Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Successful cooperative arrangements for environmental stewardship : a study of BC parks and environmental… Tamm, Sabine Susan 1999

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1999-0635.pdf [ 6.64MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089202.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089202-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089202-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089202-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089202-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089202-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089202-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089202-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089202.ris

Full Text

SUCCESSFUL COOPERATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP: A STUDY OF BC PARKS AND ENVIRONMENTAL NONGOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS SABINE SUSAN TAMM H.B.O.R, Lakehead University 1990 B.Sc, Lakehead University 1990 A THESIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in The Faculty of Graduate Studies THE.SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1999 © Sabine Susan Tamm, 1999 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of P/cc*^Cr^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date % r Afo* JO '?? DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT These are challenging times for parks and protected areas in British Columbia as these areas have increased in size and use, while resources for managing them have shrunk considerably. Environmental nongovernment organisations (ENGOs) have recognized these threats and as a result are becoming increasingly involved in the stewardship of parks and protected areas. As the provincial government authority responsible for their management, BC Parks acknowledges that the needs and aspirations of people living in and around these areas must somehow be integrated in their management in order to ensure their long-term viability, and that ENGOs have valuable knowledge and skills to offer in this regard. As a result, cooperative arrangements, or partnerships, are being increasingly explored as a mutually beneficial means of forwarding BC Parks' mandate of conservation and recreation, and the mandate of similarly-minded ENGOs. The central purpose of this thesis is to identify essential criteria that must be met for cooperative arrangements between ENGOs and BC Parks to be successful. The study focusses on four current, successful partnerships. Research methods included a literature review and interviews with representatives from each of the participating BC Parks districts and ENGOs. The thesis presents a number of key findings that have significant import to the successful planning, implementation and management of cooperative arrangements for parks and protected areas. In addition to the criteria identified as central to their success, certain process-based actions have relevance to fulfilling the criteria. The level of trust between partners also has an impact on relations, which is enhanced when the criteria are met and over the course of time. The expectations of parties with regard to the extent of power-sharing and how this is exhibited in the cooperative arrangement also affects the perceived level of success of partners and therefore their commitment to the partnership. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract „ Table of Contents ^ Acknowledgments • List of Tables vj List of Figures y -CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION l 1.1 Rationale ^ 1.2 Objectives 4 1.3 Scope of Study 5 1.4 Limitations g CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 9 2.1 Setting the Stage for Public Involvement in Parks and Protected Areas 9 2.2 Provincial Parks and ENGOs 12 2.3 Working Together 16 2.3.1 What can Cooperative Arrangements do for Parks and Protected Areas? 16 2.3.2 What are the Benefits to Partners? 19 2.3.2.1 Strength in Diversity 20 2.3.2.2 Increased Effectiveness 21 2.3.2.3 Additional Expertise 23 2.3.2.4 Improved Finances 25 2.3.2.5 Greater Local Support 26 2.3.2.6 Community Outreach and Education 27 2.3.2.7 Enhanced Service Delivery 28 2.3.2.8 Increased Understanding and Respect 29 2.3.3 What are the Concerns and Issues in Partnering? 30 2.4 Typologies of Partnerships 35 2.5 The Criteria for Cooperative Arrangements 44 2.5.1 What It's All About 44 2.5.1.1 Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles 46 2.5.1.2 Common Vision and Goals 48 2.5.1.3 Honouring Differences 49 2.5.1.4 Effective Conflict Management 51 2.5.1.5 Two-way Communication Strategy 52 2.5.1.6 Professionalism and Competence 54 2.5.1.7 Support Between Parties 55 2.5.1.8 External Support 57 2.5.1.9 Resources, Training and Education 59 2.5.1.1.1 Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness 60 2.5.1.1.2 Resilience and Continuity 61 2.5.1.1.3 Accomplishments and Empowerment 62 2.5.1.1.4 Summary 64 i i i CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Case Study Selection 3.1.1 Cooperative Arrangement Selection 3.1.2 Selection of Representatives 3.2 The Questionnaire 3.2.1 Purpose 3.2.2 Design and Structure 3.3 The Interviews 3.3.1 Procedures 3.3.2 Documentation CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 4.1 Background Information 4.1.1 Sargeant Bay Society and BC Parks 4.1.2 Adams River Salmon Society and BC Parks 4.1.3 Koksilah River Park Society and BC Parks 4.1.4 North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club and BC Parks 4.2 Comments from Respondents 4.2.1 Comparison of Comments made by Representatives 4.2.2 Comments from Parties of Each Arrangement 4.2.3 Summary of Comments to Criteria Questions 4.2.4 Most and Least Important Criterion as Stated by Respondents CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS 5.1 Typologies, Expectations and Outcomes 5.2 Criteria Determined to be of Great Significance 5.3 Criteria Determined to be of Minor Significance 5.4 Summary of Comments to Question of Most and Least Important Criteria 5.5 Summary of Findings CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Conclusions 6.2 Implications 6.3 Avenues for Future Research 6.4 InClosing Bibliography Appendix iv ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My time at UBC has involved much more than fulfilling the requirements of an education at SCARP. A new place that truly feels like home, new friends, even a new family have contributed to my commitment and understanding of community and ecological integrity. I'd like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the following people for sharing in this journey. My father and mother for being the foundation of my value-system and who continue to offer support so unconditionally The ever