UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Evaluating community-government watershed management partnerships : the case of Langley Environmental… De Goes, Lisa 1999

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1999-0485.pdf [ 15.83MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0089118.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089118-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089118-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089118-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089118-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089118-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089118-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Evaluating Community-Government Watershed Management Partnerships The Case of Langley Environmental Partners Society, British Columbia By LISA DE GOES B.E.S., Honours Environmental Studies and Biology, University of Waterloo, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF " MASTER OF ARTS ( P l a n n i n g ) ~>^"-In THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ^^-.SjcjiQpL-ofv.Community snd Regional Planning . ...v,. We acceptthis-.thesis as conforming to the required standard , r r . September 1999 © Lisa De Goes, 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. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT British Columbia's aquatic ecosystems are being lost and degraded. This loss is occurring mainly because of an increasing population, development pressures, and people's alienation from the natural environment. Community-government partnerships have evolved to try to address aquatic ecosystem degradation. This thesis specifically examines community-government partnerships and addresses'two main questions: What makes a good partnership? And, how can the longevity of partnerships be ensured? The main thesis questions are addressed through the application of an evaluative framework to a case study -the Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS). The LEPS has been a community-government partnership jointly initiated by senior staff of the Township of Langley, members of the federal and the provincial governments, and Langley watershed stewardship groups and schools. The main criteria of the evaluative framework are good governance; efficient procedure, and adequate resources. Information about the LEPS was gathered through!; qualitative ;researchc methods;? includingeparticipant-vn observation, interviewing, and a review of documehtation:?^ased::onNthe aforementidhediqualidtive research;and evaluatiyeCGriteria,: community and government support, strongf. leadership, 'Credible staff; coordination, cooperation, success, self-sufficiency,and flexibility were characteristics:identified asitraitepf theLEPS that have led to its longevity and success. Whereas having paid staff workingcwith volunteers, a lack-ofa'constituency, a lack of real influence, a lack of stable funding leading to competition with othergroups/a lack of coordination, and a poor profile were identified as the LEPS' traits that might lead to the groups demise. As a result of the preceding conclusions, recommendations are made for the LEPS, senior government and,thetTOL. .Based..pn:.aJI.;Qflthe.strengt LEPS identified by thejeyaluatiyefrarnework to address many of.*., the barriers to sustainable water resource management, the LEPS serves<i:as a good basis fonfurther^i experimentation in watershed governance. The LEPS model.is; not perfectbuticaniserve as a framework for other communities to build upon. : . x r u ; : :: c b ; : ; ;|X i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT II LIST OF TABLES V i i i LIST OF FIGURES IX LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS XI CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ; 1 1.1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE THESIS 5 1.2. OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS RESEARCH METHODS 6 1.3. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE THESIS 6 i .4. FEATURES OF CHAPTERS 6 CHAPTER TWO: WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT * 8 . 2.J. WATER, T H E ISSUE ...* 8 :r;n2;2>.' I BRITISH COLUMBIA! WATER RESOURCES AND THE LAW;;v:^S.v.;;;;..:.v;i;..vj;:;£^.0-::...; .:\2.. : ; V K : ; , , 2.2.1. Federal'Legislation :;'::'.;.w.!-.:j,v .^v.r. ......13, 2.2:2. Provincial-Legislation : .V...v.;{W:L.•iA. kmh 13 2.2.3. Municipal Legislation 13 2.3. B.C. , WATER ^MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE . . . . . . „ . . . . . . . , , . „ . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . „„ 14 2.3.1. Federal.; ' 14 2.3.2. Provincial 15 . 2.3.3. Municipal ..16 2.3.4. Regional Government 17 2.3.5. First Nations 17 2.4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND WATER RESOURCES HISTORICALLY......-....:....... .:..... 18 2.5. T H E LAST WORD 21 CHAPTER THREE: COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .....22 3.1. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION DEFINED 22 3.2. WHAT IS SO GOOD ABOUT THE PUBLIC 24 3.3. BARRIERS TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT : 25 3.4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, THE BASICS ! 26 3.4.1. Good Governance 26 Accountability 27 Fairness 27 Inclusiveness 28 iii Decision-making 28 Legitimacy •• 29 3.4.2. Efficient Procedure 30 Communication , • 30 Clear Goals and Objectives 31 Information • 31 Management Infrastructure •' 31 3.4.3. Adequate Resources 32 Technical Competence and Knowledge '. 33 Community Group Strength 33 Volunteers 34 Staff. 34 Funding 34 Leadership 36 3.5. COMMUNITY AND THE STATE ; 36 3.6. T H E LAST WORD : 38 CHAPTER FOUR: WATERSHED PARTNERSHIPS . 39 4.1. WHAT ARE PARTNERSHIPS? :.; 39 4.2. A VARIETY PACK OF PARTNERSHIPS . . . . . . . . i . i . . . . . . 4 0 4.3. T H E WHO'S W H O OF PARTNERSHIPS .......41 4.4. WHAT BRINGS T H E M TOGETHER? 41 ^ . P A R T N E R S H I P ROLLER COASTER: T H E UPS AND DOWNS 42 4.6. PARTNERSHIP SHOPPING LIST '. 44 4.6:1. Good Governance ...:..;:..:v;.:;l:.-.v:.';K*:ii: : 44 4.6.2. Efficient Procedure 7 . i . . . Ji'.in. 45 4.6.3. Adequate Resources '. .'. 46 A.l': T H E LAST WORD.. 47 CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH METHODS. .....„.,;.„„.....;...;............. •: 48 5.1. PROGRAM EVALUATION 48 5.1.1. Types of Questions : 49 5.1.2. Purpose of the Evaluation 50 5.2. A CASE STUDY BY A N Y OTHER N A M E :....51 5.3. T H E "PATH OF PROGRAM EVALUATION" 52 5.3.1. Identify the Key Questions for the Study —52 5.3.2. Qualitqtive or Quantitative Research 54 5.3.3. Choosing Measures 55 5.3.4. The Evaluative Framework .55 Good Governance 57 Efficient Procedure •. 59 Adequate Resources 60 iV 5.3.5. How to Collect Data 61 Participant-observation 61 Interviewing ; 62 Documentation : 62 5.3.6. Research Design 62 5.3.7. Collect and Analyze the Data 63 Participant-observation 63 Interviews 63 Documentation 65 Data Analysis 65 5.3.8. Write and Disseminate the Report of Study Results 66 5.4. T H E L A S T WORD 66 CHAPTER SIX: LANGLEY ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS SOCIETY 67 6.1. L A N G L E Y TOWNSHIP: SETTING THE STAGE ......67 6.1.1. Biophysical Portrait • • 68 6.1.2. Social Portrait , -..v...-:.:...... • 70 ,' 6.1.3. Economic Portrait...... '. . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . : : : .A^^ 71 6.2. L E P S : T H E PROLOGUE,.... .. :. „;.-••—— 7 2 . 6.3. GROUP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................ - • - • • - ........75 . 6.4. L E P S GROUP STRUCTURE „'. .... •• .-.•..•76, 6.4.1. The Board of Directors • 76 6.4.2. Paid Staff/ Core Group : : • •: 77 6.4.3. Volunteer Members • • ••••—,•-.—••78 6.4.4. LEPS, the Working Arm ,.:.Z...... .: 78 6.5. FINANCIAL SUPPORT .' 81 6.6. L E P S CAST.'. '. ;.: ::.::...iJ-^.:..:.i...^..„ : 81 6.6.1. Township of Langley • 82 Langley Township Council '•: •• 84 6.6.2. Fisheries and Oceans Canada • 85 6.6.3. Academic Institutions : 85 Kwantlen College 86 School District #35 • 86 Westwater Research Centre 87 6.6.4. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 88 6.6.5. Ministry of Agriculture and Food 88 6.6.6. Greater Vancouver Regional District '. 89 6.6.7. Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership 89 6.6.8. Salmon River Enhancement Society 89 6.6.9. Langley Environmental Organization 90 6.6.10. Nicomekl Enhancement Society. 90 v 6.6.11. Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society • 91 6.6.12. Yorkson Watershed Stewardship Committee 91 6.6.13. Little Campbell River Watershed Stewardship Committee 92 6.6.14. Langley Field Naturalists 92 6.6.15. The Fraser Basin Council 92 6.7. RUMOURS AND JUDGEMENTS : '. 93 6.8. T H E LAST WORD • 97 CHAPTER SEVEN: THE LEPS PARTNERSHIP 99 7.1. GOOD GOVERNANCE • 99 7.1.1. Accountability 99 7.1.2. Inclusive and Representative 100 7.1.3. Fair and Equal 101 7.1.4. Shared Decision-making and Empowerment 101 7.1.5. Framework for Open Communication 102 7.1.6. Community Support /03 , 7.1.7. Government Support , '• • 105 7.2. EFFICIENT PROCEDURE ......:....:::.:........:.:.:: .107 7.2.1. Clear and Accepted Goals and Objectives : 107 7.2.2. Organized and Coordinated....: 108 7.2.3. Leadership • 109 7.2.4. Flexible and Adaptable HO 7.2.5. Maintain Momentum Ill 7.3. AVAILABLE RESOURCES ..-: ..' •: ..' : '. •••••• 112 7.3.1. Funding and Materials ••••• 112 7.3.2. Information , 1.13 7.3.3. Community Group Strength • H4 7.3.4. Knowledge of Members H7 7.3.5. Commitment '. H8 7.4. T H E LAST WORD '. '• 120 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 122 8.1. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 124 8.2. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PARTNERSHIP 124 8.2.1. What Worked 124 8.2.2. What Needs Work 125 8.3. ADDRESSING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES: IS L E P S THE FUTURE? 127 8.4. RECOMMENDATIONS... • 128 8.4.1. Recommendations for the LEPS 129 8.4.2. Recommendations for Government 134 vi 8.4.3. Recommendations for the TOL and Other Municipalities 136 8.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE RESEARCH METHODS 137 8.6. T H E V E R Y LAST WORD 139 REFERENCE LIST 140 APPENDIX A: OVERVIEW OF WATER RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA 148 APPENDIX B: OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK QUESTIONS 150 APPENDIX C: ETHICS REVIEW APPLICATION 153 APPENDIX D: TELEPHONE CONTACT SHEET FOR RESEARCH INTERVIEWS 159 APPENDIX E: SAMPLE OF THE LETTER OF CONSENT SIGNED BY A L L INTERVIEWEES 160 APPENDIX F: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THESIS INTERVIEWS 161 APPENDIX G: LIST OF PAST FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE LEPS 162 1 vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: BASIC INGREDIENTS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 26 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT 42 TABLE 3: LANGLEY CATCHMENT AREAS 69 T A B L E 4: PROJECTED POPULATION FOR LANGLEY TOWNSHIP 71 TABLE 5: MAJOR EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE L E P S , 73 T A B L E 6: L E P S CORE STAFF MEMBER PROFILE 77 T A B L E 7: T H E L E P S ' SERVICES FOR THE TOWNSHIP '. 81 T A B L E 8: SUMMARY OF THE OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE L E P S 123 T A B L E 9: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS L E P S SHORT COMINGS 130 TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS REGARDING RESEARCH METHODS 138 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: ORIENTATION M A P FOR LANGLEY TOWNSHIP 4 FIGURE 2: STEPS USED TO DEVELOP THIS EVALUATION 53 FIGURE 3: CONSTRUCTION OF L E V E L 2 OF THE EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK 56 FIGURE 4: M A P OF LANGLEY TOWNSHIP 68 FIGURE 5: M A P OF THE L E P S STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT SITES 80 FIGURE 6: OVERVIEW OF THE L E P S ' PARTNERS 82 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AFS Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy ALR Agricultural Land Reserve BCES Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society BNA British North America Act CA Community Advisor CORE ' Commission on Resources and Environment DCP Detailed Community Plan DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DND Department of National Defence DOE Department of Environment or Environment Canada EPT Environmental Protection Technology: Kwantlen Co-op students ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area . FBC Fraser Basin Council FBMB Fraser Basin Management Board FBMP Fraser Basin Management Program FRAP Fraser River Action Plan GIS Geographic Information System GVRD Greater Vancouver Regional District HEB Habitat Enhancement Branch HRDC Human Resources Development Canada LCRWSC Little Campbell River Watershed Stewardship Committee LEO Langley Environmental Organization LEPS Langley Environmental Partners Society LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MAF British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food MELP British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks MOE British Columbia Ministry of Environment MOU Memorandum of Understanding NCP Neighbourhood Control Plan NES Nicomekl Enhancement Society NGO Non-governmental Organization NPM New public management OCP Official Community Plans SEP Salmonid Enhancement Program SRES Salmon River Enhancement Society SRWMP Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership TOL Township of Langley USHP Urban Salmon Habitat Program WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WUP Watershed Use Plans x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been accomplished without the help and support of many individuals. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the following people for all that they have done to help me meet one of the greatest challenges of my life to date. Academically, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Tony Dorcey. His wisdom and comments have motivated and guided me throughout. Tony always knew the right thing to say at the right time. I would like to thank Peter Boothroyd who took time out of his busy schedule to provide positive comments and guide me in my research. I would like to thank Lisa Fleming and the staff of the LEPS without whom my research could not have been done. Also essential to my research was the cooperation and time of all the people whom I interviewed. On a personal level, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mother, Shirley De Goes. She has been a solid pillar of support throughout my life and was always there with a positive comment when I thought I could not continue. I would like to thank my mother for helping me to become the person I am today. I would like to give special thanks to Chris Young and Christine Brisson my ever-tolerant roommates. Finally I would like to thank my brother, Derek Babb, who helped me financially for the last year of my thesis work. xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION One of the great tasks of ecological thinking will be to develop an ecological civicism that restores the organic bonds of community without reverting to the archaic blood-tie at one extreme or the totalitarian "folk-philosophy" of fascism at the other (Bookchin 1992, 30). Canadian institutional arrangements for the use and management of watersheds should "reflect the values and preferences of the public; this requires recognition of the relationship between water, watershed management, and people's perception of watersheds. In the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, there is a network of small streams, ditches and wetlands thriving with aquatic life, close to where many of us live and want to live. This network of small tributaries and wetlands feeds and supports larger river systems, and the aquatic organisms within them. Despite their relative importance to the greater ecosystem, many of these small streams are neglected by government agencies when they undertake protection efforts because they have only a limited amount of funding and staff. Watershed managers can not focus on every waterway in the province but must choose amongst watersheds. To secure future funding and maintain public interest in watershed conservation, managers often focus on larger, more "newsworthy" rivers such as the Fraser River. As a result, small tributaries are disappearing. Research indicates that about 117 streams have been lost1 in the Fraser Valley (PIBC 1998). In 1999, the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. ranked the Fraser River as the fifth most endangered river in British Columbia, followed closely by urban streams in seventh position ( l ) . 2 Most of the remaining streams in the Lower Fraser Valley have been negatively altered in one or more ways, including channelization, diversion, removal or alteration of riparian vegetation, or pollution (PIBC 1998). The Fraser River's urban and urban/rural fringe streams are being lost or degraded due to the increasing population and development occurring in the southwestern corner of the province. Almost 50 percent of the provincial population lives in the Lower Mainland (30). The Lower Mainland saw 14.3 percent annual population growth between 1991 - 1996, which is about twice the provincial average (30). Despite both government and community group efforts, the disappearance of the network of small streams and wetlands in the Lower Mainland is an indication that the current system of watershed conservation has been ineffective. But wherein lies the failure? To change people's actions, it is necessary to change their beliefs. If humans do not feel that they are part of nature and its cycles, alive by virtue of its existence, then people are less likely to protect and maintain it. A support system develops out of people's appreciation for and willingness to protect the environment; it can be developed through an awareness of how human activities affect nature. Modern society, however, does not foster a sense of personal responsibility for the environment. As a result, 1 Streams in the Lower Fraser Valley have been classified as lost, endangered, threatened or wild. Streams are considered lost if they have been culverted, paved over, drained or rilled and no longer exist as a surface waterway. A set of criteria was developed to classify streams in the other three categories. Streams meeting one of these criteria are designated threatened; those meeting more than one criteria are considered endangered. Only streams experiencing no significant human impact are considered wild (PIBC 1998). 2 Any numbers in brackets, eg., (1), represent a bibliographical reference to a WWW web-site. 1 people have lost their connection to the natural environment, including the water around them. A loss of connection with nature by many urbanites has blinded people to the important role the natural environment plays in human existence - economically and spiritually. Furthermore, the rural environment is often seen as a hindrance to the development and expansion of the urban form. There are two main factors associated with watershed management in the Lower Mainland, as elsewhere: people's alienation from the natural environment; and the incremental rate of degradation, often at the neighbourhood level, of aquatic ecosystems as a result of the rapidly expanding population. To address the loss of aquatic ecosystems, society needs to seek solutions at the neighbourhood and community levels. Such a formidable task cannot be simply accomplished with sporadic and unorganized efforts brought on by fleeting bursts of community conscience. These "band-aid" solutions are short-term and do not address the deeper factors that lead to the degradation of water resources. There is a need for local associations of people to become partners with senior government bodies in finding solutions that are effective and lasting. The question is: how can government agencies and community groups best work together to conserve aquatic ecosystems? Over the years, many types of mechanisms for protecting urban and rural/urban fringe waterways have evolved in British Columbia. Dovetail Consulting (1996) identified some of these mechanisms3: planning, municipal organizational arrangements (e.g., environmental advisory bodies or environment coordinators on municipal staff), zoning bylaws, environmental protection bylaws, municipal approvals, management of the development process, ESA identification and designation, designated open spaces, monitoring, enforcement, referrals processes, technical guidance for local government through the Land Development Guidelines, information collection, management, and exchange, protection of private land (e.g., land covenants), public, developer and landowner awareness-raising, and community and conservation organization involvement. Implementation of these mechanisms is a challenge to government agencies due to issues of cost (budget and staff time), liability (public safety and offences under the Fisheries Act), "downloading," lack of political will at the local government level, and the limits on the environmental jurisdiction at the local level of government (Dovetail Consulting 1996). Efforts to preserve urban and rural fringe waterways are inhibited further by a combination of "burn out" and lack of time of the public and the limited ability of government officials to compromise and find solutions to water issues due to legislated or mandated responsibilities. There is a need for social change through collective citizen and government action and embracing the principles of sustainability. Social change has the potential to address economic 2 constraints and the lack of a support system for the environment common to modern communities. Mitchell and Shrubsole (1994) say that the objectives of sustainable water management should be: meet the basic needs of the population, maintain ecological integrity and diversity, merge environment and economics in decision-making, keep options open for future generations, reduce injustice, and increase self determination. Many governments have embraced the principles of sustainable development in creating management frameworks for water. Mitchell and Shrubsole (1994) claim that the concepts that have evolved and now are shaping water management's quest for sustainability in the 1990s are: partnerships, sustainable development, stewardship, ecosystem approach, enhancing effectiveness and efficiency, information and understanding, impact assessment, adaptive management, anticipation and prevention, and alternative dispute resolution. The thesis attempts to answer two main questions: 1. What makes a good partnership? 2. How can the longevity of partnerships be ensured? These questions are answered through an examination of the current academic literature regarding community-government partnerships and a case study of a "real-life" community-government partnership as it is seen through the eyes of its participants. If people are incorporated into the management process they will gain a better understanding of water resources and their personal impact on water quality and quantity. An active citizenry has the potential to provide an abundance of knowledge, skills, and resources for water resource management. Community-government collaborative partnerships represent a potential mechanism for empowering people to both take care of and be responsible for water resources; partnerships can restore the bonds of community. 3 Senior government agencies have released several detailed documents describing mechanisms for the protection of urban water ways, including: Urban Stream Stewardship: From Bylaws to Partnerships: An Assessment of Mechanisms for the Protection of Aquatic and Riparian Resources in the Lower Mainland. (Dovetail Consulting, 1996, Vancouver: FRAP, DFO and DOE); Stream Stewardship and Fish Habitat Advocacy: An Assessment of the Current and Potential Community Group Involvement in the Lower Fraser Valley, (Paish, H., 1997, Urban Initiatives Series #09, Vancouver: DFO and DOE); Land Development Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Habitat. (Chilibeck, B., 1993, Vancouver: DFO and DOE); Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources in Lower Mainland Urban Areas, (Dovetail Consulting, 1994, Vancouver: DFO and MELP); Stewardship Bylaws: A Guide for Local Government. (Lanarc Consultants, 1997, Vancouver: DFO, MELP, Canadian Wildlife Service, and MMA); and Community Stewardship: A Guide to Establishing Your Own Group. (FBMP, Canadian Wildlife Service, DFO, and FRBC., 1995, Vancouver: FBMP, Canadian Wildlife Service, DFO, and FRBC). 3 FIGURE 1: ORIENTATION MAP FOR LANGLEY TOWNSHIP 4 1.1. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE THESIS The goal of this thesis is to gain an understanding of the qualities that appear to be necessary to make proficient and enduring community-government watershed management partnerships through a case study of the Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS) (refer to Figure 1 for an orientation map). The objectives necessary to achieve this goal include: 1. To develop an analytical framework for determining the factors that make community — government partnerships effective. This objective is met by reviewing the literature on partnerships and collaboration in watershed management, and the wider literature on community participation as it relates to developing a framework for evaluating the LEPS in terms of obtaining adequate support and resources for launching organizations, such as the LEPS, and sustaining their performance. 2. To outline the governance structure for community-based watershed protection and restoration efforts that are applicable to the LEPS. This objective is met by reviewing literature (in particular theses and reports that have already done this), supplemented by selected interviews of people involved with water management in the Lower Mainland to outline the governance structure for community participation in watershed management that is specifically applicable to the LEPS. For any new form of governance, such as partnerships, to be effective and useful there must be an acknowledgement of the over-arching system within which it functions. 3. To document the origins and operation of the LEPS. This objective is met by reviewing appropriate reports and file material, supplemented by selected interviews to produce a chronology of the life of the LEPS, organized in a way that fits the focus and structure,of the analytical framework. Historical information regarding the reasons for its formation, political atmosphere, goals, etc. is used in evaluating the performance of the LEPS. 4. To document the LEP's experience with community participation in watershed management. This objective is met by interviews with a sample of key participants in the LEPS and members of other community groups in Langley, using a schedule of questions designed to focus on eliciting information on the key aspects identified in the analytical framework of this thesis, and a qualitative analysis of the tape-recorded results. 5. Develop recommendations for strengthening the LEPS and its applicability to other areas in British Columbia. This objective is met by integrating conclusions from the case study with those in the literature. 5 1.2. OVERVIEW OF THE THESIS RESEARCH METHODS The thesis involves the use of qualitative research within a case study. An analytical program evaluation framework is used to describe and understand the case as a potential mechanism for improving water resource governance in Langley, community-government watershed partnerships, and the processes necessary for the initiation and sustainment of community groups in British Columbia. Weiss (1998) identifies the main steps of program evaluation as: • identify the key questions for the study; • decide whether to use quantitative methods, qualitative methods, or a combination; • develop measures and techniques to answer key questions; • determine how to collect the necessary data to operationalize the measures; • plan an appropriate research design; and • collect and analyze the data. Data are analyzed through the application of a set of criteria deemed necessary by the wider public participation literature as necessary for partnerships to be effective in accomplishing their goals and empowering their participants. 1.3. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE THESIS Success for partnerships has been defined in the academic literature, at least in part, as gaining new advantages for community groups, acceptance of a community group as legitimate, changing social values, or simply as the community group being informed of a decision. Success is often evaluated in terms of an increase in the level and quality of communication among partners rather than evaluated in terms of improvements to the water resource, though it is understood that improved communication among participants in watershed management can eventually lead to improvements to water resources. Despite the long history of community participation in water resource management, formalized watershed partnerships are a recent phenomena, and most have not begun to achieve their long-term goals (Kenney 1997). The thesis is also limited by using a single case study, the LEPS. Conclusions are specific to the LEPS, though some generalizations can be made. 1.4. FEATURES OF CHAPTERS The thesis is divided into two main sections - theoretical context and case study evaluation. Part One provides the theoretical background for the thesis, and consists of water management, community participation, and partnership theories. Chapter 2 provides details regarding the circumstances under which water resources are managed in British Columbia. In Chapter 3, the history of and concepts behind community participation are outlined. Chapter 4 elaborates on the partnership model of water resource governance. A description of why the research methods were chosen and how they were applied as well as the evaluative framework for the thesis are provided in Chapter 5. The evaluative 6 framework is a combination of partnership theory with the criteria for "successful" community participation and watershed management. Part Two provides a description, an evaluation and recommendations for the case. Chapter 6 provides a detailed description of the case study's origin and internal organization. An evaluation of the case, based on the criteria developed in Chapter 5, is provided in Chapter 7. The final chapter provides conclusions about and recommendations for the case. C H A P T E R T W O : W A T E R R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T Obstacles to sustainable watershed management include difficulties with obtaining cooperation among government agencies, legislative-administrative barriers, and information and resource deficiencies. Furthermore, the differing levels of government overseeing water management in British Columbia face challenges as a result of these issues. Understanding the weaknesses and strengths of the system governing water management in terms of cooperation, legislative-administrative, information, and resource barriers will provide the insight needed to sustain watersheds. The chapter begins with an introduction to issues specific to watershed management, followed by a description of how the different levels of government and their legislation affect hands-on, community based, watershed conservation efforts in British Columbia. Despite the fact that mandates of all four levels of government relate or refer to water management, there is no legislation directly applicable to community based watershed management. There has, however, been an upsurge in community initiated watershed efforts in the Lower Mainland; the last section of the chapter traces these increases chronologically. 2.1. WATER, THE ISSUE Water is the most basic of human needs; all living things require it for survival. Because of its importance for human survival, water is managed to meet many different human needs: water supply, sewage collection, treatment and disposal, pollution control, flood damage reduction, drought alleviation, erosion control, drainage, hydro-electricity, navigation, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and amenities, climate change, and health (Bruce and Mitchell 1995; Kennett 1992). This thesis focuses on the relationship between watershed conservation and community participation along with the roles, both positive and negative, played by the government. First, it is necessary to define watersheds, and then to distinguish their management from other resource management efforts. A watershed is a river drainage basin, delimited by land elevation that naturally divides the landscape. Urban watersheds have been historically subjected to intense physical threats from a combination of intense urban and rural development pressures and the needs of human settlement. Many waterways in the Lower Mainland no longer exist because they have been culverted, paved over, drained or filled. The majority of the remaining watersheds have been subjected to extensive habitat damage through pollution, dyking, channelization, diversion, and vegetation removal or alteration. In British Columbia, the watershed is generally seen as the appropriate level - biophysically and socially - for both water planning and management. Watersheds are dynamic ecological systems that provide a medium by which energy, elements, soil and pollutants travel (Nener et al. 1996; Wallin 1996); this correlation between land and water make watersheds a logical unit of management based on biophysical grounds (Bruce and Mitchell 1995). Watersheds are often also an appropriate management 8 unit at the social level. All humans require the benefits of water, and are also impacted by other people's use of water; these impacts are usually most apparent at the watershed level. The relationship between personal need and others negatively affecting the resources that fulfil those needs, may compel people that hold different interests in water to cooperate (Wallin 1996). Community cooperation in watershed management also requires elaboration because it has certain distinctive features. Distinctions can be made using community-based watershed management attributes. Not all watershed groups are the same because of the different roles they try to perform and the different projects that they undertake. Based on case study research of watershed stewardship groups in the Pacific Northwest, Rudnik (1995) identified the attributes that seemed to be common to watershed efforts as issue focused, geographically bound, inclusive, cooperative, and system focused. Generally, groups form in response to specific issues or problems related to the allocation, use or quality of water in an area defined by a watershed, rather than administrative or political boundaries. Based on a specific issue, a few interested and motivated community members may form a group and attempt to become actively involved in collaborative decision-making processes related to water problems. These groups attempt to undertake collaborative processes in a joint, cooperative, coordinated fashion. Ideally, collaborative processes occur between government agencies, and between government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs). If collaborative processes do occur, the agency and NGO should propose programs and actions jointly - agencies should not develop programs before seeking public input. Finally, community based watershed efforts should take a broader view of the problems and solutions for entire ecological systems, rather than the traditional, fractionalized agency approach that only examines specific problems (Rudnik 1995). Now that community based watershed conservation efforts have been generally distinguished from other resource efforts, what are the general issues specific to watersheds? Watersheds can be better understood through examining the constraints or barriers unique to them. Obstacles to sustainable watershed management generally fall into four main categories, these being cooperation, legislative-administrative, information, and resources (Quadra Planning Consultants 1995). Cooperation, the first "barrier category," can be attributed to a combination of complacency, the nature of the hydrological cycle, and the complexity of the decision-making arena. Canada has about nine percent of the world's annual freshwater run-off, and less than one percent of the world's population (Bruce and Mitchell 1995). Because of this abundance, Canada's water resources define, in important ways, the character of the country's physical geography, settlement patterns and economic development (Kennett 1992). Abundant water resources have led to a population that is complacent toward its water supply. Canadians take the right to and availability of "pure" water for granted. This complacency is further reinforced by the low cost of water, and its use as a waste disposal system (Quadra Planning Consultants 1995; Healey and Wallace 1987). Great abundance, combined with the hydrological cycle itself, further exacerbates the ability of water managers to gain the cooperation of the general public in watershed conservation efforts. The hydrological cycle is a dynamic system, which makes it difficult for people to identify themselves with and 9 claim ownership of a specific water resource (Healey and Wallace 1987). Without a specific reference to ownership, it is difficult to assign either responsibility for maintaining and protecting water resources or blame for water quality degradation and aquatic habitat loss. Despite abundant water supply in Canada, difficulties assigning blame and responsibility, water quality degradation and shortages in certain regions are forcing water management issues into the public forum and onto the political agenda. A mixture of biophysical, social, economic, political and institutional factors causes physical degradation of watersheds. Therefore, the management of watersheds can only be effective through a balanced consideration of socio-economic and biophysical factors (Dixon and Easter 1986), and considering public values; this need for balance and integration is largely due to the third reason for the difficulty in obtaining public cooperation - the complexity of the decision-making arena. Water management decisions are highly complex; thus public values and associated multiple perspectives toward water need to be considered by water managers (McDaniels et al. nd). Factors contributing to the complexity of water issues include: conflicting objectives among the citizenry, limited scientific knowledge of ecological relationships, structural complexity of water systems, a compressed time frame, media attention (McDaniels 1995; Gregory et al. 1996), population growth and accompanying development, and increased multi-stakeholder planning processes and legislation for water resource management in British Columbia. Water issues reflect both multiple characteristics and objectives; people consider these differently . and have differing degrees of willingness to make sacrifices in order to deal with possible adverse impacts on the water resource. Variations in perspective may result from different information or different interpretation of facts, different subjective calculations, and varying levels of trust (Gregory et al. 1996). These dissimilarities in perspective create inconsistent objectives for water resources. Differing public objectives and values may lead to difficulties in securing cooperation and support from property owners and farm operators; they may have concerns over loss of water rights, potential user fees, and greater regulation of private property. These concerns may cause them to protest against environmental guidelines and codes of practice that promotes watershed conservation (Quadra Planning Consultants 1995). Legislative-administrative barriers pose a second major challenge to watershed management. Legislative-administrative barriers can be correlated with inadequate accounting systems, sectoral management, and planning frameworks and priorities with scales that do not reflect the current situation (Romaine 1996). The effectiveness of accounting systems depends on the accuracy of the available information. Since existing information has been mainly compiled according to administrative jurisdictions, rather than watershed boundaries, it does not accurately represent the water resource. Therefore, the effectiveness of accounting systems for water resources is limited by inappropriate 10 information. Inadequacies in accounting systems can also be attributed to the nature of the market for water resources and the externalities4 common to water use and regulations (Romaine 1996). Markets for water resources and their amenities are neither active nor competitive thus they are considered non-market commodities. People value clean water, but they do not purchase this in market exchange as they do with other consumer products; this is also the case with values that are not derived from direct use^of water but instead are based on non use, or passive-use. Examples of values include, knowing a species exists, or having the option of seeing a species in the future, by virtue of the maintenance of the watershed. The non-market nature of water amenities does not make them economically unimportant. Rather, the absence of prices makes it difficult to economically assess people's values toward water (Gregory et al. 1996). Furthermore, water use and regulation have many externalities. Water use externalities arise due to the common property5 nature of water and the strong interrelationships among water uses; these externalities are difficult to identify and quantify. Common property resources are generally either not owned or collectively owned. The costs associated with common property resource use are both easily avoided by individual users and often disregard cumulative impacts (Kennett 1992). The second major cause of legislative-administrative barriers, to sustainable watershed management is related to the fractionalized jurisdictional structure or sectoral management of water resources, and the lack of a linked framework for water management policies and priorities. In Canada, no one agency or level of government has full management responsibility for and commitment to water management; these sectoral tendencies restrict integration of water management systems. Integration is further constrained by competing budgets and mandate priorities among different water management agencies (Romaine 1996; Cantwell and Day 1996) (Sections 2.2., and 2.3., discuss government agencies). Informational barriers are mainly due to inadequate data, and a lack of understanding and knowledge of B.C.'s water resources on the part of watershed managers and the general public (Romaine 1996). Inadequacies can be mainly attributed to the compartmentalized style of traditional scientific research, which inhibits a holistic understanding of both ecosystem processes and functions (Romaine 1996). Types of information that both government agencies and community groups require to make valid water management decisions include: measurement of water budget, streamflow data, assessment of point and non point discharge, and public education about both the needs for water conservation and the retention of streamside vegetation (Quadra Planning Consultants 1995). The final type of barrier to water management is the hurdle of gaining financial and human resources. These barriers involve an inability to obtain the financial and human resources to: undertake studies to improve the information base, identify more barriers (Quadra Planning Consultants 1995), 4 Externalities are an economic concept that occur when party A, through its activities, creates a cost or a benefit for party B, but does not consider these costs or benefits in its decision-making. 5 The classic paper on common property is "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science, 162 (1968), p. 1244, by G. Hardin. 11 conduct evaluations and assessments (Romaine 1996), and undertake restoration, preservation or conservation projects. 2.2. BRITISH COLUMBIA WATER RESOURCES AND THE LAW The government manages water resources in Canada. As such, water is subject to the laws and regulations of all levels of government. In British Columbia, there are no laws directly regulating community based watershed efforts. However, in undertaking hands-on projects, community groups impact the water resource, and thus must abide by the rules of Canadian water law. When examining new forms of governance that include community groups, such as partnerships, it is important to understand the governance system within which they must function. There are many different uses for water, each with its own legislation and management infrastructure. For the purposes of this thesis it is not feasible to examine the entire water resource governance system. Rather, this section outlines the legislation that affects how watershed stewardship groups function, thus affecting the possibilities for successful community-government partnerships (refer to Appendix A for a broader examination of the legislation and government agencies responsible for water resource management in British Columbia). Canadian water use falls under common,6 statutory7 and constitutional laws (Rueggeberg and Thompson 1984). The Crown has the final authority over the protection and sustainable use of water. Permission (or the rights) to use surface water is obtained by license or by an approval under the provincial Water Act (2; 3). The constitution is the most comprehensive piece of legislation in Canada. However, it does not directly allocate legislative authority over water to any level of government. Therefore, there is some uncertainty as to the extent to which each level of government - federal, provincial, municipal, regional or First Nations - has constitutional authority to manage water resources. Overlapping constitutional jurisdiction also means that managers must infer who is responsible for water management through an examination of water uses, such as fisheries (Pearce, Bertrand, and McLaren 1985). Legislated powers over water resources are further complicated because provincial and federal governments delegate aspects of their constitutional authority over water laws to municipalities, First Nations, territorial governments, water boards, commissions, and agencies (Eriksson 1996). British Columbia has separate pieces of legislation for different water uses, and five different, often uncoordinated levels of government - federal, provincial, municipal, regional and First Nations - to manage them. B.C.'s water supply, for example, is regulated by the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks (MELP) under the provincial Water Act, whereas water quality is regulated by Environment Canada (DOE) under the federal Fisheries Act. Any lack of coordination between these regulatory bodies is increased by the administrative discretion that current legislation permits to government agencies. Such 6 The common law is that law enunciated in the decisions of courts based on principles of justice, custom and precedence. The common law is concerned with private rights between citizens (Thome 1984; Rueggeberg and Thompson 1984). 7 Statutory law deals with the relationship of the individual to the community or public law. Before any statute has the force of law it must be passed by the Legislature of the province, or the House of Commons and receive Royal Assent (Thome 1984; Rueggeberg and Thompson 1984). 12 discretion, furthermore, is often couched in such vague wording as "may." Discretionary powers give government officials immense control over how water is managed. Government actions to conserve watersheds are usually up to the will of politicians. In situations where government has a pro-development agenda, discretionary power can be used to protect the rights and investments of developers and resource exploiters, rather than in the best interest of other water interests (BCWPA 1988). Public input into water management can help to ensure that decisions about development consider the impacts of development on watersheds. 2.2.1. FEDERAL LEGISLATION Community groups undertaking hands-on watershed conservation efforts are generally impacted by three pieces of federal legislation, including the Fisheries Act, the Canada Water Act, and the new Canada Oceans Act. The Fisheries Act, one of Canada's strongest pieces of environmental legislation, provides the legislative authority for the management and regulation of fisheries (salt and fresh waters), including access, control over the conditions of harvesting and enforcing regulations. The Act divides responsibilities for administering water laws between Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), DOE (water-quality issues), and provincial (e.g., MELP) authorities. The Canada Water Act legislates water management, and water quality management, with the goal of encouraging federal-provincial cooperation in the planning and implementation of projects (Pearce, Bertrand, and McLaren 1985). The Canada Oceans Act provides a legal framework for the sustainable and integrated resource management of Canada's oceans. 2.2.2. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION There are a few key pieces of provincial legislation that have the potential to influence the efforts of action-oriented community-based watershed stewardship groups; legislation includes the Water Act, the Fish Protection Act, the Waste Management Act, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, the Municipal Act, and a series of provincial guidelines providing development standards. The provincial Water Act regulates the use, diversion, and allocation of provincial water resources through a licensing system; this includes changes to the stream and its banks, and any modifications to land, vegetation, and the natural environment within a stream (Eriksson 1996). Provisions to ensure water for fish, protect and restore fish habitat, and strengthen riparian protection and local government planning are found in the Fish Protection Act. The Agricultural Land Commission Act ensures the maintenance of agricultural land and puts limits on development. However, there is a minimum of governmental involvement in the area of agricultural activities relating to water (DFO et al. 1980). The MunicipalActIs reviewed in Section 2.2.3. 2.2.3. MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION Municipal governments are created through the Municipal Act. As such, all municipal powers fall under this piece of legislation. Municipalities have been granted power over land use and development. 13 More specifically, Section 695 of the Act, empowers municipalities to include water use in their Official Community Plans (OCP). For example, two goals of the Langley OCP that could facilitate watershed protection are to both maintain the township's rural character outside designated urban growth areas and preserve good water quality. 2.3. B.C. WATER MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE Water is innately mobile and elusive, traversing physical boundaries with a seemingly premeditated disregard for the consequences on human institutions. The most obvious type of boundary crossed is geographic, with most water laws, agencies, and management programs being adopted and Implemented by political entities empowered to act at physical scales other than those defined by hydrology (Kenney 1997, A-l). Water management in B.C. is fragmented among many provincial and federal agencies that have often overlapping jurisdictions and little coordination amongst them. For example, there are eleven major provincial and federal jurisdictions, all with different boundaries, and all having direct or indirect impacts on the management of water (BCWPA 1988). Partially because of this complexity, water management decisions are not solely based on ecological realities, but are also inherently political in nature. Therefore, any new water policies or mechanisms of governance cannot evolve in a vacuum; they must consider the governance and legal systems affecting watershed management. The ensuing sub-sections summarize government departments that have been cited as involved in the functioning of action-oriented community based watershed conservation groups in the Lower Mainland 2.3.1. FEDERAL At the federal level of government, Lower Mainland watershed stewardship groups generally interact with DFO, and occasionally DOE. There are three main departments in DFO that are directly related to aquatic protection and community groups; these being the Community Advisors Program, the Habitat and Enhancement Branch, and the Science branch. The Community Advisor Program, first established in the early 1970s, has involved project teams that serve as a point of contact for the public to DFO, and as resource people for community groups. Project teams consist of personnel from both resource and restoration biology and engineering. There are sixteen Community Advisors for British Columbia. The Minister of Fisheries and DFO have demonstrated strong political support for an increased role for the public in protecting aquatic habitat through a recent document that provides a new direction for Canada's Pacific salmon fishery (DFO 1998). DFO's new direction has three main components: conservation, sustainable use, and improved decision-making. The third component, improved decision-making is directly related to community groups. This component consists of three main principles: • clear, timely and objective information provided to the public on major issues to facilitate review, comment and feedback; • joint government and stakeholder responsibility for sustainable fisheries through partnerships -shared management costs, decisions and accountability; and 14 • enhanced public input to decision-making through a structured advisory Board system. The new direction is motivated by a recognition on the part of DFO that, despite multiple restoration and enhancement projects, water resources are degrading in B.C. In rural/ urban fringe watersheds, degradation can be partially attributed to upstream development and land use activities (Mallette 1999). In the past, DFO was reluctant to encourage community groups to play a strong advocacy role; Now they are making a departure from the past, and refocusing the role of community groups from bio-technical auxiliaries to habitat advocates (Mallette 1999). DOE's mission statement includes the following goals: restoring ecosystem integrity, sustainability, protecting Canada's natural and cultural heritage, and promoting environmental stewardship. The Department operates under the principle of working with partners (Mitchell and Shrubsole 1994). Community groups generally receive support from DOE through various funding programs, rather than through the provision of in-kind services to community groups. 2.3.2. PROVINCIAL The Province's authority to manage water resources comes from its constitutional right over property and civil rights in the Province, matters of a local and private nature in the province, and local works and undertakings (Eriksson 1996). The Provincial government manages the sports fishery within its boundaries, along with the land and water that comprise fish habitats. Provincial laws and management must comply with federal fisheries laws and the Fisheries Act m terms of the protection of any fish habitat that the Province owns. To accomplish this, the Province has adopted the federal no-net-loss of fish habitat policy (Clark 1995). MELP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF) are the two main provincial Ministries that affect the activities of watershed stewardship groups in the Lower Mainland. Two crown corporations, Fisheries Renewal B.C. and Forest Renewal B.C., and a quasi non-government organization (QUANGO), the Fraser Basin Council (FBC) also figured prominently in the functioning of watershed groups. However, these agencies do not have formal processes for liaisons between each of their sectors that deal with community water stewardship efforts, sometimes creating a duplication of efforts (Paish 1997). The FBC, however, does attempt to bring decision-makers together to help make cooperative, responsible and sustainable decisions (FBC 1998). MELP has jurisdiction over freshwater fish, wildlife, water use, pollution control and floodplain management under the B.C. Wildlife Act, the B.C. Waste Management Act, and the B.C. Water Act. MELP's vision is for "an environment that is naturally diverse and healthy, and enriches peoples lives" (24). Three goals that the Ministry views as necessary to achieve this are the protection of natural diversity; healthy and safe land, water and air; and sustainable social, economic and recreational benefits. B.C. Environment (MOE) and the Urban Salmon Habitat Program (USHP), are sections of MELP that work with community groups. MOE is composed of five regional programs: Fisheries, Wildlife, Water Management, Environmental Protection and Enforcement (24). USHP, a part of the B.C. Salmon Habitat Conservation Plan, and a program of MELP, has the most impact on community groups in B.C.. USHP supports stewardship coordinators, and provides direct 15 funding to community based stewardship groups and local governments in areas where urban salmon habitat exists. It is a five-year program, terminating in the year 2,000, to protect and restore salmonid habitats in urban areas in the B.C. portion of the Georgia Basin. USHP has four main goals: ensuring sustainable salmon stocks, building partnerships with other levels of government, initiating community involvement in land use planning, and increasing public awareness of issues affecting salmon (USHP -1998). A second provincial Ministry with influence over community-based watershed management is MAF. MAF's influence is generally limited to rural watersheds. MAF has a mandate to enhance the capacity of agriculture; sustain the natural resource base for food production and environmental enhancement; and enhance the strengths of rural families within their community. The Fisheries Renewal Act created Fisheries Renewal B.C., a crown corporation that cooperates with other agencies to invest in programs that improve fish stock and habitat. Fisheries Renewal B.C. has three main programs: Salmonid Renewal Program, Planning and Partnerships Program, and Development and Diversification Program (25). The other Crown corporation is Forest Renewal B.C.. The corporation was created to protect and enhance the environmental value of British Columbia's forests. Forest Renewal B.C. has had three main programs: watershed restoration, operational inventory, and fisheries biodiversity research (26). Finally, the last provincial level of organization involved with watershed-based community groups is the FBC. The Council is a QUANGO that evolved out of the Fraser Basin Management Board (FBMB) and Program (FBMP) (Dorcey 1997). The FBMB and the FBMP were established in 1992 by federal, provincial, and local governments with a goal of putting sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) into practice.in the Fraser Basin. 