Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Learning to plan for integrated water resources management in British Columbia Creighton, Sheila Carolyn 1999

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1999-0338.pdf [ 13.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089049.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089049-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089049-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089049-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089049-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089049-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089049-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089049-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089049.ris

Full Text

LEARNING TO PLAN FOR INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by SHEILA CAROLYN CREIGHTON B.A., The University of Guelph, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (PLAN.) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1999 © Sheila Carolyn Creighton, 1999 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Scitgrt^ CP QsMm/ntTn, <J^^^4^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date e \uJLj DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Integrated water resources management (IWRM) is a holistic, inclusive mode of decision making that has developed in response to the increasing complexity, uncertainty and conflict that characterize one of British Columbia's primary and most valuable natural resources. It is a management tool that recognizes the interrelatedness of resource uses with each other and within the broader social and economic systems which influence the state and use of water resources. To date, success with I W R M in B.C. has been limited. Many of the opportunities to plan for I W R M in B.C are made available through a wide range of multi-stakeholder land use planning processes. This research evaluates planning for integrated water resources management in British Columbia's Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) processes from a social learning perspective. Drawing from the principles of systems theory, it is argued that learning represents a fundamental form of feedback in sustainable water resource management. Through a series of six L R M P case studies, the evaluation addresses the acquisition of new knowledge relating to water resources gained by M E L P ' s Water Management Program through their involvement LRMPs, and the dissemination and utilization of this new knowledge in subsequent planning efforts. The research results provide insight into the organizational learning culture within which integrated water resources management is developing and detail specific lessons gained through L R M P experiences. Drawing from the insights of those individuals who participated in this study, it is evident that learning within Water Management occurs through the incremental adjustments of decisions and actions. While the organization is adept at acquiring new knowledge, this study reveals that it is weak in disseminating that knowledge. This weakness limits its overall learning potential. Recommendations are directed towards expanding the learning potential and capacity of Water Management specifically in the areas of knowledge dissemination and utilization, thereby leading to greater future success with I W R M . Further recommendations are also directed towards the various agencies and organizations who collectively enable and are responsible for delivering effective I W R M in B.C. u Table of Contents ABSTRACT II LIST OF FIGURES VI LIST OF TABLES VI LIST OF ACRONYMS VII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VIII CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 OVERVIEW 1 1.2 THESIS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 3 1.3 THESIS ORGANIZATION 4 CHAPTER 2 - INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 6 2.1 W H Y Do W E N E E D IT? 6 2.2 UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 9 2.2.1 History - Drawing on the Past 9 2.2.2 Recognizing A Good Thing When We See It 11 2.2.3 Defining Integrated Water Resources Management 11 2.2.4 The Nature of Integrated Planning 13 2.2.5 Practicing IWRM: Moving Beyond Theory 14 2.3 BARRIERS TO SUCCESS WITH INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 17 2.3.1 Social Barriers 17 2.3.2 Attitude 18 2.3.3 Conceptual Barriers 18 2.3.4 Institutional Barriers 19 2.3.5 Information Barriers 21 2.3.6 Communication Barriers 23 2.3.7 Monitoring and Assessment 24 CHAPTER 3 - PLANNING FOR INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT IN B.C 26 3.1 B C ' s WATER RESOURCE PLANNING FRAMEWORK 30 3.1.1 Strategic Water Management Tools 30 3.1.2 Local Water Management Tools 32 3.1.3 Operational Water Management Tools 36 CHAPTER 4 - A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE ON WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 42 4.1 WHAT IS A SYSTEM? 43 4.2 APPLYING SYSTEMS THEORY TO I W R M 46 4.3 RETHINKING I W R M : A NEW CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 48 4.4 PRINCIPLES 51 4.4.1 Inclusive 51 4.4.2 Strategic Orientation : 51 4.4.3 Legitimacy 53 4.4.4 Commitment 54 4.5 INPUTS 55 4.6 PROCESSES 56 4.6.1 Social Learning 56 4.6.2 Communication 58 4.6.3 Value Focused Thinking 59 4.6.4 Public Participation 60 4.6.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 62 4.7 Outputs 63 4.8 T H E FRAMEWORK IN ACTION 64 CHAPTER 5 - LEARNING ABOUT INTEGRATION 66 5.1 SOCIAL LEARNING 67 5.1.1 Defining Social Learning 67 5.1.2 Conceiving Social Learning 69 5.2 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 70 5.2.1 Defining Organizational Learning 70 5.2.2 The Learning Process 75 5.2.3 Conceiving Organizational Learning 76 5.3 BARRIERS TO LEARNING 81 5.3.1 Socio-cultural Constraints 81 5.3.2 Emotional Constraints 82 5.3.3 Cognitive Constraints 82 CHAPTER 6 - AN INTEGRATED EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 84 6.1 PHASES OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 86 6.2 LEARNING ORIENTATIONS 8 8 6.3 LEARNING STYLES 90 6.4 FACILITATING FACTORS 90 6.5 LEARNING PROFILES 94 CHAPTER 7 - RESEARCH METHODS 96 7.1 RESEARCH DESIGN • 96 7.2 RESEARCH PARADIGM • 97 7.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY - 1 0 0 7.4 RESEARCH METHODS 102 7.4.1 Interviews 102 7.4.2 Survey '. 104 7.4.3 Documents and Plans 105 7.5 USE OF D A T A SOURCES AND ANALYSIS 105 7.6 D A T A VERIFICATION 106 iv CHAPTER 8 - CASE STUDIES: LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING 109 8.1 POLICY BACKGROUND : 109 8.2 CASE STUDY BACKGROUND 110 8.2.1 Kamloops Region 112 8.2.2 Prince George Region 113 8.3 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH FINDINGS 115 8.3.1 Social Learning and LRMPs 116 8.3.2 Water Resources and LRMPs 116 CHAPTER 9 - LEARNING FOR IWRM: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 118 9.1 PERCEPTION OF LEARNING 118 9.2 PERCEPTION OF PLANNING 121 9.2.1 A ttitude Towards Planning 121 9.2.2 Significance of LRMPs and Associated Expectations 123 9.3 LEARNING WITHIN LRMPs 127 9.4 LEARNING WITHIN WATER MANAGEMENT 129 9.4.1 Organizational Learning Style 129 9.4.2 Organizational Learning Profile 131 9.5 W A T E R MANAGEMENT AND THE LEARNING C Y C L E 134 9.5.1 Knowledge Acquisition 135 9.5.2. Knowledge Dissemination 135 9.5.3 Knowledge Utilization 137 9.6 CONCLUSIONS: IMPLICATIONS FORINTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 138 CHAPTER 10 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? 141 10.2 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 142 10.1.1 Perception of learning 142 10.2.2 The Learning Cycle ; 144 10.2 INTEGRATION IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANNING 148 10.3 NAVIGATING THE LANDSCAPE OF IWRM: WHERE Do W E Go FROM HERE? 158 REFERENCES 160 APPENDIX 1 - EVOLUTION OF LAND USE PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 167 APPENDIX 2- WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY AND LEGISLATION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 168 APPENDIX 3 - WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES IN LRMPS 172 APPENDIX 4- INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 176 APPENDIX 5- INTERVIEW RESPONDENTS 178 APPENDIX 6 - OGANIZATIONAL LEARNING PROFILE SURVEY 179 List of Figures FIGURE 3.1 PROVINCIAL L A N D USE PLANNING HIERARCHY 40 FIGURE 3.2 W A T E R MANAGEMENT TOOLS LINKAGES 41 FIGURE 4.1 T H E PRINCIPLE OF A CONTROL CIRCUIT 44 FIGURE 4.2 A SURVIVAL LANDSCAPE ..„ 45 FIGURE 4.3 A N E W CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 50 FIGURE 4.4 T H E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPLEXITY, ORDER, AND CHAOS 52 FIGURE 4.5 INTEGRATION IN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 54 FIGURE 5.1 A SIMPLIFIED M O D E L OF SOCIAL PRACTICE AND LEARNING 68 FIGURE 5.2 KOLB'S EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING C Y C L E 70 FIGURE 5.3 HUNT'S M O D E L OF EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING 70 FIGURE 5.4 T H E C Y C L E OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING 77 FIGURE 5.5 HOLLING'S C Y C L E OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION 79 FIGURE 6.1 T H E INTEGRATED LEARNING C Y C L E 87 FIGURE 7.1 NESTED RESEARCH APPROACH 100 F I G U R E 8.1 M A P OF LRMPs I N BRITISH COLUMBIA I l l List of Tables T A B L E 3.1 W A T E R RESOURCES PLANNING IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 39 T A B L E 5.1 LEARNING A N D PERFORMANCE REFERENCE CHART (FROM A L E E , 1997) 74 T A B L E 9.1 WATER RESOURCE RELATED LEARNING WITHIN L R M P S 128 T A B L E 9.2 ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING PROFILE OF WATER MANAGEMENT 132 List of Acronyms C O R E Commission On Resources and Environment C W A P Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure D F O Department of Fisheries and Oceans E L U C Environment and Land Use Committee F F Facilitating Factor I W A P Interior Watershed Assessment Procedure I W M P Integrated Watershed Management Plan I W R M Integrated Water Resources Management L O r Learning Orientation L R M P Land and Resource Management Planning L U P Landscape Unit Plan L W M P Liquid Waste Management Plan M A R H Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing M E L P B C Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks M M A H B C Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing M O F B C Ministry of Forests O C P Official Community Plan R G S Regional Growth Strategies R M Z Resource Management Zone W A P Water Allocation Plan W M P Water Management Plan W U P Water Use Plan A cknowledgements When I first sat down to write this thesis I set one very important objective for myself: to avoid being consumed by it. I can't say that I have been successful in meeting that objective. What I can say, however, is that in many regards I have truly enjoyed this consumption. It has been a process of great indulgence, a luxury you might say. That is not to say that it was not difficult or burdensome at times. Rather, it was a privilege that I am grateful for. Writing this thesis has been a tremendous learning experience for myself. I would like to thank all those people who have indulged me in this process and encouraged me along the way. Thank you Tony, for all that you have taught me. You have a stellar style of teaching that enables your students to learn about what really matters. Thank you Ross, for supporting my research and devoting the time and energy to help guide me through the bureaucratic mazes - always with a sense of humour. Thanks also to all the individuals who agreed to participate in this study, whose words have given life and meaning to what would otherwise remain as theory. Finally, thank you Richard, for holding my head when I was convinced it could no longer contain all of this information, my hand when I needed confidence, and my heart always. viii Humankind did not weave the web of life; we are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves Chief Seattle, 1854 Failure to change can be a virus more deadly than the 1918 strain of influenza... The only constant in life is change. Learn to love it and be comfortable with it. The people who succeed in the future are those who learn to walk on quicksand and dance with electrons Frank Ogden (a.k.a. Dr. Tomorrow) One of Canada's foremost futurists, age 80 ix Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1 Overview Water represents one of the primary and most valuable natural resources that British Columbia has to offer. As a vital link in every natural ecosystem, source of drinking water to both humans and wildlife, home to aquatic species, mode of transportation, source of power, and favoured arena for recreation, the values associated with water may well surpass those of any other natural resource. This irreplaceable source of life and livelihood requires management policies that protect it from ever increasing risks and demands imposed by a growing population, economic expansion and competition, multiple sources of pollution, over allocation, and natural hazards. Water resources management is ultimately about making decisions that affect the future state of water resources. The context of water resources management has evolved tremendously over the past couple of decades. This evolution has been induced by increasing demands on limited water resources from a growing population, increased concern over the degradation of local water supplies, the expansion of scientific data, the diversification of government structures, and a greater determination on behalf of the public to be involved in resource management decision-making processes. A l l of these factors have culminated in a management environment that is now characterized by increasing complexity, uncertainty, and conflict (Dorcey, 1986). The complex nature of decision making in water resource management is echoed in the concept of "super problems". A term coined back in 1968, "super problems" are those types of problems not amenable to ideal solutions; problems in which cause and effect are inextricably linked and in which largely unexplored social values and attitudes are usually involved (Shrubsole and Mitchell, 1997). Other authors have affirmed this observation in discussions of "wicked problems" - problems that are not amenable to resolution by traditional techniques of analysis (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Deciding how to effectively address these "super problems" or "wicked problems" is perhaps the ultimate challenge for water managers. Experience has demonstrated that complexity and uncertainty are problems that can never be fully solved; they must be managed. In response to increasing complexity, uncertainty, and increasing 1 conflict, a more integrated approach to water resource management has been adopted in B.C. over the past two decades. Integrated water resources management (IWRM) is intended to be a more holistic, multi-perspective approach to management which advocates the sharing of the values and inputs of a broad range of agencies, publics, and interests when conceiving, designing and implementing policies, programs or projects (Mitchell, 1986). It is an approach which seeks to inclusively address the environmental, social, and economic variables which affect water resources today. That, at least, is the theory. In practice, however, the experience of implementing I W R M has introduced new problems relating to social, institutional, and organizational barriers which have limited its adoption. Overcoming these barriers requires management to become more anticipative and adaptive (Lee, 1993). Learning is a critical prerequisite for both. In order to prevent problems from developing, managers must first understand the cause of these problems. It is only through learning - converting new information into knowledge and sharing that knowledge - that management can move from being reactionary to anticipatory. Similarly, it is only through learning that management is exposed to new ideas and approaches, enabling it to become more adaptive. Without learning, management is easily defeated by "super problems", and change and progress is impossible. Across the province, water managers today are collecting a vast array of experiences which afford new knowledge and understanding. The lessons learned from these experiences and the specific application and utilization of the knowledge that emerges from these lessons will have a large influence on the future direction of I W R M in B.C. As a means of examining progress with I W R M , this thesis evaluates the integration of water resources into one specific integrated land use planning process, Land and Resources Management Planning (LRMP). Focusing on the Water Management Program of the Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP), one of the key government agencies responsible for integrating water resources into LRMPs, the evaluation addresses what lessons have been gained through Water Management's involvement in LRMPs across three regions of the province. It also assesses Water Management's current learning capacity on the basis of several key criteria that contribute to organizational learning. The evaluation is intended to demonstrate that learning from experience is one of the most effective and efficient ways of improving the practice of IWRM, and to suggest ways .in which both Water Management and those other agencies responsible for delivering I W R M in B.C. might improve its practice in the future. 2 1.2 Thesis Goals and Objectives The goal of this thesis is to evaluate planning for integrated water resources management in British Columbia's Land and Resource Management Planning processes from a social learning perspective. More specific objectives which helped to shape and define the research are as follows: 1. To develop a comprehensive documentation of integrated water resources management theory and the current framework in place for planning for water resources in B.C. 2. To re-conceptualize I W R M in terms of systems theory. 3. To assess the extent to which I W R M is currently practiced in B.C. and identify areas where this practice can be strengthened. 4. To evaluate how learning about I W R M takes place through Water Management's involvement in LRMPs and more generally how learning occurs within the organization as a whole. 5. To demonstrate the significance and value of social learning as a sustainable means of improving and enhancing I W R M in B.C. through an application of learning theory to a collection of L R M P case studies. Conducting this study is important for three primary reasons. First, most opportunities for I W R M in B C are currently provided through land use planning processes. Focusing on the integration of water resources into LRMPs helps to provide insight into the strengths and limitations of Water Management's current approach to IWRM. Moreover, it is very important for water to be effectively integrated into these higher level strategic plans as they establish the requirements for both local and operational level planning. If water is not well integrated into higher level plans, its significance may be overlooked at lower levels. Second, identifying the lessons learned through involvement with LRMPs is important in order to improve the integration of water into any future LRMPs or other similar planning processes. If knowledge gained from such experiences is not shared, progress is virtually impossible. Finally, by applying a systems perspective to IWRM, this research challenges conventional thinking and pushes conceptual boundaries beyond their traditional limits. Alternative thinking is a prerequisite for sustainable water resource management. 3 1.3 Thesis Organization It has been noted in the literature that there exists no comprehensive source on integrated water resources management (Child and Armour, 1995). While Chapter Two is not intended to be such a definitive source, it provides a comprehensive introduction to the concept of integrated water resources management. Putting the management theory into context, the current climate of increasing complexity and uncertainty that this management strategy is intended to respond to, is discussed at length. This is followed by a documentation of the history of IWRM, its benefits, and barriers encountered in transferring I W R M theory into management practice. Chapter Three moves beyond general theory and addresses I W R M specifically within British Columbia, where its history is still relatively young and progress limited. In this province, opportunities to advance I W R M are available through a multitude of land use planning processes. Within these processes, M E L P ' s Water Management Program is one of the bodies responsible for ensuring that effective integration is achieved. This chapter provides an overview of the current Provincial land use planning framework that Water Management operates within, with a detailed discussion on the strategic, local, and operational planning policies that are most relevant to water resources. This chapter helps to put Land and Resource Management Plans, the focus of this study, into a broader context. In light of the largely unsuccessful sectoral approach that has characterized water resources management, it is proposed in Chapter Four that I W R M must be approached from a systems perspective. Drawing on the fundamental principles of systems theory, it is shown that I W R M represents a complex adaptive system. Accordingly, a new conceptual framework for I W R M is developed here which considers the inputs and outputs of I W R M and the processes which drive and maintain the system. This framework creates a guiding vision which is referenced periodically throughout the thesis. Focusing on one specific process within this framework, the next two chapters examine the literature on social learning theory and more specifically, organizational learning. An adaptive learning orientation has been identified in the literature as a vital trait for organizations that function within an ever-changing management environment of complexity and uncertainty. A process that is commonly neglected in management, learning is a tool that enables water managers to continually modify their understanding of the evolving conditions of water resource systems and the social and economic systems which influence them. More specifically, organizational learning is a process which enables an 4 organization to learn from its cumulative experience and subsequently to anticipate, react, and respond to change, complexity and uncertainty. Chapter Six draws on the recent work of DiBella and Nevis (1998) to construct a framework by which to evaluate the current organizational learning capacity of M E L P ' s Water Management Program and to identify the organization's learning potential. In conjunction with a series of interviews, this research uses a questionnaire to apply the evaluative framework of Chapter Six to a series of case studies of provincial Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) processes, discussed in turn in Chapter Eight. Specific details on the research methods used to conduct the qualitative study, and the epistemological assumptions which support the research design are provided in Chapter Seven. The research methods and choices discussed in this chapter have shaped the ultimate form and nature of this thesis. An analysis of the research results is presented in Chapter Nine. This chapter addresses the perception of learning and planning within Water Management and the influence that these perceptions have on the overall functioning of the organization and more specifically, the way in which water resources have been integrated into LRMPs. Based on the results of the research questionnaire, the current learning style of Water Management is identified and interpreted within the context of the learning cycle. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the general implications of Water Management's current learning system for I W R M in B.C. The final chapter of the thesis assimilates much of the above information in the form of conclusions and emergent recommendations. In order to highlight the significance of organizational learning to I W R M , conclusions are developed according to the themes of barriers to I W R M identified in the literature: social, attitudinal, conceptual, institutional, informational, communication, and finally, barriers relating to monitoring and assessment. By placing the research findings back into the theoretical context as such, this study contributes to the theory of I W R M and social learning theory. By developing recommendations on the basis of the research findings, it is hoped that this study wil l also contribute to and enhance the practice of I W R M in B.C. 5 Chapter 2 - Integrated Water Resources Management 2.1 Why Do We Need It? The philosophy of current management systems runs opposite to the fundamental features of the natural resource. Managers are forced to make decisions that consider only part of the system, and often that component is not well understood. At another level we have little understanding of the real interactions between environmental, social, and economic decisions, or the implications of those decisions as they reach far into the future (Naiman, 1992) Increasing demands from a growing population, competing uses in an expanding economy, mounting evidence of environmental degradation, rising costs of developing resource supplies, increased pollution from urban development, political and institutional constraints, diverse public perceptions about the value of water.. ..these are all critical issues which challenge the decision making process in sustainable water resources planning and management today. Common amongst all of these issues are the pervasive characteristics of increasing complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. It is somewhat ironic that complexity abounds in the planning and management of water, one of the province's most pure and simple resources. Understanding the behaviour of the physical, social, and economic components of water resources is an endless challenge. The network of substantive issues to be addressed expands regularly. The complexity of these issues is compounded when coupled with both economic and social factors, such as demand and public perception of the resource. Moreover, these substantive issues commonly overlap with other policy areas in agriculture, industry, forestry, energy, transportation, recreation, and urban and regional development. As emerging research results extend greater complexity to all levels of water resources management, the fear that "Complexity refers to the condition of the universe which is integrated and yet too rich and varied for us to understand in simple mechanistic or linear ways. We can understand many parts of the universe in these ways, but the larger and more intricately related phenomena can only be understood by principles and patterns - not in detail. Complexity deals with the nature of emergence, innovation, learning, and adaptation " Santa Fe Group, 1996 (Cited inBattram, 1998) 6 "ecosystems are not only more complex than we think, they are more complex than we can think", is becoming more and more of a reality (Egler, quoted in Haney and Power, 1996:879). Greater awareness of complexity within ecological and social systems has brought about a fundamental loss of certitude in water resources management (Holling, 1995). The general belief that more information leads to greater understanding has been shown to be a myth.; with respect to human and ecological conditions, more information generally leads to greater uncertainty (Michael, 1995). The traditional approach of water resources management has generally been characterized by the desire to reduce the variability and complexity of natural systems, and to mask any associated uncertainties (Holling, 1995). Typically, this has been achieved through a fragmented, uncoordinated, sectoral approach to management (Mackenzie, 1996, Born and Sonzogni, 1991, Mitchell, 1990, Shrubsole, 1990). Fragmented management of water resources is a result of the design of the institutional arrangements that govern water resources. It is thought that this design came about as new management legislation was created on a piece by piece basis in response to different types of water problems as they were encountered. In turn, different agencies were created by political pressure from affected groups who offered funding and support to serve their specific interests (Hatcher, 1981). The table in Appendix 2 clearly demonstrates the extent of this fragmentation of water management in B.C. In Canada, water resource management is the shared responsibility of federal, provincial, and local governments. This seemingly rational division of power between both levels of government and various resource agencies (water, forestry, agriculture etc.), has created what are known as "boundary problems" - management problems that develop at those "gray areas" between levels of governments, among agencies, or among divisions within departments (Mitchell, 1990). Within the context of this fragmented approach, water resources have historically been segmented into separate management areas: water quality, water supply, surface water, ground water, and hazard management. The history of this division tells the tale of water management responding to social demands. Water quality management evolved from a concern for the protection of public health. Population growth and industrialization led to the need for advanced sewage treatment and further controls on discharges to bodies of water. Water supply management, which evolved independently from water quality, was motivated by a desire for adequate water supplies for human consumption as well as for industrial and agricultural practices (Mackenzie, 1996). Within each of the four distinct sectors, unidimensional management actions have been designed to address single-purpose needs such as 7 irrigation, hydropower, navigation etc. By this, much of water resources management has been of limited purpose, focused on only a portion of a watershed, and implemented incrementally (Born and Sonzogni, 1995). The pieces of this unconsolidated approach to water management together constitute what Shrubsole (1990) refers to as a patchwork quilt of institutional arrangements. Attempting to reduce the complexity of water resources as such, and convey an image of certainty to the public, has proven to be an ineffective and inefficient management approach. In the long run, it serves only to propagate myths surrounding the resource that need to be dispelled, thereby limiting the possibilities and opportunities for future progress in management. Susan Mackenzie notes that the "fragmented management of a limited component of a larger system is unlikely to work well at best, and will place the various management groups in conflict with each other at worst" (1996:9). Katherine Hatcher (1981) identifies a series of problems and inefficiencies associated with the traditional, sectoral approach to water resources management, which she terms "nonintegrated" management: 1. A n agency managing a single resource may not consider the impacts of a decision on other aspects of the physical water resource systems. 2. A single purpose agency may take actions that help its primary "client" water user, but inadvertently hinder other water users. 3. An agency may design a single purpose water project that could benefit other users for little additional cost, i f the agency would recognize and consider other's needs in project design. 4. Agencies may overlook opportunities to share data and data collection responsibilities. 5. Agencies may overlook opportunities for projects or programs that are not cost effective for their single user type, but may be desirable projects from a multipurpose perspective. 6. Agencies may be limited in their selection of water problem solutions by the scope of their implementation authority. If agencies worked together they could choose from a wider range of solutions to be implemented through joining management authorities. The social, ecological, and institutional costs of these problems have led to the introduction of extensive changes in water resources management and planning practice over the past decade. One author writes: "After more than a thousand years of sectoral water management, with all its inherent consequences, solutions are now being sought" (de Jong et al., 1995:394). It is now accepted that technical know-how is no longer seen as the central starting point to management. Instead, much more consideration is given to gauging the necessity of measures and to analyzing the consequences of those 8 measures on the ecological functioning of the water system, (de Jong et al., 1995). In conjunction with this transition, there have also been changes in both the governance of water resources and social attitudes toward water. Cantwell and Day (1996) observe that the need to better coordinate and more fully integrate a broader range of values and perspectives in resource management is now commonly recognized at both the federal and provincial levels of government. Others observe that there has also been a marked increase in government involvement in water planning processes (Child and Armour, 1995). Perhaps in an attempt to counter this trend, there has also been a distinct shift in public attitude toward the environment and an adoption of a stewardship approach to water resources. These changes have important implications for water resources planning. Together, they indicate that management may be evolving toward more sustainable practices, in which there is greater adherence to the principle that comprehensive economic, environmental, and social values must be considered in decision making (Dorcey, 1991). 2.2 Understanding Integrated Water Resources Management 2.2.1 History - Drawing on the Past The principles and ideas embodied in integrated water resources management are not new. The history of I W R M in North America is rooted in the theories of Gifford Pinchot, who, in the early 1900s, maintained that a resource "problem" should be conceived of as a single question with many parts. As far as water resources are concerned, the motivation behind an integrated approach to water management has most often been rooted in a concern for integrating water with related land and environmental issues (Mitchell, 1990). Two of the most commonly cited historical examples of I W R M rest with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Ontario's Conservation Authorities. The T V A was established in 1933, at the zenith of Roosevelt's New Deal, and has often been cited as a model of the integrated approach to resource management. Designed to develop the Tennessee River for navigation, flood control, and power production, the T V A also had a mandate to address erosion control, recreation, public health and welfare, and planning, as well as to provide rural housing, rural libraries and public utility services. (Mitchell, 1986). Unfortunately, many of these broader "regional planning" activities carried out in the early years of the T V A were later relegated to the periphery of the Authority's activities and eventually eliminated. By the mid 1940's, the authority had adopted power production and flood control as its 9 primary concerns. Today, while the rhetoric about integration still remains a part of the T V A , its emphasis is on resource development. According to one review of the T V A , it is now "America's largest publically owned private power company and very little else" (Saha and Barrow, 1981:14). Despite the unfulfilled promise of the T V A , many American regional water authorities have modeled their approach to water resources management on the T V A . In the USA, comprehensive river basin planning culminated in 1965 with the Water Resources Planning Act, which promoted integrated approaches to water planning and development. Since then, new models have emerged which equate watersheds with ecosystems and liken the watershed approach to integrated management. (Margerum and Born, 1995). Ontario's Conservation Authorities represent the earliest example of integrated management in Canada. The Conservation Authorities Act, which was passed in 1946, emerged from a need to employ World War II veterans and a concern for the degradation of natural resources. Its mandate was "to establish and undertake...a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals". Other elements of the broad mandate included establishing a watershed jurisdiction, local initiatives, regional resource planning, a provincial-municipal partnership and a collaboration with other line agencies. Thirty-eight Conservation Authorities were established across the province. The effectiveness of the Conservation Authorities has been somewhat controversial. While they were originally intended to undertake a comprehensive program, their functions have been dominated by the planning and implementation of flood and erosion control networks. By this, it is suggested that their planning operations have been more operational than strategic in nature. It has also been observed that the Authorities lack a real mechanism for effective planning and conflict resolution - a downfall which has hindered attempts to integrate land and water resources (Shrubsole, 1990). The historically rooted concept of integrated management has since been translated into several different and related fields, including comprehensive river basin management and development, multiple use-sustained yield forest and land resources management, comprehensive or regional planning, land-use planning, coastal zone management, environmental impact assessment, integrated area development, and ecosystem management (Born and Sonzogni, 1995). 10 2.2.2 Recognizing A Good Thing When We See It Our lack of success may result, in large part, from incremental and vertically, horizontally, and functionally fragmented efforts to address complex problems -problems characterized by substantial scientific uncertainty. With more intensive and conflicting demands on resources and the environment, a more holistic approach to management has become essential. (Born and Sonzogni, 1995:168). The mounting frustration that has emerged from the traditional approach to water resources management has reopened the door, so to speak, to more integrated management practices. In response to the shortcomings of sectoral water management, I W R M has been adopted, in principle, as the new guiding paradigm. This change, of course, has been received by some with unrestrained expressions of enthusiasm and support: "the integrated approach to environmental stewardship may represent the most important scientifically and philosophically based management principle yet developed. Indeed, it may be the master key to our continued effectiveness..." (Beasadny, 1991, quoted in Born and Sonzogni, 1995). The widespread appeal of I W R M is based upon the promise of a vast array of benefits, which include: • enhanced potential for non-deleterious multiple use of the resources; • increased recognition of land-water interactions; • reduced expenditure of energy and money on conflicts over competing uses and the possibility of redirecting these energies and funds to environmental management; and • promotion of cooperation and coordination of fragmented management systems, leading to overall improved efficiency. 2.2.3 Defining Integrated Water Resources Management While the need for an integrated approach to water management is widely acknowledged, and its potential well received, the literature demonstrates that there exists no single definition of I W R M , nor a common understanding of how it should be implemented. A broad spectrum of definitions of I W R M has developed over the past decade, some very general, describing it as "proactive or preventative measures that maintain the environment in good condition for a variety of long term sustainable uses" (Cairn, 1995:5) - and others more specific - "Integrated water quality management involves more than just the recognition of multiple values....It occurs at the intersection of the social goals of multiple-use management and the scientific understandings of biophysical and ecological patterns at different scales" (Perry and Vanderklein, 1996b:536). Some analysts present I W R M from a very theoretical perspective, 11 interpreting it as "a logical way to tackle the wide range of interconnected issues that affect, and are affected by, water resource planning... The bottom line...is the formulation and evaluation of water resource strategies that lay out actions in light of future uncertainties" (Fiske, 1995:260). Others apply a more practical interpretation to the concept, describing it as a management tool that recognizes the greater interrelatedness of resource uses with each other and within a total system: "Ultimately, (integrated resource management) IRJvl is a decision making process. The thrust of I R M must be to develop processes which explicitly identify and acknowledge resource values and associated viewpoints, evaluate these, identify alternative management options, and array these for choice" (O'Gorman, 1978). These multiple definitions suggest that while we have many ideas, many of them well founded, we still do not know exactly what integrated water management is (Geldof, 1995a). Bruce Mitchell, of the University of Waterloo, has invested considerable effort into clarifying and consolidating our understanding of IWRM. Mitchell (1990) understands I W R M to adopt a multiple perspective approach, and defines it as "sharing and coordinating the values and inputs of a broad range of agencies, publics and other interests when conceiving, designing and implementing resource policies, programs or projects" (quoted in Lang, 1986:41). Mitchell suggests that there are three ways of conceiving I W R M . The first level is a systematic consideration of the various dimensions of water (surface, groundwater, quantity, quality) and how each component influences the others. At this level, management is directed to joint consideration of such aspects as water supply, waste treatment and disposal, and water quality. A second conceptualization addresses the interactions between water systems and other natural resource systems. At this level, management is focused upon issues such as floodplain management, erosion control, non-point source pollution, preservation of wetlands, agricultural drainage, and recreational use of water. The broadest conceptualization of I W R M makes reference to the interrelationships between water and social and economic development. Concern here is to determine the extent to which water is both an opportunity for and a barrier against economic development, and to ascertain how to ensure that water is managed and used so that development may be sustained over the long term. Management here addresses hydroelectricity, transportation, recreation etc. This tripartite classification has been reinforced in the I W R M literature by Perry and Vanderklein (1996b). They submit that the broadest interpretation, the simultaneous consideration of the biophysical and social aspects of water resources in decision making, is "the only one that (can) yield truly effective, balanced, sustainable water quality decisions" (p.542). 12 2.2.4 The Nature of Integrated Planning Strategic planning, which addresses what can be done within a planning framework, is one of three analytical levels at which integrated water resources planning can take place. The other two levels include normative planning, which discusses water management in the context of what ought to be done, and operational planning, which addresses what will be done in integrated water resource management. It is suggested in the literature that the strategic level is the most effective entry point to integrated water resources planning (Mitchell, 1990, Lang, 1986). Strategic planning can be defined as a "proposed sequence of mutually reinforcing actions directed toward an interrelated set of objectives" (Lang, 1986:33). It is distinguished from conventional planning methods in several ways (Lang, 1986): 1. It is more oriented to organizational rather than substantive issues. 2. It adopts a more narrow and deliberate focus. 3. It devises clear mission statements to guide the planning and implementation, 4. It is especially applicable in an uncertain, turbulent environment. 5. It stresses adaptation, as opposed to conventional planning, in which decisions on future policy is largely an extension of what was done in the past. 6. It places a higher value on intuition and judgment. The following represent some of the most dominant characteristics of strategic planning, drawn from the literature: (CORE, 1996, Lang, 1986) 1. Proactive Strategic planning establishes a vision and objectives for a particular area and identifies strategies for realizing those objectives. It employs an anticipatory approach, and aims to bridge the gap between planning and implementation by addressing implementation throughout the process, not just the end. The rationale here is that "we can not freeze the world while we plan" (Lang, 1986:33). 2. Interactive and Interest Driven Legitimacy is created in strategic planning by incorporating a strong degree of government agency and public participation into the planning and decision making process. The recognition and accommodation of the interests of affected parties is viewed as critical to producing the support necessary to enable plan implementation. By allowing all affected parties to be involved and exposed to the planning process, strategic planning helps to build capacity for adaptability based on learning, especially from mistakes. 3. Comprehensive Strategic planning addresses issues that reach beyond the biophysical aspects of land and resource allocation and management. It attempts to identify many implementation strategies that address the diverse vested interests of the stakeholders. The resultant plan is designed to integrate these interests and objectives in light of potential social, economic, and environmental implications to the plan area. 13 4. Issue Focused The process focuses only on key issues and seeks to derive potential solutions for these issues. Focusing occurs early in the strategic planning process, by way of techniques such as scoping and front-end overview workshops that are designed to narrow options quickly. Data is generally collected to answer specific questions and support positions that already exist, rather than create positions. 5. Flexible and Adaptive The process recognizes that there can be no blueprint procedure to address conflicting objectives and make resource use decisions. As uncertainty is inherent to planning, planning cannot be rigid and follow a predetermined sequence, rather it must be responsive to unanticipated events and information. This requires the allowance of regular iterations between the planning stages. 6. Reliant on Intuition and Judgment Strategic planning is not intended as a predictive tool to be used to gauge impacts. Knowledge of approximate effects and an understanding of the relative pros and cons of various scenarios are held as acceptable, given the scale considerations and the significant levels of uncertainty that prevail at this level. By focusing quickly on what is to be investigated in depth, strategic planning is able to initiate implementation of some aspects of the plan while other aspects are still being formulated. In this way, it acts as a filtering device, bounding the inevitable complexity and uncertainty inherent to water resources management (Born and Sonzogni, 1995). The ability of this approach to "obtain the benefits of a comprehensive outlook without becoming so entangled with a complex web of interrelationships that the management exercise literally disappears into a 'black hole', never to re-emerge" is highly valuable to I W R M (Mitchell, 1987, quoted in Born and Sonzogni, 1995:171. 2.2.5 Practicing IWRM: Moving Beyond Theory There is common agreement in the literature that I W R M is a process, not a final product (USDA, 1990, Born and Sonzogni, 1995, Mitchell, 1990). Rather than an end in itself, an integrated approach to management is a means to better achieve multiple ends, including more effective and equitable balancing of the interests of environmental resource users and other affected parties, social and economic change, proactive and anticipatory decision making, and ecologically sustainable management (Born and Sonzogni, 1995). This perspective is well captured by Mitchell, who warns that "integration is not a panacea for water management problems. Indeed, it is not an end in itself, but rather it is a means to the end of more effective resource management" (1990:218). How successful have we been in reaching these ends? 14 From the literature, it seems that despite general acceptance and some success with I W R M , progress in actual implementation has been hesitant and unsystematic (Born and Sonzogni, 1995). In part, this is a result of the presence of real obstacles to integration, discussed later in section 2.2. It also reflects a situation in which participants are learning as they proceed, with no blueprint to follow. As a result, resource planners and managers are usually cautious and follow an incremental strategy in which they move forward slowly (Mitchell, 1990). In terms of the tripartite classification system, Mitchell observes that integration has been more advanced with regard to linking water, land, and environmental resources than linking different components of the water resources, such as surface water and groundwater. As to the various analytical levels at which integrated planning takes place, at the normative level, greater consideration of the interrelationships among the components of water, the linkages to other resources, and the connection between water resources and social and economic development is needed. At the strategic level, there is a growing need to develop alternative ways in which integration can be realized. Results have been mixed at the operational level. There is evident concern here over practical matters, such as how many aspects should be integrated and overlapping jurisdictions. As well, individual attitudes have been a real problem. More recently, Shrubsole and Mitchell (1997) have noted that at the operational level, the success of integrated water planning initiatives depends not only on substantive issues, but also on procedural and people issues. A more critical analysis submitted by Pierre Walther (1987) over a decade ago suggests that idealistic beliefs in the problem-solving capacities of I W R M are not justified. Based on three Canadian case studies, Walther's analysis concludes that the success and performance of I W R M , measured in terms of output such as formal decisions or plans, is primarily a function of the historical situation into which a project is placed, and only secondarily its professional design. From his case studies of integrated management in Alberta and B.C., Walther observed several barriers to successful integration. These included an inflexible institutional environment that was not conducive to open communication, and economic realities such as competition (which works against integration) entrenched in the provincial administration. Disappointed with these findings, he writes that in Alberta, integrated management "outcomes seem to lack clear decisions and directive power due to overall compromise orientation" (1987:442). 15 Another case study in Walther's research was the Meares Island Planning Team on Vancouver Island. By this case he reveals that the specific context of projects has a large influence on the success of integrated management efforts. Integrated management is often implemented into institutional environments that are ruled by established culture, politics and traditions; environments that are not usually accessible for recollection or change. This resiliency of organizational culture as a barrier to integration has also been noted by Mitchell: "Through fuzzy legitimation, unclear functions and cumbersome structures, an organizational culture develops which creates real barriers to integrated and co-operative efforts" (1990:15). Walther's less than optimistic observations touch on just a few of the barriers to successful integrated resource management, to be discussed in greater detail in the next section. Most recently, a report issued by the Auditor General on drinking water in B C suggests that Provincial drinking water source management presently occurs in a piecemeal fashion (Province of B C , 1999). The report observes that a total of six Ministries! comprise a "patchwork of responsibility" for drinking water in BC. It is suggested that this is one of the main reasons why the Province has been unable to achieve integrated management of drinking water sources to date. Beyond fragmentation, the report highlights three essential elements that are lacking in almost all of the integrated management processes that were included in this study^: representation, information, and implementation. It is important that water resource interests be represented on an equal footing with all other resource interests in multi-stakeholder planning processes. While representation has been acceptable in local plans, the report concludes that drinking water resources have not received appropriate representation in strategic planning processes. It is also important that planning decisions be grounded in appropriate information on the values and impacts of each resource interest and on the natural conditions of the region. Appropriate information should address issues of both watershed functioning and resource use. In the cases included in this study, it was found that information was often not available on values and impacts of competing resource uses in watersheds. A final conclusion drawn in the report is that there are very few mechanisms presently in place for translating the findings of integrated planning processes into action. It is rare that the participants of these processes are designated with the authority to act on their conclusions and recommendations. Most often, implementation depends on making a "hand-off to an 1 These include MOF, MELP, Ministry of Energy and Mines, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and the Environmental Assessment Office. 2 The study focused on CORE'S Regional Land Use Plans, Land and Resource Management Plans, Integrated Watershed Management Plans, and Watershed Roundtables. 16 agency or authority outside of the planning process. Very often such "hand-offs" impede the implementation process and limit the opportunity for changes to be introduced to the management system (Province of B C , 1999). A l l of these conclusions are significant findings for the entire range of provincial water resources and they represent important areas to focus on improving I W R M , as is discussed in the final chapter of this thesis. 2.3 Barriers to Success With Integrated Water Resources Management What has become all too apparent from attempts to implement I W R M is that a significant gap still exists between theory and practice. Experience has afforded a great deal of practical knowledge that helps to put into context some of the theory already discussed in this paper. How we use this knowledge will certainly determine successes in the future. What follows in this next section is a discussion of some of the main barriers to success with integration that are identified in the literature. 