growing Tamm clan for their advice and inspiration Friends and comrades, especially Nadia, Gretchen and Jain who've given much appreciated motivation and perspective Julia Gardner for her commitment and unwavering support and Penny Gurstein for her generous assistance Representatives of Adams River Salmon Society, Koksilah River Park Society, North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club, Sargeant Bay Society and BC Parks for contributing to this project and Gary, Yasmeena and Theba for sharing in my struggles and adventures of which we're only beginning to embark upon v List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of Comments made by Representatives from each Arrangement 93 vi List of Figures Figure 1: The evolving role of parks - from isolation to integration Figure 2: Consultations-partnerships-devolution continuum vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale Community participation in environmental management is becoming more widespread in Canada and around the globe (Commission on Resources and Environment 1994, Sewell, Dearden and Dumbrell 1989). Environmental issues are complex and inextricably linked to the political, social and ecological elements of society (World Commission of Environment and Development 1987), thus making it all the more necessary to inform and involve the public in decisions and policies that will affect them. Public interest groups involved in environmental issues and management have valuable knowledge and skills to offer decision-makers in the sustainable management of natural resources, and they expect to be involved in a meaningful way (Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996). The reasons for including the values and insights of these groups in the decision-making process are therefore as much ethical as they are political and practical. Governments today must contend with interconnected and seemingly endless social and ecological issues under circumstances which are as much a cause as they are an effect -the struggle for sustainability while populations expand and the environment is threatened; new technologies and increased access to information; limited public funds coupled with discontent and distrust of government; and increased demand for access to the political process, to name just a few. The trend towards a growth in public participation is reflective of society attempting to deal pragmatically with the increase in demands, complexity and uncertainty (Dorcey 1987) of our changing world. 1 Public interest groups and individuals that have an interest in working with government can and are making a powerful contribution to society given these new realities. Indeed, in protecting the heritage of our natural environment, cooperative associations between citizen-based organisations and government agencies continue to grow (Parks Canada 1998b, Parks Canada 1994b). Environmental protection in British Columbia is a case in point. Through the Provincial Land Use Strategy (Commission on Resources and Environment 1995) and the Protected Areas Strategy (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 1996) the provincial government has made strides in meaningful public involvement for identifying lands of particular significance to be included in our protected areas system. The result is that a baseline twelve percent of the province's land mass, as set by the United Nations for consideration by all nations and by Canada's Green Plan (Environment Canada 1992) is expected to be given protected status in BC by the year 2000. While issues remain over the effectiveness of protecting this seemingly arbitrary proportion of land (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society 1994), the selection and designation phase of parks and protected areas in this province draws to a close; the primary issue now turns to developing ways to manage and sustain our system of parks and protected areas in the long term (BC's Park Legacy Project 1998b). The management of protected areas is undergoing a striking shift from a preservationist paradigm to an integrated, holistic paradigm. Consider the words of Nelson (in Dearden and Rollins 1993: 52): 2 We are moving beyond the ideas of parks and protected areas toward the idea of coordinated or integrated heritage area systems on both public and private land. We are moving from expecting government to look after heritage conservation and use toward a cooperative stewardship among different governments, private groups, corporations and individuals. We are moving from a view of parks and protected areas as largely separate and distinct toward one emphasizing coordination and integration on natural, social, economic and broadly human ecological grounds. Such trends are vital to and supportive of the strong current interest in sustainable development and conservation strategies. The realization of the importance of community support for parks and protected areas has made the concept of cooperation an essential tool to create bridges with local people. Indeed, some have gone to the extent of declaring cooperation from local communities to be critical to the future of these areas (Dearden and Rollins 1993, Raval in Endicott ed. 1993, Mondor 1987). Cooperative arrangements1 therefore have a significant and encouraging role to play in the planning and management of our existing and future protected areas. Nelson believes that the major challenge is to develop the methods and the willingness to bring government and environmental non-government organisations (ENGO)2 together to practice coordinated management in appropriately identified areas. Much can be learned about what leads to a strong cooperative arrangement in the stewardship of these areas by a process of reviewing the appropriate literature and dialoguing with partners of current partnerships that are deemed to be successful by their government and ENGO counterparts. This thesis endeavours to do just that, in accordance with the objectives that follow. 1 Cooperative arrangements or simply arrangements, are referred to in various literatures as partnerships, joint ventures, co-management agreements and so forth. As such, the latter terms may also be used on occasion, in particular in the literature review, when authors are commenting on their own experiences. 2 ENGOs are citizens' interest groups whose activities include, but are not exclusive to, efforts for environmental conservation. Their membership is voluntary, they are autonomous, they do not aim to be profit-making, they provide mainly services and they seek changes on behalf of their members, society and/or the environment (Gardner in Lerner 1993). While one of the four groups presented in this study does not entirely meet this definition because it has a recreation-based mandate and it attempts to generate a profit, it is primarily involved in park stewardship activities and it was recommended for its success. Keeping the distinctions of this group in mind, all of the case study groups are referred to as ENGOs in this thesis. 