encouraged to undertake principled negotiation?C.O.R.E.’s Land Use Charter and other provincial policy statements promote the useof principled negotiation for both its regional planning processes and other provincialgovernment planning. L.R.M.P. policy also states the importance of principled negotiation byreferring to the principles of consensus processes provided by the Dispute Resolution CoreGroup of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and Economy (British90Columbia,I.R.P.C.,1993d) while the I.R.P.C.’s Public Participation Guidelines (Ibid., 1993b)detail the need for a consensus process.Is there an implementation agreement with stakeholder and political commitment?Both C.O.R.E.’s regional planning and L.R.M.P. process are advisory and rely ongovernment for adoption and implementation. Although Susskind and Cruikshank (1987)recommend that consensus processes be advisory to government, there is some risk in thisapproach. In a survey of the Vancouver Island C.O.R.E. table representatives by the OutdoorRecreation Council of B.C. (O.R.C.B.C., 1994), one representative states:Had we reached consensus, the Table’s recommendations would have been irresistibleto government. As consensus was not achieved, politicians will not have a strongdirection and will be more susceptible to being swayed by short-term politicalconsiderations.Also, with respect to the advisory nature of C.O.R.E., there is concern that despiteC.O.R.E.’s official advocacy of bottom-up planning, through regional and communityinvolvement, the long-established pattern of top-down sectoral agency planning will continue.In a review of C.O.R.E., Sue Austen and Peter Tassie (1992, 13) state:.there has been an accumulation of resentment between provincial and localgovernments. If any meaningful results are to be produced, there will surely have tobe more give and take than there has been in the past, as the authority for Crown landallocation still rests with the province despite the suggested shared decision-makingprocess.Thus, if there is not strong government support of the process and acceptance of theconsensus or even partial agreement reached through the regional round tables, the processwill lose legitimacy. In the case of C.O.R.E.’s Vancouver Island process, the round table was91able to reach only partial consensus on general goals and policies. C.O.R.E. staff were left towrite the final report and complete the land-use map based on information on the variousinterests and preferences generated by the stakeholders in the process (C.O.R.E., 1994b).However, although C.O.R.E.’s regional plans are recommendations to the provincialgovernment, the broad-based involvement and amount of effort devoted to the processesnecessitated that government and the stakeholders generally support the report’srecommendations.With respect to L.R.M.P.’s, the adoption of the plan rests with the regional LA.M.C.and an Assistant Deputy Ministers’ Committee of the participating agencies. While thegovernment has the option to make changes in the L.R.M.P. developed by the stakeholders,the heavy representation of government agencies in the processes which receive authorizationfor the initial L.R.M.P. terms of reference and the Assistant Deputy Minister level wouldlikely ensure a fairly high degree of government support.Cross-Sectoral Agency CoordinationThe second process criterion, cross-sectoral agency coordination is vitally importantas numerous provincial agencies and local governments are involved in conservation planning.All three provincial processes support this criterion in both policy and practice. To help assesshow well this criterion is satisfied by the provincial processes, the following questions shouldbe answered:92Is there a lead agency or prominent individual occupying a leadership role for the process?C.O.R.E. acts as a superordinate advisory body to the provincial cabinet and reports tothe Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development, thereby ensuring coordination of agencypolicy at the Ministerial level and at the top of the bureaucratic hierarchy. Also, there is agovernment representative on each regional round table to represent the line agencies andassist in providing technical assistance to the other participants (C.O.R.E., 1994b). TheL.R.M.P. process involves all key provincial and federal agencies responsible forconservation and crown land-use planning in each plan area. The I.A.M.C. which has seniormanager representatives of all major provincial resource and environmental agencies takes onoversight and leadership roles. The local Inter-Agency Planning Team (I.A.P.T.) is chargedwith the actual preparation of an L.R.M.P., but reports to the regional I.A.M.C. In the P.A.S.,the R.P.A.T. also reports to the regional I.A.M.C. and the provincial Protected AreasCoordinating Team. Thus, the leadership role for the regional level P.A.S. planning appearsless clear. In sum, the L.R.M.P. model provides the best arena for balancing leadership andindividual agency autonomy as represented by the “alliance model” of coordination advocatedby Mulford (1988). Given this, the P.A.S. most adequately reflects the criterion whenprotected areas planning is undertaken in conjunction with L.R.M.P.Do the agency participants strive for a transdisciplinary approach?The C.O.R.E. regional planning process emphasizes a transdisciplinary approach. Asgovernment agencies are represented by one representative at the regional round tables, thegovernment representative must have a general understanding of the various disciplines and93specializations in the various line agencies. Also, the line agencies’ personnel seconded forproviding technical assistance to the regional round table must be drawn from a range ofdisciplines to prepare information for the stakeholders. More generally, C.O.R.E. hassupported a transdisciplinary approach by the development of its Land Use Goals which areintended to guide provincial agencies and local governments in the formulation of theirrespective polices (C.O.R.E., 1994a). By seeking the participation of provincial and majorfederal agencies in developing shared land-use goals, each agency should be forced to reviewand better understand other agencies’ policies and their technical basis to ensure that theirgoals do not conflict with other agencies’ goals at a high level.A transdisciplinary approach is supported more directly by the involvement of allmajor agency representatives in the I.A.P.T. working on the concrete policies in the L.R.M.P.process. Thus, social learning as discussed by Schon (1971) and Friedmann (1987) isfostered by assembling a group of diverse agency professionals who regularly meet togetheron a specific project. Unlike the C.O.R.E. regional planning processes, the various lineagency representatives are directly involved in the multi-stakeholder consensus process andmust gain a mutual understanding of their respective areas of expertise and jurisdiction whennegotiating on policies with outside groups. In contrast to the C.O.R.E. and L.R.M.P.processes, the P.A.S. achieves a transdisciplinary approach in a much more limited way. Therepresentation of disciplines in the staff members on the R.P.A.T. is limited in size andbreadth. Unlike the C.O.R.E. and L.R.M.P. processes which take a broader, holistic approachto land-use and protected areas planning, the P.A.S. is primarily designed to makerecommendations on one specific land use. To improve the integration of the P.A.S. with94other processes, the provincial P.A.S. Office has been incorporated into the provincial LandUse Coordination Office. Thus, the P.A.S. must be fully integrated with the regional andprovincial processes to be able to fully undertake transdisciplinary planning when designatingpark study areas and actual protected areas.Broad-Based Public InvolvementThe third criterion, broad-based public involvement, is required to be included in aprocess to ensure that a full range of public interests and values are incorporated into aregional conservation planning strategy. Aside from the involvement of major citizen groupsin a consensus process outlined under the first criterion, it should be asked:Is there is a consultation and information program for members of the general public?C.O.R.E.’s regional planning processes do not provide for any broad-based publicinvolvement prior to the initiation of the process or during the meeting of the regional roundtables. Starting with the early aggradation of interest groups into a limited number of sectorsby C.O.R.E., the process focuses on negotiation among key sectoral or stakeholderrepresentatives. The stakeholder representatives are relied upon to transmit information onthe substance of the processes to constituents in their respective organizations. While somesectors such as the local government sector and the outdoor recreation sector provided shortmonthly newsletters to affiliated interest groups and some interested individuals (A.V.I.A.M.,1994; O.R.C.B.C., 1994), the general public was not consulted nor involved in the process ofdrafting the plans. While the lack of general public involvement may be designed to preventdistraction of the representatives during sensitive negotiations, the public airing of a95completed plan to the general population does not support informed discussion. In thisvacuum of general public knowledge about the process and plan, misunderstanding andmisinformation can be spread.L.R.M.P. policy allows for more public involvement in the planning process than doesC.O.R.E. Although the I.R.P.C.’s Public Participation Guidelines (1993c) lay out a fairlyspecific groundwork for initial contact with the general public to seek out all majorstakeholders, further participation of the general public is optional. The option of providingfor broader public involvement is left to the I.A.P.T.’s perception of the level ofunderstanding and interest of the general population (Ibid., 1993b). Also, as L.R.M.P.’s areundertaken at a more local level, the stakeholders can represent a greater proportion of thevarious interests and values in the general population and are more able to communicate withtheir constituents than representatives in the C.O.R.E. process. Lastly, with respect to theP.A.S., the general public has only been given two formal opportunities for involvement overthe last three years. The first extensive province-wide opportunity was granted in the springof 1991 under the Parks and Wilderness for the 90’s process. Since the P.A.S. was formedin May, 1992, the R.P.A.T. have been responsible for conducting research for the designationof protected areas. In the Lower Mainland Region, the R.P.A.T. has only offered one formalopportunity for the public to meet with agency personnel and to allow for the submission ofnominations of “areas of interest” in March, 1994 (B.C., I.A.M.C., Lower Mainland Region,1994). Aside from this limited involvement, the general public and interest groups have onlybeen invited to help plan for single study areas in an adhoc manner through processes such asthe Ministry of Forests’ L.R.U.P.96Non-Governmental PartnershipsThe fourth criterion, non-governmental partnerships, provides a means for evaluatingthe building of long-term commitment of those outside government for implementation of thestrategy. The literature provides for two main questions to determine whether a processencourages non-governmental partnerships.Is non-governmental assistance in monitoring and implementation proposed or beingundertaken?None of the processes formally utilize or advocate the utilization of non-governmentalassistance in monitoring implementation. No organized effort for involving stakeholders inmonitoring for environmental standards or in the implementation of substance of the plan isproposed. While the C.O.R.E. regions are likely too large and diverse to allow directinvolvement of the stakeholders’ representatives, there could be policies encouraging the lineagencies to solicit assistance from stakeholders at the local or sub-regional level. Similarly,the L.R.M.P. policy makes no provision for non-governmental assistance in monitoring,although the smaller geographic scale of the L.R.M.P. plan areas would make this morepractical. With respect to L.R.M.P.’s, Jim Cooperman, a member of the British ColumbiaEnvironmental Network and the Kamloops L.R.M.P. committee, notes the desire for an ongoing forum by stating:One of the best outcomes of the LRMP process has been the building of trust andcooperation between the various sectors concerned with forest land management. Thisnew and improved relationship should continue. Land-use planning always exists on acontinuum... I suggest that rather than disband the group at the end of the process, weshould break into two permanent community resource boards [one in Clearwater andone in Kanfloops] (Cooperman, 1994a).97Unfortunately, a forum for on-going public involvement in the monitoring andimplementation of the L.R.M.P.’s is not provided. L.R.M.P. policy only makes reference tothe need for public involvement for discussion of amendments (British Columbia,I.R.P.C.,1993d), but makes no specific provision for ongoing community and non-governmentalpartnerships. As the P.A.S. is primarily concerned with designating study areas, but is notinvolved with the management of parks, stakeholder involvement in monitoring would not bedirectly applicable. However, the P.A.S. when making recommendations on protected areaslegislation, should encourage partnerships for monitoring.Are there non-governmental stakeholders involved in conservation projects or are projectsbeing proposed as a result of the process?Neither C.O.R.E.’s regional plans and Land Use Goals nor the line agencies’ L.R.M.P.policies make provision for the involvement of non-governmental stakeholders in the creationof demonstration projects. The only implicit reference to non-governmental participation ismade with reference to the role of local governments in shaping development to preservegreen space and natural features (C.O.R.E., 1994a, 56-63). The role of government to protectthe environment from private interests is emphasized, but C.O.R.E. and L.R.M.P. policies donot encourage the use of proactive non-governmental organizational support forimplementation. The 1993 P.A.S. policy document, A Protected Areas Strategy for B.C.,makes no reference whatsoever to any non-governmental partnerships. Given the growingmovement towards private stewardship by organizations such as the Nature Conservancy ofCanada and the B.C. Nature Trust, the provincial government is missing an opportunity forprotecting areas, particularly in the more settled parts of the province. Furthermore, by not98taking advantage of non-governmental assistance in the implementation of the variousplanning processes, government agency resources are further strained. In sum, this criterionis the least supported of the four process criteria for a regional conservation planning strategyapproach.Utilize Watershed Boundaries for Defining the RegionThe fifth criterion, utilize watershed boundaries for defining the region, is importantfor shaping the substance of conservation planning. The C.O.R.E. regional plans are basedprimarily on the provincial government’s seven environmental management regions. Theseregions usually include groups of watersheds feeding into basins, but do not include entireriver basins. The Vancouver Island Plan is the exception in that it covers an entire islandwith many small watersheds draining into the ocean. L.R.M.P.’s are based primarily on forestdistricts or groups of forest districts which include numerous smaller watersheds and subbasins. Similar to the C.O.R.E. process, P.A.S. planning is based on the seven provincialenvironmental management regions, but with boundaries substantially modified byrealignment in accordance with major ecosection and ecoregion boundaries close to theadministrative boundaries. As ecoregion boundaries are largely based on watershedboundaries unlike the biogeoclimatic zone system (see Chapter 4), the P.A.S. regions alsolargely follow watershed boundaries. From the literature on bioregional theory and landscapeecology, a subsidiary question relating to the spatial orientation of the region emerges.99Is the region, based on a watershed (or basin), also shaped by the geographic limits of arecognizable community?Under the C.O.R.E. process, the general boundaries of the planning region are initiallyset by C.O.R.E. itself and are again based on the government’s large environmentalmanagement regions. The stakeholder representatives, however, in cooperation with C.O.R.E.staff have adjusted boundaries. The large geographic size and consequent diversity ofcommunities in the regions presents a problem of defining any sort of a collective identitysimilar to that postulated by bioregional theory. In practice, for example, the small resource-based communities of northern and western Vancouver Island are grouped into the sameregion with very different metropolitan and urban areas of south-east Vancouver Island. Inthe Kootenay Region, the differences between the western and eastern parts of the region ledto the splitting of the table into two smaller regional tables (O.R.C.B .C., 1993). With respectto L.R.M.P., the size of the plan areas are smaller than C.O.R.E.’s regions and are usuallycentred