2.3.1 Social Barriers The implementation of integrated water resources management has traditionally met many socially constructed barriers. Many of these barriers are related to perception, both of the concept, and of water resources in general. But changing people's perception is no easy task. One of the biggest perceptions to overcome is their resistance to change. There is a perception that integrated management demands lifestyle changes (Cairns, 1991). Whether this is true or not, it has created an automatic resistance to the idea. As well, Canadian society is a growth oriented society, and any new policies which threaten the status quo are not well received. People consider that their present use of water resources is an intrinsic right, and there is not much willingness to consider any alternatives. De Jong, et al. suggest that these socio-political "bottlenecks" have arisen from the traditional anthropocentric approach of water resources management: whether it be our utilization of water, space or the environment, everything has revolved around what is best for mankind in the short term. In theory of course, there would be nothing wrong with such an approach i f there was an infinite amount of usable space, good quality water and environmental resources. The realization that this is not the case will only permeate society when scarcity becomes apparent on a global bases: only then wil l mankind as a whole be fully prepared to make the difficult choices that lie ahead. (1995:397) 17 One tangible means of short-cutting this doomsday lament and overcoming some of the social barriers to integration has been to encourage greater public involvement in integrative planning processes. It is now well recognized and generally accepted that "the sheer complexity of modern water management calls for what is known as a non-equilibrium approach, in which the emotions of individuals and user groups play a serious role" (de Jong et al., 1995:399). The challenge of providing for effective public involvement is enormous, however, and the subject of a separate collection of research. 2.3.2 Attitude Much of the literature on I W R M places a heavy emphasis on the human dimension of planning. The role that individuals and organizations can play in making or breaking integrated efforts is highly significant. While society and the physical environment benefit substantially from the cooperation and coordination of integration, some individuals in public agencies and organizations associate a great risk with the process. They perceive that integration many bring a change to their professional status, demoting their authority and reducing their influence. These fears, while parochial and selfish in nature, represent a very real barrier to successful integrated water resources management. Bruce Mitchell writes: "ultimately, integration, cooperation, and coordination depend to a significant extent upon the willingness of the participants to make them happen...A well designed system may falter i f the participants are determined not to work with each other" (Mitchell, 1990:14). This reality is also documented by O'Riordan (1976) who observes that "decision making in resource management often has little to do with organization, statutory guidelines and coordinating arrangements. Rather, it has much more to do with the outcome of the determination, vision, indifference, antagonisms and bloody-mindedness of particular individuals who are in positions of influence" (quoted in Mitchell, 1990:14). 2.3.3 Conceptual Barriers Before addressing any other factors that hinder the success of integrated water resource management it is imperative that there be a common, assured understanding of what the concept entails. As discussed earlier, there is considerable conceptual confusion associated with I W R M . Bruce Mitchell writes: "too often people have had only a vague idea as to what "integration" means, and/or there have been differing perceptions as to what it means.. .It is not surprising that confusion has been frequent, and that many planning documents have been characterized by vagueness or fuzziness" (1990:5). 18 The way in which we conceive integrated water resources management and planning has a direct effect on the goals of the process, its practice, and ultimately, its success. Analyses of I W R M over the past couple of decades reveal that the holistic approach to management, in which humans are seen as part of natural systems, has not been practiced to its fullest extent. This is a fundamental problem. The very context of environmental decision-making today, challenged by increasing complexity and uncertainty, demands a holistic approach to management. It is the very presence of more than one system, that establishes the need for integration in the first place (Hufschmidt and Tejwani, 1993). It is now recognized, though not yet fully understood, that natural resources within a watershed exist in a complex symbiotic web, influenced by external social, economic, and political elements of human culture. To date, however, this inherent interconnected nature of systems has not yet been adequately reflected and incorporated into the design and practice of integrated water resources management. This shortcoming can largely be attributed to our conceptualization and understanding of complexity. Traditionally, organization has been heralded as the solution to complex problems. We systematically try to "tame" problems, and in doing so, add to complexity. Mason and Mitroff (1981) observe that organization in complexity can become an insurmountable barrier to the solution of some problems. There exist in resource management many problems that defy definitive formulation and embody complexity too great to be broken down and handled individually. These are referred to in the literature as "wicked problems" (Mason and Mitroff, 1981, Margerum and Born, 1995). By the very nature of organized complexity, the more you try to tame "wicked problems", the more complicated they become. A more appropriate management strategy is to address "wicked problems" both analytically and holistically. By the very nature of organized complexity, issues should be subdivided into discrete elements and analyzed as such in order to determine the nature of the linkages that give organization to complexity. Analysis, is, however, only an aid toward reaching a holistic synthesis of the problem. Holistic thinking is required to deal with the organized complexity of wicked problems in their totality (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). 2.3.4 Institutional Barriers Sectoral institutional management is identified by most commentators as one of the key barriers to successful integrated management of water resources (Mitchell, 1986, de Jong et al., 1995, Born and Sonzogni, 1995, Child and Armour, 1995, Romaine, 1996). Awareness of this critical issue dates back to as early as 1986, with Mitchell's observation that "the existence of strong line agencies with more 19 narrowly focused mandates has inhibited wider diffusion of the concept" of I W R M (Mitchell, 1986:19). Considerable attention has been directed to this barrier ever since. Several authors make note of the resultant myriad of "boundary problems", which restrict the ability of agencies, individually and collectively, to address information deficiencies and management needs that fall within gray areas - such as those associated with ecological processes and land-water use interdependencies (Romaine, 1996). Boundary problems are now very entrenched. One reason for this is that planning has generally occurred in the absence of a common set of goals and agreed-upon directions, particularly at the regional and local planning scales. "Individual agencies have tended to identify and pursue their own objectives making interagency cooperation more difficult" (Child and Armour, 1995:117). Understanding the rationale and behaviour behind this phenomenon is perhaps the best approach to changing it. Analysis from de Jong, et al. explores the idea that "in practice, managers seem unable to refrain from continually focusing on the interests of the organizations which they represent, rather than allowing them to become secondary to a more common goal" (1995, 397). There are several explanations for this behaviour. Included amongst these are the considerations that some professionals fear peer criticism of oversimplification, and that short term profits of sectoral management are too enticing for some to part with (Cairns, 1991). Perhaps a more significant interpretation is that sectoral management defends the very existence of agencies. Taking a broader attitude and more integrative approach is often perceived as a threat to the continuation of one's own organization. Unfortunately, it is this attitude which actually enforces boundary effects. I W R M is also perceived by some as a threat to job security, as it will reveal that several agencies are duplicating work and seek to reduce redundancy (Cairns, 1991). Finally, as a result of long established organizational cultures, and deeply rooted hostility between sectors and departments, there is often very little willingness on the part of agencies to compromise. As well, some agencies strongly resist change, accepting it only in crisis situations, but not when change is "manageable" (Cairns, 1991). When management goals are established independently by agencies, there is always the subsequent challenge of resolving differences between conflicting goals with other agencies. (Perry and Vanderklein, 1996b). One potential solution proposed to address this problem is the introduction of interdisciplinary policy analyses rather than separate policy analyses drawn up by separate agencies and individuals. The idea here is to make water the central issue for all and to develop a common set of goals. Goals developed in this manner are usually hierarchical, where overall quality is expressed in 20 broad terms, and detailed goals are developed within the overall structure for each agency. By following this approach, actual institutional concerns are enabled to come prominently to the fore; and i f the results of the analyses then indicate a necessity for institutional adaptations, appropriate initiatives can be developed (de Jong, et al., 1995). One example of such an approach in B.C. has been the creation of the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO). L U C O is an attempt on behalf of the provincial government to help coordinate management efforts on a corporate basis. The Interagency Management Committees that function under L U C O provide forums for information exchange and program collaboration in resource management (Romaine, 1996). 2.3.5 Information Barriers Information represents an important source of power in planning. While planners optimally search for well-sourced, reliable forms of data, it is virtually impossible to avoid what Forester (1982) refers to as "misinformation". Any information in the planning process that is not 1) clear and comprehensible; 2) sincere and trustworthy; 3) appropriate and legitimate; and 4) accurate and true, runs the risk of becoming misinformation. A distorted form of communication, misinformation can result from both systematic and nonsystematic (ad hoc) sources: poor structural design or division of labour may result in pieces of information being lost, individuals may consciously choose to manipulate data for specific purposes, or individuals may have poor communication skills. These sources of misinformation are translated into planning through various powerful mediums: decision making, agenda setting, and needs shaping. Forester suggests that it is the responsibility of the progressive planner to anticipate misinformation and respond accordingly^. Moreover, the progressive planner must also recognize that planners themselves can be the source of misinformation, through means such as obfuscation, false assurances, and misrepresentation of facts (Forester, 1982). Beyond the common resource constraints of insufficient time and money, the most widely discussed barrier to successful integrated water resources management rests with data availability. Data 3 The "progressive planner" is one of five perspectives on the use of information by planners that are analysed by Forester. The four others include: the technician, who holds power in technical knowledge, the incrementalist, who holds power by knowing the system and who to approach for information, the liberal advocate, who brings power to information by using it to enable public groups to participate more in the planning process, the structuralist, who uses information to legitimize and rationalize the maintenance of existing structures of power, control, and ownership. The progressive planner represents a synthesis and refinement of the other attitudes: "recognizing that political economic power may function systematically to misinform affected publics.. .the progressive view anticipates this regular, structurally rooted misinformation and organizes information to counteract this "noise"' (Forester, 1982:69). 21 plays a significant role in guiding the direction that integrated management takes, and ensuring that integration is complete. It can serve to identify externalities, confirm ideas, alert pressure groups, and allow the monitoring of standards. Without adequate data, environmental problems may remain undiscovered or accorded insufficient weight, and thus the true impact of water resources policies and projects on other sectors (and vice versa) can remain hidden (OECD, 1989). The types of data collected significantly influence integrated management processes. Successful I W R M requires moving beyond traditionally technical data, to gathering baseline data on the biophysical, social, and economic elements of integrated projects. Lovelace and Rambo (1986) submit that a more concerted effort towards gathering baseline data on social and behavioural conditions within projects, and human-environment interactions is a critical requirement to improving efforts at integration. Elements of such baseline data should include details on local sociopolitical groups, the cultural basis of land use patterns, and ethnic and economic minority groups. Data, of course, is only just that until it is given meaning and becomes knowledge (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). In considering the appropriate type of data required for effective integration of water resources, it is important to maintain the distinction between descriptive and functional knowledge (Dorcey, 1986). Descriptive knowledge describes the elements of resources and is derived from data generated through inventories and monitoring. A wealth of descriptive knowledge has already been generated with regard to water resources. This includes data on the following: domestic and industrial consumption patterns of water, water pricing rates, stream discharge rates, pollution counts, aquatic species, historical flood records, etc. Functional knowledge, on the other hand goes beyond description of the elements to specify the cause-effect relationships between them. It involves understanding system relationships such as: how modifications to water pricing can reduce consumption levels; how impervious urban surfaces increase runoff, which in turn increases stream flow; how contamination from agricultural runoff can affect surface water quality, which may affect ground water quality, which may affect the quality of drinking water supplies; how the clearing of riparian vegetation affects stream temperatures which affects fish habitat; and how risk perception can influence decisions to build on floodplains. The distinction between descriptive and functional knowledge has not been well recognized in resource management and planning. Traditionally, water resources management has focused on generating descriptive knowledge at the expense of functional knowledge. Improving efforts at integration requires re-establishing an efficient balance between the two. 22 Finally, the way in which water resources data is organized and made available represents a barrier to integrated management. In a similar fashion to the design of institutional management, data is generally stratified into discrete components. This facilitates specialization, yet restricts our understanding of ecosystem processes and functions. Integrating discrete data sets is a huge challenge, as is creating links between social, economic and ecological data. Sharing and coordinating data sets is also an issue in IWRM. It is common practice that many organizations and institutions overlook opportunities to share data sets and data collection responsibilities (Hatcher, 1981). This is largely a function of the sectoral design of management. While much theoretical discussion on overcoming this barrier has taken place within the literature, very little change is evident in management practice to date. In spite of some more recent initiatives to coordinate data^, "emerging land and water use problems in B.C. are outstripping available resources, knowledge, and expertise to deal with them" (Romaine, 1996:2). 2.3.6 Communication Barriers Communication is an integral component of any planning process. Individual and combined group skills in communication can have a profound impact on the success of integrated planning efforts. Sifting through the vast array of interests to arrive at a common set of goals is an enormous challenge to integrated management. Effective communication skills can go a long way in facilitating this process. Communication bottlenecks in I W R M result from the diverse network of communication lines that exist between organizations, institutions, and agencies. There is often very little communication between administrators and civil servants, and what communication there is takes place within a weak structure. Interagency communication is also weak - a common cause of disputes, over jargon, different problem solving approaches etc. It is important that institutions provide information to the public in accessible language. Technically presented language can be met with strong social resistance. Agencies and individuals enter integrated planning processes with many reservations: they are uncertain of the outcome, they are unfamiliar with working with people from different backgrounds, and they have doubts about what information is credible and who they can trust. With multiple interests and 4 As an example of such efforts, Romaine cites U.B.C.'s Westwater Research Centre's Environmental Information System, applied to the Salmon River in Langley, which links soils, landuse, groundwater quality, and downstream stream effects on fish habitat. 23 demands being represented, complexity and conflict are ubiquitous, making for highly volatile decision-making environments. Provision for conflict resolution is requisite for effective I W R M . Unfortunately, the ability to defuse these types of situations through competent interaction and negotiation skills is all too rare. Developing and refining such skills in conjunction with communication skills should become more of a priority. While there exists a multitude of mechanisms for addressing conflict, research has shown that the success of these mechanisms is heavily dependent on the productive interaction of the people involved. "Conflict resolution cannot even begin without effective communication" (Dorcey, 1987:10). 2.3.7 Monitoring and Assessment A final process-related barrier to I W R M is the poor follow through on monitoring and assessment procedures. Mark Romaine (1996) observes that at present these critical components of water resources planning are in their infancy, and urges that concentrated attention must be directed to this reiterative stage in the planning process. It is imperative that there be a basis for measuring changes effected by management decisions, that mid-course corrections be made when and i f necessary, and that responses to management actions be evaluated based upon original project objectives. The information culled from these types of actions is invaluable to refining and improving the management process. Analyses of monitoring efforts that have taken place in integrated management strategies suggest that monitoring and evaluation efforts need to be redesigned in several regards. First, project performance is often too narrowly interpreted as technical performance, and ignores variables related to environmental and social change (OECD, 1989). As well, it has been noted that agency managers tend to focus on "typical" conditions rather than exceptions, and that monitoring is conducted at sites that are representative of the overall condition. Perry and Vanderklein (1996b) propose that a modified approach should focus monitoring efforts at the boundaries of ecosystems - the areas where conditions are most apt to change abruptly and which respond more so to management actions. In summary, this chapter has established both a need and context for I W R M . Increasing complexity, uncertainty, and conflict necessitate a greater emphasis on establishing linkages between the biophysical, social, and economic elements of water resources. Moreover, these linkages need to be considered within the broader context of multiple resource use. While the theoretical principles of I W R M are well rooted in history, in practice, efforts to implement I W R M have encountered many 24 barriers: social, attitudinal, conceptual, institutional, and barriers relating to information, communication, and monitoring and assessment. In light of these barriers, there is no single blueprint for I W R M . Ongoing experience indicates that an effective approach to I W R M requires continual modification and adjustment in accordance with new information and understanding. This is the critical role for learning, elaborated on at length in later chapters. This next chapter establishes a framework within which planning for I W R M in B.C. takes place. 25 Chapter 3 - Planning For Integrated Water Resources Management In B. C. As is implied by the term "integrated", a multitude of government agencies at the Federal, Provincial and Municipal levels, as well as organizations and stakeholders external to government collectively enable and are responsible for delivering I W R M in B.C. A cross section of some of these players includes: Forest District Managers of the Provincial Ministry of Forests (MOF) who are responsible for monitoring activities within Community Watersheds; Wildlife Biologists of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) who are responsible for riparian and habitat issues; and Impact Assessment Biologists of the Pollution Prevention branch of the Provincial Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP), who are responsible for issues relating to water quality and waste discharge. In addition to government agencies, there are many other stakeholders representing public organizations, industries, and members of the public who also share the responsibility of decision making in I W R M . Recognizing the complex dynamics of this fragmented management system, this thesis specifically addresses the role of the Water Management Program of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP) in enabling IWRM, focusing specifically on lessons learned from their involvement in LRMPs. This next chapter examines the administrative framework within which Water Management operates and the opportunities for I W R M that exist within this framework. Traditionally, water resources management in British Columbia has been practiced from a water use perspective. The Water Act, first introduced in 1909 when the mining industry was booming, primarily addresses issues related to water supply: How much water is available? How much can be allocated? How much should be charged? These are the questions that comprise the mandate of the Water Management program within the B C Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP). The provincial Water Act does not provide for complete management of the resource, per se, only the management of its supply (MELP, 1993b). Today in British Columbia, broader water resource management objectives associated with integrated management, including maintaining and protecting water quality, are achieved, to a large extent, through land use planning. There are two key reasons for this. First, land use planning is generally more evolved than water resource planning because of a more established history of land use 26 pressures and resultant conflict. Second, many water issues are a result of land based activities, therefore it is logical that an approach that integrates the two resources be adopted. Integrated planning in British Columbia dates back at least three decades to the early 1970s and the formation of the Environment and Land Use Committee (ELUC) created under the Environment and Land Use Act. This committee, comprised of provincial resource ministers was intended to coordinate project reviews amongst resource agencies and resolve disputes between them. In 1974, seven Resource Management Regions were established within the province, each with its own Regional Resource Management Committee responsible for coordinating activities within the region and initiating integrated studies. These regions were later replaced by today's six administrative regions, and the E L U C was absorbed into M E L P (Ruggeberg and Dorcey, 1991). This early history culminated in the 1980s in the development of what has been described as a provincial hierarchy of water resource planning processes: Strategic Program, Sub-regional, and Operational planning. The move to strategic watershed planning was intended to be comprehensive and administratively simple. It was to be undertaken on a regional level, such as a watershed, and within each region, all water resources were to be integrated on the basis of existing data. The resultant plans were expected to provide an explicit framework for allocating and managing water, and to delineate the institutional resources required to implement the plan. Accordingly, each of the administrative regions was divided into forty-one strategic planning units, and it was agreed that eight strategic plans would be completed per year until all units had been covered. By 1989, a total of sixteen strategic plans had been completed. These included the Nicola Basin Strategic Plan, and the Shuswap Lake Strategic Environmental Plan. In addition to these plans innovations in integrated water resource planning and management have also been reflected in the initiatives of the Fraser River Estuary Study (FRES) and the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) (Ruggeberg and Dorcey, 1991). Traditionally, planning has not played a predominant role within Water Management. Past analyses attribute this situation to a variety of factors including the following (MELP, 1993): • a lack of recognition of the need to plan, and no clear authority to develop or implement plans; • a lack of data by which to assess the water resources being planned for; • inconsistency over time and across regions in staff commitment to planning, and a resultant difficulty in maintaining momentum throughout a planning process; • plan conclusions and recommendations have been too broad to be implementable in allocation and regulatory decisions; 27 • plans set unrealistic priorities or expectations of Water Management in terms of funding or human resources; and • the extensive length of time that is required to complete plans. Despite these barriers which have limited the adoption of planning within Water Management, the current climate of increasing conflict and uncertainty is redirecting attention to the benefits provided by effective planning processes. A formal recognition of these benefits within M E L P was presented more than five years ago, in a comprehensive review of provincial water management policy and legislation (MELP, 1993a). In this review the following observation was made: A planning mandate is urgently needed to enable a proactive approach to guiding water use and protection.. .Formal planning has been frequently by-passed because it could not respond to the immediate need for decisions in our fast-paced society. However, with the increasing scarcity of natural resources and growing environmental concerns, water managers and users alike are realizing that a planning process can avoid or at least reduce the magnitude of most issues now being faced (MELP, 1993a:5). Many of the policy directives that emerged from this review recommended the development of a new Water Act which would formally recognize water resource planning processes. To date, there have been no major changes in the overall status of planning for water resources within Water Management. Planning still is not provided for under the existing Water Act. While the Water Act itself does not provide for planning, the introduction of two new key pieces of legislation, The Forest Practices Code Act of BC and the Fish Protection Act, has resulted in a proliferation of land use planning processes in B.C. over the past decade. The Forest Practices Code (the Code) was enacted in 1995 to ensure sustainable management of all Crown forest resources in B C by establishing obligations for forest management and operations. Resources managed under the Act include timber, water, wildlife, fisheries, recreation, botanical forest products, forage, and biological diversity. This piece of legislation has resulted in the development of a provincial e planning framework, illustrated in Figure 3.1, comprised of higher level and operational plans, as well as specific regulations. Higher level plans address broad issues by setting management goals, objectives, and strategies for specific resources across a defined landscape. Any objectives included in higher level plans must be observed and abided by in subsequent lower level, operational plans (Province of B C , 1996). While the term hierarchy describes the philosophy behind this framework, in that each level of planning provides direction to subsequent, more detailed levels of planning, this concept does not 28 necessarily reflect what happens in practice. For a variety of reasons, land use planning does not always happen sequentially. First, the demand or need for land use plans is driven primarily by resource conflicts, ministerial priorities, and localized needs for operational guidance. If there is no perceived need or will for a plan, it will not be undertaken. Second, the issues that drive the initiatives of a plan determine the scale of investigation and analysis that is required. If the issues are of a local nature, a local land use plan can still be developed in the absence of a guiding sub-regional or regional plan. Finally, regardless of the established framework, the government does not have the resources available to complete each level of planning for all areas of the province (LUCO, 1998). Water resource planning and management priorities therefore have to be set. In light of the framework established by the Code, Water Management Headquarters recognizes that water resources are best addressed using higher level plans. This assessment is based on the fact that the scale of higher level plans is most appropriate for the inclusion of water. The Fish Protection Act, enacted in 1998, also opens up new avenues for water resource planning and management. The first priority of the Act is to protect fish by ensuring healthy fish bearing streams and stocks. Beyond that, it seeks to protect and restore fish habitat, protect and enhance riparian areas, and strengthen local environmental planning efforts. The Fish Protection Act also proposes a new approach to planning for water resources. Section 18 of the Act amends the Water Act to enable the designation of Water Management Areas, which can take the form of a watershed, an aquifer, or other relevant features on the landscape. Under the Act, Water Management Plans, discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, may be required for Water Management Areas (MELP, 1999). As new land use planning processes emerge, a window of opportunity to raise the profile of water resources within the broader context of land use management is being created. This opportunity translates into planning for the complete water resource rather than simply for water use. Planning for water resources is beginning to move beyond the traditional concerns of flood plain management, the provision of residential and industrial water supply, urban storm drain channeling, and hydro-electric generation. The various planning opportunities made available through new legislation have expanded Water Management's traditional mandate of allocation and administration of water rights, to include planning for the sustainable use of water resources, protecting public health and safety, and protecting water and ecological systems. 29 3.1 EC's Water Resource Planning Framework While the mandate of Water Management has expanded, and with it the options of how to invest both capital and labour resources, the financial resources required to support participation in the multitude of planning processes are under serious strain, as is evident through both budget and staffing cutbacks across the province. Today's water managers are challenged to weigh out which processes amongst the complex set of available planning tools best meet the needs of specific management issues within their region. To assist with these decisions, a comprehensive review of B.C. 's watershed management and land use planning processes, both current and historic, is presently being undertaken by Water Management Headquarters in Victoria. This review is addressing the three main planning tools by which water management is achieved in B.C.: land and resource planning processes, enabling legislation, and associated water resource initiatives, such as water stewardship and conservation groups. The specific examples of these tools are best categorized according to the landscape scale that the process applies to. A summary of existing provincial water resources planning processes and their current status is provided in Table 3.1 at the end of this chapter. What follows is a brief description of the various planning tools associated with each of the levels in the planning hierarchy^. A schematic interpretation of how these various planning tools relate to one another on the various scales and levels of planning is depicted in Figure 3.2. 3.1.1 Strategic Water Management Tools The map scale of strategic planning processes in B C is generally greater than 1:100,000. At this level of planning, an emphasis is placed on providing direction and vision for water management in large areas. Presently there are four provincial strategic planning processes in operation: Regional Plans, Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), the Aboriginal Treaty Processes, and Regional Growth Strategies (RGS). It should be noted that the first two tools apply only to Crown land resources, while the latter two cover both Crown land and private land. Regional Plans Under the initiative of the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), a total of four regional plans have been completed in B.C.: Vancouver Island, Cariboo/Chilcotin, West Kootenay 5 Except where indicated by a direct reference, the information in this next section was sourced from a draft copy of a document currently undergoing internal review by Water Management Headquarters in Victoria. 30 Boundary, and East Kootenay. These are large scale plans which cover areas ranging from 3 to 8 million hectares, on a map scale of 1:500,000 to 1:2,000,000. The plans, intended to provide broad guidance for land use and allocating Crown resources, were developed through multi-stakeholder, consensus-based decision making processes. Current efforts in regional planning are directed at implementing the four approved plans. The lessons learned through these regional planning processes have been the impetus to initiate sub-regional land use planning in the form of Land and Resource Management Plans (LUCO, 1998a). Land and Resource Management Plans Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP), which first began in 1993, is intended to focus on designating land use and allocating resources on Crown lands. The plans cover areas ranging from 1 to 5 million hectares, developed at a map scale of 1:100,000 to 1:250,000. Similar to the Regional Plans, LRMPs proceed on a consensus based decision making model, which include a broad range of affected stakeholders, including DFO, MOF, M E L P , First Nations, local governments, and representatives from groups associated with agricultural, mining, timber, and tourism industries. They are expected to designate broad land use zones for the area, delineated on a map, and resource management objectives and strategies for each of the land use zones. As well, the plans produce economic development strategies and management implementation strategies. Currently, 18 L R M P regions have been designated within the province. Of these eighteen regions, five have plans approved by Cabinet, five plans have been submitted for approval, and the remaining eight are still in process (LUCO, 1998a). Specific water resource issues addressed in LRMPs include non-point-source pollution, and the effects of forestry, agricultural, recreational, and tourism related activities on the resource. Aboriginal Treaty Processes The B C Treaty Commission was established in 1992. Amongst numerous other issues, treaty negotiations between the Province and First Nations address water resource issues on Crown land which may impact water resources on private lands. The treaties may include standards for the management, protection, allocation, and conservation of water quality and quantity. Nine principal treaty negotiation issues related to water resources have been established. These include: 1) clarity of ownership of the resource; 2) continuity of the provincial water allocation scheme; 3) continuation of provincial jurisdiction to legislate in matters related to management of the water resource; 4) uniform provincial standards for the protection of water quality; 5) safety of land, people, infrastructure and investments; 6) 31 knowledge of the state of the resource through a maintained network of sites and the management of the data; 7) certainty of First Nations' rights and responsibilities; 8) efficiency of administration and empowerment of First Nations through participation in provincial water management activities; and 9) opportunities for economic development of settlement lands. Regional Growth Strategies Regional Growth Strategies are sub-regional plans lead by Regional District Boards in conjunction with the municipalities within a Regional District that focus on human settlement. Enacted in 1995, and subsequently incorporated into the Municipal Act, they are intended to promote human settlement that is socially, economically, and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and resources. This level of planning first emerged in response to the high population growth rates experienced in the Lower Mainland, the East coast of Vancouver Island, and in the Okanagan Valley. Growth Strategies are relevant for addressing issues of urban water management, such as the effects of urban sprawl, sedimentation, runoff, and pollution. Presently, they are still viewed as a relatively new process with no history of success. Still, support of Regional Growth Strategies within Water Management is fairly high, as they are seen to offer the opportunity for a broad implementation of a more proactive approach to water resources management. 3.1.2 Local Water Management Tools Local land use planning involves the detailed consideration of natural topographic and ecological features of individual land bases, usually on the size of a watershed or a collection of watersheds. While the plans are developed at a map scale of 1:50,000 to 1:100,000, the actual size of the areas planned for depends on local issues and concerns. Decisions made at the local level concern the design of a pattern of land use practices that considers specific local ecological conditions and associated social and economic implications. Plans are expected to take broad direction from regional or sub-regional plans that may exist over the same area, and they provide more specific direction to subsequent operational planning. Local land use planning tools can be divided into three broad categories: 1) Water based plans, which include Water Allocation Plans, Water Management Plans, Recovery Plans for Sensitive Streams, and Integrated Watershed Management Plans; 2) Resource sector development plans, which include Landscape Unit Plans, and Regional Agricultural Strategies; and 3) Crown and private land plans, which are presently limited to Official Community Plans. 32 Water Allocation Plans Water Allocation Plans (WAPs) are developed by M E L P ' s Water Management Program to determine the availability of surface water within a watershed, thereby assisting in the adjudication of water licence applications. They identify available surface water resources, instream fish requirements, water quality maintenance, and existing and potential licensable water demands to assist in deciding future allocations of the resource on both Crown and private lands. The development of WAPs is presently limited to Vancouver Island where the total land mass has been divided into 33 water management or water allocation planning areas. Water licence decisions are made in accordance with WAPs approved by either the Regional Water Manager or the Comptroller of Water Rights. While there is no statutory requirement for these plans, or for Water Management Plans, it is recognized that they provide excellent information and strategies for water resources when M E L P participates in the other land use planning and land regulatory programs. Water Management Plans Proposed under Sections 10 and 18 of the Fish Protection Act, some sections of which are still to be proclaimed, Water Management Plans (WMPs) are intended to ensure long-term sustainability of provincial water and fisheries resources on both Crown and private lands by taking into account all uses of water. These plans are broader in scope than WAPs, as they will focus on existing or potential conflicts between water users and instream fisheries flow requirements, surface water and groundwater quality, and water demands. The development of these plans will be led by M E L P , in conjunction with municipalities, regional districts, First Nations, and federal and provincial agencies that have a jurisdictional responsibility within the designated water management area. WMPs are expected to identify existing and future water demands, water quality problems and limitations, flood or erosion hazards, groundwater resources, issues within a watershed, and options for overall management and protection of the resource. Approved plans present recommendations on the area's water management, water uses, fisheries resources, instream construction, storage and reservoir operations and other management issues. If recommended in a WAP, the Province will be able to reclaim, for the benefit of fish, up to 5% of a water licence upon transfer without compensation (MELP, 1999). These plans are expected to be a potentially effective means of strengthening M E L P ' s Water Management program, both by providing integration of Water Program Section responsibilities and developing better linkages and working relationships between Headquarters in Victoria and the provincial regions. 33 Recovery Plans for Sensitive Streams Recovery Plans are also proposed under the new Fish Protection Act. The intent of these plans will be to protect and provide for the recovery of protected fish populations in "sensitive streams". Sensitive streams may be designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council i f the sustainability of a fish population is considered to be at risk because of insufficient flow of water or degradation of fish habitat. The public process of developing these plans, which invites the participation of municipalities, regional districts, federal agencies, First Nations, and ministries that have a jurisdictional responsibility in or adjacent to "sensitive streams", is led by M E L P (MELP, 1999). Integrated Watershed Management Plans Integrated Watershed Management Planning (IWMP), a planning process jointly conducted by the Ministry of Forests (MOF) and M E L P , began in 1985, prior to the introduction of the Forest Practices Code. The plans take their authority from Policy and Procedures for Community Watershed Planning (Appendix H) contained within the Guidelines for Watershed Management of Crown Lands Used As Community Water Supplies. The plans are intended to identify land uses on Crown land within a watershed and how they affect community water supplies. After over a decade of developing IWMPs, they are now being phased out. It is widely felt within Water Management that the plans have not been able to address water resource issues adequately because of their complexity, the required time and resources commitment, the nature of tenure over crown lands, and the rapid pace of land use changes and forestry practices in B C over the past decade. The fact that IWMPs only apply to Crown lands, and not to private lands has also been a critical limitation of the process. In addition, several IWMPs have not received public support as the planning tables failed to reach consensus on conflict-laden, critical issues (MELP, 1993). Landscape Unit Plans Landscape Unit Plans (LUPs), enabled under the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, are watershed-based plans completed for areas of Crown forest land measuring approximately 100,000 hectares. Typically, Landscape Unit boundaries, which often share the same boundaries as a watershed or collection of watersheds, are based on physiographic or ecological features such as height of land or vegetation types. LUPs link regional and sub-regional strategic plans with operational plans (Wong, et al., 1996). They are primarily intended to design strategies and patterns with respect to landscape level biodiversity and the management of other forest resources. Management objectives within these plans designate specific areas that conserve wildlife and riparian habitats, maintain biodiversity, protect 34 recreational values, ensure adequate old growth retention, and provide landscape connectivity. Specific water issues that may be addressed within LUPs include water quality and quantity for community drinking water, fish populations and fish habitat, and recreation. Their development is led by the M O F in conjunction with forest companies, First Nations, M E L P , and the Ministry of Employment and Investment (MEI). LUPs have now replaced Local Resource Plans, which were conducted prior to the enactment of the Forest Practices Code, and are expected to become a prominent feature of integrated planning at the local level over the next decade (LUCO, 1998). The potential of LUPs to contribute to the integrated management of water resources is presently questionable. Of primary consideration here is the fact that the land areas addressed under LUPs are often larger than one watershed, therefore applying principles of I W R M at the watershed level has been problematic. It has also been suggested that the inclusion of water in these plans may be perceived as a road block and is therefore not supported by other stakeholders. Most recently new L U P Guidelines have been published which explain that LUPs are to be developed in phases (MOF, M E L P , 1999). The first phase, which is the current priority for MOF and M E L P is biodiversity planning. This addresses the retention of old growth, landscape connectivity, and species composition. Forest resource planning, which addresses timber, recreation, water, wildlife, and fisheries, is slated as phase two of Landscape Unit Planning, and there is little indication that this will be undertaken any time in the near future. The implications of this phased development for water are significant. Many LRMPs have deferred water management objectives to LUPs. If LUPs are now not to address water resources, at least in the near future, there is the potential for a policy vacuum to develop at the local planning level. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Code does not have a watershed-based plan in its hierarchy. The inability to conduct community watershed planning under the Code is an important and alarming omission in its design. The implication of this, of course, is that it is now even more important to have water resources well integrated into strategic land use plans. Regional Agricultural Strategy Initiated by the government through agreements between the Agricultural Land Commission and the federal and provincial Ministries of Agriculture, Regional Agricultural Strategies are designed to enhance agricultural sustainability within a designated area. Water management issues addressed in these plans include securing an adequate supply of water at a competitive cost, the impact of farming on sensitive aquatic ecosystems and fish populations, and the impact of urbanization on water flow. The 35 contribution of these plans to I W R M is limited. Generally, they are considered to be historic pieces that most people are not aware of. Official Community Plans Official Community Plans (OCPs) are municipal or electoral area plans which focus on land and service requirements. Most of the province's municipalities and regional districts have adopted OCPs. The plans produce general statements on broad objectives and policies as applied to local land use and servicing requirements (City of Richmond, 1999). Provisions under Section 12 of the new Fish Protection Act now permit the Lieutenant Governor in Council to establish policy directives to protect or enhance riparian areas subject to residential, commercial, or industrial development. These directives may effect municipal bylaws, such as OCPs, permitting provincial fish and water protection interests to be included into municipal development management. Specific issues relating to water management in OCPs include urban runoff, drain infrastructure, waste treatment, pollution control, groundwater contamination and recharge, water pricing, and flood protection. 3.1.3 Operational Water Management Tools Operational planning is intended to establish plans for resource specific and on-the-ground management activities and practices. It is the means by which management programs and strategies proposed in higher level plans, such as LRMPs, are implemented. Operational planning is developed at a map scale that ranges from 1:5,000 to 1:50,000. Once again, provincial operational plans can be categorized as either water based plans, such as Water Use Plans, Water Supply and Demand Management Plans, and Water Licences; resource sector development plans, which include Forest Development Plans, Watershed Assessment Procedures, and Pollution Prevention Plans; or urban development plans, which include Liquid Waste Management Plans. Water Use Plans Water Use Plans (WUPs) are prepared pursuant to the Water Act. They specify the operating conditions for water licences that are required to support multiple water objectives including fish and aquatic habitat, flood control, power generation, First Nations issues, industrial use, heritage values, and commercial river rafting. WUPs are usually prepared for hydroelectric power generation facilities and other water control facilities, and it is the responsibility of the licensee or proponent to have a WUP completed. M E L P is responsible for providing technical information, policy advise and water regulatory 36 interests to the processes. Once completed, these plans are used by plant managers to determine operational decisions or to respond to emergencies such as floods. Water Supply and Demand Management Plans These plans, initiated under the Municipal Act by municipalities or water purveyors, are intended to ensure that an adequate supply of water is available to meet both the present and future needs of a settlement area. The plans, which apply to both Crown and private lands, identify the present water system, estimate regional growth and forecasted changes in water demand, and recommend options for future management of the resource. Changes to the terms or conditions of existing water licences can be made, i f deemed necessary, on the basis of these recommendations. Water Licences A water licence, administered by the MELP ' s Water Management Program, confers the right to withdraw a quantity of surface water for a designated use on a specific piece of land at a price set by the government. The licence does not guarantee that the water will always be available or that it will be potable. The approval and administration of water licences currently accounts for much of Water Management's mandate. Forest Development Plans Forest Development Plans (FDPs) are initiated by logging companies as part of the forest licensing requirement established under the Forest Practices Code. They describe how harvesting and road development for a specific area of crown forest land will be managed. For watersheds designated as "community watersheds" under the Code, M E L P has co-approval on FDPs. As far as water resources are concerned, FDPs take into consideration the impact of harvesting and road development on water quality, quantity and timing of flow and on water users. These plans are subject to review every five years. Watershed Assessment Procedures Watershed Assessment Procedures are an operational planning requirement for forest activities on Crown lands within community watersheds, watersheds with significant downstream fisheries values or licensed domestic water users, or in a watershed that the district manager believes needs assessing. This planning tool is most suitable for watersheds between 500 and 50,000 hectares in area. These plans, 37 required under the Forest Practices Code are initiated by the forest licensees and reviewed and approved by the M O F and M E L P . According to the Watershed Assessment Guidebooks, these plans are intended to "help forest managers understand the type and extent of current water-related problems that exist in a watershed and to recognize the possibility of hydrologic implications of proposed forestry-related development in that watershed" (Province of B C , 1995:1). They address impacts of forest development on water quality, sedimentation, peak flows, landslides and channel stability. From the results of a Watershed Assessment Procedure, recommendations can be made to modify future harvest layout or scheduling, recognize sensitive zones, or adopt specific practices within a watershed. Forest Development Plans in Community Watersheds must be guided by the results of a Watershed Assessment Procedure. Pollution Prevention Plans Pollution Prevention Plans are facility wide plans that establish pollution prevention measures at all operational stages of an industrial plant's operations. They are designed to integrate ideas from the local community and employees into the planning process and establish long-term environmental authorizations. Water resource issues addressed by these plans include the impact of discharges from industrial facilities on aquatic ecosystems and water users. Liquid Waste Management Plans Liquid Waste Management Plans (LWMPs) were first initiated in 1992 under the Waste Management Act. They represent a legislated requirement for local governments to address liquid waste and water issues through a formal process. The plans are very specific in nature and require detailed knowledge of the planning area and its resources. Specific issues addressed by LWMPs include the disposal of municipal liquid waste and consider issues associated with sewage discharges, combined sewer overflows, non-point-source urban stormwater runoff, municipal sludge management, pump station overflows, subdivisions with onsite disposal, and source control programs. The plans may also address issues associated with industrial operations and agricultural runoff, although most tend to focus on municipal sewage treatment and disposal. Currently, approximately 20 plans are complete province wide and another 22 are in progress or being amended. 