3 1.2 Objectives The principal objective of this thesis is to determine the essential criteria that must be met for cooperative arrangements to be successful in the stewardship of parks and protected areas. This is achieved by a two-pronged approach: 1. examining the literature of various forms of cooperative arrangements between government and ENGOs where the central goal is environmental stewardship, in order to identify the criteria that are present and/or recommended for the success of these ventures, and; 2. primary research of four successful cooperative arrangements between BC Parks and ENGOs engaged in environmental stewardship in provincial parks of BC, for the purpose of challenging the criteria list developed in the literature review and testing the validity of the criteria in the study of these groups. Secondary objectives are: 1. determining why ENGOs and government choose to work together to identify what partners can gain from the relationship, with particular emphasis on the case study arrangements, and; 2. examining typologies or models of cooperative arrangements that are applicable to the management of parks and protected areas and then classifying the case study arrangements according to typologies that are based on the extent to which power is shared within them. 4 1.3 Scope of Study The literature review (Chapter 2) begins with an examination of why public interest groups have come to be increasingly involved in solutions for achieving sustainability, of which parks and protected areas are an integral part. An overview follows of the evolving role of parks and the vision BC Parks has for the involvement of ENGOs. The literature review then answers the question What can Cooperative Arrangements do for Parks and Protect Areas?, followed by What are the Benefits to Partners? The next section covers the concerns and issues that partners of cooperative arrangements may have at any point in the relationship and the occasions when it may not be suitable to work together. This is followed by a detailed account of the criteria deemed to be of importance by ENGOs and government representatives who work together for parks and protected areas and the broader field of environmental management. The literature review concludes with an examination of typologies or models of cooperative arrangements that are applicable to the management of these areas. The Methodology (Chapter 3) describes the purpose, methods and context within which case study groups and representatives were selected; the purpose, design and structure of the questionnaire and the method by which interviews were carried out and comments were recorded and processed. Findings from the interviews and support materials are presented in the Results (Chapter 4). These are organised according to two central themes: 1) background information for 5 each case study arrangement, and; 2) comments from respondents to the criteria generated in the literature review, and accompanying questions. Chapter 5 (Analysis) identifies the criteria that are recommended for being essential to the success of arrangements in environmental management and within the case study arrangements, and the criteria deemed to be of lesser importance. It also reveals the typologies of the case study arrangements, expectations, mandates and outcomes for partners and some of the benefits attributed to being in each prospective arrangement. In Chapter 6 (Conclusions and Implications) the criteria that are recommended for the success of cooperative arrangements for parks and protected areas that involve ENGO and government partners are discussed. The thesis concludes with a summary of the implications of the findings with regard to the case study arrangements and within the broader field of cooperative arrangements for parks and protected areas. 1.4 Limitations Research in the field of cooperative arrangements for environmental stewardship is somewhat limited, though growing. What existed when the criteria list1 was initially generated, often appeared in foreign, namely American publications (Endicott, ed. 1995, McNeely, ed. 1995, Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1993). While these sources provided a wealth of insight and a substantial level of detail on the particular subject, it is 1 The criteria lisi was primarily created in 1997. Hence, the literature used to develop the list preceded that time. 6 recognised that, since the original list was developed, additional, Canadian references have been published. Due to time limitations and because the criteria list is considered complete, additional references for this section have not been added beyond 1998. Within the literature review, there were substantial variations in the terminology used to identify and define the criteria. Authors rarely used a singular, specific term to identify or recommend a characteristic of importance, but rather, reported on their experiences in a lengthier, less precisely defined manner. As such, most authors have not used the same term to describe a criterion as has been reported in this thesis. Additionally, there is much overlap in material upon which criteria are based, given that a sentence or selection of words, no matter how apt, cannot reflect the entirety of a 'real life' experience. Therefore, for this thesis, headings were chosen as the most appropriate, descriptive term to represent these ideas. Other terms may have just as readily been selected, and it should be noted that the meaning of the terms, as identified by the evaluation indicators (i.e. questions used to summarize the meaning of each critierion), have equal bearing as the particular terms chosen. The criteria are presented (see section 2.5) in what is considered to be a logical, systematic format - this study does not consider the relevance of the sequence that they are presented in arrangements. The case study segment of this thesis is therefore designed to refine and challenge the criteria, and provide current examples of successful cooperative arrangements between 7. ENGOs and government in provincial parks of British Columbia. For the purpose of this study, success1 is defined as the completion of a project or projects, as determined by parties to the arrangement, to the satisfaction of the majority of partners' members. Given that the success of the case study arrangements may be open for debate by some members of one or both parties, there are sure to be varying degrees of success for different aspects of each arrangement. This is discussed further in the Analysis (Chapter 5) and Results and Conclusions (Chapter 6). One representative2 was selected from each of the parties in the four arrangements interviewed in this study. It is recognised that the information generated from these sources was most often based on qualitative, subjective information generated from key individuals from each party, and therefore does not reflect the range of opinions of all members of the respective groups and agencies. However, since respondents were selected based on their detailed knowledge of their respective group or agency and of the arrangement, their comments offer the best general representation on the subject. This study emphasizes the criteria that successful cooperative arrangements for environmental management in parks and protected areas must meet, and as such, does not identify what each party should possess independent of one another (i.e. between their own members and associates). 