on one major town. Although L.R.M.P. have a more local orientation, the boundariesof the L.R.M.P. are often arbitrarily preset by the Ministry of Forests, using their forestdistrict boundaries. In general, all three provincial policy frameworks largely utilize existingadministrative regions which use groupings of smaller watershed boundaries. However,providing involvement of local communities in defining plan areas, could improve communitysupport for the process.Integrate Conservation and Land-Use PlanningThe sixth criterion, integrate conservation and land-use planning, is vital fordetermining whether the process takes an holistic approach to the substance of the planning.100The C.O.R.E. regional planning processes make general recommendations for seven land-usedesignations with policies being consistent with the superordinate principles of sustainabilitycontained in the Land Use Charter and Land Use Goals (C.O.R.E., 1994a). However, thelarge geographic areas and the generality of the land-use planning designations leave muchroom for interpretation by local offices of line agencies and local governments. At the otherend of the geographic spectrum, provincial legislation for site-specific planning andmanagement has been improved. The provincial government has introduced a number ofpolicies such as the Forest Land Reserve Act, the Forest Practices Code Act and theStewardship of the Water of British Columbia initiative to improve standards and coordinationof environmental management among agencies.Given the generality of C.O.R.E.’s regional planning, the provincial government hasdesignated the L.R.M.P. process as the main forum for sub-regional planning at somewhatlarger scales of 1:100,000. By following C.O.R.E.’s Land Use Goals, this process may provevery valuable for conservation of habitats and ecological functions. Although L.R.M.P. policyattempts to promote integration of land-use planning and conservation, L.R.M.P. is strategicin nature and relies on “resource units” which include general management regimes for landwithin the unit but do not provide for specific, designated land uses. In spite of thisgeneralized approach to land use planning, the L.R.M.P. process provides the best provincialframework for satisfying the criterion of integrating of conservation and land-use planning.In the C.O.R.E. regions and the L.R.M.P. areas, the integration of P.A.S. implementation andcrown land-use planning addresses a major weakness of the past policies of sectoral resourcemanagement and separate parks systems planning. However, when being utilized in areas not101included in these planning processes, the P.A.S. process does not adequately link land-useplanning and conservation. The only link between conservation and land-use planning in theP.A.S. (when working alone from the other processes) comes from interim managementguidelines for “study areas” which restrict the amount of resource extraction and issuance ofprivate tenures until the final determination of the boundaries of a protected area are made.A subsidiary question to ascertain whether conservation and parks system planning is beingintegrated with overall land-use planning is:Are both private and public lands included in the planning process?As noted above, the C.O.R.E. regional planning processes make very broad policiesfor a number of land-use designations. However, from the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan(C.O.R.E, 1994b), it can be seen that the majority of private lands are located in one broaddesignation, “settlement lands.” While there are general recommendations in the regionalplans for conservation and habitat protection within the “settlement lands”, the planning forprivate lands is largely left to local governments due to the small mapping scale of C.O.R.E.’splanning. At the sub-regional level, L.R.M.P. policy makes a vague provision for theparticipation of local governments who are largely responsible for regulating private lands.Also, the policy states that L.R.M.P. is designed to plan for crown land use and generallyprovide a context for local government planning (British Columbia,I.R.P.C, 1993d). There isno formal linkage of municipal and regional district planning for settlement landsand non-resource use of crown lands to sub-regional planning. In practice, the large, sparselysettled areas and lack of intense development in the areas already subject to L.R.M.P.’s may102contribute to omission of planning for settlement areas. However, the I.R.P.C. is studying thepossibility of adapting the L.R.M.P. planning format for the more populated and complexregulatory environments of the south coastal areas of British Columbia (Truscott,August,1994). In short, the L.R.M.P. process provides an innovative mechanism for crownland and resource planning, but, in its present form, would not effectively integrate localplanning for private lands at the finer scale within areas such as the Sunshine Coast RegionalDistrict.Utilize an Ecosystem Classification SystemThe seventh criterion, utilize an ecosystem classification system, should be fulfilled toensure that the various landscapes and ecosystems of a region are studied and included forappropriate discussion by the stakeholders. Given the importance of preserving biodiversityby identifying and protecting threatened ecosystems as outlined in Chapter 4, it is importantto note that C.O.R.E. and the P.A.S. both extensively use ecosystem classification systems intheir analysis. More importantly, such systems should be used to guide the planning of themajority of land use outside protected areas. While the P.A.S. does not address land useoutside of protected areas, the P.A.S. provides assistance to C.O.R.E. in identifying theproportion of ecosystems which are currently included and are proposed to be included inprotected areas. However, from the experience of the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan(C.O.R.E, 1994b) the ecosection classification system has not been fully employed as arationale for creating protected areas, leaving some ecosections grossly under-represented withwell below 12 percent representation (see Appendix II). The provincial government has103committed that protected areas cover at least 12 percent of the province and each of the sevenP.A.S. regions, but does not guarantee that at least 12 percent of each ecosection is protecteddue to a large number of competing land uses in some areas (C.O.R.E., 1994b; BritishColumbia PAS Office, 1993a and 1993d).L.R.M.P. policy does not make specific reference to the use of systematic ecosystemclassification systems. However, the government is developing policies on resource analysiswhile the Coastal Task Force is developing an ecosystem classification for marine areas(Truscott, Sept. 1994). As the P.A.S. extensively utilizes the ecosection classification systemfor proposing study areas for protected areas, this information is indirectly utilized in theL.R.M.P. process when it is used to implement the P.A.S. Also, the finer-scalebiogeoclimatic zone system has been used by the Ministry of Forests in their managementpolicy for several years (Meidinger and Pojar, 1991), and thus could be used by Ministry staffwho play a central role in the L.R.M.P. process. However, given the lack of governmentpolicy for 12 percent representation of all ecosections, the linkage of conservation and land—use planning and promotion of non-governmental partnerships outlined under the previouscriteria are even more important.CHAPTER SUMMARYThe recent provincial planning initiatives meet more of the criteria for a regionalconservation planning strategy approach than previous government policies for conservationplanning. In particular, the emphasis on multi-stakeholder consensus process is incorporatedinto the L.R.M.P. and C.O.R.E. policies. Also, all three provincial initiatives support cross-104sectoral agency coordination. The L.R.M.P. process is the most supportive of atransdisciplinary approach while C.O.R.E. allows for the strongest leadership. The criterionof broad-based public involvement is somewhat less well supported by the provincialinitiatives, with the L.R.M.P. process most effectively utilizing broad-based publicinvolvement of both stakeholders and the general public. Finally, the criterion of nongovernmental partnerships is not adequately supported by the provincial framework in anysubstantive way.With respect to the criteria related to regional planning approaches to conservation, theprovincial framework does support the use of watershed boundaries, although seldom areintact basins included in planning areas. With respect to integrating land-use planning andconservation, both the C.O.R.E. and L.R.M.P. processes satisfy this criterion. However, theP.A.S., when used for direct planning of protected areas, does not support this criterion.Lastly, the P.A.S. extensively uses an ecosystem classification system. The C.O.R.E. regionalprocesses also utilize the ecosystem classification system in conjunction with the P.A.S.,while the L.R.M.P. process makes less direct use of an ecosystem classification system. Noneof the processes, however, guarantee a minimum level of representation of each ecosection inprotected areas. Given the above, the L.R.M.P. process likely provides the best frameworkfor supporting a regional conservation planning strategy approach for the protection of habitatand the conservation of ecological processes.105CHAPTER 6THE SUNSHINE COASTINTRODUCTIONGiven the review of the literature, and an examination of the provincial government’sframework for conservation planning in Chapter 5, conservation planning at the local regionaldistrict level will be evaluated. The Sunshine Coast provides a classic example of the needfor an approach which includes both provincial and local government coordination ofplanning for habitat and ecological protection. The performance of an innovative crosssectoral approach, the Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy, is examined and evaluated against thecriteria for effective conservation planning developed in the literature review.The General Setting of the Sunshine Coast RegionThe Sunshine Coast Regional District lies to the north-west of the Greater VancouverRegional District, occupying a 3879 km2 area between Howe Sound and Jervis Inlet and theStrait of Georgia. The S.C.R.D. largely includes the watersheds of Jervis and the SecheltInlets, but also includes land draining into the outer coast along Georgia Strait and thewestern side of Howe Sound (see Figure 8). Within the S.C.R.D., 78 percent of the region’sland base is crown land located within the Sechelt Provincial Forest. At the lower elevationswithin five kilometres of the Strait of Georgia and Howe Sound, and in smaller pockets alongJervis and the Sechelt Inlets, the majority of land is private and non-provincial forest crownland. Generally, the settled areas of the region follow Highway 101 for approximately 90kilometres along the outer coast of the Strait of Georgia from Howe Sound to the entrance of106Figure 8: The Sunshine Coast Regional DistrictSource: British Columbia, Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture (1990)ISH LI LL:Odt107Jervis Inlet. The most common uses of private land are rural and suburban residentialfollowed by private managed forest and resource lands, with additional small urbancommercial areas and a few large resource industrial areas. In the coastal foreshore, the mainuses established by term-limited crown tenures include log handling and storage, private boatmoorages, finfish and shellfish aquaculture, public wharfs and several large industrialloading/unloading facilities.The Sunshine Coast Regional District (S.C.R.D.) is one of just a few regional districtsin British Columbia undergoing a change from a mainly rural, resource-based economy toservice-oriented suburban/exurban economy. Increasingly, people are seeking alternative“country” lifestyles and are moving to the Sunshine Coast as a retirement community, whileothers are commuting to Vancouver or relocating small, specialized footloose servicebusinesses to their homes (Sunshine Coast Economic Development Commission, 1992). Withthis influx of permanent and seasonal residents, the pressure for residential and recreationaldevelopment has increased steadily for several years. From 1986 to 1991, the population ofthe entire Sunshine Coast Region increased 24.0 percent to 20,785, the fourth highest rate ofincrease among British Columbia’s 28 regional districts (Statistics Canada, 1993). With anestimated annual population growth rate of 4.3 percent annually to the year 2011 (S.C.R.D.Planning Dept., 1994), the current pressures on the land base will continue to remain, if notincrease.The rapid population growth accompanied by the migration, and the search for rural orwildland areas noted above has led to a diffuse population distribution. Unlike many regionaldistricts where the majority of residents reside within an agglomeration of urban108municipalities as is the case with the Greater Victoria and Vancouver areas or in a few smallisolated municipalities as is the case with more remote regional districts, over one-half of thepopulation of the Sunshine Coast Region lives outside of the municipalities. With thisdistribution of population and complex matrix of rural, suburban, resource and wildernessland uses in a relatively small region, increasing conflict has arisen over the protection ofhabitat and general environmental quality.Summary of Local Threats to the Sunshine Coast RegionWhile the Sunshine Coast Region is largely covered by crown land, the coastal andlower elevation areas represented by the Coastal Douglas Fir and drier sub-variants of CoastalWestern Hemlock biogeoclimatic zones have the greatest diversity of uses, tenures and privatedevelopment. Harding and McCullum (1994b, 237) note the Coastal Douglas Firbiogeoclimatic zone constitutes one of British Columbia’s four most endangeredecosystems.’4More specifically, the amount of the Sunshine Coast’s land base represented within“protected areas” has been the focus of concern for the S.C.R.D. for several reasons. Firstly,like the East Coast of Vancouver Island and Thompson-Okanagan regions, the total areadevoted to protected areas is very small. Currently, only approximately 1850 ha.(0.48percent) of the Sunshine Coast Regional District’s 3879 km2 area is represented in protectedareas. Secondly, there is poor representation of a number of ecosections in the provincial14 Harding and McCullum (1994b) base their assessment of endangered ecosystems on the percentage protectedin parks and the percentage fragmentation of the non-protected lands by roads. Non-fragmented ecosystemsare considered to exist when two-wheel drive roads are located further than 1 kilometre from a an area ofover 1000 ha. in size.109environmental management region (the Lower Mainland Region) in which the S.C.R.D. islocated with a total of only 4.8 percent of the entire Lower Mainland Region beingrepresented in protected areas (B.C., Lower Mainland Region, R.P.A.T., 1994). Theseecosections, the “Southern Pacific Ranges,” “Strait of Georgia” and “Georgia Lowlands,”ecosections all have less than one percent representation in the S.C.R.D. Within the Strait ofGeorgia Ecosection, and the coastal edge of the Georgia Lowland Ecosection lies thethreatened Coastal Douglas Fir Biogeoclimatic Zone of which less than one percent isprotected throughout the Lower Mainland Region. The Strait of Georgia and GeorgiaLowland Ecosections are two of the least represented ecosections in the provincial parkssystem. Thirdly, increasing outdoor recreational demand may jeopardize existing protectedareas given the very small area devoted largely for both conservation and recreation purposes.Between 1987 and 1993, B.C. Parks reports the number of day-use party visits to theSunshine Coast experienced an increase from 84,288 to 109,339 (B.C. Parks, 1987 & 1993).With respect to the coastal foreshore, there has been increasing pressure not only forprotection of natural habitat, but also overall water quality. Lambert (1994) reports that theBritish Columbia coast has one of the greatest diversities of marine invertebrates of anytemperate coastal region in the world with about 6,555 species. While extensive developmenthas occurred around the Georgia Basin and localized loss of habitat and chemicalcontamination have occurred, there is very little understanding of the impacts of theseperturbations and future development on the larger region’s marine ecology (Lambert, 1994;Harding, 1994b). Furthermore, McPhee and Wolfe (1993) note that 72,000 ha. of the BritishColumbia coast are closed to shellfish harvesting primarily due to sewage contamination with110a “trend towards greater closures.” In the Sunshine Coast Region, the Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks (M.O.E.L.P.) in a study of water quality in Pender Harbour in1992 and Sechelt Inlet in 1993 note that localized bacterial contamination from a relativelyfew permitted point sources and numerous non-point sources such as septic fields and vesseldischarge are the primary water quality concerns (B.C., M.O.E.L.P., Water Quality Branch,1993). With respect to its assessment of Sechelt Inlet, the M.O.E.L.P. (Ibid.,1993, 4) states,“Current water quality is adequate for