38 PLANNING PROCESS ENABLING LEGISLATION LEAD AGENCY STATUS Regional Plans Land and Resource Management Plans Aboriginal Treaty Process Regional Growth Strategies Provincial Land Use Strategy Provincial Land Use Strategy Provincial Land Use Charter Municipal Act CORE LUCO First Nations, Treaty Comm. MMAH Inactive Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing LOCAL PLASS .: Water Allocation Plans Water Management Plans Sensitive Stream Recovery Plans Integrated Watershed Management Plans Landscape Unit Plans Regional Agricultural Strategies Official Community Plans Water Act Fish Protection Act Fish Protection Act Appendix H Policy and Procedure for Community Watershed Planning Forest Practices Code of BC Municipal Act MELP Water Management MELP Water Management MELP MELP MOF Agricultural Land Commission Municipal/Regional Districts Exclusive to Van. Is. Proposed Proposed No more being initiated Ongoing - Policy under review Ongoing Ongoing Water Use Plans Water Supply and Demand Management Plans Water Licenses Forest Development Plans Watershed Assessment Procedures Pollution Prevention Plans Liquid Waste Management Plans Water Act Municipal Act Water Act Forest Practices Code of BC Forest Practices Code of BC Waste Management Act Waste Management Act BC Hydro & MELP Municipal/Regional Districts MELP Water Management MOF MOF MELP MELP Pilot complete Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Table 3.1 Water Resources Planning In British Columbia From this chapter, it can be concluded that BC 's current planning framework resembles more of complex network that requires skillful navigation rather than a simple hierarchy. There exists a multitude of planning processes within the province which address water resources at a variety of levels and scales. With the continued introduction of new pieces of legislation, pending enactment, and ongoing reorganization of the governance structure, the framework that contains these processes is forever changing. While the chapters that follow focus specifically on one planning process within this network, Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), understanding how all of the elements of this network interrelate and support each other, also known as horizontal integration, is critical. Chapter Four argues that such systemic, holistic thinking has been noticeably absent from attempts to implement I W R M in the past, and that a more informed understanding of systems theory is needed in order to improve any future attempts. Based on the proposition that I W R M constitutes a system unto its own, I develop a new conceptual framework for I W R M which considers the inputs to the system, the processes which drive it, and the resultant outputs. 39 Provincial Principles and Policies • Provincial Land Use Strategy Regional Strategies • Regional Plans • Basin Management Initiatives I Sub-regional Plans • Land and Resource Management Plans Local Plans (as required) Site Plans FIGURE 3.1 P R O V I N C I A L L A N D U S E P L A N N I N G H I E R A R C H Y ( L U C O , 1998) .AND R E 3 0 U R C E • J i N PfM ^ 1:250.0 Forest Practices Code | LANDSCAPE LINlTfl PLANSI' 1100000 |.LOCALRESOURCg USEPLANS | WATER SUPPLY 8| DEMAND Forest Practices Code L I L V L ^ F M L N " | Forest Practices Code W A T E R S H E D ASSESSMENT f P R O C E D U R E S 500.000 - 500Ha INTEGRATED WATERSHED MGMT. PLANS UQUID WASTE MGMT PLANS Waste Management POLL'N PREVENTION P U REGIONAL , AGRIC'uijURALj PLAN IfilEllllllllI '..•.!."« i ' . l SUBDIVISION APPROVALS FIGURE 3.2 W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T T O O L S L I N K A G E S (SOURCE: M E L P , 1998) Chapter 4 - A Systems Perspective on Water Resources Management If what is wrong is to see the world in fragments - atoms, species, resources - with people alone important - then what is right is to re-perceive the world as one, as a whole, organically complex, beautiful beyond compare and to reorient it in ways that confer first importance to it (Rowe, 1994, quoted in Romaine, 1996:1) The above quotation embodies a radical departure from the linear, rational thought processes that have traditionally dominated resource planning and management. Linear thinking is a reductionist way of seeing the world. It involves looking only at elements of systems and their relations with one and other, without considering how they function. Linearity is based upon two assumptions: 1) that changes in the output of a system are proportional to changes in the input to a system; and 2) that system outputs corresponding to the sum of two inputs are equal to the sum of the outputs arising from the original inputs. Within systems, however, such linear relationships do not exist. In a system, variables operate through non-linear functions, so that outcomes often cannot be understood by adding together the units or their relations, and many results of actions are in fact unintended. Additionally, the outputs of a system may not be proportionate to the inputs, and changes in a system may not emerge, despite the input of much effort, until a critical threshold is reached (Jervis, 1997). These patterns of non-linearity run counter to much of the way that planning and management is conducted, and create problems with the classic conservative argument that changes should only proceed incrementally. Commonly, planning proceeds incrementally, whereby decisions are made based upon the results of previous actions. This process is described eloquently by Jervis: "by a slow but well-sustained progress, the effect of each step is watched; the good or i l l success of the first gives light to us in the second; and so, from light to light, we are conducted safely through the whole series" (1997:39). Unfortunately, incrementalism ignores several key facts about systems: 1) seemingly sporadic jumps rather than smooth progressions often characterize the operations of systems; 2) by the very nature of systems, some goals can only be reached by quick and drastic changes; and 3) the direct response to a small alteration in a policy or input may tell us very little about either the delayed effects or those that would follow from a larger change (Jervis, 1997). Such findings alone suggest that systems theory has much to contribute to integrated water resources management. 42 4.1 What Is A System? Robert Jervis quotes Garret Hardin, the author of The Cybernetics of Competition, as saying, "one of the most important ideas in modern science is the idea of a system; and it is almost impossible to define" (1997:5). In explaining the nature of systems, Jervis proffers that in a system we find a "characteristic that could not possibly have been deduced from the nature of its components; it is a new characteristic that is attributable only to the structural organization of its component parts" (1997:16). He proposes that we are dealing with a system when: 1. a set of units or elements is interconnected so that changes in some elements or their relations produce changes in other parts of the system, and; 2. the entire system exhibits properties and behaviours that are different from those of the parts. The first characteristic suggests that when working within systems "we can never merely do one thing"; that our behaviour rarely has one effect and that in order to produce a desired result we should in fact be doing several things towards that one end. The second characteristic suggests that the whole of a system is different from its parts; not to be confused with the more traditional interpretation that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. An effective example of this concept is that of harmony. Musical notes played individually are simply tones, but when played in unison, they can produce harmony, the beauty of which extends well beyond the sound of the individual tones (Jervis, 1997). Another key principle of systems theory is that of feedback. Feedback is considered to be central to the behaviour of systems. Based on the idea that a system has both inputs and outputs, feedback is the process by which a change in one element brings about changes in others, which in turn affect the original1 element. Positive feedback occurs "when a change in one direction sets in motion reinforcing pressures that produce further change in the same direction". It has a self-amplifying and destabilizing effect on the system. Negative feedback occurs "when the change triggers forces that counteract the initial change and return the system to something like its original position". It has a dampening and stabilizing effect on the system (Jervis, 1997:125). The two types of feedback in combination allow for the growth and development of systems: "were it not for negative feedback, there would be no stability as patterns would not last long enough to permit organized society. Without positive feedback, there could be no change or growth" (Jervis, 1997:125). Typically, resources management has played an intervening role on the effects of feedback. Management policies are often designed to cut off the feedback between periods of gradual change and 43 rapid transformation. The reason for this is that society generally supports gradual change, but views drastic change as something that should be avoided. In contrast to traditional indigenous communities which have long recognized and respected the coexistence of gradual and rapid change, the western intolerance for what is natural within systems has lead to a loss of resiliency, a reduction in variability, and the creation of more fragile systems (Holling, et al., 1998). The principle of feedback is the basis for what Geldof (1995) terms the equilibrium approach to management. The equilibrium approach is founded on the idea of control circuits - a process in which goals are set, the current state is analyzed according to that goal, and action is taken, i f needed, to align the current state with the desired state. The action taken to bring about the desired state is termed a control action. Figure 4.1 provides an illustration of this process. FIGURE 4.1 T H E PRINCIPLE OF A C O N T R O L C I R C U I T ( G E L D O F , 1995A) Geldof submits that the equilibrium approach, commonly employed in resource management, is inappropriate for complex systems such as those associated with water resources. He argues that problems in water resources management can only be adequately addressed by viewing the sum of the processes within I W R M as a complex adaptive system. Complex adaptive systems are "living systems". Their structure is that of a network in which several elements are active simultaneously, and in which there are numerous levels of organization, constantly being modified and rearranged. These systems are able to anticipate future developments, and are forever in a state of renewal (Geldof, 1995b). By these traits, they are considered to be learning systems (Battram, 1998). Managing natural resources according to the characteristics of complex adaptive systems involves an "external" approach to management (Geldof, 1995). The external approach to management goes well beyond the traditional "internal" approach, which looks only at the component parts of a system in isolation. An analogy helps to clarify. The internal approach tries to understand a table by establishing the fact that it consists of four legs and a top. By putting the legs and top together we get a table. The external approach goes beyond this to consider the table from the perspective of the user: it 44 must be solid, the right height, and it must blend well with the other furnishings. The external approach to management is based on complexity, which Geldof defines as the amount of information needed to describe a system. Complexity, he proposes, is a tool for learning: "maximum order is suitable for building bricks, but can never be the basis for learning and evolving" (1995:9) . His theory is based on the idea that management should draw on the very nature of complexity to advance it forward; that we should stop trying to seek equilibrium states in a system that is inherently void of them. To help clarify the behaviour of complex adaptive systems, Geldof likens them to survival landscapes, illustrated in Figure 4.2. Survival landscapes consist of mountains, which he terms attractors, and valleys, or repulsors. On the landscape, the mountain tops are the favoured location over the valleys. Every process and each individual or organization within a system has its own surroundings and therefore their own landscape. Within each landscape the highest mountain is always sought. The routes we take to reach the top are the processes and policies which guide the management of the system. Navigational choices across the landscape are of course made that much more challenging by the uncertainty that prevails within complex adaptive systems. Uncertainty makes it harder to know which mountains to climb and how to get there. Geldof proffers that the way in which managers and planners cope with such uncertainty has a direct effect on the success of management efforts. Uncertainty can be approached recklessly, whereby we try to climb too many mountains without proper planning and skills. It can also be approached cowardly, whereby we allow ourselves to be locked in by a local attractor (mountain top) and never venture beyond familiarity. The third strategy, recommended for successful management, is to approach uncertainty with bravery. Bravery, Geldof claims, can be practiced through communication. By discussing uncertainties, management becomes both responsive and responsible. FIGURE 4.2 - A S U R V I V A L L A N D S C A P E ( G E L D O F , 1995B) 45 4.2 Applying Systems Theory to I W R M Integrated water resources management is inherently systems based. It is a management process that "accounts for the fact that the different water resources, such as water quality and quantity, are different aspects of the same physical water system....It recognizes the physical interconnections among the different aspects or components of the water resource system. It also recognizes the relationships among the different water users and the water resources" (Hatcher, 1981:147). Several researchers have applied systems theory as a means of furthering our understanding of integrated water resources management. Some of these theories are discussed in this next section. Katherine Hatcher (1981) suggests that there are essentially two components to the water management system: the water resources^ and the water users?. Looking at these two main components, she identifies three main hierarchical sub-systems within water management, each of which is "controlled" by the next system up in the hierarchy: 1) physical systems, 2) management systems, and 3) socio-economic systems. Based on the concept of control circuits, discussed earlier, Hatcher conceives that all management actions operate by changing one or more exchange rates of inputs and outputs to and from the water resources system. Different control actions, which determine the uses of water resources, affect different exchange rates. "The problem with the current management structure", she writes, "is that many control actions are often inconsistent or counterproductive" (Hatcher, 1981:149). Improving integrated water resource management, she advises, requires changing the way the management system operates. To change the system, it is imperative that there first be a common understanding of both what the system is and how it operates. The management system consists of all the agencies that affect the state and output rate of the water resource system. As the adaptor, which controls the system through many complicated actions and decisions, the management system takes in information from the water resource system (inputs) and processes that information into control actions (outputs) to regulate the 6 Water resources are comprised, according to Hatcher (1981), of any aspect of water that has value or which is needed by some water user in order to produce beneficial products. This would include water quality, quantity, potential energy, flow depth, surface area, aesthetics, biological productivity etc. 7 Water users are comprised, according to Hatcher (1981), of any entity that requires a water resource to produce a beneficial product. Included here are municipalities, homes, industries, agriculture, thermoelectric power plants, hydroelectric power plants, fishermen, commercial shippers, recreationalists, fish and wildlife, waste water dischargers etc. 46 water system's state. These control actions most commonly take the form of policies, regulations, and legislation. One common cause of nonintegrated management is that often the control actions for different system attributes are carried out by different agencies and even sequential steps in a single control action are carried out by different agencies. Improving the effects of these control actions requires an understanding of the fact that basic control cycles for water system attributes are not independent. A control action to manage water quality may well affect water quantity and vice versa (Hatcher, 1981). The management system is likewise controlled in various ways by the larger socio-economic system, which establishes the context for integrated management. Inputs from the socio-economic system to the management system include existing legislation and management guidelines, funding, personnel, and information flows and the control agents acting in this broad system are the water resource users, individuals in agencies, professionals, politicians, and administrators. Hatcher asserts that at present the inputs and control actions emerging from the socio-economic system are not guiding the management system toward integrated water resource management practices. She offers two means of improving this situation: 1. Strengthen the controls acting on the management system, by improving the information transfers between control actions, and; 2. Defuse the forces contributing to nonintegrated management by broadening the water user support base for each agency. The behaviour of Geldof s theoretical survival landscapes also has many direct implications for policy development in IWRM. The form of survival landscapes is forever changing and evolving, Mountains become valleys and valleys become mountains. It is critical that integrated management not only be able to reveal the landscape in planning processes for what it is (i.e. identify the context of the project and establish goals), but also roll with these changes and learn from them. By the ever-changing nature of complex systems, what was once considered a perfect solution for a problem may no longer be so at a later point in time. This concept is supported by Jervis (1997), who notes that problems are rarely solved once and for all, and that policies, no matter how well defined, are never definitive. Consequently, it is imperative that integrated management be both flexible and adaptive to change. A second important trait demonstrated by survival landscapes is that while each system has its own landscape, they are interconnected and regularly influence each other. As everyone lives and works across several landscapes, all landscapes are directly or indirectly linked. The interactive nature of these 47 landscapes suggests that communication is paramount in integrative planning. Communication plans that provide a clear vision of the landscape should be developed and regularly modified in I W R M . Finally, the processes we rely on to navigate through the landscape effect change upon the landscape. Some decisions can produce what Geldof terms "lock-ins", by which the effects of some processes may become irreversible. "Lock-ins" occurring within a system should always be identified and factored into planning and management. In effect, they represent the positive feedback of the system; the possible means of change. 4.3 Rethinking I W R M : A New Conceptual Framework For integrated water resources management to come about, it must be widely practiced by water professionals from different backgrounds in different agencies....A necessary step on the road to integrated water resources management is to provide diverse water professionals with a common framework for understanding integrated resources management (Hatcher, 1981:145) The literature on integrated water resources management already boasts a rich collection of conceptual frameworks that have been developed to help clarify our understanding of the process. In addition to the model developed by Katherine Hatcher, discussed in the previous section, frameworks have also been developed by Hufschmidt (1986), Mitchell (1990), and Born and Sonzogni (1995). This next section draws from many of the elements contained within these existing frameworks and from other research fields to construct a new conceptual framework for integrated water resource management. The framework, depicted in 4.3, is based on the principles of systems theory. Several other frameworks have incorporated this perspective into their design to some extent or another (Hatcher, 1981, Hufschmidt, 1986). Both the components^ and processes^, of the system, discussed in turn below, are designed to capture and reflect some of the more recent findings contained in the literature on I W R M . 8 Components of a framework can include governance arrangements, resources, goals, objectives, etc. 9 Processes within a framework are what drive it. In planning, these usually include the research, review, adoption, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of a new policy or procedure. 48 In designing the framework, several simple, yet pertinent questions have been posed by the author. What is a framework? What is the purpose of a framework? Who uses frameworks? I suggest that a framework is essentially a model that outlines a process or a methodology. A framework's ultimate objective is to provide greater understanding. It is a tool to be used by practitioners and affected stakeholders to assess or analyze how well a process is developing. It provides a foundation to help in decision making processes and to guide practitioners through the implementation of an integrated management project. The framework presented here is not intended to be used as a blueprint. There is no single correct methodology to integrated water resources management. This framework represents just one interpretive snapshot of a practice that is continually evolving and emerging out of complexity and uncertainty. 49 OUTPUTS jm Mew V INPUTS FIGURE 4.3 - A N E W C O N C E P T U A L F R A M E W O R K FOR I N T E G R A T E D W A T E R R E S O U R C E S M A N A G E M E N T 50 4.4 Principles Principles lay the foundation for all other elements of the framework. They are the pillars of support for the entire system. It is critical that the principles represented in this framework be adequately addressed in any integrated planning process. An absence or weakness in any of the basic principles can jeopardize the integrity of all efforts towards integration. The four principles presented here are not exclusive. Certainly, there may well be other principles, but it is intended that those presented here be broad enough to be able to incorporate others i f need be. 4.4.1 Inclusive There is a general consensus in the literature that I W R M should employ an inclusive, comprehensive approach to management. While perhaps a very obvious principle, it is one that is commonly overlooked or neglected. Comprehensiveness essentially entails taking a holistic approach to management; taking into account all relevant factors (Born and Sonzogni, 1995). It refers to the scope of the management practice. Below are listed several key elements that must be factored into inclusive decision making processes: • all components of biophysical, social, and economic systems; • all substantive resource management functions or resource use sectors; and • all stakeholders with a vested interest. Additionally, it is important that some effort be dedicated to establishing an understanding of the context of any integrated management project. The history of planning efforts in the past and associated institutions can play a significant role in determining the outcome of integrated management efforts. 4.4.2 Strategic Orientation From the outset, I W R M should employ a strategic orientation. It may well be that as the process develops, operational components are introduced, however it is important that the broader strategic focus be maintained. While strategic planning does, in effect, act as a filtering process, selecting which elements are to be addressed, it maintains a broad enough focus that it is compatible with the principle of inclusiveness. In light of the inherent uncertainty which characterizes complex systems, the flexibility and adaptiveness of strategic planning is entirely appropriate and necessary for I W R M . With prevailing uncertainty, integrated planning can not afford to be rigid and follow a predetermined sequence. Rather, 51 it must be flexible, and iterative, realigning content and process as new needs emerge from incoming data (Lang, 1986). Many authors emphasize the need for flexibility and adaptiveness in complex adaptive systems such as I W R M as a means to optimizing learning (Battram, 1998, Geldof, 1995a). Such flexibility can be achieved in part by structures within a system and, when properly done, "such flexibility may help achieve higher peaks on fixed landscapes, and optimize tracking on a deforming landscape" (Kauffman and Macready, 1995 quoted in Battram, 1998:213). With the help of the survival landscapes metaphor, we understand complex adaptive systems to be forever evolving and in a state of flux or in the zone of complexity. Theorists propose that these systems operate optimally on the "edge of chaos" - the critical point at which ordered behaviour (order) gives way to turbulent behaviour (chaos). Figure 4.4 illustrates well the relationship between order, complexity, and chaos. FIGURE 4.4 - T H E R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N C O M P L E X I T Y , O R D E R , A N D C H A O S (FROM B A T T R A M , 1998) Technically, the "edge of chaos" isn't an edge at all. It is a zone that is reached once an orderly system starts to break down, like the wave pattern in the diagram. It is at the "edge of chaos" that effective learning takes place. Within this zone of complexity, possibilities emerge and learning and 52 creativity are fostered (Battram, 1998). Potentially, it is also learning that keeps complex adaptive systems from falling into the turbulent zone of chaos. Despite the fact that all living systems operate in the zone of complexity, it is not necessarily an easy or comfortable place to be (Battram, 1998). The challenge of I W R M is to establish and maintain a balance between order (which is static, rigid, and predictable) and chaos. Following the metaphor provided in Figure 4.4, this balance can be likened to a surfer attempting to ride the "tube" of a wave, just ahead of the breaking point. The balance afforded by such adaptation contributes to the overall resiliency of both social and ecological systems. Defined as "the capacity of the system to absorb disturbance", resiliency is required to keep system's from moving closer to the critical thresholds of order and chaos (Holling et al., 1998:353). Adherence to order in planning processes leads to an equilibrium (linear) approach, while a tendency towards chaos may lead to poorly founded, overly flexible plans. Once a balance between the two is found, it is then possible to adapt water management to the ever changing context of its surroundings. (Geldof, 1995a). As integration requires an inclusive consideration of the many diverse elements of a resource management issue, it is important that policy not only be adaptive, but that it also be able to anticipate problems and conflicts. Nonintegrated policies are characterized by the belated recognition of consequences (OECD, 1989). A strategic orientation to planning, which is anticipatory by nature, can help I W R M policy to move from being reactive to more proactive. 4.4.3 Legitimacy Much discussion surrounds the issue of the power of I W R M in the literature. There is widespread agreement that "in order to function, [IWRM] requires power to set direction and to establish order. The amount, however, to which this power can be and is given....depends on goal hierarchies, problem perception, and political rules of a society" (Walther, 1995:439). Most researchers take the position that "without explicit legitimation of some form, any initiative to encourage integration and coordination faces an arduous, uphill struggle" (Mitchell, 1990:10). In effect, legitimation is the acceptance of established policy by society. Mitchell suggests that there are three main forms of providing legitimation: statutes or legislation, political commitment, and administrative or bureaucratic policy. He offers that a statutory basis offers the most enduring support 53 for integration, but the probability of real achievement increases substantially when a statutory base is combined with strong political commitment. Administrative or bureaucratic directives are not likely to provide a strong degree of legitimacy due to complications arising from divisions of power, responsibility, and authority, which tend to undermine their legitimacy. Objective Realilty Integrated Management O f Sectoral Decision Making Transformation of Power Structures Objective Reality of Sectoral Decision Making Integrated Management FIGURE 4.5 I N T E G R A T I O N IN R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T ( W A L T H E R , 1995) The need for legitimation is well represented in Walther's (1995) concept that I W R M is implemented into and operates within an already established tradition of institutional culture. Figure 4.5 illustrates the idea that this culture becomes the objective reality of those trying to implement I W R M . Walther postulates that to implement I W R M successfully is to transform this relation in such a way that integrative frameworks become the objective reality for decision making. Legal legitimation represents one of the most powerful forces available to bring about this transformation. Without legitimation, Walther suggests that I W R M is a waste of time. 4.4.4 Commitment Commitment is a critical principle of effective IWRM. Enabling I W R M to become the objective reality for decision making in water resource planning requires an unprecedented level of commitment; commitment to the ultimate goal of sustainable water resources management; commitment to change; commitment to others involved in the planning process; commitment to the other principles already 54 discussed. The principles of inclusiveness, strategic orientation, and legitimation all rest upon commitment. This commitment must be for the long term. In recognizing that I W R M is dealing with complex adaptive systems, we must be prepared to stick with it through the highs and lows; from the valley bottoms to the mountain tops. In the end, integration depends on the willingness of participants to make it happen (Mitchell, 1990). 4.5 Inputs Inputs are what ultimately determine the nature of a system. Alterations in the type of input or the rate of input will invariably influence the system, though the exact nature of that effect can never be entirely or accurately predicted. Discussed briefly below are what I consider to be the key inputs that effect the system of integrated water resources management. In effect, these elements constitute the context of I W R M ; they are what trigger the need and desire to pursue integration. The physical state of the water resources system - the water supply, water quality, surface water and groundwater conditions - is what motivates water management. Every management action is ultimately intended to influence the state of the water system. Our understanding of the state of this system is provided by the data that is collected through ongoing research and evaluation. The decisions made as to what actions are to be taken are influenced by the users of the water system. The demands imposed by users, be they for water conservation, restoration, production, navigation, consumption etc. guide the development of management policy. Management policy is embodied in institutional arrangements. Bruce Mitchell (1986) defines institutional arrangements as a combination of: legislation and regulations, policies and guidelines, administrative structures, economic and financial arrangements, political structures and processes, historical and traditional customs and values, and key participants and actors. Existing institutional arrangements can have a tremendous influence on the success of integration. The discrete inputs, while important on their own, gain greater significance when they are understood to function within a system, as depicted in Figure 4.3. It is the state of the water resource system which drives us to collect data. Conclusions drawn from this data collection can, at times, have a direct influence on the water resource users. This is often the case with conservation movements. Data reveals the state of the resource system to be degraded resulting in new demands for it to be restored to 55 its original state. The results of data collection can also influence the users indirectly, when they are used to develop new policies intended to regulate the behaviour of users. 4.6 Processes Drawing from Hatcher's (1981) conception, the framework depicts the system of integration to be comprised of three subsystems: the biophysical system, the management system, and the socio-economic system. While Hatcher suggests that these subsystems are hierarchical, I have chosen to show them as nested, one inside the next. The external placement of the biophysical system within the nested system is intended to convey the fact that the physical environment not only sustains humans, but also ultimately limits human growth. A l l of these subsystems are depicted as open systems, suggesting that there are exchanges through feedback and that elements in each system exert an influence over elements in the other systems. A multitude of processes take place within each of these systems. Process is integral to integration. One of the most common misconceptions is that integration is something to be achieved. Integration is a process; a means to an end. Processes are what drive a system and hold it together. In some ways they constitute both the fuel and the glue of this framework. While there are countless processes going on within each of the three subsystems, the ones highlighted here are intended to address some of the major barriers to integration, discussed earlier in this paper. 4.6.1 Social Learning The context of integrated water resources management and the systems of which it is comprised necessitate learning. Within complex adaptive systems that are forever changing and evolving, there is a constant need to learn; to reduce uncertainty and further understanding. Traditionally, learning has been understood and interpreted from a practical perspective, "learning used to mean learning the answer - a static shift from one condition of knowledge and/or know-how to another". Now, with increasing complexity and uncertainty, learning must be "a continuous process involving: 1) learning to perceive or reinterpret a situation, 2) learning how to apply that reperception to the formulation of policy and the specification of action, 3) learning how to implement those policies and intended actions, and 4) learning how to keep these three earlier requirements alive and open to continual revision" (Michael, 1995:464). 56 Learning from a systems perspective in management is very demanding. It involves "learning what needs to be done, how to do it, whether it worked, and how to apply the learning to the emerging consequences; learning what must be unlearned and learning what must be learned anew and by whom; learning about how to learn under the conditions that shape humans, on the one hand, and the environment on the other ".(Michael, 1995:461) Social learning is one process available to help guide organizations and agencies through much of the terrain that needs to be covered in gaining a better understanding of I W R M . Rooted in the early works of theorist John Dewey, and elaborated on at length by John Friedmann, social learning is broadly defined as "learning by doing", or "learning from experience". In her research on the Columbia River Basin, Cindy Halbert (1993) suggests that uncertainty has been the motivating force behind an increase in experimental learning. She writes, "policy makers and managers need more than descriptive information; they need to know how well one policy works compared to another. Experiments provide answers to such questions because the unique contribution of each policy variable can be isolated" (1993:265). This position is supported by the writings of Kai Lee, whose work focuses on the practice of adaptive management, a particular form of social learning. Lee asserts that the experimental approach to learning "produces reliable knowledge from experience instead of the slow, random accumulation gleaned from unexamined error" (1993:.9). His work has spun social learning theory directly into the world of environmental policy and decision making. He uses social learning to contextualize the increasing uncertainty and complexity which characterize both the natural environment and the constructed institutional environment from which we seek to manage for sustainability. He suggests that in a world in which knowledge is incomplete, we can not assume to proceed under assumptions and policies that suggest otherwise. Rather, we should first recognize our imperfect knowledge, and then commence further learning through experimentation. As a means of increasing understanding, social learning is intrinsically related to human activity. Its central assumption is that all effective learning comes from the experience of changing reality. In this regard, it is a process that is particularly well suited to IWRM. The processes discussed hereafter, while significant in their own right, all contribute a great deal to furthering the process of social learning. 57 4.6.2 Communication Because learning is, by nature, an interactive process, the ability to communicate directly affects the ability to learn. While ineffective and inefficient communication has been labeled as a barrier to I W R M thus far, communication also offers tremendous opportunities for progress in integration. Realizing these opportunities requires an investment in training and skills development. Conflicts and disputes often arise because of misunderstanding, miscommunication, or destructive communication. When people hear views or experience behaviour that is different from what they expect, they often become anxious or fearful, and conflict arises. Effective communication can help to overcome this anxiety and fear and help those in conflict understand their differences. Effective communication begins with listening. Listening affords understanding, and understanding affords progress in decision making. An effective listener is an active listener; one who is attentive, interested, and aware. A wide assortment of skills contribute to active listening. These include: encouraging, paraphrasing, acknowledging, refraining, and summarizing (Duffy and Penrose, 1997). Beyond listening skills, communication in I W R M can also be improved by working to develop a common language between participants. For progress to be made, it is important that everyone be able to use and relate to the same reference points and terminology. Another strategy to improve communication in management is to develop a mutually agreed upon decision making process. Determining this ahead of time is of great assistance when conflict arises and direction is needed (Duffy and Penrose, 1997). Finally, in working towards more open, effective communication, it is also important that participants learn to accept differences amongst themselves. Accepting differences is not the same thing as accepting conflict. Bargaining and negotiation represent specific communication skills that are invaluable to I W R M . Research indicates however that participants in water resources management often have serious weaknesses in the skills that are required in conflict resolution (Dorcey, 1987). The techniques associated with interest based negotiation, discussed in detail by Fisher and Ury (1981), should become a more common feature of integrated water resource management planning processes. 58 4.6.3 Value Focused Thinking One of the principal factors contributing to institutional boundary problems and fragmentation is that agencies often enter integrated management projects with conflicting objectives. For various interests and perspectives to be effectively integrated into a management system, there must be a mechanism through which different values and interests can be identified and articulated (Mitchell, 1990). Value focused thinking (VFT) is one such mechanism. Discussed at length in the decision analysis literature, V F T is a unique and effective technique that can be used to establish common management objectives. Value focused thinking is premised on the notion that values, the principles by which we evaluate options, can help to identify the true objectives in any decision making process. Ralph Keeney, the father of this concept, holds that values are the foundation for interest in any decision situation. We are only drawn into a decision problem if the implication of some of the alternatives are different enough in terms of our own values to warrant attention (Keeney, 1992). Traditionally, decisions are made by selecting from a range of available alternatives. Keeney terms this approach alternative focused thinking. Alternative focused thinking is a narrow, constrained, reactive approach to decision making. Value focused thinking, on the other hand, is a far more creative, constraint free approach to decision making which transforms decision problems into decision opportunities. The process of value focused thinking is very straightforward. It simply involves reflecting upon the desired outcomes of the decision context. What should be achieved? Responses to this question, compiled in a list, are scrutinized several times over according to values. The purpose of this is to discover the reasoning behind each objective and how it relates to other objectives. Each value uncovered and discovered can contribute greater insight into the decision situation. Value focused thinking has been applied to a wide range of multi-stakeholder planning processes with noted success. Specifically within B.C., value focused thinking was instrumental in enabling a multi-stakeholder committee come to consensus on the operations of a B C Hydro facility on the Alouette River, east of Vancouver. In this case, an extended consultation process with all stakeholders sought to: 59 1. clarify the underlying objectives important in selecting among alternatives for management of the Alouette water system; 2. determine the information needed to make meaningful comparisons based on established objectives; 3. define alternatives that would address the objectives; 4. consider the relative impacts of the alternatives; and 5. clarify the underlying tradeoffs that arise in selecting one alternative over another. In following this process, the Alouette Stakeholder Committee, a group of approximately twenty people, was able to come to consensus on a controversial decision, and establish a substantial degree of common understanding on issues that had led to acrimonious debates in the past. As a result, of this process, a working environment characterized by cooperation and trust has been established between these stakeholders (Gregory and McDaniels, 1996). As is suggested in the example above, there are many benefits of value focused thinking to be extended to I W R M . These relate to both the decision making process and to relationships within that process. First, it is a useful tool for uncovering hidden objectives. It affords latitude in approaching the decision 'problem', which can bring about new insights and ideas. The development of different objectives through V F T also helps to guide information collection, and allows for new, creative decision alternatives or options to emerge. V F T also contributes positively to relationships amongst multiple decision makers. Focusing on values at the beginning of a decision making process can improve communication amongst stakeholders, as it encourages more inclusive participation. It provides a common language for decision makers, and uncovers fundamental elements of the problem that all stakeholders can relate to. Finally, VFT is a useful tool in addressing conflicts. It can assist greatly in consensus building processes, as "antagonists do not differ as much in their fundamental values as they do in their selection of alternatives" (Keeney, 1988:487). The explicit statement of values can help to distinguish disagreements over possible consequences from disagreements over the relative desirability of those consequences. 4.6.4 Public Participation "For water resources planning to be a truly integrated process, the public must be accepted as a partner in the planning process." (Child and Armour, 1995:119). Public participation has received 60 increasing attention in resource planning processes in recent years. This transformation from a "top-down" approach to a more inclusive, "bottom-up" approach to planning is attributed to several factors (Child and Armour, 1995): • a recommitment on the part of society to democratic principles; • a perceived failure of government to respond appropriately to needs of citizens; • a reaction to pressures of confrontation and demonstration; and • a recognition of knowledge and expertise possessed by local residents on resource issues in their own communities. Recognition of the knowledge and expertise possessed by the public has become the driving force behind public participation processes, which, as Tony Dorcey writes, are intended "to develop better policies that lead to more informed decisions" (Dorcey, 1994:3). Beyond the broad social benefits of arriving at better decisions through public involvement processes, the benefits of participation also extend to the participants, in theory. It is thought that participation fosters a greater sense of satisfaction and faith in government within participants. In practice, however, public reaction to these processes has not been entirely favourable. Frustrated at the inability or unwillingness of government to integrate public input into decisions, the demand for improved public participation processes has grown enormously. With these rising demands a greater understanding of the requirements for effective public participation has also evolved. It is a continual learning experience for both government and the public. What constitutes public involvement? Experience over time has led to the development of a spectrum defined by the purposes of seeking public input. These purposes, each appropriate for different circumstances, include: 1) to inform the pubic; 2) to educate the public; 3)to gather information and perspective from the public; 4) to consult the public; 5) to involve the public in defining key issues; 6) to test ideas and seek advice; 7) to seek consensus; and 8) to involve the public in decision-making through ongoing interactions. It is important to note that these purposes are not mutually exclusive (Dorcey, et al., 1994). Each of these levels of participation is characterized by a different degree of communication, some one-way, the later ones two-way. While one-way communication was once accepted by the public, there are resounding demands that participation be a two-way form of communication. It is now a widely held belief that public participation does not begin until some degree of decision making is shared (Brennis and M'Gonigle, 1991). Choosing the appropriate model of involvement is critical to ensuring effective integrated water resource management. This framework does not prescribe a particular level of involvement, recognizing that the level of involvement may vary depending on the circumstances of 61 specific projects. What it does require is that consideration be given to the following questions to help guide the design of specific public participation processes: (Dorcey et al., 1994) 1. Who are the public with regard to this issue? Are they readily identifiable? 2. Is there general social agreement over the underlying values around this issue or are they characterized by uncertainty? 3. Is the issue ripe for government action, or is there still debate over what is needed and who should take action? 4. How available is the factual information on this issue? Is there any discrepancy over the "facts"? 5. Are government goals for this issue the same as those of the public? 4.6.5 Monitoring and Evaluation A l l too often, monitoring and evaluation are the most neglected components of planning projects. It seems that after investing considerable amounts of human and financial resources into plan formulation, design, installation, and operation, there is very little remaining for the maintenance of the plan. This is a highly regrettable situation, for monitoring the effects of management decisions and actions is the best way we have of tracking progress. Monitoring is an all important link; a critical form of feedback; a bridge between theory and practice. It informs the management system and represents a critical form of learning. It is the a means of maintaining the continuity and integrity of both ecosystems and management systems (Lee, 1993). For all that is invested in a planning process, neglecting to monitor the effects of resultant policy makes no logical sense. If monitoring is in fact conducted, it is often a post hoc addition. Monitoring needs to be a prominent feature of policy. It should be included as part of the plan design process. The way in which monitoring is carried out is just as important as its actual inclusion in the planning process. It is important that monitoring not be applied to just the technical elements of systems in I W R M , but that it extend to evaluate environmental, economic, and social changes as well. Likewise, monitoring should be directed toward not only the end goals or targets of a plan, but also to the processes that are being used to reach those goals. In the case of IWRM, monitoring should address the discrete elements within each subsystem, the relationships between them, and the processes that drive and maintain them. The selection of appropriate indicators by which to evaluate change is also critical to the process. It is important that these indicators be representative of the variables that are being measured, and that they be updated as new information is made available. 62 4.7 Outputs The combined action of the processes described above results in a variety of system outputs. Ideally, these outputs should, to some extent, reflect the goals of integrated water resource management. Hence, the outputs illustrated in the new conceptual framework can all be categorized as positive achievements. This is not to say that there will not be less than positive outputs from the system, or that there will not be unanticipated outcomes, but for this particular conceptual exercise, these are not represented in the framework. Like the inputs, the outputs of the integrated management system can also be understood to be a system unto its self. When integrated management is pursued through social learning, one of the most common outputs from the system is the development of new ideas and approaches to management. Through experimentation, we become aware of new techniques and combinations of actions that are successful. The pooling of knowledge and expertise from public participation processes and ongoing monitoring and evaluation also help in this regard. New ideas and approaches can lead management into unexplored territory. Two examples here are the concepts of value focused thinking and interest based negotiation. Both of these processes offer unique approaches to overcoming some of the barriers to integration. Engaging in such processes can lead to a greater sense of shared understanding amongst participants and actors. When underlying values and interests are uncovered, it is much easier to adopt a cooperative and coordinated approach to management. Effective communication skills can help to sustain these two outputs. Both cooperation and coordination have traditionally been identified in the literature as tremendous barriers to integration. Obsession over these two concepts has led to the propagation of the "myth of cooperation" and the "cult of coordination" (Dorcey, 1987; Mitchell, 1990). Interpreting these two concepts as outputs rather than processes creates room for more innovative approaches such as value focused thinking and bargaining and negotiation. Such a shift in thinking is often necessary when roadblocks arise in management. Increased cooperation and coordination opens many doors. It enables common objectives to be developed, decision making power to be shared, and management strategies to be implemented efficiently. This, in turn, and over time, leads to more effective and sustainable management of water resources. Monitoring and evaluation helps to keep us informed about where the strengths and weaknesses lie in management strategies, and points the direction toward new approaches and ideas. This is the full cycle of the output system. 