1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1976: 1152) defines success as a "favourable outcome" or "accomplishment of what was aimed at". 2 In order to respect the autonomy of the eight representatives from the four case study arrangements (four BC Parks districts and the four associated ENGOs) these individuals are not referred to by name in the study. Instead, they are referred to as respondents, representatives, or, simply by the name of the organisation or agency they represent. 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Setting the Stage for Public Involvement in the Parks and Protected Areas Beginning in the 1980s, the concept of sustainable development began to receive prominent attention on the national agenda (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Lucas 1992). An integral part of sustainability, the integrity of the environment led much of this debate. As the crisis in the environment gained recognition, numerous strategies were developed to guide a sustainable approach to managing the earth's renewable natural resources, though decisions over who would be responsible for implementing them was cause for much disagreement (Daly and Cobb 1989). The World Conservation Strategy, published in 1980 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), pointed to the need for action to achieve the goal of sustainable development within the context of ecological and human health. At the 1982 World National Parks Congress, parks and protected areas were declared to make an essential contribution to sustainability (McNeeley and Miller 1984). A cornerstone of national and global conservation efforts, parks and protected areas are the backbone of long-term efforts to conserve wild places and the species they support (Fuller in World Wildlife Fund 1996). As such, the landmark Our Common Future, better known as 'The Brundtland Report' (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987) 9 signaled the urgency to protect our ecosystems. Other significant multi-nation reports, including the Declaration from the Fourth World Congress on Parks and Protected Areas (1992), publicized the need to complete the global network of parks and protected areas. Canada's federal government sanctioned this view as stated in its Vision for the 21st Century (in BC's Park Legacy Project 1998b: 6): ... protected places are our lifeline to an ecologically stable future. They are places where the forces that animate our planet and make it unique are allowed to operate with minimal interference by man. ... They do not impede our future. They anchor it. They are not a repudiation of economic development. They balance it. The increase in dialogue over sustainability and growing public awareness of environmental issues in the 1980s and early 1990s lead concerned members of the public to recognize that saving individual parcels of land for parks was not enough (Agee and Johnson 1987). People saw that river valleys, large wetlands and entire coastlines, needed attention to protect water and habitat quality. The growth in linear recreation -hiking, bicycling, canoeing, cross-country skiing, snowmobiling and other outdoor pursuits, reinforced the need to preserve lands for outdoor recreational pursuits as well as ecological aims. These developments lead to a growing public interest in ecosystem protection (Wellman 1987, Locke in Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society 1994). Also at this time, the "information society" emerged (Rodal and Wright 1993) out of the development of new information technologies and the wider reach of mass media. As a result, North American and other societies around the globe were becoming increasingly 10 connected and increasing complex. Reflecting on these landmark changes, Dorcey (1987) noted three fundamental characteristics of our changing world - an increase in complexity, uncertainty and demands. As a result the pursuit of sustainability has been mired in ongoing discussion, debate and rhetoric by policy makers and the public alike (Roseland 1992). Arising from the emergence of this highly connected and complex society developing, a much wider spectrum of groups and individuals have acquired knowledge, expertise and recognition regarding public issues. These groups are now better positioned to claim more of a role in decision-making as well as greater accountability from governments, which no longer enjoy a monopoly on information they once had. In Canada and throughout the provinces, governments are turning their attention to managing their debt burdens. The prevailing response has been in the form of cutting of government programs and the reduction of levels of services which has impacted the delivery of health and community services and the protection of the environment (Savoie 1995). This has put the public on the defensive and in search of new ideas and approaches in these areas (Western, Wright and Strum, eds. 1994). Today there is a growing awareness of the value and power of public interest groups as they demand a greater say in issues important to citizens, as well as expecting greater government accountability. Citizens around the globe are beginning to realize that their governments cannot, or choose not to sustainably manage the environment alone (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Environment Canada 1990). Members of the public and government see an opportunity and need for enhanced citizen involvement 11 through multi-lateral negotiations and decision-making, cooperative arrangements and other undertakings involving interest groups (Henning 1987, Lindquist 1993, Rodal and Wright 1993). Dearden and Rollins (1993: 4) have noted: "At all scales, from lobby groups interested in the protection of a specific locale of regional interest through to national and generic concerns, these groups have been growing rapidly as a powerful influence on park designation and management". 