designated water users in most parts of Sechelt Inlet,”but proceeds to caution, “Natural characteristics of Sechelt Inlet give it a moderately highpollution potential. There will be continued pressures for residential, commercial andrecreational growth, leading to increased conflicts with water uses and resources.Recommendations of the 1987 Sechelt Official Community Plan and the 1990 Sechelt InletsCoastal Strategy ... should be supported.”The Local Government Framework for Conservation PlanningThe following description of legislation and local institutions provides only a briefsummary to give context for conservation planning in the Sunshine Coast Region. Whilegeneral legislative powers and jurisdiction for conservation planning are examined, day-to-daymanagement processes of local government are not explored in detail.In the Sunshine Coast Region, the Sunshine Coast Regional District provides bothregional planning functions for the entire region and local community planning for those areasoutside of the Sechelt Indian Government District and the municipalities of Sechelt andGibsons which occupy a total area of approximately 55km2. Although the provincial111government abolished regional plans and regional district Technical Planning Committeescomposed of local governments and provincial agencies in 1983 through amendments to theMunicipal Act, less formal regional planning has been exercised since that time. TheS.C.R.D. undertakes regional planning activities involving the municipalities and provincialagencies under Section 787 of the Municipal Act which allows regional districts to undertake“regional district development services consisting of coordination, research and analyticalservices relating to the development of the regional district.” While this section does notexplicitly set out regional planning as a function, it allows for municipalities to voluntarilyparticipate and fund region-wide planning. Speaking to this process of separating regionaland local functions, Robert Bish (1991, 38) states, “The net result is a system ofrepresentation and voting rules that requires a relatively high level of consensus for generalregional board activities while permitting sub-areas to decide upon and pay for servicesadministered for their area by the regional board.” The Development Services Committee ofthe S.C.R.D. Board has been created under Section 787 of the Municipal Act to guideregional planning affecting conservation such as the development of Regional Parks Plansunder the Parks (Regional) Act, Integrated Watershed Management Plans and participation inother initiatives such as Ministry of Forest’s Local Resource Use Plans. Also, under theDevelopment Services function, the S.C.R.D. makes occasional recommendations on broaderprovincial initiatives such as the P.A.S. while routinely making recommendations onprovincial resource agency referrals for specific projects.The regional district’s second major planning function, Community Planning, underPart 29, Division (1) of the Municipal Act provides for local land-use planning by individual112municipalities and regional districts for electoral areas not included within municipalities.The main planning instruments for community planning are zoning bylaws and OfficialConununity Plans (O.C.P.). With respect to conservation planning for the protection ofhabitat and ecological functions, the Municipal Act provides for several major planning tools.Firstly, the park dedication regulations under Section 992 of the Municipal Act allowmunicipalities to require dedication of land or money in lieu thereof from developers. Whenfuture park sites are identified in an O.C.P., the regional district or municipality can dictatewhere the park will be located. The second major tool for protecting land for habitat throughlocal planning is provided by the designation of Development Permit Areas and Tree CuttingPermit Areas in O.C.P. under Part 29, Division (5) of the Municipal Act. DevelopmentPermit Areas can restrict the placement of structures or alteration of the land for geotechnicalsafety and habitat protection. Land-use and subdivision zoning under Part 29 Division (4) ofthe Municipal Act provides the third major tool for protecting land. By zoning for use,municipalities can restrict the use of land to protect ecological attributes of land to a certainextent and focus subdivision development in the most appropriate areas.In addition to municipal and regional district planning, the Sechelt Indian Band wasthe first Band in Canada to receive any form of self-government. Under the 1986 SecheltAct, the federal government has removed much of its jurisdiction derived from the Indian Actand vested it with the Sechelt Indian Band in a form of government with all of the legislativepowers of a municipality and some of the powers of a province. Under the Sechelt Act,Indian Reserves have been redesignated as “Sechelt Band Lands” with greater Band controlthan was provided for under the Indian Act. The Sechelt Indian Government District has113formal jurisdiction over 33 “Band Land” areas containing approximately 1000 ha. andexercises municipal and provincial planning powers on its lands similar to those formunicipalities.From the above it can be seen that regional districts such as the S.C.R.D. have specificlegislative mandates for community planning, mainly on private lands. However, S.C.R.D.participation in provincial resource management is usually advisory and often initiated by theS.C.R.D. itself due to community interest and local political pressure. Conversely, theprovincial agencies such as the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry ofForests must approve many local planning initiatives. These agencies are often located in far-removed regional offices in Greater Vancouver and have very few resources to adequatelyenforce their regulations or assist in implementation of their requirements in O.C.P. Also,there is community concern over the “revolving door syndrome” whereby many provincialagencies’ staff continually changes, leaving few technical people with local area knowledge(Reid, August,1994). Thus, there has been a continuing pattern of S.C.R.D. dissatisfactionover the provincial agencies’ policies and management for the protection of the environmentalquality. Examples of this dissatisfaction and associated conflict have been borne out in anumber of local-provincial resource and conservation planning processes. For example, theS.C.R.D. and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks have been in ongoing conflictover water quality and logging with the Ministry of Forests and International Forest Productsin the 64 km2 Chapman Creek Community Watershed. Since 1990, with the creation ofChapman Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan (IWMP) process, these groups andother agency participants have met regularly, but remain deadlocked with no mutually-114acceptable agreement being reached, having failed to come to a consensus on a plan whichbalances water quality protection and forest harvesting (Reid, June,1994). Overlapping theChapman Creek IWMP area, the Ministry of Forests’ Tetrahedron Local Resource Use Plan(LRUP) has continued for three and a half years, but has just recently come to a consensus,recommending to the Lower Mainland IAMC that approximately 80 percent of the LRUP areabe designated as a provincial park under the Protected Areas Strategy. In general, regionaldistricts are most often involved in conservation planning in either local community planningor provincial planning for specific crown land-use problems and small areas such asindividual watersheds or watercourses.THE SECHELT INLETS COASTAL STRATEGY: A CASE STUDYIn contrast to the small-scale, relatively adhoc and sectoral planning described above,the S.C.R.D. has undertaken a regionally-based, cross-sectoral planning initiative to addresscoastal zone conservation in the Sechelt Inlets. This initiative, the Sechelt Inlets CoastalStrategy, is an example of an innovative approach to cooperative conservation planning in theface of diverse development pressures and is used as a case study. The evaluation of thiscase study provides an explanation of what should be done, and not done in smaller regionssuch as the Sunshine Coast to strategically plan for conservation.Background Issues Related to the Sechelt Inlets Coastal StrategyDuring the 1980’s, the Sechelt Inlets area (including Narrows and Salmon Inlets)experienced rapidly increasing aquaculture development, forest harvesting, outdoor recreation,115residential development and other resource extraction activities. These issues, also affectingother parts of the southern British Columbia coast, led provincial agencies, under the directionof the Ministry of Environment and Parks (1987) to develop the Sunshine Coast andCampbell River/Johnstone Strait Coastal Resource Identification Study (C.R.I.S.). TheC.R.LS. primarily provided a cursory inventory of coastal foreshore areas at a 1:200,000 scalein the Sunshine Coast Region classified as either “important” or “critical” according togeneral observation of the participating agencies. Thus, a small area might be designated as“critical” for shellfish habitat, traditional native use, log booming and as a yachtingdestination. In short, the C.R.I.S., provided for no planning framework nor did it makepolicies for the most appropriate use of the foreshore.At the same time as provincial agencies were creating a better inventory of the coastalzone, political concern over the aquaculture industry spurred independent assessments of thecoastal zone planning process such as the report, An Inquiry Into Finfish Aquaculture inBritish Columbia (Gillespie, 1986), and the report, Aquaculture and the Administration ofCoastal Resources undertaken by the Ombudsman, Stephen Owen, in 1988. Of the three finalrecommendations in Owen’s 1988 report, two had broader implications for planning in thecoastal zone:1. A framework for integrated management of resources and activities in thecoastal zone should be created...2. Consensual dispute resolution (CDR) techniques, as outlined in this reportshould be recognized, promoted, and applied as official policy by all relevantMinistries, and should, as appropriate, be recognized and implemented throughamendments to existing legislation (Owen, 1988, 99-101).116Local Support for Creating the Sechelt Inlets Coastal StrategyGiven the provincial attention to coastal zone problems and the recommendations ofthese reports, the SCRD hoped that the provincial agencies responsible for resourcemanagement and planning would undertake a coordinated planning approach to resourcemanagement and conservation in the Sechelt Inlets area. However, while provincialassessment guidelines for application for coastal zone development were improved to reflectsome of the recommendations of the above reports on aquaculture applications (B.C. Ministryof Agriculture and Fisheries, 1987), no strategic conservation and resource planning wasundertaken. This absence of strategic provincial planning and community concern overaquaculture and forestry practices was particularly acute in the Sechelt Inlets area whichincludes Salmon and Narrows Inlets, lying in the centre of the Sunshine Coast Regionimmediately north of Sechelt as shown in Figure 9. To address these concerns, the S.C.R.D.Board created the Foreshore Advisory Task Force (FATF) in May, 1987. Gordon Wilson, aS.C.R.D. elected representative, remained Chair of the FATF from its inception in 1987,calling meetings every several months in Sechelt with local regional district electedrepresentatives, municipal councillors, provincial and local government staff and severalmembers of the general public. With the creation of the FATF, local political and provincialagency support for a conservation planning process for Sechelt Inlets became focused.117Sunehine Coaet Regional DiatrictForeehore fldviaorU Tael< Force andCatherine Berrie Aeeocletoe Inc.March 1q88 J9zzz ‘L?SCAU 0 1000 2c0c tHThor,ihtll Ft.Ft.Pt.’tv.rFigure 9: The Sechelt Inlets AreaSource: Catherine Berris Associates (1988)118The Pre-Planning Process for the Sechelt Inlets Coastal StrategyShortly after its inception, the FATF saw the need for a conservation strategy approachto planning for the Sechelt Inlets and commissioned Catherine Berris Associates to undertakethe Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy Pilot Project between August, 1987 and May, 1988 (seeFigure 10 for Chronology). The Pilot Project essentially was designed as the first phase ofthe Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy and assembled important information from the disparategovernment agencies and other groups in the FATF. The objectives of the Pilot Project wereto provide an information base of existing land status and uses, “analyze patterns of use andinterest” and “inform the public about the planning activities being undertaken and obtaintheir input” (Catherine Berris Associates, 1988a, 1). To fulfil the first two objectives,Catherine Berris Associates and the S.C.R.D. relied heavily upon the use of GIS mapping forthe creation of thematic map layers derived from the provincial government’s C.R.I.S.mapping and other technical information gathered from provincial agencies. From thesethematic overlay maps, areas with multiple interests and potential conflict were identified. Toobtain public comments on planning and their general vision for the Sechelt Inlets area, apublic forum was conducted in March, 1988. Also, the general public was given a formalopportunity to view a display of the background inventory maps and alterative strategy mapsat the public forum and a week-long public display in Sechelt where questionnaires werecompleted by the public. The public forums and questionnaires were designed as a means ofgaining public input for the transition between the information-oriented Pilot Project and theplanning-orientated Phase Two, the Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy (FATF Minutes, January22,1988).119FIGURE 10CHRONOLOGY OF THE SECHELT INLETS COASTAL STRATEGYMay, 1986May, 1987August, 1987March, 1988May, 1988October, 1988October, 1988to Oct., 1989February, 1989May, 1989June, 1989June, 1989October, 1989January, 1990April, 1990May, 1990June, 1990First Foreshore Advisory Committee meetingTerms of reference for Committee transformed to create the independentForeshore Advisory Task Force (FATF) with agency and otherstakeholder representationFATF approves the Pilot ProjectPublic Open House for the Pilot Project and distribution ofquestionnaires to citizensPilot Project finished and identifies existing and prefened uses byagencies and stakeholdersFATF approves Phase II - The Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy (S.I.C.S.)Working Committee of the FATF created to draft the S.I.C.S., holdingregular meetingsFATF Public Forum introduces Working Committee and workcompleted.FATF Public Forum to review the first complete draftWorking Committee Interim Report to the S.C.R.D., agencies andstakeholdersFATF Public Forum to review the draft documentWorking Committee Interim Report, agreement on an amending processand other outstanding issuesSigning off ceremony cancelled due to one last designationdisagreement for the Tuwanek areaFATF makes agreement on Tuwanek designationFATF holds concluding meeting on the S.I.C.S.Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy signed by all stakeholders120In short, the Pilot Project provided a summary of the existing uses and identified the mostecologically sensitive areas as background information for future land-use designations.The FATF initiated Phase Two of the Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy (S.I.C.S.) inOctober, 1988 to create general policies and designations of the foreshore and immediateuplands (see Figure 11). The S.I.C.S.’s objective was to provide a common vision, guidelinesand area designations which all agencies and governments would utilize to guide theirmanagement decisions. To develop these designations and general policies, the FATF createda Working Committee with representation from five provincial agencies (the Ministries ofForests, Environment, Crown Lands, Agriculture and Fisheries, Municipal Affairs), three localgovernments (S.C.R.D., the District of Sechelt, and the Sechelt Indian Government District),two community citizen representatives, one industry organization representative,(the Councilof Forest Industries) and the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (FATF Minutes,October 6,1988). While there were no organized non-governmental stakeholders representedwith the exception of the Council of Forest Industries, some agencies took on an advocacyrole. Most notably, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries tookon an advocacy role for the forest and aquaculture industries respectively (Reid, June,1994;Truscott, August,1994). Representing local citizens and community associations, two localcitizen representatives, Trevor Kirby and Barbara Jackson, were delegated by the WorkingCommittee to report back to the local communities and take concerns from the communitiesto the Working Committee table (Jackson, August,1994).121SCOII 0 OOO 2000m NORTHFigure 11: The Sechelt InletsSource: Catherine Berris AssociatesCoastal Strategy Area Designation Map(1990)7LokoCrookUo,Pt. i1looCroakMiSeal-rn ILCrookI Pt.Pt.Thorr,hjI IRInerCarl oonCrockSECHELT INLETS COASTAL STRATEGYArea Desatn PkxiMap 1: PRIMARY DESIGNATIONS* Conservatn‘i Reaegtian ResourcesResource ManagementI Rurd DeveiieaiisquscultureI Commuinty Developnieni• t1JslryFor: Sunshine Coast Regional Districtroreshore Advisory Task ForceBy: Ctbm-ne Barns Associates Inc.June 1990122Before the initiation of the S.I.C.S. Working Committee, the broader FATF agreed onterms of reference in which one of the goals of the S.I.C.S. was to reduce future repetitiveconflict over development and conservation in the Sechelt Inlets (FATF Minutes, February12,1988). To achieve this, Catherine Berris Associates (1988b) prepared a Proposal forServices which called for a conflict resolution approach focused on the smaller WorkingCommittee. In short, the Working Committee agreed that no policy would be made or mapdesignation placed on the maps unless there was agreement of all the Working Conmiitteerepresentatives in attendance at the meetings.From October, 1988 to October, 1989, the Working Committee met regularly todevelop the S.I.C.S. with Catherine Berris Associates acting as facilitator/mediator. TheWorking Committee included all the agency representatives from the FATF and was designedas a “non-political” task-oriented group. Private meetings were held in Vancouver at theOffices of Catherine Berris Associates to facilitate the meeting of agency representatives fromVictoria, Vancouver and the Sunshine Coast (Jackson, August,1994). In contrast to theFATF, there were no politicians or members of the public, except the two citizenrepresentatives. From the interviews of the Working Committee members undertaken for thisstudy, most felt that this approach allowed for frank and open discussion. However, at theFATF meetings and Public Forums some individuals in the local community questioned theefficacy of the private meetings. In response to such criticisms, Gordon Wilson, Chair of theFATF, indicated the rationale for creating a separate Working Committee by stating in a localnewspaper: “We couldn’t get the technical issues dealt with and the government people weresaying they are not interested in being abused by the public on the issues about which the123government representative can’t comment. “(The Coast News, November 21,1988). Reflectingthis, representative Joe Truscott of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in Victoria statedhis concern over the difficulty of accomplishing work at the open FATF meetings because ofpolitical opportunism and harassment of some of the members (Truscott, August,1994).Process for Drafting the Sechelt Inlets Coastal StrategyUsing the March, 1988 Public Forum and Pilot Project mapping, Catherine BerrisAssociates drafted a preliminary designation map and policy statements. During the initialmeetings, the representatives refined the “concerns”, “trends,” “overall vision” and “goals andobjectives” sections. Subsequently, the Working Committee discussed the areas identified ashaving “multiple interests” under the Pilot Project. Eventually, through iterative discussionson the definitions of the designations and general policies and map designations, a completefirst draft of the S.I.C.S. was prepared in May, 1989. Throughout the process, WorkingCommittee minutes and the interviews showed that representatives repeatedly reported back totheir respective stakeholder groups. In particular, the community representatives and the localgovernment planners were in the most communication with local citizens and politicians whileseveral of the provincial agency representatives (notably the Ministries of Crown Lands,Fisheries and Agriculture and Forests) and the C.O.F.I. representative were required to obtaindata from their organizations with respect to tenures and possible land-use conflicts. Duringthe drafting of the S.I.C.S from February, 1989 to October, 1989 the Working Committeereported back to four FATF meetings and Public Forums. While these meetings dealt with124day-to-day planning and resource issues, the Working Committee would be present andCatherine Berris would make a report on the progress of the S.I.C.S.Both the S.I.C.S.’s substantive policies and designations as well as procedural policiesrelating to the enforceability and the implementation sections of the document were labouredover with the Working Committee negotiating on the amendment procedures at severalmeetings. Also, the legality of the enforceability of the S.I.C.S. caused concerns among someof the stakeholders. In particular, the District of Sechelt and the Federal Department ofFisheries and Oceans (DFO) were concerned that their legislative and policy-making powersnot be hindered by the S.I.C.S. (Working Committee Minutes, June 7,1989). The District ofSechelt’s representative insisted that text notations on the supremacy of the Sechelt O.C.P.and bylaws be placed on the map and within the text of the document.The major substantive difficulty reported by the participants was the designation of alog dump site at Tuwanek, a small community of approximately 200 residents at the northernedge of the District of Sechelt. While the Working Committee reached agreement on over300 map units covered by the seven primary use designations and six subordinate “alert”designations, an irreconcilable conflict between the Tuwanek community and forest interestsbecame apparent in the early spring of 1989. Trevor Kirby, representing the community, andthe Ministry of Forests and C.O.F.I. representatives disagreed on the designation of the site atnumerous meetings until the last Working Committee meeting in October, 1989 (FATFMinutes, October 4,1989). At the October Public Forum, preceding the full FATF meeting,Tuwanek residents voiced their concern over having a Resource Management designation onthe waterfront adjacent to their community which would allow log handling and other125resource activities. To allay their concerns, they wished to have no designation on the sitewhereas the Working Committee members wished to place the Resource Managementdesignation on the site with secondary “community and recreation alerts” (FATF Minutes,October 4,1989). However, with the Working Committee dissolved, the issue remainedunresolved and a scheduled January, 1990 signing ceremony was aborted. In response to thelack of agreement, the FATF met in April, 1990. Where a compromise “agreement todisagree” was made whereby no primary designation was placed on the Tuwanek areawaterfront. Instead, the location was designated an “area of conflict,” leaving the standardregulatory and management regimes to prevail with only partial guidance provided by asubordinate “community alert” which stipulates community involvement in future decisionsfor the area (FATF Minutes, April 10,1990).The Product: The Sechelt Inlets Coastal StrategyThe S.I.C.S. was created to both inventory existing resource interests and madeprovision for future development based on the following vision statement:To guide the future of the Sechelt Inlets so that it is a model for balancingdevelopment and use with a sustainable environment through the conservation ofenvironmental resources, provision of recreational opportunities, and support ofcommerce, industry and settlement (Berris Associates, 1990, 6).Under this overall vision, the Working Committee developed 18 objectives to guidethe designation of uses and future planning in the Sechelt Inlets by all agencies andstakeholders. Seven primary designations (shown on the map in Figure 10) were developed.In addition to the primary designations, subdesignations were developed to detail morespecific uses. For example, under the “Conservation” primary designation, a “Conservation 1”126subdesignation allowing for no human use except for very limited recreation is permittedwhile a “Conservation 2” subdesignation allows for more active recreation as a secondary use.Furthermore, the S.I.C.S. provided for six “alert” categories as an additional layer over thedesignations in contentious areas, denoting important secondary interests (Berris Associates,1990, 11). Some of the representatives attribute the alert and subdesignation approach tohelping reduce deadlocks in negotiations of the Working Committee by allowing morechoices for prioritizing by the representatives.The S.I.C.S. does not alter the broader institutional context or the legal responsibilitiesof the various signing agencies. This general concern for maintaining jurisdictional autonomyis most strongly evidenced by the first statement in the implementation section of the planwhich states that the strategy does not override the jurisdiction of the participating agencies(Berris Associates, 1990, 21). Central to the S.I.C.S. is the assumption that the seven primaryuse designations of the foreshore and upland will reduce the number of disagreementsbetween the various provincial agencies and local governments during future referralprocesses. Thus, the S.I.C.S. was designed chiefly to reduce conflict amongst the variousgovernment agencies, while accounting for public concerns.However, in spite of stated reliance on the existing agency referral processes, theS.I.C.S. provides for policies on “Monitoring” and “Process for Changing Designations.” Thelatter is the most important in that it provides that all agencies wishing to change adesignation give 60-day notice to all members of the permanent FATF. Thus, if any of theagencies propose a designation change as a result of a policy change within their agency ordevelopment which does not conform to the S.I.C.S., there will be an opportunity to discuss127the merits of the change. The S.I.C.S. goes on to state the FATF will be the permanentforum overseeing the procedures for amendment and review of the FATF.Implementation of the Sechelt Inlets Coastal StrategyThe following summary of the implementation of the S.I.C.S. is mainly used to givecontext for the evaluation of the S.I.C.S. in the following section. The primary informationsources used include a review of the minutes of the FATF, interviews of working committeerepresentatives and an examination of a major conflict, the sinking of the H.M.S. Chaudierein 1992.From the interviews, most of the agency representatives responsible for approvingprojects and licences have utilized the S.I.C.S. in their review of applications or inter-agencyreferrals. While the regional managers and directors for the government agencies signed theS.I.C.S., many of the agencies’ local representatives felt there was senior agency support, butlittle interest in the S.I.C.S. A representative of the B .C. Lands section of the Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks noted that he had hoped that all of the agencies had agreed tobe more closely bound by the S.I.C.S., thereby reducing the number of referrals and timetaken for the processing of development proposals (Sorken, August, 1994). Forimplementation of the S.I.C.S., B.C. Lands has created a file in its computer data basewhereby all tenures are flagged with a notation referring to the S.I.C.S. (Kokz, August,1994).Also, Land Officers for the area use the S.I.C.S. for making recommendations on crown landapplications. Similarly, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has had little opportunity touse the S.I.C.S. as there has been a decline in the aquaculture industry due to the broader128market conditions. In an extensive assessment of the water quality in the area, the Ministryof Environment Lands and Parks has supported the S.I.C.S.’s general policies anddesignations as a means of fulfilling its water quality objectives (B.C. Environment, WaterManagement Division, 1993). The Ministry of Forests takes the S.I.C.S. into considerationwhen it plans logging and log handling in the foreshore (Cattanach, August,1994). TheDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans makes more specific reference to the S.I.C.S. for allreferrals on the Sechelt Inlets and has used the S.I.C.S. as a basis for denying and approvingvarious applications (Russell, August, 1994).At the local government level, the S.C.R.D. planning department always uses theS.I.C.S. as the basis for its recommendations for approval or denial of referrals from theprovincial agencies (Reid, August,1994). Also, the S.C.R.D.’s Draft Official Regional ParksPlan (S.C.R.D., 1991) has used the S.I.C.S. for supporting the creation of regional parks onsome crown lands designated as “Recreation” and “Conservation.” S.C.R.D. planning staffalso utilize the S.I.C.S. when informal developer requests regarding rezoning are received.However, no formal applications for rezoning within the study area and outside of the Districtof Sechelt have been proposed since the adoption of the S.I.C.S. In the District of Sechelt,where most of the urban residential development is occurring in the Sechelt Inlets area, theplanning department makes reference to the S.I.C.S. in commenting on applications forsubdivision, rezoning and Official Community Plan (O.C.P.) amendments. However, theDistrict of Sechelt uses the S.I.C.S. as a leveraging device, but has not used the S.I.C.S. as abasis for denial of a project (Buchan, August,1994). Similarly, the community’s O.C.P.129review committee has used the S.I.C.S. as a source of guidance for drafting a new O.C.P. forthe District of Sechelt.Aside from the routine use of the S.I.C.S. for guidance of agency resourcemanagement and local government planning, the FATF has continued to meet several timeseach year since 1991 as the need is perceived by the chair. These meetings have allowedboth citizen and agency members to discuss a few of the larger or more contentiousproposals. At the meetings, the FATF has made recommendations for denial and approval ofseveral developments. While most of these issues were summarily agreed upon by the FATF,the sinking of the H.M.S. Chaudiere, a navy destroyer, by the British Columbia ArtificialReef Society has been the most contentious issue and a test of the implementation of theS.I.C.S. In October, 1992, the FATF convened a meeting to address public controversy andmake a recommendation on the sinking of the H.M.S. Chaudiere.Three groups of organized local community public opinion formed on the issue. Agroup of local business people supported the proposal, while citizens led by a group calledCoastwatch and the Sechelt Indian Government District (S.I.G.D.) opposed the proposal. TheS.I.G.D. objected on the grounds of concern over the ecological effects of sinking an oldnaval ship as well as concerns over its outstanding land claims in the area (FATF Minutes,October 30,1992). In particular, there was disagreement regarding the asbestos being left onthe ship, with both sides presenting conflicting scientific evidence. Although the FATFpassed a recommendation that the proposal would be permitted under the “Recreation Use”designation in the S.I.C.S., it also recommended that existing environmental information beassembled and that the there be consultation between the S.I.G.D., B.C. Lands and130Environment Canada. The FATF also recommended that the native land claims jurisdictionalissue be clarified (FATF Minutes, October 30,1992). However, after the meeting, therequired agencies granted approvals for the H.M.S. Chaudiere to be sunk, over the strongobjection of the Sechelt Indian Government District. As the FATF had continued toemphasize a consensus approach to the implementation of the S.I.C.S., this major controversyin the plan area challenged the integrity of the implementation process. From the followingevaluation of the S.I.C.S., general conclusions and recommendations will be made whichaddress this issue as well as other weaknesses in the planning and implementation processesfor the S.I.C.S.EVALUATION OF THE SECHELT INLETS COASTAL STRATEGYA more empirical evaluation of the S.I.C.S. than that for the provincial framework isundertaken based on the Working Committee and FATF minutes and interviews of the manyparticipants involved. The evaluation focuses on the process for the creation of the S.I.C.S.and the scope of the document itself, based on the performance against the seven criteriaderived from the literature review.Multiple-Stakeholder Consensus-Based ProcessThe first criterion, multiple-stakeholder consensus-based process, is the mostimportant of the four process criteria. In general, the S.I.C.S. satisfied this criteria. TheWorking Committee explicitly used a consensus approach and reached agreement on almostall of the policies and designations. Most of the representatives interviewed commented on131the importance of Catherine Berris in initiating and facilitating the consensus process andtheir willingness to follow the process. To help more closely examine this criterion, severalquestions should be answered.Does the process include representatives of all major stakeholders?The Working Committee provided representation of all of the major stakeholders.Unlike conservation planning for larger areas, there were few organized public interestgroups, and thus most of the respondents felt that the two citizen representatives performedwell in liaising with the various interest groups. With respect to the resource industrystakeholders, C.O.F.I. represented the forest companies in the area while the Ministry ofForests also took an advocacy position in supporting forestry