2.3.3. MUNICIPAL On private land, municipalities and Regional Districts have the most control over land use and development processes that may negatively impact water resources. Municipalities have several different mechanisms available to them. Mechanisms include: • bylaws to prevent the fouling or obstruction of fish habitat; • stream stewardship promoted to local businesses and community groups; • development permits that require the preservation, enhancement or protection of waterways; • hiring municipal Environment Officers; • creating formal community environmental advisory committees; and • undertaking land use planning. Within the Lower Mainland ten municipalities have a formal staff position for a Municipal Environmental Officer, though with differing titles for the position (Dovetail Consulting 1996). The position entails anything from heavy involvement with the protection of aquatic habitat to direct input into planning processes. Many of these positions are financed through USHP. 16 The main mechanism municipalities employ is land use planning. For example, the Township of Langley has three levels to their land use planning process: Official Community Plans (OCP), Detailed Community Plan (DCP), and the Neighbourhood Control Plan (NCP). An OCP defines the policy of a local government in terms of existing and proposed land use and servicing requirements under Section 944 of the Municipal Act. It contains a list of very general goals, objectives, and policies for growth, types of development, and environmental aspects*in the Township (21). DCP's provide more detailed parameters for growth within specific communities than OCPs; they provide a comprehensive framework for development, specifically areas to be protected (TOL 1979). A NCP based on the information contained in the community plan, is the most detailed level of planning process available to the Township. This level of plan covers an area equivalent to the catchment area of one elementary school (about 3,000 to 4,000 people). The NCP contains detailed information on: land uses, densities, subdivision layout, street layout, schools, parks, protection of ravine areas, municipal servicing, location and design of municipal trails, and other considerations relevant to development (TOL 1979). 2.3.4. REGIONAL GOVERNMENT Regional districts are unique to B.C. and were created in the 1965 by the provincial government in order to meet rural residents' increasing demand for services. B.C. is divided into twenty-nine regional districts. Regional districts represent a partnership between municipalities and unincorporated areas. They ensure that all residents of B.C. have access to an elected local government and the types of services normally provided by municipalities (E.g., growth management, air quality management planning, and other services that cannot be effectively delivered by the province or municipalities). 2.3.5. FIRST NATIONS Presently, there are 42 First Nations (about two-thirds of the 197 bands in B.C.) participating in the B.C. Treaty Commission process (4). Extensive time and financial commitments to treaty negotiations present barriers to any First Nations ability to participate in additional planning processes or initiatives. Furthermore, treaties will take precedence over land use planning designations. Therefore, it is important to recognize the legitimacy of First Nations rights to their traditional lands, and include them in land use decisions. Federal and provincial governments are legally required to consult with First Nations to avoid infringing on aboriginal rights on Crown lands (FBMP 1996). Despite potential treaty complications, Chilliwack and Musqueam are two examples of First Nations bands who have had involvement in urban, aquatic habitat issues in the Lower Mainland. At the federal level, the government's relationship with the First Nations has been built partially through the DFO Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS). Senior levels of government have contributed technical expertise, First Nations have contributed cultural knowledge and understanding of waterways. 17 2.4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND WATER RESOURCES HISTORICALLY A combination of the convoluted system for water management and a rapidly degrading water resource have initiated an increase in public participation efforts to protect local watersheds. This burgeoning supply of willing labour, coupled with a loss of government funding for resources management, and an increasing realization that traditional technical and scientific solutions do not work, have led government agencies to begin testing new forms of governance.8 However, before introducing a new style of watershed governance it is important to examine the historical record to learn from past successes and failures. This section outlines how community groups have participated in watershed management in the past. Community group involvement in watershed conservation efforts is not new to the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. In fact, community groups have been active in this locale for close to fifty years. During this period, there have been four main historical trends in water resource management in British Columbia: • the early conservation movement, in response to pre 1960s economic development; • the 1960s to mid- 1970s era of new technology, accompanied by increased public awareness of environmental issues, often attributed to Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring; • a re-entrenchment and adaption period characterized by appropriate technology, litigation and the use of legislation to manage (Dorcey 1987); and • the modern era of sustainability, motivated by grassroots mobilization for environmental advocacy and stewardship of water. The initial period of water management, the economic expansion era, was characterized by data recording, lack of management, a strong concentration on water supply, large scale hydro electric projects, flood protection, and water transportation. The economic focus of the province was based on the perception of an inexhaustible land and resource base (CORE 1995). Despite increased knowledge of limnology, fisheries, and social sciences, management emphasized economic development, any evaluations were based on cost benefit analyses, which ignored environmental and social impacts (Dorcey 1987). Community participation efforts involving the public generally took the form of closed consultations with selected interest groups that required an invitation by government (Gardner 1991a). The second stage in the history of water management was characterized by an increased attention to the environmental and social costs of development, an increased demand for public involvement and participatory decision-making, new modelling techniques, quantitative analysis (Dorcey 1987), a recognition of non-economic values (linked to an increase in tourism and outdoor recreation), and the development of advocacy groups that provided an organized voice for a range of interests that the public did not deem adequately considered by government (Molloy 1997; CORE 1995). 8 An example of a government agency testing new forms of governance is the joint DFO and Fraser River Action Plan's Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources (PPARR) program that helped to fund demonstration watershed projects from 1993-1997. 18 Accompanying the change in attitude, was a rise in new techniques for assessing environmental and social costs (Dorcey 1987). However, government and corporations, not citizens, generally led the direction of public participation initiatives (Molloy 1997; CORE 1995). The 1980s were a time of re-trenchment. Despite the Ministry of Forests' recognition of the need to plan for values other than timber production, and coining the phrase "integrated resource management"- (CORE 1995), this era in the history of water management did not experience extreme changes to either policy or attitudes. Water management was influenced by a weakening Canadian economy and the previous generation's disenchantment with scientific and technological innovations of the previous era; these factors led to cutbacks in government funding and limitations to the scope of water research projects (Dorcey 1987). Downsizing in government was attributed to: massive loss of government revenue from natural resources industries, a belief that the government's role in the state had to be changed, and a change in government thinking to neoconservatism9 (Clague 1997). Neoconservatism led to the creation of a new relationship between the provincial government and the voluntary sector, whereby community groups acquired "purchase of service" contracts from the government to execute functions and activities not necessarily appropriate to government. The private sector, the community, and the family assumed more responsibility for the social well being of society and themselves (Clague 1997). The availability of funding through these contracts encouraged an increase in the number and size of non-profit social agencies and businesses. Despite these advances in public involvement with resource management decisions, public participation in British Columbia still typically meant that government showed the public what it was going to do, permitted people to comment, then either proceeded with what it planned or proceeded with some token modifications (BCWPA 1988). The few projects that were locally initiated during this era in water management were generally single-issue problems operating outside the influence of government, and in an undefined role (Cantwell and Day 1996). During the early 1990s, water management experienced an era of stream stewardship and sustainable10 water management; this era was characterized by a resurgence in community involvement. "Stream stewardship is the management of streams, streamside vegetation and watersheds to sustain production of fish and compatible species for present and future generations" (MELP 1994, 5); it involved the consideration of multiple needs, and interests, and a responsibility for water management (Mitchell and Shrubsole 1994; MELP 1993). The era of sustainability was characterized by an attention to socioeconomic and ecological issues, new program implementation mechanisms, local community empowerment, shared decision-making power, multidisciplinary actions, an ecosystem approach, partnerships and stakeholders, and adaptive management (Mitchell and Shrubsole 1994). 9 Neoconservatism, is generally considered to be a moderate form of traditional conservatism (the so-called Right). Most neoconservatives accept the existence of the welfare state, but denounce the idea and practice of "big government". 1 0 The concept of working toward sustainability first gained popularity in 1987 with the release of the World Commission on Environment and Development's (WCED) document Our Common Future. WCED defined sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987). 19 ) Sustainability has meant, "being able to maintain water, its many uses, and the integrity of the aquatic system indefinitely. This will involve sustainable use; protection of water and ecological systems; protection of health and public safety; and protection of property and rights" (Mitchell and Shrubsole 1994, 35). Mitchell and Shrubsole (1994) highlight a set of Canadian water management sustainability principles developed by the Canadian Water Resources Association, and based on international and -national initiatives; these include: • Sustainability ethic: wise management through commitment to ecological integrity, biological diversity, dynamic economy, and social equity for present and future generations. • Water management principles including: - practice integrated resource management by linking water quality, quantity and management of other resources, recognizing hydrological, ecological, social and institutional systems, and recognizing the importance of watershed and aquifer boundaries; - encourage water conservation and the protection of water quality by recognizing the limits of the water resource, acknowledging consumptive and non-consumptive values, and balancing education, market forces, and regulatory systems to promote responsibility and user pays; - resolve water management issues through planning, monitoring, research, multi-disciplinary information for decision-making, encouraging consultation between stakeholders, consensus processes, and ensuring accountability through open communication, education and public access to information. Initiatives demonstrating the provincial governments rekindled interest in public involvement in the first half of the 1990s include: the establishment of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and Economy,11 the establishment of the Commission on Resources and Environment12 (CORE) in 1992 (Clague 1997; CORE 1995), the Land Use Charter13 adopted in principle by the government in 1993 (CORE 1995), and the passage of Bill 25 1 4 in 1994 (Clague 1997). The latter half of the 1990s has seen a second period of re-trenchment and also a downsizing of federal and provincial governments. Despite efforts on the part of senior levels of government to test new forms of governance, the early 1990s did not yield drastic changes to government decision-making policies for water resources. However, senior levels of government have begun to attempt to incorporate the lessons learned from watershed demonstration projects undertaken in the early 1990s into policy. 1 1 The BC Round Table on the Environment and Economy was created in response to the Brundtland Commission's recommendations; its main purpose was to provide advice to the province on sustainability issues (CORE 1995). 1 2 CORE brought stakeholder groups together in key regions of British Columbia to work together and arrive at mutually acceptable land-use recommendations (Clague 1997; CORE 1995). 1 3 The Land Use Charter recognizes the importance of public participation as crucial to the fulfilment of sustainability. The public delegates government with the authority to make decisions in the public interest. The government subdelegates this authority by statute, to administrative officials in the public service (CORE 1995). 1 4 Bill 25 is enabling legislation for local governments to incorporate social planning into their official community plans. However, there are no provincial funding programs for social planning, or community development (Clague 1997). 20 The new focus of the federal government appears to be on providing community groups with the power to make decisions about local water resources. This new focus has been demonstrated by the New Directions for the Pacific Salmon Fishery adopted by the DFO in 1998 and the Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative announced by DOE in 1998. 2 .5 . THE LAST WORD Watershed efforts are usually distinguishable from other resource management initiatives because they are issue focused, geographically bound, inclusive, cooperative, and system focused. Beyond the unique characteristics of these efforts, watershed management has been made a more difficult endeavour because water managers are faced with cooperation, legislative-administrative, informational, and resource barriers. Barriers are further aggravated by British Columbia's water management governance system. The system is a varied, fractured and complex entity. Watershed management is divided among a multitude of government agencies and legislation. Worse yet, there is often very little communication or integration of these agencies, translating into a series of gaps and/or overlaps in responsibilities for water resources. In response to the shortcomings of the water management system, concerned citizens have taken the initiative and formed community groups to try to protect their local water resources. The trend of increased community efforts promotes the question, how can community groups best protect watersheds? Perhaps the answer is through lobbying and advocacy outside formal government processes, or in participating in government sponsored initiatives (e.g., Water Use Plans,15 Land and Resource Management Plans,16 or OCPs). Either way, it is essential that managers gain an understanding of the processes that both govern and lead to the success of community groups. 1 5 Waters Use Plans are provincial processes for describing a set of operational rules for water control facilities that address the interests at stake, while respecting legislative and other boundaries (22). 1 6 Land and Resource Management Plans are integrated, sub-regional, consensus building processes that produce a Land and Resource Management Plan for review and approval by government. The plan establishes direction for land use and specific broad resource management objectives and strategies (23). 21 C H A P T E R T H R E E : C O M M U N I T Y P A R T I C I P A T I O N Problems in communities have solutions in communities, and the people should participate in the matters that affect them at the community level (Checkoway 1995, 4). Water resource degradation not only affects all communities but it affects them in different ways. Large-scale government policy cannot comprehend or meet these specific needs; therefore the politics of local communities must contain the resolution to their problems (Papworth 1995; Thomas 1997). This does not mean that the public has to become the sole political actor or that public opinion is omnipotent. Rather, political participation is an act of influencing the government, either by affecting the choice of government personnel or by affecting the choices made by government personnel (Mathews 1994). The need for public participation in government decision-making is increased further because in Canada the Crown retains dominant control over the environment - air, water, and land (BCWPA 1988). Since Canada is a democratic society individuals have the right to be informed and consulted, and to express their opinions on issues relating to the public commonwealth, including the environment. Furthermore, public involvement helps to ensure the public support necessary to successfully implement government programs and policies (5). The intent of this chapter is to introduce and define, for the purposes of this thesis, community participation, as it is relevant to watershed stewardship. Community participation, public advocacy, multi-stakeholder processes, and social action represent a small sampling of titles that are often used interchangeably during discussions about public interest group activities. Such titles are often distinguished by nuances in definition. Whatever the "catch phrase," it is the underlying concept of community participation that is important. Beyond a simple definition, this chapter explores the pros and cons, as identified by the academic literature and case studies, for the inclusion of community groups in government watershed stewardship projects. It also provides a discussion of the basic principles recognized by social science theorists as common to, and necessary for "successful" public involvement efforts. The chapter ends with examples of the potential relationships that the government could have with community groups. 3.1. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION DEFINED There are several essential themes among the many definitions of community, including a grouping of people who reside in a specific locality (public space or geography), exercise some degree of local autonomy, and have shared social interactions (Wharf and Clague 1997b; Lamoureux et al. 1989; Kahn 1991; Wolfe 1991). Definitions of community generally presume that a community is not just thousands of individuals, but a system of groups with specific characteristics and dynamics (6). Beyond a basic set of common characteristics, community participation is also frequently classified according to the reason for studying it (Plant and Plant 1992; Petracca 1992). For example, the community's relationship to the state (E.g., partnerships, advocacy, cooperative management) or people's reasons for joining (E.g., 22 issue oriented, personal benefit), or the organizational form of the group (E.g., popular groups, issues networks, coalitions). Since the motivation behind civic participation is neither certainty of control nor success but the possibility of change (Mathews 1994), the focus of community organizations should be to cause change (Lamoureux et al. 1989). If change is a key goal, then logically, community group classification should be based on-the group's strategies for social change. Checkoway (1995) identified six general strategies used for community change: mass mobilization, social action, citizen participation, public advocacy, popular education, and local service development. "Mass mobilization aims to create change by amassing individuals around issues. . . . It often operates in response to conditions but not as an independent force, or as a way to win on issues but not as a form of permanent organization" (Checkoway 1995, 5). Social action, on the other hand, creates change by building organizations at the community level. Organization is seen as a way to improve people's lives by empowering them. Popular education proposes a process of increasing the public's critical consciousness of common concerns as the best strategy to invoke change. Local services development, is a process by which people provide their own services at the community level. Underlying local service development strategy is an assumption that problems in a community have local solutions and that residents can help themselves. Public advocacy also subscribes to a philosophy of local power; it is a process of building support for a specific group's interests in legislative, administrative, or other established institutional arenas. Advocacy is done generally by one group on behalf of another group that is perceived to be in need of help. Similarly, citizen participation aims to represent people, but at the level of policy planning and program implementation of government agencies. Underlying citizen participation strategies, is the assumption that people should take part in their government, and that agencies should involve the public in matters that affect them. Popular education and local service development, two of Checkoway's (1995) categories for social change, best represent the type of community action explored in this thesis. These types of community groups demonstrate the following characteristics: focus on stewardship initiatives such as protection and restoration of streams, focus on non-advocacy roles, hands-on approach, and do not enter the political arena. As such, efforts by these groups are generally a continuation of the work that government agencies usually perform. Frequently, members of citizen participation groups are labeled as, and criticized for being amateur bio-technicians (Paish 1997). Some critics of the non-political approach to public involvement believe that what is generally called an amateur bio-technician approach may not be as effective as local residents exercising their role as voters, tax payers, and citizens. Critics reason that because the decisions and actions that lead to the degradation of aquatic resources are political and mainly made at the municipal level, they require local political initiatives (Paish 1997). However, the bio-technician or hands-on approach may function as a mechanism to incite people to join the volunteer sector, thus increasing the volunteer base and the public "voice" in decisions (Paish 1997). 23 3.2. WHAT IS SO GOOD ABOUT THE PUBLIC The notion has developed that once the government gets involved with some subject then it is the government's problem, not ours. Governments have contributed to this unfortunate development by appearing to exclude the public, by acting as if only professionals and experts could have the answers (Tindal and Tindal 1995, 343). Although not universal, public participation has rapidly become seen as standard government operating procedure,17 and vital to a sustainable society (7; 8). Growing demand for public participation may also have been caused by the increasing challenges and complexity involved in reconciling and integrating a wide range of social, economic, and environmental values in decision-making processes (CORE 1995). The growing prominence of public participation in decision-making is also due to the many benefits it offers government officials. There are many reasons government should embrace public participation. Three main categories of the benefits to public participation are increased public acceptance of decisions, better data, and increased efficiency. Following is an outline of these reasons for government to employ public participation techniques. First, and probably foremost, citizen involvement initiatives protect government agencies^from public criticism and increase public acceptance of government undertakings (2; Thomas 1997; Sadler 1979). Local residents can serve as a valuable resource or conspire against a project. Constructive involvement can ensure project success (Sadler 1979). Either way, citizens will always be interested in public policy decisions that affect resources in their backyard. What will change is how these "backyard" decisions intertwine with the management of water (5). When citizen agitators oppose a project, they can jeopardize the project's success. Public participation can counter-act the burgeoning trend for citizens to stand and fight the government by enhancing channels of communication (Thomas 1997; Keeney and McDaniels 1996); increasing public awareness of critical issues (Mathews 1994); identifying shared responsibility and common goals (Romaine 1996); and bestowing citizens with ownership of the decision-making process (2). The last point can be considered the most crucial. When people are involved in the decision-making process, they have a better understanding of why the decision was made; it will belong to them and have relevance (2). Decisions that are relevant can be expected to lead to a public committed to the decision and its outcomes (Matusak 1997; Shaw 1996). People only fully understand personal experiences; correspondingly, the only ideas people understand are those that they can formulate themselves. People, therefore, must be involved in formulating ideas if the ideas are to have relevance (2; Sadler 1979). Finally, the public may be more willing to accept decisions that they were involved in making because these are more politically valid than decisions that were made authoritatively. Public involvement bestows legitimacy to the decision-making process (Lawrence and Daniels 1996). If parties in the community, that are interested in the decision-making process are included from the beginning, 1 7 The need for NGOs has been noted in several federal and provincial documents, including: Inquiry on Federal Water Policy (1985), Water 2020: Sustainable Use for Water in the 21st Century (1988), Canada's Green Plan, State of the Environment Report for the Lower Fraser (1990), the Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia (1993), Living Blueprint for B.C. Salmon Habitat (1998), and a New Direction for Canada's Pacific Salmon Fishery (1998). 24 the process is more likely to lead to the development of opportunities and outcomes relevant to community needs and to a better overall solution (9; 10). The second major category of benefits is improved information, such as anecdotal information, local insight into the watershed,18 or injection of creative capacity that "experts" may lack. Improvements in information may affect the type of data collected; how the data is interpreted, applied, and verified (Romaine 1996); or how problems are rationalized (Thomas 1997; Sadler 1979). Nevertheless, public involvement allows government officials to access additional data. Additional data may include: information regarding human values, motivations, and paradigms of the citizenry; and an understanding of the dynamics of relationships and the structures surrounding government and public interaction (5). This information is important because communities best understand their own problems, and an effective public involvement program requires an understanding of human motivation. Human motivation is based on people's experience and culture, and the most effective way to learn about these things is through observation and discussion, both of which are provided by community involvement (5; Lamoureux et al. 1989). Thirdly, incorporating the public into the process increases the efficiency of the decision-making process for watersheds. Efficiency is increased through improved program implementation. Program implementation is partially improved by overcoming the constraints of sectoral management common to water resources. Management constraints are addressed through the establishment of common goals, integration, and on-going evaluation and assessment (Romaine 1996). Public involvement addresses some management constraints because it is an inclusive process; as such, it finds common goals, encourages integration, and provides volunteer monitors to evaluate decision-making processes. 3.3. BARRIERS TO PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Resource management decisions made by "experts" are usually believed to be scientifically correct, and as such, are frequently seen as being in the best interest of the public. Some managers feel that they must "save the public from themselves"; this attitude toward the public is prevalent among those professionals who see themselves as the only source of knowledge and management techniques for natural resources (BCWPA 1988). On the side of the government, the negative attitudes towards public knowledge held by some resource managers, can be considered the fundamental cause of most obstacles to accomplishing successful public involvement programs. Another major challenge to community participation is ends-means differences in expectations amongst people involved. Different expectations can lead to feelings of dissatisfaction on the part of community group members. Public officials see public participation as a means to accomplish particular ends, for example obtaining data or undertaking monitoring. Public participants, however, focus on the ends rather than the means. The return of salmon populations to local streams or empowerment over 1 8 Local knowledge can provide valuable technical information that is inaccessible to experts. "In planning, we often assume that all experts are citizens, but not all citizens are experts" (Priscoli 1983; 58). Good citizens create a good body politic, which consequently supports good decisions, thus reducing the line between experts and the public (Priscoli 1983). 25 decisions that effect their watersheds are examples of the kind of the ends public participants focus on. Ends-means differences often lead to disagreements over how authority should be distributed (Kasperson 1986). Disagreements between the government and the public reduce the efficiency of public involvement efforts and create adversarial feelings among participants; these factors are detrimental to the protection of watersheds. 3.4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, THE BASICS There is no standard model or formula for organizing community-based watershed stewardship groups. Necessary ingredients vary according to the size of the watershed, the scope and size of the issues being dealt with, the type and level of participation of both government and the public, and other factors (Rudnik 1995). However, there are several elements that are consistently identified in case study analyses of community watershed efforts, including good governance, efficient procedure, secured resources, and good leadership. The subsequent sub-sections outline: what the above mentioned criteria involve and accomplish; why the criteria are important to public participation processes; and how the criteria can be measured or are demonstrated to exist (refer to Table 1 for a summary of the criteria and their basic characteristics). TABLE 1: BASIC INGREDIENTS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CRITERIA CHARACTERISTICS Good Governance • Accountable • Fair • Inclusive • Decision-making mechanism • Legitimate • Consultation Efficient Procedure • (dmmthication • Goals and objectives • Information!and resources • Management infrastructure Adequate Resources • Technical competence, knowledqe and expertise • Community qroup strength • Volunteers/members • Staff • Fundinq • Leadership 3.4.1. GOOD GOVERNANCE The concept of governance means different things to different people. For the purposes of this thesis, governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups voice their interests, mediate their differences, and exercise their legal rights and obligations regarding issues of public concern and economic and social development (27; 28). Governance is a broader notion than government because it includes both formal institutions as well as 26 informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest. Governance encompasses the collective meaning of related concepts like the state, government regime and good government. Furthermore, many of the elements and principles underlying "good government" - including accountability, transparency, participation, openness and the rule of law - have become an integral part of the meaning of governance (28). Thequality of the environment partially depends on the quality of its governance: Good governance is among other things participatory, transparent and accountable. It is also effective and equitable and it promotes the rule of law. Good governance assures . that political, social and economic priorities are based on broad consensus in society and that the voices of the poorest and the most vulnerable are heard in decision-making over the allocation of development resources (28). The key aspects of good governance are accountability, fairness, inclusiveness, a mechanism for decision-making, legitimacy, representation, empowerment, consultation, and good faith. ACCOUNTABILITY A key aspect of sustainable public involvement is accountability. Elected decision-makers and through them, administrative officials should be accountable and answerable to their electorate. Accountability can be maintained by ensuring that decision-makers take into account the wants and needs of those who are affected by their decisions. This is most effectively guaranteed by ensuring that the public has the opportunity to participate meaningfully and that decision-makers actually listen (CORE 1995). Characteristics of accountable participation efforts are a fair, inclusive process, which embraces shared decision-making, and has open lines of communication (RTEE et al. 1994). FAIRNESS The over-arching concepts of fairness are impartiality, justice, consistency (29) and equitable conduct and conditions for all of those people who participate (11; CORE 1995). To achieve fairness, and facilitate the cost-effective participation of people affected by decisions, public involvement should begin early in and continue throughout the process and address or remove financial barriers (11; CORE 1995). Additionally, fairness requires that stakeholders are given information that is accurate and understandable; advised of the time it will take to provide the requested service; and treated with the consistent and equitable application of rules. Government must also be accountable to the public (29). Finally, a fair participation process must be transparent. Transparency requires the free flow of information. Therefore, processes, institutions and information must be directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information must be provided to understand and monitor them (28). The provision of these requirements by the community participation process provides all stakeholders with the opportunity to be treated equally regardless of age, race, status, or influence. 27 INCLUSNENESS Inclusiveness requires balanced representation from all effected parties (Pinkerton 1991; CORE 1992). Participants should be selected on the basis of several standards. First, the participation of certain key agency representatives and community groups may be required by legislation (CORE 1995). Second, individuals considered to represent a group with a key interest in the outcomes of discussion, including local citizens, municipal staff members, provincial and federal agencies, and First Nations, should be included. Third, those parties with the authority to make decisions, directly affected by the decision, who could delay or block the decision (CORE 1992), as well as those who will implement the decision should be invited to participate (12; 5). The fourth type of participant should be individuals that are good candidates for an open, participatory process because they are cooperative, articulate, good listeners, and have demonstrated good learning skills (McDaniels et al. nd). Fifth, there needs to be a balance of power from local to international groups so that decisions best accommodate the competing interests of all parties. This impedes the process from degenerating into a scenario where managers simply tell citizens what should be done (CORE 1995; Thomas 1997). The existence of five different types of stakeholders, as previously mentioned, reveals a variety of publics. In considering the diversity of publics, government officials should also recognize that citizens who are drawn to the process are not necessarily truly representative of the citizenry but may solely represent special interests or concerns (12; 5). ' ? In addressing the existence of multiple publics, government must incorporate multiple participation techniques. Government officials should utilize processes that account for the major forms of citizen participation (as previously discussed in Section 3.1.). Techniques chosen for public participation should be related to the overall goals that public involvement was intended to meet and the characteristics of the publics that will be involved. Being familiar with the many channels of communication available, remembering to diversify19 efforts and flexibility are essential to choosing participation techniques (12; 5). DECISION-MAKING Another element necessary to ensure good governance, is an appropriate decision-making process. All people should have a voice in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that represent their interest's (25). Developing and following a decision process is critical to the success of public involvement programs. Decision-making occurs at many different levels. Whereas community groups make decisions regarding their internal group dynamics, the government must make decisions about the level of citizen participation and the amount of power delegated. The level of public participation that government uses in different decision-making situations depends on judgement about costs and benefits, the amount of public interest, and fiscal or 1 9 Diversifying enhances the chances that important lessons can be learned within the process. The results of various studies indicate that no one public involvement activity is adequate and that some combinations of several participation techniques are usually required to successfully implement public policies (5). 28 administrative constraints (CORE 1995). Comparatively, the ability of community groups to participate in decision-making processes depends on: equality of group members, common overall group objectives (Gastil 1993), mechanisms for disseminating decisions, strong group consultation abilities, and respect for the opinions of other group members (Lamoureux et al. 1989). Another component of decision-making is the power each individual or organization has over decisions. The shared decision-making model means that those with the authority to make a decision, and those who will be affected by that decision, are empowered to jointly seek an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all concerned (CORE 1992). The model is based on a cooperative, problem solving approach. Motivation for cooperation lies in the realization that the parties' goals are interdependent. Each party needs the others support; therefore, by working together each party will gain more (CORE 1992). Consensus decision-making is the most desirable form of shared decision-making because participants are treated equally, thus reducing the chances for domination by any one member; a broader range of interests is served; a collective understanding of issues and solutions occurs; people are motivated to find lasting solutions; and decisions made by consensus are more credible and enduring (FBMP et al. 1995a). In consensus decision-making, all participants agree before a final decision is made (FBMP et al. 1995a). There may be disagreement among members about small details, but the "bigger picture" is acceptable to all. RTEE et al. (1994) identify the guiding principles of consensus decision-making processes as: • purpose driven because people are provided with a reason to participate; • inclusive of all interested parties; • requiring voluntary participation; • a self designed and flexible process; • equality in access to information and opportunity to participate; • respectful of diverse interests; • accountability to constituencies and within the process; • having realistic time lines; and • requiring a commitment to implementation and monitoring. Other principles of consensus decision-making identified by CORE (1995) include: negotiate in good faith; avoid participation in activities that may undermine the process; focus on. interests not positions; recognize the legitimacy of all positions; see problems as neither sectoral nor personal; and follow the rules of brainstorming (CORE 1995). LEGITIMACY Legitimacy is associated with lawfulness and rightfulness. It is the principle that citizens accept that a government has the right to make decisions for them. Conversely, the government must accept that citizens have the right to be part of the decisions that affect them (Evans 1997). Legal frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially (25). Legitimacy is central to the issue of public participation; if 29 lacking, the public participation effort will result in tokenism, mistrust, lengthy appeals and litigation, and a decline in people's willingness to participate. A legitimate process has three requirements: representation, decision-making, and consultation (not mutually exclusive) (Evans 1997); it also requires government coordination and financial support. Representation is important because it ensures that all opinions are both heard and included, and it provides an understanding of the full scope of concerns and issues. Legitimacy in the decision-making arena is closely tied to public empowerment or people's ability to influence decisions. Decisions need to reflect the comments revealed by the public participation process, and the wishes of the public, and also demonstrate a clear definition of purpose in all government agency actions. This requires that managers embrace a form of decision-making that includes all participants and does not compromise people's concerns. Consensus is that form of decision-making. Consultation, the third component of legitimacy, involves seeking and considering advice or information from the public. Consultation also ensures a better decision that is based on a broader and more educated pool of information. Key to consultation is communication and good faith in the process. 3.4.2. EFFICIENT PROCEDURE Public participation efforts frequently lack volunteer resources - including the time and energy of citizens - and funding. Efficient procedure helps address these deficiencies by maximizing both the volunteers' output from time and energy, and funding. Efficiency in the legislative and administrative infrastructure for watershed management requires a flexible, iterative, and adaptable process; a framework for dialogue; financial and human resources; well-established goals and objectives; and a reliable information base. Furthermore, efficient procedure requires that managers integrate scientific, social, and economic concerns. Integration of concerns must come with recognition that human interactions, not ecosystems, need managing (TGEAES 1996). COMMUNICATION Good communication is open and sincere, with frequent dialogue between participants, and prompt and thorough response given to the concerns and commentary of each participant (11). The establishment of a framework for continuing dialogue and the creation of effective public discourse both require a deliberate effort to remove conflict while also promoting a collaborative relationship. There is a positive correlation between the status of government and stakeholder relationships, the degree to which diverse stakeholders are included in decision-making processes, and the type of dialogue occurring among stakeholders (5). A framework for continuing dialogue requires three kinds of communication between government agencies and the public to ensure effective consultation. These forms of communication are: input from the public to educate the government about the public's diverse interests, information, and perspectives; output of technical information about the issues from the government to the public; and a mutual education process (8). 30 CLEAR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Clearly stated goals and objectives lead to an effective and efficient program. Establishing common goals is a consensus building process. When identifying goals, community groups need to avoid the pitfall of adventurism. Adventurism is the tendency to make action almost an end in itself by taking action for action's sake. Community organization is a process of liberation; it is not only the ends but also the means (Lamoureux et al. 1989). Once people have understood each other's needs and goals, and the benefits of cooperation, then they can create a better solution because it will incorporate everyone's needs. Once goals are established, groups need to plan strategies. Strategies should be expressed as recommendations that will lead to action (Pinkerton 1991). Identifying goals and strategies will facilitate the construction of public participation programs that optimize benefits and minimize costs for both citizens and government (5). INFORMATION Another major part of efficient procedure is information. The development of a strong information base can lead to an effective and an efficient participation process (FBMB et al. 1995). The translation of scientific terms and concepts to the public is important if behaviour is to be influenced. Influencing behaviour is necessary for social change. Furthermore, the information used to manage watersheds must be a combination of the government's technical data with the public's perceptions, values, and creative responses. In other words, information must join scientific and technical data with personal knowledge and values (5). Information is necessary for managers to be able to develop a rationale for making decisions. Information also provides a background for forming goals and finding direction, and facilitates the translation of scientific facts to the general public. To accomplish these objectives, the information gathered by participant's needs to be credible, geographically relevant, and pertinent to the type of projects being undertaken. There are three main types of information that need to be collected: biophysical data, socio-economic data, and organization/strategic data (FBMB et al. 1995). Regardless, there should be an emphasis on education and social learning. Social learning encourages cooperative working relationships among the public and between the public and government (CORE 1995; Thomas 1997). MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE The final component of an efficient procedure is a sound management infrastructure. "Management is a process which exists to get results by making the best use of human, financial and material resources available to the organization" (Armstrong 1990, 1). Effective management requires an understanding of how management processes are applied and can be used. The classical model2 0 for a management infrastructure has four main functions (Armstrong 1990): 2 0 The classical model for a management infrastructure was first developed by Henri Fayol (1949) in his book General and Industrial Administration. 31 1. Planning which includes deciding on a course of action or an aim and choosing a strategy to achieve that aim. 2. Organizing which involves setting up and staffing an organization to achieve an aim. 3. Motivating which requires the exercising of leadership to encourage people to work together smoothly. 4. Controlling which includes both measuring and monitoring the progress of work. Within the functions of management, there are certain principles that encourage a sound management infrastructure. Minogue (1998) identifies the principles necessary to execute effective management in accordance with the new public management model of management as steer rather than row; empower communities rather than deliver services; encourage competition rather than monopoly; be mission driven rather than rule driven; fund outcomes rather than inputs; meet the needs of customers rather than the needs of bureaucracy; concentrate on earning not just spending; invest in prevention not just cures; decentralize authority; and solve problems by making use of the market place rather than creating public programs. Additional factors that are relevant to an effective management infrastructure identified by Armstrong (1990) included having strong visionary leadership from the top; maintain a well-motivated, committed, skilled and flexible work force; ensure the ability to take action quickly; and promote a value system which emphasizes performance, quality and responsibility of the organization to its stakeholders. 3.4.3. ADEQUATE RESOURCES Power is exercised through the control of resources (Kahn 1991) because the deployment and attainment of resources allows community groups to realize their aims and objectives, and provides internal stability. There are two methods community groups can use to deploy their own resources. Groups can either use their resources directly or deploy their resources in an attempt to modify the performance of wider resource allocation systems (Butcher et al. 1980). Community groups are not fixed in either of these options for deploying resources. Resources that a group may need to attain are either internal coming from the abilities of members or external coming from the abilities of outside constituents. Butcher et al. (1980) list important internal group resources as: • technical competence and knowledge; • information; and • community group strength. Kerfoot et al. (1995) identify the resources that community groups generally seek from government or other outside sources as: • funding and materials; • expertise, technical support, information, and access to government data and literature; • coordination (facilitate inter-group communication, minimize duplication of activities, and bring stakeholders together); and • legislation and enforcement. 32 The next sub-sections elaborate upon community group resources including technical competence and knowledge, community group strength, volunteers/members, staff, and funding. The details on information were dealt with previously in Section 3.4.2. TECHNICAL COMPETENCE AND KNOWLEDGE Groups need technical competence and knowledge; this requires skills in finding and using technology and information. Skills may be held by the coordinator, found among volunteer members, obtained through hiring consultants, and gained through in-kind services from government. The existence of technical competence and knowledge allows projects to be completed. These skills are ensured by the existence of understandable information, clear group procedures for information gathering and analysis, and the group's ability to access information in a timely fashion (Butcher et al. 1980). COMMUNITY GROUP STRENGTH Community groups and government officials alike, frequently site deficiencies in basic group infrastructure (organization and administration) and stability as the largest obstacles to community group effectiveness and efficiency (Mallette 1999; Paish 1997). Effective internal organization is related to group membership, structure, and decision-making; these can be classified as community group strength. A group's strength helps to determine its ability to undertake projects and influence decision-makers. Common traits of a strong community group are: • large membership; • group cohesion, commitment, and solidarity; • strong leadership and political skills among members; • prestige and access to appropriate decision-makers and community leaders; • ability to mobilize the community; and • access to or control of media. A group's size is equal to the group's power base; it is manifested in the existence of support from group members and the potential beneficiaries of group activities. Group support is also found in group cohesion, commitment and solidarity. When a group lacks solidarity it is usually dissolving. Whereas, if a group has a cooperative group structure, then solidarity is promoted (Coover et al. 1985). Solidarity is evidenced by the presence of: volunteers, active participation in general meetings and working committees, and in the support that group members give to each other (Lamoureux et al. 1989). Other important traits for group members to have are leadership and political skills. These skills provide the group with political savvy, the ability to rally support from or control other organizations, and the motivation for other members (Butcher et al. 1980). Dynamic leadership combined with having members in influential positions can translate into group prestige. A prestigious group has access to the appropriate decision-makers, media and community leaders. Such access can increase the amount of 33 supportive public opinion in the community, and expand both the group's opportunity and right to vote on decisions about their local watersheds (Butcher et al. 1980). VOLUNTEERS Group membership demonstrates the amount of public support there is for a group's goals. Public support translates into political clout, a potential funding source, and volunteers for undertaking projects (FBMP et al. 1995a). Volunteers' efforts are the building blocks of watershed management. To ensure long term commitment, the FBMP et al. (1995a) recommends that volunteers be provided with: • a description of the group's goals (mission, relationships, roles); • knowledge of what is expected of them; • short and long term objectives to meet and measure their progress; • assistance (i.e., resource/technical information); • on-going information about the groups activities beyond their own personal projects; and • feedback. STAFF It is important to make the distinction between voluntary work and paid work (Paish 1997). There are generally two theories regarding paid staff of any community group, it's either good or ifs bad. A problem identified with having a paid staff is that they have the potential to exert undue influence on group decisions. Potential imbalances in influence could be attributed to two main factors. First, paid organizers often play a political role within the group, speaking for the group at meetings with government representatives. Second, staff is usually more available and likely to be better informed about the group's activities (Lamoureux et al. 1989). Paid organizers also work in a climate of insecurity and spend a large portion of their time trying to secure funding for, and justifying their position, rather than advancing the interests and objectives of the group (Lamoureux et al. 1989). Excessive time may be spent by paid staff on self-sufficient tasks, thus increasing the amount of volunteer resources being used for planning, rather than action oriented activities; this defeats the purpose of having paid staff. Social scientists that support groups having paid staff believe that they are essential to groups for organizing projects and accomplishing administrative tasks that other group members may find boring or unfulfilling. Therefore, the level of participation by the public and quality of work in projects depends on having a high quality staff (12). FUNDING Since 1945, the Canadian government has provided financial support to public interest groups. Government personnel rationalize that strong citizen organizations are fundamental for a healthy society (Phillips 1991). Perhaps, the governments reasoning for funding groups can be attributed to the fact that the length of time a community group lasts depends on what brought it together and the stability of its 34 funding (Lamoureux et al. 1989). This is partially true because all of the mechanisms for protecting water resources have some related costs, be it for process, materials or staff. Many case studies identify funding as the key to initiating any successful community participation initiative. Lack of structural or financial barriers aid in achieving balanced representation and group goals (RTEE et al. 1994) and also ensure that volunteer resources (e.g., time) are not excessively consumed by the search for funding. "Despite the perceived need for government funding for public interest groups, there are still several areas of contention over the issue. Critics argue that government funding limits community groups. Funded groups are often less competitive and accountable because they feel that they have the security of government funding; this makes groups less viable and more dependent on the state. As groups become more dependent on the state, they also become alienated from their constituency. Accompanying the alienation from the broader public, community groups experience a reduction in volunteerism and a need to become more like a professional organization than a volunteer group (Phillips 1991). Critics of government funding emphasize the fact that many established organizations have managed to pursue their own mandates through internal group fund-raising mechanisms, rather than through obtaining government grants (Paish 1997). Government funding agencies are also highly criticized for being selective of which groups are provided with funding (Phillips 1991). Government organizations are more likely to fund organizations that are both co-operative and support the government's agenda. In the past, British Columbia's government funds have mainly been intended for group creation and not for group sustenance (Paish 1997). Financial assistance may be provided as a grant or as a contribution. "Grants are defined by [the federal] Treasury Board as unconditional transfer payments which are not subject to being accounted for or audited, but which are tested up-front on a number of eligibility requirements" (Phillips 1991, 201). In contrast, contributions are "conditional transfer payments for specified purposes which are subjected to being accounted for and audited pursuant to a contribution agreement" (Phillips 1991, 201). Aside from how financial assistance is provided, funding should be allocated to community groups for the purposes of data collection and analysis (CORE 1992; RTEE et al. 1994), administrative and logistical support for communication (telephone, email), compensation for member expenses (travel, babysitting, parking) (CORE 1992; FBMP et al. 1995a; RTEE et al. 1994), advertising events and activities, logistics for events and activities, administrative costs (rent, photocopying, office supplies), technical expertise (training or hiring staff), access to information (internet, purchase of reports/books), and materials for undertaking projects (FBMP et al. 1995a; RTEE et al. 1994). The FBMP et al. (1995a) identified several potential direct internal and external funding sources a community group can utilize for sustaining itself. Internal sources include: members through dues, newsletter subscriptions, appeals, or donations; other individuals through personal appeals, special events, product sales, door to door canvassing, or patronage; and fund-raising events. External funding sources can include: private corporations through in-kind contributions and partnerships; foundations; 35 and government agencies or special programs. Indirect funding options include organizational subsidies or technical assistance from government agencies. Organizational subsidies assist in a group's development (Thomas 1997). Government can provide technical assistance by aiding groups in meeting the conditions for receiving grants, identifying the people in government and business to contact for assistance, lessening extensive paper work, and reducing funding restrictions (Gardner 1991b). If a group depends solely on money from outside of the group, they can encounter money problems. When groups offend (intentionally or not) local politicians, funding may be threatened. Solely utilizing outside funding sources also encourages an organization to become dependent on a high budget; this is bad because outside funding is rarely a long-range sustaining source of income for a community group. When government funding ceases, a group may not be able to survive on a lowered budget (Kahn 1991; Gordon 1994). Community groups that are highly dependent on outside funding may also move from being advocacy groups to government service organizations (Thomas 1997); this occurs if groups undertake projects based on the presence of funding, rather than on the mandate of their organization (RTEE et al. 1994). Therefore, the key aspects of achieving successful funding are not only obtaining funding, but also obtaining it indefinitely from diverse sources, such as banks, private foundations, and private citizens. LEADERSHIP Most community groups have a leader or coordinator to help organize and direct the group; they are the heart of an organization. Leadership can best be understood as a set of roles and functions (Coover et al. 1985). Leadership roles and responsibilities vary amongst watershed efforts, but typical coordinators help to organize members and volunteers through serving as a contact, organizing meetings and events, leading decision-making, and undertaking administrative tasks (Kahn 1991; Butcher et al. 1980; Rudnik 1995). A good leader inspires people to not only become involved, but to become leaders themselves (Kahn 1991). The personal qualities a good community group leader should possess include: friendly, trustworthy, articulate, motivated, inquisitive, flexible, mature, practical, courageous, and visionary (Kahn 1991). Good community group leaders can: define issues, hold meetings, set goals and establish priorities, manage finances, research, teach, understand both institutional and political processes, supervise staff, understand the dynamics of power systems (Kahn 1991), listen well, and motivate (Kahn 1991; Coover et al. 1985). 