2.2 Provincial Parks and ENGOs As the Canadian landscape becomes increasingly modified under human control, governments and the public are realizing that parks and protected areas are not islands unto themselves, but are interconnected within a larger regional context (Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993). In addition, society's realisation that social and environmental issues are increasingly complex and long term is reflected in the shift in the management of parks and protected areas from almost exclusively internal and oriented toward recreation management, to one that recognises and responds to external influences (Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993). Figure 1 illustrates how 'outside' influences on our parks have gradually been met with changes in the approach to their management. 12 E E 2 1850 | | 1900 Taso I 1B72 1885 1 9 7 6 1st National Park 1st National Park 1st Biosphere Yellowstone (Canada) Banff Reserve 1911/1916 1st Park Services Canada/US SOURCE: Dearden. 1991 Figure 1: The evolving role of parks: from isolation to integration (source: Dearden and Rollins 1993: 10) While the diagram features landmark dates in the establishment of national parks and biosphere reserves, it also represents the experience of other forms of parks including provincial parks and protected areas' which have undergone the same adjustments of management approaches, though over a shorter span of time. Park agencies at every level can no longer ignore what happens beyond their boundaries, but must be aware of external influences of outlying environments and communities, and plan accordingly (Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 1994). Theberge (in Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993) states: "Because parks and reserves are not ecologically self-sufficient entities, regional environmental management is an absolutely necessary component of managing protected areas". 1 A protected area is defined by McNeely (in Lucas 1992: 2) as: "Any area of land that has legal measures limiting human use of the plants and animals within that area". It includes national and provincial parks, game reserves, protected landscapes, multi-use areas, biosphere reserves and so on. 13 Developing on this idea, other authors on the subject argue that managing parks and protected areas for the long term requires the support of local communities (Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993, Endicott, ed. 1993, McNeely, ed. 1995). The basic reason for establishing provincial parks - protection, recreation, heritage appreciation and tourism -has not fundamentally changed (Priddle in Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993), though they, like their national counterparts, are in the process of being managed in a less isolationist and more of an integrated approach. On national and provincial levels, the building of cooperative associations between park agencies and local communities is the recurrent recommendation of authors on parks and protected areas from both the social and conservation standpoint (Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993, Stankey 1989). Some have gone to the extent of declaring cooperation from local communities to be critical to the future of all parks and protected areas (Mondor in Magoon, ed. 1987, Raval in Endicott 1993). Rollins and Dearden (eds. 1993: 294) believe: "Human use of parks and protected areas is an important management consideration, because public support for conservation often begins with an appreciation of these resources". Endicott (ed. 1993: 206) asserts that "no piece of land in any community can be protected without local support". Conservation efforts at the local, regional and national level are therefore dependent in part on local communities if they are to succeed in the long run. Although public polls consistently demonstrate the high level of interest in and concern amongst the general public for parks and protected areas (Canadian Wildlife Service 1987), it is the so-called 'special interest groups' that choose to take an active role in ensuring their integrity (Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993, Reid 1991). Citizen-based 14 groups that focus on environmental issues, or ENGOs for short, have become increasingly involved in local, national and international efforts related to human and environmental health (Carr 1993a, b, Reid 1991). Cooperation with government is no longer an occasional diversion from their usual agenda, and many ENGOs have moved from pragmatic to programmatic protection (Endicott, ed. 1993). In addition, their work is no longer so piecemeal, as was common before this decade. Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman (eds! 1994) claim that "there is no going back for conservation organisations" in terms of the role they play in securing the integrity of parks and protected areas. Endicott (ed. 1993) adds: "Citizens' organizations have important functions to play in achieving virtually all the key elements of sustainable development, namely, maintaining ecological integrity and conserving the resource base, the pursuit of equity, thinking globally while acting locally and increasingly, social self-determination". Government agencies are coming to realize the incredible resource that these grassroots organisations can offer, and are beginning to incorporate them into the planning process (Reid 1991). Planners and managers of parks and protected areas are also responding to the need to build community support (Canadian Heritage 1994, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 1997, Reid 1991). For its part, BC Parks has said: We would like to build long-term sustainability for the protected areas system by developing the revenue and resource management partnerships needed to meet the planning and management needs of the system based on public expectations and government direction. (in Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society 1997') 1 BC Parks submitted this statement to the organizers of Working Together to Sustain Parks and Protected Areas, a conference held in Vancouver in the spring of 1997 with the mission of creating new ways of working together to meet the conservation and recreation mandates of BC's parks and protected areas. 15 Within British Columbia, the lead agency responsible for environmental protection, Crown land management and provincial parks is the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. As an agency of the Ministry, BC Parks is responsible for the designation, management and conservation1 of the province's system of provincial parks, recreation areas, ecological reserves and other protected areas2. The Ministry is increasingly welcoming and adapting to the public's growing environmental knowledge, willingness and ability to accept responsibility for environmental stewardship ( Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 1997). 