interests. The Ministry ofAgriculture and Fisheries also took on the responsibility of representing the interests of theprivate aquaculture operations (Truscott, August,1994).Is there negotiation on the process before the substantive issues are negotiated?The terms of reference for the S.I.C.S. and the consultant’s proposal for servicesprovided for a consensus process and timeline for completing the S.I.C.S. which wereaccepted by the FATF. The Working Committee meetings were largely shaped by CatherineBerris Associates who facilitated the meetings. From the minutes of the meetings, it can beseen that the Working Committee immediately moved into discussing the substance of theS.I.C.S. and did not initially discuss the possibility of negotiation problems or theenforceability of the S.I.C.S. This shortcoming may have been responsible for the132continuation of the discussions for an additional eight months in the face of the lack ofagreement over the Tuwanek designation. Due to the conclusion of the Working Committeeprocess prior to the final agreement on this issue, further discussions were carried out overthe longer time frame between the less frequent FATF meetings. Many of the participantsvoiced concern over this prolongation of the completion of the S.I.C.S.Is there sufficient third-party assistance, technical information and other resources providedto all stakeholders?The Pilot Project incorporated biophysical and land-use information for the S.I.C.S.with additional agency information being retrieved as necessary during the WorkingCommittee meetings. Most of the participants felt that the information provided wasadequate, but felt more biophysical information could have been provided, if it were not forlimited government agency resources. The chair of the FATF, Gordon Wilson, and theWorking Committee representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, felt there wasfar too little information on the biophysical capability of the area for supporting variousresource uses (Wilson, August,1994; Truscott, August,1994). In general, much of theadditional information was gained through the experiential knowledge of both agencymembers of the Working Committee and local non-technical knowledge of the areas gainedthrough public involvement. Exemplifying this approach, the Working Committee chartered aboat and toured the Inlets to assist group understanding of the biophysical and use issues.With respect to assistance to participation in the process, all respondents indicated thatCatherine Berris Associates provided adequate to very good facilitation. Individual assistancewas provided to the two citizen representatives for travel and other expenses. Due to the133predominance of agency representatives, the question of equality of resources for participationwas not felt to be an issue. The two citizen representatives were reimbursed for oniy traveland associated expenses, but were generally satisfied (Jackson, August,1994).Are the stakeholders encouraged to undertake principled negotiation?All of the stakeholcier representatives understood that the Working Committee was tooperate on a consensus process based on the premise of complete agreement to be achievedfor every policy decision. Assisting the Working Committee in overcoming obstacles todiscussion, Catherine Berris would seek to clarify the concerns, and occasionally would meetindividually with the representative’s broader stakeholder group to ascertain the concern(Berris, August,1994). For example, although the Sechelt Indian Government District(S.I.G.D.) was included on the Working Committee and signed the final agreement, it did notsend a representative to most of the meetings as it was heavily occupied in establishing self-government (Reid, August, 1994). To resolve concerns over the S.LG.D.’s interests and theDistrict of Sechelt’s jurisdiction, Catherine Berris met privately and individually with theS.I.G.D. and the District of Sechelt’ s Municipal Council. Thus, the process relied on assistednegotiation.Although some participants felt arbitrary positions were taken and motivated by“politics” at the FATF’s Public Forums, most agreed that there was a sincere effort tohonestly debate the policies based on interests at the closed Working Committee meetings.The use of primary designations with subordinate “alert” designations in areas with strongsecondary interests facilitated compromises amongst a broader range of smaller issues. If134such an approach had not been taken for reducing an “all or nothing” environment for makingdecisions, consensus may have been much less readily achievable.Is there an implementation agreement with stakeholder and political commitment?The S.I.C.S. provides for an implementation agreement for review and amendment.However, the political commitment to the agreement is less strong in that the District ofSechelt and DFO placed clauses declaring the supremacy of their statutes, not wishing to belegally bound by the document. In addition to this concern, the implementation provisionstates, “This plan does not supersede the normal referral process where it is applied toadjudicate the agencies’ permit, licence or approval applications” (Berris Associates, 1990,21). Furthermore, the document provides for a 60-day notice clause for a public meeting ofthe FATU when an agency wishes to support a use or policy contrary to the S.I.C.S.However, while the agency must discuss their proposed amendment at a FATF meeting, theS.I.C.S does not require complete agreement and states, “An agreement based on consensuswill be reached if possible” (Ibid., 21). These clauses have caused concern for several agencyrepresentatives who felt that stronger guarantees of compliance should have been placed inthe document. The experience of the sinking of the H.M.S. Chaudiere without the consent ofthe Sechelt Indian Government District provides an example of this shortcoming. While themajority of the FATF members were of the opinion that the sinking was consistent with theS.I.C.S. designations, the Sechelt Indian Government District wished to obtain an independentenvironmental audit of the ship as a condition which it included in the FATF recommendationon the issue (FATF Minutes, October 30,1992). However, before this recommendation was135acted upon or a standard referral was sent to the S.C.R.D., an approval from the B.C. LandsRegional Manager was given for the sinking of the ship (Elewonibi, 1992). While this is oneexample, the importance of the decision to the Sechelt Indian Government District and thegeneral public controversy illustrates a weakness in support for implementation of the S.I.C.S.Cross-Sectoral Agency CoordinationThe second process criterion, cross-sectoral agency coordination is important asnumerous provincial and federal agencies and local governments are involved in conservationand coastal area planning. In general, due to heavy representation of government agencies onthe Working Committee, there was perceived to be adequate coordination by thoseinterviewed. To help ascertain how adequately this criterion is satisfied by the S.I.C.S., thefollowing additional questions should be answered.Is there a lead agency or prominent individual occupying a leadership role for the process?The S.C.R.D. played the role of lead agency by initiating the S.I.C.S. and bringingtogether local governments and the provincial agencies. The S.C.R.D. also provided theFATF as an on-going forum for implementation of the S.I.C.S. However, the subsequentFATF meetings have been infrequent and were largely dependent on Chairperson GordonWilson’s availability to call meetings (Reid, August,1994). Thus, the S.I.C.S. has been usedprimarily by individual agencies in the course of their work in response to developmentproposals.136Do the agency participants strive for a transdisciplinary approach?When asked if they gained a better understanding and appreciation of the other varioustechnical disciplines, all of the participants agreed that they did gain more knowledge of eachothers’ fields of expertise. While some representatives said they already had anunderstanding of the other agency’s respective disciplines, the process did help them betterunderstand the motivations of other agency representatives.Broad-Based Public InvolvementThe third criterion, broad-based public involvement, is required to be included in aprocess to ensure that a full range of public interests and values are incorporated into aregional conservation planning strategy. The S.I.C.S. process did not provide directinvolvement of citizen groups or local environmental non-governmental organizations.However, the Working Committee included two citizen representatives who were chargedwith obtaining the views of several communities and other non-governmental interests.Barbara Jackson represented both broader community groups and recreation interests as therewas no agency representative from B.C. Parks. Trevor Kirby, the other citizen representative,focused primarily on local neighbourhood associations along Sechelt Inlet and environmentalinterests. Given the small population of the plan area, the community representatives wereable to meet with a large number of individuals who voiced opinions on conservationplanning for the Sechelt Inlets (Jackson, August, 1994).Also, the S.I.C.S. process provided for a consultation and information program formembers of the general public through four public forums at the FATF meetings. While137these Public Forums were relatively short in duration, averaging less than two hours, theWorking Committee did report on the progress of S.I.C.S. while the chair of the meetingsallowed for public discussion. In surveying the minutes of the Public Forums, there was littlerecorded citizen criticism of the opportunities for public involvement. At a special meeting ofthe FATF to resolve the issue of conflict at Tuwanek in April, 1990, the FATF followed therecommendation of local community groups and opted not to place a designation on the siteas requested (FATF Minutes, April 10,1990). Also, in the interviews of the WorkingCommittee participants, most felt that the public involvement was adequate, although oneagency representative felt that the process was not a true “shared decision-making” process asadvocated by C.O.R.E. due to the lack of direct public interest group involvement (Truscott,August,1994). In short, however, it can be concluded that the process was able to provideadequate public involvement due to small size of the community and the local nature of theexercise.Non-Governmental PartnershipsThe fourth criterion, non-governmental partnerships, provides a means for evaluatingthe long-term commitment of those outside government to implementing the S.I.C.S. TheS.I.C.S. only satisfies the criterion in a limited way by designating the FATF as the bodyresponsible for overseeing implementation. However, it does not provide for specific nongovernmental monitoring programs except by stating, “Informal observations by residents orothers will be reported to the Chairperson of the FATF” (Berris Associates, 1990, 22). Also,the S.I.C.S. made no recommendations supporting non-government projects for habitat138protection or resource management. The heavy reliance on government representatives duringthe Working Committee process may have led to the lack of acknowledgement of nongovernmental assistance in implementation. In the interviews, none of the agency respondentsmentioned the use of non-governmental assistance. Thus, the S.I.C.S. failed to utilize theopportunities of greater public involvement in non-governmental stewardship afforded by theongoing FATF meetings and smaller communities in the area.Utilize Watershed Boundaries for Defining the RegionThe fifth criterion, utilize watershed boundaries for defining the region, is based onthe literature on bioregional theory and landscape ecology. Using a watershed in defining acontiguous region for planning lessens the possibility of uncoordinated planning and conflictfrom adjacent resource and urban land uses. However, the S.I.C.S. does not utilize watershedboundaries as it was designed as a coastal strategy with planning only extending 200 metersinland from the natural boundary of the ocean, leaving most of the 1850 km2 Sechelt Inletswatershed outside of the planning area. While some Working Committee members and theFATF chair felt that inclusion of the entire watershed would have been beneficial, several ofthe agencies insisted on limiting the scope of the plan to the immediate upland (Wilson,August,1994; Reid, August,1994).Integrate Conservation and Land-Use PlanningThe sixth criterion, integrate conservation and land-use planning, is vital fordetermining if the planning process takes a holistic approach to conservation outside of139protected areas. The S.I.C.S. integrates conservation and land-use planning by creating a setof land-use designations to guide the planning and management of the foreshore and theadjacent upland based on the premise of sustainability. Also, the land and foreshoredesignations were applied to both crown land, private lands and short-term tenures. From theinterviews, it could be seen that many of the agencies did use the S.I.C.S. to guide theapproval of projects or land uses. However, as the S.I.C.S did not recommend thedesignation of protected areas and legally require the designation policies to be followed bythe respective agencies, the full benefit of linking land-use planning and conservation was notachieved.Utilize an Ecosystem Classification SystemThe seventh criterion, utilize an ecosystem classification system, must be fulfilled toensure that the various landscapes and ecosystems of a region are studied and included in thedecision-making process by the stakeholders. The S.I.C.S. was not based on an ecosystemclassification. Within the provincial ecosection/ecoregion system, the plan area includes onlytwo ecosections, the Strait of Georgia Lowlands and the Southern Pacific Ranges. However,use of the biogeoclimatic zone system with its numerous subvariants could have provided amuch more detailed description of the smaller terrestrial ecosystems represented in the studyarea, allowing for more comprehensive analysis of rare or endangered habitats.140CHAPTER SUMMARYWhile the C.O.R.E., L.R.M.P. and P.A.S. processes have evolved largely over the lasttwo years, the S.I.C.S. provides an example of an innovative local initiative undertaken priorto the creation of the current provincial planning framework. Although the S.I.C.S. providesa good example of a locally-based regional conservation planning process, the S.I.C.S. doesnot satisfy all the criteria for effective conservation planning for the protection of habitat andecological processes. Also, one of the major resource management pressures, the proliferationof aquaculture operations, was dramatically reduced due to changing overall market conditionsat approximately the same time as the S.I.C.S. was adopted.The S.I.C.S. largely satisfies the four criteria based on the principles of theconservation strategy process. In particular, the criterion of a multi-stakeholder consensusprocess was met by the Working Committee. The Working Committee process also allowedfor cross-sectoral agency coordination in the development of the S.I.C.S., although reliance onthe standard agency referral processes for implementation was a weakness. The criterion ofbroad-based public involvement was fairly well achieved through the designation of twocommunity representatives on the Working Committee and the FATF’s Public Forums.Lastly, the criterion of non-governmental partnerships was not satisfied in spite of the smallsize of the communities and the interest shown by individuals and the community generally.With respect to the criteria related to regional planning approaches to conservation, theS.I.C.S. does not use watershed boundaries, although the Sechelt Inlets are located in a largeself-contained water body with one small entrance to the open ocean. The S.I.C.S. integratesland-use planning and conservation as well as designating conservation areas. However, it141does not formally designate future protected areas or use one of the major ecosystemclassification systems. In short, the S.I.C.S. does not satisfy all of the criteria for a regionalconservation strategy approach. However, it provides an example of an innovative localapproach to conservation planning ahead of its time.142CHAPTER 7CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSIONSThe thesis has examined the literature relating to conservation strategies and regionalplanning approaches to conservation to form a hybrid model, the regional conservationplanning strategy. From the literature related to the principles of a regional conservationplanning strategy approach, seven criteria have been created to help evaluate the effectivenessof the planning process for the protection of habitat and ecological functions. Conclusionsare drawn for the institutional framework for conservation planning in British Columbia andfor conservation planning in the Sunshine Coast Region through the evaluation of the SecheltInlets Coastal Strategy.The Provincial Framework for ConservationThe recent initiatives in the provincial planning framework meet more of the criteriafor a regional conservation planning strategy approach than previous