63 4.8 The Framework in Action The conceptual framework is comprised of more than just its components. While all elements of the framework represent a necessary condition for the achievement of integration, it is the interaction of these elements, in different combinations for different management situations, which enables integration. According to systems theory, management actions can never merely do one thing. The effects of one action will invariably affect others through feedback mechanisms. There are numerous sources of feedback within this framework. Conceptually, this feedback is represented by the hydrological elements of the framework - the surface water from which the pillared principles rise reflects inputs back into the system, and outputs are precipitated back into the system. Within the processes that fuel the system, several interconnections are worth highlighting. First, one of the objectives of communication is to develop common goals for managers and planners and the public to work towards. Value focused thinking helps to identify the basic elements which underlie such objectives. Similarly, both public participation and monitoring and evaluation work toward the same end: acquiring more data from which to gain a greater understanding. Finally effective communication can help to improve public participation processes. If project managers have a clear understanding of the type of information they are looking for, they can be much more deliberate in designing the participation process, explaining it to the identified participants, and ensuring all around satisfaction. Examples of positive and negative feedback exist between the processes of the system and both inputs and outputs. Positive feedback occurs through the process of monitoring and evaluation, affecting the input of data. Any change in the monitoring process will affect existing and future databases. This in turn can have an effect on the demands or behaviour of water resource users or on policy development. Another example of positive feedback can be drawn through the output system. If there is a breakdown in communication, this can diminish the amount of understanding that exists between project actors, and potentially reduce the potential for cooperation and coordination. Finally, changes in the principles can affect system changes and vice versa. For example, mounting frustration as a result of poorly designed and executed public involvement processes can seriously weaken individual's commitment to integrated management projects. Similarly, the legitimation of I W R M through political support for the process, or through formal policy, can help to 64 strengthen peoples' commitment to the process, and generate greater acceptance of innovative processes such as social learning and value focused thinking. Working within a complex adaptive system such as the one illustrated in this framework is an endless challenge, for systems effects change as actors learn about them and about others beliefs in them (Jervis, 1997). The first step in meeting this challenge is to gain an understanding of the system. Katherine Hatcher writes: "in my opinion, half of the battle for integrated water management would be won i f all water managers had a common perception of the system being managed, and three fourths of the battle would be won i f they also had a common understanding of how that system operates and how its components are interrelated" (1981:148). Beyond this, mastering a systems approach to integrated water resource management comes down to composure and confidence. We can not be discouraged by the complexity of systems. Certainly, recognizing the connections and interrelations of systems is important to the success of integrated water resource management, but it is just as important to remember that while everything is connected, some things are more connected than others. A metaphor provided by Robert Jervis says it well: "the beating of a butterfly's wings can influence weather patterns halfway around the world, but this does not mean that each time a butterfly moves it creates storms or sunshine" (1997:260). Knowledge and awareness of systems need not cripple management actions; they should accent opportunities. This chapter has argued that by the complex, systemic nature of water resources, integrated water resources management is inherently an evolving process that must acknowledge non-linearity, unpredictability, uncertainty, and interdependencies. The conceptual framework presented here incorporates these elements and draws upon them in order encourage a more complete understanding of I W R M . Extending the principles of the framework, it can also be said that sustainable water resources management is also inherently unknowable and unpredictable (Holling, 1995). Assuming this to be true, it is requisite that management practices be designed to allow for a continually modified understanding of the evolving conditions of water resource systems and the social and economic systems that exert an influence over them. Additionally, management must be flexible enough to adapt to unanticipated events and surprises. In the chapters that follow, I will elaborate on the contribution that learning makes to sustaining an integrated approach to water resource management and planning. I begin in Chapter Five by examining much of the theory presented in the literature on social learning. 65 Chapter 5 - Learning About Integration Learning represents one of the most logical, natural, and effective tools with which to assist with adapting to unanticipated events and surprises. Recognizing the fact that humans are a learning species and that our survival depends on our ability to adapt, both reactively and proactively, learning has been described as "the major process of human adaptation" (Kolb, 1984:32). Outside of academia, however, where the focus on learning is overt, learning is often taken for granted in many professional practices. It is assumed that over time learning enables individuals and organizations to improve their efforts and better meet their objectives. Action enables learning and through learning knowledge and understanding are accrued. In the hope of developing a better understanding of complex, adaptive systems, however, a more detailed examination of the learning process is necessary. Learning serves as a critical tool for navigating the survival landscapes that characterize water resources management. It is the learning process that enables managers and planners to move through valleys to mountain peaks and to adjust and change direction when peaks become valleys. The value of learning in the context of increased complexity, uncertainty, and conflict has recently received significant attention (Gunderson et al., 1995, Schon, 1983). Donald Michael writes that "because change is so pervasive and profound, unlearning and new learning become imperative prerequisites for ecological management....We shall have to learn our way into the future and learn how to learn under the strange, uncertain, and contradictory circumstances confronting us" (1995:461, 463). He goes on to suggest that there are two kinds of learning: learning for a predictable, stable world, and learning for a world of uncertainty and change. "Learning for our world," he writes, "has to do with learning what are the useful questions to ask and learning how to keep on learning since the questions keep changing" (Michael, 1995, p. 484). But what type of learning is required for sustainable water resources management? How does learning take place? How do we measure progress in learning? This next chapter addresses some of "Learning is central to life. As human beings we experience learning as a basic condition of existence and as a source of fulfillment and delight.. .A person who learns very little from daily contact with the world, or who has ceased to learn altogether, will find it an increasingly barren and difficult place in which we live, and one that yields little joy" ( C C M D , 1994) 66 these fundamental questions. Selecting from the vast collection of literature on learning theory, it examines the key elements of both social learning theory and organizational learning in relation to the functioning of systems. The chapter concludes with a discussion of some of the main barriers that confront social learning. 5.1 Social Learning 5.1.1 Defining Social Learning Social learning is a process that is subject to different interpretations in different disciplines. It is a term which conceals great diversity and is not understood from one common theoretical perspective. The most obvious distinction here is that while for some people social learning implies learning that takes place in a social setting, for others it implies learning by social aggregates (Parson and Clark, 1995). It is this later interpretation that is assumed in this research. The concept of social learning is rooted in the works of education theorist John Dewey. Dewey's theory of social learning was founded on the belief that all valid knowledge comes from experience, or the interaction of humans with their physical environment (Dewey, 1963). In defining social learning as "learning by doing", Dewey's theory suggests that "through experience we come not only to understand the world, but also to transform it. As in a spiral movement, from practice to plan and back again to practice, it is the way we learn" (Friedmann, 1987:189). Other theorists have also contributed a great deal to the development of social learning theory. Political scientist Hugh Heclo describes the process of social learning as "a maze where the outlet is shifting and the walls are constantly being repatterned; where the subject is not one individual but a group bound together; where this group disagrees not only on how to get out but on whether getting out constitutes a satisfactory solution; where, finally, there is not one but a large number of such groups which keep getting in each other's way. Such is the setting for social learning" (quoted in Lee, 1993:177). Implicit in the concept of "learning by doing" is the practice of experimentation. In social learning, both the successes and failures of experimentation represent learning opportunities. The experimental nature of social learning is reflected in the works of planner John Friedmann, an advocate of "mutual learning". For Friedmann, social learning begins and ends with action. He writes that "each 67 plan is an experiment, and history unfolds as a succession of experiments in a progressive movement" (1987 :190) . Friedmann's contribution to social learning theory is the notion that "in social learning, knowledge of reality and of practice exert a mutual influence on each other" (1987 :183) . This idea is represented in Figure 5.1, which demonstrates that decisions are part of an ongoing cycle that exists within practice and learning. The model indicates that within social learning there are really two types of learning. The first type, depicted by the top arrow, is learning that concerns problems and intentions associated with the planning exercise. The second type, depicted by the bottom arrow, is learning that originates from our cognitive understanding which results in change in action, strategy, theory and values. For Friedmann, social learning both begins and ends with action. C = Actor's cognitive aspects of learning A = Actor's experiential aspects of learning d = Actor's decision making process F I G U R E 5.1 A SIMPLIFIED M O D E L OF S O C I A L P R A C T I C E A N D L E A R N I N G ( F R O M F R I E D M A N N , 1987) This critical cycle described by Freidmann is also reflected in the work and writing of Don Schon (1983) . Schon refers to this same process as "reflection-in -action" - a process in which "doing and thinking are complimentary....Each feeds the other and sets boundaries for the other" (1983 :280) . According to Schon, reflection-in-action, or thinking and doing at the same time, is an art form that is central to the ways in which professionals manage complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. Refining this art, he suggests, is a critical challenge for all professionals. 6 8 5.1.2 Conceiving Social Learning The literature on social learning and general learning theory provides a wide range of conceptualizations of learning. David Kolb defines learning as "the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience" (1984:38). Dorothy Mackeracher elaborates on this, defining learning as "a process of making sense of life's experiences and giving meaning to whatever 'sense' is made; using these meanings in thinking, solving problems, making choices and decisions; and acting in ways which are congruent with these choices and decisions as a means for obtaining feedback to confirm or disconfirm meanings and choices" (1996:6). Some definitions, such as that provided by Hall (1993) are more purposeful: "we can define social learning as a deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in response to past experience and new information (Hall, 1993:278). Classifying learning into modes has furthered conceptualizations of learning. A common distinction found within the literature is that between passive and active learning. Passive learning is learning that occurs almost subconsciously through conditioning mechanisms or habits. Its restricted aim is to establish responses or attitudes in the learners. Causal relationships are not drawn in passive learning, suggesting that the learners need not understand the reality behind the stimuli to which they respond. Active learning, on the other hand, is a conscious process, which involves feedback between the learner and the environment. This connection between learners and the environment allows for causal relationships to be established and the formation of new insight. Active learning can be both adaptive and manipulative: learners iteratively map their environments and use their maps to alter their environments (Hedburg, 1981). Another common means of clarifying the conceptualization of learning is to interpret learning as a cyclical, iterative process. One of the most commonly cited models of learning is Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle, depicted in Figure 5.2. The cycle begins when the learner is involved in a specific experience. Meaning is given to this experience when the learner reflects on it from different points of view. This meaning is integrated with those from other experiences to develop explanations, concepts, or theories by which to draw conclusions about the experience. These conclusions are used to guide decision-making and planning of related actions, which are then implemented. 69 .Concrete Experience Testing implications of concepts and experimentation Observation and Reflection Formation of Abstract Concepts and Generalizations F I G U R E 5.2 K O L B ' S E X P E R I E N T I A L L E A R N I N G C Y C L E Hunt (1987) has developed an adaptation of this model, shown in Figure 5.3 below. While this model does not emphasize the role of experience in the learning process, it does highlight the critical role of feedback in the learning process. It is through feedback that perception of experience can be altered. F I G U R E 5.3 H U N T ' S M O D E L OF E X P E R I E N T I A L L E A R N I N G 5.2 Organizational Learning 5.2.1 Defining Organizational Learning Most recently, many of the principles associated with individual learning, described above, have been extended to the field of organizational learning. As a theory, organizational learning proposes that organizations are repositories of cumulatively built-up knowledge which is drawn upon and used as exemplars for future action. This knowledge continually evolves as professionals within the organization adapt it to emerging circumstances (Schon, 1983). Organizational learning has been proposed by many 70 as an effective strategy by which to operate within the complex and uncertain conditions of today's management environment. Peter Vail l has described these challenging conditions as "permanent white water", a metaphor which conjures the multiple traits of complex adaptive systems. He writes that "permanent white water conditions are regularly taking us out of our comfort zones and asking things of us that we never imagined would be required" (1996:14). The learning challenges and opportunities afforded by these conditions are tremendous, and it has been suggested that those organizations that are "slow to learn and adapt have found themselves in increasing difficulty. The successful organizations appear increasingly to be those that have found a way to promote learning both at the individual level and at the level of the organization itself (CCMD, 1994:1). The results of several studies promote various benefits to be gained from fostering a learning culture within organizations (Lassey, 1998). These include: • increased motivation leading to increased productivity; • a competent work force leading to fewer mistakes; • improved work practices leading to lower operating costs; and • a happier work force leading to lower staff turnover. Malhotra defines a learning organization as "an organization with an ingrained philosophy for anticipating, reacting, and responding to change, complexity, and uncertainty" (1996). Thus, organizational learning is a strategy for navigating a course through "permanent white water"; a process by which an organization continually attempts to improve its practices by reflecting on actions taken and learning from its present and past efforts (Leeuw and Sonnichsen, 1994). A similar definition provided by DiBella and Nevis puts forth that organizational learning is "the capacity or process within an organization to maintain or improve performance based on experience" (1998:27). This definition is based on the notion that the experiences of organizations are never ending, hence so is learning. In defining organizational learning, DiBella and Nevis (1998) warn that it is important to avoid the anthropomorphic tendency to attribute human learning characteristics to organizations. They identify three main criteria of organizational learning: 1. New skills and behaviour are created or acquired over time. 2. What is learned becomes the property of the organization. 3. What is learned remains with the organization or group even i f individuals leave. As a distinct form of social learning, organizational learning is said to take place when organizations interact with their environments; it is a form of experiential learning that comes both from 71 experimentation and from learning from others (Hedburg, 1981). A variation on this suggests that organizational learning takes place "when observations and inferences from experience create fairly enduring changes in organizational structures and standard operating procedures" (Olsen and Peters, 1996:6). The equation of learning with change is also found in the interpretation of learning offered by DiBella and Nevis, who claim that "to say that learning has occurred means that something has changed -i f not behaviour, then how we think about what we do or how we feel about it" (1998:25). They go on to suggest that learning occurs when new knowledge is introduced to an organizational system, is disseminated or transferred, and is subsequently used. It is important to note that these last two interpretations do not assume anything about the result of the processes through which experience is consulted. The actual results of organizational learning are dependent upon several elements (Olsen and Peters, 1996): • the experiences themselves; • the characteristics of the processes used to develop collective accounts and assessments; • organizational capabilities for soliciting support for specific interpretations and translating those into operating procedures and new structures; and • the availability of uncommitted resources and the degree to which reformers can reassign or mobilize resources. An important function of organizational learning is its ability to induce change. In a discussion on learning, Watkins et al. observe that "change is a cyclical process of creating knowledge, disseminating it, implementing the change, and then institutionalizing what is learned by making it part of the organization's routines through, for example, operating procedures or policies. In the learning organization, this process is facilitated by structures and consciously managed" (1993:21). In organizational learning, such change is the result of the interaction of the variables of knowledge, time, learning, and performance. Table 5.1 details the various types of knowledge and learning that exists within organizations and changes in management activities and actions that correspond with each learning type. It is important to note that these types of learning are not mutually exclusive within an organization. For various issues and aspects of an organization, they will be practiced in various combinations. Overall however, the progression of learning styles through the table represents the adoption of a greater systems perspective, leading eventually to sustainable management. 72 Knowledge and Learning Action and Performance Focus DATA DATA Instinctual learning Feedback Sensing. The data mode of learning is at the Gathering information. Receiving input, sensory or input level. Little actual learning takes registering data without reflection place Time Perspective: Immediate Moment Consciousness: Awareness INFORMATION Single-loop learning Action without reflection. Procedural learning entails redirecting a course of action to follow a predetermined course. Learning is mostly trial and error PROCEDURAL Efficiency Doing something the most efficient way. Conforming to standards or making simple adjustments and modifications. Focus is on developing and following procedures. Time Perspective: Very short (present-now) Consciouness: Physical sentience KNOWLEDGE Double-loop learning Self-conscious reflection. A larger perspective that involves evaluation and modification of the goal or objective, as well as design of the path or procedures used to get there. Learning requires self-conscious reflection FUNCTIONAL Effectiveness Doing it the best way. Evaluating and choosing between two or more alternative paths. Goals are effective action and resolution of inconsistencies. Focus is on effective work design and engineering aspects, such as process redesign. Time Perspective: Short (immediate past and present) Consciousness: Self-reflective MEANING Communal learning Understanding context, relationships, and trends. Learning requires the making of meaning, which includes understanding context, seeing trends, and generating alternatives. From this perspective, it is possible to detect relationships between components, as well as comprehending roles and relationships between people. MANAGING Productivity Understanding what promotes or impedes effectiveness. Effective management and allocation of resources and tasks, using conceptual frameworks to analyze and track multiple variables. Encompasses planning and measuring results. Also attends to working roles, relationships, and culture. Time Perspective: Medium to long (historic past, present, very near future) Consciousness: Communal 73 Knowledge and Learning Action and Performance Focus PHILOSOPHY Duetero Learning Self-organizing. Integrative or systemic learning seeks to understand dynamic relationships and non-linear processes, discerning the patterns that connect, including archetypes and metaphors. Requires recognition of the embeddedness and interdependence of systems INTEGRATING Optimization Seeing where an activity fits the whole picture. Understanding and managing socio-cultural system dynamics. Focus is on long-term planning and the ability to adapt to a changing environment. Comprises long-range forecasting, development of multi-level strategies, and evaluating investments and policies with regard to long-term success Time Perspective: Long-term (past, present and future) Consciousness: Pattern WISDOM Generative Learning Value driven. Learning for the joy of learning, in open interaction with the environment. It involves creative processes, heuristic, open-ended explorations, and profound self-questioning. Allows for the discovery of capabilities and talents, purpose and intentions RENEWING Integrity Finding or reconnecting with purpose Defining or reconnecting with values, vision, and mission. Understanding purpose. Very long-term time frame leads to deep awareness of ecology, community, and ethical action Time Perspective: very long-term (very distant past to far distant future) Consciousness: ethical UNION Synergistic Connection. Learning integrates direct experience and appreciation of oneness or deep connection with the greater cosmos. Requires processes that connect purpose to health and well-being of the larger community and the environment. UNION Sustainability Understanding values in greater context. Inter-generational time perspective evokes commitment to the greater good of society, the environment, and the planet. Performance is demonstrated in actions consistent with these deeper values. Time Perspective: Inter-generational, timeless Consciousness: Universal Table 5.1 Learning And Performance Reference Chart (From Alee, 1997) Three of the learning types included in Table 5.1 have received considerable attention in the literature. Changes that occur as a result of connecting evaluative information to strategies and assumptions for effective performance within existing procedures and policy are a product of single-loop learning. Single loop learning is an approach to solving identified problems by mechanisms embodied within the organization. It occurs when action is taken to adjust practices so that outcomes match the expectations of decisions (Argyris and Schon, 1978; Lee, 1993; Leeuw and Sonnichsen, 1994). 74 Changes that result from applying information collected from evaluative research to examine basic assumptions about the norms and standards for organizational policy, are a product of double loop learning. Double loop learning is a more comprehensive, systematic learning process in which underlying goals, policies, and procedures are questioned, leading to new and innovative solutions to established and recurring problems (Leeuw and Sonnichsen, 1994). Most organizational learning can be characterized as single loop learning. To bring about change through double loop learning is often a challenge, as the rules for assembling responses and the rules which define situations are typically inaccessible to decision makers. As a result, they often lack the ability to implement new behavioural modes within the organization. This and other barriers are discussed at the end of this chapter. The third type of learning discussed at length in the literature is deutero-learning, or second-order learning. This is essentially learning about learning. A concept first proposed by Argyris and Schon (1978), deutero-learning is a means of enabling an organization to learn as a whole. They write: When an organization engages in deutero-learning, its members learn, too, about previous contexts for learning. They reflect on and enquire into previous episodes of organizational learning or failure to learn. They discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited learning, they invent new strategies for learning, and they evaluate and generalise what they have produced. The results become encoded in individual maps and images and are reflected in organizational learning practice (1978: 27). Desirable a practice as this may be, Schon more recently observes that deutero learning is seldom undertaken in management today. Without taking the time to reflect what has been learned through organizational practice, the art of reflection-in-action tends to remain private and inaccessible to others (Schon, 1983). 5.2.2 The Learning Process Though organizational learning is often thought of as a steady, incremental process, this is a misinformed perception, for the environment through which organizations experience and learn is continually changing. Under these conditions, as new knowledge is introduced, some old knowledge becomes obsolete. Learning therefore entails learning new things and discarding obsolete and misleading knowledge, or unlearning. Unlearning is the process by which accommodations are made for new information. Organizational unlearning is typically problem triggered. Triggers such as funding limitations or 75 strategic errors cause hesitancy and build up distrust in procedures and leaders. A turbulent period then frequently follows in which leaders issue inconsistent messages, and organizations begin to search for new leadership and alternative strategies. Ultimately, the operating world view and standard procedures break down and new learning is required and sought. This process has been described in the literature as being both a gradual and an abrupt event, in differing circumstances (Hedburg, 1981). The rate of unlearning has to do with perception: "people who are able to perceive reality in different terms can redefine their problems, unlearn old behaviours, and replace them with new responses almost immediately" (ibid: 18). Unlearning is often identified as a critical weakness of many organizations. Some theorists posit that success reinforces organizations' theories of action and makes unlearning difficult: "organizations which have been poisoned by their own success are often unable to unlearn obsolete knowledge in spite of strong disconfirmations" (Hedburg, 1981:19). Instead of unlearning, these organizations try to manipulate and change the environment in which they function. Learning for sustainability requires maintaining a balance between learning and unlearning. Unlearning abilities are needed to accommodate more adequate interpretative frameworks in organizational memory. Learning abilities are needed to generate knowledge and update existing knowledge (Hedburg, 1981). 5.2.3 Conceiving Organizational Learning Organizational learning is founded on many of the principles of individual learning, however while many of these principles have been transferred over to the field of organizational learning, it is widely acknowledged that organizational learning extends beyond individual learning. Without individual learning, there can be no organizational learning: "individual learning is the condition for organizational learning since only individuals have minds that can learn. But organizations shape and mould the individuals in them; they help them learn or prevent them from doing so" (CCMD, 1994: 5). While organizational learning theory borrows heavily from the literature on individual learning, considerable effort is directed toward distinguishing between the two. Are learning organizations comprised simply of individuals who learn, or is there more to it than that? Parson and Clark (1995) propose that any discussion of group learning implies one of two forms of relationships between individual learning and changes taking place through that learning. The first of these they term decomposition, which treats group learning as the sum of the learning by the group's constituent individuals. What each individual learns may be completely contingent on the choices and learning of 76 other group members. Or, the means of individual learning might be through activities that depend on participation of other group members. The second relationship they term analogy, which treats group learning as autonomous, determined by group level causal processes that correspond to the processes shaping individual learning. Both of these perspectives on organizational learning are well represented in the literature. March and Olson (1976, cited in Hedburg, 1981) support the perspective that organizational learning is dependent upon individuals within an organization. They claim that individuals' actions affect organizational actions, which in turn evoke environmental responses. The cycle is completed when environmental effects are reported back to the organization, where individuals' cognitions and preferences are effected, thus influencing further actions. This conception, which they term the stimulus response system, is represented in Figure 5.4. The model suggests that it is individuals within organizations who learn from their actions, and that individual experience eventually influences organizational behaviour. Individual Action 1 Organizational! Action Individual Beliefs Environmental! Response F I G U R E 5.4 T H E C Y C L E OF O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L L E A R N I N G ( M A R C H A N D O L S O N , 1976) Hedburg (1981) elaborates on this conception with a theatrical metaphor. He writes, "organizations can be thought of as stages where repertoires of plays are performed by individual actors. The actors act, but they are directed. They are assigned roles, they are given scripts, and they become socialized into a theatre's norms, beliefs, and behaviours. Although the repertoires of plays shift, especially with the arrival of new leaders, directors, or schools, there are rich traditions of plays and standards that remain as time passes" (1981:6) . This conceptualization points to the fact that organizations often know less than their members. Problems with communication often make it normal for the whole to be less than the sum of the parts (Hedburg, 1981). 77 Others see organizations as learning entities unto themselves. Those who take this position argue that "although organizational learning occurs through individuals, it would be a mistake to conclude that organizational learning is nothing but the cumulative result of their members' learning" (Hedburg, 1981:6). Those who take this perspective tend to treat organizations as living systems. Critical to this perspective is the idea of organizational memory, a concept that suggests that "as individuals develop their personalities, personal habits, and beliefs over time, organizations develop world views and ideologies. Members come and go, and leadership changes, but organizations' memories preserve behaviours, mental maps, norms, and values over time" (Hedburg, 1981:6). The capacity of organizational memories varies according to several factors (Huber, 1991): 1. a rapid personnel turnover creates a great loss for the human components of an organization's memory; 2. non-anticipation of future needs for certain information can cause great amounts of information not to be stored within an organization; 3. information distribution and organizational interpretation of information; and 4. organizational members with information needs frequently do not know of the existence or whereabouts of information processed or stored by other members. A more recent, alternative conceptualization provided by Holling et al.(1995), proposes that learning can be understood according to evolutionary principles. Early concepts of evolution held a vision of a highly ordered sequences of species assemblages moving toward a sustained climax. Research has shown this to be an essentially static and incomplete view of evolution. Current understanding of ecosystems emphasizes four primary stages in an ecosystem cycle: 1) exploitation, in which an ecosystem undergoes rapid colonization, 2) conservation, during which time stability increases through a slow accumulation and storage of energy and materials develops, 3) release, at which time the tightly bound accumulation of biomass and nutrients of the ecosystem become increasingly fragile and are released by agents such as forest fires, insect invasions etc., and 4) reorganization, a phase in which the components of the ecosystem are brought together once again, stabilized, and made available for the next round of exploitation. This cycle, commonly referred to as the cycle of creative destruction, is shown in Figure 5.5. As is indicated by the arrows on the figure, the biological processes that comprise the cycle of creative destruction flow across uneven time scales: progression proceeds slowly from exploitation to conservation, very rapidly to release , rapidly to reorganization, and rapidly to exploitation. The cycle, reflects changes in two attributes: the y axis - accumulated capital (carbon, nutrients etc.) and the x axis (degree of connectedness among variables). The exit from the cycle shown at the left, of the figure 78 suggests a stage where the flip into a less or more productive and organized system is most likely to occur (Holling, 1995). Double loop learning would bring about such a transition into another system. 4 R e o r g a n i z a t i o n 2 C o n s e r v a t i o n K W e a k C o n n e c t e d n e s s S t r o n g F I G U R E 5.5 - H O L L I N G ' s C Y C L E OF C R E A T I V E D E S T R U C T I O N ( H O L L I N G 1995) Learning, like evolution, is a manifestly dynamic process. As such, many of the principles and processes contained within the model of creative destruction cut across the learning process (Parson and Clark, 1995). Institutions and societies achieve periodic advances in understanding and learning through the same four cycles of growth, production, release, and renewal that shape the spatial and temporal dynamics of ecosystems. Francis Westley (1995) provides a clear illustration of how four key phases of social learning systems parallel those of evolving ecosystems. Two key stages are encountered early in the learning cycle: the creation of a new social order which eventually becomes encoded and institutionalized, and the consolidation of this new order into an organized set of structures containing action routines, assumptions, and flows of resources and activities. The processes involved in these two stages are designed for efficiency and routine; they do not encourage learning. As systems become more and more consolidated, they become less and less adaptable, and run the risk of being cut off from the external environment where there is continual change. If an organization fails to adapt and adjust to these external changes, a crisis will eventually ensue. This stage parallels the release stage of the cycle of creative destruction. Here, rituals and routines that once sustained the organization falter. In some 79 cases, the organization may sink into a state of decline, but others that are stronger wil l undergo a period of revitalization and reorganization. This fourth and final stage is characterized by chaotic behaviour in which new ideas are circulated and drawn upon from both internal and external sources. It is a time of very active learning. When this learning is fed back into the organization in the form of a new vision, new strategies, or new techniques, the cycle repeats itself. Another parallel that can be drawn between organizational learning and ecological evolution, is that in a fashion similar to that of evolving ecosystems, organizational learning proceeds at its own rate and in its own space. This notion that learning rates vary over time complements organizational learning theories which argue that the incorporation of information into the knowledge base of both individuals and organizations is a selective, sporadic, and temporal process. In this way, organizational learning represents a distinct departure from the traditional rational actor approach to decision making which presumes the relation of information to action to be linear and straightforward (Leeuw and Sonnichsen, 1994). Attempting to link the model of creative destruction to learning in organizations is a relatively progressive conceptualization. A distinct absence of such efforts has been lamented in the literature: "the bias of most research and policy programs has been toward institutions, processes, and practices that might maintain or restore some presumptive "equilibrium" with nature. What we lack are theories of social dynamics to complement the emerging theories of ecosystem dynamics" (Parson and Clark, 1995:428). The reason for this may be explained by a dominant social resistance to change. Cycles of change such as the one described above disrupt and threaten the traditional management position of: "change, yes; growth, yes; learning, yes - but against a stable backdrop and structured order" (Westley, 1995:422). The effect of such non-evolutionary thinking is that "a monolithic set of centralized resource management prescriptions has been spreading to all corners of the globe" (Holling et al., 1998:357). If organizations are to survive in the face of increasing complexity, uncertainty, and complexity, they must accept and learn to manage cycles of change. Forging bridges between social and economic systems, and redesigning theories and management approaches to complement ecosystems is requisite for sustainability. 80 5.3 Barriers to Learning Research in social learning theory indicates that, contrary to common assumptions, learning is not a process that comes easily to organizations. The literature cites many barriers to learning which must be addressed in designing management systems. These barriers can be understood in terms of socio-cultural constraints, emotional constraints, and cognitive constraints (Michael, 1995). In seeking to address these barriers, it is important to note that they need not necessarily be interpreted negatively. Constraints can in fact sometimes facilitate and shape the learning process. Kai Lee writes that "even though we celebrate freedom from constraints, constraints persist, and they unavoidably shape learning for any purpose. Acknowledging constraints and working selectively with them will help learners learning to be more realistic in their expectations and effective in their practice" (1993:468). 5.3.1 Socio-cultural Constraints Individuals, groups, and organizations act according to the prevalent myths (beliefs) within their society. A general belief that we are independent agents deters us from recognizing the extent to which our beliefs and behaviour and our ways of evaluating persons and events are shaped by our myths and habits. The premises of these myths are tacit, or unexamined, and are accepted because they have worked in the past. We rarely veer from the status quo. Instead, attachments to familiar relationships and patterns of behaviour develop, people become regimented in their routine, and change is not welcomed (Friedmann, 1987). By this, learning becomes a deviation from the norm. To venture beyond is risky and threatening, This phenomenon is well captured by Kai Lee, who asserts that "contrary to popular belief, most people under most circumstances are not all that eager to learn...Most humans have lived and still live content with believing and doing things as they have always been done, for the reasons they have been done, because, for them, that is the way things are and should be" (1993:468). Therefore, "learning, which mostly upsets beliefs and habits in individuals and organizations, is hardly likely to be embraced easily and enthusiastically, even though there is a growing, and sometimes powerful, recognition of the need for change" (Michael, 1995:470). 81 5.3.2 Emotional Constraints Exposing an organization to new learning experiences is often perceived as a threat by individuals within that organization. The fear behind this perception is that new learning may invalidate people's efforts of the past, or even render their position within an organization redundant. If learning entails recognition and admission of errors or mistakes, people feel threatened because they feel their position within the organization may be jeopardized. Furthermore, it is not always easy to recognize error for what it is (Friedmann, 1987). Therefore, we tend to focus on short-term, local beliefs because these reinforce the norm and don't represent a threat to our personal selves or to the organization. It is widely believed that "learning longer-term and more systemic perspectives wil l almost surely expose unsettling questions about the integrity of the self and organization that have been ignored, denied or simply not recognized" (Michael, 1995:470). 5.3.3 Cognitive Constraints Cognitive constraints concern the way in which individuals and organizations understand, use, and evaluate information. There is a general belief that more information leads to greater understanding, but with respect to the human and ecological conditions, the case is just the opposite. More information generally leads to greater uncertainty. By this, opening an organization up to larger volumes of data threatens to reveal "the terrifying prospect that the world is now so complex that no one really understands its dynamics and that even rational efforts tend to be washed out or misdirected by processes not understood and consequences not anticipated" (Michael, 1995:473). Past experience can also create a cognitive barrier to learning. It structures the way individuals and organizations approach new experiences, and determines what information will be selected for further attention, how it will be interpreted, and what knowledge and skills will be employed in the learning process (Mackeracher, 1995). The problem with past experience is that it is not always relevant to the present context. Sole reliance on past experience in the learning process is not desirable. To summarize what was discussed in this chapter, active learning, or learning from experience, is a practical, pragmatic approach to managing a constantly changing environment. Learning is an invaluable tool for navigating through the complexity and uncertainty that are prevalent in water resources management today. The concept of organizational learning extends many of the principles associated with individual learning to a working collective. While there exist many conceptualizations of the learning process, common amongst all of these is the notion that learning must be an iterative, 82 dynamic process. Effective learning follows an ongoing cycle in which experience informs knowledge and knowledge influences experience. Progressing through the phases of this cycle requires overcoming barriers relating to socio-cultural, emotional, and cognitive constraints. An examination of these barriers suggests that the very circumstances that make a learning orientation to resource management necessary also make it difficult to practice. As more opportunities to learn are uncovered, there are also more difficulties that restrict this from happening. Given this, learning can either be seen as an opportunity or a difficulty (Michael, 1995). The following chapter presents a framework designed by DiBella and Nevis (1998) to evaluate organizational learning that adopts the former approach. 83 Chapter 6 - An Integrated Evaluative Framework for Organizational Learning The dynamic, evolutionary nature of the learning process makes evaluating learning a tremendous challenge. Any evaluation of organizational learning must consider the many variables that influence the learning process. First, learning varies considerably across time and space. As illustrated in the analogy of the creative destruction cycle, phases of learning do not unfold on equal time. Learning rates also vary spatially within and between organizations. Some departments in an organization may be much more open to the learning process than others. Similarly, some organizations are much more open to learning than others. This openness to learning is largely influenced by the structural design of organizations, a second dynamic to be considered in designing organizations. Organizational structure, such as the mechanisms in place for gathering, sharing, and storing information can have a significant influence on the learning process (Schon, 1983). Third, organizational learning is, to a large extent, dependent upon the experiences the organization is exposed to. The nature of an organization's experience will influence the emphasis it places on learning and the nature of that emphasis. For example, i f an organization is involved in many shared decision making processes in which multiple interests are represented, their learning style will likely embody several processes, reflecting the nature of their experience. Fourth, all progress in learning is relative - relative to both the history of learning within the organization and relative to the learning objectives that it seeks to meet. Finally, individuals within an organization have a large influence on the learning process. As discussed in the previous section on barriers to learning, individual attitude towards change can either facilitate or hinder the learning process. Any evaluation of organizational learning must be aware of these dynamics and factor them into any subsequent analyses. Keeping many of these considerations in mind, DiBella and Nevis (1998) have recently developed an evaluative framework for organizational learning. The framework is based upon a series of observations derived from a history of research on organizational learning: 1) all organizations are learning systems; 2) learning conforms to organizational culture; 3) organizations develop individual styles of learning; and 4) learning is facilitated by several generic processes. Drawing upon these common themes, the framework seeks to increase awareness and understanding of the practices that contribute to learning and improved performance within organizations, and to identify means of improving those capabilities. 84 A review of the literature on organizational learning by DiBella and Nevis (1998) suggests that organizational learning theories fall into one of three perspectives: the normative perspective, the developmental perspective, or the capability perspective. The normative perspective assumes that organizational life is not naturally conducive to learning and that learning takes place only under a unique set of specified conditions, also referred to as best practices. These conditions generally relate to organizational structure which, normativists believe, is not naturally conducive to learning. Inducing these conditions, and instigating the learning process generally requires overcoming many of the barriers cited earlier in Chapter 4. Normativists often identify these barriers in terms of disabilities. Amnesia is the term they use to refer to poor organizational memory, paralysis, to an organization's inability to act, and schizophrenia, to a lack of coordination between organizational constituencies. The normative perspective holds that overcoming these disabilities or barriers is best achieved by enhancing the competence of individual members, changing organizational culture, or redesigning organizational structure. The overall objective is to induce transformative change to create learning possibilities where there may have been little or none before. The developmental, perspective suggests that the status of a learning organization can be achieved through a series of stages related to age, size, experience, industry, growth, and life cycles of an organization. By this perspective, organizations become learning organizations through the experience of their life cycles. The learning organization represents the most mature or advanced stage of organizational development. Finally, the capability perspective adopts a pluralistic view of learning, suggesting that there is no single best way to learn, for learning is embedded in organizational culture and structure. As social systems, organizations are, by their very nature, learning environments. Contrary to the developmental perspective, the capability perspective argues that learning and organizations can not be mutually exclusive: "organizations do not become learning organizations because learning is an ongoing process" (italics added) (DiBella and Nevis, 1998:12). The issue when evaluating organizational learning from this perspective is not whether learning takes place, or how organizations can become learning organizations. Rather, the focus is on understanding the learning process - how, where, and what gets learned. The focus here then is not on future possibilities, but on present opportunities and capabilities. While each of these separate perspectives may be appropriate in certain instances, the framework designed by DiBella and Nevis attempts to integrate the positive elements of all three: "the normative 85 perspective creates a sense of urgency and vision and provides a clear path for intervention; the developmental perspective points out how context influences learning and reminds us of the need to learn (and relearn) from the past; the capability perspective uncovers the transparency of the present" (1998:17). The combination of normative, developmental, and capability perspectives meets several key requirements for building organizational learning capacity. These include: 1. the presence of some enhancing factors that promote learning; 2. the presence of a mechanism for change and development of learning styles and capabilities; and 3. the ability to describe how learning takes place. 6.1 Phases of Organizational Learning The framework conceives of organizational learning as a series of three processes which collectively constitute a learning cycle: knowledge acquisition, dissemination, and utilization. These three processes are shown in Figure 6.1. Knowledge acquisition is the process that initiates the learning cycle. Understanding the acquisition of knowledge requires knowing what information is taken on by the organization, the means by which it was introduced (i.e. formally or informally), and the source of the information. As organizations are continually creating new experiences, information is always being acquired, therefore the potential for learning is always present. For the learning cycle to be engaged, however, meaning must be given to the information. This is the process of converting information into knowledge. Once knowledge has been acquired, the next phase in the learning cycle is the dissemination of that knowledge. In understanding this phase, it is useful to distinguish between tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is that gained through personal insight, intuitions, abilities, etc., while explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be shared and communicated. Within organizations, tacit knowledge can quickly become available through both formal (meetings, newsletters, reports, seminars, email etc.) and informal channels (coffee pot conversations, telephone calls, recommended readings, anecdotes etc.) of dissemination. These processes feed the learning cycle. DiBella and Nevis emphasize the importance of maintaining these channels and encouraging the sharing of knowledge within 86 organizations. They recommend that efforts to share knowledge should be recognized as a valuable contribution to the organization. Unless disseminated knowledge is utilized to alter decisions, behaviour, or organizational culture, the learning cycle remains incomplete. Unfortunately, this is often the place where breakdowns in learning occur. Interestingly, while the utilization of knowledge reflects values and preferences, the dissemination of knowledge has the potential to change world views and behaviour. Whether knowledge is used depends ultimately on the relative cost of learning. When that cost is too high, disseminated knowledge will not be used. F I G U R E 6.1 T H E I N T E G R A T E D L E A R N I N G C Y C L E ( D I B E L L A A N D N E V I S , 1998) In addition to understanding the phases of the learning process and how they interact, developing organizational learning capabilities also requires the ability to describe how learning occurs and what gets learned and to evaluate characteristics that promote organizational learning. These two ACQUIRE UTILIZE DISSEMINATE 87 requirements are provided by the two other main components of the evaluative framework: Learning Orientations (LOrs) and Facilitating Factors (FFs). These are both shown in Figure 6.1, in relation to the three phases of the organizational learning cycle. An evaluation based on both of these components together reveals a great deal about an organization's learning capabilities. A n organizations learning capability - what gets learned and to what extent - depends on how the FFs combine with the LOrs of an organization. 6.2 Learning Orientations Learning Orientations describe what is learned by an organization and how. They represent the practices by which knowledge is acquired, disseminated and used. Individually, they help to explain the learning process, and collectively, they define an organization's learning style. LOrs are defined in terms of bipolar continuums of two contrasting styles applied to one critical learning process. The following section briefly explains the seven LOrs established by DiBella and Nevis (1998). 