2.3 Working Together 2.3.1 What Can Cooperative Arrangements do for Parks and Protected Areas? For issues relating to the environment or to the national heritage, the view is that citizens, as the major stakeholders, can and should play a very active role, and that government should tap into the vast potential of volunteer resources for addressing such public interest issues. (Rodal and Mulder 1993: 30) 1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1976) defines conservation as: "Preservation, especially of [the] natural environment". Theberge (in Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993: 138) states: "Conservation, in its best definition, embodies some optimum balance between four strategies of increasingly intensive land use: preservation, protection, multiple use and extractive use (in Dearden and Rollins, eds., 1993: 138). Within this study the term is used in the context of preservation and protection. 2 BC Parks and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (1997) refers to provincial parks, recreation areas and protected areas collectively as parks. Others refer to these areas as protected areas. Within this study the complete term parks and protected areas is used unless quoted by a particular author. 16 Environmental NGOs represent the enthusiasm of public groups for the protection of nature, with interests as diverse as recreational pursuits, farming, hunting, research, education, or simply a love of wild places. Lees (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 194) expresses the sentiments of many when she states: 'They are an economic way of ensuring nature protection because they access a public spirit for conservation involving much voluntary effort and contributed funds". Together, ENGOs and government are involved in ongoing conservation and service-providing for and within parks and protected areas. McNeely (ed. 1995: 178) emphasizes that "effective relationships between protected areas and NGOs can bring significant additional resources to the task of managing protected areas". In their own right, protected areas contribute to society in many ways. Says Lucas (1992: 27), "Their values are such that benefits accrue to those who live and work in them, who visit them and to the wider world beyond their boundaries". Public understanding and involvement in issues that affect their communities and their future has sparked a renewed interest in community and ecosystem planning. Phillips (in Rodal and Mulder 1993) states that the 1990s are a time of governments and NGOs of all kinds becoming increasingly dependent on each other for knowledge and information exchange in the formation of policy, and are likely to become more intertwined in partnerships related to program delivery to their shared clientele. The trend towards forming cooperative arrangements is also a result of pressures on ENGOs and governments as resources ranging from funds and equipment to services and staff diminish, and the complexity and interdependence of the issues and players intensifies. Paul (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 64) adds: "more could be done ... if the two sets of 17 institutions would move from co-existence to collaboration". Nowadays government must also operate under conditions of intense scrutiny by the public and the press (McCandless 1993). This contributes to rapid changes in policy direction in response to public opinion, where expectations of taxpayers includes greater government accountability and citizen involvement. Within the conservation movement there is a growing realisation that biophysical and social systems are inextricably intertwined (Machlis in McNeely, ed. 1995). The Director of World Bank's Environment Department states that, "it has been recognised that measures that do not meet the aspirations of people will not succeed" (Brown in Endicott, ed. 1993). ENGOs that are successful in long-term environmental protection efforts recognise the human dimension to their work, and are growing in sophistication and capability in their particular niche. Rodal and Wright (1993: 19) claim: "Governments, for their part, are beginning to appreciate the rich, newly established infrastructures of public and private organisations for their potential to contribute to the resolution of public issues". Lindquist (1993: 23) adds: "Many current partnerships are motivated by fiscal restraint and a realization that governments can no longer bear full responsibility for the design, financing and delivery of programs, although the convergence of fiscal realities and increasing interest in improving service to the public should be acknowledged". Rodal and Wright (1993: 20) continue: "Greater awareness of the interdependence of issues has led government to emphasize horizontal coordination - across functions, across departments and across 18 sectors". This has stimulated links with ENGOs, as nonprofit groups often have a level of knowledge and expertise that exceeds that of government, though they may be limited in available resources and influence (Phillips in Rodal and Mulder 1994). As a result, "the boundaries between government and the voluntary sector is [sic] becoming increasingly fuzzy, and the relationships between them ever more interdependent" (13). Cooperative arrangements with the private sector can be the cornerstone of a long-range conservation strategy, especially in view of funding shortages for governments and non-profits alike. They are also becoming more necessary to address broader issues than protection of a specific piece of real estate. Increasingly, government agencies are teaming up with coalitions of interested organisations, agencies and individuals seeking to protect resources in a large and diverse geographic area where park boundaries cannot be expanded indefinitely, and where federal land acquisition for parks is neither necessary nor desirable (Brown in Endicott, ed. 1993, Greater Vancouver Regional District 1996). This type of cooperative arrangement is most often used to protect a combination of natural, cultural and recreational values along rivers, by creating trails or establishing heritage corridors or areas: "Partnerships can also be used to help protect wildlife migration routes, scenic quality, recreational access and other elements of the landscape ..." (Brown in Endicott, ed. 1993: 115). 