3.5. COMMUNITY AND THE STATE Involvement does not equal influence (Thomas 1997, 40). Despite government agency efforts, British Columbia's fast growing population is putting increasing pressure on its natural resources; this creates conflict between developmental and environmental issues. Among the growing conflicts and increasing complexity regarding watersheds, there is an atmosphere of expanding doubt about the ability of government agencies to effectively address watershed conservation issues. In the face of the growing inability of government to manage 36 watersheds as "outside experts," there is a growing demand for increased public participation in policy decisions. But, how can the public fit into the governance structure? Many different types of community groups exist that partake in tasks related to watershed conservation. For example, there are naturalist groups, fish and game clubs, service clubs, schools, fishing groups, and salmon enhancement programs. These distinctive types of groups have different relationships to and roles within the watershed governance system. The relationship between the public and government can have five variations (Wharf and Clague 1997a): • groups that are independent of or autonomous from government; • groups that campaign against government's policies and programs; • groups that challenge the government's institutions and values; • groups that function as agents of the government; and • groups that become partners with the government in undertaking projects and administering services. Autonomous community organizations develop and control services with little or no interference from the government. These groups represent the antithesis of government "off-loading" because the community has both the initiative for and control over projects and/or service provision (Wharf and Clague 1997a). However, having only completely autonomous community groups may lead to the domination of local affairs by an elite few and to the establishment of values and norms of behaviour that are different from, and not supported by the larger community (Wharf and Clague 1997a). Groups that campaign against or challenge government fill a transformative role. Transformative or radical groups generally aim to "transform government and society because of dissatisfaction with the existing system of governance. Actions taken beyond legal bounds - civil disobedience or more violent protests - often aim at such restructuring" (Gardner 1991a, 242). At another level, community groups can work as either partners with or agents of government. Partnerships usually embrace policies that combine a reduction of deficit and cut back on social programs with an ideology that regards families, friends, and voluntary organizations as the most suitable organizations for providing community services (Wharf and Clague 1997a). Community groups can partner with government in either advocacy or supplemental roles. Advocacy groups generally aim to promote their interests or the interests of others before decision-makers. Whereas, groups with a supplemental role usually undertake work to supplement the normal roles, functions, and responsibilities of government agencies. In partnerships, groups usually focus on more practical hands-on projects, rather than political initiatives. The role of provider and/or agent of government is often welcomed by the community, if senior government agencies provide the resources. The role of agent of the state brings communities into a more proactive role in watershed management. Therefore, those in the community responsible for 37 implementing policies and programs should have some say in how the policy is designed (Wharf and Clague 1997a). Whatever the relationship established between the government and community group, there should be balance. Groups that become too closely aligned with government agencies may invariably see their agendas subsumed to those of the agency and lose both their sense of independence, and neutral image (RTEE et al. 1994; Shaw 1996). These problems arise because-groups that are closely tied to government need to avoid alienating local government or have government officials perceive community efforts as challenges to government authority (RTEE et al. 1994). 3.6. THE LAST WORD 777e world we live in is nevertheless a world we ourselves have made, and because we are its makers, it lies within our collective powers to transform it (Friedmann 1987, 353). Community groups offer a beneficial and unique way for government to address watershed conservation issues. Community groups benefit government by increasing public acceptance of decisions, obtaining better and more diverse data, and increasing the efficiency of watershed management. Watershed managers have recognized these benefits; thus, there is an expanding role for the public in watershed conservation decision-making processes. Case study analyses of community efforts reveal a trend in the criteria that appear to be necessary for successful community initiatives. General criteria include good governance, efficient procedure, resources, and leadership. Once these essentials are present, the last step is for government and the community group to decide how to interact with each other, be it as partners or opponents. Since the current trend in community participation and public management, seems to be towards establishing public-private partnerships, the following chapter elaborates on these relationships. 3 8 C H A P T E R FOUR: W A T E R S H E D P A R T N E R S H I P S Due to the increasing need for public involvement in watershed decision-making, a new form of governance has emerged in Canada — community-government partnerships. In fact, DOE estimates that it has over 2,000 partnerships with the public (Kernaghan 1993). Following is a discussion of government-community partnerships that also provides the necessary theory for an analysis of such partnerships. Sub-sections cover topics regarding how partnerships are defined, the types of partnerships that have existed, where partnerships evolved from, the types of groups and organizations that can become involved in partnerships, and which modern conditions have encouraged the evolution of community-government partnerships. The final sub-section looks at criteria that the academic literature and case study research have specified as pre-requisites for "successful" partnerships. 4.1 . WHAT ARE PARTNERSHIPS? Traditional top-down and bottom-up approaches to watershed management have not stopped the loss of aquatic habitat in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. If it is to be successful, the future of watershed management must be a combination of partnerships and power sharing. In fact, both DFO and FRAP have identified the need to build partnerships with other levels of government, agencies, industry and the public as a key objective (Romaine 1996).. When attempting to build partnership processes, watershed managers need to be cautious. The term partnership, similar to community participation, has multiple definitions. Partner is a value free and highly abstract word; it can be used to encompass a wide range of very different situations and contexts (Wright and Rodal 1997). For example, the term partner can convey a feeling, such as empowerment, or characterize relations between the government and private sectors. However, flexibility with the word "partner" can also facilitate the shift from the old style of bureaucracy to a new political reality without constraint (Wright and Rodal 1997). The ambiguous nature of the term partnership requires the establishment of a concrete definition. Based on the literature, Peters (1998) identifies partnerships as enduring relationships between two or more autonomous participants, where a transfer of resources and shared responsibility for undertakings occurs. Based on these criteria, the following definition of partnership is adopted for the purposes of this study: an arrangement between two or more parties who have agreed to work cooperatively toward shared and/or compatible objectives and in which there is: shared authority and responsibility (for the delivery of programs and service, in carrying out a given action or in policy development); joint investment of resources (time, work, funding, material, expertise, information); shared liability or risk-taking; and ideally, mutual benefit (FBMP etal. 1995a, 43). This definition of partnership implies dual effort, dual benefits, and self-sustainability on the part of all participants. Inherent, is the need for a system of accountability, and equality among participants in both contributions and decision-making; this shared responsibility for watersheds differs from simple 39 consultation because it involves more than a simple exchange of information. Rather, there is collaborative joint action (Phillips 1991). The definition is still vague, and does not encompass the variety of potential partnership arrangements. A more explicit definition, focusing on the type of partnership, is necessary when establishing a partnership. The definition or a memorandum of understanding (MOU), should clarify the nature of what is being shared, the scope of the arrangement, and the manner in which decision-making authority is distributed (Wright and Rodal 1997). 4.2. A VARIETY PACK OF PARTNERSHIPS Partnerships can be distinguished by the purpose of the arrangement, the nature of the activities it encompasses, its temporal and geographic scope, the number and identity of the partners, the nature of institutional arrangements, the type of agreement under which it operates, the extent of powersharing, or the specific role of the government (Wright and Rodal 1997; Peters 1998). For example, a project may have more than two participants, and may last from one project to having no specific termination date. Decision-making authority may be retained by the lead government organization, have any degree delegated to partner organizations, or be made by joint decisions (Wright and Rodal 1997). Regardless of the terms under which the partnership functions, there appears to be four general classifications for partnership arrangements. Wright and Rodal (1997) differentiate between partnerships according to what is being shared, whereas Kernaghan (1993) classifies partnerships by the extent of the power, control or influence exercised by the partners.21 Both of these systems of cumulative22 classification define partnership relationships as collaborative, operational, contributory, and consultative. Collaborative partnerships involve a sharing of decision-making power. The partnership must go beyond consultation to collaboration, which involves combining resources, loss of some autonomy, and building consensus (Kernaghan 1993). Operational partnerships involve work sharing, and focus on actions toward common goals; there is usually less empowerment of partners, but these types of partnerships are more efficient on an operational level. Both collaborative and operational partnerships require a considerable amount of coordination and reciprocity (Kernaghan 1993). Contributory partnerships involve sponsorship or support, usually in the form of funding; they are intended to either lever new resources or replace government funding with private sector money. Since this type of partnership arrangement does not involve the active involvement of participants, they are not considered to be true or real. Consultative partnerships involve information sharing. Usually, government agencies seek advice from the private sector. These pseudo partnership arrangements seldom empower the participants and often occur under the guise of advisory committees or councils (Phillips 1991; Kernaghan 1993). 2 1 The substance of the two categorizations is the same, differences lie within semantics. For example, Kernaghan (1993) defines collaborative partnerships as those in which "each partner exercises power in the decision-making process." Whereas, Wright and Rodal (1997) define collaborative partnerships as "decision sharing." 2 2 Wright and Rodal (1997) consider categories as cumulative rather than mutually exclusive because a partnership that can be characterized by one of the above terms also tends to exhibit the preceding characteristics as well. For example, collaborative partnerships also share information and work sharing. 4 0 Whatever the type of partnership, when choosing a model of cooperation, there are several issues participants need to consider, including: the overall goals and specific needs of each community group; the nature of resource issues within each watershed; the mandates, programs and priorities of the governments and agencies participating, and the availability of both community and government agency resources (deShield and Romaine 1997). 4.3. THE WHO'S W H O OF PARTNERSHIPS There is a broad range of individuals and organizations that can be involved in partnerships, (E.g., government agencies, community organizations, educational institutions, private businesses, or individuals). Partnerships can also form from within any of the previous categories, (E.g., inter-agency partnerships between different levels of government or neighbourhood business associations). In any of these scenarios, partners may fall into one of two categories, those that represent themselves and their own personal values, or those that represent a constituency and the interests of a larger organization. Regardless, there is usually a rallying group or person that identifies and brings together all the participants. Once together, there are several partnership roles to be filled. Roles can include: facilitator, chair, resource person, project coordinator, volunteers, volunteer coordinator, and fund raising coordinator. One person can fill one or more of these roles. It is important to clarify these roles among partners. Clarifying roles increases efficiency, and encourages people to make responsible decisions while fostering trust among partners. 4.4. WHAT BRINGS THEM TOGETHER? An understanding of why partnerships form requires an examination of the conditions prior to the formation of the partnership. To understand prior conditions, there are two levels to be considered, the broader political environment affecting the rise of partnerships as a new form of governance, and the more specific conditions that give rise to each individual partnership itself. In examining the broader political environment, one must remember that there is nothing new about the concept of "partnerships," Canadian examples of community-government partnerships have existed in areas such as defense, infrastructure and regional development. However, what is new are the forces that are moulding community-government relationships by altering existing arrangements and providing new reasons for working cooperatively (Wright and Rodal 1997). Wright and Rodal (1997) identify these new forces as: • Fiscal Restraint, government is restricting spending to reduce deficits, thus requiring a need to seek resources from the private sector. • Global Competition, increases in global competition require countries to seek competitive advantages through increased public-private collaborations. • Issue Complexity, public policy issues are increasingly complex due to international scales and interconnectedness. Governments require the public sector flexibility to deal with rapid change, and the private sector needs the organizational framework of government. 41 • Changing Perceptions of the Role of Government trend in government to set policy direction and oversight, while others or the market undertakes implementation. • Changing Relations between Government and the Public, decline in public faith in the government's ability to find "technical fix" solutions to problems. • Devolutionary Powers, pressure on government to decentralize power, especially in 4 areas such as B.C., where there are divergences between provincial and national policies. • Private Sector Capacity, private sector has grown in expertise and sophistication, thus enabling it to support government activities. • Information Technology, new concept that is revolutionizing society and facilitating the sharing of both information and power. On a smaller scale, there are the qualities that facilitate the inception of each particular partnership arrangement. Qualities or factors necessary for the onset of a partnership may not ensure the successful development of a partnership. However, the literature indicates that the more of these factors present, the better chance a partnership has of being successful and lasting. Peters (1998) identifies the main variables necessary for the formation of a partnership as: mutual interests concerning potential goals of the partnership, possible exchange of resources among partners, lack of other feasible alternatives, leadership, and strong local government. 4.5. PARTNERSHIP ROLLER COASTER: THE UPS AND DOWNS Partnerships have the potential to offer many benefits to community groups and government agencies alike. More important however, are the beneficial ways in which partnerships can address some of the barriers to sustainable watershed management (Watershed management barriers were detailed in Chapter 2, Section 2.1., refer to Table 2 for a summary). Categories of watershed management barriers were identified as cooperation, legislative-administrative, information, and resource. TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION Cooperation • complacency due to abundant supply • nature of the hydrological cycle • complexity due to limited knowledge, conflicting objectives, intricate governance system Legislative-administrative • inadequate accounting systems • poor management Information • meager data • incompressible data Resource • inability to conduct studies and project • lack of resources for monitoring and assessment Partnerships deal with the lack of cooperation in watershed management on several levels. Romaine (1996) says that partnerships can create a sense of community cohesiveness by providing the 42 community with a voice in government decisions. People's awareness of issues grows when they are involved in any decision-making and the lines of communication are opened between government and communities. Their increased awareness of problems encourages people to actively solve these problems, and thus reduces their complacency toward their local watershed. Open lines of communication are also beneficial because they are a first step toward establishing a common vision between the community and government agencies for watershed goals. A common vision increases actors ability to work together, move toward inclusiveness (Romaine 1996), and reduce the complexity of governance. A common vision is established by: allowing groups to resolve different perspectives and priorities; providing a method of identifying information needs and strategies to overcome deficiencies; providing water managers with an education on community values (Romaine 1996); and empowering individuals through shared decision-making (Kernaghan 1993). Voluntary shared decision-making gives partners a sense of ownership over water resource decisions, responsibility toward issues impacting the partnership (Kernaghan 1993), political clout, and a reason to work together for the best interest of the resource. Further, the voluntary and multi-stakeholder nature of partnerships may help to ensure a lower level of coercion than programs or policies instituted by one government agency (Peters 1998). Shared decision-making and open lines of communication enhance the government's relationship to the public, reduce the public's complacency, and generally simplify water governance. Such an enhanced relationship, furthermore, would create the conditions necessary for broad public support and promotion of government values and programs (Kernaghan 1993; Romaine 1996). Legislative-administrative issues related to political and bureaucratic processes, form the next group of watershed issues addressed through partnerships. Most government agencies are constrained by hierarchies, mandates, procedures, legislation and institutional policies common to poor management systems. These constraints generally do not burden most private sector organizations, but they do cause legislative-administrative barriers for government agencies. Further, watershed management agencies are unable to match either their budgetary priorities or planning cycles. Incongruous budgets and plans create competing agendas and conflicting priorities amongst government agencies (TGEAES 1996) and over-compartmentalize management (BCWPA 1988). These difficulties, common to political and bureaucratic processes, may be partially alleviated with partnership arrangements. Community-government partnerships can: reduce red tape; facilitate more harmonious labour-management relations; reduce political tension by facilitating collaboration both between government organizations and levels; boost operation and resource flexibility of government organizations; improve the coordination of program and service delivery; and build private sector capability to undertake watershed conservation projects (Kernaghan 1993). Finally, partnerships can meet the informational and resource challenges associated with watershed management. Partnerships may preserve or increase the level of service to the public with the same or fewer financial resources because they are more cost effective than other program and policy implementation tools (Peters 1998; Kernaghan 1993). Cost effectiveness has been directly demonstrated 43 by the return of about $6 to $7 per $1 of investment in the form of completed field projects, volunteer time, in-kind resources, and levered additional monies (Romaine 1996). Partnerships are cost effective because projects are usually jointly funded, with the requirement that each actor contribute some sort of resource in an egalitarian manner. Therefore, the cost of providing a service becomes less for each member than if each member provided that service on his or her own. Partnerships are also cost effective because they offer an opportunity for pooling knowledge and skills, while also providing government with alternative sources and types of expertise (Armstrong 1992). Furthermore, partnerships are a solution to the problem of consultation fatigue - which wastes volunteer resources -because they supply on-going participation in decision-making and more enduring relationships, rather than the time consuming, numerous, and ad hoc processes of other arrangements (FBMP et al. 1995b). Finally, partnerships establish a process for managing change and providing ongoing monitoring and evaluation (Romaine 1996), which are major information and resource challenges. Regardless of the many benefits, partnerships also face many challenges. Creating a strong relationship amongst participants, that also builds trust, requires a large time commitment. Time is required to confront the inadequacies in private sector capacity (lack of staff, management, or resources), the conflicting loyalties of partners, and any imbalances in benefits, power or levels of commitment amongst partners (Wright and Rodal 1997). Further, this new type of relationship requires both a set of skills that participants may not have or may need to foster, and intensive management. New skills include group facilitation, extensive communication, and complex information analysis (FBMP et al. 1995b). The need to both prevent participants from developing unrealistic expectations of the process outcomes and keep narrowly focused necessitate intensive management (FBMP et al. 1995b). Despite its challenges, partnerships provide a new form of mutual governance for watershed conservation that addresses some of the requirements of sustainable watershed management. 4.6. PARTNERSHIP SHOPPING LIST A comprehensive understanding of partnerships requires an examination of the components -good governance, efficient procedure, and adequate resources - that are deemed necessary, in the academic literature, for the formation and maintenance of community-government partnership processes. The ensuing sub-sections on partnership criteria outline: what the criteria are, involve and accomplish; why these standards are important to partnership processes; and how they can be measured or demonstrated to exist. 4.6.1. GOOD GOVERNANCE • Inclusive: (Kernaghan 1993) this criteria is common to community participation, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1. for details. Dollar values were determined based primarily on an evaluation by Romaine (1996) and feedback received from 44 • Decision-making process: should be carefully managed (FBMP et al. 1995b). This criterion is common to community participation, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1.; for details. • Fair and equal: (MELP 1993) these criteria are common to community participation, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1. for details. • _, Legitimacy: a legitimate partnership is lawful, reasonable, and according to the accepted rules; therefore, the law should recognize the partnership. Legitimacy can be guaranteed through political will by having the legislative, regulatory and policy authorities in place; yet, it must also come from the community. This criterion is common to community participation, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2., for details (Dovetail Consulting 1996). • Forthright/ the partnership must be more than a facade and "window dressing;" this is created by a proven record of efficient and effective projects and through the empowerment of participants. Empowerment is often seen as "a process in which a person or community gives or gets power from another" (Checkoway 1995, 4). Checkoway (1995) believes that it is a pre-existing, potential resource, and defines empowerment as recognition of the ability to act upon that power. However, empowerment must occur on more than a personal level of "feeling" empowered. The goal of empowerment entails involvement of a person in decision-making, existence of structures to facilitate collective action, and an impact of the involvement effort in the community (Checkoway 1995). 4.6.2. EFFICIENT PROCEDURE • Clear vision: the objectives and scope of the initiatives to be undertaken should be known, with an established means for prioritizing them (Dovetail Consulting 1996; FBMP et al. 1995b; Armstrong 1992). Partnerships are inherently fragile because they require that partners have common interests and commitments. Therefore, all partners must agree upon the issue that the partnership develops around (Phillips 1991). Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3., for details on developing goals and objectives. • Organized and coordinated: realistic management infrastructure to ensure timely preparation and implementation of partnership projects and tasks (FBMP et al. 1995b; MELP 1993). This criterion is common to community participation, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.3., for details. partnership participants in the joint FRAP and DFO demonstration watershed partnership project conducted from 1993-1997. 45 • Communication mechanisms: these involve dialogue, conflict resolution, and linking partners to their constituencies (Dovetail Consulting 1996; Romaine 1996). These criteria are common to community participation, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2., for details. • Maintain momentum: build on the successes of past projects (Dovetail Consulting 1996). Partnerships must undertake projects that are successful and revel in these successes; this will ensure both a positive profile in the community and longevity of the partnership. People will not participate in a process that solely consists of negativity and failure. • Memorandums of understanding: ensure a clear understanding of roles and expectations. MOUs involve clearly establishing the responsibility, accountability, and authority of participants (Dovetail Consulting 1996; FBMP et al. 1995b; Armstrong 1992). Responsibility is assigned by defining a partner's role, functions, and specific tasks. Partners must be held accountable for these responsibilities by the constituency they represent and other members of the partnership (FBMP et al. 1995b). • Bottom-up development: community groups need to be able to support themselves and generate their own funding. Groups that are not self-sufficient, lack accountability and responsibility are not in a position to create a new level of governance or sustain themselves (Paish 1997). 4.6.3. ADEQUATE RESOURCES • Funding and resources: adequate availability to undertake projects, organize, coordinate, disseminate information, train, and administer other community development activities (deShield and Romaine 1997; MELP 1993; Dovetail Consulting 1996; Romaine 1996). These criteria are common to community participation, refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.4.4., for details. • Knowledge of members: partnerships are limited in the number of participants that can be selected, therefore participants must be carefully selected and balanced to ensure that all major players are represented (Phillips 1991). Further, partners must be aware of each other's powers, priorities and expertise (Dovetail Consulting 1996). The authority, power, or ability to affect decisions of partners within and outside of the partnership are important and vary. Community groups, though involved in decision-making, have no formal authority, whereas senior government agencies may have power ordained by statute and municipalities have delegated authority over zoning and development (FBMP et al. 1995b). Regardless, participants should be able to bargain on their own behalf and not rely on outside authority; this is difficult for government, as there are generally multiple levels of control in government agencies (Peters 1998). 46 4.7. THE LAST WORD This chapter addressed community-government partnerships, defining them as relationships between one or more self-sustaining organizations or individuals in a relationship with reciprocal effort and benefits. Partnerships vary in terms of the nature of what is being shared, the scope of the arrangement, and who has decision-making authority. Based on these distinctions, partnerships can be < categorized as collaborative, operational, contributory, or consultative. The proliferation of community-government partnerships in watershed management has been attributed to their ability to address many of the barriers to sustainable water resource management and the growing popularity of "new public management" within the business and government communities. To accomplish this be.neficial form of governance academic literature has acknowledged the need to meet certain criteria. Criteria include inclusiveness, a decision-making process, equality, fairness, legitimacy, forth rig htness, clear vision, organization and coordination, communication mechanisms, maintain momentum, MOUs, bottom up development, resources, funding, and knowledge of members. 47 C H A P T E R FIVE: R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S The use of watershed management partnerships as new models of governance is increasing in British Columbia. Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS) is one such example of a watershed management partnership. By evaluating existing programs, decision-makers can make more informed decisions regarding the future of watershed management partnerships. The ensuing chapter describes the research design of this thesis, which employs qualitative research methods, program evaluation and case study research as tools to develop an evaluative framework for the LEPS. The chapter describes the fields of program evaluation and case study research. Program evaluation theory is then used to build an evaluation framework for the case. Finally, an outline of how the framework is applied is provided. The research paradigm that was adopted for this thesis follows the ensuing research paradigms: • all the data and information have already been created or "constructed." This research is an evaluation or "reconstruction" of the data based on interactions between the investigator and the investigated. These interactions create a lens through which the information can be understood. Research literature often refers to this philosophy as constructivism (Weiss 1998). • learning is an ongoing "conversation" - posing a thesis, responding with an anti-thesis, then synthesizing. This is an endless process. Research literature refers to this process as a dialectic. To complete a thesis, the dialectic must end. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge that the thesis is based on a limited set of data and that there will always be an anti-thesis (Guba and Lincoln 1994). • researchers cannot reach "conclusions," but rather develop their own view of programs based on the multiple perspectives of program participants (Weiss 1998). There are no hard facts. To understand requires a process of interpretation and the creation of a "common" understanding of "truths;" this is influenced by personal experience. Therefore, the background of the researcher limits all research (Guba and Lincoln 1994; Weiss 1998). 5.1. PROGRAM EVALUATION "Evaluation is a systematic assessment of the operation and/or outcomes of a program or policy, compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the improvement of the program or policy" (Weiss 1998, 4); it examines the effectiveness (i.e., what a program is doing and how well it does it) of social programs (Krause 1996), recognizes that politics and science are both parts of evaluation24 (Greene 1994), and is necessary because people can only adapt to change if they receive feedback from the environment (Posavac and Carey 1989). Evaluation is similar to other types of research in its attempts to describe and understand the relationship between variables, as well as trace out causal sequences between variables. With evaluation, however, the element of subjective judgement, inherent in all research, is not hidden (Weiss 1998). 2 4 Social programs are created, influenced and ended via the political forum, therefore tied to societal values (ie., priorities, resource allocation, and power) (Greene 1994). 48 Weiss (1998) outlines circumstances when evaluation is not applicable; these include: when a program lacks routine and stability, when program participants disagree on program goals, when the evaluation sponsor or program manager limits the study, or when funding and resources are inadequate to properly complete the evaluation. The LEPS is a good candidate for evaluation because it possesses routine and stability, general day-to-day functions and operations, and enjoys the stable commitment (financial and time) of all partners. The goals of the LEPS are well defined in both an informal MOU that has been signed by all of the LEPS' original Board of Directors and the LEPS' business plan with the Township of Langley. The LEPS' partners have agreed to both documents. The LEPS' directing manager demonstrated a willingness to contribute to the study, and the author is also the sponsor. Many reasons for undertaking a program evaluation are outlined in the academic literature. Rossi and Freeman (1993) identify several reasons for undertaking evaluations, including: management and administrative purposes (i.e., plan, formulate policy, develop new initiatives, or expand or cut programs); assessing the appropriateness of program changes, identifying ways to improve the delivery of interventions; and meeting accountability requirements. Weiss (1998) equates program evaluation with the ability to gather information when deciding if the program should be continued and expanded or cut; to determine value trade offs with decisions; to make better decisions; to acquire basic knowledge about the conditions and behaviours that lead to social change; and to study real life actions and reactions when translating theory into practice (Weiss 1998). Evaluation can be categorized by the type of questions asked about the program, and according to the purpose of the evaluation. Types of questions asked by program evaluation can cover need, outcome, process, and efficiency (Posavac and Carey 1989). The purpose of the evaluation or the intentions of the evaluator can be formative and summative (Weiss 1998) as described in the following two sub-sections which first outline the general types of questions to be asked by the evaluator and then identify the general purpose for this evaluation. 5.1.1. TYPES OF QUESTIONS The key types of questions asked by program evaluation include need, process, outcome, and efficiency (Weiss 1998). Questions about needs examine socioeconomic profiles, the needs of communities in relation to programs, and the services attractive to a community. Needs assessment is a prerequisite to program planning (Posavac and Carey 1989). Process evaluations examine the way that the program is conducted. Questions are related to whether the program is following prescribed processes or just learning what is going on in the program (Weiss 1998). Process evaluations examine a programs implementation and ability to reach its target population (Posavac and Carey 1989); elucidate and understand the internal dynamics of program operations; and require detailed descriptions of program operations based on observation and interviews (Patton 1987). These evaluations focus on how an outcome was produced rather than the product itself. Therefore, process evaluations are useful for understanding if the program is operating properly; 49 revealing areas where improvement is necessary; recognizing the strengths of the program; and for disseminating and replicating programs (Patton 1987). Outcome evaluations assess what is achieved by the people in the program based on measures of success (Posavac and Carey 1989). When studying the outcomes, evaluators examine if participants are gaining the intended benefits of the program and what is occurring due to the programs' existence (Weiss 1998). Outcomes, results; or effects are often used interchangeably; they can be anticipated or unwanted. However, to perceive outcomes, the process or what the program actually does must be understood (Weiss 1998)! Efficiency evaluations consider issues of cost in relation to benefit and effectiveness (Posavac and Carey 1989). Efficiency evaluations allow the evaluator to compare program costs to the outcomes achieved. These comparisons are important for determining if the achievements of a program are worth the funds expended on it. Regardless of whether or not a program can show that its results are more than its costs, highly efficient programs are often still instituted (Posavac and Carey 1989). 5.1.2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The second main consideration in designing an evaluation is the choice of its purpose - either formative or summative. Formative evaluations occur in the early phases of a program to assist in development (Weiss 1998), improve the program (Patton 1987), and are related primarily to questions of process. Whereas summative evaluation purposes focus on questions of effect and regard occurrences that happen to the participants at the conclusion of the program (Weiss 1998). Program evaluations that primarily improve program effectiveness, strengthen services, raise program outcomes, and increase efficiencies in the future are formative; they help "form" the program (Posavac and Carey 1989). Summative evaluations are done usually when a program is completed or has become established with a permanent budget and an organizational niche. These evaluations attempt to indicate whether the program is effective and should be continued, ended or extended (Weiss 1998; Patton 1987; Herman et al. 1987). Summative evaluations are mainly concerned with documenting or assessing program effects and determining their causes and making any generalizations (Herman et al. 1987); they help to decide whether a program should be started, continued or chosen from two or more alternatives (Posavac and Carey 1989). The evaluation in this case study is both formative and summative. The evaluation is formative because the LEPS has neither finished, nor established a permanent budget, or an organizational niche. In addition, the purpose of this evaluation is to understand the processes that led to specific outcomes, not to examine the outcomes themselves. The evaluation, however, is also summative because it is an assessment of the case study's processes that have been already conducted and because it intends to determine the applicability of the case study for other townships. 50 5.2. A CASE STUDY BY ANY OTHER NAME Storytelling is our chief means of explaining the world to one another and ourselves, and the principal way we form intelligence. It is essential to human cognition. Stories teach the brain how to work (Fulford 1998, 82). A case study is not a methodological choice but a choice of the object to be studied. As research, a case study is not defined by its method of inquiry but by an interest in the individual case (Stake 1994). By using a case study, an evaluator can tell a story of a particular case, from both personal insight and the perspective of the cases' participants; this is a goal of this thesis. Through evaluation, the author tells the story of the LEPS as relayed by the participants. Case studies can be single or multiple. Yin (1994) supports the use of single case studies if the case represents the critical case2 5 in testing a theory; represents an extreme or unique case; or is revelatory (i.e., previously inaccessible). Traditional governance structures have had limited success in protecting rural/urban watersheds;25 this is due to many factors, including uncoordinated and complex governance structure, administrative "red tape," and a lack of both funding and resources. As a result, all levels of government have been trying alternative forms of governance, in particular, community-government partnerships. The LEPS has been a community-government partnership jointly initiated by a senior staffer of the Township of Langley, members of the federal and the provincial governments, and Langley watershed stewardship groups and schools. As such, the LEPS represents a unique example of a watershed management partnership. The purposes behind a case study can be intrinsic, instrumental or collective27 (Stake 1994). The LEPS will be examined for both intrinsic and instrumental purposes. Intrinsic case studies are undertaken because the case itself is of interest outside of the fact that it may represent other cases or display particular traits or problems (Stake 1994). Instrumental case studies undertake in-depth examination of a particular case to gain insight and advance one's understanding of an external interest (Stake 1994). Further, a case study can describe an intervention under a "real-life" context and explore situations where there is no clear outcome (Yin 1994). The LEPS case, has been chosen to examine community-government partnerships and how to ensure the longevity of watershed management partnerships. Further, case studies are an appropriate form of social science research if: "how" or "why" are the predominant questions; there is no "control"; there is a "real life" example of something (Yin 1994); there is a desire to document an individual program; or if the program has had unusual success (Patton 1987). The LEPS case fits all of the above criteria for study. 2 5 If a case study is a critical case, the theory would then have to have a clear set of propositions and circumstance. The intent of the case would be to confirm, challenge, or extend propositions about the theory. Then, the study would refocus future investigation (Yin 1994). 2 6 Traditional watershed management employs a technocratic management model. Technocratic decision-making is characterized by problem specific, technical solutions that are made by experts (Jamieson 1996). 2 7 Collective case studies or the joint inquiry into several cases is undergone "to inquire into the phenomenon, population, or general condition" (Stake 1994, 237). 51 5.3. THE "PATH OF PROGRAM EVALUATION" Weiss (1998) outlined several steps involved in developing a program evaluation (refer to Figure 2 for a diagram of the steps employed to develop the evaluation used in this thesis): • identify the key questions for the study; • decide whether to use quantitative methods, qualitative methods, or a combination thereof; • develop measures and techniques to answer the key questions; • decide how to collect the data necessary to operationalize the measures; • plan an appropriate research design; • collect and analyze the data; • write and disseminate the study results; and • promote appropriate use of results. These steps were used as a frame to develop the evaluation for the LEPS. The following sub-sections outline how the evaluation was built. Criteria introduced in Chapters 2 - 4 were used to develop measures for the evaluation. The evaluation examines: (1) the general characteristics of how the LEPS functions; (2) the LEPS' ability to obtain and maintain support and resources; and (3) the potential benefits to both government agencies and community groups of participating in watershed management partnerships. 5.3.1. IDENTIFY THE KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE STUDY The different types of key questions that program evaluations ask were previously discussed; these relate to need, process, outcome, and efficiency (Weiss 1998). The evaluation focused on questions concerned with process to provide "feedback" about how the program changed over time." Information regarding how the LEPS gained support and resources is required if other townships plan to adopt a similar system of watershed governance, and potentially adapt the partnership model to suit their own circumstances. Two questions that need to be answered, are (1) What makes a good partnership; and (2) How can the longevity of partnerships be ensured? The evaluation cannot judge overall success because the LEPS is still on going; many of the LEPS' goals are long term and difficult to measure. Information regarding goals and objectives, stakeholder support, and the availability of resources, is necessary to answer the two main questions. The evaluation attempts to answer: 1. What characteristics, activities, services, staffing, and administrative arrangements are unique to the LEPS? 2. What activities lead to the attainment of support and resources for the LEPS? 3. What adjustments, if any, in the LEPS management and support seem to be needed to better attain support, resources and ensure longevity? 4. What barriers exist to attaining support, resources and longevity? And how can they be overcome? 52 FIGURE 2: STEPS USED TO DEVELOP THIS EVALUATION [ Determine purpose of evaluation BOTH CHOOSE FROM: Formative Summative Both Determine the type of evaluation PROCESS Overall sense of methodology Determine evaluative measures Conduct data collection BOTH BOTH C CHOOSE FROM: Need Process Outcome Efficiency CHOOSE FROM: Descriptive Analytical Both ' r < N CHOOSE FROM: Qualitative Quantitative Both Participant observation Interviews Documentation ) Perform analysis Write up report 53 5.3.2. QUALTTA TIVE OR QUANTITA TIVE RESEARCH The general technical approach to evaluation can be either qualitative or quantitative. Quantitative approaches [have been] most prevalent historically in evaluation studies. . . [these] approaches are concerned with measuring a finite number of pre-specified outcomes, with judging effects, with attributing cause by comparing the results of such measurements in various programs of interest, and with generalizing the results of the measurements and the results of any comparisons to the population as a whole (Herman etal. 1987, 19-20). Quantitative studies emphasize measurements, summations, aggregation and measurement comparison (Herman et al. 1987). Qualitative research involves entry onto the site, making contacts, and gathering data. Information is noted via observation, interviews, casual conversations, and other data collection procedures (i.e., field notes). Field notes are supplemented by personal observation and analyzed throughout to gain insight into what is happening and why (Weiss 1998). With qualitative evaluation, "the evaluator tries to understand the meaning of a program and its outcomes from the participants' perspectives" (Herman et al. 1987, 21). Qualitative analysis is well suited to "understand[ing] how the successful sites were different from those with less success and to identify those practices that appear related to the program['s] success" (Herman et al. 1987, 21). There are many different reasons to use either technical approach. However, for the purposes of this thesis, qualitative data will be used. Qualitative methods and program evaluation are compatible. Program evaluation makes a chain of assumptions explaining how a desired outcome is reached and qualitative methods seek explanations of what a program is doing and why outcomes are reached (Weiss 1998). Many authors have outlined the benefits of qualitative research. For example, Weiss (1998) supports qualitative research because of its: • awareness of the participant's perspective and thus responsiveness to the multiple versions of both truth and experience; • ability to perceive the dynamics of a program; • awareness of time and history; • sensitivity to context; • reduced bias toward the program; • empowerment of people by viewing participants not as data, but by representing their knowledge and beliefs; • ability to perceive unpredictable outcomes; and • flexibility. Additionally, benefits of qualitative research identified by Patton (1987) include: • allows in-depth and detailed studies; • does not limit respondents tp preset responses; • provides a wealth of detail; 54 • naturalistic inquiry, which significantly reduces manipulation; and • open and sensitive to unpredictable variations and outcomes. 5.3.3. CHOOSING MEASURES Krause (1996) identifies three criteria for choosing measurements. Measurements should include a high degree of accuracy or association to the attribute, a high degree of validity, and reliability or consistency. Related to measurement are standards for comparison. Standards provide a marker by which evaluators can make value judgements about the program's relative success (Weiss 1998). Herman et al. (1987) have identified five general aspects of a program that need to be considered for measurement. These are context characteristics, participant characteristics, processes in program implementation, program outcomes, and program costs. Context characteristics represent the constraints within which the program must operate, including both sociopolitical - power, leadership, communication - and program factors - budget, group size, time frame. Context characteristics may affect how the program operates and its success (Herman et al. 1987). Participant characteristics are personal traits (e.g., age, gender, and culture) that might influence how people respond to the program (Herman et al. 1987). Program implementation characteristics include the program's principle activities, services, materials, staffing, and administrative arrangements (Herman et al. 1987). Program outcomes have been previously discussed, and a full cost/benefit analysis will not be undertaken. The other main source of measurement criteria will come from the community-government watershed management partnership literature. There are a number of criteria the literature has identified as necessary for successful watershed partnerships. 5.3.4. THE EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK The evaluation of the LEPS occurs on two levels - descriptive and analytical. A program description, the first level of the evaluation, examines context characteristics, participant characteristics, program characteristics and program outcomes. This level of the evaluation presents the general aspects of the program that need to be considered for measurement. These program aspects are presented in Chapter 6. Level One of the evaluation focuses on the LEPS as a group and how it functions, and does not attempt to analyze the partnership's effectiveness. Level Two of the evaluation - analysis - is based on a set of variables that have been deemed -in the academic literature and by various participants in partnership processes - as necessary to ensure a successful partnership process. By including these variables or criteria, the evaluator identified whether or not the program was implemented well or poorly. The thesis drew on three fields of academic literature to develop the evaluation variables - watershed management, community participation, and 2 8 A naturalistic inquiry approach requires that evaluators do not plan or manipulate activities for the purposes of the evaluation unlike what occurs when conducting experiments (Patton 1987). 