1. Knowledge Source This LOr describes an organization's preference for developing knowledge internally or externally. In essence it isolates the difference between learning by doing (experimentation, adaptation, and innovation) or learning by observation (imitation). DiBella and Nevis suggest that in the business world, Americans are more inclined towards external knowledge sources, while the Japanese have had a lot of success with imitation of external sources of knowledge. 2. Learning Mode Evaluating an organization's learning mode requires considering whether knowledge is generated more through the sharing of information in practical settings (experiential) or through reflective activities and thinking exercises (cognitive). It considers whether knowledge is generated through work in the field, or through desk analysis. 3. Content-Process Focus This LOr distinguishes between a learning process that emphasizes the development of knowledge that focuses on the nature of .services that are provided by an organization and knowledge about how these services are developed or delivered. Often an organization will have a preference for knowledge 88 about the substantive content of management, or the tangible deliverables of the organization over knowledge about how to improve the actual development of these deliverables. A n example of this in water management can be drawn in managing stream bank protection: is the emphasis more on which structures provide the greatest benefit (content), or more on understanding the decision making and planning processes that allow for these structures to be developed (process)? 4. Knowledge Reserve This LOr refers to variations in behaviours and attitudes as the repositories of knowledge. On one end of the LOr continuum, knowledge is seen to be possessed by individuals by virtue of their education and experience. This is the type of knowledge that is lost when someone leaves an organization because it has not been filed in the collective memory of the organization. At the other end of the continuum, knowledge is understood in more objective, social terms, and more of an emphasis is placed on organizational memory. 5. Dissemination Mode Similar to the knowledge reserve, this LOr refers to whether organizational knowledge is induced, evolves and develops through formal or informal modes. With formal dissemination of knowledge, learning is spread through the institutionalization of valuable insights and methods. By informal dissemination, learning is spread through encounters with role models and "gatekeepers" who actualize the insight or method by behaving in a compelling way. Informal learning is really "learning through osmosis". This later approach assumes that learning will be shared i f the learners have an opportunity to interact with each other, and that learning can't be controlled or managed, and any efforts to do so may actually inhibit learning. 6. Learning Scope Knowledge along this continuum focuses either on methods and tools to improve what is already known or practiced, or on knowledge that challenges the assumptions about what is known or practiced. In essence this LOr distinguishes between single loop and double loop learning. DiBella and Nevis describe this as incremental learning versus transformative learning. They suggest that learning can benefit from a combination of these two learning capabilities, " i f an organization is constantly transforming itself it will never settle into predictable, stable performance levels. Incrementalism serves as a reinforce of learning; it is the way skills are honed and polished. Of course, i f the learning investments are all directed toward improving present conditions, the organization limits its ability to 89 envision a possibly better future. Thus the need is to use the approach required at a given time and invest in it" (1998:51). 7. Learning Focus This LOr reflects learning through the development of knowledge pertaining to individual performance as compared to the development of knowledge pertaining to group performance. Recent work in organizational learning suggests that collaborative learning is better for organizational learning and that team skills are desperately needed in organizations. DiBella and Nevis suggest that both approaches are needed for effective organizational learning and that they should be viewed as stylistic choices rather than as normative terms. 6.3 Learning Styles The Learning Orientations listed above combine in various partnerships over time and across organizations to create learning styles. Style is a function of how organizations learn. By combining LOrs in pairs, it is possible to identify distinctive patterns and styles of learning. In effect, learning style represents an organization's acquired learning capabilities. An organization can have multiple learning styles, which, when combined, can have significant synergistic effects. It is important to note that these styles help significantly with indicating what is learned by an organization and how, but they do not evaluate the learning process. 6.4 Facilitating Factors Facilitating Factors (FFs) are the normative elements of the framework; the more each one is present in an organization, the more opportunity is created for learning. The ease and amount of learning depends on the strength of these factors. Collectively, they determine an organization's learning potential. The ten FFs listed below, were developed by DiBella and Nevis (1998) by looking at critical incidents of learning in many different organizations, and then applying them to an assessment of over 50 other organizations. It is important to note that FFs establish learning potential: they are not a guarantee for learning, but i f they are lacking, it is almost certain that the ability of an organization to adapt to a changing environment or engage in collective learning will be drastically reduced. 90 1. Scanning Imperative DiBella and Nevis assert that "sound learning cannot occur without a foundation of enhanced consciousness or a thorough understanding of one's environment" (1998:63). Scanning allows an organization to develop increased awareness, leading to a subsequent increase in learning. It involves more than just borrowing or imitating from other organizations' actions; it is a way of sensing developing problems or opportunities and acting on them early rather than waiting for the problem to fully develop and manifest. Neglect to scan can result in a myopic vision within an organization. The significance of scanning to learning has been identified by others in the learning literature as well. It has been suggested that a basic requirement for organizational learning is the ability to gather and receive information from the surrounding environment: "in order to learn, organizations must be sensitively attuned to the world around them, they must develop a variety of means to gather information and insight, and they must ensure that such information finds its way into the decision-making and planning process" (CCMD, 1994:37). 2. Performance Monitoring This Facilitating Function refers to the shared awareness amongst organizational members that there is a difference between desired performance and actual performance. Understanding Performance Monitoring requires addressing the kind of analysis used to reveal it. There are several barriers to recognizing performance monitoring (which, in turn, inhibits learning): 1) using the wrong indicators to identify critical performance factors; 2) lack of a systems perspective; and 3) a long period of positive performance results may lead to complacency and a resistance to self-examination. Yet identifying Performance Gap is critical to organizational learning. DiBella and Nevis claim that "the potential for learning is proportional to how widely performance gap concerns are shared" (1998:66). They go on to suggest that "awareness of a Performance [Monitoring] - either through analysis of performance shortfalls or a new vision - opens the door to learning by providing the initial awareness that new knowledge needs to be generated or that something needs to be 'unlearned'" (1998:66). 3. Concern for Measurement Measurements provide feedback on organizational performance and are a part of any adaptive learning system. Deciding on the appropriate indicators to be measured and monitored is an important task of any organization. These should be viewed as part of a learning process rather than just for monitoring and control. Who should be involved in determining the measures? What measures are appropriate? Extended consideration of these types of questions affords a way of getting all participants' 91 mental models out in the open. Because measurement is an ongoing process, for which a skill base and body of knowledge likely already exists, it is easier to enhance this Facilitating Factor than some of the others. 4. Organizational Curiosity This Facilitating Factor is indicative of an organization's support for trying new things. "Organizational curiosity fosters an environment in which people are encouraged to try out things on an ongoing basis. If we believe that experience creates learning, it follows that engaging in more kinds of experiences will lead to more learning. Unless the structuring of work at all stages of the value chain is seen as today's experiment or experience gathering, as opposed to "the best way", learning wil l be retarded" (DiBella and Nevis, 1999:68). In many contemporary organizations, punishment for failure stunts curiousity. A learning organization should seek continuous improvement: the way things are done today may not be the way they should be done tomorrow. It is suggested that one of the best ways to develop organizational curiosity may be to adopt a plan for small, evolutionary experiments rather than to contemplate complete revolutionary tryouts. A climate of trust is also critical for an inquisitive organizational culture to develop (Watkins and Marsick, 1993). 5. Climate of Openness This factor relates to the permeability of information boundaries and the degree to which opportunities to observe and participate are open to organization members. Tight controls over information and rules about who participates in problem solving and planning restrict learning opportunities. A greater degree of openness at both formal and informal levels of organizational development affords greater learning. This FF also refers to the freedom afforded to people to speak their mind, express their views, and disagree within the organization. It also incorporates the degree to which mistakes are shared and not hidden. Covering up errors does not foster organizational learning. Improving the climate of openness is a difficult task that requires redefining deeply entrenched assumptions about trust, power, and control. 6. Continuous Education Continuous Education refers to the internalization of a commitment to lifelong learning within all levels of an organization. Such a commitment yields considerable power: "it is all but impossible to accept the notion of knowledge as a competitive weapon without realizing that learning does not end" (DiBella and Nevis, 1998:71). Learning needs to extend beyond the realm of training and development in organizations to affect a wider range of organizational initiatives. This, of course, requires a large 92 commitment of resources. Enhancing such capability requires establishing an environment in which individuals are encouraged to plan and arrange their own learning experiences. 7. Operational Variety This factor demonstrates the idea that there is always more than one way to accomplish work goals. It assumes that an organization that supports variations in strategy, policy, process, structure, and personnel is more adaptable when unforeseen problems arise. Pluralism enhances learning. This is a very important FF because it provides an opportunity to understand the implications and consequences of different ways of working. This principle, in some ways, counters the stability and consistency that has been encouraged in many workplaces since the development of scientific management. The proposition of allowing for a more hospitable learning environment may raise fears of inefficiency. This can be dealt with to some extent by maintaining old ways while introducing the new. 8. Multiple Advocates This factor upholds the theory that "unless a significant number of people act as champions, a developing base of knowledge does not become broadly used.. .The greater the number of advocates who promote a new idea and the greater the number of "gatekeepers" who bring knowledge into the system, the more rapidly and extensively will true organizational learning take place" (DiBella and Nevis, 1998:75). Advocates play the role of "preacher" and role model can emerge from any level within an organization. Often though, respected people at lower levels of management yield more influence because they possess the authority of knowledge, a very real source of power. 9. Involved Leadership Often leaders fail to recognize how important it is for them to be involved in the dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Strong leadership that drives the acquisition of knowledge sets a definitive tone about what is important to learn. Merely creating a vision is not enough: "for truly assimilated, actionable learning to occur, leaders need to be early developers and students of the knowledge.. ..At any level of an organization, it makes a huge difference i f those in leadership positions can demonstrate that they have learned what they want others to learn" (DiBella and Nevis, 1998:76). This approach goes against the detached stance that many managers take. The significance of leadership in the success of organizational learning is highlighted in much of the supporting literature. Most authors note that leaders are a key source of learning, and that they serve as a role model, a teacher, and a facilitator in the learning process (CCMD, 1994). 93 10. Systems Perspective A lack of a systems perspective in an organization is a barrier to dissemination and utilization of knowledge. A systems perspective facilitates learning by enabling organizations to expect the unanticipated consequences that are inherent in complex processes. A requisite part of this FF is to adopt long term perspective. Staff must be able to recognize the relationships among processes, structures, and actions. This FF is commonly lacking in many organizations. 6.5 Learning Profiles Learning Orientations, and Facilitating Factors identify important structures, processes and characteristics that influence what is learned and how. Together, they form the building blocks that describe the learning system and its unique profile. A learning profile is essentially a "snapshot" of the current learning situation within an organization. While a learning style is determined by LOrs only, a learning profile is determined by both LOrs and FFs. In the profile, LOrs are measured in terms of polar categories that are the ends of a continuum. This reflects the descriptive nature of these elements and the notion that each end of the continuum is desirable under different circumstances. In keeping with the normative nature of FFs, these are measured in terms of how much of the element is present or practiced within the organization. The learning profile represents an effective tool or strategy for building organizational learning capabilities. Once the profile has been developed, organizations are then able to identify specific elements on which to focus and improve its capabilities depending on their given needs (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). The framework presented in this chapter supports the claim made in Chapter Five that organizational learning is an inherently dynamic process which cycles through three main phases: knowledge acquisition, dissemination, and utilization. Organizational learning style varies across both time and space and in accordance with an organization's structure, history, and specific learning objectives. Beyond these variables however, the framework suggests that there are several common elements that facilitate an evaluation of organizational learning: 1. A l l organizations are learning systems. 2. Learning conforms to organizational culture. 3. Organizations have individual learning styles. 94 4. Learning is facilitated by several generic processes. DiBella and Nevis' evaluative framework is comprised of both descriptive and normative elements. Together, the Learning Orientations, which illustrate both what is learned and how, and the Facilitating Factors, or characteristics which promote learning, combine to create an organizational learning profile, or a snapshot of learning within the organization. This profile can be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of an organization's current learning capacity and future potential. The framework, as presented in this chapter, was used in this research to evaluate the learning capacity and potential of the Ministry of Environment Land's and Parks' Water Management Program, the results of which are discussed in Chapter Nine. Prior to presenting these results, I elaborate on the research methods employed in this research, and the case studies to which the methods were applied in Chapters Seven and Eight. 95 Chapter 7 - Research Methods 7.1 Research Design Research methods always impose a specific perspective on reality (Berg, 1998). That perspective, characterized by the assumptions and intent of the researcher, is invariably reflected in research design. One of the key assumptions that guides the research of this thesis is the belief that learning is a continual, naturally occurring process inherent in all organizations and the individuals that comprise organizations. In support of this assumption, this research was designed to document what the Water Management Program has learned about I W R M through their involvement in LRMPs and how that learning is occurring, and to demonstrate through an evaluation of the organization's current learning system, how their learning capacity can be enhanced. The power of policy-related research to influence the policy process has been scrutinized in the literature on research methods. While one might hope that well conducted research might effect change in policy development, Ray Rist (1994) argues that this hope is naively misguided. He asserts that the recent proliferation of policy research and analysis has become centrifugal, spinning off multitudes of methodologies and conceptual frameworks that only contribute to greater complexity, uncertainty, and conflict in the decision-making process. This phenomenon is a result of a misconception of decision-making in policy development. Contrary to popular belief, decision-making is not a discrete event, and research is but one of many influences on the process. Rist argues that i f research is to contribute to informed decision- making and potentially effect policy change, decision-making must be reconceived as a process. By this understanding, research serves to enlighten, not engineer; researchers create contextual understanding about issues and build linkages that serve over time to educate decision makers. Based on this understanding, the research in this thesis was designed with the intent to contribute new ways of conceiving and enhancing IWRM. It is hoped that the results and conclusions that emerge herein might illuminate new options and opportunities for those in decision making positions in water resources management and planning. Robert Y i n (1989) suggests that there are five key elements to research design: study questions, study propositions, units of analysis, logic linking the data to the propositions, and criteria for interpreting findings. Each of these elements has been developed with careful consideration of the 96 subjective nature of the learning process. What represents learning to one person, may be second-nature to another. Success with learning is also subjective. For this reason, it was decided that the research design needed to be flexible and accommodating of the need for change when and where necessary. Flexibility has been incorporated into what Huberman and Miles (1994) term a "loose" research design. Loose research designs are inductively oriented, and work especially well with unfamiliar and complex subjects. Finally, in designing the research, it was also important that the research itself represent a learning experience - for both the participants and myself. In seeking to better understand learning, a process that is often taken for granted, the research design has adopted an exploratory approach over an expository one. 7.2 Research Paradigm Typically, learning is most often evaluated quantitatively by the assignment of grades. The quantitative research paradigm seeks to uncover the uniformities of social life and render such uniformities into precise, numeric forms that lend themselves to formulae, and experimentation. Quantitative findings, drawn from standardized measures that fit diverse opinions and experiences into predetermined categories, are broad and generalizable (Orum et al., 1991). The qualitative research paradigm, on the other hand, seeks to understand the richness of social practices to a greater depth, and record such action through a more complex set of interpretive categories. "Instead of adopting a set of standardized questions and categories with which to characterize...social action, the qualitative researcher wishes to permit as much flexibility into the judgments made about the world as possible" (Orum, 1991:23). The qualitative paradigm does not assume a world of uniformity and simplicity, rather it assumes that research methods operate within a world of complexity and plurality (Ibid). Many common threads link the wide assortment of methods that are contained within the qualitative research paradigm (Gubrium and Holstein, 1997). First amongst these is a working skepticism, which motivates the research. Qualitative research questions popular understanding, and seeks to shake conventional appraisals often arrived at through quantitative methods. Second, qualitative research maintains a commitment to close scrutiny, coming into direct contact with the subjects of the study. Such scrutiny allows for a detailed understanding of social life to emerge through the research. 97 This concern for details also allows the qualitative researcher to pay strict attention to the "qualities" of experience which are most often neglected in quantitative research. This trait is premised on the belief that a good understanding of the qualities of the world are required prior to attempting to explain, predict, or modify it. Fourth, qualitative research focuses on process, perceiving the world as "fluid and elastic" (Gubrium and Holstein, 1997:12). The assumption that people are active agents of their own affairs leads qualitative researchers to focus on how actors participate in, construct, and experience life. The qualitative paradigm also recognizes the subjective as an integral feature of social life. Although this subjectivity is often criticized for being unsubstantiated- by rigorous research procedures, the "reluctance to standardize data collection and unwillingness to sacrifice depth for generality are matters of analytic necessity, not technical inadequacies. A world comprised of meanings, interpretations, feelings, talk and interaction must be scrutinized on its own terms" (ibid.: 13). Finally, qualitative research, oriented to uncover the intricacies of human interaction and circumstance, exhibits a high tolerance for complexity. This study was founded primarily on qualitative research methods. A l l methods, discussed in section 6.4, were applied to multiple case studies of I W R M within completed LRMPs. The appropriateness of the qualitative paradigm to this study is based on several factors: 1. Learning is rooted in human activity and behaviour. It is only logical that the research design allows for detailed exploration of human subjects and their perception of learning in a natural setting. 2. The evaluation of learning is ultimately a subjective process. Subjectivity is inherently recognized in all qualitative research methods. 3. I W R M has not been formally evaluated from a learning perspective before. This is a new approach to a well known subject. Qualitative research is well suited for uncovering the unexpected and exploring new avenues (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). 4. The quality of qualitative research "lies in the power of its language to display a picture of the world in which we discover something about ourselves and our common humanity" (Silverman, 1997:19). This quality enables the research itself to become a mutual learning experience. 98 Case studies are a qualitative research approach that incorporate many data gathering techniques (Berg, 1998). As objects of study bounded by time, place, and activity, they allow for the collection of rich, detailed, in-depth information (Stake, 1994). Other benefits of case studies relevant to this study include the following: 1. They help to ground theoretical observations about social constructs in natural settings (Orum et al., 1991) 2. They allow for both temporal and historical elements of research to be uncovered and linked to social practice (Orum et al., 1991). 3. They provide information from a variety of sources, facilitating a more holistic research perspective (Sjoberg et al.,1991) 4. They are useful for capturing differences in one issue from one program experience to another (Patton, 1987). 5. They are an effective means of tracing changes over time (Yin, 1989). Case study research has also been identified as a means of promoting systems thinking - one of the principles woven throughout this thesis (Vaill, 1996). As a research method, it follows an iterative and interactive stream of decisions, focusing attention on the whole. Case study research "forces the investigator to wonder, 'what is related to what?' - to wonder about connectedness and about causality. The investigator discovers that system "elements" are not conveniently scattered about, like jigsaw pieces waiting to be assembled into the "right" picture" (Vaill, 1996: 116). For the learning audience of the thesis, it is hoped that "even when a case study does not contain all the information a learner would want, it gets the learner thinking about the whole picture as it concretely exists, and this is the crucial prerequisite to systems thinking" (Ibid: 115). This research evaluates learning within I W R M across six collective case studies. Collective case studies are comprised of a selection of instrumental case studies, or cases examined to provide insight or refine theoretical explanation (Berg, 1998, Stake, 1994). It has been theorized that research that follows a multiple case study design is often more robust and capable of rendering more compelling evidence (Yin, 1989). The selection of multiple cases is intended to allow for a rich understanding of the qualities of learning and the ability to theorize about learning in I W R M across both time and space. This objective is supported by the observation that "the best way to learn...is by a method of case-based presentations which treats a content domain as a landscape that is explored by "criss-crossing" it in many directions, by reexamining each case 'site' in the varying contexts of different neighbouring cases, and 99 by using a variety of abstract dimensions for comparing cases" (Spiro et al., 1978, quoted in Stake, 1994:178). The case study landscape referred to in this quotation is composed of both existing and potential knowledge of both the researcher and the subjects of the research. In addition to the qualitative methods applied to the case study, a semi-quantitative research approach was also used in the form of a short survey administered to all participants, as explained in section 6.4.2. Based on the evaluation framework described in Chapter Five, the survey was designed to supplement and substantiate data gathered from qualitative methods. 7.3 Research Methodology not only are methods the most unremarkable aspect of interpretive work, but a focus on methods often masks a full understanding of the relationship between method and inquiry purpose Before detailing the specific research methods applied to the collective case studies, it is important to frame these methods within a broader methodological context. Many sources in the literature on research methods emphasize the requirement that all epistemological assumptions should be made transparent in qualitative research (Berg, 1998, Huberman and Miles, 1994, Altheide and Johnson, 1994). As, "data gathering is not distinct from theoretical orientations", methods cannot be explained in a vacuum (Berg, 1997:4). This next section explains the nested epistemological influences that have shaped the design of this research. Figure 7.1 illustrates the various elements discussed herein in relation to each other. (Schwandt, 1994118-119). Research Paradigm Research Method (Ethnomethodology) Research Orientation Culture of Inquiry F I G U R E 7.1 - N E S T E D R E S E A R C H A P P R O A C H 100 Benz and Shapiro assert that all research must be contained within a "culture of inquiry", defined as a general approach to studying and conceiving the world, or a type of inquiry based upon a specific epistemological paradigm. (1998:87). To conduct research without situating it in a "culture of inquiry" is likened to explaining where you come from by your nationality, without mentioning the city or town in which you live. While there is no single correct culture of inquiry, it is important that the chosen culture be transparent in the research (Ibid). This study was undertaken within the culture of phenomenological inquiry, a collection of methods used to obtain knowledge about how people think and feel. Described as a "sort of intellectual X-ray vision", phenomenology attempts to move beyond ideas that are sometimes taken for granted, and "get behind the experiences of everyday life to look at their inner structure and how the mind makes them what they are" (Benz and Shapiro, 1998:7). It focuses on individual people in order to understand phenomena in their own terms, attempting to bring the researcher as close to the actual experience as possible. Within the phenomenological culture of inquiry, the research was guided by a constructivist orientation. Constructivism guides research by the premise that "to understand this world of meaning one must interpret it" (Schwandt, 1994:118). Constructivists focus on the world of experience. They are deeply committed to the view that "what we take to be objective knowledge and truth is the result of perspective" and that "knowledge and truth are created, not discovered"(Ibid). They emphasize the idea that concepts, models and schemes are developed to help make sense of experience and that these constructions are continually tested and modified in the light of new experience. This constructivist understanding of the way by which we come to understand the world closely parallels many elements of social learning theory. Ethnomethodology is a collection of constructivist research methods founded on the belief that "reality is accomplished, rather than merely experienced" (Gubrium and Holstein, 1997:38). It interprets socially constructed realities to be a product of social practices. At the heart of this type of research is a deep concern for the ordinary, everyday practices that people undertake to construct, manage, and sustain their social reality. It seeks to make the taken-for-granted, in this case, learning, into a research problem. As a research method, ethnomethodology is especially attuned to communicative activity, believing that "conversation is the machinery of reality construction" (Ibid: 8). Due to this interactional focus, listening 101 is emphasized as an important skill of the ethnomethodologist. The next section elaborates in greater detail the specific research methods that were utilized to gather data. 7.4 Research Methods 7.4.1 Interviews Interviews are generally recognized as one of the most effective and important sources of information in case study research. This is primarily because case studies focus on human affairs, and interviews bring the researcher into contact with the people who construct those human affairs (Yin, 1989). Several strengths of the interviewing process are cited in the literature. Included here is the observation that it allows for a large amount of data to be collected quickly, and clarified and expanded upon immediately (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). As well, interviews allow a researcher to enter into another person's world and uncover rich perspectives that contribute to an understanding of the research question. By this, interviews add "an inner perspective to outward behaviours" (Patton, 1987:109). On approval from the U B C Ethics Committee, a total of thirteen telephone interviews were conducted with M E L P employees involved with each of the six L R M P case studies. Interviews were held with the M E L P table representative for each of the six case studies. The remaining interviews were held with Water Management staff who had been involved with one of the case study LRMPs to varying degrees. These respondents were identified with the assistance of the table representatives. A l l interviews were lead by the researcher and writer of this thesis who holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Physical Geography, and has completed all course requirements for a Masters in Planning. On average, interviews took an hour to complete. With the permission of each interviewee, interviews were recorded on audio tape, and subsequently transcribed. A l l transcribed interviews were forwarded to respondents prior to analysis for confirmation and any necessary elaboration or clarification. "Creative interviewing" was the primary research method employed to collect data relating to the collective case studies. Creative interviewing involves the use of many strategies and tactics of interaction intended to optimize cooperative, mutual disclosure of information (Foddy, 1995). The technique was developed in recognition of the fact that the actual interview situation has a large influence on the data obtained. Foddy, drawing on an analogy developed by Douglas (1985), likens creative interviewing to swimming with the current in a rip tide. He suggests that "you can't beat the reality of human nature and the communication processes that flow from that nature, so you might as 102 well understand them and then work with them to triumph over ignorance and falsehood" (1995:xi). A semi-standardized interview format was adopted to complement the creative interviewing approach. Beyond the predetermined questions that are asked systematically and consistently to all interviewees, this design allows for other areas of interest to be pursued as they arise (Berg, 1998). It is a style which allowed the researcher to approach the world from the subjects' perspective (Ibid), and afforded an effective balance between efficiency and flexibility in the research. A wide range of sociological, psychological and linguistic variables is cited in the literature as being capable of influencing the interviewing process. Many of these were taken into consideration when designing the interview questions. First, based on the understanding that responses are invariably influenced by the format of questions, the interviews were comprised of open-ended questions (Yin, 1989). While closed questions tend to limit response options, open-ended questions allow respondents to say what is really on their mind without being influenced by suggestions presented by the researcher. As well, by requiring respondents to develop their own responses, open-ended questions are a better indication of the salient issues related to the research problem, the respondent's level of information on these issues, and their feelings and opinions about them (Foddy, 1995). Interview questions were also formatted to facilitate the creation of a shared sense of understanding in the interviews. Careful consideration of the influence that language and terminology can have on interview responses resulted in the use of very precise language (Fontana and Frey, 1994). Care was taken to word questions in such a way that would help to motivate respondents, and allow for honest responses. While some qualitative research requires respondents to define terms for themselves, clear definitions and clarification of terminology was provided to respondents in order to ensure consistent interpretations across the collective case studies. This strategy is based on the postulation that "only when respondents have a proper understanding of why each question is being asked wil l they be in a position to consciously formulate answers that are directed at the researcher's needs. Of equal importance, only when all respondents define the situation in the same way, will they give answers that can be meaningfully compared" (Yin, 1989:73). Several specific strategies were incorporated into the interviewing process. The first of these was the use of different types of questions in order to draw out the most complete story from the interviewees (Berg, 1998). Three types of questions were used in the interviews: 1) throw away questions, which served as ice-breakers to develop a rapport between the researcher and the interviewee 103 near the beginning of the interview; 2) essential questions, which concerned the central focus of the study and are geared toward uncovering specifics; and 3) non-directional probing questions, which encouraged interviewees to expand on their responses to the initial essential questions. A second strategy focused on the sequencing of the questions. Interviews began with non-controversial, non-threatening questions that require minimal recall and interpretation. These questions were intended to draw the respondent into the interview and make them feel comfortable. These were followed by more interpretive questions that inquired about opinions, feelings, and actions. The rationale for the placement of these types of questions is that by this stage in the interview respondents had already stimulated some memories of their experience with LRMPs, therefore accounts of the experience in question were more accurate. The final category of questions in the sequence related specifically to knowledge and skills learned through the respondents' involvement with LRMPs . (Patton, 1987). Overall, the interviews went very smoothly. Generally, the concepts and objectives of the research were well understood by the participants of the study. People were quite willing to talk about their experience with their L R M P , and to share their thoughts, impressions, and ideas. Applying the principles of learning to a land use planning process was perceived by some as a bit of a conceptual stretch, however with persistence, it was eventually received and accepted as a valid form of inquiry. Several interviewees remarked positively that the interview had provided them with the opportunity to reflect on the experience from a different perspective and in doing so, illuminated new revelations. 7.4.2 Survey A brief semi-quantitative survey (Appendix 6), based on the descriptive and normative elements of the evaluative framework discussed in Chapter 6, was distributed by fax to all of the interviewees subsequent to the interviews. A l l respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which identified Learning Orientations and Facilitating Factors are practiced both within Water Management as an organization and specifically in Water Management's approach to managing water resources through their involvement in LRMPs. The purpose of the survey was twofold. First, it was intended to check and confirm the essence of the responses gathered in the interviews. Second, it was designed to identify specific areas where the organization may be weak in the learning process. The identification of these weak areas helped to generate recommendations on how to build organizational learning capacity within 104 Water Management. Surveys are an appropriate research method to use for the purpose of learning about the distribution of characteristics, attitudes, or beliefs. They are also good for obtaining a small amount of information from a large number of people (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). 7.4.3 Documents and Plans Prior to the commencement of the interviews, completed plans for each of the L R M P case studies were examined to gain an impression of the ways in which water resources have been integrated into the final plans. In the case of the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P , and the Kalum L R M P which are still ongoing, documents concerning water resources that have been prepared for the planning process were used instead of a completed plan. Review of these documents was designed to reveal both the types of water resources that are integrated into LRMPs and the style of the objective statements by which they are integrated. These findings are summarized in the tables of Appendix 3. Written material relating to the case study is a valuable, unobtrusive source of information that does not depend on participant involvement, and is therefore less susceptible to biased perceptions (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). As well, this research method has been identified as an important means of corroborating and augmenting evidence gathered from other sources (Yin, 1989). 7.5 Use of Data Sources and Analysis Qualitative data is traditionally interpreted through inductive analysis, in which the research question is repeatedly examined and modified through cycles of questions and answers (Huberman and Miles, 1994). Often this cycling involves a mix of inductive and deductive analyses: a theme will be identified inductively, and then confirmed through deductive methods. The results of such interpretive cycling are generally perceived as being "valid", or reasonable (Ibid). The evaluative framework, developed in Chapter Five, was applied to the data gathered through interviews, the survey, and document review, in order to generate an assessment of the overall learning potential of M E L P ' s Water Management Program. This was achieved through comparative cross-case analysis, a research approach which looks at each case study separately and then teases out configurations within each one and subjects them to comparative analysis in which similarities and systematic associations are identified with regard to the principle research questions (Huberman and Miles, 1994). Themes identified in the evaluative framework helped to identify patterns for coding in the 105 analysis process (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). Cross-case analysis has been observed to extend external validity in qualitative research, a concept discussed in greater detail in the next section. Huberman and Miles (1994) assert that looking at multiple actors in multiple settings enhances the generalizability of the research, as each configuration can be considered a replication of the process or question under study. That said, careful attention was paid to reconcile the particular and the universal, and thus avoid the problem of overgeneralizing the collective data to a point where the conclusions may not apply to any single case (Ibid). Traditionally, qualitative research methods allow theories to emerge from the collected data. This process is widely referred to as "grounded theory" (Denzin, 1994). Theory in this thesis adopts a more directional role. Both social learning theory and I W R M theory were developed early in the research and together have guided the development of the research design, the creation of the analytical framework, and the subsequent analysis of the data gathered in the collective case studies. While the analytical framework does impose some patterns onto the study prior to primary data collection, it served only as a general guide throughout the research process, and indeed the interviews and survey results imposed minor modifications onto the framework. By the organic nature of its development, the analytical framework represents what is known as a "theory in development" (Cresswell, 1994:96). This use of theory in qualitative research is supported by others in the literature. Marshall and Rossman (1995) advise that qualitative inquiries should be guided by systematic considerations such as existing theory and empirical research. These help to bring the research question into focus and raise it to a more general level. Understanding of these theories is subsequently furthered through revisions and modifications that are demanded by the emergent qualitative data. 7.6 Data Verification Data verification entails checking for the common or insidious biases that can influence research conclusions (Huberman and Miles, 1994). The research methods described above were designed with two primary considerations in mind: 1) the contribution they would make to the soundness of the study; and 2) their usefulness to the conceptual framework and research question (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). Traditionally, soundness, or the "truth value" (Ibid: 143) of a study has been determined by two key concepts: validity and reliability. 106 Citing the work of Lincoln and Guba (1985), Marshall and Rossman argue that these terms, which originated within the conventional positivist paradigm, are not appropriate constructs for validating qualitative inquiry. Their position is based on the belief that qualitative research is not replicable because "the real world changes" (Marshall and Rossman, 1995:146). Instead, they offer alternative criteria which incorporate these terms and better reflect the qualitative paradigm. The first consideration for sound research put forth by Lincoln and Guba (1985) concerns credibility. Was the research conducted in such a way that ensures that the subject was accurately identified and described? This criterion aligns with the concept of internal validity, or the accuracy of the information. Marshall and Rossman (1995) assert that the exploratory and descriptive nature of qualitative research contributes a great deal to the credibility of the research. Credibility of the research in this study was enhanced through the use of triangulation, or the use of multiple methods, theories, and sources of evidence to reduce variance in collected data (Yin, 1989). Triangulation is essentially a "recognition that the evaluator needs to be more open to more than one way of looking" at things (Patton, 1987:61). It helps to clarity meaning in research by identifying the different ways a specific phenomenon is seen (Stake, 1994) and increases the depth of understanding a study can yield (Berg, 1998). Across the collective case studies, methodological triangulation (interviews, survey, and document review), data source triangulation (multiple interviews within each of the collective case studies), and theoretical triangulation (social learning theory, systems theory, I W R M theory) were used. A second soundness criterion examines the transferability of the data. How applicable are the findings to cases outside of the research scope? This term replaces the traditional construct of external validity, which examines the generalizablity of the research. Often transferability/generalizability is problematic in qualitative studies due to the subjective nature of the human element that is such an integral part of the research. It is suggested that by keeping methods transparent through the use of records, and a strong theoretical framework, other researchers can determine for themselves whether or not generalizations across to their own research are possible. Based on the observation that data from different sources helps to corroborate, elaborate, and illuminate research, triangulation of data sources was also used to enhance transferability (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). Dependability, is the third criterion. Does the research account for changing conditions in the study topic as well as changes in the research design created by a refined understanding of the setting? Marshall and Rossman emphasize that the concept of dependability is very different from that of 107 reliability: "the positivist notions of reliability assume an unchanging universe where inquiry could, quite logically, be replicated. This assumption of an unchanging world is in direct contrast to the qualitative/interpretative assumption that the social world is always being constructed, and the concept of replication itself is problematic" (1995:145). The final construct, confirmability, attempts to ensure that research findings could be confirmed by someone else. While similar to the positivist requirement of objectivity confirmability emphasizes the integrity of the data itself, rather than requiring the researcher to be unrealistically objective in their interpretation. Recognizing that qualitative research will always be shaped by the subjectivity of the researcher, confirmability asks the data help to confirm the general findings and lead to the stated implications (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). Efforts to ensure confirmability of the research results were included by conducting a pilot run of the interview, regularly searching for alternative interpretations of the data, and subjecting analyses to second opinions. 108 Chapter 8 - Case Studies: Land and Resource Management Planning 8.1 Policy Background In order to develop a more practical understanding of some of the issues encountered in I W R M and lessons learned from such experiences, this thesis focuses on six collective case studies of Land and Resource Management Plans within B.C. It should be noted that all six cases are situated on mainland B C , and not on Vancouver Island where several innovative approaches to water resources planning have been adopted. Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) is a Provincial policy developed under the Provincial Land Use Strategy that is intended to provide strategic management direction for all Crown land including Provincial forests and Crown aquatic land. Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) constitute the sub-regional component within the Provincial land use planning policy hierarchy, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. Guided by provincial policies and approved regional plans, they provide direction for more detailed operational planning and a context for local government planning. LRMPs are intended to develop broad resource management objectives and strategies to be applied to the land for a period of up to ten years. The boundaries of LRMPs are largely based on Provincial forest districts, with each planning area encompassing 15,000 to 25,000 square kilometres. The emergence of L R M P policy in 1993 was the result of a steady evolution of land use planning policy in British Columbia. Provincial land use planning policy dating back to the early 1980s can be traced through a series of policies including Timber Supply Area Planning, Resource Management Area Planning, Forest Land Management, and finally, Land and Resource Management Planning. The development of these policies is charted in Appendix 1. During the course of this evolution the responsibility for coordination and management of land use policy has shifted from the Ministry of Forests (MOF), to joint coordination with M O F and the Ministry of Environment, to the Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO). Over the course of its transition, land use policy has become more pluralistic, more participative, and more integrative. These changes have been a result of the interaction of environmental, social, economic, and political factors, originating both from within and outside of the policy arena. On a broader level, the policy evolution can be seen to have been a result of a progressive learning process; a process which has been responsive to social values, ecological realities, and institutional constraints. The phenomenon of policy evolution has been well documented in the literature 109 on policy development. It has been suggested that "it is impossible to find either the beginning or the end of most public policies. Policies should be seen as involving a relatively constant flow rather than ever being firmly established" (Kernegham and Siegel, 1995). Today, LRMPs are multi-stakeholder processes which follow a consensus-based decision making model. While each process is unique in the issues it addresses and the participants involved, they are all characterized by the same guiding principles, as set out by the B C Round Table on the Environment and Economy and CORE's Provincial Land Use Charter: sustainable land use, integrated management, shared decision making, and public participation. These key principles of LRMPs are designed to be consistent with the concepts of sustainability and integrated management (Province of B C , 1993). A total of 18 LRMPs are either completed or underway in British Columbia, and it is expected that the first complete round of LRMPs will have been completed in the province by 2002. A total of 40 LRMPs are scheduled to be undertaken in British Columbia (LUCO, 1998). Most processes take a minimum of two years to be completed, while some have lasted as many as five. 8.2 Case Study Background Six case studies of LRMPs were undertaken in this research. The case studies are distributed across both northern and southern reaches of the province, in the Kamloops, Prince George, and Prince Rupert management regions, as is shown in the map of Figure 8.1. It is important to note that in each case study, water resource interests were brought to the planning table by the one representative from M E L P . This individual was also responsible for representing all other resource interests associated with the Ministry. With the exception of the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P , and the Fort St. John L R M P , all M E L P table representatives were employees of Fish and Wildlife. The background of each of these cases is discussed in turn below. 