government policies onconservation planning. However, there are weaknesses primarily related to the type andamount of public involvement and the amount of detail possible within the provincialplanning framework. In the following, conclusions are drawn for C.O.R.E.’s policies forregional planning, Land and Resource Management Planning (L.R.M.P.) and the ProtectedAreas Strategy (P.A.S.).C.O.R.E.’s general policies for a provincial Land Use Strategy involve the integrationof conservation and land-use planning. C.O.R.E. is directly involved in the creation of very143large regional plans founded on policies such as its Land Use Charter and the Land UseGoals. From an analysis based on the criteria used for evaluation, several conclusions aredrawn. With respect to the planning process, C.O.R.E.’s consensus-based approach todecision-making is frustrated by the complexity of the geography and size of population inthe regions being planned. While consensus for broader, more general policies can beachieved for such large areas, agreement on concrete land-use decisions is very difficult.Associated with this challenge, there is difficulty in achieving participation of the broaderpublic and maintaining communication between the regional stakeholder representatives andtheir constituents. Thus, many of the final recommendations to the provincial governmentmust be made by C.O.R.E. staff.With respect to the substance of the regional planning, C.O.R.E.’s regional planningintegrates land use, parks system and conservation planning. The C.O.R.E. regional plansmake very important broad recommendations on land use and the creation of protected areasbased on sophisticated ecosystem classification systems. While the plan areas are based onamalgams of watersheds, much detail is missing from C.O.R.E.’s regional planning, especiallyin the more developed and settled areas of the province which often have the most threatenedecosystems.The L.R.M.P. process provides an opportunity for integrating both local and provincialplanning for the protection of habitat and ecological processes. Influenced by C.O.R.E. andthe B.C. Round Table, the L.R.M.P. policies support consensus decision-making throughinvolvement of both agencies and interest groups. The more local nature of L.R.M.P. processassists in allowing for better representation of a broader range of interests. However,144involvement of the general public in the creation of the plans is not fully supported, leavingthis as an option to the government agencies designing each process. Moreover, ongoinginvolvement of non-governmental organizations in the implementation of the plans is notsupported. The emphasis on integrating both general land-use planning and protected areasplanning in groupings of watersheds or sub-basins is a major strength of the approach.Nevertheless, the planning at smaller map scales hinders more detailed planning for bothprivate and crown lands. A modified form of the L.R.M.P. process, allowing forimplementation of the P.A.S. and joint planning with local governments with broadercommunity involvement in plan development and implementation would improve the processsignificantly.The P.A.S. provides an excellent basis for analyzing the completeness of ecosystemrepresentation at the provincial and regional levels. However, the P.A.S. does not provide forconsensus processes or adequate public involvement for making decisions on the designationof protected areas. In areas not subject to regional or sub-regional planning, P.A.S. staff andthe regional I.A.M.C.’s make protected areas designation decisions or rely on adhoc sitespecific advisory forums. In either case, the linkage of land-use planning and conservation isnot adequately supported. Also, the large P.A.S. regions used for a basis of analysis do notallow for the detailed recommendations required for protecting the ecosystems in the moredeveloped and ecologically threatened areas of the province.145The Sechelt Inlets Coastal StrategyRelative to the provincial government’s L.R.M.P. and C.O.R.E. regional approaches,the S.I.C.S. has both advantages and disadvantages. With respect to the advantages, the smallsize of the region allows public involvement to be more meaningful as a larger proportion ofthe population is able to focus its attention on planning in areas within and nearby theircommunities. Also, with the larger scale of mapping at 1:50,000, a large number of fairlydetailed designations could be accommodated, allowing for more options for reachingagreements and giving more certainty over the intended uses. With respect to thedisadvantages, the small size of the planning area did not allow for inclusion of a largecontiguous watershed. The S.I.C.S. also does not utilize an ecosystem classification system ormake recommendations on the creation of protected areas. Finally, the S.I.C.S. does notencourage non-governmental partnerships for implementation and monitoring of the strategy.In summation, inter-agency coordination between provincial agencies and local governmentsat this intermediate scale can provide an effective forum for conservation planning, takinginto account a broad range of local interests.RECOMMENDATIONSGiven the above conclusions on the provincial conservation planning framework andthe case study, the Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy, it is recommended that:1. Sub-regional planning should be undertaken to form the basis for regional plans withC.O.R.E. and the provincial Land Use Coordination Office overseeing sub-regional146planning to ensure contiguity of plan areas and congruence of policies. Sub-regionalplanning should be based on moderately large sub-basins centred on population centresor traditionally settled regions.2. The P.A.S. process should be continued to provide specialized support to the land useplanning processes. The implementation of the P.A.S. should always be undertaken inconjunction with land-use planning. Existing Ministry of Forests’ local planningprocesses for making decisions on the designation of single P.A.S. study areas shouldbe amalgamated into sub-regional processes.3. Minimum levels of representation of all ecosections should be established instead ofsimply setting representation goals for the seven large P.A.S. regions and the provinceas a whole. Although the often-used 12 percent is an arbitrary number, it could alsobe used for determining the minimum amount of protected areas for each ecosection.4. Public involvement in the provincial government’s regional and sub-regional planningprocesses should be improved to allow for participation of the general public at keypoints throughout the process. Regional Districts should work in partnership withprovincial line agencies to improve general public involvement in sub-regionalplanning.1475. A modified form of sub-regional L.R.M.P. planning for small, more densely populatedregions such as the Sunshine Coast, Eastern Vancouver Island and the SouthernInterior should be created by the provincial government. This modified form ofL.R.M.P. planning should give direction to all federal, provincial and local governmentconservation planning in the area.6. The Sunshine Coast Regional District should act as a liaison between the provincialgovernment, local governments, non-governmental interests and the general public insupporting the development and implementation of such a modified L.R.M.P. processfor the region.7. The Sunshine Coast Regional District should integrate its regional parks andcommunity planning with this modified L.R.M.P. approach.148BIBLIOGRAPHYAberle, Douglas C. “Bioregionalism: A Territorial Approach to Governance and Developmentof Northwest British Columbia.” Unpublished M.A. Thesis. U.B.C., 1985.Adams, Lowell W., and Louise E. Dove. Wildlife Reserves and Corridors in the UrbanEnvironment. Maryland: National Institute for Urban Wildlife, 1989.Arnstein, Sheri R. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners. July (1969): 216-24.Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. “Report on Vancouver Island COREProcess.” AVIM Newsletter. No. 5, Jan. (1994): 1-6.Austen, Sue and Peter Tassie. “Report Review: Land Use Strategy for B.C.” P.I.B.C. News.34.6 (1992): 13-14.Benveniste, Guy. Mastering the Politics of Planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.,Publishers, 1989.Berris, Catherine. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Bingham, Gail. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington, D.C.:The Conservation Foundation, 1986.Bish, Robert L. Local Government in British Columbia. Richmond, B.C.: Union of BritishColumbia Municipalities, 1987.Branch, Melville C. Regional Planning. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1988.Brenneis, Kim. “An Evaluation of Public Participation in the British Columbia Ministry ofForests” (1990). Forest Resources Commission: Background Papers- Vol. 1. Ottawa:British Columbia Forest Resources Commission, 1991.Brenneis, Kim, and Michael M’Gonigle. “Public Participation: Components of the Process.”Environments 21.3 (1992): 5-11.Brennen, Russell L., and Sarah M. Bates. eds. Land-Saving Action. California: Island Press,1984.B.C. Parks, Park Data Handbook, 1987. Victoria: B.C. Parks, 1987.B.C. Parks, Parks Plan ‘90: Special Features for B.C. Parks. Victoria: Queen’s Printer, 1990a.149B.C. Parks, Parks Plan ‘90: Landscapes for B.C. Parks. Victoria: Queen’s Printer, 1990b.B.C. Parks and Ministry of Forests, Summary of Public Response to Parks and Wilderness forthe 90s. Victoria: Queen’s Printer, 1991.B.C. Parks and Ministry of Forests, Towards a Protected Areas Strategy for B.C.: Parks andWilderness for the 90s (Map and Leaflets). Victoria: Queen’s Printer, 1992.B.C. Parks. Park Data Handbook, 1993. Victoria: B.C. Parks, 1993.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. Report on a Land Use Strategyfor British Columbia. Victoria: Queens Printer, 1992.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. 1992-93 Annual Report to theBritish Columbia Legislative Assembly. Victoria: Queens Printer, 1993a.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. Land Use Goals Workbook.Victoria: Queens Printer, 1993b.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. Land Use Strategy Framework,Goals and Planning Options: Draft Discussion Paper. Victoria, 1993c.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. Finding Common Ground: AShared Vision for Land Use in British Columbia, Vol 1. Victoria, Queens Printer: 1 994a.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. Vancouver Island Land Use Plan,Vol. 1. Victoria: Queens Printer, 1994b.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. Vancouver Island Land Use Plan:Appendices, Vol. 2. Victoria: Queens Printer, 1994c.British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment. Vancouver Island Land Use Plan:Vancouver Island Table Report, Vol. 3. Victoria: Queens Printer, 1994d.British Columbia. Forest Resources Commission. Background Papers - Volume 1. Victoria: ForestResources Commission, 1991a.British Columbia. Forest Resources Conmiission. Background Papers- Volume 2. Victoria: ForestResources Commission, 199 lb.British Columbia. Forest Resources Commission. The Future of our Forests. Victoria: ForestResources Commission, 1991c.150British Columbia. Forest Resources Commission. Land Use Planning for British Columbia.Victoria: Forest Resources Commission, 1991d.British Columbia. Integrated Resource Planning Committee. Resource Units in Land andResource Management Planning in British Columbia. Victoria: Integrated ResourcePlanning Committee, 1993a.British Columbia. Integrated Resource Planning Committee. Public Participation GuidelinesVictoria: Integrated Resource Planning Conmiittee, 1993b.British Columbia. Integrated Resource Planning Committee. Social and Economic ImpactAssessment for Land and Resource Management Planning in British Columbia. Victoria:Integrated Resource Planning Committee, 1993c.British Columbia. Integrated Resource Planning Committee. A Statement of Principles andProcess. Victoria: Integrated Resource Planning Committee, 1993d.British Columbia. Integrated Resource Planning Committee. Land Resource ManagementPlanning Status Report. Victoria: Integrated Resource Planning Committee, 1994.British Columbia. Inter-Agency Management Committee, Lower Mainland Region, R.P.A.T.A Solicitation for Public Input to “Areas of Interest”; Lower Mainland Region.Vancouver: Lower Mainland Region I.M.A.C., 1994.British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Local Government Planning for CoastalFinfish Aguaculture Development. Victoria: Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 1987.British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests.Summary of Public Response to Parks and Wilderness for the 1990’s. Victoria: Erlandson& Associates, 1991.British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Integrated Management Branch.South Okanagan Conservation Strategy, 1990-1995. Victoria: Queens Printer, 1992British Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Water Management Branch.Water Quality Assessment and Objectives for Sechelt Inlet, Sunshine Coast Area.Victoria, Queen’s Printer, 1993.British Columbia. Ministry of Environment and Parks. Sunshine Coast and CampbellRiver/Johnstone Strait Coastal Resource Identification Study. Victoria: Ministry ofEnvironment and Parks, 1987.British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, Sunshine Coast District Office. Sunshine Coast TimberSupply Area Options Report. Powell River, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, 1990.151British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, Western Strathcona Local Advisory Council. A SustainableDevelopment Strategy for the Western Strathcona Area of Vancouver Island. CampbellRiver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, 1991.British Columbia. Ministry of Forests. Forest Practices Code Proposed Rules. Victoria. Ministryof Forests, 1993.British Columbia. Protected Areas Strategy Office. A Protected Areas Strategy for BritishColumbia. Victoria: Queens Printer For British Columbia, 1993a.British Columbia. Protected Areas Strategy Office. PAS Update (January, 1993).Victoria: B.C. Protected Areas Strategy Office, 1993b.British Columbia. Protected Areas Strategy Office. PAS Update (March, 1993). Victoria: B.C.Protected Areas Strategy Office, 1993c.British Columbia. Protected Areas Strategy Office. PAS Update (September, 1993). Victoria:B.C. Protected Areas Strategy Office, 1993d.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Dispute Resolution CoreGroup. Reaching Agreement, Implementing Consensus Processes in British Columbia.Vol.1. Victoria: Round Table, 1991a.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Dispute Resolution CoreGroup. Reaching Agreement, Implementing Consensus Processes in British Columbia.Vol.2. Victoria: Round Table, 1991b.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Sustainable Land andWater Use. Victoria: Round Table, 1991c.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Towards a Strategy forSustainability. Victoria: Round Table, 1992a.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Towards a Strategy forSustainability, Executive Summary. Victoria: Round Table, 1992b.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Guide to Establishing aLocal Round Table. Victoria: Round Table, 1992c.British Columbia. Wilderness Advisory Committee. The Wilderness Mosaic: The Report of theWilderness Advisory Committee. Vancouver: B.C. Ministry of Environment, 1986.152Brown, Daryl. “Regional Land Use Planning as a Means of Implementing B.C.’s Protected AreasStrategy.” to be published in Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Colloquium onCompleting British Columbia’s Protected Area System. Vancouver: March 11-13, 1994.Buchan, Robert. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. A Protected Areas Vision for Canada. Ottawa: Supplyand Services Canada, 1991.Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. “B.C. Wildlands: Thompson Okanagan Region.” Parksand Wilderness Quarterly Supplement. 1.1 (1992): 1-10.Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists. Conservation Strategies in Canada. Proceedingsof a Conference. Toronto: Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists, 1987.Catherine Berris Associates Inc. Sechelt Inlet Coastal Strategy Pilot Project. Vancouver: 1988a.Catherine Berris Associates Inc. Proposal for Services, Sechelt Inlet Study: Phase II. Vancouver:1988b.Catherine Berris Associates Inc. Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy. Vancouver: 1990.Cattanach, Malcolm. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Chilibeck, Barry. Land Development Guidelines for Protection of Aquatic Habitat. Victoria:Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 1992.The Coast News. Sechelt, B.C., November, 21, 1988.Cooperman, Jim. “Memo to the Kamloops L.R.M.P.” February, 1994a.Cooperman, Jim. Personal Communication. March, 1994b.Cormick, Gerald. “The Consensus Approach: Why are We Talking About It.” Forest PlanningCanada. 8.3 (1992): 33-36.Crow, Thomas. “Landscape Ecology: The Big Picture Approach to Resource Management.”Challenges in the Conservation of Biological Resources: A Practitioner’s Guide. Eds.Daniel Decker et al. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1991. 