55 FIGURE 3: CONSTRUCTION OF LEVEL 2 OF THE EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK WATERSHED SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES education communication wise management accountability consensus sustainable use of water public values balance commitment integrated resource management responsibility protection & conservation of ecological systems planning monitoring research COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PRINCIPLES iterative integrated adaptable community group strengthen group stability legislation & enforcement , , . , coordinated leadership clear vision funding resources communication inclusive fair & equal coordinated accountability commitment empowerment balance shared decision making flexible COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP PRINCIPLES inclusive . '«•"«*' •* communication commitment community support 0 |'fia n' zed coordinated f a j r & e q u a | shared decision making linkages clear vision flexible accountability MOUs resources empowerment funding legitimacy balance bottom-up development knowledge of members maintain momentum MEASURES FOR COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIPS GOOD GOVERNANCE *accountable * fair & equal * inclusive & representative *shared decision making & empowerment * framework for open communication * community support * government support EFFICIENT PROCEDURE: * flexible & adaptable clear and accepted goals & objectives * maintain momentum * organized & coordinated * leadership ADEQUATE RESOURCES: * funding and materials * knowledge of members * information *human resources * commitment 56 partnership theory. These criteria were introduced in Chapters 2 - 4 . Many of the criteria identified in the academic literature were common to all three fields of theory. Some criteria, however, were not applicable to an evaluation of the LEPS. For the evaluation framework, variables were organized into three main categories - good governance, efficient procedure and adequate resources - and each criterion was applied to the LEPS. The following sub-sections provide a review of these criteria (refer to Chapters 2 - 4 for more details and Figure 3 for an overview of Level Two of the evaluation) and the types of questions that the criteria asked of the LEPS (refer to Appendix B for a complete list of all the criteria and their questions). GOOD GOVERNANCE Criteria for good governance included: • ACCOUNTABLE : this criterion is common to watershed sustainability, community participation, and partnership principles. An accountable partnership is accountable to its constituents for its decisions. This requires inclusiveness, an appropriate process for decision-making, and good communication amongst partners. Examples of questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Was the partnership inclusive? 2. Did the partnership have an appropriate decision-making process? 3. Did the partnership demonstrate good communication? • FAIR AND EQUAL : these criteria are common to watershed sustainability, community participation, and partnership principles. A fair and equal partnership has no barriers to participation, and all of the people affected by the decision are listened to by the decision-makers. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Do partners have the opportunity to voice their opinions? 2. Do partners act in accordance with their authority? • INCLUSIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE: these criteria are common to watershed sustainability, community participation, and partnership principles. An inclusive partnership has representation from all of the effected parties. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Are all of the appropriate people represented? 2. Are there any barriers to participation in the partnership? • SHARED DECISION-MAKING : this criterion is common to watershed sustainability, community participation, and partnership principles. Shared decision-making requires that all of those with the authority to a make a decision, and those who will be affected by that decision are empowered to jointly seek an outcome that accommodates all of those individuals concerned. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Can partners bargain for themselves without consulting outside constituencies? 57 2. Does the partnership use a shared decision-making model? EMPOWERMENT: this criterion is common to watershed sustainability, community participation, and partnership principles. Empowerment requires that all people involved in the process have the opportunity to influence decisions, decisions reflect the comments of participants, and there is a clear definition of purpose for all of the participants; An example of a question asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Do all partners have equal decision-making power? FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNICATION : this criterion is common to watershed sustainability, community participation, and partnership principles. Good communication is open and sincere with an established system for frequent dialogue between participants and a prompt thorough response given to the concerns of participants. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Are partners linked with a two-way transfer of information to their constituency? 2. Are there open, frequent, full, and sincere lines of communication among partners? 3. Do other partners respond to partners' comments promptly and thoroughly? COMMUNITY SUPPORT: this criterion is common to both community participation and partnership principles. Community support for the partnerships exists if community members are actively involved and vocally supportive of the partnership. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Are community members and groups volunteering for the partnership and its projects? 2. Does the partnership have a positive profile in the community? GOVERNMENT SUPPORT : this criterion is common to watershed sustainability, community participation and partnership principles. Government support for the partnership is demonstrated if all levels of government provide human resources, technical advice, positive comments and funding to the partnership. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Does government provide positive comments, funding and resources to the partnership? 2. Has the government created legislation and/or regulations to foster watershed partnership arrangements and their undertakings? If yes, are these enforced? 3.. Are all relevant government agencies involved in the partnership? 58 EFFICIENT PROCEDURE Criteria for an efficient procedure included: • FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE : these criteria are common to both watershed sustainability and community participation principles. The partnership is flexible and adaptable if it takes its past errors into consideration and is both able and willing to change in response to those errors. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Has the partnership altered or adapted to meet community changes? 2. Does the partnership learn from or take into account its past errors? • CLEAR AND ACCEPTED GOALS : these criteria are common to watershed sustainability, community participation, and partnership principles. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Does the partnership have clearly established and well-known goals? 2. Do partners agree on goals and objectives of the partnership? 3. Does the partnership have an MOU that clearly establishes the roles, accountability and authority of partners, and the functions of the partnership? • MAINTAIN MOMENTUM : this criterion is common to partnership principles. To maintain momentum the partnership must build on the success of past projects. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Does the partnership celebrate its successes? 2. Is the partnership constantly undertaking new projects? • ORGANIZED AND COORDINATED : these criteria are common to both community participation and partnership principles. The partnership is organized and coordinated if there is a realistic management infrastructure that minimizes the duplication of activities. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Is there a minimum of duplication of activities amongst partners? 2. Are all the partners informed of and in communication about each other's activities? • LEADERSHIP: this criterion is common to community participation and partnership principles. Leadership exists if the partnership has someone to organize and direct the group. There are many skill and personality traits that a good leader should have, as identified in Chapter 3, Section 3.4.5.. An example of a question asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Does the partnership have strong leadership (this question was accompanied by a list of desirable skills and personality traits for a good leader)? 59 ADEQUATE RESOURCES The criteria for attaining adequate resources included: • FUNDING AND MATERIALS: these criteria are common to both community participation and partnership principles. The partnership has adequate funding and materials if it is able to undertake projects, organize, coordinate and disseminate information; train, and administer other community development activities. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Does the partnership get funding from a diverse number and type of sources? 2. Is the partnership able to undertake projects? • KNOWLEDGE OF MEMBERS : this criterion is common to partnership principles. A good partnership requires that participants are well selected and knowledgeable about each other's powers, priorities and expertise. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Are staff, volunteers, and members' influential in the community? 2. Are partners aware of each other's powers, priorities, and expertise? • INFORMATION: this criterion is common to both community participation and partnership principles. Information must combine scientific and technical information with personal knowledge and values. In addition, information must be credible, geographically relevant, and pertinent to the type of projects being undertaken. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Do partners have access to government data and literature? 2. Is the partnership capable of seeking out and obtaining information? 3. Are there standards by which staff and volunteers gather and analyze data? • HUMAN RESOURCES: this criterion is common to both community participation and partnership principles. Adequate human resources require that the partnership have members who are technically competent and knowledgeable. In addition, the partnership must demonstrate group strength. Examples of the questions asked by the evaluation of the LEPS included: 1. Does the partnership have access to a large pool of volunteers, political leaders, decision-makers, and the media? 2. Do volunteers and staff have an understanding of how the partnership functions, and their role within that system? 3. Are staff and volunteers supportive of each other, technically competent and skilled? 4. Does the group have a stable office, supplies, funding, leadership, staff, volunteers, and members? 5. Does the partnership partake in advocacy functions? 6. Is the partnership able to organize, coordinate, and disseminate both information and other community development activities? 7. Are jurisdictions and decision-making authority non-fragmented? 60 • COMMITMENT: this criteria is common to watershed sustainability, community participation and partnership principles. Commitment to the partnership is demonstrated if partners provide time, money, positive comments and resources to the partnership. Examples of the questions asked of the LEPS included: 1. Do partners provide resources to and positive comments about the partnership? 2. Do staff and volunteers provide resources to and positive comments about the partnership? 5.3.5. How TO COLLECT DATA Yin (1994) outlines three main principles to data collection. These are: use multiple sources of evidence and triangulation29 to address validity, create a case study database, and maintain a chain of evidence to increase the reliability of information. Data collection begins by obtaining background information on when the program started and why. Information can be obtained from multiple sources, including personal interviews (people currently and previously involved with the program), official records and documents, grant proposals, and local media (Krause 1996). All information should be triangulated wherever feasible. Research information should be placed in a database to facilitate organization. Throughout the research, linkages should be made regarding facts and events. The main modes of qualitative research employed are participant observation, interviewing, and review of documents. The following three sub-sections elaborate upon these techniques. PARTICIPANT-OBSERVATION During participant observation, the researcher becomes directly involved in the life of the community to understand significant attitudes and behaviours from within. It is a systematic approach with a pre-established research plan based on the goals of the investigation. Lamoureux et al. (1989) says that participant observation is usually used for finding qualitative information about small groups or communities, and should be used in conjunction with additional methods of data collection. Participant-observation provides insight into the meaning of What is being observed. To learn anything that involves more than casual investigation, the researcher must be accepted by and have the trust of the group or community (Weiss 1998) and try not to influence the functioning of the group or community (Lamoureux et al. 1989). Dilemmas with participant observation include: a risk of affecting the situation being observed, of remaining too far removed from the group's experiences, of becoming too absorbed by the group, or allowing emotions and the length of the observation to distort observations (Lamoureux et al. 1989). 2 9 Triangulation is a cross-check through different modes of inquiry. If interviews, observations, and documents agree, the evaluator gains confidence that the information is right (Weiss 1998) 61 INTERVIEWING Interviews are the most important source of information with case studies. Interviews are useful for developing an understanding of a program, obtaining information from people with unique information and understanding what is most important to interviewees (Posavac and Carey 1989). However, interviews are verbal reports subject to bias, poor recall, and inaccuracy (Yin 1994). Interviews are either formal or informal. Informal interview-questions are usually open-ended and the evaluator seeks the respondents' facts, opinions, and insights. Informal interviewing allows the researcher to develop a field of focus that becomes more specific as the discussion proceeds; different questions are asked of different people for different reasons (Weiss 1998). Informal interviewing aims to gain the respondents' story from their own unique perspective. There is a modicum of probing, without answer categories (Weiss 1998). Formal or focused interviews are still generally open-ended, but have a certain set of specific questions (Yin 1994). DOCUMENTATION The most important use of documentation is to corroborate information from other sources (Yin 1994). Documentation is beneficial because it is subject to neither memory decay nor distortion and provides fairly stable, unobtrusive, exact, and broad data. However, documentation is inherently biased by the author, because it is often written for explicit purposes, is not necessarily a literal recording of events (i.e., few people make records for the record's sake), and can also be distorted by the reader due to misunderstanding and misinterpretation (Weiss 1998; Yin 1994). 5.3.6. RESEARCH DESIGN The research design must fit the questions to be asked (Weiss 1998). Weiss (1998) identifies several things that the study design should indicate: • which people or units will be studied; • how they are to be selected; • which kinds of comparisons will be drawn; and • timing of the investigation. The LEPS' members, both past and current, were studied. On a larger organizational level, the government units of study corresponded with those agencies directly involved with the actions of the LEPS. Comparisons were drawn based on the measures identified in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3. The investigation took place between June 1997 - December 1998. Participant-observation occurred from June 1997 - December 1998. Documents regarding the LEPS were gathered from June 1997 - December 1998. Interviews were conducted from October 1998 - December 1998 at times that were convenient to the interviewees. All events that occurred to the LEPS after December 1998 are not considered by this thesis. 62 5.3.7. COLLECT AND ANALYZE THE DATA After the research design was established data were collected and analyzed. Information for the thesis was collected through participant-observation, interviewing and documentation. The following sub-sections describe the data collection and analysis procedure that occurred for this thesis. PARTICIPANT-OBSERVATION - - -Participant-observation was used to study and record how the LEPS functioned on a day-to-day basis. Observation occurred through an internship with the LEPS that occurred between the spring of 1997 to the winter of 1998. In the spring of 1997, the LEPS' managing director was contacted to arrange an internship. There were three main aspects to the internship: general work with the LEPS staff, producing a brochure, and conducting a workshop. During the summer of 1997, I spent several days working with both junior and senior members of the LEPS' staff conducting a stream inventory and doing land owner contact. My interest in working with staff was to gain an understanding of how the group functioned. In the fall of 1997, based on my academic and professional background and the needs of the LEPS, it was determined that I would work with a senior staff of the LEPS to help to initiate a new community group for the Yorkson watershed. I worked in conjunction with a LEPS staff member and a member of the Yorkson Watershed Stewardship Committee to develop a brochure for the new group; this occurred from September 1997 - January 1999. In the fall of 1997, I was also asked to organize and conduct a workshop on behalf of the LEPS for the members of local watershed stewardship groups. The workshop was held in January 1998. During the internship I gained the acceptance and trust of some of the members of the LEPS, became involved with the life of the group, and gained an understanding of the attitudes of some of the LEPS' members. I do not believe that I impacted the functioning of the LEPS as I had neither decision-making authority nor input into how the LEPS functioned. INTERVIEWS The second method of data collection for this thesis was interviewing. In the fall of 1998, 29 people that were directly involved with the LEPS were interviewed for the thesis. Interviewees were selected from the LEPS' staff, and a combination of watershed stewardship groups, Township employees, members of the academic community, and senior government agency staff members that have been involved with the LEPS. The snowball or chain sampling strategy was used to choose interviewees for the thesis to ensure an information rich sample. This approach relied on recurrent names or incidents to determine the sample. Specific names and incidence led to a more in-depth chain of informants (Patton 1987). During each interview, interviewees were asked to identify people that they felt might have had a significant impact on the LEPS' functioning or the LEPS' inception. Before any interviews are conducted, however, the University of British Columbia (UBC) requires that students undergo an ethics review process (refer to Appendix C for the ethics review application). 63 After UBC granted approval to conduct the interviews, interviewees were contacted by telephone to request and if possible arrange times to conduct the interviews (refer to Appendix D for a sample of the script used for the initial contact with interviewees). Interviewees were asked to sign a letter of consent either at the time of initial telephone contact or immediately before the interview was conducted (refer to Appendix E for a sample of the letter of consent that interviewees were required to sign). Interviewees were guaranteed that any personal information resulting from the interview would be kept strictly confidential and that all documents (including information on computer disk) would be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet. Interviewees were also guaranteed that they would not be identified by name as the source of any quotations without their permission and that they could request an opportunity to review any quotations in context. Names have been used in the thesis in quotes made by interviewees and in situations where the identity of the person is well known, for example the managing director for the LEPS. All interviews were informal. Each interview took anywhere from 1 to 2 hours. Interviews were conducted in either the respondent's home, office or by telephone. Most of the interviews were tape recorded, however, two senior government personnel requested that their interviews only be hand recorded. A basic questionnaire was developed to initiate discussion on events surrounding the inception of the LEPS and on how the LEPS' has functioned (for the original open-ended, questionnaire refer to Appendix F). The intent of the questionnaire was to probe respondents about context characteristics, participant characteristics, program implementation processes, and program outcomes (refer to Section 3.3.3 for more detail) of the LEPS. Each interviewee was asked to answer the same basic questions. The interviewer, based on the interviewee's responses to the basic questionnaire, asked other questions. Respondents had different perspectives and roles within the LEPS; therefore, questions reflected each interviewee's unique interpretation of events surrounding the LEPS. After interviews were conducted, the interviewer either transcribed interview tapes or formally wrote up the interview. All interviews were coded30: • Eight senior government agency staff that were interviewed were assigned the letter G followed by an arbitrary number (E.g., GI); • Five Township employees that were interviewed were assigned the letter T followed by an arbitrary number (E.g., Tl ) ; • Six community group members that were interviewed were assigned the letter C followed by an arbitrary number (E.g., Cl); • Four representatives from academic institutions that were interviewed were assigned the letters SC followed by an arbitrary number (E.g., SCI); and 30 Quotations made by interviewees are referenced in the thesis according to their assigned code numbers (E.g., GI). 6 4 • Six LEPS core staff members that were interviewed were assigned the letters ST followed by an arbitrary number (E.g., ST1). In some cases interviewees are no longer with the LEPS or do not have the same government position that they held at the time that they were involved with the LEPS. In both of these circumstances, the interviewee was assigned a letter that corresponded to their position during the time that-they were involved with the LEPS. DOCUMENTATION The third method of data collection for this thesis was documentation. The LEPS has generated a lot of documentation throughout its existence. Sources of documentation used in this thesis included: • The LEPS' brochures, pamphlets, business service contract with the Township, newspaper articles (both about and written by the LEPS), certificate of incorporation, feasibility study, applications for funding and meeting minutes. • The LEPS case history file at the DFO, which included meeting, minutes, private memos, a draft MOL) with the Salmon River Watershed Partnership, and the LEPS' applications for funding. • TOL documents on the history of the LEPS, pamphlets describing local community groups, meeting minutes, Township budgets, and a list of TOL Councilors. • Published and unpublished government documents that described the LEPS and other Langley watershed stewardship groups. • Published and unpublished FBC and other NGO documents that described the LEPS and other Langley watershed stewardship groups. DATA ANALYSIS After data was collected, it was organized for the analysis. Information was organized into several categories: 1. Process data: this category included any information regarding the LEPS context characteristics, participant characteristics or internal processes. 2. Outcome data: this category included any information related to the outcomes of the LEPS. 3. Measurement data: this category was sub-divided into sections that corresponded to the evaluation measurements (measurements were identified in Section 5.3.3.), such as good governance, adequate resources, and efficient procedure. After the data were organized, summary sheets were made for each category. From the data, patterns, themes and categories were sought. Summary sheets were used to search for patterns of responses to characterize the program. Summary sheets were also used to triangulate data. The third category of data, measurements, required analysis. This data was analysed to determine whether or not the LEPS fulfilled the criteria deemed necessary by the academic literature as necessary for successful 65 community-government partnerships. Based on the results from applying the evaluation criteria to the LEPS, conclusions and recommendations were made about the partnership. 5.3.8. WRITE AND DISSEMINATE THE REPORT OF STUDY RESULTS After the evaluation was complete, the thesis was written up. Chapter 1 of the thesis identifies five thesis objectives related to the overall- thesis goal. The main goal of the thesis is to evaluate community-government watershed management partnerships through examining the LEPS. The first of these objectives, develop an evaluative framework for assessing community-government partnerships for watershed management, is met in Chapters 2 - 4 . The evaluative framework - which focuses on obtaining adequate support and resources - is developed in Chapter 5 and applied in Chapters 6 and 7. The second research objective, outline the governance structure for community participation in watershed management applicable to the LEPS, is addressed in Chapter 2 and through an examination of the case study in Chapter 6. The third objective of this thesis, document the origins and operation of the LEPS, is met in Chapter 6. Chapter 8 satisfies the fourth and fifth objectives of the thesis, to evaluate the experience with community participation in watershed management through the LEPS and develop recommendations for strengthening the LEPS. A key aspect of undertaking an evaluation is ensuring that the data is used to properly inform future decisions. The completed thesis will be submitted to the LEPS and relevant government agencies. 5.4. THE LAST WORD This chapter described the basic research design for this thesis, including a description of the research paradigm. Program evaluation, qualitative data theory, and case study research were discussed as the theories that form the core of the research design. Data for the evaluation was collected through a combination of participant observation, interviewing, and documentation. The evaluation is based on qualitative data. The evaluation occurred on two levels. At the first level, the evaluation examines context and participant characteristics of the case study detailed in Chapter 6. This first level of evaluation provides a descriptive story of the LEPS. At the second level, the evaluation employs the measures developed in Chapters 2 - 4 to determine the relative success of the LEPS, which is discussed in Chapter 7. This second level of evaluation involves an analysis of the LEPS based on criteria developed from the academic literature and other examples of community-government partnerships. 66 C H A P T E R SIX: L A N G L E Y E N V I R O N M E N T A L P A R T N E R S S O C I E T Y If you ask me about how it all came about, I think Langley was the least obvious place for this to happen, but it did. There was an underswelling of real support from the community, they just hadn t got out to show it. When [the] LEPS came along it was the right time and the right place. It was set up as a small business to be a public relations winner, to bring notice to environmental issues, non-politically, and it worked (ST6). This chapter introduces the Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS), and tells its story from personal insight, the perspective of the cases' participants and documentation about the case. The LEPS has operated in the Township of Langley (TOL), British Columbia, since 1993. The LEPS is a community-government watershed stewardship partnership involving stakeholders from the government, the community, and academic institutions in the Lower Mainland. Information about the case was gathered from a combination of interviews with participants, brochures about the LEPS' partners, the LEPS' published and unpublished archives, and participant-observation. The case study is used to expand on the theories discussed in Part I of this thesis, to provide a concrete example of a community-government watershed stewardship partnership and to provide background or set the context for the evaluation undertaken in Chapter 7. Background is provided about the characteristics of the program's context, participants, process and outcomes that makes the LEPS unique. In providing this background, this chapter provides the answers to: • What characteristics, activities, staffing, and administrative arrangements are unique to the LEPS? • What activities lead to the attainment of support and resources for the LEPS? • What barriers exist for the LEPS in attaining support, resources, and longevity? And how can they be overcome? 6.1. LANGLEY TOWNSHIP: SETTING THE STAGE The TOL is located in the southwestern corner of British Columbia. The TOL is bounded on the west by the City of Surrey, on the north by the Fraser River, on the east by the City of Abbotsford, and on the south by the Canada-U.S. border (refer to Figure 4 for a map of Langley Township). The Township is the municipal organization for the Fort Langley, Aldergrove, Murrayville, Walnut Grove, Brookswood and Willowbrook communities (18; 19). Langley is a rural area characterized by pastoral vistas and a rapidly increasing population. The area faces many of the same challenges as other urban fringe communities in the Lower Mainland. The following sub-sections provide a portrait of the biophysical, social, and economic traits of the TOL. This portrait provides insight into the formation and functioning of the LEPS. 67 FIGURE 4: MAP OF LANGLEY TOWNSHIP ple^RidgOE • 6.1.1. BIOPHYSICAL PORTRAIT The TOL spans an area of 303 square kilometres in the Lower Fraser River Valley of British Columbia (Moore 1991). The Fraser River flows through the Fraser Lowland Eco-section. The Fraser Lowland consists of about 500 square kilometres of forested land, 1,550 square kilometres of crop and pasture land, 420 square kilometres of wetland, and 620 square kilometres of urban land (Healey 1997). The Fraser River drains a catchment of approximately 234,000 square kilometres and flows about 12,000 kilometres before entering the Fraser Lowland. The Lower Fraser River Basin spans an area of approximately 3,090 square kilometres, extending from the town of Hope in the east to Vancouver in the west. The area forms 68 a triangle, with a 40 kilometre base at the river's mouth, which is 160 kilometres west of Hope. The triangle is bounded to the north and south by steep mountain slopes that rise to elevations of 2,000 meters and to the west by the Strait of Georgia (Healey 1997)., The Lower Fraser River Valley experiences heavy precipitation (rainfall is heaviest generally from October to March), cold conditions, and brisk winds during the autumn and winter. The area's mean annual precipitation often exceeds 2,000 mm in some localities (Moore 1991). At higher elevations, some of the precipitation falls as snow and remains in storage until the spring thaw. During summer, there is a decrease in the frequency of storms accompanied by mild weather (temperatures are highest generally between May and September). This heavy rainfall accompanied by snowmelt and glacier melt contributes to the waters of the Fraser River. (Moore 1991). Streamflows in Langley Township are dominated by autumn-winter rainfall; this causes high flows in autumn and winter, and low flows in,the summer. Low summer streamflows are attributed to low rainfall and high evaporation losses (Moore 1991). At Hope, the River's average discharge is 2,730 cubic metres per second. Further downstream, the average discharge for the Fraser River is 3,700 cubic metres per second (Healey 1997). The Lower Fraser River Valley has extensive uplands and wide flat-bottomed valleys (Paish 1997; Healey 1997). Within this pastoral setting, there are many healthy and productive waterways (refer to Table 3 for the TOL's watershed catchment areas), with the Salmon River being the dominant watershed in the region. The Salmon River drains approximately 8,000 hectares into the Fraser River, which makes up about one-quarter of the entire area of the Township of Langley. Furthermore, the Salmon River is considered one of the last remaining watersheds in the Greater Vancouver Regional District that is still able to support productive fish stocks, specifically Coho. The Salmon River is well suited for salmon because of its large, under-ground stores of fresh water, cool pockets of water, and gravel beds (SRWMP 1998). TABLE 3: LANGLEY CATCHMENT AREAS31 WATERSHED LINEAR DISTANCE (M) AREA (HA) Pepin Creek 6,780 714 Campbell River 32,423 3,163 Anderson Creek 15,363 2,654 Bertrand Creek 66,783 4,346 Murray Creek 48,298 2,691 Nicomekl River 56,156 3,798 Latimer Creek 8,517 572 Derby Reach 4,063 471 Yorkson Creek 37,189 2,022 Glen Valley 7,277 593 Nathan Creek 15,573 703 West Creek 25,073 1,665 Salmon Piver 111,429 6,997 Information for Table 4 was obtained from the Township of Langley Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study. 69 There are several issues challenging the long term health and sustainability of Langley's watersheds. Some of these issues and impacts are erosion of streamside lands and the subsequent deposit of sediment into waterways, water contamination, low summer streamflows, storm water runoff, septic field runoff, agricultural runoff, and declining groundwater levels (SRWMP 1998). 6.1.2. SOCIAL PORTRAIT . . . Langley is a community of communities with the majority of the population located in the urban areas of Walnut Grove, Fort Langley, Willowbrook, Willoughby, Murrayville, Brookswood and Aldergrove (18). In 1997, the TOL had a population of approximately 66,040 people, with a 5- year growth rate of 24 percent (refer to Table 4 for the TOL's population) and a population density of 218 people per square kilometre (Paish 1997). Walnut Grove was the most rapidly growing community in Langley between 1986 - 1991, with a population increase of 133 percent. In 1998, Walnut Grove was home to an estimated 19,622 people (18). Murrayville was the next fastest growth area in Township between 1991 - 1996. The Willowbrook, Willoughby and Salmon River areas of the TOL experienced a 20 percent population growth rate over the same period (18). High growth rates in the TOL are similar to the growth rates of other urban fringe communities in the Lower Fraser River Basin. Lower Fraser Valley residents use water for waste disposal, transportation, recreation, fisheries, industry, and agriculture. Different requirements for water use create complexity in the watershed management regime. Watershed management is further complicated because there is a dichotomy in preferences for the location of new residential development between communities that reside inside versus outside of the metropolitan Vancouver region. When questioned about what would cause them to move from the area, 48 percent of rural Langley residents cited the degradation of the rural nature of the area as the main reason (SRWMP 1998). Communities inside the metropolitan area, however, see their future in terms of a greater urbanization of rural areas (Healey 1997). Despite differences in preference for the location of residential development, British Columbians have expressed a desire to protect the environment, ranking it second in importance behind protecting jobs3 2 (Healey 1997). Furthermore, there has been an increase in the number of grass roots watershed stewardship groups (over 60 groups have been estimated to exist in the Lower Mainland) (Romaine 1996). Increases in the number of groups are associated with the growing public perception that the government is neither capable of, nor willing to address watershed conservation concerns (Romaine 1996). In Langley, residents have historically demonstrated their desire to protect the environment by participating in both government and private sector community involvement programs, such as, the Salmonid Enhancement Program or studies by the University of British Columbia's (UBC) Westwater Research Centre. 3 2 The data was taken from a telephone survey of 1,638 residents of British Columbia, mostly from the Lower Fraser Basin, reported in Healey (1997). 7 0 TABLE 4: PROJECTED POPULATION FOR LANGLEY TOWNSHIP WATERSHED COMMUNITY 1996 CENSUS 1998 fp*/ESTIMATE 2 0 2 1 PROJECTION Salmon R. Fort Langley 2,568 2,575 2,900 Salmon R. Salmon R. Uplands 5,912 5,931 6,500 Yorkson Cr. Walnut Grove 17,219 ' .'19,622 23,000 Nicomekl R. Murrayville 6,243 '. 7,263 11,000 Bertrand Cr. Aldergrove 10,834 *' #11,138 12,000 Anderson Cr. Brookswood/ Fernridge 12,929 13,313 35,200 Nicomekl R./ Latimer Cr. Willoughby 7,064 7,564 42.400 Rural 17,410 17,533 22,400 Tot.il 80,179 84,939 155,403 In the Lower Mainland, the government's role with watershed stewardship groups ranges from "simply giving permission for projects, through providing legal and technical advice, funding, supplies, administrative assistance and supervision"34 (Gardner 1991b, 256). The role of community groups in watershed stewardship activities "center around the provision of labour but sometimes involves fund-raising and research services and the provision of data and planning advice" (Gardner 1991b, 256). Community-government watershed stewardship programs have demonstrated a high level of cooperation among participants in dealing with water quality and quantity, the sustainability of agriculture and recreation resources, agricultural development impacts, public involvement and education, and maintaining biodiversity issues (Paish 1997). 6.1.3. ECONOMIC PORTRAIT Langley is part of the fastest growing economy in Canada (18). This economic development and settlement have transformed the ecology of Lower Fraser River Basin (Healey 1997). Historically, the Basin had marketable natural resources, thus the colonial economy developed around resource extraction and processing industries. Since the most abundant natural resources - trees, fish, and soil - were considered by managers to be renewable, managers considered the economy to be sustainable for centuries. Population growth and the accompanying economic pressure, however, have caused the rapid depletion of natural resources and the decimation of fish stocks (Healey 1997; DFO and DOE 1997). As a result, water resource managers and the general public perceived a need for greater protection of aquatic resources and a stronger emphasis on watershed management and conservation. As of 1998, watershed management efforts in the Lower Mainland mainly focused on preserving fish habitat (5; 14). Province-wide, the provincial government's investments in protecting fish and fish habitat has 3 3 Information for Table 5 was obtained from the Township of Langley Environmentally Sensitive Areas Study. The projections for 2021 assume that there will be no exclusions from the ALR in Aldergrove. 3 4 Gardner's (1991b) data was obtained through interviews, research of groups identified from media records, the B.C. Environmental Network Directory, and professional advice. Interviews were undertaken in both the Lower Mainland (1987 and 1989) and the Interior of B.C. (1989). 71 increased, from $23 million in 1994 to $142 million in 1998. The provincial governments commitment to protecting fish was further demonstrated by the establishment of Fisheries Renewal B.C. in 1997 and a new $400 million fish protection program announced in 1999 (20). This focus may be due to the fact that the fisheries, a provincial economic driving force, employ thousands of British Columbians (5). The Fraser River accounts for 60 percent of the province's total fish catch, and recreational angling contributes an estimated $1.2 billion annually in direct and indirect benefits to the B.C. economy (5). Agriculture is another major economic driving force in the TOL. Langley was the first major agricultural centre in British Columbia, and despite recent urban growth, remains a major agricultural community. In fact, Langley fosters the most varied agricultural production in Canada, with high output commercial farms producing everything from livestock and poultry to flowers, vegetables, berries, nursery stock and mushrooms (18). Approximately three-quarters of Langley (23,784 hectares) is in the Agricultural Land Reserve (18). This amount accounts for almost 40 percent of total agricultural land in the Fraser Valley. Additionally, according to the 1991 Census of Agriculture, Langley has more farms than any other municipality in British Columbia (18). There were 1,408 census farms in Langley in 1991, a 12.5 percent increase since 1986 (18). Total acres of farmland have increased from 32,920 acres to 34,008 acres, a 3.3 percent increase during that same period (18). Langley had $118.3 million in farm sales in 1991, which represents 38.9 percent of the total farm sales in the Greater Vancouver Regional District and 9 percent of provincial farm sales (18). 6.2. LEPS: THE PROLOGUE This section sets forth the circumstances that led to the formation of the LEPS (refer to Table 5 for a summary of the LEPS' history). The Langley Tomorrow Study and a need to find placements for local co-op students were the two main impetuses for the LEPS' formation. These two circumstances provided all the necessary ingredients for the formation of the LEPS: leadership for the community, interest and support from the government, an issue specific problem, and funding. The Langley Tomorrow program was initiated by the Township in 1990 to assist in formulating directions for the Township's future growth by gaining an understanding of resident's views. The program was founded in response to the area's high levels of population growth. As part of the program, the TOL commissioned the Langley Tomorrow Study, a telephone survey of 1,660 residents (Canadian Facts 1990). The survey provided the TOL with the opinions and attitudes of local residents about municipal services and recreation needs. Through the survey, the TOL staff realized that local residents deemed protection of both the environment and streams as important (Canadian Facts 1990). In response to the Langley Tomorrow Study, the Municipal Council formed an Environmental Advisory Committee in 1991, which consisted of vocal members from local environmental community groups and one elected official. The Advisory Committee recommended that the TOL hire an Environmental Manager and'Pete Scales was hired in February of 1992 to fill this role. Scales was responsible to the Municipal Council, Township senior staff and the public. His role was to provide information on environmental issues and technical, planning, and administrative support to local stream stewardship groups. 72 TABLE 5: MAJOR EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE LEPS DATE EVENT 1990 TOL established the Lanqley Tomorrow Program TOL conducted the Langley Tomorrow Study 1991 TOL forms an Environmental Advisory Committee NES incorporated as a Society 1992 Scholtens elected as Mayor for the TOL February 1992 Scales hired by the TOL as its Environmental Manager Spring 1992 Community groups approach Scales for hdp - Pardy approaches Scales for co-op positions - Pardy and Scales approach School District * 35 February 1993 Official partnership signed between the TOL, Kwantlen College, School District #35 and Langley Field Naturalists November 1993 FBMP announced its demonstration watershed program 1993 BCES formed out of an Aldergrove Revitalization sub-committee LEO formed from the TOL Environmental Advisory Committee - SRWMP formed as an informal watershed council FRAP announced its demonstration watershed prog am 1994 Fleming joins the LEPS as co-op student 1995 The LEPS and SRWMP foster the formation of the SPES - Grant resigned as chair of the SRWMP - LEO disbanded 1996 Mayor Scholtens formed the LLT and was re-elected as Mayor TOL began to detach from the LEPS 1997 YWSC jointly initiated by the LEPS and local community • " • - \ i:.'~ ', LCRWSC jointly initiated by the LEPS and local community - Scales left Langley TOL Environmental Manager position eliminated by Council - FBMP ended FRAP demonstration watershed program end«_d I l i B f l i ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ H ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ •; - GVRD appointed member to the LEPS1 Board In 1992, Eleanor Parkinson from Aldergrove Revitalization Committee36 and Al Grant from the TOL Environmental Advisory Committee approached Scales to see what kind of help he could offer them in achieving their goals. After meeting with Parkinson and Grant, Scales approached other community groups in Langley to see if they would like to form a partnership. About the same time, Linda Pardy, as the manager from the Co-operative Education Department of Kwantlen College, approached Scales regarding potential co-op positions within the TOL (Fuhrmann nd). Kwantlen instructors hoped that the TOL would serve as a place for their students to gain experience and knowledge of environmental issues through co-op placements; this, however, was not possible. Discussion with Dave Scott, District Administrator for Career Education, revealed that School District #35 teachers were also looking for co-op placements for their Career Preparation high school students 3 5 The specific months in which some events occurred are unknown; therefore, the events that are only listed by the year may not be in chronological order. 3 6 This Committee eventually became the Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society; refer to Section 6.6.11. for details. 73 (Fuhrmann nd). Pardy and Scales brainstormed to find a way to provide students with work and to help local watershed stewardship groups undertake their projects; they decided to form the LEPS, a non-profit society.37 The signing of the official partnership between Kwantlen College, School District #35 and the TOL, took place on February 15, 1993 (Fuhrmann nd). Originally, the Langley Field Naturalists were the only community group involved with the partnership; they were later joined by the Nicomekl Enhancement Society, the Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society, the Yorkson Watershed Stewardship Committee, the Little Campbell River Watershed Stewardship Committee, and the Salmon River Enhancement Society. The initiative to form the LEPS, therefore, came from Scales as the Environmental Manager for the TOL but was also in response to public demand. In this sense, both local government and the public initiated the LEPS formation. In 1993, the LEPS caught the attention of the administrators of a FRAP38 demonstration watershed program. The program was created to test new governance arrangements. Over the course of the demonstration watershed program (1993-1997) six demonstration watersheds were selected throughout British Columbia. Community groups were selected for the program if they were watershed based; had a broad community representation; worked toward ensuring sustainable water resources; undertook projects that were readily accessible to the general public; and had a reasonable chance of success (Romaine 1996). As part of the FRAP program, the LEPS was given approximately $35,000 in funding for operational expenses and for Scales' salary. The LEPS was chosen for the federal program because it fulfilled all of the program criteria; it was watershed based, while focusing on forming partnerships with local watershed stewardship groups. Members of the partnership represented a broad selection from the community, including three levels of government, educational institutions and most of the watershed stewardship community groups in Langley Township; and the goals of the LEPS' members advanced the cause of water resource sustainability. Furthermore, the LEPS was focusing on a readily accessible project - the replacement of a flood pump on the Salmon River - in conjunction with other members of the Langley community. The LEPS also had a reasonable chance of success because it had government support and access to high quality data. The Township's planning department had recently developed an Official Community Plan (OCP) that identified ESA's and the Westwater Research Centre had looked at the importance of the water system in the Langley area and performed preliminary mapping of the area since the early 1970s. Another major factor in the LEPS formation, was the creation of the Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership (SRWMP). Originally, the SRWMP was intended to be a second component of the LEPS. 3 7 Langley Environmental Partners Society is an incorporated Society under the Societies Act. The Society number is S-30889, and was signed into effect on August 5, 1993. 3 8 The demonstration watershed program was created under the 1993 Canada Green Plan which identified the Fraser River Basin as a priority watershed for the western Section of the country (deShield and Romaine 1997). 7 4 The SRWMP was created by Scales as an informal "watershed Council" in 1993 under the Canada Green Plan. It was created to provide administrative support for the LEPS and as the political advocacy arm for Langley watershed management (Giannico and Healey 1998; SRWMP 1998). On the other hand, the LEPS was the working arm of the structure because its main purposes were coordinating volunteer activities, conducting stream enhancement projects, and generating funding (Dovetail Consulting 1996). Scales as themanager for the SRWMP and the LEPS, approached the FBMB for its assistance in 1993. As part of the 1993 - 1994 Strategic Action Plan for the FBMP, people were invited to submit proposals for Demonstration Projects. Scales submitted a proposal for the Salmon River watershed (the LEPS and the SRWMP were presented to the FBMB as a package). A total of 34 submissions were received, reviewed and ranked between May - October 1993 (Lambertsen 1993). The FBMB's criteria for the Demonstration Projects were strong public and multi-agency interest; potential to demonstrate new approaches to governance; actions and/ or results that lead to sustainability; information available on the project that can be used for planning, decision-making and restoration initiatives; project provides a cross-section of problems, issues and opportunities; and public visibility and accessibility of the project (FBMB 1993). In November 1993, the Salmon River was chosen as a FBMB demonstration project because it was one of the few largely intact watersheds in the Greater Vancouver area; the TOL, the Westwater Research Centre, and senior level government agencies had compiled large amounts of scientific data; and the LEPS had recently received funding to support volunteer streambank clean-ups in the watershed. The Salmon River watershed was to be used as a prototype model for sustainable development in a rural area undergoing rapid urbanization. The project involved testing new community based mechanisms for decision-making about development in the watershed (Lambertsen 1993). 6.3. GROUP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The LEPS has had three long-term goals. The first has been to address aquatic habitat problems in local watersheds. Second, the LEPS has been trying to ensure the sustainability of Langley's rivers and salmon populations. Third, the LEPS' has been trying to educate the public about local environmental issues (refer to Section 6.4.4. for the LEPS' strategies for fulfilling these long-term goals). Long-term goals of the LEPS have remained the same since the group's formation. Short-term objectives, however, change each year. The choice of the LEPS' short-term objectives depends upon the combination of available funding and expertise. Initially, the LEPS' projects focused on education and stream enhancement. Over time projects have increased in complexity to spawning channel construction, wetland enhancement, and a large-scale watershed mapping and inventory project. The group's role as educator has also expanded with the development of their watershed stewardship-training program. Short-term objectives of the LEPS were impacted by the departure of Scales in 1997. His position with the Township was not replaced; interviewees believed that this reduced the Township's involvement with the LEPS' daily operations. Some people interviewed believed that the reduced Township influence has allowed the LEPS to pursue more independent projects, such as, an increased emphasis on environmental education and the 75 formation of a community native plant nursery. Without long-term Township funding, however, there is a need to secure other funding; this need may require the LEPS to further alter their short-term objectives. Short-term objectives have also been altered to increase the group's efficiency: Community stuff, we did a lot of in-stream projects. We've cut back on a lot of that because we're finding that they're quite expensive. The amount of benefit they provide the environment we could spend the money better on education (ST4). 6.4. L E P S GROUP STRUCTURE When the LEPS was initially formed in 1993, it was determined that to maintain freedom, the LEPS needed to be its own entity not part of an existing group or agency (Fuhrmann nd). Furthermore, the LEPS became a non-profit organization because most foundations and government agencies require groups to be incorporated before granting them funding. Once the group became a society, its name became secure. Incorporation also added images of stability and responsibility to the group (Fuhrmann nd). In 1993, when the LEPS was formed, it was small, with only six to eight members. Anybody was welcome to join the LEPS or attend meetings; it was a completely open society. Original members that were interviewed indicated that they wrote a constitution for the LEPS. The constitution created a volunteer Board of Directors that would represent each of the various players and draw together the other environmental groups in the community with local education institutions and local government. Between 1993 - 1998 the LEPS greatly expanded its membership. As of 1998, the LEPS was structured into a combination of paid staff (five full time and up to twenty full temporary), a volunteer Board of Directors, and volunteer members who work together to undertake a variety of different types of projects. The following sub-sections briefly outline the function of each component of the LEPS' internal organization and the types of projects that the LEPS has undertaken. 6.4.1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS When the LEPS was formed in 1993 the voluntary Board of Directors was the main governing body. Their duties entailed providing continuity to the organization, assigning responsibility for the handling of funds, providing a forum for settling disputes and making decisions, setting policy based on group goals and strategies, and aiding in the definition of responsibility, leadership and lines of authority (Fuhrmann nd). At this time, it was determined that the Board should consist of one member from each of the following categories: post secondary students, educators (two members), federal, provincial and local governments, youth associations, business and/or community service associations, and environmental organizations/associations (Fuhrmann nd). The first six Board members were Michael Romaine (FRAP), Scott (School District #35), Peter Milley (Kwantlen College), Scales (TOL), Pardy (Kwantlen College), and Irene Pearce (Langley Field Naturalists). In 1998, the LEPS' Board consisted of approximately six to twelve individuals representing DFO, MELP, TOL, GVRD, Trinity Western University, School District #35, the Salmon River Enhancement Society, the Nicomekl Enhancement Society, the Little Campbell River Watershed Stewardship Committee, the Langley Field Naturalists, the Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society, and the Yorkson Watershed Stewardship Committee. As of 1998, all Board members remained voluntary except for the LEPS' managing director. 76 Board members have continued to meet at either the LEPS' headquarters or in a TOL meeting room. Meetings have remained informal (an agenda is made and minutes kept) and have lasted one to three hours. Board discussions, however, have been generally limited to "reporting" the actions taken and to be taken by Board members. Interviewees that had attended Board meetings, stated that the projects brought before the Board did not appear to be requested by the Board, but rather identified, researched and then brought before the Board by the LEPS' managing director. Some Board members expressed concern that some types of projects that could enhance the efforts of and coordination between partners have not been brought before the Board. Board decisions are and have always been made by majority rules voting. However, Board members attempt to reach consensus through discussion of issues. There is no formal organization of the LEPS' Board members into subcommittees, and all Board members have equal voting power. Board members did not express any significant problems, conflicts, or tensions with the Board's decision-making system. Although, there was concern that the LEPS' professional staff dominate in the making of technical decisions. 