110 REGIONAL PLANS SUBREGIONAL PLANS -PRINCE GEORGE REGION A. Vancouver Island 1. Fort Nelson 5. Fort St. James B. Cariboo Chilcotin 2. Fort St. John 6. Vanderhoof C. West Kootenay Boundary 3. Dawson Creek 7. Mackenzie D. East Kootenay 4. Prince George 8. Robson Valley KAMLOOPS REGION PRINCE RUPERT REGION 15. Kalum 16. Kispiox 17. Lakes 18. Queen Charlotte Islands FIGURE 8.1 MAP OF LRMPs IN BRITISH COLUMBIA (LUCO, 1998A) 111 8.2.1 Kamloops Region Kamloops LRMP The Kamloops L R M P was the first L R M P to be approved by Cabinet in 1996. The planning region, which covers more than 2.2 million hectares lies wholly within the Thompson Nicola Regional District. It also encompasses the Kamloops and Clearwater Forest Districts as well as the Kamloops Timber Supply Area. Physically, the Kamloops region is characterized by great contrasts, with dry, hot grasslands in the south, and wet and rugged peaks of the Monashee and Cariboo mountains in the north. Waterways are an integral part of the Thompson Valley landscape. Two distinct economic areas characterized the region. The Kamloops area, which has about 91% of the region's total population, has a relatively diversified economy. The service sector is the largest employer (38% of the total labour force). Non-urban areas are dominated by forestry and mining. The North Thompson Area is dominated by forestry related activity, as well as tourism and agriculture. The Kamloops plan was developed by a team of about 40 stakeholders representing business, agriculture, labour, forestry, mining, environment, recreation, and tourism. It is now in the implementation stages and a Monitoring Report is being produced which evaluates the progress the implementation of projects and compliance activities identified in the L R M P Implementation Plan. Okanagan Shuswap LRMP The Okanagan-Shuswap L R M P was initiated in February, 1996 and is still ongoing. As one of the LRMPs undertaken more recently, this process is progressing through the utilization of resource Working Groups. Management objectives for water resources are being developed by the Water Working Group which is comprised of several individuals from the regional Water Management office as well as individuals from the regional water utilities. Until very recently, the M E L P representative for the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P worked within Planning and Assessment and had a solid background in Water Management. Presently the planning table is negotiating management objectives and strategies in their assigned Working Groups. A draft plan is expected to be ready for this spring. The plan area covers 2.17 million hectares. Water is a critical component of the region's ecosystems. Two major water systems run through the region: the Shuswap system flowing into the Fraser River and the Okanagan system, flowing into the Columbia River. The region is known for its semi-arid climate, caused by a shielding effect of the Coast Mountains. Precipitation generally increases 112 from south to north, and virtually all net runoff originates from accumulated winter snowpack at higher elevations. Most water use in the area relies on surface water, which is allocated by the Water Management Program of the M E L P through the Provincial water licensing system. At present, 6,900 licenses have been administered in the region, and there is no longer considered to be water available for additional licensing in the region. Water management issues in the Okanagan-Shuswap relate directly to two dominant factors: limited water supply and an increasing population with multiple demands on the resource. While water quantity in the region fluctuates from year to year, supply issues are generally more of a concern in southern reaches of the region., where annual precipitation drops to 300mm/yr. There are limited opportunities to increase available supply of water in the Okanagan system, largely due to constraints imposed throughout the year through an agreement between B C and Washington, providing for minimum cross border flows for downstream fisheries. In conjunction with limited supply, all indicators are that the Okanagan population will continue to grow and with it, demand for water. Already, competition for the available supply is steep. Main consumptive demands are for irrigation and for waterworks, including domestic and the main instream demand is to support the fisheries resource. Balancing these demands with maintaining adequate flows in streams to protect instream values and promoting water conservation is a continual challenge to water managers in the Okanagan-Shuswap (OSLRMP, 1996). 8.2.2 Prince George Region Prince George LRMP The Prince George L R M P area, which totals 3.4 million hectares, falls within the Prince George Forest District. The plan addresses a diverse landscape ranging from dry rolling plateaus in the south and west, to wet foothills and mountainous terrain in the north and east. Major rivers that traverse the landscape include the Fraser, Nechako, McGregor, Bowron, Crooked, and Parsnip. The large watersheds feeding these rivers were used to sub-divide the planning area into smaller geographical units called Resource Units. In 1991 the population of the L R M P region was 83, 529, with 75,065 people residing in the city of Prince George. The region is considered to be an international centre of forestry, and the forest industry constitutes 32% of the basic sector employment, providing work in harvesting, processing, 113 value-added labour, pulp and paper, and silviculture. The Prince George L R M P began in December, 1992 when an invitation in the planning process was extended to over 300 tenure holders, community groups, local governments and First Nations Bands. The plan was ratified by the L R M P table in April , 1998 and is currently proceeding through the Provincial approval process (LUCO, 1999). Fort St. John L R M P This plan, which falls within the boundaries of the Fort St. John Forest District, applies to one of the largest sub-regional planning areas in the province, covering approximately 4.6 million hectares -an area equivalent to half the size of Vancouver Island! Geographically, the region is divided into two distinct areas by the Alaska Highway: the rugged Rocky Mountain foothills to the west, and the flatter Alberta Plateau to the east. The Peace River forms the southern boundary of the region. Water resources are found in two main physiographic regions of the planning area: the Western Cordillera and the Interior Plain. Natural springs are common in the southern part of the region and serve as a source of community water supply. Groundwater reserves are scarce and their use is limited to domestic water supply. Water use is dominated by communities, oil and gas industries, and a pulp mill . Economically, the region, whose population of 26, 000 constitutes 1 % of the provincial work force, is largely supported by oil and gas exploration. Energy development is the largest economic sector in the area in terms of employment, followed by agriculture and forestry. Initiated in 1993, the Fort St. John L R M P was officially approved by Cabinet in October 1997. Presently the plan is being implemented by the Interagency Planning Team which is developing a "Workplan and Activities" document to help guide this stage of the planning process. Fort St. James L R M P The Fort St. James L R M P addresses 3.17 million hectares of land in north-central B.C. The planning area extends 500km North West from Fort St. James to encompass part of the headwaters of the Skeena, Fraser, and Peace Rivers. To the East, the region is bounded by the Omineca Mountains and by the Skeena Mountains and the Nechako Plateau to the West. The area is best known for its series of lakes and rivers, which are highly valued for tourism, recreation, and transportation. Water resources in the plan area form part of three watersheds: the Skeena and the Fraser, which drain into the Pacific Ocean, and the Nation Lake/Omineca system, which flows to the Arctic Ocean. Water quality issues in the plan area focus on lakeshore development, impacts of recreational activity, water pollution, and the 114 effects of surface erosion and sediment transport into water courses. Approximately 4,000 people are residents to this area, most of whom are employed in forestry (46%), public services, agriculture, tourism, and mining (Province of B C , 1998). The Fort St. James L R M P was recently approved by Cabinet in March, 1999. Prince Rupert Region Kalum LRMP The Kalum L R M P , in North Western B C is addressing a land base of 1.8 million hectares. Within this area, the landscape is dominated by the rugged Coastal Mountains, many fjords, and salmon bearing streams. The Skeena River flows through the centre of the region, and the Naas River constitutes its northern boundary. Three noteworthy lakes are also of important consideration in this region: Lava Lake, Kitsumkalum Lake, and Lakelse Lake. Terrace, with a population of 21,000 is the largest community in the region. Employment is primarily divided between the public sector (29%), forestry (25%), mining for Alcan in Kitimat (19%). Some people are also employed through the significant backcountry tourism and recreational opportunities in the region. The Kalum L R M P is a two phase plan. The first phase began in 1991 (earlier than most areas) with the formation of a local Community Resource Board. This part of the plan only addressed the Kalum Timber Supply Area, which accounts for less than one third of the planning area. Phase Two, which began in September 1996, is being undertaken by a formal L R M P table. It is addressing two other Tree Farm Licences which were not part of Phase One and developing a strategic plan for this area. The work of both Phases will eventually be integrated into one comprehensive land use plan for the region, hopefully before the end of this century (LUCO, 1999). 8.3 Preliminary Research Findings Prior to the commencement of this study, two research projects were undertaken by the author to investigate two of the critical theories that support this thesis: social learning and integrated water resource management. The results of these studies were influential in shaping the thesis as it presently exists. 115 8.3.1 Social Learning and LRMPs In December 1997, a study was undertaken which addressed the relevance and significance of social learning to LRMPs (Creighton, 1997). This research applied many of the fundamental concepts of social learning theory to strategic land use planning through a series of telephone interviews with L R M P Process Coordinators for the Kamloops, Kispiox, Bulkley, Vanderhoof, Fort St. John, and Fort Nelson LRMPs as well as a few individuals who have been involved in L R M P policy development. Interviews were intended to identify perceptions of the current level of social learning and its potential within LRMPs, and to identify how both groups of respondents facilitate social learning. Conclusions drawn from this research suggest that by their integrative nature and multi-stakeholder design, LRMPs provide a huge opportunity for social learning to be practiced. While social learning is not formally emphasized in the LRMPs, there was wide agreement that learning occurs on an informal basis. This informal emphasis was found to be more preferable as it creates a non-threatening environment, it allows for learning to be self-regulated, and it enables participants to focus on content, while learning at the same time. Three main barriers to social learning in LRMPs were also identified in the research: 1) there is an inherent fear associated with the uncertainty of land use planning that leads many people to adhere to the status quo and resist learning or change; 2) due to the absence of some important stakeholders, including First Nations, learning has not been as inclusive as it should be; and 3) negative attitudes from specific individuals can derail a learning experience for a whole group. 8.3.2 Water Resources and LRMPs In 1998, in response to growing concern that water resources had, to date, been under-represented and poorly integrated into LRMPs, another study was undertaken to determine the extent to which water resources had been integrated into LRMPs (Creighton, 1998). The research focused specifically on the Kamloops, Vanderhoof, Bulkley, Kispiox, Fort St. John, Okanagan-Shuswap, Prince George, and Kalum LRMPs. Again, telephone interviews were held with the M E L P Table Representative for each of these processes for the purposes of: 1) determining what water resources are addressed in LRMPs; 2) to identify the successes and problems associated with planning for water resources in LRMPs; and 3) to gather suggestions on what would improve the integration of water resources into LRMPs. Conclusions and recommendations regarding planning preparation, representation, and communication were drawn from the research results. 116 With regard to planning preparation, it was found that an understanding of the planning process and the opportunities that it provides for managing water resources at the sub-regional level improved over time, but that Water Management branches generally had not invested much effort into development of management objectives prior to the planning process. Many of those included in the study remarked on the challenge of developing objectives that are appropriate for strategic planning. With regard to representation of water resources in LRMPs, the study concluded that individuals responsible for presenting water resource issues at the planning table were not always well versed in water planning processes or concerns. M E L P has adopted a policy whereby one individual from the Ministry is responsible for representing all interests and concerns of all departments at the L R M P table. In instances where the M E L P Table Representative happens to have a background in water management, water has received far greater representation. In other instances, water may well have suffered from uninformed representation. Integration of water resources must be a joint responsibility of both Table Representatives and Water Management. In large part, this comes down to effective communication between the two parties, which was commonly reported to be very weak. Table Representatives were often uninformed of the water planning policy framework, and Water Management staff were rarely involved in the development of strategic management objectives. Improving integration requires open communication between these two parties. 117 Chapter 9 - Learning For IWRM: Analysis of Findings The research methods employed in this study, discussed " — • ™ ~ " ~ " " - " " " " , ^ ^ — in detail in Chapter six, resulted in the production of thirteen "We've got guys who have case individuals working in Fish and Wildlife and Pollution when you've got no time for questionnaire was to follow-up some of the topics discussed in the interviews and to enable a direct comparison to be made between how individuals within Water Management have learned through their involvement in LRMPs versus their impression of how the organization learns on a more general basis. Very often the questionnaire results support what was said in the interviews, however there are instances where the questionnaire results provide data that was not touched on in the interviews. A l l data gathered in the questionnaires is tabulated in Appendix 6. These tabulations are presented in terms of the total responses for each category provided by respondents in each of the three regions included in the study (Kamloops, Prince George, and Prince Rupert). In this next chapter, this raw data is analyzed according to the evaluative framework presented in Chapter six. The conclusions drawn from this raw data are my own interpretations and reflect my personal understanding of the statements provided by all research participants. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all those working within Water Management, although they do provide relevant and timely insight that should be pursued and considered in further operations of the organization, as they relate to I W R M . 9.1 Perception of Learning Interviews with select individuals across three provincial regions collectively indicate that the emphasis placed on learning within M E L P ' s Water Management Program is much lower now than it ever used to be. This change is attributed primarily to limited financial resources. Water Management respondents openly regretted that with cutbacks in effect, restricted budgets are no longer able to afford investments in learning. As a result, the predominant perception is that learning is limited: interview transcripts and thirteen completed questionnaires, nine of which were from Water Management employees and four from loads backed up 1 V2 years. I mean, when are you going to learn innovative approaches Prevention. It should be noted that the intention of the anything, except trying to catch up?" 118 Rather than having an organized program of learning, with the exception of the things that are required of WCB [Workers Compensation Board], it doesn't happen. Learning happens more on the job. You learn from your peers around you, but you tend not to interact on the broader scale. We used to have meetings at a provincial level between Section Heads where we would exchange what was happening in different offices and bring that back and share it with our staff. But that hasn 't happened for years. So there seems to be, not an intent to scupper learning, but as a result of the pressures we have been under, it's happened. In the words of another Water Management respondent: / think the emphasis on learning is certainly not there like it was before, with the exception of the WCB things, which we seem to get training on still, to protect the government from liability. But learning for knowledge's sake, the technical exchanges, just learning new techniques and things, it's just not there. A second factor which appears to constrain learning within Water Management is time. With staffing cutbacks and increased workloads, Water Management respondents indicated that they feel that they are under increased pressure to stay on top of things and don't feel comfortable investing valuable time into learning. For example, one respondent observed that " i f I go away for a few days to take a course in something, it means more work piles up on my desk, because there's no one to do it. So people become hesitant to do it [learning] because it takes away from the immediate crises they're facing". In support of this position, another respondent remarked, "it's hard to make time even for education". Consequently, learning suffers. As a result of restricted resources, learning within Water Management has become a limited commodity. The following words profoundly emphasize this reality: "as resources shrink, so does the luxury of learning. The more they shrink, the more learning is treated as a luxury". These observations strongly suggest that learning is largely perceived as a formal process within Water Management; one that can only be afforded in times of abundance. The most common interpretation of learning that emerged from the interviews equates learning with training: i f training cannot be afforded, then learning will not advance. This is an unfortunately limited conception which overlooks the potential for organizational development through more informal, experiential modes of learning. Much of the literature on organizational learning acknowledges that it is quite common for organizations to confine their conception of learning to formal learning processes, but it also asserts that "the great bulk of learning by managers comes from the workplace i tself (CCMD, 1994: 6). Management studies reviewed by the Canadian Centre for Management Development all claim that learning derived from formal training accounts for no more than 20 percent of the total learning that occurs within organizations. This is a significant finding for two reasons. First, it suggests that people 119 often have difficulty implementing lessons gained from formal learning programs, and, despite intentions otherwise, tend to revert to old ways and habits once back in their working environment. Second, it supports the position that a greater recognition of informal learning opportunities is required. Distinguishing between learning and training is an important step towards recognizing the value of informal learning opportunities: Training is something that is done to you, or that you do for someone else. Learning is something that you do to and for yourself. Training implies that something already known is to be transferred to someone else. Learning, by contrast, implies a process of self-directed exploration and discovery (CCMD, 1994:2). This important distinction was addressed where possible in the interviews. With some encouragement, after initial discussions about reductions in training, people did begin to acknowledge other forms of learning other than formal training, as is evident in the following statements: most of what I've learned has been directly on the job...And that is certainly a good way to learn because it's pressure. I learn just from dealing with people... There's a lot of interesting, knowledgeable people who work here and the learning on a more personal, less formal basis does occur. The predominant perception of learning as a formal process is certain to influence the way in which Water Management conducts its business in several ways. First, new requirements to standard management operations are more likely to be perceived as impositions or unwanted demands on an already stressed system rather than opportunities. As a result, the potential for growth and development within the organization is greatly reduced and the risk of stagnation increases. Second, a formal interpretation of learning within the organization limits potential for employees to be both motivated to become involved in new management processes and to be inspired through such involvement. With specific regard to LRMPs, it is fair to say that Water Management has not consciously engaged in strategic land use planning from a learning perspective. That is, learning has not been a priority in their involvement: "We didn't go there to learn, but absolutely it, [learning], is a byproduct". While this orientation is certainly largely influenced by the interpretation that learning is a more formal process, there are other considerations that need to be factored in as well. The next section of this chapter discusses the influence of Water Management's perception of planning on their involvement in LRMPs . 120 9.2 Perception of Planning 9.2.1 Attitude Towards Planning Broadly speaking, a definite skepticism about the value of planning emerged from several of the interviews with respondents from Water Management. While the history of success with planning initiatives across the province has been varied, it seems that the difficult planning processes - the ones that were never seen through to a finish due to changes in political climate, financial constraints, or unresolvable conflicts, or those that were superceded by "better" planning processes - are the ones that are remembered. As a result, there is some reluctance to actively engage in planning: I just don't know that the decisions that come out of it are really going to do a lot to change the way that we in Water Management do business... I just question whether a few years down the road, how much is really going to be different than if this process hadn't been done at all? And part of this attitude comes from my experience with IWMPs where, yeah, we had this great plan and everybody around the table thought it was great stuff and signed it off. And over time, it gets whittled away and whittled away and finally, wow that's not realistic, we can't live with it, so we '11 just do what we want to do anyway. Planning has traditionally played a very small role in the operations of Water Management. In part, this is a reflection of their mandate, which is largely restricted to the allocation of water supply and regulation of water use, as set out by the Water Act. Beyond legislative restrictions however, the hesitancy to engage in planning processes is attributable not only to the tremendous investment of resources that is required in order to make a success of planning processes, but perhaps more importantly, to the risk of poor returns on such investments as demonstrated in past planning processes: I believe in planning, but I guess there is a recognition that planning does take a lot of resources, and the plan is just the beginning. You've got the implementation of the plan and that's usually where these things all fall down. And then they need the reviews and whatever and that's lots of things that need to be done after you've got the plan. As a result, planning has not been a priority in Water Management to date, and support for becoming more active in the recent proliferation of water resource planning processes varies across the provincial regions and between the regions and Victoria. In relation to LRMPs specifically, confidence in the potential benefits to be gained from actively participating in strategic land use planning varies across the regions. In the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P , there exists an overall optimistic attitude towards the opportunities afforded to water resources through 121 their involvement in the planning process. That said, an underlying skepticism of the extent to which these opportunities will be realized was also expressed. To a large extent, such skepticism relates to the inherently political nature of planning. While planning for natural resources is certainly receiving a lot of political support presently by the Province, there are concerns that under the current workload and resourcing cutbacks, it is not a viable addition to Water Management's operations: / look at where government's going and we seem to be strapped in so many areas that to look at the long term when we can't even address the short term seems to me to be a bit of a political ideal. I think it's great to have this kind of stuff, but I view it as a kind of luxury as opposed to some other things that are more bread and butter that we can't even do properly. Moreover, there is a concern that plans are often strongly influenced by the political culture of the day, and that over time the integrity of plans will succumb to new political agendas: The LRMP is going to be very political and when the politics of the day ten years down the road say "well, that's terrible stuff", I can just see them swinging off in a different direction, and all that effort and all that time that people put into it with the best of intentions may not pan out. I hope I'm wrong. I really do hope I'm wrong and I really do hope that it will change attitudes and stuff like that, not just with respect to water but with respect to crown reserves in general. But when it comes down to economies in a crunch, and the attitude of 'we need to get more trees out, or open up a mine', or whatever.... I'm just not sure that the political considerations will override it. In some of the northern LRMPs, a reluctance on Water Management's part certainly hasn't gone unnoticed by M E L P table representatives working within other departments: In our office, the Water folks are aligned into allocation and engineering. I don't think there's much of an appetite from anyone in this office to do planning, period. It's just a big time suck that historically hasn't paid off much substantive dividends. I mean, the perception is that you get a nice book from it. To a certain extent, there is validity in that conclusion. In some instances this attitude of "we license; we don't plan" has created challenges, and been the source of much frustration: I was going to them and saying 'can you tell me the streams that are fully allocated?', or 'can you show me the streams where we could zone if there's more water available?' and they basically said, 'geez, we don't have that kind of time. If you want it done, do it yourself. These types of unfortunate encounters have led at least one L R M P table representative from Fish and Wildlife to recommend that Water Management headquarters in Victoria should be of more assistance with providing a comprehensive account of Provincial Water Management aspirations for strategic level planning. 122 9.2.2 Significance of LRMPs and Associated Expectations The perception of planning within each Water Management branch has a direct influence on the significance assigned to LRMPs as far as water resources are concerned, and subsequent expectations of the process. Across the time and space spanned by the six case studies, these elements vary considerably. Over time, a greater appreciation of the importance of integrating water resources into LRMPs has developed. To a large extent, this is a result of the Forest Practices Code coming into effect and firmly establishing the land use planning hierarchy, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. It is also a result of Water Management becoming more familiar with the process and its status within the hierarchy over the years. The passing of time has also .affected expectations of LRMPs for water resources. As the planning process has become more established, expectations have become much more focused and opportunistic. Expectations also vary geographically. In the southern regions of the province, where water supply for a growing population is a critical concern, Water Management has placed a greater degree of confidence in what LRMPs can achieve for water resources than in the north, where water is still perceived to be in abundant supply and not a prominent concern. In the Kamloops L R M P , the first one to be completed, awareness of what opportunities were actually afforded by the planning process was limited. Reflecting back, there are discrepancies over the extent to which the significance of this new strategic land use planning process for water resources was recognized. One Water Management respondent reflected that "maybe we didn't have the realization at that time of exactly what the significance of LRMPs was. We knew it was an important process, and we knew it was a higher level process.. .but we really didn't know where that was going". 10 A more assured reflection suggests that there was a greater appreciation of the need for water to be included at this strategic level of planning: "It seemed to me that there were going to be directions coming out of these discussions that were going to be setting goal posts and i f water was not included in these directions then it would be left out". Either way, expectations for water resources within the Kamloops L R M P were fairly limited and basic. At the onset of the process, water resources were represented at the table by the official M E L P representative who was from Fish and Wildlife. Water Management only became directly involved part-way through the negotiation stage of the planning process, when conflicts over resource use that affected 1 0 It is worth noting that at the time the Kamloops LRMP was undertaken, neither the Forest Practices Code nor the Protected Areas Strategy were in effect. Since their enactment, these two pieces of legislation have provided considerable guidance and direction to the LRMP process 123 water resources arose. Three primary objectives were identified for water resources in the L R M P : to develop control and regulation of water quality, quantity, and timing of flow. Beyond these, it was hoped that through the L R M P the value of water resources would be recognized: "Water is just one of those things that is only going to become more and more valuable to us as we go down the line and I think I didn't have a real problem convincing the table of that". In LRMPs undertaken in the Prince George Region (Prince George, Fort St. John, and Fort St. James), there was perhaps a greater recognition of the importance of integrating water resources into strategic level plans, both on the part of the M E L P representatives and Water Management. One interview respondent regarded strategic planning as important for water as it represents an opportunity to "set the tone" for what follows at more operational levels of planning. As well, it was observed that with an increasing trend away from government involvement at the operational level of planning, it is important for government to have their say at this higher, strategic level. Overall in this region, expectations for water resources in LRMPs were quite broad, and not overly ambitious. Again, it was expected that the L R M P would entrench objectives that would help maintain water quality and quantity. Beyond this, there were also hopes that the L R M P would "recognize water as a significant resource feature that requires and demands accountability in subsequent planning and decision making" and provide some guidance on specific values and their measurements that are accountable in lower level plans. — — In these more northern LRMPs the emphasis placed on water resources is certainly far less than efforts currently being invested in the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P , and management objectives and strategies tend to be far more basic (see Appendix 3). In addition to Water Management's orientation to planning, this is largely a function of the perceived value of water resources in this region. While Canadian water management literature has for many years attempted to dispel the myth of abundance, it still seems to be prevalent in the Prince George region, and its effect is "/ listen to others say that this land was once the land of milk and honey, and I think we've grown up with the mindset that everything is just there in copious amounts for the taking. There's very little or no consequence if that taking continues or in fact is increased over time. And I think water, probably silently, has headed that list for so long and has been so bountiful at such a basic ten dollar bill mentality cost attached to it that nobody has ever appreciated it and more importantly valued it." 124 evident in the limited integration of water resources into some of the region's LRMPs. One Fish and Wildlife respondent confirmed the notion that the perceived abundance of water supply meant that water received less attention in the Prince George L R M P : No body cares ....there was a big flurry around water quality stuff six or seven years ago when dioxins were getting cranked out of pulp mills and there was a lot of water quality sampling and fish sampling because there was a perceived health risk. That died down for a variety of reasons. But it does take some sort of real or perceived crisis to focus on it, up here anyway. The theory that concern for the resource is motivated by crises received support from another interview respondent working out of the Kamloops region. He suggested that water has a lower profile in some of the northern LRMPs "because there's a lot of it up there....it's a lot cleaner, the impacts are less". Continuing in this vein of thought, he suggested that perception of the value of the resource is directly related to perceived threats to the resource: Here [in the Okanagan], people see problems: there's low flow problems, they're running out of water, there aren 7 fish like there were at one time... [Whereas] up in the Skeena, that isn't a problem. There's lots of water around for anyone who wants to stick a pipe in the river or creek and the fishing is still pretty good. I mean, I know some streams up in that area that are not very good, especially in the settled areas, where roads have cut off entire streams because of impassable culverts ...but the perception isn't there that this is a problem, because it doesn't affect people on a daily basis. In the absence of any immediate water "crisis", the valuation of water resources in the north of the province appears to be limited. As a result, the perceived need to develop strategic management direction for water resources is very limited, and the priority assigned to LRMPs by Water Management appears to reflect this. For the Kalum L R M P , in the Prince Rupert region, recognition of the importance of integrating water resources into LRMPs is very strong: "It's very important because you have to have the whole spectrum of planning levels to be effective, right from operations right up to the strategic level". As well, within this L R M P it is recognized that many water related issues, such as bulk water export, are really best addressed at the strategic level rather than at an operational level. Ironically, this is one L R M P in which Water Management's direct involvement is very limited, however two strong proponents for water from Pollution Prevention and Fish and Wildlife from M E L P ' s regional office have taken an active role in ensuring that water is integrated into this L R M P . Recognizing that it is essential to have water integrated into LRMPs, and given the fact that funding for LRMPs is currently tenuous, efforts are being 125 made to prioritize water management objectives for the Kalum L R M P . Considerable attention is also being given to developing effective language that helps to create a common understanding of what is required for effective water resource management in the region. This, one of the major expectations held of the process, is based on observations from previous LRMPs in which "many people pay lip service to water quality and quantity and [yet] many don't understand how one would ever make good on a promise that's written in a language that is more motherhood than specifics". Finally, in the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P (OSLRMP), a growing awareness of the limited extent to which water resources have been integrated into other LRMPs around the province has motivated those in Water Management in Penticton to ensure that this L R M P reflects the reality of the water resource situation of the region: "Certainly all of us in the Okanagan felt that this is a water short area and i f we're going to have a planning process it should involve water - to a higher degree than it appeared to have happened in other plans". In this case study, the Water Working Group (see Chapter 8) is approaching the L R M P as an "extremely important opportunity for water". Echoing the idea that the L R M P is directional, one respondent suggested that the L R M P represents the base of an inverted pyramid, supporting all other processes: To be a top level plan and have everything else flow from it, it has to be at the top, but in actual fact, it's the foundation. If you think of it as being supportable, structurally the solid foundation is critical for anything else to be built on top of it. So, although it's top down, it's got to be the foundation of anything that's 'lower level'. Including water at the higher planning level was identified by one member of the Water Working Group as important for three major reasons: 1. It is a critical means of fostering greater public understanding to help meet the ministry's mandate of clean, safe water. 2. It hasn't been effectively achieved in previous processes to any great degree 3. The three primary resources, air, land and water, should be the focus of the highest level of resource management planning processes. It is an opportune forum in which to raise critical issues of concern. Other rationales for including water in LRMPs suggest that while LRMPs largely address forestry considerations, water quality, aquatic habitat, and fish populations are some of the major resources impacted by logging practices and therefore deserve due consideration in the planning process. As well, the legal authority vested in the parts of LRMPs that may be declared higher level plans yields a lot of influence, and it is therefore important for water resources to be provided with such legal protection. Finally, the OSLRMP is perceived as one means of overcoming some of the weaknesses of the B C Forest Practices Code as it pertains to water resources: 126 There's a lot of things that are wrong with the way we 're managing both our water and our forests, in my opinion. In forestry, they always say, 'oh, the Code takes care of it... We have this one cookbook here that means that now everything is going to be fine'. That's usually the MOF's attitude toward the Code - that it corrects all past evils and it's wonderful. Yeah, well... there's a couple of things that I was hoping to get out of LRMPs where I saw weaknesses in the Code. Specific concerns cited here include providing riparian protection for small streams that currently are not included in the Forest Practices Code Guidebook, and ensuring that hazard levels in watershed assessments are kept down to a reasonable level. 9.3 Learning Within LRMPs Interestingly, an analysis of the seven LORs suggests that learning for Water Management through involvement in LRMPs is somewhat different to the standard learning style of the organization. From the questionnaire results, no definitive pattern arises across any of the LORs for LRMPs. Results are much more evenly distributed across the evaluative spectrum and no absolute trends for specific learning orientations can be identified. Relative to the evaluations assigned to LORs within Water Management as a whole however, there is a notable shift to the right end of the evaluative spectrum. For most LORs, at least half of the respondents' evaluations indicate a directional shift away from the individual, internal learning orientation towards a more collective, overt style of learning. An example of this shift can be seen in the Content-Process Learning Orientation which considers whether an organization directs learning more towards the substantive nature of services provided, or the processes that enable the provision of such services. The questionnaire results indicate that on a broad level Water Management tends to focus more on knowledge concerning content, or substance, than it does on process. Learning relating to water resources that occurs through LRMPs, however, tend to have more of a procedural focus. Evidence of this shift is supported by discussions that arose in interviews as well. There was wide agreement amongst those interviewed that most of the learning in LRMPs related more to procedural considerations: There's much more learning going on in this area - it's more process learning - learning public planning processes and consultation. I've learned a ton here by being involved in an LRMP. Technically has it taught me much? Not very, other than I've learned better how Water Management is perceived by other agencies and how things work...But it's certainly more process related learning than technical learning. We're trained technically very well in university. Generally, we come out with a pretty good skill set. Process-wise, we sort of learn on the fly. I l l Learning about substantive water resource issues through involvement in the L R M P process, specific examples of which can be seen in Table 9.2, was limited for those in Water Management and other departments. There are two main reasons for this. First, compared to other resources, water holds a low profile within many LRMPs, so learning is subsequently limited. Second, many of those representing water resources at the planning table claim to have been already fairly knowledgeable on the substantive issues prior to participating in the L R M P . Substantive Learning By Water Management Substantive Learning By Other Stakeholders Procedural Learning By Water Management • governmental jurisdictions • roles and responsibilities of other departments • public perception of the value of water resources • protection potential provided by Community Watersheds • issues related to cumulative effects • governance structure in place for water resources • limitations of Water Management's abilities imposed by legislation (e.g. no groundwater legislation) and limited data availability • actual availability of water resources • trust building • interest-based negotiation skills • consensus-based decision making • facilitation and mediation • communication skills • how to think strategically Table 9.1 Water Resource Related Learning Within LRMPs A more detailed examination of the data indicates that the majority of those respondents who reported a shift from content-based learning to process-based learning work within the Kamloops region. In the northern regions, there seems to be a far greater propensity for the learning orientations applied to the L R M P to be the same as the overall learning style of Water Management. These results suggest that the organizational learning style of Water Management branches in the Kamloops region is less fixed than those in the northern regions. This may be a function of the level of commitment and effort invested into the LRMPs. In the Kamloops region, especially in the OSLRMP, considerable resources have been dedicated to developing appropriate and effective management objectives for water resources, whereas in some of the northern LRMPs, such as the Prince George L R M P , Water Management invested minimally in the process. It is logical that i f an organization invests a lot in a process, there is a greater likelihood that involvement in that process will influence the operation of the organization. 128 What then is the influence of the L R M P process on learning within Water Management? By the very nature of their multi-stakeholder design, LRMPs create a very open learning environment. While learning is not formally emphasized, it is inherent to the planning process. In the words of one respondent, LRMPs constitute "one of the best forums for cross-pollination in terms of planning that we've ever done in British Columbia". In order for stakeholders with assorted values and interests to arrive at consensus on designated land use practices, learning is requisite and unavoidable. The following two observations were made by L R M P participants on the inherent nature of learning in LRMPs: "In some ways it's [learning] is almost forced. In order to come up with the issues and come up with objectives and strategies, one has to preview documents, come up to speed, review and amend language, listen to concerns and presentations from both the public and government agencies ...so it's a function of the process. Not only that, they work together for so long, they can't help but become buds at the end over time and that in itself is conducive to learning" "Learning is where we start. It's the platform we build from. Learning is part and parcel to it...Whenever we see learning opportunities for this process we try...It's absolutely essential. It is the process " 9.4 Learning Within Water Management 9.4.1 Organizational Learning Style The first half of the research questionnaire distributed for this study was intended to identify how learning takes place within Water Management generally and how Water Management learns specifically through involvement with LRMPs. The findings discussed in this next section are derived from the questionnaire results provided by all Water Management respondents. The assessment was conducted through an evaluation of seven specific learning orientations by nine of the interview respondents who are either currently employed by Water Management or have been in the past. In an ideal world, organizations would invest in learning in all aspects of business and be well practiced at all 14 approaches to learning represented by the seven LOR's described in the evaluative framework of Chapter 6. Realistically, however, this is impossible, and organizations are forced to make choices and establish learning priorities. These choices culminate in a learning style unique to every organization. Learning style is a function of how organizations learn, or its Learning Orientations. It represents an organization's existing learning capability. Most organizations have one dominant learning style, but periodically other styles may come into play (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). 129 Learning style can be determined by identifying the LORs which are dominant H within an organization and juxtaposing them against each other. Collation of the questionnaire results indicates that knowledge source, learning scope, and knowledge reserve are three dominant learning orientations within Water Management (See Appendix 6). According to the results of the questionnaire, most knowledge is developed internally within Water Management, and this knowledge resides with specific individuals rather than within a common pool that everyone has access to. New knowledge introduced to the organization tends to build incrementally on existing management practices rather than challenging them and inspiring transformation. Based on these findings, a preliminary assessment of the learning style of M E L P ' s Water Management Program is developed below by juxtaposing two LORs against each other. Four distinct learning styles emerge by combining Knowledge Source and Learning Scope together: correction, innovation, adaptation, and acquisition. Research findings indicate that most knowledge is developed internally within Water Management and that most learning that takes place by way of the generation of this knowledge occurs incrementally. Accordingly, it can be said that Water Management has adopted a corrective learning style. By the corrective learning style, learning occurs because experience does not coincide with expectations or desire. As a result, incremental corrections are made to existing procedures or systems, to bring the two in line with each other, based on lessons extracted from experience (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). This learning style can be equated with single-loop learning. In order to bring about double-loop learning, or more innovative learning, the learning scope would have to be more transformative within Water Management. 3. 4. KNOWLEDGE External adaptation acquisition SOURCE 1. 2. Internal correction innovation Incremental Transformative LEARNING SCOPE Combining Dissemination Mode and Knowledge Reserve reveals a second dominant learning style within Water Management: learning through role models. When knowledge is seen in personal 1 1 In this thesis, "dominant" has been interpreted as a grading of the LOR on which there was much agreement amongst questionnaire respondents. 130 terms and disseminated informally, learning occurs through role modelling or social emulation (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). Often the explanation behind this type of learning style rests with the fact that much of this personal knowledge is specialized knowledge that has been developed intuitively and cannot be made explicit. As a result, this knowledge can only be disseminated directly from one person to another. It is through mentoring and observation that individuals learn from these role models. If Water Management adopted a more public, shared knowledge reserve which was distributed less formally, a learning style referred to as a "community of practice" would develop. The theory behind communities of practice is that they increase learning capacity by encouraging collective learning, which enables people to share experiences and create new learning by collectively generating new insights which may not be produced by individuals working on their own (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). 3. 4. D I S S E M I N A T I O N Formal authorized bureaucratic M O D E expert 1. 2. Informal role modeling community of practice Personal Public K N O W L E D G E R E S E R V E 9.4.2 Organizational Learning Profile In addition to the learning styles identified above, the evaluative framework can be used to develop an organizational learning profile for Water Management. Combined, the seven LORs and ten FFs constitute the building blocks of an organization's learning system, and its unique profile of strengths and value preferences. A learning profile is a tool which provides an overall image of an organization's current learning system - what (LOrs) and how (FFs) an organization learns. The profile can be used to strategically develop preferred learning systems for the future of the organization. A preliminary organizational learning profile has been developed for Water Management in Table 9.2. 131 LEARNING ORIENTATIONS MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY 1 .Knowledge Source INIT.RNAI / l-XTI'RNAI. 2. Learning Mode F.XPl-.RIhNTIAI. • * • ( (KiNll'lYI-. 3. Content-Process CONl'F.M- • * • PROCLSS Focus 4. Knowledge Reserve Pl.RSONAL • Pl.TU.IC 5. Dissemination Mode I'ORMAI. • INFORMAL 6. Learning Scope [\( RIMIINTAI • TRANSIORMAI IY1: 7. Learning Focus lNDIVIHL'AI. • (iROl.'P FACILITATING FACTORS Little lAidciuc to Support this Factor Some Kviik-nce to Support this Factor I'lxtensivc Evidence to Support this Factor 1. Scanning Imperative • 2. Performance Monitoring • 3. Concern for Measurement • 4.Organizational Curiousity • • 5. Climate of Openness • 6. Continuous Education • 7. Operational Variety • 8. Multiple Advocates • 9. Involved Leadership • 10. Systems Perspective • * Note: Those LORs or FFs for which there are two checks scored a tie across the evaluative options. Table 9.2 Organizational Learning Profile Of Water Management In addition to the dominant LORs which define the learning styles discussed earlier, the profile suggests that an emphasis is placed on developing knowledge through experiences rather than through cognitive processes. As well, much of the knowledge is developed in consideration of what services are to be provided by Water Management (content) as opposed to knowledge about how those services are delivered (process). Finally, the profile indicates that the learning focus of Water Management is on the development of knowledge through individual performance rather than through group practices. 