55-66.Custance, Barrie. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Daniels, Thomas L. “The Purchase of Development Rights: Preserving Agricultural Land andOpen Space.” American Planning Association Journal. 57.4 (1991): 421-431.153Darling, Craig. “A Shared Decision-Making Approach to Land Use & Resource ManagementPlanning.” Forest Planning Canada. 8.3 (1992): 28-29.Davidoff, Paul. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute ofPlanners. 31(1965): 331-338.Decker, Daniel et al. Challenges in the Conservation of Biological Resources: A Practitioner’sGuide. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1991.Deutsch, M. The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1973.Dooling, Peter J. Ed. Parks in British Columbia, Proceedings of a Conference. Vancouver,U.B.C., Faculty of Forestry, 1984.Dorcey, Anthony H.J. Bargaining in the Governance of Pacific Coastal Resources: Research andReform. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, 1986.Dorcey, Anthony H.J. and Riek, Christine L. “Negotiation-Based Approaches to the Settlementof Environmental Disputes in Canada.” The Place of Negotiation in EnvironmentalAssessment. Conference Proceedings. Ottawa: Canadian Environmental AssessmentResearch Council, 1987.Dorcey, Anthony H.J. The Myth of Interagency Cooperation in Water Resource Management.Vancouver: Unpublished Paper, 1988.Downs, Anthony. “Up and down with ecology - the “issue-attention cycle.” The Public Interest.28 (1972): 38-50.Duffy, Dorli M. “Review of the British Columbia Crown Land Allocation and ManagementPlanning Process” (1990). Background Papers - Volume 1. Victoria: Forest ResourcesCommission, 1991.Dunn, Edgar S. Economic and Social Development: A Process of Social Learning. Baltimore:The John Hopkins Press, 1971.Dunster, Julian, Conflicts in Canadian Forestry. Waterloo, Ont.: Ph.D. Thesis, University ofWaterloo, 1988.Dunster, Julian, “Forest Conservation Strategies in Canada.” Alternatives. 16.4/17.1(1990): 44-51.Dykeman, Floyd W. Integrated Rural Planning Development. Sackville, N.B.: Dept. ofGeography, Mount Allison University, 1988.154Eagles, Paul F.J. The Planning and Management of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. New York:Longman Inc., 1984.Elewonibi, Margo, Manager of Land Administration, Lower Mainland Region, B.C. Lands.Letter to Sunshine Coast Regional District. November 24, 1992.Elkin, Tim. “State of the Environment Reports and National Conservation Strategies: TheLinkage.” Alternatives. 16.4/17.1 (1990): 50-61.Federation of British Columbia Naturalists. Proceedings of the Land for Nature Forum: Tools andMechanisms for Preserving Green Space. Burnaby, B.C.: March, 1992.Feller, Michael. “Establishing protected areas through land use planning the local land useplanning process - the perspective of a stakeholder member of the public.” to be publishedin Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Colloquium on Completing British Columbia’sProtected Area System. Vancouver: March 11-13, 1994.Feeny, David et al. “The Tragedy of the Commons: Twenty-Two Years Later.” Human Ecology.18.1 (1990): 1-19.Fiedler, Peggy L. et al. Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of NatureConservation, Preservation and Management. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1992.Fisher, Robert and William Ury. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In. New York:Penguin Books, 1981.Forester, John. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press,1989.Forman, Richard T.T. and, M. Gordon. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons,1986.Fraser Basin Management Board. Strategic Plan for the Fraser Basin Management Plan 1993-98.Vancouver: Fraser Basin Management Board, 1993.Friedmann, John. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press, 1987.Gardner, Julia E. and, Mark Roseland. “Acting Locally: Community Strategies for EquitableSustainable Development.” Alternatives 16.3 (1989): 36-48.Gardner, Julia E. “Park System Planning: Limitations in the Pursuit of Rationality.” Plan Canada30.5 (1990): 10-19.155Gillespie, David. An Inquiry into Finfish Acuaculture in British Columbia: Report andRecommendations. Victoria: Ministry of Forests and Lands, 1986.Gunton, Thomas, and Chris Fletcher. “An Overview: Sustainable Development and Crown LandPlanning.” Environments. 21.3 (1992): 1-4.Gunton, Thomas, and Sarah Flynn. “Resolving Environmental Conflict: The Role of Negotiation.”Environments. 21.3 (1992): 12-16.Gunton, Thomas, and han Vertinsky. Reforming the Decision Making Process for Forest LandPlanning in British Columbia. Victoria: British Columbia Round Table on theEnvironment and the Economy, 1990.Greater Vancouver Regional District (G.V.R.D.): Proceedings of Creating Greater Vancouver’sGreen Zone Conference. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1992.G.V.R.D.: Creating Greater Vancouver’s Green Zone: The Livable Region Strategic Plan,Creating our Future...Steps to a More Livable Region. Vancouver: G.V.R.D., 1993.Hammond, Herbert L. Seeing the Forest Among the Trees: The Case for Holistic Forest Use.Vancouver: Polestar Press, 1991.Hardin, Garett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (1968): 1243-1248.Harding, Lee E., and Emily McCallum, eds. Biodiversity in British Columbia: Our ChangingEnvironment. Vancouver: Environment Canada, 1994a.Harding, Lee E., and Emily McCallum. “Overview of Ecosystem Diversity.” Biodiversity inBritish Columbia: Our Changing Environment. Eds. Lee E. Harding, and EmilyMcCallum. Vancouver: Environment Canada, 1994b. 227-243.Harding, Lee E. “Threats to Diversity of Ecosystems in British Columbia.” Biodiversity inBritish Columbia: Our Changing Environment. Eds. Lee E. Harding, and EmilyMcCallum. Vancouver: Environment Canada, 1994a. 245-277.Harding, Lee E. “Threats to Biodiversity in the Strait of Georgia.” Biodiversity in BritishColumbia: Our Changing Environment. Eds. Lee E. Harding, and Emily McCallum.Vancouver: Environment Canada, 1 994b. 293-306.Harrold, Brad. Forest Land Management Planning: A Comparative Analysis of Principles andProcesses. Victoria: Ministry of Forests, Integrated Resources Branch, 1992.Hoose, Phillip M. Building an Ark. Covelo, Calif.: Island Press, 1981.156Hopwood, Doug. “Reductionism and Holism in the Study of Environment and Society.” ForestPlanning Canada. 9.1 (1993): 13-20.Hilts, Stewart 0., Malcolm Kirk and, Ronald Reid. eds. Islands of Green: Natural HeritageProtection in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Heritage Foundation, 1986.Hilts, Stewart G., and John Fitzgibbon. “Sustainable Development and Rural Resource Planning.”Plan Canada 29.2 (1989): 19-27.Hilts, Stewart G., and M. Van Patter. “Natural Heritage Protection: Voluntary Stewardship orPlanning Control?.” Plan Canada. 30.5 (1990): 20-28.Hume, Mark. “Where Birds Sing Year Round: British Columbia’s Ecological Diversity.” Borealis.Vol. 3.4 (1993): 8-14.Hummel, Monte, ed. Endangered Spaces. Toronto: Key Porter Books Ltd., 1989.International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), UNEP, WWF.World Conservation Strategy. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1980.International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), UNEP, WWF.Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1991.Jackson, Barbara. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Kelly, Michael. “What in the World is a Conservation Strategy.” Conservation Strategies inCanada (Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists Newsletter) 44.2 (1987): 1-16.Kokz, Gregg. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Kriese, Kevin. “Establishing Protected Areas Through Land Use Planning.” to be published inCanadian Parks and Wilderness Society Colloquium on Completing British Columbia’sProtected Area System. Vancouver: March 11-13, 1994.Lambert, Philip. “Biodiversity of Marine Invertebrates in British Columbia.” Biodiversity inBritish Columbia: Our Changing Environment. Eds. Lee E. Harding, and EmilyMcCallum. Vancouver: Environment Canada, 1994. 57-69.The Land Trust Alliance. Starting a Land Trust. Alexandria, Va.: The Land Trust Alliance, 1990.Lawton, Laura. Towards Sustainable Development: An Investigation into Canadian ConservationStrategies. Regina: Saskatchewan Parks and Renewable Resources, 1990.157Manning, Ernest W. “Conservation Strategies: Providing a Vision for Sustainable Development.”Alternatives. 16.4/17.1(1990): 24-29.Mantell, Michael, Stephen Harper, and Luther Propst. Creating Successful Communities: AGuidebook. Covelo, Calif.: Island Press, 1989.Mason, Richard 0., and Ian I. Mitroff. Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. Los Angeles:John Wiley & Sons, 1981.McClellan, John B. “Provincial Conservation Strategies: The Experience of Prince EdwardIsland.” Alternatives. 16/17 (1990): 38-43.McCorkell-Hoy, Deborah and Ruth McKechnie. “The World Conservation Strategy - The FederalExperience.” Conservation Strategies in Canada (Canadian Society of EnvironmentalBiologists Newsletter) 44.2 (1987): 95-99.McHarg, Ian. Design With Nature. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1969.McKechnie, Ruth and Doug Pollard. World Conservation Strategy - Canada: A Report onAchievements in Conservation. Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1986.McNamee, Kevin. “Sustaining Efforts to Preserve Canada’s Wilderness Heritage.” HeritageConservation and Sustainable Development: From Parks and Protected Areas to PrivateStewardship and Conservation Strategies. Conference Proceedings. Waterloo, Ont.:Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, May 14-18,1989.McNeely, Jeffrey. “A Global Perspective on Conservation Strategies and SustainableDevelopment.” Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development: From Parks andProtected Areas to Private Stewardship and Conservation Strategies. ConferenceProceedings. Waterloo, Ont.: Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo, May 14-18,1989.McNeely, Jeffrey, et al. Conserving the World’s Biological Diversity. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN,1990.McPhee, Michael, and Larry Wolfe. Issues and Options for Coastal Management in BritishColumbia: A Discussion Paper. Victoria: Quadra Planning Consultants, 1993.Meidinger, D. and J. Pojar. Ecosystems of British Columbia. Victoria: B.C. Ministry of Forests,1991.Milbrath, Lester W. Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society. Albany, N.Y.: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1984.158Mitchell, Warren. “Legislative Renewal.” to be published in Canadian Parks and WildernessSociety ColloQuium on Completing British Columbia’s Protected Area System.Vancouver: March 11-13, 1994.Morrison, Kenneth E., and Anthony M. Turner. “Protected Areas in British Columbia:Maintaining Natural Diversity.” Biodiversity in British Columbia: Our ChangingEnvironment. Eds. Lee E. Harding, and Emily McCallum. Vancouver: EnvironmentCanada, 1994. 355-374.Mulford, Charles L. “Models of Coordination for Rural Development.” Integrated Rural Planningand Development. Ed. Floyd W. Dykeman. Sackville, N.B.: Dept. of Geography, MountAllison University, 1988. 65-79.Nelson, J. Gordon. “Beyond Parks and Protected Areas: From Public and Private Stewardship toLandscape Planning and Management.” Environments. 21.1 (1991): 23-34.Nelson, J. Gordon., and Harold Eidsvik. “Sustainable Development, Conservation Strategies, andHeritage.” Alternatives. 16.4/17.1(1990): 62-71.Olsen, Barry and Chris George. National Parks and National Marine Parks System - PlanningProcess Manual. Ottawa: National Parks System Division, National Parks Branch, 1983.O’Riordan, Timothy. Environmentalism. London: Pion Ltd., 1976.Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. Fresh Air: Newsletter of Outdoor Recreation Sectors intheCORE Process. Vol. 1, Nov/Dec. (1993): 1-8.Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. “The CORE Process: What do the Participants Think of it?”Fresh Air: Newsletter of Outdoor Recreation Sectors in the CORE Process. Vol. 2, Jan.(1994): 1-8.Owen, Stephen. Aguaculture and the Administration of Coastal Resources in British Columbia.Victoria: British Columbia. Office of the Ombudsman, 1988.Owen, Stephen. Sub-regional Planning - An Important Part of a Provincial Land Use Strategyfor British Columbia. Circular. Victoria, C.O.R.E., 1993.Parenteau, Rene. Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making. Ottawa: FederalEnvironmental Assessment Review Office, 1988.Pinkerton, Evelyn. Co-Operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for ImprovedManagement Community Development. Vancouver: University of B.C. Press, 1989.Reid, Sheane. Personal Interviews. June and August, 1994.159Reid, Ron and, Hilts, Stewart. Land Stewart Options (A Background Paper for the GreaterToronto Area Greenlands Strategy). Toronto: 1990.Rees, William E. “Sustainable Development and the Biosphere: Principles and Concepts.”Teilihard Studies. 23 (1990): 1-28.Richardson, Nigel. Land Use Planning and Sustainable Development in Canada. Ottawa:Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, 1989Richardson, Nigel. “Moving Toward Planning for Sustainability.” Plan Canada. March (1994):18-23.Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront. Watershed, Interim Report. Toronto:Royal Commission, 1990.Russell, Robert. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Sabine, Robert. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Sadler, Barry. “Sustainable Development, Northern Realities and the Design and Implementationof Conservation Strategies.” Sustainable Development Through Northern ConservationStrategies. Calgary: The Banff Centre, 1990.Saha, Suranjit K., and Christopher J. Barrow. River Basin Planning: Theory and Practice.Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1981.Sale, Kirkpatrick. Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision. San Francisco: Sierra ClubBooks. 1985.Saiwasser, Hal. “Roles for Land and Resource Managers in Conserving Biological Diversity.”Challenges in the Conservation of Biological Resources: A Practioner’s Guide. Eds.Daniel 3. Decker et al. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1991. 11-31.Sunshine Coast Regional District (S.C.R.D.), Foreshore Advisory Task Force (FATF). Minutesof Meeting. January 22, 1988.S.C.R.D., FATF. Minutes of Meeting. February 12, 1988.S.C.R.D., FATF. Minutes of Meeting. October 6, 1988.S.C.R.D., FATF. Minutes of Meeting. October 4, 1989.S.C.R.D., FATF. Minutes of Meeting. April 10, 1990.160S.C.R.D., FATF. Minutes of Meeting. October 30, 1992.S.C.R.D., FATF, Sechelt Inlets Coastal Strategy Working Committee. Minutes of Meetings.October, 1988 to June, 1989.S.C.R.D., Planning Dept. Draft Sunshine Coast Regional District Official Regional Parks Plan.Sechelt, B.C.: S.C.R.D., 1991.S.C.R.D., Planning Dept. Roberts Creek Plan Area, Technical Background Report. Sechelt, B.C.:S.C.R.D., 1994.Schon, Donald. Beyond the Stable State. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1971.Searle, Rick. “The Protected Areas Paper Chase.” Borealis. Vol.3.4 (1993): 18-26.Sheehy, G. Organizational and Spatial Frameworks for State of the Environment Reporting.Ottawa: Environment Canada, 1989.Silva Consultants Ltd. Community Guide to the Forest: Ecology, Planning and Use. Winlaw,B.C.: Slocan Valley Watershed Alliance, 1992.Sloan, Gordon. “Principled Negotiation Skills, Process and Theory.” Forest Planning Canada. 8.3(1992): 30-32.Sorken, Larry. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Statistics Canada. Census of Canada: Population and Dwelling Counts. Cat. No. 93-304. Ottawa:Statistics Canada, 1993.Stewardship ‘94. Stewardship ‘94: Revisiting the Land Ethic, Caring for the Land. Vancouver:The Real Estate Foundation, 1994.Stokes, Samuel N., et a!. Saving America’s Countryside. Baltimore: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1989.Sunshine Coast Economic Development Commission. Sunshine Coast Economic Profile. Sechelt,B.C.: S.C.R.D., 1992.Susskind, Lawrence. “Environmental Mediation Today.” Consensus Proc. of a Symposium.Kingston, Ont.: The Canadian Centre for Livable Places, Heritage Canada, 14-16September, 1989.Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches toResolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1987.161Truscott, Joseph. Personal Interviews. August and September, 1994.University of Waterloo, School of Urban and Regional Planning. State of the EnvironmentReport, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Waterloo, Ont.: University of Waterloo, 1987.Vance, Joan E. Tree Planning: A Guide to Public Involvement in Forest Stewardship. Vancouver:B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre, 1990.Williams, Deborah. “Planning for Tomorrows: The Ecosystem Approach and the Greater TorontoBioregion.” Plan Canada. 31.5 (1991): 25-31.Wilson, Gordon. Personal Interview. August, 1994.Wolfe, Lany D.S., Michael W. McPhee, and John D. Wiebe. “Methods of Achieving Cooperationin Estuary Management: The Fraser River Estuary Case.” Coastal Zone ‘87, Vol. 1.Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, May 26-29,1987. New York: the American Society of Civil Engineers.Wondolleck, Julia M. Public Lands Conflict and Resolution: Managing National Forest Disputes.New York: Plenum Press, 1988.Wondolleck, Julia M. and, James E. Crowfoot. Environmental Disputes, Community Involvementin Conflict Resolution. Washington: Island Press, 1990.World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1987.Zonneveld, Issak S. and Richard T.T. Forman, eds. Changing Landscapes: An EcologicalPerspective. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc., 1990.162APPENDIX I CARING FOR THE EARTH: A STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABLELIVING, SUMMARY OF PRIORITY ACTIONSBox 30. Check-list of actionsChapter 1. Building a sustainable societyAction 1.1. Develop new strategies for sustainable living, based on the nine principlesChapter 2. Respecting and caring for the community of lifeAction 2.1. Develop the world ethic for living sustainably.Action 2.2. Promote the world ethic for living sustainably at national level.Action 2.3. Implement the world ethic for living sustainably through action in all sectors of society.Action 2.4. Establish a world organization to monitor implementation of the world ethic for livingsustainably and to prevent and combat serious breaches in its observation.Chapter 3. Improving the quality of human lifeAction 3.1. In lower-income countries, increase economic growth to advance human development.Action 3.2. In upper-income countries, adjust national development policies and strategies to ensure sustainability.Action 3.3. Provide the services that will promote a long and healthy life.Action 3.4. Provide universal primary education for all children, and reduce illiteracy.Action 3.5. Develop more meaningful indicators of quality of life and monitor the extent to whichthey are achieved.Action 3.6. Enhance security against natural disasters and social strife.Chapter 4. Conserving the Earth’s vitality and divrcityAction 4.1. Adopt a precautionary approach to polution.Action 4.2. Cut emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons.Action 4.3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions.Action 4.4. Prepare for climate change.Action 4.5. Adopt an integrated ,approach to land and water management, using the drainage basin as the unit of management. VAction 4.6. Maintain as much as possible of each country’s natural and modified ecosyst3m,.Action 4.7. Take the pressure off natural and modified ecosystems by protecting the best farm••land and managing it in ecologically sound ways.Action 4.8. Halt net deforestation, protect large areas of old-growth forest, and maintain a permanent estate of modified forest.Action 4.9. Complete and maintain a comprehensive system of protected areas.Action 4.1O.lmprove conservation of wild plants and animals.Action 4.11.lmprove knowledge and understanding of species and ecosystems.Action 4.12.Use a combination of in situ and ex situ conservation to maintain species and geneticresources.Action 4.13.Harvest wild resources sustainably.Action 4.14.Support management of wild renewable resources by local communities; and increaseincentives to conserve biological diversity.Chapter 5. Keeping within the Earth’s carrying capacityAction 5.1. Increase awareness about the need to stabilize resource consumption and population.Action 5.2. Integrate resource consumption and population issues in national development policies and planning.Action 5.3. Develop, test and adopt resource-efficient methods and technologies.Action 5.4. Tax energy and other resources in high-consumption countries.Action 5.5. Encourage “green consumer” movements.Action 5.6. Improve maternal and child health care.Action 5.7. Double family planning services.Chapter 6. Changing personal attitudes and practicesAction 6.1. Ensure that national strategies for sustainability include action to motivate, educateand equip individuals to lead sustainable lives.continued. .163Implementing the StrategyAction 6.2. Review the status of erivfronmental education and make it an integral part of formaleducation at all levels.Action 6.3. Determine the training needs for a sustainable society and plan to meet them.Chapter 7. Enabling communities to care for their own environmentsAction 7.1. Provide communities and individuals with secure access to resources and an equitableshare in managing them.Action 7.2. Improve exchange of information, skills, and technologies.Action 7.3. Enhance participation in conservation and development.Action 7.4. Develop more effective local governments.Action 7.5. Care for the local environment in every community.Action 7.6. Provide financial and technical support to community environmental action.Chatper 8. Providing a national framework for integrating development andconservationAction 8.1. Adopt an integrated approach to environmental policy, with sustainability as the overall goal.Action 8.2. Develop strategies for sustainability, and implement them directly and through regional and local planning.Action 8.3. Subject proposed development projects, programmes and policies to environmentalimpact assessment and to economic appraisal.Action 8.4. Establish a commitment to the principles of a sustainable society in constitutional orother fundamental statements of national policy.Action 8.5. Establish a comprehensive system of environmental law and provide for its implemen.tation and enforcement.Action 8.6. Review the adequacy of legal and administrative controls, and of implementation andenforcement mechanisms, recognizing the legitimacy of local approaches.Action 8.7. Ensure that national policies, development plans, budgets and decisions on investmentstake full account of their effects on the environment.Action 8.8. Use economic policies to achieve sustainability.Action 8.9. Provide economic incentives for conservation anJ sustaIInoIe use.Action 8.10.Strengthen the knowledge base, and make informaticre on environmontalmatters moreaccessible.Chapter 9. Creating a global allianceAction 9.1. Strengthen existing international agreements to conserve life-support systems and biological diversity.Action 9.2. Conclude new international agreements to help achieve global sustainability.Action 9.3. Develop a comprehensive and integrated conservation regime for Antarctica and theSouthern Ocean.Action 9.4. Prepare and adopt a Universal Declaration and Covenant on Sustainability.Action 9.5. Write oft the official debt of low-income countries, and retire enough of their commercial debt to restore economic progress.Action 9.6. Increase the capacity of lower-income countries to help themselves.Action 9.7. Increase development assistance and devote it to helping countries develop sustainable societies and economies.Action 9.8. Recognize the value of global and national non-governmental action, and strengthen it.Action 9.9. Strengthen the United Nations system as an effective force for global sustainability.Chapter 10. EnergyAction 10.1. Develop explicit national energy strategies.Action 10.2. Reduce the use of fossil fuels, wastage in energy distribution, and pollution from commercial energy generation.Action 10.3. Develop renewable and other non-fossil fuel energy sources.Action 10.4. Use energy more efficiently in the home, industry, business premises and transport.Action 10.5. Conduct publicity campaigns to promote energy conservation and the sale of energyefficient products.continued.164lmoiementing the StrategyChapter 11. Business, industry and commerceAction 11.1 Promote sustainability through dialogue between industry, government, and the environmental movement.Action 11.2. Adopt high environmental performance standards backed up by economic incentives.Action 11.3. Commit each business to sustainability and environmental excellence.Action 11.4. Identify hazardous industries, and locate and operate them with stringent saieguaros.Action 11.5. Develop effective national and international systems for waste management.Action 11.6 Ensure that all industries that are based on the use of natural resources use themeconomically.Chapter 12. Human settlementsAction 12.1. Adopt and implement an ecological approach to human settlements planning.Action 12.2. Develop more effective and representative local governments, committed to caringfor their environments.Action 12.3. Develop an efficient and sustainable urban transport policy.Action 12.4. Make the city clean, green and efficient.Chapter 13. Farm and range landsAction 13.1. Undertake a national strategy for sustainabilitv.Action 13.2. Protect the best farm land for agriculture.Action 13.3. Promote effective soil and water conservation tflrough proper land husbanarv.Action 13.4. Reduce the impact of agriculture on marginal lands already in production.Action 13.5. Encourage the adoption of integrated crop and livestock farming systems, and raisethe efficiency of fertilizer Uè.””’Action 13.6. Increase the oroductivity and sustainability of rainfed farming.Action 13.7. Promote integrated pest management.Action 13.8. Contrui u u of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides through regulations andincentives.Action 13.9. Promote international action to conserve genetic resources.Artion i. ii).Expanu ex situ efforts to conserve genetic resources.Act.on 13.11. Provide for in situ conservation of wild genetic resources (also see Chapter 4).Action 13.12.Attempt to increase non-farm employment for small farmers and the landless.Action 13.13.Switch from price supports to conservation supports.Action 13.14.Promote primary environmental care by farmers.Chapter 14. Forest landsAction 14.1. Establish a permanent estate of natural ano modified forest in every nation ano manaaeit to meet the neeas of all sectors of society.Action 14.2. Establish a comprehensive system ot protected natural forests.Action 14.3. Establish and maintain an adequate permanent estate of modified forest.Action 14.4. Increase the area of planted forest.Action 14.5. Increase national capacity to manage forests sustainably.Action 14.6. Strengthen community management of forests.Action 14.7. Expand efforts to conserve forest genetic resources.Action 14.8. Create a maricet for forest products from sustainably managed sources ana use woodmore efficiently.Action 14.9. Set stumpage prices to reflect the timber’s full value; charge licence fees that discourage exploitation of stands of marginal commercial value; and auction concessionscompetitively.Action 14.1O.lncrease the capacities of lower-income countries to manage forests sustainably; andimprove international cooperation in forest conservation and sustainable development.Chatper 15. Fresh watersAction 15.1. Improve the information base for sustainable water management.Action 15.2. Undertake awareness campaigns and education programmes on sustainable use ofwater.continued. .165Implementing the StrategyAction 15.3. Provide training in the management of human uses of, and impacts on, the water cycle.Action 15.4. Manage water and demand to ensure efficient and equitable allocation of water amongcompeting uses.Action 15.5. Give greater emphasis to the drainage basin as the unit of water management (seealso Action 4.5).Action 15.6. Integrate the development of water resources with conservation of ecosystems thatplay a key role in the water cycle.Action 15.7. Establish a cross-sectoral mechanism for integrated water management.Action 15.8. Establish procedures to act rapidly in response to natural and human-caused hazards..Action 15.9. Give local communities greater control over the management of aquatic resourcesandstrengthen their capacity to use them.Action 15.1O.Strengthen mechanisms for more effective international cooperation to share information and experience on how to use water and aquatic ecosystems sustainabty.Action 15.11.ldentify and protect aquatic species that are rare or threatened.Chapter 16. Oceans and coastal areasAction 16.1. Develop a national policy on the coastal zone and ocean.Action 16.2. Establish a mechanism to coordinate the planning and allocation of uses of the coastalzone.Action 16.3. Allocate marine resource user rights more equitably among small-scale, large-scaleand sport fisheries, and giving more weight tothe interests of local communities and organizations.Action 16.4. Use an ecosystem approach for management of marine resources.Action 16.5. Conduct information campaigns to raise the profile of coastal and marine issues; andinclude a strong marine component in environmental educaticn in all countries.Action 16.6. Promote marine protected areas.Action 16.7. Conserve key and threatened marine spec,es arc ocr: pQois.Action 16.8. Place high priority on preventing marine pollution from land-based sources.Action 16.9. Adopt procedures for effective prevention of pollution from ships and offshore installations, and for rapid response to emergencies such as oil spills.Action 16.1O.Ratify or accede to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)and other international legal instruments and develop an effective regime for sustainable use ofopen-ocean resources.Action 16.11.Expand and strengthen internat’onal cooperation, both regionally and among funding agences and intergovernmental organizations.Action 16.12.Promote inter-disciplinary research and exchange of information on marine ecosystems.Chapter 17. Implementing the StrategyAction 17.1. Study the Strategy and consider its implications.Action 17.2. Evaluate the implications of the Strategy for the policies and approaches of citizensgroups, NGQs, local communities, governments and international bodies.Action 17.3. Promote the Strategy through broadly based national and intemational publicitycampaigns.Action 17.4. Promote the Strategy within government.Action 17.5. Provide communities with the opportunity to prepare local strategies for sustainability.Action 17.6. Organize governmental agencies to implement the Strategy.Action 17.7. Undertake national and subriational strategies for sustainability.Action 17.8. Build up the global alliance.Action 17.9. Fund the transition to sustainability.Action 17.1O.Monitor and evaluate the Strategy and its targets.166APPENDIX 11: Ecosystem Representation in Protected Areas on VancouverIslandSource: C.O.R.E. (1994d)Areatn PercntinEcosystem CIIcafio Ij jr Percent jn Area in Percent In Existing & Existing a(Ecosection and Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Propos.d ProposedBlogeoctimatic subzone Area Protection Protection Protection Protection Protection Protectioivnrinnt (hr, (htfl23.7532214207.5338.04235801.1920341.5426.098138.991225.343449417288343.452128,07423.4511.55014,70212437292480011.15853.19217.682NANAIMO LOWLANDSCDFmmCWHmm2CWHxm 1CWHxm2SubtotalLEEWARD ISLAND MOUNTAINSATCWHmm1CWHmm2CWHvm2CWHxm ICWHxrn2MHmmlMhmmplSubtotalWINDWARD ISLAND MOUNTAINSATCWHvh1CWHvm1CWHvm2MHmmlMhmmplSubtotalNORTHERN ISLAND MOUNTAINSATCWHvmICWHvm2CWHxm2MHmmlMhmmpl0.29%0.00%0.57%0.00%0.45%9 1.33%8.95%12.98%0.00%0.00%3.25%4 1.53%75.40%15.43%70.12%24.43%7.38%9.97%32.37%42.91%12.93%86.29%3.80%5.36%0.09%9.42%20.85%6.09%897.191743206.665634.116216,97581.6385.1901384195215048046.82421.639264252227180 0.15% 538 0.43%0 0.00% 0 0.00%1,301 0.63% 2493 1.20%0 0.00% 0 0.00%1481 0.43% 3.031 0.89%0 0.00% 14.702 91.33%1,999 1.44% 14,436 10.39%944 0.42% 30,192 13.40%0 0.00% 0 0.00%0 0.00% 0 0.00%2428 0.71% 13.586 ..9Fi%586 0.46% 53,778 41.99%59 0.25% 17,741 75.65%6.016 0.67% 144,435 16.10%0 0.00% 521 70.12%11,107 5.37% 61.587 29.80%16.966 2.68% 63.790 10.06%4.568 2.11% 26207 12.08%1360 1.67% 27,785 34.03%426 8.21% 2.653 51.12%34427 3.01% 182.543 15.94%0 0.00% 2.008 86.29%8,988 4.52% 16.536 8.32%5,648 3.58% 14,102 8.94%2.847 4.81%. 2.900 4.90%5296 4.13% 17.386 13.54%225 1.06% 4,636 21.91%23.004 4.05% 57.568 10.14%1,145,327 148,1162,327 2.008198.781 7.548157.750 8.45459238 53128.362 12.09021.155 4411Subtotal 567,613 34.564167Ecosystem Representation in Protected Areas on Vancouver IslandArea In Percent InEcosystem Classification Area in Percent In Area in Percent In Existing & Existing &(Ecosection and Existing Existing Proposed Proposed Proposed ProposedBiogeoclimofic subzone Area Protection Protection Protection Protection Protection Protection,rirw,nt (hM (hn (°L’ (hn’NAHWITTI LOWLANDCWHvh1 123A49 10.890 8.82% 13,151 10.65% 24,041 19.47%CWHvm1 142.160 0 0.00% 10.519 7.40% 10.519 7.40%CWHvm2 4970 0 0.00% 263 5.29% 263 5.29%MHmml 247 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Subtotal 270,826 10.890 4.02% 23,933 8.84% 34.823 12.86%TOTAL VI 3,222,499 333539 10.35% 88,861 2.76% 422A00 13.11%STRAIT OF GEORGIACDFmm 424 311 73.35% 0 0.00% 311 73.35%CWHxm1 19.513 882 4.52% 0 0.00% 882 4.52%Subtotal 19.937 1,193 5.98% 0 0.00% 1.193 5.98%OUTER FIORDLANDSCWHxm1 438 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%CWHxm2 23A17 u 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%CWHdm 1,674 258 15.41% 0 0.00% 258 15.41%CWHmm 1 1.381 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%Subtotal 26,910 258 0.96% 0 0.00% 258 0.96%TOTALSTGANDOF 46.847 1,451 3.10% 0 0.00% 1A51 3.10%TOTAL PLANNING AREA 3,269,346 334,990 10.25% 88,861 2.72% 423,851 12.96%NOTE; For analysis purposes, the Nahwitti Lowland Ecosection includes areas of the Hectate Depressionand Queen Charlotte Strait Ecosections within the V.1. Regional Planning Area. The area for the Strait ofGeorgia and Outer Fiordlands refers to the area of these ecosections within the V.1. Regional PlanningArea. Figures are for land surl’ace area only, excluding water.168

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0087409/manifest

Comment

Related Items