6.4.2. PAID STAFF/ COREGROUP The second major component to the LEPS' group structure has been their full time and temporary paid staff. In the fall of 1998, the LEPS had five full time paid staff members (refer to Table 6 for a profile of the LEPS' full time paid staff). The LEPS' paid staff have been generally recruited through the LEPS' volunteer program, as well as through job banks, co-op agencies at universities and colleges, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), First Nations band offices, and word of mouth. Funding for core and temporary paid staff has come from the TOL, BC Hydro (youth crew), DFO, and MELP. TABLE 6: LEPS CORE STAFF MEMBER PROFILE NAME BACKGROUND START FUNDING Watershed Fleming Stjepovic 'Enqel College: biology & environmental science University: geography Si environment science 1996 ! HRDC, MELP & TOL projects SRWMP YWSC College: horticulture- 1995 ' TOL projects NES Howard University: anthropoloqy 1996 B.C. Hydro & TOL projects LCRWSC Sam Stolo Nation projects 1997 DFO & TOL projects SRES There has been a definite hierarchy amongst the LEPS' staff. One person has been managing director, though other staff members also have the authority to make decisions. Core staff members supervise and train the temporary staff. The LEPS' supervisors or core staff have been considered to be equals, but have specific responsibilities for administering different parts of the LEPS' programs (refer to Section 6.4.4. for descriptions of the LEPS' projects and programs). Both the supervisor's responsibilities and the actions that they have taken have been discussed at the LEPS' biweekly staff meetings (these meetings are distinct from the LEPS' Board meetings). Staff meetings also have provided an opportunity for Langley watershed stewardship groups to network because all of the watershed coordinators for Langley are also core staff at the LEPS. Through a grant 77 application program, the TOL has awarded each local watershed group $5,000 per year so that these groups can fund a watershed coordinator. Local groups usually have given that money to the LEPS to help fund their staff. Each of the LEPS' core staff members, therefore, has been responsible for coordinating a Langley watershed. During staff meetings, each of the LEPS' supervisors also has discussed the actions undertaken by the group that they represent. 6.4.3. VOLUNTEER MEMBERS Volunteer membership of the LEPS has fluctuated between 100 to 200 people. Volunteers have been recruited by the LEPS through public meetings, workshops and events that promote environmental issues; making appearances on cable television; making personal contact with members of the public; sending letters out to streamside landowners; advertising and placing press releases in local newspapers; and putting signs up around the community that describe the LEPS' projects, who the LEPS is, and what the LEPS has done. Between 1993 - 1998, the LEPS' staff worked with over 2,200 community volunteers on various different hands on environmental projects. Volunteers have assisted with projects, but generally have not attended the LEPS' meetings. Interviewees identified three main issues that have arisen when the LEPS has used volunteers for projects. First, people have a limited amount of time to devote to volunteer efforts; if people's free time was too taxed, they experienced burn out: Another barrier, is burn out. Typically groups that are purely volunteer based, you have three to five core members that do the vast majority of the work. Others are there to varying degrees. The core group drives the process. There are cycles in groups: exhaustion to empowerment to exhaustion (G14). Second, using untrained Volunteers may compromise the quality of the work undertaken by the LEPS, in the opinions of the TOL staff and other government agencies, thus decreasing the LEPS' credibility: There seems to have been over time an element of distrust with the Township technically with [the] LEPS. As hard as I try to say they're using the latest and the greatest there is an undertone of not too much faith in the reliability of [the] LEPS'data (T6). Third, projects that use volunteers generally take longer to complete because volunteers must be trained: We'd take volunteers out and it's very easy for them to turn the [stream inventory] methodology around and they're not collecting the information they should. It creates a lot more work in the office, sorting through things. We can't afford to be fixing mistakes all the time. We have to keep a keen eye on them. It's got to be one staff to one volunteer (ST4). 6.4.4. LEPS, THE WORKING ARM To accomplish their long-term goals, the LEPS has had three main foci: 1. stream protection and restoration, 2. education and training, and 3. stream inventory (15). 78 The LEPS' stream protection and restoration efforts have involved (refer to Figure 5 of a map of the LEPS stream restoration project sites): • Eleven large scale habitat enhancement projects including: constructing pool, channel refuges, and overhanging banks; placing spawning gravel, boulders, and root wattles; and planting riparian zones. • Stream cleanup in areas that are easily accessible to the public. • Four large-scale agricultural fencing projects. • Fish salvaging where in-stream construction was planned. The LEPS' education and training projects have involved: • Placing signs that show stream crossings, streams that have been restored and appreciation for landowner participation. • The LEPS Watershed Stewardship Training Program, that started in February 1996, and has been directed towards individuals and communities involved in forest renewal, watershed restoration and/or urban salmon habitat restoration. • The School District # 35's Career Preparation Program (CPP) to train high school students in environmental protection and stream enhancement techniques. • Marking storm drains with yellow fish with elementary school students and community groups. • Community seminars and workshops on topics including stream ecology, stream invertebrate sampling, stream habitat and water quality surveys, storm drain marking techniques, tree planting techniques and small stream evaluation and mapping techniques. • Educating the public in solid waste management through the operation and staffing of the Langley Compost Garden. The third main foci of the LEPS has been a stream inventory program that has involved stream surveying, stream mapping, and inputting data to the Stream Keepers Database39 and the TOL's G.I.S. As of 1997, over 400 kilometres of at-risk streams were mapped in the Township (15). After streams are mapped (on hard copy and GIS), the LEPS used Mapinfo© software to view and analyze data. This information has been readily available to the Township, who used it to update their legal mapping base (15). Many of the LEPS' projects have involved the TOL. The LEPS have been conducting several services for the Township on a fee for services basis (refer to Table 7 for details). These services have served both the Township's needs and have helped to fulfill the LEPS' goals. 3 9 The LEPS was a test partner to refine a computer program developed by DFO: the Stream Keepers program. The program is available to various groups and affiliations and is located on the DFO Habitat and Enhancement Branch Web-site. 79 FIGURE 5: MAP OF THE LEPS STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT SITES Legend instivam restoration iriformation kiosk N map scale 1:116500 80 TABLE 7: T H E L E P S ' SERVICES FOR THE TOWNSHIP' SERVICE DUTIES Public Liaison • Coordinate five Langley watershed stewardship groups • Technical resource for general public • Support and fund raisinq for SRWMP Research & Inventory • Stream surveying and mapping to develop a database • Updating the municipal GIS • Undertaking special water related Township projects • Stream water quality monitoring Watershed Restoration • Plan, coordinate, implement watershed enhancement projects • Coordinate volunteers to assist in projects Public Education • Contact streamside landowners • Co-produce and distribute education materials • Coordinate public meetings on environmental issues • Train high-school students, retired fishermen, and general public • Place educational streamside signs 6.5. FINANCIAL SUPPORT The LEPS has been run as a small business (LEPS 1998), with the TOL as its main funding and support organization. The TOL has provided the LEPS with a salary for a managing director and an accountant, office space, equipment and supplies (including computers, computer support and upgrades, fax machine access, photocopier etc). Other funding sources for equipment and supplies have consisted mainly of funding grants and donations made by community supporters, all levels of government, credit unions, crown corporations and the private sector (refer to Appendix G for more details). The LEPS' revenues - estimates do not take into consideration in-kind contributions such as volunteer labour, technical assistance, storage space, and donated equipment, vehicles, and supplies — accrued from various levels of government, community organizations, and individuals, totalled $388,000 in 1996 and $528,000 in 1997 (LEPS 1998). The LEPS' success and positive image has enabled them to establish a certain repertoire with senior government and funding agencies. In fact, several senior government agency interviewees claimed that their organization generally mailed the LEPS application forms for any funding opportunities with them. 6.6. L E P S CAST This section provides brief details regarding the LEPS' partners and what each partner's role has been within the partnership. Originally, partners included the TOL, DFO, MELP, academic institutions, 6 different community groups, the SRWMP, and FBMB (refer to Figure 6 for an overview of the LEPS' original partners). The roles and responsibilities of partners have been defined in the LEPS' business plan with the TOL, feasibility study, application to become a non-profit society, and MOU's with FRAP and FBMB. Source: LEPS (1998) service contract that the LEPS has with the TOL. 81 FIGURE 6: OVERVIEW OF THE LEPS ' PARTNERS' LEPS SRWMP * Yorkson Watershed Stewardship Committee * Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society Nickomekl Enhancement Society * Langley Field Naturalists * GVRD * Kwantlen College * School District #35 Trinity Western University * Little Campbell River Watershed Stewardship Committee DOE Township of Langley Salmon River Enhancement Society Langley Environmental Organization MELP , DFO *Fort Langley Farmers Association *Ministry of Agriculture and Food *Fraser Basin Council •University of British Columbia *Matsqui/ Langley Soil Conservation Group 6.6.1. TOWNSHIP OF LANGLEY Langley Township's mission statement has been: [commitment] to excellent municipal services that are responsive to our community needs, protection and promotion of rural character and heritage, recognition of Langley as a community of communities. A lifestyle that is environmentally, socially, culturally, and economically balanced. And the management of our growth in an environmentally and fiscally responsible manner (T5). To help to fulfill its mandate the TOL has financially supported the LEPS from the group's inception. The original feasibility study for the LEPS, written in 1993, identified the roles of the Township as: assist in management of 4 1 This diagram reflects that fact that the LEPS and SRWMP were intended to function together - the LEPS functioning as the "working arm" and the SRWMP functioning as the "political arm." 82 the LEPS (technical supervision and representation on the Board), provide employment opportunities for students, and act as community liaison (Fuhrmann nd). Then, in 1995, with the second election of Mayor Scholtens, there was a change in staff at the Township, most of the higher level Township directors were replaced. There was also a division made between the environmental activities and community based activities. The two environmental coordinators on staff were told to reduce their community-based activities. Since then, there have been substantial changes to the TOL staff and departments, such as four different people filling the position of Director of Engineering. Changes to Engineering effected the LEPS because each new Director re-evaluated the relationship of the LEPS to the Township. Many interviewees also believed that there has been a reduction in the Township's support of the LEPS from the provision of technical expertise to a more distanced advisory role since the Mayor's re-election. Most people interviewed believed that the TOL role with the LEPS was further reduced when Scales left Langley in 1997 and the TOL eliminated the position of environmental manager. Eighty percent of Scales' salary, however, was directed towards operating the LEPS and the Township retained one and a half positions for environmental coordinators. As of December 1998, there was no official Township staff with the LEPS. Although the Director of Engineering for the TOL, has sat as the TOL representative on the LEPS' Board. Regardless, the LEPS' manager that replaced Scales, "is perceived as more junior. She's a lot younger than Pete [is]. I think it's a factor in terms of the Township" (T6). During 1997 and 1998, the Township contributed $60,000 per year on a fee-for-service basis to the LEPS (refer to Section 6.4.4. for details) (LEPS 1998). The Township also has provided the LEPS with several in-kind services, including office space and equipment, and use of the Township meeting rooms and equipment (overhead projector, slide projector and display boards) (LEPS 1998). This unique relationship to the TOL has facilitated the LEPS in accomplishing many of its projects. The relationship to the TOL ensures that the LEPS has both funding and local government support. Township staff, however, expressed a belief that they are under extreme pressure from the Council to reduce expenditure and increase revenues; the TOL's staff also expressed a concern that this pressure has affected their relationship to the LEPS. As a result of external pressure, both the LEPS' staff and the TOL's staff voiced a belief that it is important for the LEPS to continue to demonstrate positive and cost effective contributions to the Township, if the LEPS wants the Township's continued support. Township staff that were interviewed for the thesis believed that the LEPS has provided several positive and cost effective services to the TOL. TOL staff believed that these services provided the LEPS with the credibility and trust of the Township. In the opinions of TOL staff, there have been four main ways by which the LEPS uniquely has served the TOL. First, when the TOL has not qualified for funding because they are not a non-profit organization, the TOL's staff has requested the LEPS to apply for the funding. Second, the TOL projects and funding for those projects both has developed and been approved quickly. However, the TOL has been a union environment, thus it must advertise all of its new positions to its union staff. To avoid union requirements, the TOL staff often has requested the LEPS to hire the person then the LEPS has invoiced the Township for that individual's time. The TOL staff did not believe that they would have completed the majority of their unscheduled 8 3 projects without the LEPS. Third, the LEPS has gathered and maintained a sizeable amount of biophysical information about and mapping for Langley's watersheds. Township staff believed that this data and mapping has filled a huge void in the TOL's information base at a large financial saving to the TOL. Furthermore, information that the LEPS gathers also aids in streamlining the TOL processes for capital works project applications. Fourth, the TOL staff believed that the Township gets "a big kick back in terms of public profile and the environment from its partnership with the LEPS. [Because the] environment was [considered] politically a plus or positive" (T6). LANGLEY TOWNSHIP COUNCIL Several people interviewed theorized that the LEPS' status before Council was that of an independent contractor. Other people, however, viewed the LEPS as more of an internal department of the TOL. Either way, the Council has met three Mondays a month. Issues can be brought forth to the Council in three ways, through a delegation, an information report or a letter to the Council. Originally, the LEPS was able to speak to and bring projects before the Council through Scales, a TOL director. With Scales gone, the LEPS has lost this direct link to Council, as well as its status as an internal department of the Township. Despite this, Council has continued to support the LEPS with the equivalent resources they provided when the LEPS started. Some TOL staff believed that the perception of conflicts and inconsistencies in environmental attitudes of the Council could be traced to a lack of consensus about their choice of strategy for how to deal with environmental issues: I think [the Council] are all strong advocates of environmental concerns, but the political arena itself, often the process, is very different than the private sector or even other parts of the public . sector. The municipality is a thing unto themselves. They're strong on their initiatives, but how those initiatives are addressed, and the outcomes, depend on each issue (Til). This lack of consensus has been often perceived as an anti-environmental attitude. Some Township employees believed that collectively the Council has been very strong in terms of environmental issues since at least 1989: [The] LEPS was certainly initiated when I was [with the Township (1981 - 1996)] and a number of other initiatives. I don't think when I first started that the environment was even on the agenda. From a Council perspective the environment was one of their goals. I can't speak for the new Council. In terms of the Council of my days, we were still allocating resources to [the environment]. From a corporate perspective, [environmental considerations] were quite strong (75). Environmental management in the TOL was further complicated when Mayor Scholtens created the Langley Leadership team (LLT) in 1996. Scholtens allied himself with three of the six Township councilors, similar to an electoral party. The LLT were swept into power in the November 1996 election. Members of the LLT have voted quite similarly, which has created power imbalances within the Council. After the LLT was voted into power, there were changes in the Township's directors, staff, and departments. The TOL staff members felt that this political situation left many people disgruntled and created animosity among staff and between staff and the Council: 84 People objected to this big machinery [the LLT] coming in as a party in municipal government and providing what seemed to be quite obvious and overt mechanism for gaining control in Council votes. This caused a lot of dissent When the Mayor came in, he came in on a very contentious issue, anybody that went against him at the Township left. There was this big cleansing of Directors or wouldn't you like to retire now. In the mean time, there were acting directors. These people thought that they would get the positions, and then they didn't get it, it went to somebody else, so there was toes stepped on. There was a lot of disgruntled people (G10). 6.6.2. FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) does not have a formal representative on the LEPS' Board. However, it has demonstrated a willingness to support community involvement projects and localize decision-making through the Community Advisors (CA) Program of the Habitat and Enhancement Branch42 (HEB), FRAP demonstration watershed project that ended in 1997 and the New Directions for salmon fisheries announced by Minister Anderson in 1998. The LEPS has been involved directly with DFO through DFO's CA Program. There have been sixteen community advisors for B.C. and the Yukon. The CA Program started in 1977; it has been a client (community groups) driven program to provide technical advice, and financial support to projects that enhance and protect salmon. CA's have been hands-on, been recognized in their communities, provided technical support and served as a point of contact for the community with government. CA's functions have been provided through DFO project teams compiled from various departments. DFO has also been involved with the LEPS, through the FRAP43 demonstration watershed partnership program (discussed in Section 6.2.). FRAP provided the LEPS with support, advice, and core funding (deShield and Romaine 1997). This program was initiated in 1993 and concluded in 1997. The 1998, New Directions for Pacific Salmon Fisheries document represents a new way that DFO may become involved with the LEPS. This document, states that, "enhanced community, regional, and sector wide input to decision-making will be pursued through a structured management advisory Board system" (DFO 1998). Accompanying this document, the federal Minister for Fisheries announced a $400 million restructuring package for resource rebuilding, habitat conservation and stewardship in British Columbia: "DFO is moving towards a system that empowers the community to make decisions about their land base" (G2). 6.6.3. ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS The LEPS always has had close ties to local academic institutions, including Kwantlen College, School District #35, Trinity Western University, Capilano College, and UBC. The relationship has been strongest between the LEPS, Kwantlen College, and School District #35. In the past, the LEPS has mentored co-op students from Kwantlen College, Trinity Western University and Capilano College. In fact, the current manager of the LEPS was a Capilano College co-op student. UBC'S relationship to the LEPS has revolved around research projects 4 2 In about 1995, DFO's Habitat Protection Branch was merged with the Salmon Enhancement Branch to create the HEB. 4 3 FRAP was a sustainability program jointly sponsored by DFO and DOE, in 1991, as part of the Canada Green Plan. DFO had $50 million for 6 years to work on the Fraser River under FRAP. DOE also had $50 million in the same program. 85 undertaken by the UBC eco-research project team and Hans Schreier of the Westwater Research Centre. The following sub-sections elaborate on the relationship of the LEPS with Kwantlen College and School District #35 -formally members of the LEPS partnership - and the Westwater Research Centre. KWANTLEN COLLEGE Preliminary research by the LEPS' founders into the feasibility of forming a non-profit society indicated that there were sufficient funding and environmentally related projects for two Kwantlen Environmental Protection Technology (EPT) co-op students and several high school students. The LEPS was set up so that EPT students would plan, organize, coordinate and supervise projects and high school students would receive training (Fuhrmann nd). The LEPS fielded many students from Kwantlen's co-op program. Students were paid usually $10 per hour, by the LEPS with money from outside sources, such as the college. In the past, co-op students sat on the LEPS' Board; as of December 1998, however, there were no students on the LEPS' Board. Kwantlen Colleges' responsibilities to the partnership included: providing a Board member, assisting with funding of co-op students, providing general operating support, liaison with other partners, ensuring educational objectives were incorporated into projects, and providing administrative support (Fuhrmann nd). The college demonstrated its support for the partnership by allowing their staff to use paid time to attend and organize the LEPS' Board meetings. The LEPS' relationship to the College, however, has weakened over the years: Pete was asked to sit on the Advisory Committee for the College for [the Career Training] Program. We have [had] a group of community and business people who [have] told the College what to do with the Program. Right from the beginning, [Scales] made suggestions and got ignored. So, he started to get a chip on his shoulder because there were never any changes made to the curriculum. No matter what I tried to do to make [changes] happen [Scales still felt that students] weren't getting enough [scientific training]; it was an ego thing for him in the end. Basically he stopped hiring from the College and started using students from elsewhere (SC2). As of December 1998, the LEPS' involvement with the College has been reduced to the LEPS attempting to hold their Watershed Stewardship training program on the College's.campus. SCHOOL DISTRICT #35 The School Board has covered all nine of the high schools in the TOL. School District #35's Board has had a mission of "working together for student success through excellence in education. Empowering all to make quality choices today for opportunities tomorrow" (SC3). The LEPS approached the School Board looking for students interested in both doing volunteer work and pursuing a career in environmental science. The LEPS interests were met by the School Board's Career Preparation Program, which focuses on grades eleven and twelve. Walnut Grove Secondary and Brookswood Secondary were the two high schools selected to participate in the partnership (Fuhrmann nd). Representatives from the School Board believed that their interests were met by the LEPS because the Board is required by the government to ensure that students get at least 60 hours of work before they graduate 86 (co-op students require 200 hours of work). School District representatives claimed that their interest was to maximize work experience for students and minimize the amount of time that their staff spent securing that work. This latter constraint limited the School Board's role on the LEPS Board. Dave Scott, School District #35 representative, was only willing to provide student labour; he was not able to dedicate any of his time to helping to organize the LEPS. * Members of the School Board considered the partnership beneficial to them because of the large number of students that the LEPS trained, the LEPS' willingness to customize programs to student interest, the high quality of the LEPS' staff who served as role models for the students, and the connection that the LEPS made for students between science and the real world. In 1993, the School Board's responsibilities to the partnership included providing a representative for the LEPS' Board, providing service support, incorporating pertinent information for LEPS' projects in the curriculum, hosting in- house workshop/seminars on environmental issues, evaluating and directing their students, providing students, assisting with promotional materials, allying with the business community, and ensuring students meet co-operative education guidelines (Fuhrmann nd). Over the five years that the LEPS has existed, the School Board's responsibilities have been considerably reduced. As of 1998, there was no formal representative from the School Board on the LEPS' Board (some district teachers, however, have sat on the Board). However, a School Board representative regularly has sent out information to other schools and has chaired meetings with school based people. The LEPS' staff has worked with this School Board representative who has provided information about schools that have been interested in working with the LEPS; this has created an effective, streamlined process. The School Board representative has met with the LEPS two or three times a year to examine the process to ensure that it was operating adequately. WESTWATER RESEARCH CENTRE The Westwater Research Centre has a mandate to conduct interdisciplinary research on water resource issues and to participate in educational activities. It has no legislated authority for decision-making and enforcement. To fulfil its mandate, Westwater has conducted research in collaboration with various government agencies and community groups. Since the early 1970s, the Salmon River Watershed has been one such study area (Westwater Research Centre 1995). In cooperation with the TOL, Westwater has documented historical and current water quality in the Salmon River watershed, documented land use change from 1980 - 1998 in the Salmon River watershed, conducted a groundwater survey of the Hoppington Aquifer, and conducted an environmentally sensitive areas assessment of the TOL. All of this information has been integrated into a comprehensive GIS database to be used for decision-making in the Salmon River watershed. Graduate students associated with Westwater and Resource Management and Environmental Studies at UBC continue to use the Salmon River as a case study watershed for thesis research (Westwater Research Centre 1995). i 87 6.6.4. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS The LEPS has been mainly connected to MELP through the Urban Salmon Habitat Program (USHP). The USHP started in 1995 as a four-year program focused on the Lower Mainland. The program has had two branches, Habitat Protection and Stewardship. The Habitat Protection Branch has consisted of two components, habitat protection and funding for local government's to hire environmental coordinators; this branch has liaised with local governments to try and promote more proactive planning to protect habitat. The stewardship section of the program has had a stewardship component and has provided funding for community groups. Resources provided to community groups have included technical support, help with referrals, attendance at planning meetings, and liaison with other government departments. Funding from the USHP has occurred on a year by year basis, from April to March, with a limit of $30,000 per group. The USHP has funded any type of stewardship project including education (advocacy, workshops, best management practices, land use issues), landowner contact, rehabilitation, signage, and stream enhancement. Typically, requests for funding have been more than double the money that the USHP has had. The LEPS has traditionally put together a funding application package for the USHP and has received funding every year of the program. In 1998, a USHP/MELP employee began to sit on the LEPS' Board; nobody sat on the Board from the Ministry before. Decision-making power over which organizations and projects have received funding, has provided the USHP with some control over the LEPS operations. 6.6.5. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD The mission of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF) has been to foster a competitive, economically viable and environmentally responsible agriculture and food system throughout British Columbia. In achieving their mission, the Ministry has been committed to forging partnerships to reduce government program overlap and duplication of services with federal and local governments; continuing the development of policies and programs that result in preserving social, cultural and environmental values in rural communities (13); and ensuring that British Columbians know of all of the agricultural legislation that exists and how it affects them. A MAF staff member, who was interviewed, believed that MAF has tried to work over and above the legislation in a proactive way through the use of educational materials and partnerships. MAF, therefore, has been supportive of the mandate and the broad objectives of the LEPS partnership, despite not having a representative on the LEPS' Board. The lack of a Board member has meant that MAF does not have a great deal of influence on the LEPS, but has been aware of the actions that the LEPS has taken. Some of the LEPS' Board members worried that the farm community itself has not been well represented at the LEPS' meetings. Occasionally the Fort Langley Farmers Association has attended the LEPS meetings, but no one has officially represented dairy farmers, poultry producers or any other agricultural interests in the TOL. 88 6.6.6. GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) has been a multi-jurisdictional organization that has dealt with a number of different municipalities and has had a representative on the LEPS' Board since 1997. They joined the LEPS because of the formation of the Little Campbell River Watershed Stewardship Committee and the fact that GVRD staff believed that the LEPS has been a very useful organization. 6.6.7. SALMON RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership's (SRWMP) mission has been "to establish cooperative, community based stewardship of the Salmon River Watershed which balances economic, environmental, and social needs of watershed" (SRWMP 1998). Group members attributed the impetus for the groups formation to the realization that each stakeholder in the watershed was working independently to deliver their own specific mandate which often led to conflicts among different water users. The partnership has tried to act as a neutral forum for all the stakeholders to come together and exchange ideas about and plans for the long-term sustainability of the Salmon River Watershed (SRWMP 1998). All members of SRWMP are volunteers and include the TOL, the LEPS, DFO, DOE, FBC, MAF, the UBC, Salmon River Enhancement Society, Langley Environmental Organization, Fort Langley Farmers Association, and the Matsqui/Langley Soil Conservation Group (Giannico and Healey 1998; SRWMP 1998). The role of each member within the partnership has been to bring the perspective of their respective organization or agency forward during bi-monthly forum discussions of specific watershed issues (SRWMP 1998). Scales, as the coordinator for both SRWMP and the LEPS, could inform each group of the others activities. Furthermore, through the LEPS, Scales was able to get money for the un-funded SRWMP to undertake advocacy issues. People that have been involved with both groups believed that when FRAP funding ended and Scales left Langley, SRWMP and the LEPS drifted because other members of the LEPS were unaware of the relationship between the LEPS and SRWMP: Everytime Pete was at one meeting, he could tell them about the other group. When FRAP funds ran out we could no longer contribute monies to keep these groups going. We lost the continuity of Scales. He pinch-hit for awhile, but by September of that year he was packing his bags. The LEPS people, I think they're quite in the dark about the relationship between the two groups. Scales was gone and Lisa didn't know how to relate with the group. It wasn't her job to see what was going on with the other group (GI). 6.6.8. SALMON RIVER ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY Salmon River Enhancement Society (SRES) was started in 1995 by a group of volunteer citizens who had been participating in SRWMP as citizen members. Some people that were involved with SRWMP theorized that there was a need for a separate citizens group, which could work with the government agencies, increase public involvement, and lobby government agencies. Furthermore, these people believed that SRWMP goals were not always the goals of the citizen members. They attributed this to the high representation on SRWMP of government agencies whose main focus was the lengthy process of producing a MOU for all of the different groups (16). 89 SRES goals have been to bring an integrated, comprehensive approach to all aspects of the watershed; create and implement a sustainable, coordinated management plan for the watershed; and design and implement community based governance of the watershed (SRES nd; 16). SRES has tried to accomplish its goals through public involvement and media coverage of Society events. In addition, SRES has functioned as a "watchdog" over the watershed and has had an ongoing two-year program of water quality testing in the Salmon River and its tributaries.- SRES has worked in conjunction with SRWMP, the UBC, the LEPS and other local environment groups (16). Both SRES and the LEPS have gained from the partnership because together they have had access to a larger pool of citizens for undertaking projects than they would have had alone. Members from both organizations have offered each other support and labour for projects. SRES, however, usually has undertaken projects themselves. In 1998, SRES' members were invited to attend the LEPS' Board meetings. Furthermore, a LEPS watershed coordinator has attended SRES monthly meetings to exchange information with SRES members. After each meeting, the LEPS' watershed coordinator has reported to the LEPS' manager. However, there has not been a formal relationship between the LEPS and SRES. 6.6.9. LANGLEY ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION Langley Environmental Organization (LEO) was formed in 1993 by five members of Langley Township's defunct Environmental Advisory Committee. The Committee was dissolved at the end of 1992 shortly after Scholtens won the municipal election. LEO was: very vociferous; they didn't have to answer to the municipality. Before [as members of the Environmental Advisory Committee for the TOL], they had kept quite quiet, they were really doing a good job trying to work with Council, and not going to the press. When LEO was formed all hell broke loose (ST6). LEO objectives were to expand the consideration of the environment by local government, monitor negative environmental impacts, increase public awareness of environmental issues, coordinate with other NGOs, and lobby to increase public participation in government decisions (LEO nd). Al Grant was the driving force behind LEO. When Grant left, the group disbanded, but later became the West Creek Watershed Protection. This new group has not been involved with the LEPS. 6.6.10. NICOMEKL ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY Nicomekl Enhancement Society (NES) evolved in 1991 from the Fish for Your Future Group. The group had been setting up temporary incubation boxes on tributaries of the Nicomekl River and raising and releasing salmon into the Nicomekl River. In 1992, NES began to supply the Langley School District with eyed salmon eggs for their classroom incubation program (17). The goals for the NES have been to build a permanent hatchery facility including classroom facilities for educational purposes and to enhance the Nicomekl watershed for the betterment of the environment and fish habitat (17). NES provided the LEPS with seed money and allowed the LEPS to store their supplies on NES 9 0 property (17). Some of NES members, however, believed that the LEPS never acknowledged NES efforts in supporting the LEPS; interviewees believed that this created animosity towards the LEPS on the part of some of NES members. As a result, NES wanted their name stricken from the LEPS because they did not consider the LEPS to be a real partnership. Over the years, however, the LEPS' staff made efforts and progress to reconcile their relationship to the NES. In 1998, a LEPS staff member sat on NES Board as the Nicomekl River watershed coordinator. The LEPS staff member informed NES members of the LEPS' projects that were pertinent to NES, provided information regarding local and senior government programs, and helped to raise funds for NES projects. Conversely, NES had a representative on the LEPS' Board. This role consisted mainly of informing the LEPS' partners of NES projects. NES members that were interviewed did not believe that they had an impact on the decisions that the LEPS made or the projects that the LEPS undertook. There's a [LEP's Board] meeting about every two to three months where all the different groups in the area get together and discuss what they're doing, and we tell them what we're doing. That's about all it is. We don't impact the decisions that the LEPS makes or the projects that they choose (C3). 6.6.11. BERTRAND CREEK ENHANCEMENT SOCIETY Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society (BCES) evolved in 1993 from a sub committee of the Council appointed Aldergrove Revitalization Committee. When the Council cancelled the committee, some group members decided to continue and formed a formal non profit society. BCES vision has been to revitalize a creek running through the downtown core of Aldergrove for fish, wildlife, and the community. Group members have undertaken different actions from tree planting to stream clean up. Since its inception in 1993, BCES vision has grown to incorporate a watershed perspective. The LEPS provided BCES with a watershed coordinator, lent them a truck and tools for planting, provided administrative support, wrote letters of support for BCES to include in funding applications, and has provided a labour force when BCES has undertaken projects. Conversely, between 1995 - 1998, BCES has passed on its $5,000 Township watershed coordinator grant to the LEPS. BCES also had a representative on the LEPS' Board, sends letters of support for the LEPS in the LEPS' funding applications, and provides a labour force of volunteers for the LEPS' planting and stream rehabilitation projects. 6.6.12. YORKSON WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE Yorkson Watershed Stewardship Committee (YWSC) has not been a substantial group. There were a lot of people in the Walnut Grove community that were interested in stream stewardship. The LEPS' staff member representing the Yorkson watershed began coordinating members of the Walnut Grove community in 1997. As of the fall 1998, the group consisted of a few community members. These interested citizens have been arranging meetings, making a brochure, and getting students aware of watershed issues. 91 6.6.13. LITTLE CAMPBELL RIVER WATERSHED STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE Scales sought a person to coordinate a community group for the Little Campbell River watershed because local residents vocalized an interest in starting a stewardship group but had neither focus nor leadership. A LEPS staff member began to organize the Little Campbell River Watershed Stewardship Committee (LCRWSC) in 1997; their main objective has been to develop their aims, goals, and strategies to meet those goals. The group has consisted mostly of volunteers (watershed residents from south Surrey, Whiterock, Langley, the Semiahmoo reservation, and the Semiahmoo Fish and Game Club), except for representatives from GVRD, MOE, and the LEPS' watershed coordinator. The LEPS' role with the group has included: motivating people, conducting workshops, attracting local residents to events, and encouraging community and government support of the LCRWSC's projects. 6.6.14. LANGLEY FIELD NATURALISTS The interviewer was unable to either make contact or conduct an interview with any members of the Langley Field Naturalists. 6.6.15. THE FRASER BASIN COUNCIL Fraser Basin Council (FBC) was established in 1997 as a QUANGO focusing on the social, economic and environmental sustainability of the Fraser Basin. The Council was formed to continue to monitor progress and build upon the previous initiatives of the Fraser Basin Management Board4 4 (FBMP) (DFO and DOE 1997). Membership of the Council includes three representatives from the federal and provincial governments respectively, one person from each of the eight regional governments representing over sixty urban areas, eight First Nations representing eight different language groups in the Fraser Basin, two members from each of the five geographic regions in the watershed, and four people representing the Basin's social, economic, and environmental sectors (FBC nd; DFO and DOE 1997). In November 1993, FBMB officially endorsed six watershed demonstration projects as part of the Fraser Basin Management Program. Projects, as exercises in partnership building, showcased practical solutions to environmental conservation, recreation and tourism, restoration of fish habitat, community economic development and comprehensive management of complete watersheds. FBMB did not operate the projects but helped them to secure technical and financial support to achieve the group's own goals. The Salmon River watershed, including the LEPS, was a FBMB demonstration watershed (FBMP 1994). In May 1997, when FBMP ended, the relationship between the LEPS and FBMB unofficially ended. As FBC, the relationship with the demonstration projects was not completely severed but reduced: The FBC eventually lost interest in [the] LEPS; this was because [the FBC's] staff didn't have [the] extra time to put toward [the] LEPS, and the FBC Director wanted to change from a focus on watershed planning to other aspects of managing the Fraser Basin. The loss of initiative 4 4 FBMP was a joint government and non-government initiative to co-ordinate activities towards sustainability across the entire Basin. The Board brought together 18 representatives of the three levels of government, First Nations, as well as economic, social and environmental interests to develop a long-term sustainability management plan for the Basin (FBMP 1994). 92 wasn't a conscious effort. There was just a change in prioritizing to other issues. Changes in attitude have happened over the last year and a half(G9). 6.7. RUMOURS AND JUDGEMENTS Other than this thesis, the LEPS has been evaluated on two levels. First, when FRAP previously evaluated its watershed partnership demonstration project. Second, by partners who over time have developed their own personal opinions as to the LEPS' successes and failures. This section provides details about the LEPS' successes and comments from an evaluation of the LEPS conducted by FRAP from its staffs perspective and from various people involved with the LEPS that were interviewed for this thesis. The LEPS has completed a wide variety of hands-on enhancement, education, protection and inventory projects since its inception in 1993 (refer to Section 6.4.4. for details) to the satisfaction of both government and funding agencies alike. As a result of its success with these projects, the LEPS have won several awards: • VanCity's Environmental Awards (1996) for environmental service and environmental education; • VanCity's Environmental Educators Award (1997) for watershed stewardship training; and • MELP's Award (1996), jointly with the BCES, for restoration work. The LEPS' success was also noted in DFO's evaluation of the LEPS involvement in FRAP demonstration watershed project that occurred from 1993 - 1997. Upon evaluation of the partnership, government officials learned four important lessons about community-government partnerships. First, some senior level government officials felt that: Our plans were overly optimistic and simplistic. We tried to complete the partnerships too quickly. But, we have learned that these processes take much more time to develop (G4). Second, some senior government officials recognized that there is a role in watershed management for round tables and community groups because these processes demonstrated success at landowner contact and project implementation: What did filter through from the larger effort, was recognition of the role for round tables and community groups. This lesson and intended future support of similar initiatives is demonstrated by the new Coho Recovery Plan and the $100 million being invested into watershed restoration by [Minister] Anderson (G4). As a result, DFO intends to support similar initiatives in the future. Third, some senior level government officials theorized that community-government watershed stewardship arrangements have to be community driven: 77?e third major lesson from the pilot partnerships, has been more apparent to community groups than the government. This lesson is that community based water management projects have to be community driven (G4). It seemed to them that those groups that were more community driven than the LEPS have had a greater chance of being sustainable because of better buy-in from the community. Furthermore, without strong community support, groups seemed to be subject to the whims of funding agencies, politicians, and government agencies. In addition, some senior level government officials believed that to move toward sustainability, community 93 initiated watershed groups generally need more information, to be legitimized by the government, and a watershed management plan: Currently, there is no legislation for community based watershed management. These groups represent initiatives. Community organizations need to be both recognized and legitimized by government (G4). Interviews with people involved with the LEPS revealed several positive and negative opinions about the LEPS. Community and government support, strong leadership, credible staff, coordination, cooperation, completion of successful projects, self-sufficiency and flexibility were characteristics identified by partnership participants as traits of the LEPS that led to its longevity and success. A government participant stated that "the secret of saving streams is working with the people that actually live there" (G7). Most participants agreed that the LEPS had the commitment and support of the municipality, local watershed stewardship groups, their staff, and different levels of government. This opinion was demonstrated by comments such as: I think Pat Anderson, he 'II swear against this, but I give him most of the credit, for letting me do what I had to do. Secondly, I give Mark Bakken credit because he's trying to keep [the] LEPS going under bad odds. I give credit to the leaders in each of the community groups. People like Eleanor Parkinson, Al Grant, he was there from the beginning. I think a lot of what is happening in Langley today has Al Grant written all over it (ST6). Most of the LEPS partners believed that commitment to and support of the LEPS were shown by the provision of funding and resources by the TOL and senior government, the provision of students by the academic community, the existence of provincial stewardship guidelines, and the presence of community volunteers at the LEPS' events. Leadership and credibility were other traits that the LEPS' participants identified as important to the group's success. People made comments such as: [The] LEPS had in Pete a very strong champion. I think that without Pete or someone like Pete, if there is anybody like Pete, I don't know that it would have happened. Not just getting it started, but taking it somewhere. I mean, as far as getting it started, the government agencies could kick in some money for that anytime. But to get somebody to pull it together and get it up and running is key (T13). Other participants made similar comments acclaiming the strong leadership demonstrated by Scales during the LEPS' initial years. Equally important, was the high caliber staff at the LEPS. Staff was viewed by other partners as well educated and motivated. The existence of a group leader with close ties to the municipality and a well-skilled staff gave the LEPS credibility with other partners. Examples of participant's comments are: I think [that the] LEPS is perceived as the predominant environmental advocate for the Township. The way [that the] LEPS is structured with its independent Board, consisting of a combination of several entities. It's all been combined [and] that combination provides it with a much stronger presence than it would be if there were six or eight different societies all advocating different things. In short, if [the] LEPS supports something or an initiative, it has far more weight than if one of its members came forth advocating a position (Til). They're closely associated with the Municipality. It gives them a quasi-legitimate face. People look upon them more favourably over a volunteer group (G7). Many people that were involved with the LEPS believed that the LEPS' success was because: 9 4 Everybody has a self-interest and they manage to meet it. They're also attempting to reciprocally give something. Whether it's in kind, like access to the college, or going back and getting some money to do something (SC2). [The LEPS] provided a very effective vehicle to do things that you otherwise couldn't do. It became a depository of funds that government couldn't have access to. It became a vehicle to deal with organizations like VanCity. It allowed us to do things that we could contract to [the] LEPS, as opposed to having to deal with it in a union environment. You. have different wages and go through different processes (T5). Most participants believed that it was this type of cooperation that allowed the LEPS to coordinate groups, to bring stakeholders together under the auspice of watershed stewardship, and to ease communication between organizations. The existence of communication between organizations was demonstrated by comments such as: That way, we all talk and bring it together. We may not be able to solve all the problems, but at least they can exchange solutions. That's what I like about the meetings (ST3). The contention of most participants was that coordination and cooperation were facilitated because the LEPS has been non-political and non-issue oriented; these factors, therefore, have made the LEPS non-confrontational. Strong support and a non-confrontational environment allowed the LEPS to accomplish many successes. It is these successes that many partners herald as the key to the sustainability of the LEPS. People made comments about the LEPS accomplishments such as: Storm drains got marked. Environmental groups were pulled together and started to communicate. The Township got work done that couldn't have gotten done otherwise. I think the Township benefited enormously. At the level of benefits for the various people, there is definitely a profile benefit. Everybody looked like they were good citizens. I think that's why the funding flowed (SC2). Participants in the LEPS frequently cited flowing funding and co-related self-sufficiency as key to the LEPS' longevity. Over time, the LEPS was able to secure a substantial amount of funding from a variety of different sources - government and private sector. Part of the LEPS' ability to secure funding was attributed by participants to the LEPS' flexibility: The strengths are their abilities to perform whatever services efficiently and relatively quickly and adapt to changing environments, needs, and demands (Til). Participants, However, did express some concerns with how the LEPS has functioned. Concerns expressed by participants regarded having paid staff working with volunteers, a lack of a constituency, a lack of real influence, a lack of stable funding leading to competition with other groups, a lack of coordination, and a poor profile. A few partnership participants believed that the LEPS' dependence on a paid staff would compromise the LEPS' sustainability; these same people felt that volunteers will not work for free beside paid staff and are alienated by the presence of more educated employees. Comments were similar to: There's been poison between volunteers and paid people. People don't realize that until they look around. You hire a caretaker and volunteers drop like flies. You can't have somebody say come along and be a volunteer, I'll lead you. The volunteers don't respond to that. The best and most solid programs we have in British Columbia are solely and honestly run by volunteers' (G7). 95 Furthermore, some people believed that animosity might be created if only certain people are paid to perform equivalent tasks. The presence of paid staff, therefore, might lead to a loss of volunteers. Without volunteers the LEPS does not represent the broader community. As it stands, some people felt that the LEPS had no constituency, evident in comments such as: [The] LEPS was run by Pete and I think that they missed a lot by not having a constituent [If the] people who sat at the table had represented somebody and went back and said here guys, here's the job we've got to do and doing it. Basically what they are doing is controlling the funds. The whole process turned out to be an accounting procedure as opposed to truly involving partners (G7). These beliefs are further promoted if the LEPS loses volunteers in the future. A lack of volunteers also may be attributed to the nature of the Langley community. One participant described the community as: a very conservative, traditional type community with a lot of conservative values. A lot of these new fangled ideas are things they didn't have to worry about when they were doing their farming and spreading their manure. Now they can't do that because of some fish in a ditch. That's a colloquial language in Langley for how they perceive environmental stuff. Its quite a challenge to try and take the modern environmental movement and integrate it into the rural community (til). A lack of constituency often means that a group lacks influence with politicians. Some participants felt that the LEPS was constrained in its ability to protect watersheds because of the LEPS' close ties with local government and local government's subjectivity to political whims. This is evident in interviewees comments such as: With funding from the Township, I see it in other groups, their hesitant to get involved with media hot issues. Other groups that are unfunded can go in any direction they want. There's a tendency with local government to want PR on environmental issues, good photo opportunities. When it comes down to making tough decisions to follow land development guidelines, they're hesitant to do so. [The] LEPS couldn't call them on it (G7). [The] LEPS aren't strong if the fundamental land use change requires political debate. The only strength they have is that they educate citizens and can create a bigger lobby at the political 1 arenas, at the voting level (G12). I think that the bottom line rests with people's behaviour and values and how they interact. I'm not sure we had any influence on that what so ever in any significant way (SC2). When you step into city hall, they hate the feds. IPs their turf, they're quite petty.. Civil servants are quite paranoid because their bosses aren't 5,000 kilometres away, city hall, the mayor is down the hall. Heads can roll quite quickly. Their quite frightened little people, they'll do anything to keep their political masters happy. Whereas we all know we'll out survive our Ministers. You have to understand the different cultural systems and how to relate to municipal civil servants and municipal decision-making. You have to suck up to them (GI). Some participants believed that closely related to the LEPS' inability to act in a political manner, was their lack of a stable source of funding: If there were major cuts at the Township and grant proposals weren't flowing in, they might dry up because all the people are funded, compared to a completely volunteer base. They may not have the productivity of [the] LEPS, but they're driven by something different. There is more long-term commitment (G7). 