132 Evidence of this phenomenon was apparent in the interviews in which some respondents indicated that much of the learning that goes on in Water Management is self-motivated and that initiatives to learn really come down to the individual. With regard to the Facilitating Factors, there was strong agreement amongst respondents that there is a very open organizational climate. This suggests that data is widely available to all within the organization and that the working environment is conducive to commenting openly on data. The only research finding which runs counter to this evaluation concerns the availability of historical water data. According to one respondent in the Kamloops region, there is a real potential for historical knowledge to be lost within the organization because many of the older data files are kept in off-site storage facilities that are rarely accessed: A lot of the stuff that I think is really important to us is off in boxes somewhere in Burnaby. It's going to be lost, and that is not being adequately addressed by our Ministry right now....Once it's gone to off-site storage, unless you know it's there, that historical knowledge is gone. We rely heavily on people's memories. While the learning profile suggests that some degree of scanning generally occurs within Water Management, scanning has been very limited with respect to LRMPs. Efforts to learn how water resources have been integrated into other LRMPs have been minimal, as is indicated by the following statement: Maybe in hindsight we could have learned something from [other LRMPs], but I never even thought to look beyond our little regional boundaries and to a certain extent beyond our District boundaries. The main reason cited for this lack of scanning is that many of the water related issues addressed in one region may not be transferable to an L R M P in another region. As well, claims were made that realistically there isn't time to invest in scanning prior to involvement in an L R M P . A lack of scanning was also attributed to the personalities of many of the government employees involved in LRMPs . One respondent suggested that many of the L R M P table representatives tend to be "A-type" personalities who prefer to do things their own way rather than to adapt or modify what others have done with partial success in the past. Analysis of the learning profile suggests that Water Management is relatively weak or underdeveloped in particular facilitating factors, including performance monitoring, organizational curiousity, continuous education, and involved leadership. While the profile indicates that there is 1 3 3 evidence of a systems perspective within the organization, discussions in interviews question this. Generally, people acknowledge that while more things are taken into account in decision making now than previously, the resources do not exist to allow for a comprehensive systems perspective to be fully adopted. One respondent observed that rather than adopting a full systems perspective in decision making, issues are only addressed i f they are considered to be "show-stoppers", or issues that will impede progress in management: The attitude is to just get through or past the point where we have convinced ourselves that we have managed projects to the point where there are no "show-stoppers" ....For instance, we have the Environmental Assessment Act. Through that Act, the government issues certificates for major projects, so the certificate gets written if there are no major show-stoppers and then they leave all the remaining management issues and uncertainties to the next process, which is Permitting 9.5 Water Management and the Learning Cycle Dissemination \cquisition Utilization The best way to really discern how learning is occurring within an organization is to place the learning profile within the broader context of the organizational learning cycle, as depicted in Figure 6.1. According to this figure, each of the LORs and FFs is associated with a particular phase of the learning cycle. This does not imply that they are not relevant at other phases of the cycle, rather that there is some extra gain to be had by looking at each in relation to one of the three phases. By applying the results of the learning profile to the learning cycle, it is possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of an organization's overall learning system and develop action plans to build upon learning capability accordingly. DiBella and Nevis (1998) propose that one Learning Orientation, (Learning Focus) and two Facilitating Factors (Involved Leadership and Systems Perspective) are vital to successfully build learning capability at all three stages of the learning cycle. Before addressing those elements particular to the acquisition, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge, it is necessary to discuss the overall importance of these three factors. First, Water Management's learning style focuses more on individual learning than group learning. While both types of learning are needed within an organization, the literature argues that organizational learning is greatly improved by having people learn collectively and 134 by teaching skills in collaborative work. Second, involved leadership at all levels of an organization is considered critical for learning. Effective leadership helps to provide direction, inspiration, and motivation within an organization. Leadership does not necessarily imply exercising command and control over the organization, but rather encouraging interaction, providing facilitation, encouraging involvement. The tabulated responses from the questionnaires indicate that there is very little evidence of Involved Leadership within Water Management. A fair interpretation of this evaluation extends not only to regional Water Managers, but also to Water Management Headquarters in Victoria. Finally, most organizations tend to score quite low on Systems Perspective, and Water Management is no exception, as is evident in Appendix 6. For many decades now, organizations have tended to focus on specialized knowledge and skill sets (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). Adopting a more comprehensive, integrative perspective is a new challenge that will demand attention i f learning capacity is to expand. 9.5.1 Knowledge Acquisition Knowledge acquisition concerns the introduction of new concepts and development of new methods within an organization. Combined evidence from the learning profile and interviews suggest that Water Management is fairly accomplished in the acquisition of data and knowledge. Through internal means, the organization produces large amounts of substantive knowledge. With an increased focus on water resource planning processes recently, Water Management is also being exposed to learning of a more procedural nature. Despite limited investments in scanning and relatively low organizational curiosity, the organization seems very capable in this first phase of the learning cycle. 9.5.2. Knowledge Dissemination In today's information age, organizations commonly struggle with the dissemination of knowledge which is constantly increasing with the rapid production of data. Both the learning profile and interview results indicate that Water Management is no exception to this trend. The Knowledge Reserve within the organization has been identified as being largely personal. This trait poses what could potentially be a large problem in the future. In many offices, Water Management collectively boasts a very experienced staff. Without a common pooling of this knowledge however, the organization faces a large risk of losing this valuable knowledge when individuals leave the organization or retire. According to one respondent: We do have the benefit of having some people who have been around here for quite a while. And because of that, we are able to carry on, but if we were in the position where 135 suddenly we had to replace three or four of our staff we would be in desperate shape. I think that we don't even have the time to document things anymore, so it's all in your head. So people know lots, but haven't got the time to write it down to pass it on to whoever our successors are. This was not always the case. Several people involved in this study made a point of mentioning programs in the past that were designed to allow for the exchange of information and experiences. One such program run out of Victoria was WOLRUS (Workshops on Land and Resource Use), a forum established for people to come together and share experiences and lessons learned. From the perspective of one who attended these workshops: It was a great information and experience exchange. With government being under the gun these days to even cover off basic operational requirements those types of forums unfortunately are not taking place and so we haven't had that sort of grandiose scale of sharing which is really too bad. Despite the loss of such opportunities there is still a strong recognition of the value of such exchanges. Some individuals are certainly very much aware of the effects of this loss on organizational development, as is exemplified in the following statement: What we lose from not having those meetings is the comfort of just talking to someone in an office that you'd gain after meeting them in person. Once you've met someone, and you've talked to them face to face, if you have a problem, you 're much more likely to call them and you can see that those of us who have been around for a while know each other and feel comfortable calling each other up. But there's other people in other offices that we've never met, and they're out there on their own and haven't become part of the loop...It's too bad...we've really lost a lot and I think our effectiveness has been reduced dramatically because of that. In all six L R M P case studies, evidence of sharing information and experiential knowledge between Water Management branches is extremely limited. When sharing of information does occur, it is generally only on an ad hoc basis, and it is usually limited to informal exchanges. No formal program to promote informational exchange has been established and it is widely acknowledged that there is no budget for this. An exception to this is a more concerted effort to share information and strategies developed by the Water Working Group of the OSLRMP with the Lillooet L R M P which is just starting up in the Kamloops region. As a result, Water Management in many instances has entered these planning processes with a very limited understanding of what is possible or probable. Weak dissemination of knowledge, specifically with regard to LRMPs is attributed to several factors: 1. Regional variations - Water Management staff tend to assume that because specific management issues vary across the regions, there is not much benefit to be had from referring to others' experiences in LRMPs. 136 2. Personal initiative - Unless they are approached directly for specific information, most people involved in LRMPs do not take the initiative to share their experiences with others in the organization. This is again a reflection of time pressures and substantial workloads within the organization. 3. Stubbornness - As suggested earlier, many of the individuals responsible for representing water resources in LRMPs tend to be very independent, stubborn, type-A personalities who for various reasons are not prepared to accept information or guidance based on others' experience. A second factor that limits the dissemination of knowledge within Water Management is a very weak emphasis on continuing education. In the climate of cutbacks and constraints, government agencies are struggling to maintain performance and fulfill their mandate from day to day. Broadening the operational perspective to include an educational focus is not considered a priority or even much of an option. Unfortunately, this position not only limits opportunities for potential gains within the organization to be realized, but it also perpetuates a tendency towards an incomplete learning cycle. Currently the effects of the largely informal mode of dissemination of knowledge within Water Management coupled with a significant reduction in opportunities for exchange between various branches of the organization and a distinct undervaluing of the benefits associated with continuing education is limiting the learning potential of the organization. If learning capacity is to be improved within Water Management, these are critical factors that will have to be addressed. 9.5.3 Knowledge Utilization According to DiBella and Nevis, knowledge utilization represents the "ultimate payoff for learning" (1998:149). It has to do with knowledge related to stability and change and how well knowledge is assimilated and made available for new learning. For true assimilation of knowledge to take place, people must be able to embrace new concepts and allow their own experiences to enable new meaning to transpire from those concepts. In the context of this thesis, perhaps the ultimate utilization of knowledge in Water Management is the application of new knowledge to help improve I W R M . Learning Scope plays a critical role in this phase of the learning cycle. According to DiBella and Nevis, "knowledge utilization efforts often stumble because of failure to distinguish whether the aim is to improve capabilities incrementally or to build a new basis for actionable knowledge" (1998:151). Water Management's current focus on incremental learning is not likely to jeopardize its ability to assimilate and utilize new knowledge. Drawing from some of the literature on social change 137 movements, Francis Westley (1995) actually suggests that organizations that undergo rapid transformational change are subject to even greater degrees of uncertainty and often do not adapt easily. Westley advocates a much more regular process of continual change and organizational revitalization, in which organizations are continually responding and adjusting to new environmental conditions. In the context of complex adaptive systems, this is logical. Finally, effective utilization of knowledge also requires Operational Variety and Multiple Advocates within an organization. Together, these Facilitating Factors enable many people to be included in the learning process and demonstrate that there are many to achieve desired goals. Operational Variety promotes an active learning curve within an organization, and Multiple Advocates include many people in the sharing and development of knowledge along that curve. While the tabulated questionnaire responses indicate that there is some evidence of these factors within Water Management, learning capability could be enhanced by developing these further. 9.6 Conclusions: Implications for Integrated Water Resources Management The current impression within Water Management and other departments responsible for delivering IWRM, such as Fish and Wildlife and Pollution Prevention, is that success with I W R M has been very limited to date and that there is not enough emphasis placed on integration. There is wide agreement that while the philosophy behind I W R M is well established, actual implementation of the philosophy is very poor. Examples of problematic areas include a lack of linkages between water resources on crown and private land, and between surface and ground water. Interview results suggest that these problems are attributable to a variety of factors: 1. Legislation - The current Water Act primarily addresses water allocation and use and does not include a water resource mandate. While it is fair to say that the Act was never intended to address issues of water quality and groundwater management, these are certainly concerns that need to have the backing of appropriate legislation today. Currently the legislation that deals with water quality is extremely fragmented (See Appendix 2). According to one interview respondent: "The Water Act as it is currently practiced says that water is only good i f it's used. There's nothing in the Water Act that says we should be maintaining good quality water, or maintaining water for fish, or water to just be in the streams." 2. Economic and Political Climate - To a large extent, progress in I W R M is dependent upon both economic and political climate. From the perspective of one respondent, integrated resource management is a concept that has been around a long time, dating back to the Forest Act in 1979, 138 however, it is a process whose progress is directly influenced by economic and political swings. When an economic crisis arises, I W R M is rarely seen as a priority and as a result, any gains that may have been made are lost to economic decline. An example of this can be drawn with the Forest Practices Code: When the Forest Practices Code was put in place, the forest industry was experiencing an economic boom: Profits were up, expansion was up, and so resources were pumped in. That's when we got all the Forest Ecosystem Specialists in place... [But] let's pretend they didn't put the Forest Practice Code in place at that time. Would it ever make it today? The answer is no. 3. Organizational structure - Effective I W R M requires strong coordination of management activities. Amongst those who participated in this study, there is concern that such coordination does not exist. Certainly some gains have been made recently through the application of new pieces of legislation such as the Forest Practices Code and the Fish Protection Act, which bring various departments into contact more with each other, however the sentiment still exists that more work is required in this area: There are partnerships and relationships to be developed. We're talking significant change, cultural change, watershed change, if you '11 pardon the pun, that doesn 7 occur overnight and doesn't occur simultaneously across the landscape or across the whole province. Despite the undeniable influence of these limiting factors, there is still optimism and hope amongst the Water Management respondents that the potential for I W R M is improving. Part of this optimism stems from the recognition that there is an increasing awareness of the need for integration and a change in attitude. One respondent described the change as follows: I think in the last 10-15 years you can see a general switch with how the public and local governments view water ...And I think that people are much more aware that if you withdraw water from a water course, it does start to have an impact on someone or something else now. And that shift is important...We're looking more now at the multiple values of a watercourse, from a recreational point of view, from a habitat point of view, from a development point of view, and everything else. So they 're starting to look at the greater picture, and I see that as a very positive step. A perspective shared by one respondent from Fish and Wildlife supports this observation: I think they 're [Water Management] starting to realize that there's more to water than just licencing it. We're starting to see the local engineer who looks at flooding and erosion beginning to look at something other than the classical engineering approach which is to put riprap in straight lines ...Things are definitely changing. While I W R M was once the brainchild of a few individuals, there is a sense within M E L P that it is becoming much more of a shared vision. Most recently, I W R M has become a focus of Water Management headquarters in Victoria. Their recent efforts to review the existing planning processes that 139 address water resources and establish a better understanding of how they interrelate is indicative of an effort to make progressive advances in IWRM. This consideration, which essentially addresses horizontal integration rather than the more traditional vertical integration, is one that previously has not received much attention. 140 Chapter 10 - Conclusions and Recommendations: What Have We Learned? A great deal of information has been presented in the preceding pages. Prior to reflecting on this information and drawing conclusions and recommendations from it, it is worth taking the time to briefly retrace the route that this thesis has taken across the landscape thus far. From the outset, the goal of the thesis has been to evaluate planning for I W R M in B.C's LRMPs from a social learning perspective. In order to achieve this goal, an extensive theoretical foundation, or conceptual framework, has been laid. Building on the concepts of increasing complexity, uncertainty, and conflict, the principles and rationale for I W R M were discussed in Chapter Two, as well as the many barriers that must be overcome i f progress in I W R M is to occur. These barriers form the basis for discussion of conclusions and recommendations in the second half of this final chapter. Inspired by the extensive fragmentation that exists within the current administrative framework for planning and managing Provincial water resources, a new framework for I W R M , based on the principles of systems theory, was developed in Chapter Four. Here, it was argued that by the complex, systemic nature of water resources, I W R M is inherently an evolving process that must acknowledge non-linearity, unpredictability, uncertainty, and interdependencies. Assuming this to be the case, it follows that I W R M should be designed and practiced to allow for continual modifications of knowledge and understanding based on experience - learning. Highlighting this one critical component of the complex framework, the remaining chapters have focused on the significant contribution that learning makes to sustaining effective IWRM. The principles of social and organizational learning have been applied to six case studies to develop an understanding of what individuals within Water Management have learned from their involvement with LRMPs, how learning occurs generally within Water Management, and how the knowledge that emerges from this learning might be used to further future progress with IWRM. The implications of these findings is the focus of discussion in this final chapter. 141 10.2 Organizational Learning By the very nature of the interrelatedness of its components, the constantly changing arrangement of those components, and the resultant complexity and uncertainty, I W R M is best understood to be a complex adaptive system. As illustrated by the metaphor of the survival landscape, complex adaptive systems are forever evolving within the zone of complexity. As a result, a flexible, adaptive approach is required in order to scale the peaks and traverse the valleys of the I W R M landscape. Learning represents an invaluable tool by which to achieve this necessary approach. Theorists propose that complex adaptive systems operate optimally on the "edge of chaos" - the critical point at which ordered behaviour (order) gives way to turbulent behaviour (chaos). It is at this point, where possibilities and creativity emerge, that effective learning takes place, and it is by this learning that chaos is avoided. As a system, I W R M is continually changing, and as a process, there is no single "correct" approach. The role of learning then is one of feedback within the system; assessing the impacts of decisions and actions and determining whether they have achieved the desired effect. In keeping with the metaphor of survival landscapes, learning fulfills the roles of compass, walking stick, and companion on any expedition. It helps managers to navigate the landscape by developing new skills, increasing familiarity and confidence, and improving the overall efficiency of the expedition. Organizational learning theory suggests that as experiences are never ending in our travels across the landscape, learning is an ongoing process. By this logic, learning from experience is one of the most effective and efficient ways of improving the practice of IWRM. Across the province, regional Water Management offices are collecting a vast array of experiences that afford new knowledge and understanding. The specific application and utilization of this knowledge has a large influence on the future direction of I W R M in BC. The findings of this research indicate that there are several considerations which need to be addressed in order to expand Water Management's organizational learning capacity and thereby enhance practices in IWRM. 10.1.1 Perception of learning Presently, the dominant perception of learning is that it occurs mostly through formal processes such as training programs and conferences. In times of financial cutbacks and increased workloads, it is considered a luxury that can not be afforded. This limited perception overlooks the potential benefits 142 gained from learning through more informal experiences. Failing to see new experiences as opportunities to learn and potentially improve management means that new planning processes are often perceived as unwanted, additional burdens. As a result, the organization invites the risk of stagnation by only maintaining the status quo. These are not desirable conditions under which to manage increasing complexity and uncertainty. ^Recommendations: 1. Encourage deutero-learning, or learning about learning. Deutero-learning, or learning about learning needs to be encouraged. Those working within Water Management and other organizations responsible for the delivery of I W R M need to be made aware that learning opportunities are not limited to formal experiences. A l l organizations are learning organizations and all experiences are learning opportunities. While it is hoped that this thesis will help to raise awareness of these facts, it is well beyond the power of this document to alter an organization's perception. What is possible is that it may light a few sparks that wil l spread. Changes in perception are not able to occur instantly. Persistence and dedication to the cause are required. 2. Encourage learning to become a "way of being". Ultimately, what is desirable is for learning to become "a way of being" (Vaill, 1996). By this approach, learning becomes a self-directed, creative, expressive, reflexive, and continual process. Learning as a way of being is a system of ideas about learning and experiences of learning. Accordingly, it produces systems thinking by enabling one to become immersed in the phenomenon of systems without labouring over their conceptual structure. 3. Legitimize learning. Learning needs to be legitimized. In the words of Kai Lee: " i f social learning is to occur in a durable way, it must be reflected in policy" (1993: 90). Recognition of the need for and value of learning should be directed from Victoria, and adopted by all regional Water Management offices through a formal policy statement and the establishment and monitoring of learning objectives. 143 10.2.2 The Learning Cycle In order to change a system, it must first be understood. This research has revealed a great deal about the type of learning that takes place within Water Management and how that learning takes place. While the research findings have significant implications, as discussed in this next section, it should be noted that they represent the input of a relatively small sample of Water Management's staff. A more comprehensive assessment of the organization's learning capacity would likely provide even greater insight from which to develop a plan of action. That said, the results gathered in this study, discussed in terms of Learning Orientations and Facilitating Factors, constitute the basis of preliminary organizational learning profile for Water Management. The significance of the profile is best appreciated when placed within the broader context of the learning cycle, which begins with the acquisition of knowledge, and follows with the subsequent dissemination and eventual utilization or implementation of that knowledge. Each of these three phases are supported by a specific combination of LOrs and FFs that are particularly pertinent to that part of the learning cycle. An application of the results of the learning profile to the learning cycle reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of the organization's learning system and highlights specific areas where adjustments would help to increase overall organizational learning capacity. Full Circle Overarching all three phases of the learning cycle are three critical elements which all rated poorly in the learning profile. Water Management's learning system appears to focus mostly on individual learning, and while this is important, it is also important to encourage opportunities for group learning, for the two can yield very different types of knowledge and understanding. Involved leadership was identified as being relatively weak in the evaluation as was the demonstration of a systems perspective. ^"Recommendations: 1. Encourage group learning. Group learning should be encouraged within Water Management, but not at the expense of individual learning. The two work to compliment each other well. Group learning does not have to be limited to formal educational programs. It can be encouraged through the appointment of work groups and task forces, through collaborative decision making, and through in-house group presentations on specific projects. 144 2. Develop greater encouragement of learning from senior management A stronger orientation to learning will not be adopted by the organization without encouragement from senior management. This then is an added responsibility for regional Water Managers and more broadly for Water Management Headquarters in Victoria. More involvement in learning on the part of leaders does not mean being the evaluator. Leaders should be models for learning. This requires encouraging sharing and interaction amongst staff, providing effective facilitation where and when necessary, and, perhaps most importantly, providing feedback. 3. Adopt a systems perspective for IWRM. According to Peter Senge, "we are literally killing ourselves through being unable to think in wholes" (1990: 42). Developing a stronger systems perspective is a lengthy process that does not come easily to most organizations as it goes against traditional training and experience which focuses on short term gains and specialized knowledge. That said, systems thinking can be enhanced through a variety of ways (DiBella and Nevis, 1998): • Encourage exposure to information on system dynamics. • Redesign of rewards systems so that coordinated efforts receive greater recognition than efforts that optimize individual concerns. • Emphasize group work that brings together individuals from different backgrounds. • Encourage shared decision making in which all interests have to be considered. Knowledge Acquisition Looking to the first of the three phases of the learning cycle, Water Management appears to be very capable in knowledge acquisition. Through internal means, the organization produces vast amounts of substantive knowledge. Their more recent involvement in land use planning processes, such as LRMPs, is also enabling more process-based knowledge to be introduced. ^Recommendations: 1. Ensure that appropriate knowledge is acquired While this phase of the learning cycle is relatively strong at the moment, it is important that it be maintained. Above and beyond the rate of accumulation of knowledge, the most important question for this phase of the learning cycle is whether appropriate knowledge is being acquired. In order to enhance I W R M it is important to develop a balance between descriptive and functional knowledge, as discussed earlier. 145 2. Enhance Organizational Curiousity. Enhancing Organizational Curiousity will help to maintain knowledge acquisition. This can be achieved by a variety of actions: providing creative training opportunities, institutionalizing brainstorming in problem solving exercises, and providing non-financial incentives for creative thinking. For curiosity to develop, it is also important to establish a comfortable level of trust within the organization. Trust will enable individuals to feel safe and secure in pursuing alternative avenues and in sharing their findings (DiBella and Nevis, 1998). 3. Expand the circle of interaction within Water Management Theoretically, increased curiousity will lead to an increase in scanning external sources for relevant information and experience. Encouraging those whose work normally adopts an internal focus to engage with related groups outside of Water Management, or bringing in speakers to share their experiences can also help to enhance scanning. Knowledge Dissemination Moving through the cycle, the input from study participants suggests that the dissemination of knowledge in Water Management is quite weak. In fact, this is the phase which requires the most attention i f organizational learning capacity is to be expanded. The combination of a largely personal knowledge reserve, a more informal mode of dissemination within the organization, and the loss of organized informational exchange forums due to budget restraints has resulted in a working environment which does not encourage the sharing or dissemination of knowledge. ^Recommendations: 1. Develop a greater collective, public reserve of knowledge. Water Management needs to develop a more collective, public reserve of knowledge. With much of its knowledge residing with specialists, the organization places itself at tremendous risk of losing that knowledge when these individuals either retire or change jobs. Several processes exist for moving from a personal to public knowledge reserve which can help to mitigate the loss of individuals who possess valuable experience and knowledge: (DiBella and Nevis, 1998) • develop systems for capturing, codifying, and aggregating experiences of individuals and groups. • ensure that all critical work processes are well documented regularly 146 • develop a library to collect and make available all reports • conduct exit interviews with staff who are leaving the organization for the purpose of capturing their expert knowledge • implement transitional employment training to mitigate the loss knowledge through senior staff loss and junior staff acquisition 2. Introduce more formal modes of information dissemination Currently, Water Management operates with a more informal mode of knowledge dissemination. Improving dissemination requires introducing formal modes of dissemination as well, to create more of a balance. In developing this balance, it is important that time be taken to identify what is considered to be useful knowledge and code which types of knowledge are best disseminated formally or informally. Several options are available for introducing formal dissemination of information gained through experiences with LRMPs. In the case of regional Water Management offices, written or oral progress reports should be produced for the benefit of those not directly involved with the L R M P . Interregionally, an on-line bulletin board could be set up to encourage staff to discuss specific problems and issues encountered in their region. 3. Expand Continous Education Continous education needs to receive greater emphasis within Water Management. This can be encouraged by setting specific learning objectives for a set period of time within the organization, and by assigning special task forces to meet specific objectives and requiring them to report back on progress. Knowledge Utilization When knowledge is disseminated within Water Management, it appears that that knowledge is effectively utilized. While the organization's incremental learning scope is not going to produce any dramatic changes any time soon, it is also not going to hinder progress in I W R M so long as it is maintained. Working to develop a climate that supports continuous education (discussed above) will help with this. As well, with the proliferation of water related planning processes, the organization is increasingly developing greater Operational Variety, which creates more opportunities for learning. 147 10.2 Integration In Water Resources Management Planning Complexity and uncertainty are inherent to water resources management. To think otherwise, to try to deny or mask uncertainty or to reduce or simplify complexity, is futile. Previous management efforts have proven this, and resulted in a fragmented, sectoral approach to the governance of water resources. In British Columbia, this is exemplified by a myriad of programs, policies, and legislation implemented to manage water resources, and, in some instances, by a distinct lack of policy development. Integrated water resources management, in theory, acknowledges the need to move beyond this approach, to consider the interrelationships between various elements of the resource and the social and economic conditions that influence their development, to think holistically. The principles behind I W R M are not new. In North America, they have existed in various forms for the duration of this century, and in other parts of the world they constitute the basis of traditional ecological knowledge. In British Columbia, where opportunities for I W R M are currently being made available through a variety of land use planning processes, there is a growing awareness of the need for a more integrated approach. Yet, in practice, implementation of I W R M has been hesitant, unsystematic, and largely unsuccessful. Why is this? An examination of attempts to integrate water resources into B C s Land and Resources Management Plans provides great insight into this question. Drawing upon the themes developed earlier in Chapter Two, the varied experiences of Water Management across six L R M P case studies suggest that there are many barriers impeding progress with IWRM. As is to be expected with systems, addressing barriers in one area may induce changes in other areas of concern. Social Barriers: Social perception has a large influence on progress with IWRM. Acceptance of change is rarely openly embraced, as a result of people's perceptions. This research reveals that one of the critical barriers to successfully integrating water resources into LRMPs is an unfavourable perception of planning. According to several interview respondents, planning is often perceived by many within Water Management to be a "political time suck" that has unreliable results. This perception is based on experience with past planning exercises which, for various reasons, did not bear positive results as expected. As a result, planning appears to be a relatively low priority for many individuals working within the organization, and involvement in planning processes seems to be approached with cynicism 148 and trepidation. Given the fact that many of the opportunities for improving I W R M exist in multi-stakeholder land use planning processes, such as LRMPs, the prospects for progress here are currently not great. Thd perception of the value of water resources has also affected the extent to which they have been integrated into LRMPs. In the Kamloops region, where water supply is short and demand from an expanding population is growing, water commands a high value. Consequently, water is a very high profile resource in the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P and great efforts are being made to ensure that water resources are well integrated into the final plan. In contrast, there is still a dominant perception in the northern regions of the province that water is in abundant supply and still of relatively good quality. Water is therefore not as highly valued in these regions, and this is reflected in the limited extent to which the resource has been integrated into many of the northern LRMPs. 5>" Recommendations: 1. Invest in a planning education program It appears likely that water resource planning is to continue to be the vehicle by which I W R M is achieved. It is therefore critical to invest in a planning education program for Water Management either through formal training or by the dissemination of published materials that encourage a critical understanding of the role of planning in water management and help to develop the necessary skills with which to effectively carry it out. Such a program will help to reduce repeats of planning failures and inspire greater confidence in planning. The appointment of Regional Water Resources Planners would help to focus and coordinate planning efforts. 2. Adopt a more proactive approach to water management Effective water management can not and should not be crisis management. Waiting for a crisis to arise in order for the true value of water to become apparent to a community or region is reactive management. A more proactive approach needs to be adopted, especially in the northern regions of the province where the perception is still that water supply is abundant. Value focused thinking can help people to recognize the true values of a resource before its integrity is actually threatened. 149 Attitude as A Barrier The influence of individuals and organizations on the success of integration is highly significant. As a result, the human dimension of planning and management should never be overlooked. With respect to LRMPs, M E L P ' s decision to have one individual represent the entire ministry in the planning process, has a direct effect on integration. The educational and experiential background of that one table representative, their knowledge of the state of the water resource in that region, familiarity with current water resource planning processes, and their ability to communicate with those working within Water Management are all important considerations in determining the extent to which water resources are integrated into the L R M P . Similarly, the attitude of a particular Water Management branch as an organization can dramatically influence integration, as is exemplified with LRMPs in the Kamloops region. In both the Kamloops and the Okanagan Shuswap planning areas, water is a high profile resource, yet due to an attitude of uncertainty over the significance of the L R M P process and its longevity, very minimal effort was invested by Water Management into the early Kamloops plan. For the Okanagan Shuswap plan, which was undertaken once L R M P policy had solidified much more, a much more positive attitude is motivating Water Management to invest more in the process. As a result, it is likely that water resources will be more effectively integrated into the plan. 5>- Recommendations: 1. Adopt the integration of water resources into LRMPs as a joint responsibility. Integration can not be the sole responsibility of the one M E L P representative assigned to LRMPs . "One man shows" can easily break down. Effective integration will only result from a coordinated, concerted team effort. It is therefore strongly recommended that a Water Working Group similar to the one currently active in the Okanagan Shuswap L R M P be established in any future LRMPs. 2. Create mechanisms for coordinating efforts in IWRM Success with I W R M will not come about through the efforts of individuals working in isolation. I W R M is not the sole responsibility of the Water Management Program by any means. Support for integrated projects must be encouraged through the building of new partnerships with all those agencies and organizations responsible for delivering IWRM. Partnerships can be facilitated by opening up communication across jurisdictional boundaries and promoting a more public reserve of knowledge and group learning processes. Recent developments in information technology such as bulletin boards and Internet chat rooms hold a great deal of potential for sharing and coordinating information. 150 Conceptual Barriers Success with I W R M certainly requires an informed and accurate understanding of the concept. This research suggests that there is generally a good understanding of the purpose and intentions of I W R M within Water Management. Many of the multi-stakeholder planning processes currently in effect help to consolidate and enforce a broad understanding of I W R M in terms of how water relates to other resources. That said, however, there is a much better grasp on vertical integration, or how the various components of water resources (surface and groundwater, water quality and quantity) interrelate, than there is of horizontal integration, or how the multitude of water resources planning processes relate to each other. Most recently efforts have been made by Water Management Headquarters to help improve conceptualization of horizontal integration through internal reviews of planning and management tools for water resources, but the results of such efforts are not yet apparent in the regions. One of the major propositions of this thesis, discussed at length in Chapter 4, is that I W R M is inherently systems based. Unfortunately, the concept of complete systems is not as pervasive in the practice of I W R M as it should be. The current governance structure in B C , which has fragmented water management across various government departments, programs and policies, certainly does not encourage systems thinking. Beyond that, the concept of systems does not come naturally to many people. We are trained as specialists, focusing on one specific area, assured that someone else is responsible for other considerations. Recommendations: 1. Increase awareness and understanding of horizontal integration within Water Management In developing management objectives and strategies for LRMPs, Water Management should be sure that they are consistent and supportive of plans already in place that address water resources. This is the concept of horizontal integration. Where there are gaps in these plans or concerns within them, it may be possible to address these in the L R M P . 151 2. Adopt a systems approach to IWRM As much as involvement with multi-stakeholder processes may be helping to broaden the perspectives of agencies and organizations responsible for delivering I W R M , ultimate success with I W R M will require a more complete and formal adoption of a holistic, systems approach. Drawing from the conceptual model developed in Chapter Four, a systems approach to I W R M should be based on four critical principles: inclusiveness, strategic orientation, legitimacy, and commitment. These principles are the foundation upon which the processes which drive I W R M function: social learning, communication, value focused thinking, public participation, and monitoring and evaluation. These are the processes through which inputs of water resources, water related data and policy, and the water users themselves are filtered and from which outputs of new ideas and understanding, cooperation and coordination, and improvements to management emerge across the management, socio-economic, and biophysical systems. Institutional Barriers Institutional structuring has traditionally worked against efforts to integrate the management of water resources in BC. The various elements of water resources have not traditionally been addressed within one governmental department or even one ministry. Rather, as new water related concerns and demands have arisen, a sectoral approach to management has developed. The result is a disconnected network of specialists working independently of each other: Allocation Officers issuing licences, Hydrologists measuring flow and impacts of forestry on hydrodynamics, water quality specialists measuring changes in dissolved load and the effects of such changes on aquatic ecosystems, Wildlife Biologists measuring impacts of riparian damage due to forestry on habitat, and Fisheries Biologists assessing the impacts of changes in water temperature on instream populations. While referral processes and multi-stakeholder planning processes do help to bring these sectors together, there are still many gaps. Looking specifically at Water Management, there are several areas which restrict their ability to contribute more to IWRM. First and foremost, B C s current Water Act only legislates water allocation and use. It does not provide for complete management of the resource, per se, only the management of its supply. Governments are always accountable to their mandates and without the inclusion of integration in Water Management's and other agencies' mandates by way of legislation, progress will remain limited. 152 5>- Recommendations: 1. Bring Water Management staff together Greater effort to bring together staff across the various sectors and departments within each region is needed. It is imperative that these individuals have a solid understanding not only of the work that others are doing, but also of how their own work may affect that of others. 2. Extend the authority of Water Managers through new legislation and Memorandums of Understanding Regional Water Managers need to become more involved in the management decisions of other agencies to ensure that informed decisions concerning water resources are made and upheld. Presently, under the Forest Practices Code Act of BC, a Regional Water Manager's authority within a designated community watershed is equal to that of the District Forest Manager in approving Forest Development Plans, yet there are many other areas where the District Manager retains authority. The authority of Water Managers needs to be extended through new legislation and Memorandums of Understanding to allow for more informed, joint decisions on water related issues. 3. Enact a new Provincial Water Act A new Provincial Water Act needs to be developed that better reflects the nature of water resources management today. The act should be developed on the principles of I W R M and its authority should extend to all those departments addressing water resource concerns. The new legislation should specify what agency/agencies have authority over what water resources. As well, specific provisions for groundwater management should be included in the Act, as should a formal acknowledgment of water resource planning. A new Water Act as such would extend greater legitimacy to I W R M . Data Barriers Three main factors related to data and information influence success with integration. The first of these is data availability. Without adequate data, an accurate understanding of the state of water resources is impossible to achieve. Within LRMPs, data availability was not cited as a big problem. Water data has been kept very broad at this strategic level of planning, as the smallest relevant planning unit the process can address is a community watershed. Where gaps in data were found to exist, it was emphasized that it is important to convey this lack of information to others involved in the planning 153 process as it may well be assumed that the data is there even i f it is not presented formally. Acquiring vast amounts of data will not ensure integration however. In many instances increases in information may actually increase complexity and uncertainty rather than reduce it. Data accessibility, or lack thereof, can also hinder integration. In order to transcend sectoral management, sharing of data is essential. Generally, those L R M P table representatives who required information from Water Management were successful in obtaining it, although it was reported that in some instances that there was an initial reluctance to provide it. Within Water Management itself, it was reported that there is generally a very open environment in which data is accessible, with the exception of some historical data that is kept in off-site storage due to space limitations. That said, water related data bases are still fragmented and dispersed across the various departments responsible for water management. For example, Pollution Prevention maintains the water quality data bases, Water Management has water licenses, and Fish and Wildlife have the fish and stream data. Generally, information technology is helping to improve the accessibility of water resource information within the government. Tools such as email, faxes, and M E L P ' s Geographical and Oracle Access Tool (GOAT) provide for easy access and sharing of data. Finally, the utility of data and information is an important consideration. Maintaining a balance between descriptive and functional information is imperative. I W R M requires moving beyond descriptive knowledge to functional knowledge, which establishes causes and connections between various components of the descriptive data. Recommendations: 1. Allow time to gather and prepare water resource data for LRMPs A l l efforts should be made to ensure that the appropriate water based information is available for LRMPs. This information should provide table members with an informed understanding of the status of the resource in the region, specific areas of concern, and resultant objectives to be achieved from the planning process. Data should be selected according to its relevance at the strategic level of planning. 154 2. Encourage the development of functional knowledge of water resources While efforts to develop complete water inventory databases for the province should continue, research funding should prioritize projects that seek to develop greater functional knowledge of water resources. Functional knowledge can help to establish a more solid systems perspective within management. Communication Barriers Interagency communication is an integral component of IWRM. Lines of exchange, both formal and formal, between the various sectors involved with water management, must be maintained in order to stay abreast of constantly changing conditions and circumstances. Strengthening interagency communication can be facilitated by eliminating jargon and avoiding overly technical presentations of data. A n example of attempts in this regard is evident within the Kalum L R M P , where concerted efforts are being made to develop a shared understanding of water based issues amongst all stakeholders and a common language with which to discuss them. Generally, across the LRMPs, the more communication that exists between the table representative and those in Water Management, the greater confidence there is in efforts to integrate water resources into the plan. Intra-agency communication is also critical to the success of I W R M . Involvement with LRMPs and other multi-stakeholder processes has exposed many people in Water Management to new techniques in communication including interest-based negotiation and consensus based decision making. Many of those who participated in the study indicated that they have been able to draw upon these new skills in their individual work. It is also important though that these skills be integrated into the overall culture of the organization and used to its advantage. The extent to which this occurs of course depends largely on the willingness of individuals within the organization to listen and accept new approaches. On a provincial level it is also important that Water Management staff be kept informed of initiatives and experiences that are contributing to IWRM. With budget cutbacks and reductions in funding, the opportunity for exchange forums has been drastically reduced. Consequently, awareness of new opportunities for furthering integration is limited. The recent initiative of Water Management in 155 Victoria to develop the document Tools for Managing Water Resources in British Columbia^ is a positive indication that efforts are still being made in this regard (MELP, 1998). Recommendations: 1. Encourage training and experience in negotiation Continued participation in multi-stakeholder planning processes which practice interest-based negotiation and shared decision making will help to break down interagency conflicts which have arisen in the past due to poor communication. 2. Encourage inter-regional sharing of LRMP experiences Opportunities should be made available for those who have been involved with LRMPs to brief others working within Water Management on specific skills, information, and insights gained from that experience. Ideally these presentations should be formal, and they should encourage discussions of the implications of the L R M P experience for other planning and management practices. Reflecting on experience as such allows for the questions and feedback that drive learning. Monitoring and Assessment: Successful planning for the integration of water resources does not stop with the production of the plan document. This is an unfortunate misconception that has led to countless failures in planning, and contributed to a cynical attitude towards planning. Monitoring and assessment constitute a vital source of feedback in the planning process. They are the means by which progress is measured and future decisions are improved upon. In theory, government is accountable to the public. Accordingly, monitoring and assessment of behaviour and practice should be a greater priority. To date there has been no formal emphasis placed on monitoring and assessment in I W R M policy in B C , however, with increased awareness of the significance of cumulative effects, it is gradually becoming a greater priority in water management. Within the context of LRMPs specifically, the Kalum L R M P is one of the few processes in which efforts are being made to include as a management objective the monitoring for cumulative effects on water resources. 1 2 This document is still undergoing internal review. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to review a preliminary copy of the draft. 156 ^* Recommendations: 1. Incorporate ongoing reviews of LRMP experience Individual Water Management branches should take time to review and assess their ongoing involvement in LRMPs and the overall experience upon completion of the plan. A n assessment should address the benefits gained from the experience and the problems encountered, and generate recommendations that can be applied to subsequent planning processes. The assessment should not be limited to strictly technical performance issues, but should also address issues relating to organization, administration, and communication. 2. Remain active in the monitoring of the LRMP through implementation Water Management branches should commit to providing progress reports to L R M P implementation teams that detail successes and failures with implementing strategic management objectives and strategies. 3. Employ an LRMP contact person in Victoria As currently exists for Regional Growth Strategies, a contact person within Water Management in Victoria should be appointed responsible for tracking progress of the integration of water resources into LRMPs and ensuring that adequate information and guidance is provided to regional offices as needed. 