2.3.2 What are the Benefits to Partners? "Cooperation" and "partnership" are very popular words these days, as the benefits of 19 working together become increasingly apparent in a time of scarce resources for conservation. Advantages and benefits of entering into a successful cooperative arrangement are many and are often a direct result of facing difficult challenges with creativity and perseverance. The central goal of many cooperative arrangements is to enable participants and their agencies and organizations to meet objectives that they could not meet on their own (Kernaghan 1993). Each party has something unique to offer the relationship and partners would be wise to recognize and acknowledge these strengths. Depending on the goals and expectations of partners in environmental management and the standards established by their arrangement, members can expect to make gains in the following areas. 2.3.2.1 Strength in Diversity "Partnerships draw on the strengths of each of the participating agencies in ways that enhance biodiversity protection", asserts El-Ashry (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 149). Notwithstanding this, all cooperative arrangements are not born out of harmony. Endicott (ed. 1993: 26) has noted: "Sometimes good land conservation efforts come out of conflict among government agencies, a local community, business interests and conservationists". Her experience in the land trust movement suggests that supcessfully resolved conflicts involving these entities are often due to a private nonprofit acting as intermediary and brokering consensus. 20 Each agency involved in a cooperative arrangement for environmental gains has the potential to fill in the gaps which others have alone been unable to do. Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman (eds. 1994: 7) say, with reference to cooperative arrangement for acquiring land for protection: "Both public and private sectors agree that there is great strength in the diversity they bring to projects. What one partner lacks in resources, authority, or expertise the other can often provide". One organisation may contribute technical expertise or lobbying efforts; another an ability to deal creatively with legalities, or implementing land management practices (Graziano in Endicott, ed. 1993). Adds Graziano (93) in reference to the Canada/U.S. multi-party partnership, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan: "Partnerships increase the overall chance of success and stability for long-term undertakings because of redundancy in leadership and advocacy". In other words, the failure of one partner will not cause the project to fail; others will pick up the ball and run with it. El-Ashry (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 149) affirms: "Increasing examples of collaboration, with different partners assuming different roles, from financing to research to management and project implementation can be expected in the future". 2.3.2.2 Increased Effectiveness Cooperative endeavours are key in providing expertise and capability not available in a single organisation or agency. By consolidating resources, especially when investing in a longer-term project or projects, more can get done. Often the strongest joint venture projects build on earlier successes, raising the level of accomplishment and ambition. 21 Through cooperative efforts shared with NGOs, government "can better ascertain, understand and meet the real and current needs of [constituents]", say Rodal and Mulder (1993: 31). As well, partnerships "facilitate [constituents'] input for responsive and effective policies and for adaptation of technology, marketing and delivery systems to meet their needs". Government is recognising that sharing responsibilities with NGOs via specific cooperative projects is less threatening than renegotiating social responsibilities such as the devolution of program or service delivery. Lindquist (1993) suggests that this is the case because the tasks are limited and stakeholders are closely involved. The role of government is evolving to include assisting public groups in achieving particular goals. For example, say Rodal and Wright (1993: 20) "creating networks and influencing, enabling and building the capacity of others to carry out initiatives and delivering required programs and services". Access to government resources and skilled staff allows groups to become more efficient and effective (Carr 1993, Reid 1991). Cooperative agreements with government can also "give an organisation a track record of i success and then help it broaden its sights to include ... education and fund-raising" (Endicott and Contributers in Endicott, ed. 1993: 202). Close liaison with government also helps ENGOs take account of and influence political priorities for conservation (Lees in McNeely, ed. 1995). According to Lindquist (1993: 25) "they become involved in choosing among priorities - quite an achievement in an increasingly rights-oriented society!" When deemed appropriate, giving more 22 . responsibility to ENGOs and local communities can also take some of the pressure off government and extend the latter's ability to focus on other priorities (Greater Vancouver Regional District 1996). ENGOs have a spirit and commitment that would be difficult to sustain in a public agency. Volunteer citizens groups can play a critical role in laying the groundwork for a project, providing funds, challenging others to get involved and then supporting partners with everything from advice to labour and lobbying. They commonly bring qualities of innovation, commitment, flexibility and a history of community-led solution-finding to the complex task of protected areas management (Lees in McNeely, ed. 1995). The private sector also has a degree of flexibility and freedom from procedural requirements or constraining laws and regulations that government does not (Endicott ed. 1993, Doherty in Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1994). This is advantageous when a nonprofit spearheads a purchase of land, equipment or materials that requires quick access to funds for property or goods that might otherwise be lost or made more costly by bureaucratic delays (Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1994). The role of ordinary citizens as catalysts and the role of private organisations as partners in such efforts therefore cannot be minimized. 