96 The biggest strain is who's going to pay to keep [the] LEPS going. Secure funding is the best possible situation, to be supported by government rather than in a consultant role. The problem is that the Township's funds are very limited I think that other levels of government will continue to have funding, but its uncertain, this makes it difficult to plan. This is a motivation to look for more secure source (T13). The LEPS need to constantly secure funding for their paid staff was believed by some interviewees to create conflicts with other watershed stewardship groups: Networking for [the] LEPS has so far been like a black hole. Everything gets sucked into them. Nothing gets handed out (G7). The perceived existence of competition for funding and resources by some interviewees led to two other issues: a need for greater coordination among partners and the poor perception of the LEPS held by some individuals. The LEPS' partners made comments such as: / think a weakness is not knowing what the other groups are doing. We don't have an overall picture for Langley (C2). This lack of communication created images of the LEPS such as: Oh gees, those guys are just a bunch of kids doing heaven knows what and having a great time. Keeping their smelly fish eggs in the fridge (Til). These poor perceptions were fuelled by some participants' dislike of Scales, evident in comments like: To be quite honest, the biggest problems were personality based. Most of the run-ins had to do with Pete and some guy out there. Personality conflicts, guys that just wanted to achieve what they wanted to achieve, and if their mandates weren't the same then there was a big clash. There would be a blow up and you'd have to do damage control. This could be agency personalities, community group personalities, we used to call it the burly guy syndrome. Pete wasn't a big burly guy, but he likes to assert himself (T6). Some interviewees felt that lack of coordination, limited volunteer support, and poor perception of the LEPS could all be attributed to the LEPS' lack of self-promotion, apparent in comments such as: In many ways, they have to adapt their projects and services to include a recognition or celebration component. That's how they can deal with the perception issues. That's a PR issue. That is something foreign to a bunch of volunteers doing good things, without that in the heavily competitive environment for resources, they're going to do themselves a disservice (Til). 6.8. THE LAST WORD Under citizen pressure in 1992, the TOL hired an Environmental Manager. This manager, in conjunction with local watershed stewardship groups and local academic institutions decided to form the LEPS. The group's long-term goals have focused on ensuring sustainable water resources and education. To accomplish long term goals, different partners have fulfilled different roles. The TOL is the main funding and support organization; they have a mutually beneficial business relationship with the LEPS. DFO and MELP largely serve as funding organizations; although through the LEPS' Board, they have had minimal input into the LEPS' daily operations. MAF involvement with the LEPS has been minimal, but they are aware and supportive of the LEPS' long-term goals. Academic institutions have had a give and take relationship with the LEPS whereby 97 they provide student labour in exchange for environmental training from the LEPS. There have been seven community groups involved with the LEPS. Community groups relationships with the LEPS have varied from supportive to antagonistic. SRWRT, YWSC and LCRWSC were instigated by the LEPS; therefore, they have strong ties to the LEPS and are largely dependent on the LEPS for continuity. SRES, NES, BCES, and LFN, however, were citizen initiated and encourage communication and support among watershed stewardship groups, but largely undertake projects on their own behalf. They have had minimal impact on the LEPS functions and vice versa. The LEPS has had an organizational structure consisting of paid staff, a volunteer Board, and volunteers. Board discussions have been generally limited to reporting the actions taken and to be taken by Board members, selective input into the LEPS' projects, issues effecting the management or administration of the LEPS, and the group's organization. Community and government support, strong leadership, credible staff, coordination, cooperation, success, self-sufficiency and flexibility were characteristics identified by partnership participants as traits of the LEPS that have led to its longevity and success. Having paid staff working with volunteers, a lack of a constituency, a lack of real influence, a lack of stable funding leading to competition with other groups, a lack of coordination, and a poor profile were identified as the LEPS' traits that might lead to the groups demise. 98 CHAPTER SEVEN: THE LEPS PARTNERSHIP 7776 best way of learning, however, is by direct engagement in the world and, in open discussion with others, by reflecting on the meanings of what one has seen and experienced (Friedmann 1987, 361). A goal of this thesis is to evaluate the LEPS approach to watershed stewardship and governance using the evaluation framework developed in Chapter 5. This chapter presents the views and opinions of the people that were involved in the partnership regarding the criteria outlined in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3. This chapter is divided into three sections, corresponding to the main criteria of the evaluation framework. Categories include good governance, procedural efficiency, and availability of adequate resources. Each of these categories is briefly explained and then divided into more detailed sub-sections. 7.1. GOOD GOVERNANCE The partnership demonstrated good governance if it was accountable, fair, inclusive, and embraced shared decision-making. Through shared decision-making, partners can also be empowered. Furthermore, good governance requires a framework for open communication, community support, and government support. The perceptions of some people as to the LEPS' ability to fulfill these criteria are discussed in the following sub-sections. 7.1.1. ACCOUNTABILITY The partnership is accountable if the group is accountable for its decisions to its constituent members. Despite having representatives from the majority of stakeholder groups, a few people interviewed indicated that they did not feel that the LEPS had a real constituency. Rather, they felt that Scales, whose goal was to provide work for students, ran the LEPS in a manner that he wished rather than responding to the opinions of other partners. Some people took issue with the quality of the involvement of partners and believed that the LEPS' Board was simply an exercise in tokenism: [The] LEPS was run by Pete Scales and I think that they missed a lot by not having a constituency. People who sat at the table and represented somebody and went back and said here guys, here's the job we've got to do and doing it (G7). The LEPS' staff, however, who were in contact with local landowners believed that the LEPS represented the opinions of the wider community. In the end, all the areas we go to, I think we get a true representation of what people are thinking. You get people that shut their doors and don't want to talk. You get weirdo's who are in their own world. Then you get people who are interested and really want to support it (ST4). In general, partners acted in accordance with their authority because they had to answer to a constituency (either other community members or senior staff). Scales, however, did not necessarily pursue the TOL agenda when he helped to form the LEPS: 99 In terms of when we were first introducing the Environment Manager function, if you talk to others, our view of what would unfold was different from what actually happened. I think that we were thinking that he would probably be working towards environmental strategies but this evolved and it was more hands-on and getting things done (T5). 7.1.2. INCLUSIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE The partnership is inclusive if there is a balanced representation from all affected parties and there are no barriers to their participation. The LEPS was a completely open partnership in that all members of the community were welcome to join. The LEPS had representation on its Board from most of the watershed stewardship groups in Langley, DFO, MELP, GVRD, the TOL (only the engineering department), and local academic institutions: The Board of Directors has a representative from all the watershed groups, plus a school rep, someone from Kwantlen College, plus DFO and MOE. The only meeting I've attended, there was also someone from Langley Naturalists. I was representing GVRD and Little Campbell. We decided that someone else should come from the Little Campbell. I will represent GVRD and we have someone else from Bertrand (C2). Interviewees noted that not all organizations that could impact the functioning of the LEPS were represented on the Board. Organizations that were not represented on the Board included TOL departments other than engineering, MAF, the local farm community, private business, industry, and the Department of National Defense (DND): The whole Township is supposed to be a representative. It's difficult to get other departments to go(T10). [The farm community] are a very narrow minded people. The Fort Langley Farmers Association came to meetings but their only purpose was to lobby and fight to get a pump so we could lower water levels in this part of the world. No one represented the dairy farmers or the poultry producers or anyone else (Gl). The LEPS' efforts to include and educate a wide range of the community were demonstrated by the LEPS placing educational signs throughout the Township, publishing articles about the LEPS in local newspapers, and hosting public events: There are different ways that they could get involved. There's the environmental almanac that got sent out to all the residents. We're in there. Our targets are also school groups and schools. We put on an environmental fair two years ago; the ones that stopped were the ones that are interested (ST4). When asked about barriers to participation, interviewees identified barriers that were similar to those barriers often identified in the broader literature on community participation, these being a lack of time and money: The School District basically dropped out of the picture quickly. That was one of the problems. Dave Scott had a huge job and [the] LEPS was only a tiny part of his life. Pete wanted it to be more than that. It just wasn't possible (SC2). These barriers, however, were not large enough to block a variety and substantial number of people from participating in the LEPS. Furthermore, the LEPS has made efforts to address these issues by securing funding to 100 pay some people, changing their meeting times to suit people's schedules, and providing a watershed coordinator to local watershed stewardship groups to undertake time intensive administrative tasks. 7.1.3. FAIR AND EQUAL In a fair and equal partnership, partners have a fair and equal opportunity to voice their opinions and influence decisions. In the case of the LEPS, there are- two different situations in which participants need an opportunity to voice their opinions. The first situation involves communication amongst partnership participants. People need an opportunity to be heard by each other. The second situation occurs when and if partners are able to voice their opinions to the broader community and to decision-makers. Interviewees indicated that people involved with the LEPS had opportunities to voice their opinions at both the LEPS' Board and staff meetings. Their opinions, however, did not always necessarily have an impact on how the LEPS was managed, which direction the LEPS chose, and what projects the LEPS undertook: When I go sit and do an update from all the groups. I don't know that we're making major decisions. Maybe providing comment on their direction (G14). Rather, the LEPS' decisions were often dependent on the existence of funding: 777/5 is another critique I've had of [the] LEPS, sometimes the decision on what to put where has been made on public education and funding, what money is available, and is it a visible site (ST5). At the broader community level many people believed that the LEPS had even less of an opportunity to voice their opinion. Some people believed that the group's ability to reach the broader community has been compromised by their close ties to the Township. Their dependence on local government funding limited their ability to vocalize any disagreement with local government organizations: We can't run around slamming the Township, we'd be burning our own bridge (ST4). 7.1.4. SHARED DECISION-MAKING AND EMPOWERMENT Shared decision-making requires that those people with the authority to make a decision and those people affected by it jointly seek an outcome that accommodates, rather than compromises people's interests. This model of decision-making requires the voluntary participation of all interested parties in making decisions that are equal and also respect the diverse interests of participants. Shared decision-making empowers people because it reflects their wishes and the decisions make an impact on the wider community. The LEPS' Board does not formally use consensus decision-making, issues are voted on and each member holds equal power in the vote. However, there was some discussion and debate about decisions during board meetings: Decisions were made very quickly, it wasn't a bureaucratic board which was a strength is some ways. We didn't use Roberts Rules of running a board. We certainly voted on things if they were important enough to vote on. It was very informal (SC2). We try to be consensus based, but it's very difficult (ST1). 101 It is not the equality of voting power that came into question with people interviewed, rather people took issue with how and which decisions came before the Board. During meetings Board members did not discuss the direction of the LEPS, rather they discussed which projects the LEPS' staff had already completed or were currently undertaking: [The LEPS board meetings are] mostly reviews of what goes on and who's doing what, and plans for what we're doing next, rather than this is where we'd like to go. What does everybody feel [the] LEPS should do? In the past, it was Pete's baby. The Board meetings were essentially, okay everybody's here, what are you doing Pete? Okay, that sounds good, off you go and do it. Pete had kind of constructed it that way, in order to be a society, you have to have members and a board and a certain structure. They have that, but it was almost like a ghost or a dummy hand in bridge (T10). We don't have a great deal of influence on [the] LEPS, but we generally support what they're doing. We can make suggestions, but they're basically independent. They're goals are supported by the partnership, but we have no say as to their day to day projects (G15). Therefore, even though all of the Board member's votes were equal, many interviewees felt that Scales, the Environmental Manager for the TOL and manager for the LEPS, had too much power over how the LEPS was run. It was this same power and Scales position with the TOL, however, which gave the LEPS sway with the Council and the TOL: / was given free range and had access with the Mayor and different directors, I could get projects through that others on staff couldn't. I could take it to the next level. I had signing authority, power to hire and fire (ST6). 7.1.5. FRAMEWORK FOR OPEN COMMUNICATION High quality communication is facilitated by respecting the public's right to be heard and by providing the opportunity for meaningful participation. Furthermore, good communication is open and sincere which requires frequent dialogue among participants, a prompt and thorough response to the concerns and commentary of each participant, and a framework for continuing dialogue. A framework for continuing dialogue requires input from the public to the government, output of technical information about the issues from the government to the public, and mutual education processes between government agencies, and participants that are well informed about the relevant facts. Interviewees' opinions varied about the openness of communication in the LEPS. The quality of communication seemed dependent on the individual and their willingness to contact the LEPS' staff. Some people believed that poor communication was the LEPS' largest obstacle: I'm not an environmental person, you want me to do sewer and water, that I do well. What I found is that they are so busy using lingo that they're confusing people (T3). I was in a meeting last week where all the Langley stakeholders were present; it was evident that people are not talking to each other (G4). Others believed that dialogue with the LEPS was open, full, frequent, sincere, prompt and thorough: When I'm there I let them know this is what I'm doing for the NES (ST2). 102 I probably drop by about once per week, just to say hello and see what's going on. [The LEPS staff will tell me] what they're doing, and III them what we're doing (C3). A framework for continuing dialogue exists within the LEPS organizational structure. This framework exists because the LEPS' core staff are all also coordinators for various watersheds in the TOL; watershed coordinators report back to the LEPS as to the actions of the community groups they work with and inform watershed stewardship groups about the LEPS' projects. Moreover, representatives from various government agencies sit on the LEPS' Board. Community groups have the opportunity to inform the government of their projects, and government officials have the opportunity to inform community groups about funding opportunities and other government activities: We tend to do the projects ourselves, but with Dave Sam at the meetings, [the] LEPS comes into it more. What's more problematic is the reporting aspect. Doug also goes to LEPS meetings (CS). All the watershed coordinators in Langley are supervisors at [the] LEPS. [The] LEPS is the one place where watershed coordinators work. In our weekly or biweekly meetings we'll talk about what our groups has done in the last month. In that respect, we can see where the other group is having trouble and you can adjust yourself if you come across the situation in the future (ST5). The LEPS and the other groups communicate with the larger community through the distribution of newsletters and brochures that outline their group's goals and projects: Something else we do is put up signs around the community, just describing our projects at all the sites where we've done work, if they're remotely publicly visible. Explaining who we are and what we did. We send letters out to streamside landowners, especially where we're doing the map. The Township has a page in the local paper; [the] LEPS has a description in that (ST1). [The] LEPS does public open houses and events (TIO). There seems to be some level of mutual education between the community and federal, provincial and local governments because the LEPS has responded to comments made by government staff (refer to Section 7.2.1.). DFO also learned from the LEPS through its evaluation of the demonstration watersheds (refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.7.). However, most people interviewed believed that communication has decreased since Scales left. People cited two reasons for this decrease, a loss of a LEPS staff member who is also a TOL director and Fleming not doing as much to maintain communications: Pete did that well. He was on the phone weekly. Lisa probably hasn't called me in two years. I'm aware of her because I go out there. She's never been in this building, if she has she was meeting with our information people (GI). When there was a senior staff member from the Township sitting on the board for [the] LEPS, he could fill them in on what we 're doing. We 're a little bit more cut off (ST1). 7.1.6. COMMUNITY SUPPORT The strength of the community base and community support are demonstrated through the presence and commitment of a large range and percentage of individual community members and watershed stewardship groups (commitment is discussed in detail in Section 7.3.5.). This requires that the local community is not only 103 aware of, but also active in the LEPS' projects and that the group has demonstrated its ability to reflect a community interest. Further, people that participate in projects must express positive comments about the LEPS and their experiences with the LEPS. Although some interviewees believed that the LEPS had no constituency, interviews in general indicated that there was a high level of community support and commitment. Community support for the LEPS was demonstrated in four main ways. First, over 2,000 Langley residents have volunteered to help with the LEPS' projects. To truly-determine the significance of this number of people, however, a survey of Langley residents would have to be undertaken. Second, community support was demonstrated through the many students that have worked with LEPS through the Careers Preparation Program and other college and university co-op placements: [The school board has] a huge success with students working with [the] LEPS. Many kids take summer work with [the] LEPS. The kids show a real dedication to stream enhancement work. This is mutually beneficial to the kids and [the] LEPS getting dedicated volunteers and employees (SC3). Third, community support is demonstrated because the majority of watershed stewardship groups in Langley have representatives on the LEPS' Board or at the very least know of the LEPS' existence. In the past, the LEPS had a tenuous relationship with some of the watershed stewardship groups. Some people perceived that a lot of the friction between the LEPS and other groups was due to Scales: There was a certain amount of friction with Pete. Pete saw us as being under his wing so to speak. And we never really felt that way (Cl). For awhile it was touchy. The Salmon River group felt that they weren't getting the attention that they needed [from the LEPS]. So they stayed away from all the other groups. I think it was a personality conflict between Pete and Doug (ST3). Since Scales left the group, staff has been trying to establish more positive relationships with other groups: Some tension existed a few years ago when a couple of the groups felt that [the] LEPS was stepping on their toes, trying to take the limelight out of their hands. We never meant to do that. It may have appeared that way with certain things that were said, or words that were said wrong. We provide, for anybody that wants a map for an area, or where to look for resources, or ideas, every time they've come in we've given them what they want right away (ST4). Well, actually when Pete was around I was never invited. Recently I have been (Cl). Tension between the LEPS and other watershed stewardship groups can be attributed to competition for funding and a perception by some community members that the LEPS was not giving them sufficient recognition for their efforts; these issues have not been resolved. Although the broader community and watershed stewardship groups in Langley seem to be supportive of the LEPS, the agricultural community proves to be a weak link. As the LEPS' staff approach streamside landowners, many of which are farmers, this relationship is being strengthened: 99 percent of people we contact are supportive, maybe not overly enthusiastic but supportive enough to let us go on [to] their property and map it out, and maybe do enhancement (ST1). The majority of this watershed is rural but there isn't a large contingent of agriculture landowner support. The large commercial farmers don't come to the partnership's meetings (G15). 104 Fourth, community support was demonstrated in the original Langley Tomorrow Study (1991) which indicated strong environmental values on the part of local citizens. TOL staff, however, believed that this sentiment has been waning; they believe that Langley residents have been more concerned with debates over private property rights and how the new environmental legislation will impact them and their property, rather than with saving the environment: The phone calls I get, they're people that usually have a problem, and they're not interested in getting information or educating themselves. I had more of those four years ago (T6). Furthermore, TOL staff and government employees felt that most citizens are apathetic and that only a few people get involved with community activism: The community in Langley is by and large apathetic. They're no different from any other community. They've got their lives, to them being environmental is using the blue box. There are only a small number in any community that are active enough to get down and dirty (ST6). 7.1.7. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT Government support for the LEPS exists if all necessary government agencies participate in the partnership and provide the LEPS with positive feedback, funding and resources. Many social science theorists argue that support is also demonstrated through the provision and enforcement of appropriate legislation. The record, however, neither proves nor disproves this theory. In fact, many people involved with the LEPS believe that legislation for watershed stewardship groups would impede their ability to function efficiently and flexibly: i" think it has to be a philosophy that is held by government, just like biodiversity or sustainable management. Partnerships and developing partnerships have to be a living principle of government, I don't think you can legislate that, you've got to believe (ST6). MELP has section 7 and section 21 and we have our section 35. I mean most of these things are designed to protect the environment, but they become barriers to people who don't want to deal with all the bullshit. They want to do good things, yet this bureaucracy is thrown in front of them like a wall. These are the forms, these are the fees, it's going to cost you to do something good, and then you have to wait a year before you can do something real. The kicker is that we have all these regulations, and government is downsizing, so there are less people to do all that stuff. It doesn't flow. You find yourself bending the rules and going around stuff (G2). You have to decide the pros and cons to using the legal side. When people say no, you have to decide whether or not to accept it. In our case, no isn't good enough. LEPS can take no for an answer (G12). The LEPS received funding, positive feedback, technical advice, and other resources from DFO, MELP, and the TOL. DND, MAF, MELP and DOE, and the planning department of the township, however, are relevant agencies that are not involved with the LEPS. The TOL and MELP have demonstrated their support for the LEPS by signing the 1993 Union of B.C. Municipalities protocol on "Principles for Sharing Environmental Responsibilities," committing them to the concept of sustainability and partnerships (Dovetail Consulting 1994). In addition, the TOL provided the LEPS with technical advice, office supplies, equipment, office space, and finances. However, the TOL role with the LEPS has 105 been changing. TOL staff agreed that the Township would be soon down grading its role with the LEPS in the hopes of making the LEPS more sustainable; demonstrated when they did not replace the environment manager position: The decision basically, we had lost Pete, they were hiring Lisa Fleming. It came to, okay now we helped to get them on their feet, now they have to have a business plan, they have to go out and do it themselves. They can't be leaning on us any longer. We're willing to support, we would provide them with- office space we would provide them with computer, furniture, everything (T3). From that the Township strongly supported Pete and my position and what we were doing. Over time, as the environment wasn't as high profile and value by the community. I didn't necessarily know it from any official communication but over time I could gradually see a weaning off of the role in the Township (T6). Despite the provision of funding, time and resources, the LEPS' staff has remained dubious as to the depth and level of support from the TOL: The administration was saying we don't know how it happened but LEPS is popular, it should have died in the first year. We can't do anything with it now, because it's so popular, so they turned around and supported it. They had no choice (ST6). Perhaps there is some foundation to the LEPS' staff's doubts about the TOL, more specifically the Council's level of support. Although the Council has provided the LEPS with supplies and finances, the support of individual Councilors has changed with the political mood: Over time LEPS became the baby of council, not because of anything environmental, but because environment was looking so positive, they came on board. They accepted it as theirs (ST6). Muriel Arnason was against us from the beginning. This is very strange in one sense, but she's pretty much the only council member who calls us up on a regular basis wanting environmental information (ST2). Then [the TOL] had the infamous election two years ago, when we went right instead of down the center. Now development is the big buzzword out there, development at any cost (G12). MELP and DOE have generally only demonstrated support through financial assistance: It was very hard to get money from them [the province]. The people I thought were supporting us, and I thought might have passion were just ordinary bureaucrats. I can't mention anybody; the province didn't give any support. They're struggling so hard to keep their positions, they're a roadblock in this whole thing. Especially the fish and wildlife issues, my god, they're confrontational, really not that well organized, and really turf oriented. The rest of DFO, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them (ST6). MAF and DND have not really been involved with the LEPS, though MAF does support the LEPS' goals in principle: We don't have a particular policy but we're supportive of watersheds. If it was an urban watershed we wouldn't have any interest, but this is a rural watershed with a lot of agriculture so we 're supportive and involved (G14). 106 DFO has demonstrated strong and continued support for the LEPS through funding and staff time. Furthermore, the Minister's new directions for the Salmon Fishery encourage local decision-making and provide the funding to make it happen: [DFO] was responsible for watershed demonstration projects, including Langley Environmental Partners Society. Originally I helped to set up LEPS, and, sat on its board as the DFO representative (G4). Overall, government support for the LEPS seems to be dependent on individual personality and views regarding the operation of a community participation program. Regardless of individual qualms, the LEPS receives a lot of positive feedback from the government and no government department's goals contradict the LEPS' goals: Nobody in administration wastes any time patting themselves on the back for having LEPS. You just have to look at the Anderson incident The Minister was here for the opening of the new counting fence on the Salmon River. LEPS was there; the mayor was just extolling the virtues of LEPS (TIO). 7.2. EFFICIENT PROCEDURE An efficient community-government partnership procedure maximizes the use of funding and volunteer's time and energy; to accomplish this the procedure must be flexible, adaptable, organized and coordinated. Furthermore, the partnership needs clear and accepted goals and objectives, strong leadership and it must maintain momentum. The following sub-sections discuss how and if people believed that the LEPS had an efficient partnership procedure. 7.2.1. CLEAR AND ACCEPTED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES To be efficient, the partnership requires clear, well-known, and accepted goals and objectives. When Scales and Pardy decided to start the LEPS, a Kwantlen College student undertook a feasibility study outlining the goals and objective of the partnership as well as outlining the roles of each partner, (refer to Chapter 6, section 6.3.0. for the LEPS' goals). The LEPS' goals are also clearly stated in their certificate of incorporation, their brochure, an MOU with DFO, DOE, and MELP, several government publications, and their service contract with the TOL: When the project began, there was no formal legislation. Stakeholders made an informal agreement, or a memorandum of understanding to work together (G9). [The LEPS has a] draft service contract with the Township because we are more closely aligned, than any other level of government. DFO and MOE have a much more informal agreement (ST1). . Despite the existence of all of these documents, many interviewees expressed a lack of knowledge regarding the LEPS' goals: I remember Mayor Scholtens saying once, I see Pete in the halls all the time, but Eve never known what he does for a living everybody keeps bringing in money and I like that (GI). 107 / only have a very general overview of the functioning [of LEPS], the internal management structure. I know Lisa manages it. She has several projects or programs (Til). Staff members on the other hand, were clear as to the group's goals: The main goals are to educate and doing the restoration projects and mapping. Providing information is a key step in that direction (ST5). Some people attributed people's lack of knowledge regarding the LEPS' goals to a lack of public relations work on the part of the LEPS' staff: / don't know what they do. Maybe they need to promote themselves, explain what they do to the general public (C5). 7.2.2. ORGANIZED AND COORDINATED If the partnership is organized and coordinated, then there is a minimum duplication of activities, stakeholders are informed of and in communication about each others activities, and stakeholders are brought together to undertake projects. The LEPS offers opportunities for inter-group communication through the LEPS' meetings and watershed coordinator positions. Meetings provide ample opportunity for groups to apply for funding together and coordinate projects: [The] LEPS has tended to be the umbrella group that the other watershed operated under. Quite often for the Bertrand Creek Enhancement Society, LEPS has provided them with a coordinator. That helps establish continuity across the board with the various watersheds (T6). Then, last year [the] LEPS organized some of the other groups to join us at Williams Park and then this year it became a real big deal. Langley Township put in some manpower to organize entertainment and all sorts of things (Cl). The partnership brings all agencies together so it's a coordinating body. Ifs a good place to see what the other agency's mandates and how they see issues. The partnership is a good way to promote stewardship and watershed enhancement that crosses various jurisdictions (G15). Despite these opportunities for coordination and because watershed stewardship groups in Langley undertake many similar types of projects, sometimes there is a duplication of efforts and groups find themselves competing for grants: Getting the different grants, our group is sometimes competing with LEPS for a grant (C2). Another area where efforts have been duplicated was stream data collection, especially between the LEPS and the TOL: We will have 2 layers, 1 from our TRIM data from 1994, and we'll have the LEPS one. So we have to get a whole set of maps made from LEPS, and anytime we have a development, we have to consult both sets of maps, which is ridiculous (T6). You have to make sure that one section isn't being loved to death while the other is being ignored. Having a group like LEPS can coordinate the efforts in the watershed. If an area is being monitored and surveyed and mapped, that's a lot of people walking through the creek system. I've had 12 people on the stream, and they can do a lot of damage (C6). 108 Competition and the duplication of efforts, however, seems to be largely downplayed by groups because of the coordination and service role that the LEPS has played: For the last 3 years, it's been $5,000 [grant from the TOL]. We just pass that on to [the] LEPS for the coordinating role that they provide us (C7). [The] LEPS has been very instrumental In administering these grants for us. This is really helpful. Often there is a lot paper work, keeping track of costs and this sort of thing. Right now, [the] LEPS is administering the NAPEC grant (C2). LEPS also helps to coordinate local stream restoration efforts by pointing out problem areas that are not being addressed: [The] LEPS was just providing more of a coordination role. [The] LEPS through the Township knew what the problems were in the community. We said to these groups, because they're watershed related, you need to get the people involved, educate them. Once they had those travelling orders, they could work around how to solve them (ST6). Another thing is, people need to know who the violators are. If there's problems, they know they can come to us and see who did what on what creek. We're like a watchful eye. We're a database for people who want information (ST4). LEPS also helps to establish watershed stewardship groups in the community: Pretty much [the] LEPS initiated it. When the B.C. Hydro crew that I was part of disbanded, Pete was looking for somebody to coordinate the Little Campbell group (ST5). 7.2.3. LEADERSHIP Leadership can be viewed as a set of roles and functions, which are critical to an organization's success. Over its history, there have been two managing directors for the LEPS, Pete Scales (the founder) and Lisa Fleming (the managing director in 1997 and 1998). Interviewees all agreed that Scales was a strong leader and champion for the LEPS. What differed, however, were people's personal feelings about Scales. People seemed to generally like or dislike him. Positive comments used to describe Scales included strong, promoter, resourceful, visionary, knowledgeable about the community, motivated, good at motivating or inducing guilt, charismatic, good financial manager, articulate, brave/courageous, self-disciplined, and entrepreneurial: I would give Pete Scales a lot of credit. There are strengths with everybody. Pete was a whiz at accessing funding that other people couldn't get a hold of(T5). The meetings were, Pete coming in with a vision because he knew the community best; he knew what needed to be done (SC2). [Pete] was good at making that happen. He's not particularly organized he's charismatic and good at making you make a commitment in the best interest of the environment (SC2). Negative comments used to describe Scales included assertive/aggressive, unorganized, poor facilitator, stubborn, resentful, opinionated, impulsive, dominant, and rude: You met Pete, you either loved him or you hated him. If you hated him it was usually because, he's stubborn. His hearts in the right place (ST2). 109 Most of the run-ins had to do with Pete and some guy out there. Personality conflicts, guys that just wanted to achieve what they wanted to achieve, and if their mandates weren't the same then there was a big clash. There would be a blow up and you'd have to do damage control. This could be agency personalities, community group personalities, we used to call it the burly guy syndrome. Pete wasn't a big burly guy, but he likes to assert himself (T6). Pete was a great go-getter, but he was scattered all over the place (T10). All people interviewed agreed that Fleming has a very different personality to Scales. She was contrasted as a relatively poor promoter and not dynamic. People, however, commended her for being strong at technical and administrative tasks, amicable, and a good facilitator: [Things] changed when Pete left. He was a promoter. He could sell used cars. I don't think Lisa is like that. She's fine on the working level, but they need to find somebody else who can promote (G12). But Pete left and Lisa probably has lower ambitions. Pete was a bit of a wheeler, schemer. Lisa I don't think is like that. She just wants to get on and do her basic job; she's not an empire builder (Gl). Lisa is not dynamic, not a rah rah kind of personality. She's great in the trenches, getting the day to day stuff done, I believe [that the] LEPS and any of the watershed groups are determined by their leader. I hate to say it. If the leader is dynamic, the group is dynamic. They're going to need somebody to keep the fight going, keep new ideas coming in, and make it fresh. I don't know who that is (ST6). 7.2.4. FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE The partnership is flexible and adaptable if it alters or adapts itself to meet community changes and learns from experiences or at least takes into account its past errors. The LEPS has changed over time in response to comments and problems that have arisen regarding how the LEPS operates and relates to other partners. Some examples of procedures that the LEPS has changed to adapt to the concerns of its members include meeting times, data collection techniques, and the type of projects they undertake: The meeting format has changed a bit. The meetings used to be in the mornings, this wasn't convenient. We also used to meet every month; this also wasn't convenient (ST1). I think [that] about 3 or 4 [of the] agencies weren't too pleased with how LEPS was conducting their enhancement projects. So LEPS went to them and said if you're not okay what do you suggest. So carving out a new path. I'd say that has drastically improved over the last 2 years (G6). Another change the LEPS has tried to make is to become more cooperative and communicative with its partners organizations; they appear to be trying to improve their profile with other partners: Another target is perception of the higher government agencies in our abilities (ST4). I think Lisa wants to go toward a more cooperative model (T10). A major change that occurred with the LEPS is its relationship to the Township. The Township reduced its role as both financial and technical supporter. This change, however, was initiated by the TOL. In response to this forced separation, the LEPS became more self-sufficient and independent. Self-sufficiency, however, 110 means that LEPS must take funding sources into greater consideration; this consideration has forced the LEPS to focus on well-funded projects that involve salmon fisheries as opposed to education issues: Coho became a major issue. Since we were already doing in-stream stuff, we were a natural. We went from stream protection to Coho enhancement. It was a DFO priority. As a non-profit organization we had to follow the funding arid be flexible (ST6). Part of the LEPS' ability to adapt to people's concerns has been their flexible organizational structure. The LEPS have not been a bureaucracy, have not been unionized, and only have supported a small core staff; this allowed them to work on a project by project basis. Such freedom also allowed the LEPS to tailor student's co-op placements to suit the student's interests. In addition, the LEPS has been able to incorporate landowner's preferences into stream restoration design and quickly hire and organize work crews when projects and funding became available: The strengths [of LEPS] are their abilities to perform whatever services efficiently and relatively quickly and adapt to changing environments, needs, and demands (Til). When they see the kinds of trees, we're going to plant, sometimes they're not quite as enthusiastic. If they can have some say in what species and where they're going to be planted, they're more receptive. You have to be quite flexible (ST1). The LEPS also has a chameleon personality, which allows them to be all things for all people. Scales tried to keep people's perception of the LEPS obscure: Politics helps when we need to represent or work with DFO or local government. If we don't want to bring that up, then we're just another non-profit group. That flexibility to stress one relationship over another makes us more effective at getting things done (ST4). The LEPS changing personality was facilitated because Scales maintained close communication with senior government agents and instructors at academic institutions. By keeping in touch with these people, Scales was able to stay updated regarding the trends in management and research: [The LEPS was] changing courses regularly to meet the market demand. I was able to do that because I was connected to people like Tony and Hans. We could see what was happening before it did, so I could move (ST6). By keeping abreast of topics and maintaining a broad list of tasks for the LEPS to undertake, Scales was able to adapt to a wide range of funding and resource opportunities. 7.2.5. MAINTAIN MOMENTUM The momentum of the partnership is maintained if the group is constantly undertaking new projects and celebrating successful ones. Success is demonstrated by the fact that the LEPS has continued to receive a sizeable amount of funding and also by partners' positive response to the LEPS. Projects the LEPS has undertaken have included tree planting, conducting stream restoration projects, planting a native plant nursery, and running a compost garden: [The LEPS is] not focused on publicity as much as when Pete used to be around. They spent a lot of time raising funds to do projects because that's their main thrust (Cl). I l l Streams were getting mapped and demonstration projects were getting done. Students were learning. Planting was going on. It became a big deal (SCI). As far as celebrating these successes, however, most people believed that the LEPS has not done enough self-promotion and that the LEPS needs to undertake more celebrations with the community: [The LEPS do not] necessarily celebrate their successes as widely as need to be done. That's not as easy to say we've done this and everybody should be happy. Even though you have a success, you have to sell the success (Til). 7.3. AVAILABLE RESOURCES A good partnership must be able to access the appropriate resources for planning, administrative tasks and projects. Resources are obtained internally from the abilities of members or externally from the abilities of other partners. The general resources that a good partnership requires are funding, materials, information, community group strength, knowledge of members, and commitment. The following sub-sections discuss how interviewees felt about the LEPS' ability to attain these resources. 7.3.1. FUNDING AND MATERIALS If the partnership is not financially dependent on others for its survival and can undertake a program of projects that fulfill its goals, then the partnership has adequate funding and materials. Furthermore, funding and materials should be obtained from a variety of sources to ensure longevity; if one source of funding is terminated, then there should be a second source to replace it. The ability of the LEPS to raise their own funds was demonstrated by the large number of projects that they undertook (refer to Section 7.2.3.). These funds came from diverse sources (refer to Chapter 6, Section 6.6. and Appendix G): I think what was important was getting this money together. I don't know if anyone else threw out money up front other than Langley. They threw in $30-40,000 originally. Year number one they got around $80,000 which Pete Scales got around $50,000 or so salary. They had other monies there, the trailers that house them. The City supplied a lot; there are a lot of other groups that couldn't get that type of support. It's important to have a basic home or store front office. From there, they went to other federal programs, such as the human resources retraining of unemployed fishermen (GI). A major source of indirect funding for the LEPS has been the co-op students. Students have provided the LEPS with an inexpensive and flexible labour force. Furthermore, the donor schools generally have helped the LEPS with the funding for the student's salaries: [The LEPS has] fielded at least 6-10 students through the co-op program. Students were paid with money from outside sources. Co-op placements usually earned $10 per hour. The college does contribute toward the placement, I think it's up to 10 - 20 percent of the students salary (ST1). The LEPS' funding has been mainly raised from government sources. A strong dependence on temporary government funding programs has meant that the LEPS' funding has been unstable. To address this instability the LEPS started to undertake projects not funded by government finances, such as their native plant nursery and 112 their watershed stewardship-training program. Both of these initiatives have provided the LEPS with a fiscal return: [The LEPS has] their [watershed stewardship] training program, and they charge for it. That is an issue. Our program has always promoted groups to be self-sufficient, have the capacity to carry on without government. The training program does this (G14). In 1994 - 1995 we started getting major contracts, [the] LEPS was bringing in $300 - 400 thousand a year into Langley (ST6). A second potential funding problem for the LEPS identified by interviewees was that the entire staff of the LEPS has been paid. A paid staff often means that there is no long-term commitment from staff. Frequently, when funding for salary ends, staff leaves: If there was major cuts at the township and grant proposals weren't flowing in, they might dry up because all the people are funded, compared to a completely volunteer base (G7). Furthermore, the need to maintain a large budget to pay staff can dictate the projects and directions that the LEPS takes. The LEPS must undertake tasks that ensure salaries for staff as opposed to choosing activities simply for the benefit of the watershed. Additionally, there is a limited amount of funding available to community groups to undertake projects. The LEPS large budgetary requirements, therefore, puts the LEPS in direct competition with other Langley community groups who are vying for the same grants: There is a whirlwind of fund raising. They, [the LEPS], pull all the money out from volunteers who are doing it for free (G7). [The LEPS] initial funding was probably provided by the partners. Now they go to CFDC and MELP. But if they're applying for funding for in-stream work, and other groups are also applying for that same money then they compete against each other. Whereas, I thought LEPS was meant to be a clearinghouse for all these projects, and it still is because some of those groups sit on the partnership (TIO). On the other hand, a benefit to paid staff is that they are motivated to do more projects in order to secure more funding for their salaries: All these things need money to keep them going. [The] LEPS became more of a self-sustaining group; it was their jobs. They were raising $200,000 - 500,000 per year. [The] LEPS became quite good at raising funds and getting bulldozer time (GI). 7.3.2. INFORMATION The information base for an efficient community-government partnership procedure should join scientific and technical information with personal knowledge and values; this means that there is an integration of scientific, social, and economic concerns. Furthermore, it should be credible, geographically relevant, pertinent to the type of projects being undertaken, and place an emphasis on education and social learning. The LEPS is a community group; as such it has the potential to be in touch with the personal values and knowledge of watershed residents. Staff members are able to integrate this knowledge with technical information because of 1 1 3 their ties to the TOL and other government agencies. Furthermore, the LEPS' unique relationship to the TOL provides them with full access to Township information, such as databases and maps: What [the] LEPS, through the Township engineers, also provided these community groups [with] was really good access to data banks and engineering documentation [that] they never would have got (ST6). The LEPS also has had ties with MELP and DFO through funding programs, DFO CA's and USHP staff. These government agents have served as points of contact and technical advisors for watershed stewardship groups; thereby, providing the LEPS with further access to government technical information. On a third level, the LEPS has had access to technical information through their staff. All of the LEPS' core staff have been well educated and trained in environmental science fields. As such, the LEPS' staff has been able to find and obtain appropriate and quality data: [The] LEPS has played an important role in helping the Township develop an accurate stream map with an associated database that allows the user to access information on the features of the mapped streams (ST6). Furthermore, the information that the LEPS has gathered was of a high caliber because the LEPS has maintained high standards for the collection and analysis of their data. Senior government agencies and funding organizations also checked the quality of the LEPS' projects and helped the LEPS develop their data collection techniques and databases. Based on routine checks, both government and funding organizations believed that the LEPS' data was credible and solid: The purpose of the trip was to do some monitoring to determine if these projects are still working or if they are not working, to determine why. We were quite pleased to find that a high percentage of the works that we looked at appear to be functioning as expected (G14). The LEPS data is appropriate because it was geographically relevant, focused on the mapping and inventory of TOL watersheds. The data that the LEPS collected was also essential for projects undertaken by the LEPS and the TOL, such as prioritizing watersheds and identifying ESAs: For the most part, we choose projects as a result of the stream mapping process. We look at that and decided which streams have the most ecological need, what are the limiting factors for salmon in this watershed. Where would our enhancement efforts do the greatest good (ST1)? In theory, the LEPS' ties to and work with experienced government agents as well as their well-trained staff should make the LEPS a credible source of information. Despite the LEPS' qualifications and their proven record with senior government agencies and funding organizations, some TOL staff remain dubious about the quality of the LEPS' work: There seems to have been over time an element of distrust with the township technically with [the] LEPS. As hard as I try to say they're using the latest and the greatest there is an undertone of not too much faith in the reliability of [the] LEPS'data (T6). 