4. Develop monitoring indicators for IWRM With the input of regional offices and external research, Water Management in Victoria should develop a set of indicators that can be used to chart progress in I W R M across the province. Evaluations could be conducted similar to the Fraser Basin Council's Report Card, and the indicators updated as need be. The indicators developed for such monitoring would, in effect, become provincial objectives for IWRM. The results of these evaluations should be distributed across the .) regions to keep all Water Management offices informed and aware of both successes and failures in I W R M . 157 10.3 Navigating the Landscape of IWRM: Where Do We Go From Here? So here we are. On the landscape. Climbing and descending. Scaling and stumbling. Catching our breath before we move on. The landscape is changing continuously, with mountains becoming valleys and valleys becoming mountains. Some will see it as a problem; others as an opportunity. Some may not see it at all. It is a simple matter of perception. That perception, however, will make all the difference in how we enjoy the trip and ultimately its success. Those who perceive it as a problem will likely struggle up steep slopes, missing the views, and only feeling the pain. With their heads down, focused on reaching the top, they may well miss the advice of others returning down the same slope, having identified a better route. For those who see the landscape as an opportunity however, there is much to be learned. To make the most of the opportunity requires changes, certainly. But change is everywhere and must be taken in stride. For all the theoretical training in the world, the landscape can only truly be known by exploring it personally. Learning from that experience and sharing it with others is what will enable us to go on, improving as we do. In fact, learning is critical to mastering the deforming landscape. It is not a simple challenge. Mastering the landscape demands a great deal of water managers. They are responsible for ensuring that four fundamental requirements for the journey are sustained: 1) all who are trained must be included; 2) all participants must be committed to the challenge; 3) there must be a sponsor behind the expedition; it must be legitimate; and 4) a flexible expedition strategy must exist. Managers are also responsible for ensuring that all required provisions are secured. The necessary equipment, including appropriate data and effective policies, must be attained. Moreover, not knowing what they may encounter, it is imperative that they be anticipative, and have a strong sense of the nature of the terrain they are setting out onto. En route, depending on the conditions of the landscape, various techniques wil l be required: value focused thinking, communication, public participation, monitoring and evaluation, and of course, learning. In times of danger and uncertainty survival skills in negotiation and facilitation will be called upon. Planning is also vital to the success of this journey and re-planning as conditions change will be unavoidable. Through all of this, realistic objectives must be set, and achievements, no matter how large or small, should be recognized. 158 The journey has already begun. Along the way there have been successes and failures. Most importantly, lessons have been learned. It is my hope that this thesis provides some insight that enables, enlightens, facilitates, and sustains the expedition. 159 References Argyris, Chris and Schon, Donald A. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, M A : Addison-Westley Publishing Company. Allee, Verna. (1997). The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Altheide, David L . and Johnson, John M . (1994). Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. Handbook of Qualitative Research, p.485-499. Armitage, Derek (1995). "An Integrative Methodological Framework for Sustainable Environmental Planning and Management", Environmental Management, Vol . 19, No.4, p.469-479. Battram, Arthur. (1998). Navigating Complexity. London: The Industrial Society. B C Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP) (1993). "Water Management Planning ", Volume 4 in Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia: A Review of British Columbia's Water Management Policy and Legislation. Victoria, BC . B C Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP) (1993). "Background Report", Volume 9 in Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia: A Review of British Columbia's Water Management Policy and Legislation. Victoria: BC. B C Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP) (1998). Tools for Managing Water Resources in British Columbia. Internal Draft Only. Water Management Program, Victoria. B C Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP) (1999). Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat: The Fish Protection Act. U R L Address: http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/fsh/protection_act/ B C Ministry of Forests (MOF) and BC Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP). (1999). Landscape Unit Planning Guide. Victoria, BC . B C Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MARH) (1999). Growth Strategies For British Columbia. U R L Address: http://www.marh.gov.bc.ca/GROWTH/bro/ Beasdny, C.D. (1991). "From the Secretary's Desk - Integrated Management: The "Big Picture" of What We Do". Wisconsin DNR Digest. (April-May), Madison, Wisconsin. Bentz, Valerie Malhotra and Shapiro, Jeremy J. (1998). Mindful Inquiry in Social Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Berg, Bruce L . (1998). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Born, Stephen M . and Sonzogni, William, C. (1995). "Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening the Conceptualization", Environmental Management, Vo l 19, No.2:167-181. Brenneis, K. , and M'Gonigle, M . (1991). "Public Participation: Components of the Process", Environments, Vol.21, No.3:5-1 l.Cairns, John (1991). "The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management" in Integrated Environmental Management. John Cairns Jr., Todd V . Crawford. (Eds)..Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers Inc., p.5-20. Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD) (1994) Continuous Learning - A C C M D eport. (Report No. 1) Cantwell, Mark and Day J.C. (1996). "Walking the Walk or Just Talking the Talk? Government Support For Integrated Watershed Management at the Local Level" in Watercourses: Getting On Stream with Current Thinking. Conference Proceedings.: Vancouver, B C : C W R A . Child, Matthew and Armour, Audrey (1995). "Integrated Water Resource Planning in Canada: Theoretical Considerations and Observations From Practice". Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vo l 20, No. 2:115-126. City of Richmond (1999). City of Richmond Official Community Plan. U R L Address: http://www.city.richmond.bc.ca/landuse/ocp98/ Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), (1996). Strategic Land Use Planning Source Book, Victoria, B.C.. Creighton, Sheila (1997). Learning to Plan and Planning to Learn: Realizing the Benefits of Social Learning in Land and Resource Management Planning, Unpublished Paper completed for the School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. 161 Creighton, Sheila (1998). Planning for Water In LRMPs: An Integrative Process. Internship Report completed for the School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. de Jong, Joost, van Rooy, Peter T., and Hosper, Harry S. (1995) "Living with Water: At the Cross-Roads of Change", Water Science Technology, Vol . 31, No.8:393-400. Denzin, Norman K . (1994). The Art and Politics of Interpretation. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K . Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). London: Sage Publications, p.500-515. DiBella, Anthony J. and Nevis, Edwin C. (1998) How Organizations Learn: An Integrated Strategy for Building Learning Capacity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Dewey, John (1963). Experience and Education. London: Colleri Books. Dorcey, A.H.J . (1986). Bargaining In the Governance of Pacific Coastal Resources: Research and Reform. Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia. Dorcey, A.H.J . (1987). "The Myth of Interagency Cooperation in Water Resources Management" Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol.12, No.2:17-26. Dorcey, A.H.J . (1991). "Water in the Sustainable Development of the Fraser River Basin", Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Anthony H.J. Dorcey and Julian R. Griggs (eds.) Research Program, Vol . 2. Vancouver, B.C: Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia,., p.3-18. Dorcey, A.H.J . (1994). Public Involvement in Government Decision-Making: Choosing the Right Model. A Report of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Duffy, Dorli and Penrose, Robert (1997). Participation in Public Interest Negotiations. Workshop Notes: July 31, 1997. Community Development Institute, Sechelt, B.C. Easter, W.K. and Dixon, J.A. (1986). "Integrated Watershed Management: An Approach to Resource Management" in Watershed Resources Management: An Integrated Framework with Studies from Asia and the Pacific. William K . Easter, John A. Dixon, and Maynard M . Hufschmidt (eds.) Studies in Water Policy and Management No. 10, Westview Press: Boulder (p.3-15). Finger, Matthias and Kilcoyne, James Jr. (1995) "Learning Our Way Out: Indicators of Social Environmental Learning". In A Sustainable World: Defining and Measuring Sustainable 162 Development.. Thaddeus C. Trzyna. (Ed.) Sacramento: International Center for the Environment and Public Policy, p. 239-254. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fiske, Gary S. (1995). "Developing Long-term Water Resource Strategies: The "Bottom Line" of Integrated Resource Planning". InAWRA Proceedings: Water Conservation in the Twenty-First Century: Conservation, Demand and Supply" April 23-26, 1995. Lloyd H . Austin, Ed. Salt Lake City, Utah: A W R A . , p.259-268. Foddy, William. (1995). Constructing Questions For Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fontana, Andrea and James H . Frey. (1994). "Interviewing: the Art of Science'. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K . Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). London: Sage Publications, p.361-376. Forester, John (1982). "Planning In the Face Of Power", Journal of American Planning Association, Vol . 48, No. 1:67-80. Forester, John (1993) "Learning From Practice Stories: The Priority of Practical Judgment". In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Frank Fischer and John Forester (Eds.) Durham: Duke University Press, p. 186-209. Friedmann, John (1973). Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Garden City, N.J. : Anchor/Doubleday Press. Friedmann, John (1987). Planning In the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Geldof, Govert D. (1995a). "Adaptive Water Management: Integrated Water Management On the Edge of Chaos", Water Science and Technology. Vol.32, No.1:7-13. Geldof, Govert D. (1995b). "Policy Analysis and Complexity - A Non-Equilibrium Approach For Integrated Water Management", Water Science and Technology, Vo l . 31, No.8:301-309. 163 Gregory, Robin and McDaniels, Tim (1996). The Alouette Stakeholder Committee: Process, Analysis, and Recommendations. Final Report. McDaniels Research Limited. Vancouver, B C . Gubrium, Jaber F. and Holstein, James A . (1997). The New Language of Qualitative Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gunderson, Lance, Holling, C.S., and Light, Stephen (Eds.) (1995). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions., New York: Columbia University Press. Gunderson. Lance H , Holling, C.S., and Light, Stephen S. (1995). "Barriers Broken and Bridges Built: A Synthesis" in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Lance H . Gunderson, C.S. Holling, p.489-532. Halbert, Cindy L . (1993). "How Adaptive is Adaptive Management? Implementing Adaptive Management in Washington State and British Columbia", Environmental Management, Vol.20, No.6:879-886. Hall, Peter A . (1993). "Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain", Comparative Politics, April 1993, p.275-296. Haney, Alan and Power, Rebecca L. (1996). "Adaptive Management for Sound Ecosystem Management", Environmental Management, 20(6):879-886. Hatcher, Kathryn (1981). " A System's View of Integrated Water Resources Management" in Symposium Proceedings: Unified River Basin Management: Stage 2. David Allee et al. (Eds). American Water Resources Association: Minneapolis, Minnesota, p. 145-160. Hedburg, Bo (1981), "How Organizations Learn and Unlearn" in Handbook of Organizational Design Volume 1. Paul C. Nystrom and William H . Starbuck, (Eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henry, Jane (1989) "Meaning and Practice in Experiential Learning" in Making Sense of Experiential Learning: Diversity in Theory and Practice. Susan Warner Weil, and Ian M c G i l l (Eds.). Stratford: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, p. 25-37 Holling, C.S. (1995). "What Barriers? What Bridges?"'in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of • Ecosystems and Institutions. Lance Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and Stephen Light (Eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, p.3-35. 164 Holling, C.S., Berkes, Fikret, and Folke, Carl. (1998). "Science, Sustainability, and Resource Management" in Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience.. Fikret Berkes and Carl Folke (Eds). Cambridge, U K : Cambridge University Press. Huber, George P (1991) "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes And The Literatures", Organization Science, Vo l 2, No.l :88-l 15. Huberman, Michael A . and Miles, Matthew B. (1994). "Data Management and Analysis Methods". Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K . Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. (Eds.). London: Sage Publications. Hufschmidt, M . M . and Tejwani, K . G . (1993) Integrated Water Resource Management: Meeting the Sustainability Challenge, UNESCO (from Easter, Hufschmidt and McCauley, 1985). Hufschmidt, Maynard. (1986). " A Conceptual Framework For Watershed Management", in Watershed Resources Management: An Integrated Framework with Studies from Asia and the Pacific. William K. Easter, John A . Dixon, and Maynard M . Hufschmidt (eds.) Studies in Water Policy and Management No. 10, Westview Press: Boulder, p 17-31. Hunt, David E. (1987). Beginning With Ourselves: In Practice, Theory, and Human Affairs. Cambirdge, M A : Brookline Books Jervis, Robert. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Kauffman, S. and Macready, W. (1995). "Technical Evolution and Adaptive Organizations", Complexity, Vol.1, No.2:26-433. Keeney, Ralph L . (1992). Value Focused Thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Keeney, Ralph L . (1988). "Structuring Objectives For Problems of Public Interest", Operations Research, Vol . 36, No. 3:396-405. Kernaghan, Kenneth and Siegal, David (1995). "Making Public Policy", Public Administration in Canada: A Text. Scarborough: Nelson Canada, p.129-154. 165 Kolb, David A . (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO), (1998a). U R L address: http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca. Accessed January, 1998. Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO), (1998b). Integrated Land Use Planning For Public Lands in British Columbia. Victoria, B.C. Lassey, Peter (1998). Developing A Learning Organization. London: Kogan Page Limited. Lang, Reg (1986) . "Achieving Integration in Resource Planning" (Chapter 2) in Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management. Ed. Reg Lang. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Lee, Kai N . (1993). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Lee, Kai (1995) "Desperately Seeking Sustainability in the Columbia River Basin" in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Lance Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and Stephen Light (Eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, p.214-238. Leeuw, Frans L . and Richard C. Sonnichsen (1994). "Evaluation and Organizational Learning: International Perspectives" in Frans L. Leeuw, Ray C. Rist, and Richard C. Sonnichsen (Eds.). Can Governments Learn?: Comparative Perspective on Evaluation and Organizational Learning. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, p. 1-13. Levitt, Barbara and March, James G. (1988). "Organizational Learning", Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.l4:319-340. Lincoln, Y . , and Guba, E. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, C A : Sage Publications. Lovelace, George W. and Rambo, Terry. (1986). "Behavioural and Social Dimensions" in Watershed Resources Management: An Integrated Framework with Studies from Asia and the Pacific. William K . Easter, John A . Dixon, and Maynard M . Hufschmidt (eds.) Studies in Water Policy and Management No. 10, Westview Press: Boulder (p.81-90). Mackenzie, Susan (1996) Integrated Resource Planning and Management: the Ecosystem Approach in the Great Lakes Basin, Washington, D C : Island Press: 166 Mackeracher, Dorothy. (1996). Making Sense of Adult Learning. Toronto: Culture Concepts Inc. Malhotra, Yogesh. (1996). Organizational Learning and Learning Organizations: An Overview, U R L : http://www.brint.com/papers/orglrng.htrn March, James G. and Olsen, Johan, P. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Margerum, Richard D, and Born, Stephen, M . (1995). "Integrated Environmental Management: Moving From Theory to Practice". Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, V o l 38, No.3:371-391. Marshall, Catherine and Rossman, Gretchen B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. 2 n d Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mason, Richard O. and Mitroff, Ian I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions: Theory, Cases, and Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Michael, Donald N . (1995). "Barriers and Bridges to Learning in A Turbulent Human Ecology" in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Lance H . Gunderson, C.S. Holling, (eds.) New York: Cambridge University Press, p.461-485. Mitchell, Bruce (1986). "The Evolution of Integrated Resource Management" (Chapter 1) in Integrated Approaches to Resource Planning and Management. Ed. Reg Lang. Calgary: University of Calgary Press, p. 13-26. Mitchell, Bruce. (1990). "Patterns and Implications" in Integrated Water Management: International Experiences and Perspectives. Bruce Mitchell (ed). London: Belhaven Press, p203-218. Naiman, Robert J. (1992). "Integrated Watershed Management: Science or Myth?" in Watershed Resources: Balancing Environmental, Social, Political and Economic Factors in Large Basins, Conference Proceedings October 14-16, 1992 Portland, OR., p.5-20. O'Gorman, Dennis K . (1978). "Integrated Management of Resources: Parameters, Problems and Prospects", Integrated Management of Resources: Conference Proceedings. November 2-4, 1978, Bayshore Inn. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia. 167 Olsen, Johan, P. and Peters, Guy B. (1996). "Learning From Experience?" in Lessons From Experience: Experiential Learning in Administrative Reforms in Eight Democracies. Johan P Olsen and Guy B. Peters (Eds.) Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, p. 1-35 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), (1989). Water Resource Management: Integrated Policies. Paris, France. Orum Anthony M . Feagin, Joe R. and Sjoberg, Gideon. (1991). "The Nature of the Case Study." In ,4 Case for the Case Study. Anthony Orum, Joe R. Feagin, and Gideon Sjoberg (Eds). Chapel Hi l l : University of North Carolina, p. 1 -26. Parson, Edward A . and Clark, William C. (1995). "Sustainable Development As Social Learning: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Challenges for the Design of a Research Program" in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Lance H . Gunderson, C.S. Holling, (eds.) New York: Cambridge University Press, p.428-460. Patron, Michael Quinn. (1987). How To Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Petak, William J. (1980). "Environmental Planning and Management: The Need for an Integrative Perspective", Environmental Management, Vol 4, No.4:287-295. Perry, James and Vanderklein, Elizabeth. (1996a). "Water Quality Management: An Evolving Field for Changing Values" (chapter 1) in Water Quality: Management of a Natural Resource. James Perry and Elizabeth Vanderklein (eds). Cambridge, M A : Blackwell Science, p. 1-28. Perry, James and Vanderklein, Elizabeth. (1996b). "Paradigms in Motion: Integrated Approaches to Water Quality Policy" (Chapter 26) in Water Quality: Management of a Natural Resource. James Perry and Elizabeth Vanderklein (Eds). Cambridge, M A : Blackwell Science, p.535-559. Peterson, Mark A . (1997). "The Limits of Social Learning: Translating Analysis into Action", Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law. Vo l 22, No.4:1077-1114. Province of British Columbia, (1993). Land and Resource Management Planning: A Statement of Process and Principles. First Edition, Victoria, B.C. Province of British Columbia, (1995a). Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure Guidebook. Victoria, BC . 168 Province of British Columbia, (1995b). Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan. A Component of British Columbia's Land Use Strategy. Province of British Columbia, (1996). Higher Level Plans: Policy and Procedures. Forest Practices Code of British Columbia. Victoria, BC. Province of British Columbia, (1997a). Prince George Land and Resource Management Plan (Draft #2). A Component of British Columbia's Land Use Strategy. Province of British Columbia, (1997b). Recommended Fort St. John Land and Resource Management Plan. A Component of British Columbia's Land Use Strategy. Province of British Columbia, (1998). Recommended Fort St. James Land and Resource Management Plan. A Component of British Columbia's Land Use Strategy. Province of British Columbia, Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia (1999). Protecting Drinking Water Sources: 1998/1999 Report 5. Victoria, B C . Rist, Ray C. (1994). Influencing the Policy Process With Qualitative Research. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). London: Sage Publications, p.545-557. Romaine, M.J . (1996). "An Emerging Model for Future Watershed Management in British Columbia" in Watercourses: Getting On Stream with Current Thinking. Conference Proceedings. Vancouver, B C . : C W R A : Ruggeberg, Harriet I. And Dorcey, Anthony H.J. (1991). "Governance of Aquatic Resources in the Fraser River Basin" in Water In Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Anthony H . J. Dorcey and Julian (Eds.) Vancouver, B.C: Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia. Saha, Suranjit K . and Barrow, Christopher J. (1981). River Basin Planning: Theory and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Schon, Donald (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. New York: Basic Books Inc. 169 Schwandt, Thomas A . (1994). Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). London: Sage Publications P. 118-137. Senge, Peter M . (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Shrubsole, Dan (1990). "Integrated Water Management Strategies in Canada" in Integrated Water Management: International Experiences and Perspectives. Bruce Mitchell (ed). London: Belhaven Press, p.88-118. Shrubsole, Dan and Mitchell, Bruce (1997). "Practising Sustainable Water Management: Major Themes and Implications" in Practising Sustainable Water Management: Canadian and International Experiences. Dan Shrubsole and Bruce Mitchell (eds.). Cambridge: Canadian Water Resources Association, p.308-322. Silverman, David. 1997. "The Logics of Qualitative Research" in Context and Method in Qualitative Research. Miller, Gale and Robert Dingwall (Eds.) London: Sage Publications, p. 12-25 Sjoberg, Gideon, Williams, Norma, Vaughan, Ted R. and Sjoberg, Andree F. (1991). The Case Study Approach In Social Research: Basic Methodological Issues" in A Case for the Case Study. Anthony Orum, Joe R. Feagin, and Gideon Sjoberg (Eds). Chapel Hi l l : University of North Carolina, p.27-79. Spiro, R.J., Vispoel, W.P., Schmitz, J.G., Samarapungavan, A. , and Boerger, A . E . (1987). Knowledge Acquisition for Application: Cognitive Flexibility and Transfer In Complex Content Domains. In B.C. Britton (Ed.), Executive Control Processes, p. 177-199. Hillsdale, NJUawrence Erlbaum. Stake, Robert E. (1994). "Case Studies" in Handbook of Qualitative Research. Norman K . Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). London: Sage Publications, p.236-247. Vail l , Peter B . (1996). Learning As A Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in A World of Permanent White Water. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc. Walther, Pierre (1987). "Against Idealistic Beliefs in the Problem-Solving Capacities of Integrated Resource Management", Environmental Management, Vol . 11, No.4:439-446. Watkins, Karen E. and Marsick, Victoria J (1993). Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of Systemic Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 170 Westley, Frances (1995). "Governing Design: The Management of Social Systems and Ecosystems Management", in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Lance H . Gunderson, C.S. Holling (eds.) New York: Cambridge University Press, p.391-427. Wong, Tony, Hannah Horn, Georgison, Paul, Wright, Pamela, and Lertzman, Kenneth (1996). Landscape Unit Planning In British Columbia: A Review of Six Pilot Projects. School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University. Westley, Francis (1995). "Governing Design: The Management Of Social Systems And Ecosystems Management", in Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Lance Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and Stephen Light (Eds.), New York: Columbia University Press, p.391-427. Yin , Robert K . 1989. Case Study Research Design and Methods. (2 n ^ Edition). Applied Social Research Methods Series. Volume 5. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc. 171 I 0> 3 > T J T5 O < 6) T J fi) (/> 3- TJ £T o c CQ -5" E CD ft) —• 5" 3 D CD O "0 tn' S o O 3 CD VI S (/) CD 2; 5' (O O rt>" O < CD W < 52 g: > o ~ O CD Q. CD i-f O 3 » CD 3 TJ ° 3 W CD O ° o -< CD fi> T3 o o" O o O CD oi ^ a O 01 3 a 3 CD •o - i CD cn 01 =: 3 3 ' CO Q. CD ~ 3 CD cn o c o CD cn =< =• =; 2 =5 o S CD ^ CO — a, CD CD Q) CO cn CD c cn 7 oi - t -5 CD Q. CQ L J " o' 3 03 CD D CD 3 2 . o m CD 3 3 Q. « w ° - cn O - i Q. CD 03 CD CD E. cn ai 5 CD CO -i _. 01 => CD 8 a 3 II 5" "• 3 • •a 01 CD nni ne 3 CD CO a. 01 o 0} cn E" - i 3 01 co CD CD - i CO cn n' o 01 CD 2 d > -i fi) T J 3 T5 S.< 3 CQ Tj-p o"? 5> & " § . & o o' o CD M CD < 70 < CD CD CD * O * O 3 , O 01 —I > cn"R » S CD 3 9- =>' CD 01 i-3 01 CQ 0 3 O 3 1 3 N* & 5' 3 01 3 O. 3 CD 3 a. CD' cn cn ~ CD £ O 3 0) 3" 52. 3 § i oi O 3" C CD W ^ CT CD 1? ® "S CD cn 0 =T 3 o 1 o Tj _-n cu prj 3 o> CL 3 CO CD 01 3 a. CO 33 CD 01 CD 3 3 . cn 3 Q) CQ =! 8J 3 1 3 3. oi S CD 2 Q. CD 3 cn Ql O 3 C 01 2 CD CD • rn CO •o oT 3 2 a. cn C 3" 2 . 9 . I' I o ^ 3 01 £2. H 5' > CQ oi cn cn q-cn ai 3 CD -5 c° ^ . CD' o' cn 3 cn =1 O CQ 3 a s* cn ii § 6 a. n cn 01 3 2" a cn o —^ -+1 2 m Pi. S 5cn -, 01 3 CO CD CD Cn O c o CD cn "2. 3= 01 CD I 3 ,3 CD CO CL Si _ CD "O CO &> — (Q CD B) CD rn | 3 o 2. CD c => = o > -I CD fi) C0T3 C O cn cn CD . Q_ O) Ol * U M 3 01S. o • 0 . 0 . 5 -a 3% i'-o o 1 S3 CD • ^ < -O 03 o CD CD O 3. s-.0 o 3 °- 5 CD 5 , < O - 3 3 o CD 3 3 > 5 3 •o 03 O 5" O 3 ^ co cn CD ^ 3 cn c cn O o 3 3 cn cn o o CD . cn a" cn S cn CD Q. Q. CD O cn' o' 3 CD 01 p 55 T3 cn » CD O 01 CD O Q. 8 o-cn 3 1^  CD 01 CD 3 8 3 CD St CD CD Z 3 CD CD < 3 CD ~ — ' i — l -s i 3 CD Q. CQ ;* CD 0 cn 1 a CO 5' 3 CD 5-o &g-•cr CD 01 ^ CQ CD CD 8 3 i i 9 ° -O CD ^- °1 CT 3 cn CD CD =S -h CD o CD 01 •a •o 3 oi CD co O CD or 3 03 5' oi 3 r» 3 Q. CD 3 CO o c -> 3 cn 01 CD CD CD fi) 3 fi) CQ T l CD O T1 3 cB r- CD (fl 2 = 3 ^ 1— fi) fi) 3 0 -3 5" Ml ( Q 3 D" 01 —• CD 3 3 3" CL Cn' 03. S CD - • =r 2 . o_ CO CD CD c — CJ1 Ji. CO 3 . _ rn CD CD CD Q m ^ -, d o CD m cn 3 O CD «= ,3 D3_ TJ — 03 •o -o 03 T3 R' 3 "D CD 3 CD co -g. 03 3 cn O co o *< CD -O co 3 Q. 01 ai 3 CO Q. C CD CD < 3 CD 5 ^ . CO 3 CQ 01 3 Q. 01 CO co CD cn cn 3 ' CO a. cn CD CD CD = 3 cE 2 . CD 5 3 -. co o —\ CD CD* a CD CD 3 CD 5 3 * 01 g. o a. 3 O 01 CO 3 13 -o 3 01 o 3-3 3 . 5'co CO' : CO c CD O o 3 CO CD o_ c CD cn i l C 3" 01 CT CD 3 o Q. CD §•3.' 03 CD 3 CO CD - 1 Q. 03 Q. CD CD Q. Q. - 1 cn CD o c CO 3-d o 01 CD S3 co c° • Q c cn a. I C Q 1'^ 03 3 a 9. CD -D_ § s Q. C CO CD o g 03 rn 5 03 CO o" _ C Q T3 = n) CD CD CO 3 3 2. 3" Q. CD Q; 3 __ - 1 CT CD a ° £T CD CD' Q-a -> =•• CD < cn CD O co c - 1 CD > _ — 01 3 -1 01 x O CQ O g CD — 3 3 B o 01 3 CL CO CD — 3 3 & i 3 CQ i | CD CD > O CD 01 CD P, ® 13 c —i 03_ CD 3 Q. 3 O C 3 s a 0 03 CO fi) 3 fi) CQ CD 3 CD 3 fi> &) 3 a &) >3; a TJ CD 00 o c 2. o CQ fi> r- z 3 (D <D Q. (Q g = «L S 21 | s <D (/) 7s CD > CD 3 O CD </> T O ST JT * o =. ttc2.*< CD <D "D V> = O u S ~ r* < o 5" =• CD 3 3 (/> i f CD NO i 0) 0) CD CD 3 «-». T3 O 0) a r-' I -ST =* o 3 3" oo 3-o O C o-5' cn m 73 73 O o —1 Q. 01 o < 5" o o ,-, — m °-D 3  (D CD T r - 3 ~ ^ a. 3 SL CD > •a •o CD fll £ CD 5 CD < o 01 (Q ? 01 3 SL a- tt 5 fD nt ^  § CD * CD ~ I D oi rc 3' 5 a) CD oi 3 n a =>" O ?! —i ai CD O CD 01 CD Tl 3 »-CD O 5' 3 > O g m af O i - f -> a = CD o o > a- a o' 3 01 =; 01 5 ' ^ 01 3 > -~J a- a s 01 o > SL o • • o 3 > O • -n CD o de 01 3 fi) 01 rr* Q. 01 CU-ES' —i > o 0,1 2-1 o <D S i CD O o> <• < o> m 3 o ~° Si-CD 3 01 o CD 3 cn 3' CO CD S oi ~ o 3 7T 0) CD*1 CD 0) 01 3 01 CQ CD 3 CD 3 > O O CO < O 3 ? -• oT SL i—»- . . CD > O r* CD o 5" (a CD c "D 0 o 01 3 01 c oi ==; oi o m 3 STCQ r- o =3! Q_ SL 5 —' i—r 0 CD 3 -i CO > •< .Q 01 c <» CD 5 3 -• CD fi> 3 CQ > 01 0) o o SL 5' 3 01 3 01 CQ CD 3 CD 3 o CD T3 01 3, 3 CD 3 CD 01 O O I J O S I 01 = D O c 3. M rc 3i SI 5' 3 01 01 CD 3 CD O o' 3 > O S2. 00 oi S i J CD Q. ^ CD O o 3 > O 3 01 3 01 CQ CD 3 CD 3 . > O £ 3 O 01 • • 3 01 CQ CD 3 CD 3 CQ 3 C 3 Q_ 01 .-»-CD 01 CQ 01 Z a. ° xi S. -a 3 3 • O Q. < — = S CD 3 CD CD CD -1 CQ - -. fl) S » CT o CD' 01 3" rc T3 C Q c S 9 CD 3 C Q > O CD ™ 0101 CD o o c 3 I ' CD P 2 O c 3 2. 3 0. c -a 3 oi_ a* — i 1 S rc' co tn 73 CD CQ O' 3 01 Cl 5T o P i . "0 9L a CD T3 01 3, 3 CD 3 o ai 3 01 Q. fll' 3 I CD 5T CQ CD 0 a Tl CD fll 3, CD 3 m o 3 CD 3 01 CD D c 01 o CD' o < CD 01 • • • TJ CD CD o o oT 01 3-m x 3 0 < 01 " 5 I " _ 3. CD 3. 0) CD > 3. O 01 1 o 3 3 CD 3 § 1 01 3 CO O (0 B) SI CD 01 " 3 fll CQ CD 3 CD 3 > O CD 00 CD 3_ > O Si 8. SL CD CD CD gg. E. co rc J 1^' 31 O co m "D > CD CD "^ <° > C» o c» 7}^ 01 o o < CD > o 3 2". I 3 (D SI fit r * CD 0) CD O l c 0) fit I ST C 3 CD (D CD CD TJ W _ ~ < o © =•5 3 3 c/> o o o o SL SL O CD C O —t —i » s 3 SL 12. § Sj C Q cn 9j CD 3 3 » Q . Qo g. o cn cn o 2 0) 03 TJ c r r O o rt-CD O CD O •o' 3_ CD Q. 9L 5T Ac CQ CD > i—t- 73 ea < cn CD CD — i CO CD cn - i CO SL •< CD cn rt-CD CQ -< 3 CD 00 O O ^ m TI < . —t O 3 3 CD 3 rt. 01 cn 01 Si oi CD J i O O 3 a CD 01 01 ~ CD Ql 01 Q . 01 01CD CO cn cn CD -cn cn 3 CD 3 > o 01 ri. ?! SL CD —1 > O CD cn > o CD CD O O S Q SL 3 rc S O ° § 9 f S O CD rc o 0l' o" 3 TJ C CD CD 0 O CO Tl 01 ~" > T l H T l T l O "0 T l J l p 01 cn cn TJ = § oi m S> 01 3 O CD cn 9™ CD c 01 o' 3 cn =fi Ql CD CD 3- 3 CD 3 > O O o 3 cn CD 3 SL o' 3 01 3 O 3 g C Q ° CD 3 » s o a c O 01 O 3 3 01 TJ g-I—I- — 01 01 "O 01 Q _ cn r^* CD sr o 3. Tlo? T l £ _" O 3 01 cn 3T 3 ' CQ N 01 O cn 3" 3 CD O 3. 3 CD _ i en TI rc a SL CD CD CD cn cn > o 9L o o 3 > O 3 CD cn > o o 3 > o T. 01 CT a SL TJ o O TJ O CD O O c O 3 3 o' CL 3 2. 3 "< CD g ,S c ai 5- c 2- 3 rc 2. ^ Q- cn ^> S 3 S 01 o 01 rt. V rt-CD rc CD - i Q . - i cn c cn 3- =: 3-CD CD CD CL cn Q . rest .—»-CD o ;he rest B)' —* TJ > rr CD' —t o cn 01 o > o o" CD !& SL cn O o Q . CD D D 7 T 7 T CD g-2 ° ai > 5 ' c f | i t CD > o 01 3 01 CQ CD 3 CD 3 rt-> o • TJ JJ r- m 2 < 8 § i s ? g Q. CD 3 o°; H c3 Q. 5' TJ 3 rc -o — rc £ 9L =: CD o — rc >•< > Q O O CQ > O T| O «•# CD (/>! rt> (C (/)) 31 CD a 0) CD (fi CD Q. 0) 3 0) (a CD 3 CD 3 0) JJ 3 o o> o CQ a. CD TJ I " > TJ TJ CD 3 Q. x" o o 3 5" c CD Q. I fi> CD 0) 3 0) ca CD 3 CD 3 TJ O o" *< 0) 3 Q . r-CD (fi 0) 3 CO o SLI O 7s O fD 3 < 5-> 5 » CD 3 CD CD 5' O 55" "n •3 O ^ < m = r- o !? 55" 3 5L ro c cn 3' CD cn cn 03 3 CL H O c Si CD 03 3 0) CQ CD 3 CD 3 O CQ D CD "O CU 3-3 CD 3 • -n CD Q_ I CD o a Tl CD ^ CU 3-3 CD 3 O 03 3 03 Q. 0)' 3 I CD S" CQ CD —I - i 03 3 cn T3 o 3 • • TJ O S1 ? s s-Q- cn LZ 2. -3 <D . O © > CQ —' O' C_ 1—t-c -1 CO Tl cn' 3" CD __i CD' cn 03 3 CL 3 S cl I cn cn o < m o 3 „ w C -n 2. 3>3 ^ ^ m CD CD • T l CD _ a O <D 31 o CD 3 rt-CU 3 CL 03 rt-c —1 03 cu 'S. cn' c - -cn 2 : rt- 3 9 CQ a a cn cn 3 rt-; = 5 ' l S ° " I * CD CD 3 CQ. CD O 3 3 03 0) — 3 3 O 3 CQ o o —1 •0 o o 3 3 ^ 03 5. =i' cn cn a-•< O —h > D" O Z! S 3-2: CD a CD'>2 cn o DJ ~*> 3 > Q. CQ •n o § I a- c —1 CD 01 O 01 —h —1 m a. 3 o CQ >3 01 _i »< 7 cn ai 3 cn •O O 3, 01 rt o' 3 •° 1 3 IT - g JU < 01 o 5. 5 <Q °T 01 ^ CQ 01 CD 3 CQ CD 3 O •< a cu TJ CD —* -1 o CQ - i 03 3 cn 3-03 3 Q. Ci 3 ^ ru 2 . =;' cn cn ~ o TJ 3 < 3" o 03-T3 01 Tl Tl —1 —i 01 01 cn cn CD CD —I —I SJ < CT fD O ^ -1 01 S>-3 2 3 a cn 3-cn o' D D H O CD CD ns CD 03 cn 3.-0 3 S a a a§' o 3 03 w ^ D o m m - CD 03 3 3 » Q. CQ 01 CD 3 O >< <D . m o > a a 8"' 3 ^ "O 7T 03 O C/l CD cn O CD 03 O 3 < 03 CD ° - 3 03 I CD 3 e° 3 CD CD T3 03 —1 CD a. 3 CD C/l 35 CD 01 T3 =5' 03 cn 3 OSL TJ ~ ?i O 03 3 03 Q. 03 o y, § 3 CD Q-3 W f)L\ s i § § i 1 3 7 3 2 CD TJ O O O CD 3 CD TJ 55 I I 3 O CD 0) ft" E CD 3 (2 Q -— CQ CD — ^ CD ~n 3 CD - i 3 Q. CD CD _ Cfl 3 J J CD *^ o "'WO CD =r Q-CD CD - r CD Q) 3 CQ N CD LL\ o i GO h0 5" ("5 re o o QTQ B o" o = 3 3 3 era P % 3 a ft p 3 3 rt 3 I i. ft 31 B CD rt- rt rt s 5T n n P o n o H > H W On X tn O on o p o T3 3 T3 Cn rt 3 rt rt w o era =r o o era 3 % P P 5 • O tn 3 Z O tr) 3 "rt S3 -P 3 rt P 3 s g" 5 CJ — i—; ILL, l | ° £ ft 3 S 3 S « 8 rt o 3 ft >> •a > i > & o 5' w 3 Z H CO — Mi 2 » ' re ft 2 o ^ S I. 2 a . ft • o o 2; o W 3 rtj 2 o 3 3 ft cn ft I § S a . L V > ft K B-. q M o. 3 w era 2 H "1 3 1 O re 3 Vi 3* era ft) T3 3 3 I (O P P a § 2. 3 - C cn o r*-2". ft ft 3 q 3 5 O S « rt. •g 3 S •2' » & s 2 I o ° § 3 > | Z p i~> -. S ft rt> cn 5? H P 5' P 5' o rt rt 3 3-• O cn J3 3 Z S P W rt 1 ^ P S 2 3 3- r D. ft ^ -1 3 Z 3- I O 3 P tn o 1—. ^ p 9 a- H-i O o 0 fi rt 0 3 tra 0. 2 Si N p ft s- 2 rt. [B 3" 2 cn 5 ' S 3 ft > H m ?o on X ffl D on 3 > fD* Z 3 > ft o l '§ o m rt, ^ H =r 3 p s o I-3 3 O § : § 5 S' a . 3 3 3' 3 era 3 3 ' < rt -< P cn ft rt cn ft ^ 3 p cn ft on ft p o 3 -> a . ft p X 0- ft cn rt Q. o o S3 & re S E s era re ft: ft-c C l 65 -? sr x-o S » © S M re "O as 3 B ^ 3 c» a o o n o p O p f? ^ 3' Cfl O co 3 " "l g . n <; 3 CL < -* " S 3" CD CD ^ p O 3 O rt 3 C L 3 CD o £ H CD CD H > H ffl K m O GO T3 2 c o 3 3 - CL CD £ , 3 s, g a o. g 3, > 5> ^ ° if" CD y> i a p tn m z H (DOS, w -o c B rt •E CD •a era -i >^ o 3 o Z 3 fD o' S 3 (13 CO § 1 •3' CL o rt, c CO TJ M _ O 3 - H £0 > 3 f-H P " era > " Z > o w m z H " 8 a. g g 3 era §• E. 5. rt 3 2. C ~ 3 n> 3 rrq < co £L o -2 p 5 3 rt rtj o § 3 3 3 O 3 P CD — CB "1. xi era c a • O m 3 z S £ P f-H 3 p 2 & Z > o p 3 a B- (1 Z H 3 rt EL CD rt 3 3 o. 3 C L 2 3 rt CD w 3 O rt ^  CD g 2 CD I 3 • a w 3 ^ P w rt ^ CD Z "° > C O ^ m 31 Z 9 1 f> a> 9 S' era t3 S 3 70 £? ff > ^ G r a. > 3- Z ^ > S o 3 - w P P o 3 CD rt Co ^ 3 c 3 a. • oo S 3 S a. S. " X ! S C p . S 5' S 2- « > 3 Z EL O < a CD (Tj rt o c 3 a 1 I 2. g: 3 *<r P •a co q S: §• 1 cr. g fro o 3 Z > o rt m 2 ffl Z H CD P p 3 CD g c ^ » rt p O 3 C a. -j § |« ? a. a. TJ 9 3 3 5* CD 3 ' rt era o ^ C CO 2 > z CD > • s o 3 -a -i o < ti 3 s N' P n 3' ^ o a. P Bl CD O m o C L C o ^ 3 <D CD " C/l rt cr. o o S" E era re V5 • 0 i-e en 3 S" o r1 g j " o | 5" CL o> St ° z rt,> • o tn 3 z 3 £ S. f-< O rt p rt ° s =- e m f> 3 -71 — H 3 era re rt 5" a 3 » era re 3 re 3 p 3 O | 5* C L p « I co 2 " a i rn " S c H p 3" CT 3 n, .—• rt CT" O P rt' O 3 g W g 0 1 5' rt' p J & i rt m *<: o' o £L 31 3 cn • o m 3" CT 3 Z I: si I . S s « P £ M O' rt' ~ < -a z s =r > o' H o £L 2 "> p ffl 31 3 Z cn Q. i 3" H 3" CT" 3 £13 rt. 3 CT O P rt' O 3 K- w P & rf 2 B* « •-< rt W o _ 3 •§ o- 3' c H1 S. S 3" 3 5 -S. 3> 3 O n " 1 a 2 3 ro 1 1 -3- a a. a . • P rt 3 , V< co CT 3 e- 3- rt 2 §-"9 p S3-CT^ P £f — =• ° a . ^ P 3i 5 cn CL "< O 3 p' 3' g" g 3' " S "§ CD p O cn era 9* 8 3 I O S " p a . 3 *< rt o o 3i rt cn P CL 3 3 P rt J_} B. c 3 co S co o O 2. w « ^ &) 5 P m 3 S « g < § ! ' ! 1 . n> 21 rt p. a i V re era re 3 re 3 5 n s g I O Q P P « ro ST 3 rr IS M - < 5 S D. CD re ft. « — P e o O 3 3 a . e. ra P 3 3" o o 2 "a rt-cn CD rt O cn O 3i c S t13 3S OQ Lj it : 3 > tra H " ffl ? 3 cn c m S D o C 3 3 P 2- 3 5' 3 3 O co 3 cn o. rT 2 p ^ 3 3 CO CO C L O 3- Z g - | tn S a 3 p 3 CL, 3 rf < tra o> 3. tra rt n> <^ p p 3 3 O O. 3 > tyn 2 > 2 > z 3 tn 3> Z S" re rt-rt '< 9? re a | Vi O O o 3 o > ET H < m ro » M So 3 S a . tn -a D 3 ^ Xi ro 3 <^ rt, o 3 3i • o tn ro 3 Z 3 ' i - S cn 3 53 5' 3' S> 3 g. r 3. $ CO ^ ^ z < H g § 3 o T3 O O 3 8 . 1 3 * o c GO _ ro 3 »51 c> cn p CD £ » £? o n a, j S c? ° s i c/> „ CD •3. g tn P Z 3 % g r& o c rt p 5 3 -3 < Q. ro S3- ™ C p 3- g. ro ^ O, cn S S 11 rt w 5' 5' • "13 3 S I- m p H 3' tn CD J > 3 - 5 0 I- > 5 00 TJ CD 3 8 3 % o S; CD CD • s- 3 OQ 3 • CL. p CD 3 ' I § O OQ & 3 2 rT CD H 3 P • o tn a u Z 3 " fD H ^ p 5 =r > § 8 Z S" 3 & U S 3 1 Z -i H a 3 S- | fT, rt 3 - I 55 CD rt o 1" * p P CD 3 " o c 3 g-CD £ V -1 v < iz. ro P 3 5' Q xi era 3 -g 3 p s P 3 =1 3 o H tn p *< P 3' M> 3' a 2 a Z 2L TJ !£. W N Q 3 " o p rt p CT" cr S-' rt S " i ft 00 p p ? » a era H i. <f 2. B. < CD ?D P Crt rt cn C rt CD rtj cn O o_ C rt CD" o 3 CDcn 3 " cr P cr 3 p 3' P 3' 3' era • a Cd 3 * P rrt 5 - > Z > o tn tn Z H P Q. O fD £ < rt? CD 2 O P.TJ — 3 CD S O rt 3 " O Q 3 > Z > p" W CD a? H O O 15 CD ^ cn cn £ j> CD =r EL H p I ?o 3 " -•3' o p O 3 3 D-g" or, O CD TJ o H -, m S O p rtj 5' ffl 3 - SO CD Frl Q. > ^ 00 p. rt G 5" a. G c 2 m > oo c 3 cr CD a. P TJ S - « g- 3, 3 ^ Si "> • o 2 2 I ?o p > •S r 3 2 3 > I 2 3. > 3 O N ' H CD Z 3. H • Q tn "2 tn 2. r ro cn p > 3 tn s § "1 H Pi o era Appendix 4- Interview Questions General/Context 1. What was the extent of your involvement with the (fill in appropriate title) LRMP? 2. What were/are your expectations of the LRMP process as far as water resources are concerned? 3. How well was water represented at the planning table? 4. Given their strategic nature, how important do you feel it is to have water resources integrated into LRMPs? Do you think your perception is a shared perception within the LRMP process? What are other peoples (public and other depts.) attitudes toward water resources and their place in LRMPs? 5. One concern that arose in my research last year was the issue of communication. Do you feel that there has been sufficient effective communication between your department and the M E L P table representative in the LRMP? Between your department and other departments associated with water resources? What worked well? What didn't work? How might this be improved? IWRM 6. Effective water management requires the integration of many elements: policy, planning, science, communication etc. In your experience, how integrated is the current approach to water management? What areas would you suggest need improving? 7. What are some barriers to achieving effective integration? To the best of your knowledge, which of these barriers have been encountered in attempting to integrate water resources into LRMPs? 8. What planning processes that have water as a component of them have been undertaken in your region? Do you think that there is a good understanding within Water Management of how other water planning processes (e.g. Integrated watershed management plans) relate to LRMPs? Do you think that such an understanding is necessary in order to effectively integrate water into LRMPs? What is your understanding of the relationship(s)? 9. Do you think that there is an awareness/concern for how water resource plans influence and are influenced by those of other departments (e.g. growth management strategies, water use plans, FPC plans) Learning 10. Do you feel that the LRMP process fosters and encourages a learning environment? Does this learning extend to benefit water resources? 1*8 I 11. During the LRMP what did you learn with regard to: a) substantive water resources issues; b) procedural issues (i.e. planning related)? What do you think others involved in the planning process learned with regard to water resource issues? 12. How useful has this new knowledge been? Have you been able to use it elsewhere? (Has there been an opportunity to apply this knowledge?) 13. In preparing for the LRMP, were you able to exchange information with other Water Management Branches or other MELP departments about their experiences with LRMPs in preparing for your own LRMP? Did this exchange relate more to procedural strategies or substantive issues? If there was no exchange, do you think such an exchange might have been helpful in preparing for your LRMP? 14. Were you able to draw upon past planning experiences to assist with your role in the LRMP? 15. Have you been able to share any of what you learned through your experience with LRMPs with others working in water management (or other departments)? What information have you passed on? Do you think it is possible to transfer knowledge gained through experience like that, or do you have to work on a case by case basis? Why? What are the best ways of transferring this kind of information? 16. What would you identify as the major barriers to learning a) within LRMPs b) within your department? 17. How strong an emphasis do you think is currently given to advancing learning within LRMPs? Within your department? Do you think there should be more? 18. Do you have any further comments to add? Appendix 5- interview Respondents Prince George Region Mike Lambert Tom Muirhead Chris Ritchie Dave Zirul IPT Regional Coordinator, MELP, Nanaimo (MELP Table Representative for Fort St. John LRMP, and Central Coast LRMP) Allocation Officer, Water Management, MELP, Prince George Senior Habitat Biologist, Fish and Wildlife, MELP, Prince George (MELP Table Representative for Prince George LRMP) Water Manager, Water Management, MELP, Prince George Prince Rupert Region Ian Sharpe Len Vanderstar Impact Assessment Biologist, Pollution Prevention, MELP, Smithers Forest Ecosystem Specialist, Fish and Wildlife, MELP, Smithers (MELP Table Representative for Fort St. James LRMP, member of Kalum LRMP) Kamloops Region Dave Gooding Sandy MacDonald Don McKee George Smith Brian Symonds Mike Watkins Al Zackodnik Hydrologist, Water Management, MELP, Penticton Habitat Section Head, Fish and Wildlife, MELP, Kamloops (MELP Table Representative for Kamloops LRMP) Allocation Section Head, Water Management, MELP, Penticton Water Management, MELP, Kamloops Engineering Section Head, Water Management, MELP, Penticton BC Assets and Land Corporation, Penticton (MELP Table Representative for Okanagan Shuswap LRMP) Water Manager, Water Management, MELP, Kamloops l$3 Appendix 6 - Oganizational Learning Profile Survey The learning profile is developed by uncovering what are referred to as Learning Orientations (LOrs) and Facilitating Factors (FFs). Learning Orientations are actions which contribute to and define an organization's learning style. They describe what is learned by an organization and how. They represent the various practices and techniques by which knowledge is acquired, disseminated, and used. Each Learning Orientation can be best understood to fall along a spectrum whose ends are defined by two contrasting styles of one critical learning process. This reflects the descriptive nature of these elements and the notion that each end of the spectrum is desirable under different circumstances. Facilitating Factors concern specific practices that create a working environment that is conducive to learning. They are defined in terms of the extent to which they are present or practiced within the organization. Learning Orientations Kamloops Region/ Prince George Region/ Prince Rupert Region 1. Knowledge Source This refers to whether knowledge is developed internally within the organization, or externally. Is knowledge developed through internal research and experimentation, or does it derive from outside sources? E.g. To what extent are management practices from other groups or organizations drawn upon to help guide management? Knowledge Source MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY LRMP 1MFKNAI. 2/2/0 1/0/0 2/0/1 2/0/1 1/0/0 HXTFKNAl Department INI hRNAI. 2/0/0 4/2/1 1/0/1 0/1/0 0/1/0 I-: \TF.R\AI. 2. Learning Mode Is new knowledge generated more through sharing information and skills in practical settings (experiential), or is it generated more through reflective activities and thinking (cognitive)? E.g. Is new knowledge generated though work in the field, contact with communities, specialists, etc., or is it generated through desk analysis? Learning Mode MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY LRMP I:\PLR1I-.NI1AL 1/1/0 0/1/0 2/0/2 3/1/0 2/0/0 UXiNl l lYF. Department FXPFRIFNTIAI. 0/0/0 4/1/0 2/1/0 1/2/0 0/0/0 OXiNITlYI-. 3. Content-Process Focus This LOr distinguishes between a preference for knowledge about the substantive content of management over the procedural elements of management. On one end of the spectrum there is a focus on the deliverables, or tangible results, while at the other end, the emphasis is on improving the capabilities that enable their development. E.g. In managing stream bank protection, is the emphasis more on which structures provide the greatest benefit (content), or more on understanding the decision making and planning processes that allow for these structures (process)? Content-Process Focus MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY LRMP CON i I;N r 0/0/0 1/2/1 1/0/1 3/1/0 2/0/0 PROCESS Department (.'ON I'F.NT 1/01/ 4/1/0 2/1/2 0/2/0 0/0/0 PROCFSS 4. Knowledge Reserve Is knowledge within the organization derived from individual sources (personal), by virtue of their education/training, or is it derived from common social practices within the organization (public)? Is knowledge stored within the organization, or when specific people transfer jobs, is specific knowledge at risk of being lost? E.g. Does knowledge about water demand tend to come more from one specialist, or is it generally shared knowledge that is generated through special workshops, circulation of publications etc. Knowledge Reserve MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY LRMP IM.RSONAL 1/2/0 2/0/0 3/0/2 1/1/0 0/0/0 I'l.'UI.IC Department I'HRSC )\AI. 4/2/1 2/1/0 0/0/1 1/0/0 0/1/0 pimi . ic 5. Dissemination Mode Does knowledge within the organization develop and evolve through formal or informal modes? With formal dissemination of knowledge, learning is spread through the institutionalization of valuable insights and methods. By informal dissemination, learning is spread through encounters with compelling behaviour; it involves "learning through osmosis". E.g. Is progress on a particular planning process updated more through formal reports produced to keep everyone informed or does it occur more through informal communications such as email, and telephone conversations? Dissemination Mode MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY LRMP LORMAL 1/1/0 3/0/0 1/1/0 1/1/2 1/0/0 l \ l OKMAI. Department lOKMAI. 2/0/0 1/0/0 0/2/0 2/2/1 3/0/0 INTC'RMAL 6. Learning Scope Does new knowledge within the organization tend to focus on methods and tools to improve what is already known or practiced (incremental) or on new knowledge that challenges the assumptions about what is known or practiced (transformative)? E.g. How much effort goes into exploring more "radical" ideas that might drastically alter the traditional approach to management, such as approaching a planning process from an "ecosystem perspective"? Learning Scope MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY LRMP INCKP.VinNTAl. 1/1/0 2/1/2 4/1/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 TRANSIORM-AI'IVI-Department INCRIAILVIAI. 0/0/0 6/3/1 0/0/0 1/1/1 0/0/0 1 R.WSLORM-A1IVL 7. Learning Focus Does most learning occur through the development of knowledge pertaining to individual performance or the development of knowledge pertaining to group performance? Is learning individually oriented or collaborative? E.g. Are new management strategies or approaches generally developed through a joint effort, or do they tend to be more the creation of a few select individuals? Learning Focus MOSTLY MORE EVEN MORE MOSTLY LRMP INDIVIDUAL 0/1/0 1/0/0 1/1/0 5/1/0 0/0/1 liROl.T Department INDIVIDUAL 0/1/0 6/2/0 1/0/0 0/1/0 0/0/2 CiROl 1' Facilitating Factors: 1. Scanning How much effort is dedicated towards searching for new water management techniques and approaches? How much new knowledge is generated from outside sources? E.g. How much time is invested into researching alternative water management techniques currently practiced in the U.S.A.? Are case studies of successful management elsewhere drawn upon to improve local management? Little Evidence to Support this Factor Some Evidence to support this I-actor Extensive Evidchccito Support this Factor Scanning Imperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 2/1/0 2/0/1 1/2/1 2/0/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 0/0/0 Department 0/0/0 2/2/0 3/1/0 1/0/1 0/1/0 1/0/1 0/0/0 2. Performance Monitoring How much effort is given to monitoring the performance and effects of various management strategies after their implementation? How much effort goes into assuring that performance results meet management objectives? E.g. Beyond writing monitoring into a water plan, how much monitoring of water quality in a restored stream actually takes place? Little Evidence to Support this Factor Some Evidence to support this Factor Extensive Evidence to Support this Factor Performance Monitoring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 0/0/0 2/1/1 2/0/0 1/1/0 1/0/1 1/0/0 0/0/0 Department 1/1/0 2/3/0 1/0/0 1/0/1 1/0/0 1/0/0 0/0/1 3. Concern for Measurement How much concern is directed towards developing the appropriate indicators to measure progress in management and planning? E.g. Is it assumed that a public consultation process was successful because there were no negative comments made openly at a public meeting, or are more specific measures developed and used to track progress? Little Evidence to Support this Factor Some Evidence to support this Factor Extensive Evidence to Support this Factor Concern for Measurement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 0/0/0 1/0/0 2/1/0 2/1/0 1/0/1 1/0/0 0/0/0 Department 1/0/0 1/2/0 2/2/1 1/0/1 1/0/0 1/0/0 0/0/0 4. Organizational Curiosity How much motivation or inspiration exists to pursue new ideas? Is there a curiousity that drives and inspires action within the organization? E.g. How well do you think the organization would respond to the idea of working on building its "learning capacity"? Little hMdcncc to Support Some Kvidcnce to support Kxlensive Kvidcnce to this Factor this Factor Support this Factor Organizational 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Curiousity LRMP 0/0/0 1/1/0 1/0/0 0/0/0 4/2/0 1/0/1 0/0/0 Department 1/0/0 3/1/0 1/1/0 1/2/0 1/0/0 0/0/1 0/0/1 5. Climate of Openness Is required data and information available and easily accessible? Is the data kept under tight control, accessible to only a few, or are efforts taken to make it accessible to all those interested? Is the working environment conducive to commenting openly on data? E.g. Is historical flood data within one region easily accessible to those working within different organizations and regions? Little Kvidcnce to Support this Factor Some K\idcncc to support this Factor F.\tensi\e K\idence to Support this Factor Climate of Openness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 0/0/0 0/1/0 1/0/0 2/0/0 3/0/0 1/1/1 0/1/0 Department 0/0/0 0/1/0 1/0/0 1/0/0 1/0/0 .3/2/1 1/1/1 6. Continuous Education Is there an obvious commitment to education? Continuous Education refers to the internalization of a commitment to lifelong learning at all levels of an organization. How much concern is directed toward furthering the learning process? E.g. Is funding (or other forms of encouragement) provided to enable staff to attend conferences, bring in speakers etc.? Little K\idcnce to Support this Factor Sonic K\idcnce to support this Factor Fxtensive F.vidence to Support this Factor Continuous Education 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 1/1/0 1/2/0 0/0/0 2/0/0 1/0/0 2/0/1 0/0/0 Department 1/1/0 2/20/ 0/1/0 0/0/0 1/0/2 3/0/0 0/0/0 7. Operational Variety Are a few select and established techniques, policies, strategies and processes relied on to meet your program's objectives or are efforts made to integrate new ones and create a more pluralistic working environment? E.g. Is there a standard format used to design community participation processes, or is there a tendency to be more flexible and experiment with alternative techniques where and when appropriate? Little Fvidence to Support this Factor Some Kvidcnce to support this Factor Kxlensive Kvidcnce lo Support this Factor Operational Variety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 1/0/0 2/0/0 1/0/0 3/1/0 0/2/1 0/0/0 0/0/0 Department 0/0/0 2/0/0 3/4/0 1/0/0 0/0/2 1/0/0 0/0/0 8. Multiple Advocates Do you find that new ideas or proposals easily gain the support of those within the organization, or are they often championed by one or two individuals who stand on their own? E.g. Is there usually one person on staff who tends to shake things up more than others by introducing new ideas and questioning standard approaches? Does this person gain the support of other staff members? Little Evidence to Support this Factor Some Evidence to support this Factor Extensive Evidence to Support this Factor Multiple Advocates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 0/0/0 1/1/0 2/1/0 2/0/0 1/1/1 1/0/0 0/0/0 Department 0/0/0 2/3/0 3/0/0 0/0/2 1/0/0 1/1/0 0/0/0 9. Involved Leadership Is there a strong sense of leadership created within the organization? Are visions created and direction provided by those in authority? E.g. Do you find that a lot of direction and guidance is provided by Water Management in Victoria? By the Regional Water Manager? Little Evidence to Support this Factor Some Evidence to support this Factor Extensive Evidence to Support this Factor Involved Leadership 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 1/0/0 1/1/0 2/0/0 2/2/0 1/0/0 0/0/1 0/0/0 Department 2/1/0 2/2/1 0/0/0 1/1/0 1/0/1 0/0/0 1/0/0 10. Systems Perspective Do you have a strong sense of how your actions and decisions affect others within your program and perhaps other programs? Is there such a sense of connection between the various facets of the organization? Are management strategies focused more on long-term gains (systems perspective) or short-term gains (non-system perspective)? Little Evidence to Support this Factor Some Evidence to support this Factor Extensive Evidence to Support this Factor Systems Perspective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LRMP 0/0/0 1/0/0 1/1/0 4/0/0 0/1/0 1/1/1 0/0/0 Department 0/0/0 3/0/0 1/2/1 2/0/0 0/2/0 1/0/1 0/0/0 Name Department Associated LRMP Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0089049/manifest

Comment

Related Items