7.3.3. COMMUNITY GROUP STRENGTH Community group strength is synonymous with the group's internal organization and membership. Consequently, a strong community group has a stable office space, supplies, and funding; they will have access 114 to a large pool of volunteers and a high caliber staff to undertake projects and who are also aware of the group's activities outside of their own projects. Paid and unpaid staff alike should have an understanding of how the partnership functions and their role within the partnership, be involved with partnership meetings and decisions, have a high level of technical competency and knowledge, and be supportive of each other. Furthermore, a partnership demonstrating a high level of group strength has access to political leaders, decision-makers and the media; this includes local control and involvement in decisions affecting the watershed. Control of and involvement with decision-making is facilitated by the existence of non-fragmented decision-making and jurisdictions. A strong group will be able to use this access to undertake advocacy functions, train other community groups, and organize, coordinate and disseminate information and community development activities. The LEPS has had a fairly stable office space, supplies, and funding through a combination of its own initiative and government support (refer to Sections 7.1.5. and 7.1.6.). However, non-profit groups are neither completely secure nor stable: / always have a sense that we may not be around in a few months. That's hard to work with. It's a very temporary feeling, I always feel like I might not be here next year, but I always have been. For people that can't handle that uncertainty, it prevents us from getting permanent staff (ST4). Pete was giving us the low down on funding. We were all pretty much contract, month to month, 3 month increments which we still are technically, whatever grants, that's how we live (ST2). The LEPS has had access to a large pool of volunteers. They have been networked with local high schools, universities, colleges, and youth groups. Furthermore, the LEPS' membership has consisted of representatives from most of the area's other watershed stewardship groups: There are a lot of people in the school system, teachers who have been involved in the Career Preparation Program; they have been dynamic from the beginning. We've gotten thousands of kids involved (ST6). [The] LEPS often has a good labour force with the retired fishermen, that's where we can often plug in. We can supply materials with our grants, and have a labour component come from their Fisheries Renewal (C2). Despite some people's belief that paid staff are not committed, the LEPS' core staff have been of a high caliber; they were described by people interviewed as motivated and dedicated. The core staff has been also all well educated. As far as being aware of other group member's activities, staff and volunteers have been made aware of the group's activities in several ways. The LEPS' staff members have been made aware of each other's activities at bi-weekly staff meetings. Representatives from other local groups have been made aware of the LEPS' activities through the watershed coordinator and their representative on the LEPS' Board. The wider public has been made aware of the LEPS' activities through the newspaper, television and public events. Although core staff seem to have had a clear understanding of their roles within the LEPS' organization, volunteers, Board members, and temporary staff did not. Many Board members expressed a lack of knowledge 115 regarding either their role with the LEPS or the LEPS' long-term objectives. Furthermore, volunteers and temporary staff seemed unclear as to their role and duties: People don't know what to expect. There's too much leeway for some people, they need to know what they're job Is. They don't want to be asked to do too much outside of that because then they won't get their job done (5T4). I didn't know they had a Board of Directors until Lisa told me. I wasn't sure if I should be one or not. I never got terms of reference as to what they do. So maybe I'm not an official member (G14). I wasn't clear in either my role qr where Pete wanted to take [the] LEPS. (T10). Staff members and the Board have had input into the LEPS' projects and internal organization at meetings. Although there has been a managing director, core staff all have had decision-making authority: / like it because it's not a strict dictatorship. If you think someone is wrong, you can say so and not feel you're going to be in the doghouse (ST3). Anytime I've thought I wanted to see some change it has been well received. In the hierarchy of [the] LEPS, I'm under Lisa with Marina. That type of seniority doesn't really matter a whole lot. It's your role that matters. If there is going to be some sort of shuffle or change in the way we do things, we discuss it. It's usually well received. There is always room for improvement, if anybody comes up with an idea, unless it will effect a lot of change, it's well received usually (ST5). , No, there was a definite hierarchy. I think there still is. One person is the boss, though the style was that the other people have authority to make decisions. As long as they're good decisions, and they can back them up, go ahead. People are equal, but one person holds the responsibilities (ST6). The partnership has had some access to decision-makers, politicians and media. The Council is supportive of the LEPS and the LEPS has had a close link with the TOL directors (refer to Section 7.1.6. on government support for evidence): 777e Council collectively, is very strong in terms of environmental issues. They are very divided on how to deal with those issues. The lack of consensus can be perceived as clouding their direction. It doesn't really. I think they're all strong advocates of environmental concerns, but the political arena itself often the process is very different than the private sector or even other parts of the public sector (Til). Additionally, the LEPS has used local media sources to advertise their projects and successes: We do go through the media. We used to write a weekly article in the Langley Times on all the different LEPS projects (ST1). The LEPS' staff has demonstrated a high level of competency and skills in finding and using technology and information. The LEPS also has had access to the knowledge and experience of government personnel that have worked in conjunction with the LEPS. With their store of knowledge and skills, the LEPS' members have been able to undertake projects, administer community development programs, and organize, collect and disseminate information: 116 By the time I quit the Board, there was Lisa Fleming, Christina Engel, 3 or 4 full time staff. They were out of school, undergraduate or college diploma (SC2). The role I played with [the] LEPS was technical support. If they got into restoration, I provided the technical assistance (G12). Pete was a Township employee and he had the technical basis and the connections with other technical agencies and was able to bring that into [the] LEPS. So place, funds, and ideas or knowledge (T13). Not only were the staff competent, but they also have been very supportive of each other (other partners also have been supportive of the LEPS as evident in Sections 7.1.5. and 7.1.6.): Most of us that have been here as long as I have or more are pretty friendly. LEPS does not have a lot [of] internal politics, it's pretty open, not shallow (ST5). These people are good at what they do. You have to slip personality quarks to the side as long as you can keep getting good quality work done. As a group they're the best group of individuals I ever worked with (ST6). To me it's great to come back and say does anybody know anything? There is strong staff support (ST3). The LEPS has been a non-political group, and as such, it does not partake in advocacy functions: Part of the reason [the] LEPS can't get so political, is that they have to be careful. The Municipality supports their space. The Municipality controls land development, in the past their aims have conflicted with fisheries aims. We have [the] LEPS group that has to work with both groups, so stays out of politicized debates, for example, should we urbanize a watershed (G12). We have personal environmental views, but as far as getting stuff done, we're not advocates, as far as going but with placards and raise ruckuses, we educate (ST2). I don't think [that the] LEPS is an advocacy group. They don't come out strong for or against anything (C2). Jurisdiction and decision-making for watershed management has been highly fragmented. In fact, DFO alone has had at least four branches involved in watershed management. Furthermore, there is very little community control over decisions within this disjointed management structure: The first thing bureaucrats do when they get a watershed is break it up into countless political units. You could call them sub-watersheds. Water bureaucracy looks at the sub-watershed as their unit. Agriculture divides it into grain, fruit, dairy, that's they're way of thinking. Here's an electoral map, the Reformers have this, and Liberals have this. Every group has their own map and data system [for dividing an area] (GI). 7.3.4. KNOWLEDGE OF MEMBERS It would be impossible to have all members of every organization sit on the LEPS' Board. Therefore, it is important for the partnership to have a high quality membership representing both balances of stakeholders and influence in the community. Furthermore, by knowing each other's powers, priorities, and expertise, the LEPS' members have a better understanding of their potential resource base. 117 The LEPS' staff and partners have been very influential, spanning from community groups that are just forming to three levels of government. In terms of mutual awareness, however, each member's knowledge of the other's powers, priorities and expertise, varied from individual to individual. Only some of the partners seemed to know how the LEPS has functioned at an organizational level. The level of awareness of the LEPS internal activities seemed related to the amount of time that individual spent working with the LEPS: knowledge increases with time. The LEPS' staff seemed to be generally aware of the other partners influence and priorities. They were aware of other community groups through their watershed coordinator position. This position also brought them into contact with government agents. Federal and provincial government agencies seemed to be aware of the LEPS at a basic level, but not aware of the LEPS' other partners: Lisa Fleming is what I call the manager of [the] LEPS. She is not a Township employee. When Pete Scales departed, we took the Township employees position funding and gave it directly to [the] LEPS and they distribute it internally. She reports directly to the Director of Engineering. That's their structural component (Til). Other local watershed stewardship groups were aware of the LEPS' activities at a basic level, but were not aware of other partners: As [far as] community feeling, for the 6 years that we've been around our name is getting known. Recently, we had someone call up and say how come I can't find you in the phone book, they knew of us and tried to find us. We can't be in the phone book because we're under the Township. Under the Township heading there's no LEPS, Em not sure if they're interested in that. As far as the community, we're known and appreciated (ST2). [The] LEPS is a training group, and they're an educational group (C3). 7.3.5. COMMITMENT Commitment to the partnership is demonstrated if the partnership's participants provide time to, money for, materials for, and positive comments about the partnership. These requirements were provided by the majority of the partners interviewed. In general, the LEPS' partners appeared to be committed to the partnership: That comes back to Pete being involved and the Township making a commitment. First in letting Pete do it as part of his job and then paying him as a consultant later (SC2). Even when we did all our moving around, we made sure that we had room for [the] LEPS. We haven't thrown them out on the street or anything. We're completely committed to the partnership (T3). Local, provincial, and federal levels of government provided money, materials, and time to the partnership (see Section 7.1.6.). Partners also signed a MOU and the TOL signed a draft service contract with the LEPS. The provincial and federal government's commitment to the LEPS, however, has been limited. All senior government staff interviewed agreed that they would stop supporting the LEPS if the LEPS undertook projects or made statements contrary to the governments mandate or policies: 118 You don't fund groups that go counter to what you believe in, that's the same as with the municipality (G12). Langley's local watershed groups and the broader community demonstrated their commitment to the LEPS by contributing time, money and resources to the partnership projects and by attending the LEPS' meetings and workshops: The volunteer people were, if you're talking emotional and of your time, they were the- most committed, particularly Irene. She was very impassioned about Langley. They would come out of sheer interest in protecting the part of the environment they were interested in (SC2). Landowners often do help out in terms of their time or equipment that they may have that might come in handy with the stream enhancement work (ST1). Unfortunately however, over time some people became unfulfilled by the LEPS and left: [The] Fraser Basin Council eventually lost interest in the project; this was because staff didn't have extra time to put toward [the] LEPS, and the FBMC director wanted to change from a focus on watershed planning to other aspects of managing the Fraser Basin. The loss of initiative t wasn't a conscious effort. There was just a change in prioritizing to other issues (G9). One of the key things that started to fall apart was that it wasn't happening. My interest was starting to wane or be threatened in terms of what I wanted to get (SC2). The level of commitment from previous temporary staff and volunteers was also questionable. Many people believed that having paid staff decreases commitment and discourages non-paid volunteers from working together: Unemployed fishermen come in from all over and do their project and then they're gone. I would like to see the Scouts and the schools, you know Langley people involved. One of the things that Greg Mallette talks about, and I agree, is that you need to get people involved so that they buy into the whole idea that there's something there that they want to protect (Cl). I've worked with over 1,000 people over the last 20 years that have worked for job creation things, they say when they quit they say they're going to join when this is up. We've never accrued 1 member to a volunteer team from anybody that's been paid. When they quit, they say you're not paying me I'm not showing up, and you're not paying me enough (G7). While others believed that paid staff working with volunteers does not compromise the LEPS: I'm the paid person working with the volunteers. That does feel a little strange from the other point of view. IPs never really bothered me and the group feels that my job is necessary. They're glad that I'm there (ST5). A lot of them have stayed on to work on specific projects, and others as volunteers (ST1). A potential lack of commitment associated with paid employees was supported by comments made by the LEPS' staff. Staff has been committed to the extent that they are being paid. All staff members said that they would not and do not partake in the LEPS functions on a voluntary basis: Securing funding to keep a core and well qualified staff working is difficult, leading to high staff turn over and lack of program continuity (ST1). 119 [The LEPS] would probably fold [if there were no government funding]. I can't afford to stay around. Everybody has their own lives (ST5). I put in 2 weeks, he said forget the volunteer stuff, I'll pay you up for your 2 weeks and you can stay on. I've never volunteered (ST3). The fact that staff would leave the LEPS, however, does not mean that staff does not care about the environment or their work. Rather, the need for a salary is an economic reality: 7776 staff at [the] LEPS is extremely dedicated. They could be doing jobs that pay twice as much, but they're not, they're still there. They really believe in what they're doing. I believe each one of them, even the high school kids, has passion for what they do. If there's anything [that] I [would] attribute [to the] LEPS'success, it's to passion, my own and theirs (ST6). I don't consider it volunteer. I am paid. I do volunteer sometime because I feel obligated and it shows I'm committed to them. When it comes to manning events I'll volunteer half my time or something. I don't want to volunteer all my time to them because it is my job. I'd probably burn out(ST5). I would dedicate some of my time. I have to pay rent and bills. Volunteer work, as wonderful as it is, doesn't pay the rent. If extra effort was needed on the weekends or after hours to find funding and do at all that stuff, then definitely (ST2). 7.4. THE LAST WORD This chapter presented the views and opinions of the people that were involved in the LEPS partnership with regards to good governance, procedural efficiency, and availability of adequate resources. Opinions were elicited from people involved with the LEPS regarding several aspects of good governance, including accountability, fairness, inclusiveness, and shared decision-making. People involved with the LEPS generally felt that the LEPS had a low level of accountability, that there was not a high level of shared decision-making and empowerment, that the Society has had a high level of support from the community and government, and that the LEPS was inclusive and representative. There was disagreement among people involved with the LEPS as to the whether or not the LEPS was able to represent the wider Langley community, how fair and equal the LEPS was, and how effective communications involving the LEPS were. Opinions were elicited from people involved with the LEPS regarding several aspects of efficient procedure, including the LEPS ability to establish clear and accepted goals, be organized and co-ordinated, maintain strong leadership, be flexible and adaptable, and to maintain momentum. Most people involved with the LEPS believed that the LEPS had strong leaders (though not all people liked the LEPS' leaders), was flexible and adaptable, and maintained momentum. There was disagreement among people involved with the LEPS regarding whether or not the LEPS was able to establish clear and accepted goals and objectives, and was organized and co-ordinated. Opinions also were elicited from people involved with the LEPS regarding their ability to obtain adequate resources, including funding, materials, information, community group strength, knowledge of members, and commitment. Most people involved with the LEPS felt that the Society was able to adequately obtain funding, materials, information, commitment and had a high level of community group strength. However, there was 120 disagreement among people involved with the LEPS regarding whether or not the LEPS' members had knowledge of each other. 121 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS No single form of organization is in itself sufficient to bring about radical change. All forms have their place on the progressive agenda, sometimes alone, at other times creating more complex patterns. One has to choose which pattern to encourage, but the choice is not either/or; rather, it is between certain styles befitting given situations, in accord with actual possibilities, and in full cognizance of what each organizational form can uniquely accomplish (Friedmann 1987, 277). This chapter satisfies the fourth and fifth objectives of the thesis, to evaluate the experience with community participation in watershed management through the LEPS and develop recommendations for strengthening the LEPS. These objectives are met by drawing conclusions about the LEPS based on the information presented in Chapters 6 and 7 and by making recommendations based on the theories presented in Chapters 2 - 4 , suggestions made by participants in the LEPS, and the personal insights of the author. The conclusions and recommendations from this chapter are intended to help the LEPS and its partners in the future and provide a framework for community-government partnerships for other rural-urban fringe communities in the Lower Mainland. This thesis does not evaluate the LEPS' ability to specifically improve urban-rural fringe watersheds or to achieve the LEPS' overall goals. Rather, the evaluation focuses on whether or not the LEPS was a successful community-government partnership and the reasons behind this. An overall evaluation of the LEPS that follows the thesis evaluation framework is presented in Table 8. A broad ranking method - poor, fair, good and excellent - was used to summarize the information presented in Chapters 6 and 7. Ranking was determined based on the degree to which the partnership was able to fulfill each evaluative criterion. A ranking of poor means that the criterion could have been better achieved by the partnership whereas a ranking of excellent means that the partnership unequivocally accomplished the criterion. Conclusions that are found in Table 8 should not be considered in isolation; rather, they reflect an accumulation of information from Chapters 6 and 7. 122 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF THE OVERALL EVALUATION OF THE L E P S 4 5 FRAMEWORK CRITERION Indicators RANK GOOD GOVERNANCE Accountability LEPS has representation from the community Fair LEPS' actions reflect community values Fair-Poor Inclusive and Representative Balanced representation Fair-Good No barriers to participation Fair Fan and Equal Participants have opportunity to voice opinions Fair-Good Participants act in accordance with authority Good Deri'jion T-Uihuq A Uselof"consensus decision making Poor Empowerment Equal decision making power Good-Fair Communication Communication was open and sincere Fair-Good Framework for continuing dialogue Fair-Good Commu nty Support ©tazensipantii-ipate in LEPS projects Good I^PSlKas1§yp^i!i^Tproiile in the community Good Government Support Officials make positive comments Good-Excellent .Officialsfprbvidestime;' resources & funding Excellent EFFICIENT PROCEDURE Goals and Objective. Clear proqram qoals & objectives Good-Fair Participants ;aqree to .goals & objectives Good Minimal duplication of activities Fair-Good Organized and Coordinated Communication between partners Fair Partners undertaking projects together Good Leadership Existence of a strong leader Good-Excellent Flexible and Adaptable Adapted in response to past problems/comments Good Maintain Momentum Program constantly undertaking new projects Excellent Partners celebrate success Good-Fair ADEQUATE RESOURCES Funding and Materials Program is self-sufficient Good Funding & materials from diverse sources Excellent Geographically relevant & pertinent Excellent Information Provision of technical & expert advice Excellent Access to government information Good Access to volunteers Good Undertake advocacy functions Poor Community Group Strength Access to decision makers Fair Competent and supportive staff Excellent Stable resources and funding Good Knowledge of Members High quality and balanced membership Good Aware of other partners expertise & priorities Poor- Fair Commitment Partners provide resources Excellent ^Partners provide positive comments Good-Excellent Rankings are approximations and fall into the categories of poor, fair, good, or excellent. 123 8.1. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The framework was divided into three main categories: good governance, efficient procedure, and adequate resources. Based on the application of the evaluation framework, several general conclusions can be made regarding the LEPS. First, it should be recognized that many of the interviewees had contradictory recollections of events and opinions about the LEPS. Overall, however, only one person interviewed did not believe that the LEPS provided a good basis for a new form of watershed management. Most of the governing factors necessary for good governance received a rank of either good or fair. The LEPS only excelled with regards to community and government support in the category of good governance. In accountability, the LEPS did not perform well. Shared decision-making was lacking in the partnership. The LEPS also received a weak standing for communication and representation. Good and fair were also the most prominent rankings for the criterion of efficient procedure. Leadership, maintaining momentum and flexibility were the LEPS' strongest traits. The LEPS fared weakly, however, in terms of organization and coordination. The LEPS was strongest in its ability to secure adequate resources; good and excellent were the dominant ranks for this classification. The only weaknesses involved lack of communication issues (e.g., insufficient PR) and lack of access to decision-makers. As discussed in Chapter 4, partnerships require dual efforts, dual benefits, and self-sustainability, which encourage collaborative joint action. The LEPS demonstrated all of these characteristics. Furthermore, the LEPS" type of partnership needs to be defined. In defining partnerships, three things need to be considered (refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.2 for more details): the nature of what was shared, the scope of the arrangement and the nature of decision-making. The LEPS involved sharing of actions, support and information. The partnership involved the majority of stakeholders, but the membership varied over time. Decision-making for the partnership was not shared. Partners retained decision-making authority. Therefore, the partnership never fully went beyond consultation to collaboration. 8.2. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PARTNERSHIP Planning must begin with a critique of what, in the present, is so wrong and offensive that it justifies actions to restructure the system . . . critique and affirmation must be linked in practice, but linked dialectically, in reciprocal action upon each other (Friedmann 1987, 406). The main strengths and weaknesses of the partnership were identified in Chapters 6 and 7. The following subjections review these conclusions. 8.2.1. WHAT WORKED A combination of the people interviewed regarding the LEPS and research into the LEPS' history indicated several circumstances and actions that helped the group's success. Based on the opinions of the people involved with the LEPS, the Society was successful in undertaking projects, securing funding and resources, and getting 124 community groups to work together toward protecting local watersheds. The following comments summarize the LEPS' traits identified in previous chapters as pertinent to its success: 1. The LEPS had strong community and government support for watershed stewardship activities: Langley residents demonstrated concern for their local watersheds through their active participation in watershed stewardship groups and programs. The LEPS also had the support of local educational institutions that wished to work with the LEPS to educate students. Senior government agencies demonstrated their support for the LEPS and similar initiatives through the provision of legal and technical advice, funding, supplies, supervision, and administrative assistance to watershed stewardship groups. Local government support was demonstrated through their hiring of Scales and provision of financial and technical support, materials, office space and equipment. 2. Strong leadership: the LEPS was led by Scales who was dedicated, determined and in a prestigious position. Leadership also came from members of the community, the Township and senior government officials. 3. High caliber staff with strong technical skills and competency: the LEPS staff were well educated, motivated and dedicated. 4. Fairly stable source of funding: the LEPS obtained funding from both wide-ranging and diverse sources. The group functioned as a small business and secured thousands of dollars over the years. 5. Completed a wide variety of successful hands-on projects: the LEPS efficiently and successfully completed many different projects; this provided them credibility with and the trust of government agencies. 6. Partners were able to meet their personal goals: by participating in the LEPS people were able to fulfill their mandates and accomplish their goals more effectively than if they undertook the same projects alone. 7. The LEPS was highly flexible: as a non-political, non-profit organization, the LEPS was able to undertake projects quickly and adapt to the needs of their clients. 8.2.2. WHAT NEEDS WORK Despite its ability to complete many hands-on watershed stewardship projects, interviewees and research into the history of the LEPS revealed several shortcomings of the group. The following points are areas that the LEPS may need to focus on and to improve. 1. The LEPS needs to find a new champion: with the departure of Scales, the LEPS lost both a vocal and politically connected leader. His departure also meant the loss of a staff member who was a Township employee. Although the new managing director was competent at undertaking administrative tasks, most people believe that she needs to be complemented by somebody with the kind of drive provided by Scales that will be necessary to lead the LEPS into the future. 2. The LEPS needs to get better representation: several major stakeholders are missing from the LEPS' Board including First Nations, the local agricultural community, MAF, local private businesses, local developers, and local industry. Furthermore, many people believed that the LEPS did not represent a real constituency, but was simply a group of individuals. 125 3. Many Council decisions were politically driven: Council members make decisions that reflected the political mood rather than environmental considerations. 4. The LEPS entire staff is paid: many people that were interviewed believed that volunteerism was reduced by the presence of a paid staff. These same critics believed that a paid staff lacks long term commitment to groups because they leave when funding for their salary ends, whereas volunteers would continue. Furthermore, the paid staff required a large budget.' A large budget required the LEPS to pursue a high volume of heavily funded projects. A goal of the LEPS was to educate the public about environmental issues, yet the LEPS moved away from undertaking these types of projects in order to attract the funding necessary to maintain their paid staff. Furthermore, utilizing volunteers is often inefficient and slow; therefore, the need for a large budget prevented the LEPS from using volunteers. Additionally, the LEPS need for a lot of funding put them in competition with other community groups for government funding programs. Since the LEPS' staff was paid and had more time to dedicate to obtaining funding, they were at an advantage over other volunteer community groups in securing government grants. 5. The LEPS was highly dependent on government funding: dependence on government funding meant that the LEPS was subject to the whims of the political environment, had an unstable environment for staff (they had no job security) and could not undertake advocacy functions. 6. Scales' strong personality often severed relationships that were beneficial to the LEPS: Scales stopped hiring from Kwantlen College because they refused to implement his suggestions in their curriculum. Furthermore, Scales alienated many local watershed stewardship groups through his dominating personality and his lack of recognition of their contribution to watershed protection. Scales' alienation also touched local government. Many staff members expressed negative sentiments about Scales' attitude toward the Township and his personal treatment of them. 7. The LEPS had poor lines of communication with some partners: lack of communication among the LEPS' partners led to poor perceptions of the LEPS in the eyes of some community members and government agents. Poor lines of communication were evident because many partners did not know the LEPS' long-term goals or even if they were official members of the LEPS' Board. 8. The LEPS' decisions do not reflect the shared decision-making model: Board meetings generally only involved "reporting" of actions taken by the LEPS' core staff. Topics for Board discussion were generally chosen by the LEPS' managing director and did not necessarily reflect the interests of board members. 9. The LEPS did not sufficiently include the broader community: community-government partnerships need to be community driven to ensure community commitment and buy-in. Although many people have volunteered for the LEPS over the years, they did not adequately include the public in their decision-making or inform them of their activities. 10. There are difficulties associated with utilizing a voluntary work force while at the same time efficiently producing high quality data: the use of volunteers meant that the LEPS had to train them as well as check or redo a lot of the projects volunteers performed. The use of volunteers also put the credibility of the 126 LEPS' work into question with the TOL and other government agencies. Furthermore, unpaid volunteers burn out faster and have other life commitments that make them less reliable. 11. There was a lot of duplication of effort: the LEPS did not necessarily function as an umbrella organization. Some local watershed stewardship groups felt threatened by the LEPS. In addition, the LEPS was in competition with other community groups for funding, rather than helping the groups to obtain it. Furthermore, because some of the TOL staff did not trust the credibility of the LEPS' data and maps, there were two sets of watershed maps for the TOL. 12. Lack of real power: many people interviewed believed that the LEPS' efforts were insufficient because they had no influence over local decision-makers. As a non-political group, the LEPS did not hold the government accountable and had no real influence over watershed management. 13. No administrative infrastructure: there was no formal legislation or government administrative infrastructure for community based watershed stewardship groups. Groups and government programs have occurred on an ad hoc basis. Group members had no real power or influence. Furthermore, groups helping to protect aquatic resources have been subject to the same bureaucratic red tape as the individuals destroying aquatic resources. Community groups had no formal guarantee of government support and commitment. 14. Misrepresentation and misunderstanding: the LEPS often misrepresented itself to the community and to government. The LEPS claimed credit for projects it did not undertake alone and claimed to have the support of community groups in Langley that did not support them. 8.3. ADDRESSING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES: IS L E P S THE FUTURE? As regards knowledge, the future - insofar as we are not concerned with the purely organized and rationalized part of it - presents itself as an impenetrable medium, an unyielding wall. And when our attempts to see through it are repulsed, we first become aware of the necessity of willfully choosing our course and, in close connection with it, the need for an imperative to drive us onward. Only when we know what are the interests and the imperatives involved are we in a position to inquire into the possibilities of the present situation (Mannheim 1949, 234). In Chapter 2 several challenges to achieving sustainable watershed management were presented. Challenges included co-operation (complacency, the hydrological cycle, and complexity), legislative-administrative (poor management and lack of accountability), poor information, and a lack of resources. These challenges are very complicated and beyond the scope of the thesis, however, based on experiences with the LEPS certain speculations can be made. The LEPS was able to address co-operative barriers to water resource sustainability by encouraging people to get interested in watershed issues and by uniting some stakeholders. Furthermore, the LEPS' efforts to map local watersheds increased the knowledge base for local resource managers. Although the hydrological cycle itself can not be altered, the LEPS' tree planting and in-stream projects provided some temporary relief to the degradation of local waterways. If the LEPS chooses to become more politically active in the future and tries to influence the Township's planning and decisions, then they will be able to further ensure the sustainability of local waterways. 127 The LEPS partnership helped to address legislative-administrative barriers to sustainable water resource management by providing the necessary information to improve accounting systems and addressing some sectoral management issues. Sectoral management was partially addressed because decision-makers were brought together to work and learn about each other's priorities and mandates. The LEPS addressed the lack of resources community groups often face by obtaining funds, from recruiting and coordinating volunteers, and gathering data. • On the basis of the strengths of the LEPS identified by the evaluative framework and its ability to address many of the barriers to sustainable water resource management, it can be concluded that the LEPS serves as a good basis for further experimentation in watershed governance. The LEPS model is not perfect but can serve as a skeleton framework for other communities to build upon. 8.4. RECOMMENDATIONS The LEPS has been a unique example of a community-government watershed management partnership. Over its history and with the help of its partners, the LEPS has successfully and efficiently completed a wide variety of watershed based projects. Furthermore, the Society has encouraged communication amongst some of the government agencies responsible for water management in British Columbia and increased local awareness of water issues. The LEPS' members have managed to accomplish these tasks in the face of many challenges that confront modern natural resource management, such as limited funding, government down-sizing, lack of time, etc. The people who have facilitated the birth and growth of the LEPS should be commended for their efforts. With this in mind, I propose a set of recommendations for the LEPS, senior government and the TOL. These recommendations are not discussed in order of priority and intended to build upon the successes already achieved by the organization. Table 9 provides a summary of the recommendations and the shortcomings that they address. There are several concepts that Dovetail Consulting (1996) says overarch any recommendations for improving the shortcomings of the partnership: cost, liability, lack of political will, and limited jurisdictions. First, stewardship efforts are costly in terms of budget and time. Governments are experiencing cut backs that require them to focus on cost effectiveness. Since water is a non-market commodity with many externalities, responsibility for paying for stream restoration is unclear. No one organization is willing to take on the task of maintaining water resources (discussed in Chapter 2). Second, there are liability issues. Local governments are concerned about being liable if someone is hurt when undertaking stewardship projects. Liability for offences under the Fisheries Act is also a concern for municipalities. Local government does not want to be fined by senior government agencies, held accountable if community groups contravene legislation when undertaking projects, or legally challenged if they exceed their authority when implementing stewardship measures (Dovetail Consulting 1996). Third, senior government agencies are encouraging local government to take more responsibility for protecting aquatic resources. Local government,officials and politicians, however, may want to under-emphasize their role in protecting aquatic resources. This "lack of political will" is attributed to financial and staffing 128 constraints which impede a municipalities ability to protect aquatic resources, a wish to avoid appearing as a villain to local developers and landowners, and liability concerns (Dovetail Consulting 1996). Four, fractured jurisdictions mean that several municipalities must manage watersheds together and create complexity over who has legislated authority. Watersheds cross municipal boundaries. Not all municipalities share the same environmental priorities and policies; therefore, co-ordinating and integrating aquatic resources is difficult. Furthermore,- governments are unsure who is responsible for water resource management and who has the authority to create and enforce water protection measures (Dovetail Consulting 1996). 8.4.1. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE LEPS Some weaknesses of the LEPS were identified in Section 8.2: as the LEPS continues to evolve there are opportunities for enhancement. Ensuing are several recommendations made specifically for the LEPS as a result of the case study evaluation and comments made by interviewees. 1. The LEPS needs to focus on advocacy functions: the decisions and actions that led to the degradation of the Lower Mainland's aquatic ecosystems mainly occurred at the municipal level. A hands-off politics approach to watershed management, therefore, may not necessarily be the most effective way to protect aquatic ecosystems. The LEPS needs to acknowledge that both voters and taxpayers can influence local government decisions. This acknowledgement will occur if the LEPS increases their role in empowering the public, in speaking out against irresponsible development and environmental infractions, and in further including the general public and other watershed stewardship groups in the LEPS' activities. The LEPS must address planning and development decisions and not simply act as information gatherers who expect others to properly use that information. Otherwise, the LEPS is not addressing the cause of aquatic habitat destruction: upstream land use and development. Furthermore, when upstream habitat is destroyed all of the LEPS' downstream enhancement efforts are futile. The LEPS' efforts are also wasted if the information they gather is not being incorporated into local government planning processes. 129 TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS L E P S SHORT COMINGS LEPS WEAKNESSES: RECOMMENDATIONS: Lacks a vocal champion LEPS: hire a person with PR experience LEPS: find an ally on TOL staff LEPS: encourage board members to be vocal LEPS: shared leadership Loss of connection with TOL Government: increased support for local government TOL: hire an Environmental Manager Lacks adequate representation LEPS: contact & recruit missing representatives LEPS: conduct more PR LEPS: better understanding of community LEPS & Government:: celebrate, reward and appreciate volunteers more Negative image of LEPS LEPS: more PR LEPS: apply for grants with other groups LEPS: allow other groups to have say in decisions LEPS: show appreciation for other groups Unequal decision making LEPS: formalize & expand board member's roles Government: train staff in facilitation & consensus decision-making TOL: train staff in facilitation & consensus decision-making TOL: incorporate LEPS data into plans & decisions Paid staff: large budget LEPS: focus on projects that do not require money LEPS: focus on educatinq qeneral public not traininq students Paid staff: no commitment LEPS: request staff to volunteer LEPS: increase volunteer involvement Paid Staff: decreased volunteers LEPS: request staff volunteer some time LEPS: include more volunteers in decisions Paid staff: compete for grants LEPS: act as clearinghouse for grants Paid staff: no advocacy LEPS: use less government funds No administrative infrastructure Government: standardized information base Government: allow groups to remain flexible Government: standardized communication Government: link government agencies in one location Government: streamline process for undertaking projects Government: make concessions for community groups Government & TOL: provide seed money & support to groups TOL: hire Environmental Manager Poor lines of communication LEPS: new MOU LEPS: network LEPS: inform partners of roles & responsibilities LEPS: formalize board of directors LEPS: better understand community needs Government: standardize communication Government: link with other agencies Government & TOL: formal representative on LEPS board Government & TOL: standardize information base TOL: staff forum Subject to political whims LEPS: recruit more volunteers LEPS: increase communication with Council LEPS: ensure board members have a constituency Overly dependent on government funding LEPS: pursue activities that do not use government funding LEPS: increase the participation of local business & industry LEPS: focus on low cost projects LEPS: focus on materials not money LEPS: find alternative fundinq sources Government: chanqe funding criterion Government: make groups match grants Does not include the broader community LEPS: undertake more projects that involve the public LEPS: undertake more PR and use media scuices LEPS: ensure board members have constituency LEPS: undertake projects that can use volunteers LEPS: show appreciation for volunteers LEPS: network LEPS: empower members LEPS: celebrate success There is a duplication of effort LEPS: act as an umbrella not a vacuum Government: create a standardized information base Government: create linkaqes Government: encouraqe watershed level planning TOL: conduct an audit of LEPS to prove validity of data Lack real power LEPS: better understanding of community LEPS: increase constituency LEPS: learn about local political system LEPS: focus on advocacy (empower & get vocal) LEPS: address planning and development issues LEPS: transfer knowledge '^to action LEPS: network TOL: incorporate LEPS data into plans & decisions 2. Turn knowledge into actions: Friedman (1987) defined planning as applying theory to action. If actions not decisions are the focus of planning, then "planning that changes nothing of substance is scarcely worth talking about" (Friedman 1987, 44). If the LEPS wants to make change, then they need to gain a better understanding of governmental mechanisms that regulate land use and development policies and the political processes occurring in the TOL. The LEPS' staff and Board members need to learn how to influence municipal decisions that impact local watersheds. If LEPS can take their information to Council and ensure that Council incorporates this information, then knowledge is transformed to action. 3. The LEPS needs to increase volunteer participation: the LEPS must partially address the financial burden associated with having a paid staff and cultivate a better constituency by increasing volunteer participation. A stronger constituency helps to decrease the chances of local politicians making politically not environmentally motivated decisions, provides the LEPS with a better representation of public opinion and provides the group with real power to influence municipal decisions. The LEPS claims to be a non-profit community organization not a private consulting firm. As such, the group needs to recognize that they are not the same as government. Rather, their role should be to undertake advocacy functions and to hold government accountable. Volunteers are recruited through personal contact, public events and media sources. Volunteers 131 will stay with the LEPS if they are provided with meaningful work, rewarded for their efforts, and provided with clear roles and responsibilities. 4. Request staff to volunteer: the LEPS' Board should request that all core paid staff dedicate a small amount of volunteer time to the LEPS when the staff member conducts public events. This will demonstrate commitment to the LEPS on the part of staff to the Langley community. 5. The LEPS needs to pursue non-government funding sources: other sources of funding that the LEPS should pursue include members through membership dues, newsletter subscriptions, and donations (monetary and in-kind); other individuals through personal appeals of staff, paying to attend special events, purchase of products and canvassing; fund raising events such as auctions, dinners, lotteries and raffles; private corporations through donations of time and money; through local business through time, money and equipment; and foundations. 6. Low cost projects: the LEPS should focus on projects that do not require extensive funding such as monitoring and data collection. They should also encourage local community groups to pursue similar projects that are time rather than material intensive. 7. The LEPS needs to act as an umbrella organization, instead of a vacuum: the LEPS should not compete with other local community groups for government funding. All funding should be applied for in conjunction with the other groups who sit on the LEPS' Board. The LEPS' staff should act and be perceived as coordinators, not dominators or competitors. If the LEPS is in a partnership, then resources should be shared. 8. Focus on supplies and materials, not cash: instead of pursuing projects that pay people to work, the LEPS should focus on obtaining materials and supplies to administer to volunteers who want to undertake hands-on stream enhancement projects. The LEPS should become a clearing-house for both projects and funds. 9. Share leadership: although no single individual is irreplaceable, sometimes difficulties arise in adjusting how the group functions after a charismatic leader leaves. To address this issue in the future, there is a need to share the managing director position, and to stagger terms of appointment to inject new enthusiasm and different mind-sets. Furthermore, the Board should be encouraged to take a stronger, more vocal role in the LEPS. 10. The LEPS needs to undertake more PR: the group needs to educate the community, local academic institutions, and government agencies as to their specific goals, abilities and functions. This requires constantly making phone calls, and re-establishing both its column in the local newspaper and its monthly newsletter to volunteers. 11. The LEPS needs to inform others: the LEPS needs to ensure that all people involved understand their role and responsibility as a member of the LEPS as well as the roles and responsibilities of other partners. All members should formally agree to their position and be provided with terms of reference for how the LEPS functions, a list of all the LEPS' goals and objectives and a list of all other partners names and contact information. 12. The LEPS needs to draft a new MOU: the new MOU should reflect the changes that have occurred since the group's inception. Clarifying people's roles and responsibilities may reduce mistrust amongst the groups and allow partners to better understand how they can work with the LEPS for the benefit of all. 132 13. The LEPS needs to increase their role with other local stream stewardship groups: the LEPS should provide more opportunities for the general public to be involved with the LEPS' projects. Projects that provide opportunities for volunteers include public events and workshops. Groups need to focus on utilizing "moral authority." Moral authority is the concept "that when all parties associated with a given resource are made aware of their role in causing and solving the observed problems, then each party feels a compelling need to support collective efforts to improve resource management" (Kenney 1997, 50). 14. The LEPS needs to network: networking is a voluntary arrangement only requiring the sharing of information and small financial contributions for maintenance of the network. The collective energy required by networking is minimal, because the actions of membership are not "coordinated" in the usual ways but tend to be convergent. 15. Formalize the LEPS' Board: the LEPS directing manager should provide members of the Board with terms of reference for the LEPS, a list of the Board's roles and responsibilities, and a list of all other Board members names and contact information. After Board members have been provided with this information, the directing manager should ensure that the Board member both accepts and agrees to their function and how the LEPS functions. 16. The LEPS needs to embrace shared decision-making: in the past, the LEPS concentrated knowledge of the group's activities and decision-making in a small leadership elite, thus creating an oligarchy. The LEPS' Board needs to expand their participation in decisions about the future direction, future projects, strategies, and the internal infrastructure of the LEPS. 17. Train staff and Board in facilitation techniques: all staff and Board members should learn how to facilitate and make consensus based decisions. Conflict resolution processes require participants to be educated about how to and willing to act in a cooperative manner. 18. Understand the community: Board and staff need to have an understanding of what is important to the community and what the community's needs and preferences are. The staff and Board can gain this understanding through personal contact, surveys, media and public events. 19. Include First Nations: the LEPS' staff should ally with local First Nations. Many bands in Langley are actively involved in watershed stewardship activities. The LEPS should strive to have the First Nations represented on their Board and include First Nations in developing their database. 20. Include the agricultural community: the LEPS needs to have greater involvement of MAF and the agricultural community in Langley. The LEPS should approach people who own agricultural land that they have done projects with and ask them to either participate in the LEPS' Board themselves or perhaps recommend an agricultural representative. 21. Board representatives should have a constituency: there needs to be accountability. Each Board member should provide evidence of both a constituency and a means to communicate with that constituency. Communication should be two-way in that it goes beyond simply providing information to debate. 133 8.4.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT Senior governments are facing fiscal restraints that force them to reduce watershed planning and management efforts. To compensate for a loss of funding and in recognition of the value of local community groups, many senior level government departments are encouraging more community participation in watershed management decisions. There were three levels of government involved with the partnership, federal (DFO and to a lesser extent DOE and DND), provincial (MELP, specifically USHP and to a lesser extent MAF) and local (the Township of Langley). The following suggestions are directed to the federal and provincial levels of government. 1. Senior government needs to provide core funding for community-government partnerships: many people interviewed claimed that core funding was one of their top requirements for success. Financial support should be small and limited to the provision of administrative tasks (E.g., telephone, photocopying) or in the form of materials and supplies for undertaking projects. 2. Change the criteria for funding groups: when funding future projects the government needs to consider the actual number of people in the community involved. In addition, government should determine whether or not the group would be partaking in advocacy issues or at the very least, whether the group is planning at a watershed level and is aware of decisions being made in the upper reaches of their watershed. Groups consisting of volunteers rather than paid staff, partaking in advocacy functions, and planning at a watershed level should be given preferential consideration for funding. 3. Matching funds: government funding agencies should require that community groups match, on a dollar for dollar basis, government grants. This will give groups an incentive to be more self-sufficient. To facilitate this, government should consider volunteer time as equivalent to cash. 4. Create an administrative infrastructure: all senior government agencies should work in conjunction to create an inter-governmental infrastructure for community based watershed stewardship groups. The infrastructure should ensure the provision of sufficient funds and resources to community groups and also help to streamline the bureaucratic processes involved with undertaking hands-on projects. Senior government must acknowledge, however, that community groups function differently from government bureaucracies. Flexibility is a large part of the reasons community based watershed groups are so successful. Groups are not constrained in how they define problems and solutions, and have no rigid hierarchical, organizational structure: ingenuity and flexibility can not be standardized or legislated. This is not to say, however, that standards for accountability and legitimacy are not necessary. 5. Streamline the process: government should facilitate community groups that perform hands-on enhancement projects. To ease the process, government could make concessions for fees, the number of departments that require approval and the length of the approval process. 6. Require proof of ability: to ensure that groups are performing high quality work, the government should require that groups establish credibility before being granted any concessions (previously mentioned in point number 5). Credibility is established after the groups have undertaken several similar projects successfully and have proof of both financial and technical support. 134 7. Government agency representatives should sit on the LEPS' Board: government needs to increase the accountability of the partnership because as the trend toward public-private partnerships continues, government may lose its ability to both control how public funds are spent and maintain the priorities of their mandates. Further, the government may be held accountable for actions made by community groups which they do not have control over. Therefore, if the LEPS becomes a real umbrella organization representing the opinions •of Langley watershed stewardship groups, government officials need to be actively involved in the LEPS'decision-making processes. 8. Senior government agents need to be linked on all levels: HEB community advisors, USHP and other MELP staff, DOE staff and the FBC offer advice and services to community groups in the Lower Mainland. These organizations should establish linkages that extend from the relationship between local community groups to the relationship between the federal government and municipalities. Linkages could be facilitated through the creation of a shared web-site or office. All people involved would benefit if a single location where groups could learn about each other's activities, programs and projects existed. A new organization or level of government is not needed. Linkages should be created within the current infrastructure. 9. Government agencies should standardize communication links: communication between government agencies (senior and local levels), government agencies and community groups, government agencies and developers, and community groups and developers should be easy, clear and open. At some level, a liaison person should exist who is familiar with government agency policies and programs, can facilitate working relationships amongst different water management groups, understands local level planning and management, and is accepted by all participating government agency personnel and the public. 10. Senior government agencies should create and coordinate a standardized and an accessible information base: this will help reduce the duplication of research efforts. Government agencies and community groups should determine a standard method for collecting, recording and analyzing data. Furthermore, the database should be accessible to all members of the partnership. 11. Senior government agencies should train their staff in facilitation techniques: some resource managers need new skills and a change in attitude toward their responsibility for aquatic resources. The degradation of aquatic resources is often attributed to politically based decisions; therefore, scientists and resource managers are not exempt from the influence of politics. Furthermore, the gap between "good guys" and "bad guys" in government agencies needs to be reduced. Government staff should be a team. All members should be supportive of each other and also partake in political debate. 12. The provincial government needs to be more actively involved: with the LEPS and any other community-government partnerships. 13. Senior government agencies need to encourage and support an increased role for local governments in watershed management and protection: this does not mean down loading of senior government responsibilities. Senior government needs to provide municipalities with support and real decision-making power. If the local government is included they will have ownership over processes and decision-making, thus increasing their buy-in and commitment to any future senior government programs. Leaders and champions 135 in local government are essential to the success of watershed stewardship initiatives. Accompanying an expanded role for local government is a need to develop a system of accountability to ensure that developers do not control environmental regulations at the municipal level. 14. Recognize volunteers efforts: all levels of government and the LEPS need to give more recognition to volunteers for their time and efforts through rewards, celebrations and positive reviews in publications. Government recognition of volunteers will help to avoid future conflicts with community groups (similar to those that happened with LEPS) and also encourage more people to participate in watershed stewardship activities. 15. Demonstrate support: government agencies should support community group efforts by enforcing regulations, providing technical advice, responding when community groups report environmental infractions, and attending meetings and events hosted by community groups. 8.4.3. RECOMMENDA TIONSFOR THE TOL AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES Local governments are limited in their abilities to manage watersheds due to their broad mandate, limited financial resources, and political boundaries. The following recommendations are directed to the TOL and any other municipal level government wishing to partake in a community-government watershed partnership. Before any^municipality participates in a partnership arrangement, they should decide what they hope to achieve and what they can give to the partnership. The level of government and community support and capacity for watershed partnerships will differ for each municipality. Therefore, officials must consider the LEPS as an example not an exact model. Each partnership must develop individually to suit the needs and abilities of its partners. 1. Amend zoning and other bylaws: local government should incorporate the research about local watersheds that is undertaken by community groups into municipal plans and decisions. Furthermore, local government should form their development and land use priorities based on the values and desires of the general public. 2. Ensure that staff is properly trained: local government should properly train staff or ensure that they have skills or expertise in facilitation, organization, and consensus based decision-making. Proper training helps to reduce communication problems between community groups and Township staff. 3. Ensure that the Township has strong linkages to and support from the local community: the Township needs to host public events and make other efforts to include community groups in decision-making. 4. Hire a municipal Environment Manager: hire a person to coordinate community groups and the Township. Ensure that this person's roles and responsibilities are clearly understood and accepted by the public and other municipal staff. Furthermore, the position should be at the level of director and have decision-making authority. The position should not be a sub-department of engineering or planning. 5. Understand aquatic ecosystems: municipal staff should be made aware of the importance of ecological ecosystems. Staff should also have an understanding of how their department impacts and is effected by the environment. 136 6. Municipal staff forum: municipal staff should be encouraged and have a forum for discussing personal projects and problems that arise in their job. An open forum will facilitate staff learning about each other's jobs and helping each other to develop solutions to problems. 7. Train the community: municipalities should both encourage and train community members for habitat enforcement, monitoring and data collection. 8. Standardized data: municipalities should work in conjunction with community groups to develop a standardized and acceptable method for collecting and documenting watershed data. 9. Work Together: the TOL should work with LEPS (and thus the other community groups) to implement their new watershed management plan. Along these lines, the Township should also seek the approval of local watershed stewardship groups for their watershed plan. 8.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE RESEARCH METHODS Part of the difficulty with researching the LEPS was that it was involved in an on-going, changing process. Some of the conclusions and comments made in this thesis are no longer relevant or true. Participant observation, interviewing, and documentation were the research methods used in this thesis. Based on the experiences of employing these methods in this thesis, several conclusions can be made about their relative usefulness and restrictions (refer to Table 10 for a summary). Document analysis provided concrete evidence regarding events that occurred. Oral methods of research were more open to interpretation and bias on the part of the researcher. Document analysis was also important for developing a chronological record of events surrounding the LEPS. What occurred, when, where and with whom were revealed through meeting minutes, memos among partners, brochures, and other documentation. Document analysis, however, proved to have two main weaknesses. First, not all of the documents could be either located or still existed. In addition, documents did not provide context for, emotions about, or the motivations behind the people that wrote the documents. 137 TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS REGARDING RESEARCH METHODS RESEARCH METHOD USEFULNESS RESTRICTIONS Documentation Chronological record Not all documents still exist No need for interpretation Lack of context Evidence that events occurred Participant observation Insight into personalities Increases researchers sympathy Helps triangulate data Time intensive Not necessai ilv dcniMte Interviews Provides additional details People's perception taints facts Helps triangulate data People do not tell all Adds colour and reality to events Time intensive/ people are busy Participant observation supplemented document analysis by providing insight into the personality of participants. Actions and documents should not be considered in isolation. Frequently, people involved with the LEPS acted in response to a history of events or of underlying tensions. Participant observation helped to uncover both hidden agendas and meanings. Furthermore, through observation, I was able to form an opinion that could be triangulated against the opinions of other interviewees. Participant observation, however, is not necessarily an appropriate research method for a master's thesis. The intent of participant observation is to understand and learn about the nuances of people's actions and motivations. Time permitted by a master's thesis, I believe, is insufficient to truly make character judgements or deeply understand people's motivations beyond what the people themselves proclaim. To claim being a participant observer, I feel, is a misrepresentation. Participating in the LEPS' meetings and projects, however, did provide me with insight into the character of LEPS' core staff. I believe that my views would have been significantly different about staff had I only undertaken 1-hour interviews with them. The in-depth interviews conducted with participants were essential to the evaluation of the case study. Interviews provided insight into the beliefs and values of other partners, their valuable opinions on the LEPS and the events surrounding the LEPS formation and operation, and the additional data required for the triangulation of facts. Furthermore, interviews added colour, grounding and a personal touch to the data. Interviews told the story of the LEPS through the eyes and words of the people involved. The personal perspectives provided by interviewees, however, also causes problems. People only provided the information they wished to reveal and their recollection of events was often biased by personal emotions. Furthermore, interviews took a lot of time to conduct. People involved with the LEPS are busy. It was difficult to book interview time with some participants and I was unable to contact some people that were involved during the LEPS' early years. 138 8.6. THE VERY LAST WORD There is in practice, a basic asymmetry between struggling for something and struggling against a perceived wrong. It is common knowledge, for instance, that it is easier to get people to agree on what is wrong. . . than to decide on how to build a new and better world (Friedmann 1987, 282). In the 1990s, there has been an evolution in governance systems towards locally based watershed protection. This thesis examined the governance structure for rural-urban watersheds and the applicability of community-government watershed partnerships within that structure. From this evaluation, recommendations were suggested to improve this as well as other similar types of watershed partnerships. The majority of the people interviewed voiced support for the LEPS. People believed that community-government partnerships were an effective and legitimate way to address watershed management in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Furthermore, because local governments have the power to control urban development, community-government partnerships can provide them with a tool to manage local watersheds in a manner that is beneficial for developers and considerate of local environmental issues. By involving local citizens groups, local government can help to safeguard their rural-urban watersheds. Social change and the development of trusting relationships take time. As the partnership evolves, and partners grow to depend on and appreciate each other, the LEPS will be able to better preserve rural-urban watersheds in Langley. The positive benefits of this partnership can only be seen in the future. 139 REFERENCE LIST Armstrong, J.L. 1992. "Innovation in public management: toward partnerships," In Optimum: the Journal of Public Sector Management, Volume 23, Number 1. Pp. 17-26. Armstrong, M. 1990. Management Processes and Functions. Exter: Short Run Press. ISBN 0-85292-430-0. Bookchin, M. 1992. Urbanization without Cities: the Rise and Decline of Citizenship. Montreal: Black Rose Books. British Columbia Watershed Protection Alliance (BCWPA). 1988. British Columbia Watershed Protection Alliance Handbook. Slocan Park: British Columbia Watershed Protection Alliance. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (RTEE), CORE, FBMP, and the National Round Table. 1994. Local Roundtables: Realizing Their Full Potential. Ottawa: National Round Table. ISBN 0-7726-2187-X. Bruce, J., and B. Mitchell. 1995. Broadening Perspectives on Water Issues. Ottawa: The Royal Society of Canada. Canadian Global Change Program Incidental Report Series No. IR95-1. ISSN 1192-6481. Butcher, Collis, Glen, and Sills. 1980. Community Groups in Action: Case Studies and Analysis. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Cantwell, M., and J.C. Day. 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, British Columbia, October 22-25, 1996. Pp. 125 - 132. ISBN 1-896513-04-2. Checkoway, B. 1995. "Six Strategies of Community Change," In, Community Development Journal, Volume 30, Number 1, January 1995. Pp. 2 - 20. Clark, B. 1995. Unpublished document, "BC Environment's Mandate and its Role Within the SRWMP Partnership." Clague, M. 1997. "Thirty Turbulent Years: Community Development and the Organization of Health and Social Services in British Columbia." In, Community Organizing: Canadian Experiences. Eds. B.Wharf and M. Clague. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Pp. 90-112. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1995. The Provincial Land Use Strategy. Volume 3: Public Participation. ISBN 0-7726-2409-7. . 1992. Report on a Land Use Strategy for British Columbia. Victoria: Commission on Resources and Environment. ISBN 0-7718-9249-7. Coover, V., E. Deacon, C. Esser, and C. Moore. 1985. Resource Manual for a Living Revolution: A Handbook of Skills and Tools for Social Change Activists. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). 1998. A New Direction for Canada's Pacific Salmon Fisheries. Vancouver: DFO. 140 Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Environment Canada (DOE). 1997. Legacy for the Fraser: A Final Report on the Fraser River Action Plan by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Vancouver: DFO and DOE. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Ministry of Environment, Salmonid Enhancement Program, Howard Paish and Associates. 1980. Cooperative Management of Watersheds and Salmonid Production. Vancouver: DFO. deShield, CG . and MJ. Romaine. 1997. Potential Partnership Arrangements for the Management of Fish Habitat. Vancouver: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fraser River Action Plan. Dixon, J.A. and K.W. Easter. 1986. "Chapter 1: Integrated Watershed Management: An Approach to Resource Management," In Watershed Resources Management: An Integrated Framework with Studies from Asia and the Pacific. Eds. K.W. Easter, J.A. Dixon, and M.M. Hufschmidt. Boulder: Westview Press, Inc. Pp. 3-15. Dorcey, A.H.J. 1987. "Chapter Eighteen: Research for Water Resources Management: The Rise and Fall of Great Expectations," in Canadian Aquatic Resources, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 215, eds. M. Healey and R. Wallace. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Pp. 481-511. Dovetail Consulting. 1996. Urban Stream Stewardship: From Bylaws to Partnerships: An Assessment of Mechanisms for the Protection of Aquatic and Riparian Resources in the Lower Mainland. Vancouver: Fraser River Action Plan, DFO and Environment Canada. Eriksson, M. 1996. "Clarifying Water Law," in Watercourses: Getting on Stream with Current Thinking, Conference Proceedings, Vancouver, British Columbia, October 22-25, 1996. Pp. 9 -14. ISBN 1-896513-04-2. Evans, S. 1997. "New Spaces in a Decentralizing Welfare State: Local Politics and Local Decision-Making." In, Politics of the City: A Canadian Perspective. Ed., T.L. Thomas. Toronto: ITP Nelson. Pp. 173-189. Fox, I.K. 1991. "Institutional Design for the Management of the Natural Resources of the Fraser River Basin," In Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin, Eds., A.H.J. Dorcey and J.R. Griggs. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre. ISBN 0-920146-46-2. Pp. 289-312. Fraser Basin Council (FBC). Nd. Unpublished letter in funding application form. Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP). 1993. Unpublished memos from the Fraser Basin Management Program. . 1994. Fraser Basin Management Program: 2 n d Anniversary Report. Vancouver: Fraser Basin Management Program. . 1996. Fraser Basin Management Program, Board Report Card 1996. Vancouver: FBMP. ISBN 0-662-24711-6. Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP), Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Forest Renewal B.C. 1995a. Community Stewardship: A Guide to Establishing Your Own Group. Vancouver: Fraser Basin Management Program, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Forest Renewal B.C. ISBN 0-7726-2499-2. Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP), Georgia Basin Initiative, Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, Urban Salmon Habitat Program, and Real Estate 141 Foundation. 1995b. Navigating for Sustainability: A Guide for Local Government Decision-makers. Vancouver: FBMP etal.. ISBN 0-7726-2699-5. Friedmann, J . 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Fulford, R. 1998. "The Heritage of Storytelling," In Maclean's, November 2, 1998. Pp. 80-85. Fuhrmann, M. Nd. Feasibility Study for Langley Environmental Partners. Unpublished manuscript, Kwantlen College, British Columbia. Gardner, J.E. 1991a. "Environmental Non-Government Organizations and the Management of the Aquatic Environment for Sustainable Development," In Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin, Eds., A.H.J. Dorcey and J.R. Griggs. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre. ISBN 0-920146-46-2. Pp. 313-340. 1991b. "Environmental Non-Government Organizations and Management of Water Resources in the Fraser River Basin," In Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin, Eds., A.H.J. Dorcey and J.R. Griggs. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre. ISBN 0-920146-46-2. Pp. 241-265. Gastil, J . 1993. Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision-making and Communication. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Giannico, R.G. and M.C. Healey. 1998. Integrated Management Plan for a Suburban Watershed: Protecting Fisheries Resources in the Salmon River, Langley, British Columbia. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2203. Vancouver: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Gordon, D. 1994. "A Community-Based Program of Voluntary Private Land Stewardship in Muskoka, Ontario," In Proceedings from the Stewardship '94, Revisiting the Land Ethic, Caring for the Land Conference, Vancouver. March 3-5, 1994. Eds. N. Layard, and L. Delbrouck. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. Pp. 31-33. Greene, J . 1994. "Qualitative Program Evaluation" In, Handbook of Qualitative Research. Eds., Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Pp. 530-544. Gregory, R., T. Brown, and J . Knetsch. 1996. "Valuing Risks to the Environment," in The Annals of the American Academy, Volume 545. Pp. 54-63. Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1994. "Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research" In, Handbook of Qualitative Research. Eds., Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Pp. 105-117. Healey, M., Ed. 1997. Prospects for Sustainability: Integrative Approaches to Sustaining the Ecosystem Function of the Lower Fraser Basin. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Healey, M., and R. Wallace. 1987. "Chapter One: Canadian Aquatic Resources: An Introduction," in Canadian Aquatic Resources, Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 215, eds. M. Healey and R. Wallace. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Pp. 1-10. Herman, J.L., L.L. Morris, and CT. Fitz-Gibbon. 1987. Evaluator's Handbook. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. 142 Jamieson, M. 1996. "Watershed Plans: From Backwater to Mainstream," in Watercourses: Getting on Stream with Current Thinking, Conference Proceedings, Vancouver, British Columbia, October 22-25, 1996. Pp. 117 - 122. ISBN 1-896513-04-2. Kahn, S. 1991. Organizing: A Guide for Grassroots Leaders. Maryland: National Association of Social Workers. Kasperson, R. 1986. "Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication," In Risk Analysis, Vol. 6, 3: 275-281. Keeney, R., and T. McDaniels. 1996. Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas. Tms [photocopy]. Kenney, D.S. 1997. Resource Management at the Watershed Level: An Assessment of the Changing Federal Role in the Emerging Era of Community-based Watershed Management. Colorado: Natural Resources Law Centre. 80309-0401. Kennett, S. 1992. The Design of Federalism and Water Resource Management in Canada. Research paper number 31. Kingston: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations. ISSN 0-88911-596-6. Kerfoot, B., W. Thomas, and D. Walker. 1995. Preserving Our Common Waters: Initiatives in the Georgia Basin. Vancouver: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Municipal Affairs (Georgia Basin Iniative). Kernaghan, K. 1993. "Partnership and Public Administration: Conceptual and Practical Considerations," In Canadian Public Administration, Volume 36, Number 1. Pp. 57-76. Krause, D. 1996. Effective Program Evaluation: An Introduction. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers. Lambertsen, K. 1993. Demonstration Projects Recommendations: Fraser Basin Management Board. October 1993. Vancouver: Phonenix Environmental Service. Lamoureux, H., R. Mayer, and J . Panet-Raymond. 1989. Community Action. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Langley Environmental Organization (LEO). Nd. Unpublished hand-out. < Langley Environmental Partners Society (LEPS). 1998. Unpublished service contract between LEPS and the Corporation of the Township of Langley. Lawrence, R., and S. Daniels. 1996. Public Involvement in Natural Resource Decision-making: Goals Methodology, and Evaluation. Oregon: Forest Research Laboratory. Mallette, G. 1999. A Move to Advocacy for the Protection of Fish Habitat. Unpublished speech, Vancouver, January 9, 1999. Mannheim, K. 1949. Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt-Brace. In Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Mathews, D. 1994. Politics for People: Finding a Responsible Public Voice. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Matusak, L.R. 1997. Finding Your Voice: Learning to Lead...Anywhere you Want to Make a Difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 143 McDaniels, T. 1995. "Using Judgement in Resource Management: A Multiple Objective Analysis of a Fisheries Management Decision," in Operations Research, Volume 43, Number 3. Pp. 415-426. McDaniels, T., R. Gregory, and D. Fields. Nd. Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions. Manuscript, School of Community and Regional Planning. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks (MELP). 1994. Stream Stewardship: A Guide for Planners and Developers. ISBN 0-7726-2237-X. . 1993. Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia. ISBN 0-7726-1842-9. Minogue, M. 1998. "Changing the State: concepts and practise in the reform of the public sector," In Beyond New Public Management. Ed. M. Minogue, C. Polidano, D. Hulme. Northhampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Pp. 17 - 37. Mitchell, B., and D. Shrubsole. 1994. Canadian Water Management: Visions for Sustainability. Canadian Water Resources Association. Molloy, A. 1997. "Environmentalism and the City." In, Politics of the City: A Canadian Perspective. Ed., T.L. Thomas. Toronto: TTP Nelson. Pp. 49-65. ' Moore, R.D. 1991. "Hydrology and Water Supply in the Fraser River Basin," In Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin, Ed., A.H.J. Dorcey and J.R. Griggs. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre. Pp. 21-40. Nener, J., J . Heinonen, G. Derksen, and B. John. 1996. Watershed Stewardship: A Guide for Agriculture. Victoria: Government of Canada. ISBN 0-7726-3174-3. Paish, H. 1997. Stream Stewardship and Fish Habitat Advocacy: An Assessment of the Current and Potential Community Group Involvement in the Lower Fraser Valley, Urban Initiatives Series #09. Vancouver: Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada. Papworth, J . 1992. "The Best Government Comes in Small Packages." In Putting Power in its Place: Create Community Control. Ed. C&J Plant. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Pp. 28-31. Patton, M.Q. 1987. How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Pearce, P.H., F. Bertrand, and J.W. McLaren. 1985. Currents of Change: Final Report Inquiry on Federal Water Policy. Ottawa: Environment Canada. Peters, B.G. 1998. "With a Little Help From Our Friends': Public-Private Partnerships as Institutions and Instruments," In Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, Ed., J . Pierre. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-333-68939-9. Pp. 11-33. Petracca, M.P. Ed. 1992. The Politics of Interests: Interest Groups Transformed. Boulder: Westview Press. Phillips, S.D. 1991. "Chapter 7, How Ottawa Blends: Shifting Government Relationships with Interest Groups." In How Ottawa Spends, The Politics of Fragmentation 1991-92. Ed. F. Abele. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Pp. 183-227. Pierre, J . 1998. "Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance: Introduction," In Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, Ed., J . Pierre. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-333-68939-9. Pp. 1-10. 144 Pinkerton, E. 1991. "Locally-Based Water Quality Planning: Contributions to Fish Habitat Protection," In Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 48, Number 7. Pp. 1326-1333. Plant, C , and J . Plant 1992. "Brush Fires, Or the Regional Vision? An Introduction", In Putting Power in its Place: Create Community Control. Ed. C&J Plant. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. Pp. 1-8. Posavac, E.J., and R.G. Carey. 1989. Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies, Third Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Precision Identification Biological Consultants (PIBC). 1998. Wild, Threatened, Endangered, and the Lost Streams of the Lower Fraser Valley: Summary Report, 1997. Vancouver: Fraser River Action Plan. ISBN 0-662-26029-5. Priscoli, J . 1983. "Why the Federal and Regional Interest in Public Involvement in, Water Resource Development," In, Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, ed. Creighton, Priscoli, and Dunning. IWR Research Report 82-R1. Quadra Planning Consultants. 1995. The Salmon River Watershed an Overview of Conditions, Trends, and Issues. Ottawa: Environment Canada. DOE FRAP 95-19. Ragan, J . 1983. "Constraints on Effective Public Participation," In, Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, ed. Creighton, Priscoli, and Dunning. IWR Research Report 82-R1. Romaine, M.J. 1996. "An Emerging Model for Future Watershed Management in British Columbia," Prepared for Watercourses Conference: Getting on Stream with Current Thinking, Canadian Water Resources Association, October 22-25. Vancouver, B.C. Rossi, P.H., and H.E. Freeman. 1993. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc. Rudnik, W. 1995. The Watershed Source Book: Watershed-Based Solutions to Natural Resource " Problems. Colorado: Natural Resources Law Center. Rueggeberg, H. and A.R. Thompson. 1984. Water Law and Policy Issues in Canada. Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre. ISBN 0-920146-26-0 Sadler, B., Ed. 1979. Public Participation in Environmental Decision-Making: Strategies for Change. Proceedings of a National Workshop, Banff, Alberta, April 17-20, 1979. Edmonton: Environment Council of Alberta. Salmon River Enhancement Society (SRES). Nd. Unpublished brochure circulated by the Salmon River Enhancement Society. Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership (SRWMP). 1998. The Salmon River Watershed Management Plan. Unpublished Draft Plan produced by the SRWMP. Shaw, R. 1996. The Activist's Handbook: A Primer for the 1990s and Beyond. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stake, R. 1994. "Case Studies" In, Handbook of Qualitative Research. Eds., Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Pp. 236-247. 145 Stoker, G. 1998. "Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance," In Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, Ed., J . Pierre. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-333-68939-9. Pp. 34-51. Task Group on Ecosystem Approach and Ecosystem Science (TGEAES). 1996. The Ecosystem Approach: Getting Beyond the Rhetoric. Ottawa: Environment Canada. ISBN 0-662-62473-4. Thomas, T.L. Ed. 1997. Politics of the City: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto: UP Nelson. Thorne, G. 1984. "The Law and Environmental Issues." Appendix in British Columbia Watershed Protection Alliance Handbook. Slocan Park: British Columbia Watershed Protection Alliance. C l -C22. Tindal, C.R., and S.N. Tindal. 1995. Local Government in Canada, Fourth Edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited. ISBN 0-07-551874-0. Township of Langley (TOL). 1979. The Corporation of the Township of Langley "Walnut Grove Community Plan By-Law, 1978", No. 1836. Urban Salmon Habitat Program (USHP). 1998. Application for Community Stewardship Funding. Unpublished. Wallin, P. 1994. "Why Watersheds?," in River Voices, Volume 5, Number 2. Weiss, C. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Westwater Research Centre. 1995. Unpublished letter, "Westwater Research-UBC's Mandate and it's Role in the Salmon River Watershed Management Partnership." October 23, 1995. Wharf, B., and M. Clague. 1997a. "Lessons and Legacies" In, Community Organizing: Canadian Experiences. Eds. B.Wharf and M. Clague. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Pp. 302-325. Wharf, B., and M. Clague. Eds. 1997b. Community Organizing: Canadian Experiences. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Wright, D.J., and A.B. Rodal. 1997. "Chapter 12: Partnerships and Alliances," In New Public Management and Public Administration in Canada, M. Charin and A. Daniels, Eds. Quebec: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada. Pp. 263-292. Wolfe, J . 1997. "Space for Community in the Built Environment." In, Politics of the City: A Canadian Perspective. Ed., T.L. Thomas. Toronto: ITP Nelson. Pp. 3-16. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Our Common Future. England: Oxford University Press. Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. (1) URL: http://home.istar.ca/~orcbc/ (2) URL: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fish/strategy/contents.htm (3) URL: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca:80/wat/wrs/protect.html (4) URL: http://www.aaf.gov.bc.ca/aaf/treaty/treaty.htm 146 5) URL: http://wvwv.magnet.state.ma.us/dfwele/river/ri^ 6) URL: http://wvw.for.aov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/riparian/rip-toc.htm 7) URL: http://www/env.gov.bc.ca:80/main/annrep/ar9596/ar 08.htm 8) URL: http://www/env.gov.bc.ca:80/main/annrep/ar9596/ar 10.html 9) URL: http://www/environment.gov.bc.ca:80/main/annrep/ar9596/ar 03.htm 10) URL: http://www/env.gov.bc.ca:80/main/annrep/ar9596/ar 04.htm#l 11) URL: http //www.luco.gov.bc.ca/lrmp/quidelns.htm 12) URL: http //www.env.qov.bc.ca/fsh/protection act/highlights.html 13) URL: 14) URL: 15) URL: 16) URL: 17) URL: 18) URL: 19) URL: 20) URL: 21) URL: 22) URL: 23) URL: 24) URL: 25) URL: 26) URL: 27) URL: 28) URL: 29) URL: 30) URL: http http http http http http http http http http http http http http http //www.agf.government.British Columbia.ca/ministry/index.htm //www.env.Qov.bc.ca:80/wat/wup/wupp //www.township.lanqley.British Columbia.ca/leps.htm //www.salmonriver.orq/Index.htm //www.canfisco.com/nicomekl.html //primenet.ca/lanqley/district/contents.htm //www.township.langley.bc.ca/ //www.fisheries.qov.bc.ca //www.civicnet.gov.bc.ca/ubcm/factsheets/fs26.html //www.elp.gov.bc.ca:80/wat/wup/wup.html //www.luco.qov.bc.ca/lrmp/stmt.htm#DEF //www.elp.qov.bc.ca:80/wat/ //www.fishrenewal.qov.bc.ca/about frbc.htm //www.forestrenewal.bc.ca //igvn.ca/ http http http //www.britcoun.org/governance/ukpgov.htm //www.rc.qc.ca/fairness //www.bcstats.government.bc.ca 147 A P P E N D I X A: O V E R V I E W O F W A T E R R E S O U R C E G O V E R N A N C E I N B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A in fH 3 LL f o lip: uS 1 UJ Q 3 S i a 2 ,19 S >• u (9 < CL) c o •(/) •> o T3 C T3 cn c tj ro C L E .9i ro Z3 - £ '> i d •43 ro u x: £ - = %5 l a < Q. tS Sf> I ro o oi "fD cu > o XJ ro o 4-» c CU E C L O CU > cu TD c g 4-1 4-3 ro ro 1_ 4—1 in ro cu x: i_ _ x: c tG O «-•— i*_ ro o £ c g 8. "> _ cu ro 13 O o CL ro 4—; ro I "in c o XJ Q. CU > CU ro c o T3 CU Ul ro X) (J C Q e 1/1 _^ u o c o E ro ui cn c =§ £ TJ E u_ CU o _> E £ < .E c cu E cu u c ro x: c: LU -g "c o E ro to E ro O l o 1 Q_ Ul I g 4-» cu C L O c g 4-* ro ro Ul TJ c ro r  Ul o C L Ul C  oi ro cu ui _s? C L C L Z3 Ul 1_ CU ro 5 _cy xi ro 4-» o C L Ul CU 4-) _ro Ol cu 3i cu y — ro a 2-!< o g is E ti '-9, c cu aJ 2 > a. •o C in "E ro TJ c ro 4-1 in ro C7" 10 ro cu x: c ro E x: T3 C ro "ro 4-1 c cu E c o i > c LU ro c o C L CU x: 4-J M— o c: cu E Ul in CU in ui ro 4-1 C CU E o 1 > c cu oi c cu •a U l 4—' c cu E C L _g cu > cu TJ o cu E ro i_ 4— ro cu -g > o ro C L c o ti 2 CL x: II u c 4-> c 2 cu CO E nn Ul 1 J|A UJ ti I LU O ro 4 ^ XI ro cu x: 4—' TJ c ro i 5 cn c 'tj £ ro ui cu ti ro c g in in E cu CL ts t j ts I ui O CU o Ul 2 c o u c cu > C L o 4-* in c o Ol cu cc I 1 I 3 148 * Information for this table has been taken from a variety of sources. However, the majority of data has been extracted from a report by Dovetail Consultants (1994) for DFO and BC Environment, titled Partners in Protecting Aquatic and Riparian Resources in Lower Mainland Urban Areas. 149 A P P E N D I X B: O V E R V I E W O F T H E E V A L U A T I V E F R A M E W O R K Q U E S T I O N S The following questions do not represent the questions that were asked during thesis interviews. Rather, these questions are the questions underlying the evaluation framework. Questions were used to help measure each criterion. G O O D G O V E R N A N C E : fair and equal • Do partners have the opportunity to voice their opinions? • Do partners act in accordance with their authority? inclusive and representative • Are all the people that should be there, willingly present to provide a balanced representation of interests? groups or individuals with a key interest in the outcomes of decisions groups or individuals with the authority to make a decision groups or individuals who are directly affected by the decision groups or individuals who could delay or block the decision groups or individuals who will implement the decision • Are there any barriers to participation in the partnership? shared decision-making and empowerment • Can partners bargain for themselves without consulting outside constituencies? • Do all partners have equal decision-making power? • Do they use a shared decision-making model? Which type? Why or why not? framework for open communication • Are partners linked (two-way transfer of information) with their constituency? • Are there open, frequent, full, and sincere lines of communication among partners? • Are partners' comments, regarding the partnership, responded to promptly and thoroughly by other partners? • Do lines of communication include: input from the public to the government output of technical information from government to the public mutual education process dialogue between government agencies? community support • Are a large percentage and range of community members volunteering for the partnership and its projects? • Are community members willing to make sacrifices to achieve the partnerships' goals? • Are other community groups active in the activities of the partnership? • Does the partnership have a positive profile in the community? • Does the general population know that the partnership exists? • Does the partnership have a proven record of efficient and effective projects? government support • Does government provide support through the provision of funding and resources? • Has the government created legislation and/or regulations to foster watershed partnership arrangements and their undertakings? If yes, are these enforced? • Are all relevant government agencies involved in the partnership? • Does the partnership receive positive feedback from government? E F F I C I E N T P R O C E D U R E : 150 flexible and adaptable • Has the partnership altered or adapted to meet community changes? • Does the partnership learn from or take into account its past errors? clear and accepted goals and objectives • Does the partnership have clearly, established and well-known goals and objectives? • Are goals and objectives of the partnership both common and agreed to by partners? maintain momentum • Does the partnership celebrate its successes? • Is the partnership constantly undertaking new projects? MOUs • Is there a MOU? If yes, is it agreed to by all partners? • Does it clearly establish the roles, accountability, and authority of partners, and the functions of the partnership? organized and coordinated • Is there a minimal of duplication of activities amongst partners? • Are all the partners informed of and communication about each others activities? Does the partnership have strong leadership? Demonstrated by the following characteristics: RESOURCES: funding and materials • Can the group support itself by generating its own funding? • Does the partnership get funding from a diverse number and type of sources? • Is the partnership able to undertake projects? • For what purposes is funding used? information • Do partners have access to government data and literature? • Is the partnership capable of seeking out and obtaining information? • Does the partnership have a solid information base? Data should be: a union of scientific and technical information with personal knowledge and values credible geographically relevant pertinent to the type of projects being undertaken about biophysical, socio-economic, and organization/strategic issues educational and incorporate social learning. • Are there standards by which staff and volunteers gather and analyze data? • Does information and projects integrate scientific, social, and economic concerns? leadership friendly trustworthy articulate humble motivated inquisitive flexible honest self-disciplined mature practical courageous humorous visionary define issues set goals and establish priorities hold meetings manage finances research teach understand institutional and political processes supervise staff listen well motivate 151 community group strength (volunteers and staff) • Does the partnership have access to a large pool of volunteers? • Can the partnership rally the community to undertake projects? • Do volunteers and staff know about the group's activities outside of their own personal involvement? • Do volunteers and staff have an understanding of how the partnership functions, and their role within that system? Including knowledge of: the groups goals, objectives, and the terms of the MOU what is expected of them. • Are volunteers and staff actively involved in partnership meetings and decisions? • Does the partnership have access to political leaders, decision-makers, and the media? • Do partners have technical competency and skills relevant to partaking in partnership arrangements? • Does staff and volunteers have technical competency and skills relevant to undertaking projects? • Does the group have a stable office, supplies, funding, leadership, staff, volunteers, and members? • Does the partnership partake in advocacy functions? • Are staff, volunteers, and members, supportive of each other? • Is the partnership able to organize, coordinate, disseminate information? • Can members, staff, and volunteers train groups and administer other community development activities? • Are jurisdictions and decision-making authority non-fragmented? • Is there local control and involvement in decisions affecting the watershed? knowledge of members • Are other staff, volunteers, and members influential in the community? • Are partners aware of each others powers, priorities, expertise, and ability to affect decisions of partners within and outside of partnership? commitment • Are partners committed? Demonstrated through the provision of time, money, and materials? • Are staff and volunteers committed to the partnership? 152 12. Summary of Methodology and Procedures. Note: If your study involves deception, you must also complete page 7, the 'Deception Form'. The study will involve open ended interviews with the participants, in a location which is comfortable for them, such as their homes or places of business. During the interview, I plan to follow a general list of questions, as attached to this form. In recognition that the study participants have their own concerns, however, the interview will not follow the question list strictly, and instead will use the list as a starting point for discussion. With the permission of the participants, the interviews will be taped; if this causes any discomfort, notes will be taken. Description of Population 13. How many subjects will be used? 30 How many in the control group? N/A 14. Who is being recruited, and what are the criteria for their selection? The participants will be selected from people who are involved, or have been involved in the past, in the LEPS including: LEPS staff members, staff representatives of the groups partners, representatives of community groups who are active in the LEPS, and individuals who have been involved in LEPS. 15. What subjects will be excluded from participation? N/A 16. How are the subjects being recruited? If the initial contact is by letter or if a recruitment notice is to be posted, attach a copy. Note that UBC policy discourages initial contact by telephone. However, surveys which use random digit dialling may be allowed. If your study involves such contact, you must also complete page 8, the 'Telephone Contact' form. Initial contact is by telephone. Phone numbers will be obtained from either the manager of the LEPS (Lisa Fleming) or from other LEPS partners. 17. If a control group is involved, and their selection and/or recruitment differs from the above, provide details: N/A Project Details 18. Where will the project be conducted (room or area)? The project will be conducted in a location chosen by the interviewee. 19. Who will actually conduct the study and what are their qualifications? Lisa De Goes, a M.A. student in Community and Regional Planning, will conduct the study. She has a joint Bachelor of Environmental Studies and Biology, majoring in environmental impact assessment (EIA) (includes a course in social assessment) and water resource management, and has successfully completed graduate level courses related to water resource planning, negotiation, community economic development, risk assessment and policy analysis. 20. Will the group of subjects have any problems giving informed consent on their own behalf? Consider physical or mental condition, age, language, and other barriers. To my knowledge, all subjects are able to give informed consent on their own behalf. 21. If the subjects are not competent to give fully informed consent, who will consent of their behalf? N/A 22. What is known about the risks and benefits of the proposed research? Do you have additional opinions on this issue? 154 There are no anticipated risks to the proposed research. 23. What discomfort or incapacity are the subjects likely to endure as a result of the experimental procedures? N/A 24. If monetary compensation is to be offered to the subjects, provide details of amounts and payment schedules. N/A 25. How much time will a subject have to dedicate to the project? Interviews will last approximately one hour in total. 26. How much time will a member of the control group, if any, have to dedicate to the project? N/A Data 27. Who will have access to the data? The student investigator and her thesis advising committee are the only people with access to the data. Additionally, each project participant will have the option of obtaining a copy of his/her own interview. 28. How will the confidentiality of the data be maintained? All documents will be kept in a locked filing cabinet, and will be identified only by a code. Likewise, any computer files containing data will be stored on floppy disks and kept in the same cabinet. 29. What are the plans for the future use of the raw data beyond that described in this protocol? How and when will the data be destroyed? Data will be stored securely for five years, then destroyed. There are no plans to use the data beyond the thesis. If data from the thesis is required for a future paper based on thesis findings, the permission of the participants will be obtained. 30. Will any data which identifies individuals be available to persons or agencies outside the University? No. 31. Are there any plans for feedback to the subject? Each research participant will be given a copy of his/her own interview transcript to review and approve; this ensures that all participants have the opportunity to see the data produced by their interview, and to give them the option of omitting passages which they are not comfortable with or elaborate on passages. 32. Will your project use: [ ] Questionnaires (Submit a copy); [X] Interviews (Submit a sample of questions); [ ] Observations (Submit a brief description); [ ] Tests (Submit a brief description). 33. Funding Information: Agency / Source of Funds: N/A Informed Consent 34. Who will consent? 1 5 5 [X] Subject [ ] Parent or Guardian. (Written parental consent is always required for research in the schools and an opportunity must be presented either verbally or in writing to the students to refuse to participate or withdraw. A copy of what is written or said to the students should be provided for review by the Committee.) [ ] Agency Officials. 35. In the case of projects carried out at other institutions, the Committee requires written proof that agency consent has been received. Please specify below: N/A Questionnaires (Completed by Subjects): N/A Consent Forms 37. UBC policy requires written consent in all cases other than those limited to questionnaires which are completed by the subject. (See item #34 for consent requirements.) Please check each item in the following list before submission of this form to ensure that the written consent form attached contains all necessary items. If your research involves initial contact by telephone, you do not need to fill out this section. [X] UBC Letterhead. [X] Title of the Project. [X] Identification of investigators, including a telephone number. Research for a graduate thesis should be identified as such and the name and telephone number of the faculty advisor included. [X] Brief but complete description in lay language of the purpose of the project and of all procedures to be carried out in which the subjects are involved. [ ] Indicate if the project involves a new or non-traditional procedure whose efficacy has not been proven in controlled studies. [X] Assurance that the identity of the subject will be kept confidential and description of how this will be accomplished, i.e. describe how records in the principal investigator's possession will be coded, kept in a locked filing cabinet, or under password if kept on a computer hard drive. [X] Statement of the total amount of time that will be required of a subject. [ ] Details of monetary compensation, if any, to be offered to subjects. [X] An offer to answer any inquiries concerning the procedures to ensure that they are fully understood by the subject and to provide debriefing, if appropriate. [X] A statement that if they have any concerns about their rights or treatment as research subjects, they may contact Dr. Richard Spratley, Director of the UBC Office of Research Services and Administration, at 822-8598. 156 [X] A statement of the subject's right to refuse to participate or withdraw at any time and a statement that withdrawal or refusal to participate will not jeopardize further treatment, medical care or influence class standing, as applicable. Note: This statement must also appear on letters of initial contact. For research done in the schools, indicate what happens to children whose parents do not consent. The procedure may be part of classroom work but the collection of data may be purely for research. [X] A statement acknowledging that the subject has received a copy of the consent form including all attachments for the subject's own records. [X] A place for signature of subject consenting to participate in the research project, investigation, or study and a place for the date of the signature. [ ] Parental consent forms must contain a statement of choice providing an option for refusal to participate, e.g. "I consent / I do not consent to my child's participation in this study." Also, verbal assent must be obtained from the child, once the parent has consented. [X] If there is more than one page, number the pages of the consent, e.g. Page 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Attachments 38. Check items attached to this submission, if applicable. [ ] Letter of Initial Contact. (Item 16) [ ] Advertisement for Volunteer Subjects. (Item 16) [X] Subject Consent Form. (Item 37) [ ] Control Group Consent Form. (If different from above) [ ] Parent / Guardian Consent Form. (If different from above) [ ] Agency Consent. (Item 35) [X] Questionnaires, Tests, Interviews, etc. (Item 32) [ ] Explanatory Letter with Questionnaire. (Item 36) [ ] Deception Form, including a copy of transcript of written or verbal debriefing. [X] Telephone Contact Form. [ ] Other - Specify: 157 TELEPHONE CONTACT FORM If your study involves telephone contact, complete items 1 to 4. If not, you are at the end of the forms. 1. Telephone contact makes it impossible for a signed record of consent to be kept. Indicate why you believe that such contact is necessary to achieve your research objectives: The LEPS partnership is very informal. It would be very difficult to locate the complete addresses of many of the participants. Further, many of the participants are no longer involved with LEPS, and phone calls will be necessary to locate their whereabouts. Initial phone calls will only be used to set up a time and place to conduct the research. Prior to beginning the study, all participants will be requested to sign a consent form. 2. Include a copy of the proposed 'front end' script of your telephone interview. Please include: identification of fieldwork agency, identification of researcher, basic purpose of project, nature of questions to be asked, especially if sensitive questions are to be asked, guarantee of anonymity and confidentiality, indication of right of refusal to answer any question, an offer to answer any questions before proceeding, and a specific inquiry about willingness to proceed. 3. Indicate how interviewers will be trained to answer respondents' questions. Investigators should prepare and submit 'scripted replies', which may cover, but are not necessarily limited to: (a) The means by which respondent was selected. In the case that respondents wish to know how they were selected, they will be told that a snowball or chain sampling technique was utilized to choose the study sample. This approach relies on the use of repetitive names or incidents throughout the background research to determine the sample. To protect the identity of other participants, respondents will not be told by whom they were named. (b) An indication of the estimated time to be required for the interview. Respondents will be told that the study is expected to take approximately one hour in total. (c) The means by which guarantees of anonymity and confidentiality will be achieved. Respondents will be told that they are guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality through a combination of a data coding system and the security of tape recordings and notes in a locked filing cabinet. (d) An offer to provide the name and telephone number of a person who can verify the authenticity of the research project. This person shall not be the Research Administration Officer or any person in the Office of Research Services and Administration. (Note: Investigators should be prepared, should potential respondents request it, to provide the name of a person outside the research group, as required by section 9 of the SSHRC guidelines.) Respondents will be told to contact Professor Tony Dorcey, UBC, or Lisa Fleming, LEPS, to verify the authenticity of the research project. 4. Sensitive Subject Matter: Respondents should be forewarned of such questions. It is not always practical to do so as part of the interview's front end. Warnings can be placed later in the interview and can take a naturalistic form as long as their content specifically refers to the sensitive matter. Indicate how you propose to deal with sensitive items, if any, in your interview. No questions are anticipated to be considered sensitive. 158 APPENDIX D: TELEPHONE CONTACT SHEET FOR RESEARCH INTERVIEWS The following script acted as the "front end" script for the initial telephone contact: of interviewees: Hello, my name is Lisa De Goes. I am a Masters student with the School of Community and Regional Planning at UBC. I am working with Professor Tony Dorcey of the Institution of Resource and Environment at UBC on a study of the Langley Partners Society (LEPS).. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the experience with community/government partnerships in watershed management through the LEPS. The main objectives of the study are: •. first to develop an evaluative framework for assessing community partnerships in watershed management; • second, to outline the governance structure for community participation in watershed management that is applicable to the LEPS; • third, to document the origins and operation of LEPS; and • fourth, to develop recommendations for strengthening the LEPS and its applicability to other areas in British Columbia. You were chosen because your (name/organization), was mentioned in a (document/previous interview). I believe that your insights and perceptions would be a valuable contribution to understanding the LEPS. The questions I will be asking are not of a sensitive nature. They will regard: • your perceptions and insights of the LEPS; • LEPS funding, resources, goals, objectives, processes, and outcomes; and • your relationship to LEPS - its origin, operation, and outcomes. Any personal information resulting from this research study will be kept strictly confidential. All documents (including information on computer disk) will be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet. You will not be identified by name in any quotation without obtaining your permission and you may request an opportunity to review any quotations in context. Data will be stored securely for five years, then destroyed. There are no plans to use the data beyond the thesis, except for a paper which may possibly be written, based on the thesis work. No data will be used for another purpose without your permission. If you have any questions or desire further information with respect to this study, you may contact Professor Tony Dorcey (604) 822-5725. Or, if you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research subject you may contact the Director of Research Services at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Richard Spratley at (604) 822-8598. The interview will take approximately one hour. Your participation in the study would be entirely voluntary and you may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time. Do you consent to participate in this study? If you consent, the interview will be recorded on audio tape, but you may ask for the recording device to be disabled at any time. (If given consent.) When and where would you like to conduct the interview? At that time, I will have a written consent form for your signature. Do you have any further questions? Thank you for time and willingness to participate. (If not given consent) Thank you for your time. Do you know of anyone else with your organization that might be willing to be interviewed? 159 APPENDIX F: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THESIS INTERVIEWS About their background. • What is your background? Who have you worked for? Was it related to LEPS? How? What was your role? • What impressions did you get of how this agency saw itself? • What was your mandate? • What legislation did you use most? Did legislation ever even matter? • Do you feel it was effective (whichever they choose - legislation, mandate or policy)? About LEPS and it's functioning. • What characteristics, activities, services, staffing, administrative arrangements are unique to the LEPS? • Which activities lead to attainment of support and resources for the LEPS? • Are the program's important characteristics being implemented? • Are program components contributing to achievement of objectives? • Which activities or combination accomplish each objective? • What adjustments in program management and support are needed? • What problems are there and how can they be solved? • What adjustments, if any, in the LEPS management and support are needed to better attain support, resources, and longevity? • What barriers exist to attaining support, resources, and longevity? How can they be solved? • How do you feel {organization] has contributed to the partnership? • How do you feel LEPS has contributed to the partnership? About community partnerships in water management. • Do you feel that programs reflect the legislation/policy? • Where are the gaps and/or strengths? • Can you identify specific resources and funding arrangements that helped or hindered community based programs? • Based on your experience do you feel community based programs are successful? Why? • What seemed to make some programs better than others? • Do you have any other comments that you feel are important to understanding LEPS and the partnership arrangement? 161 APPENDIX G: LIST OF PAST FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE LEPS As a result of the efforts of both the LEPS managing directors and the Board, the following sources of funding were secured: 1. Tree Plan Canada - federal program supporting tree planting projects; 2. BC21 - defunct provincial program funding community environmental projects and providing student staff; 3. DFO - federal agency funding salmon habitat enhancement works and watershed partnerships; 4. Kwantlen and Capilano Colleges - providing co-op students to work on enhancement projects; 5. Rotary Club - community organization donated a truck; 6. Aldergrove Thrift Store - community organization donated money for equipment; 7. Trans-Mountain Pipeline (and other local businesses) - donated materials, supplies and equipment for projects; 8. Action 21; 9. BC Hydro; 10. VanCity; 11. Ministry of Environment; 12. Community Fisheries Development Centre; 13. Human Resources Development Canada; 14. Shell; and USHP 162 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



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"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items