2.3.2.3 Additional Expertise In the past decade, many environment-focussed nonprofits have enhanced their reputations as providers of credible scientific information, accurate facts and statistics and sound policy options (Reid 1991). Doherty (in Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1994: 23 201) maintains: "It is not uncommon for NGOs to possess greater scientific, technical and statistical expertise than governments Reputable, broadly-based ENGOs often have an interconnected, holistic view of issues due to their attempts to tackle complex problems from many directions and their experience networking with the public, other groups and government. To a partnership they can bring skill as community service providers, with their knowledge of environmental issues and experience in public education (Reid 1991). Lees (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 191) stresses: "Successful NGO work with protected areas is often a result of their acting as a bridge between communities and government, using their local community skills". For nonprofit groups, working with government can help develop self- efficacy say Rodal and Mulder (1993: 31). For example, including NGOs in decisions that impact them has a twofold impact; "it helps to make government programs and services more responsive, and it also engages these groups in work that develops their capacity for greater self-sufficiency and gives them a greater sense of ownership of the outcomes". Paul's (in Endicott, ed., 1993: 62-63) experience at both the community and government level leads him to say: "Grassroots organisations are typically initiated by leaders who are committed to a cause, but not necessarily interested in [or capable of] replicating their endeavors nationally. The task of national replication thus falls on governments". For example, governments and other large-scale organizations have the capability, at least in theory, of investing in developing or adapting new technologies and promote their diffusion to the larger society. Nevertheless, ENGOs are generally more responsive to , 24 the needs and problems of beneficiaries (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). Given their greater local knowledge and commitment, they are more likely than governments to have the interests and skills to adapt projects and programs to local conditions. Their relatively small size and closer links to the community tend to make them more accountable. In short, governments and NGOs have differing but complementary expertise (Bendick in Endicott, ed. 1993). 2.3.2.4 Improved Finances There is no escaping the fact that investing in protected areas is a costly endeavor. As government funds decline, publicly supported projects become increasingly necessary to assist in funding and delivering projects on the ground that would otherwise be beyond government means (Greater Vancouver Regional District 1996, Rodal and Mulder 1993). Usually, locally based organisations are closer to the people and thus better able to generate support for specific protection projects. Additionally, says Endicott (ed. 1993: 5), "Donors, whether foundations, corporations, or individuals, are usually more comfortable making gifts to a nonprofit organisation, even if the donation eventually supports a government project". She continues: "This new era in partnership ... is the new economic environment" (28). Protecting the most significant natural areas has become exceedingly costly for either private groups alone or government alone. Thus, what neither partner can do alone both are endeavoring to do together. 25 2.3.2.5 Greater Local Support Adequate public accountability by government is essential as, without it, trust in elected representatives and public servants will suffer. Without that trust, society cannot work properly (McCandless 1993). Government needs the public when support for their programs is essential. Sometimes it is crucial that this support be garnered as soon as possible. At a community level, local ENGOs can arrange rapid access to the heart of a community's concerns, providing insight into potential or future problems, or endorse an initiative that otherwise is viewed with public skepticism, while nationally-based organisations have the means to also reach the wider public through well-researched publicity campaigns (Graziano in Endicott, ed. 1993). Large and small ENGOs create an atmosphere of possibility (Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1994) when a government agency might otherwise have a history of weak public relations or lack of trust. Lees (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 190) suggests that NGOs experienced in local or indigenous people's concerns "can provide valuable assistance reaching just solutions in circumstances where people may be hostile to a conservation program ... in which they have been unable to participate in the past". Once enthusiasm is generated for a project, locals are more likely to become informal stewards, keeping an eye on property and reporting any problems such as vandalism or illegal dumping (Bendick in Endicott, ed. 1993). At other times what the nonprofit can offer "is as simple and as necessary, as an extra pair of hands" (Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1994). The provision of people can be of assistance in countless ways. When attempts are being made to protect a resource, 26 community groups can contribute invaluable negotiating help, or enlist others as volunteer labourers and land stewards. Also worth noting, Endicott (ed. 1993: 213) recognises: "Sometimes large bureaucracies, be they public or private, simply are not as effective as local groups in getting the seemingly small - but often vital tasks done". Their strengths are their familiarity with the land and people in the community, their ability to generate local enthusiasm and support and volunteer assistance. 2.3.2.6 Community Outreach and Education Cooperative arrangements with ENGOs that have a strong membership base, not only have matched and secured funds for conservation projects and assisted with land acquisition and restoration, but have been of equal importance in outreach and education. Most of these large nonprofits have in-house communications teams and produce high-quality publications that are sent to supporters. These publications help educate constituencies and gain support where needed (Graziano in Endicott, ed. 1993). Graziano concedes (92): "Access to multiple constituencies helps affect public opinion and government policy-making". One such area is in representing the interests of future generations. Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman (eds. 994: 204) recognise that: "As instruments of democratic representation, NGOs can be considered the main social countervailing power in the state". As agents of 27 change they "[promote] new and different policy approaches that have not yet won support". Additionally, they can provide an independent check on officially sourced information. 2.3.2.7 Enhanced Service Delivery Successful cooperative arrangements result in a sharing of effort and responsibilities between all parties. According to Lindquist (1993), the diversion of fewer resources by government agencies increases leverage of limited resources to accomplish public ends. Reid (1991) provides the example of NGOs assisting in data collection, monitoring or participating in research projects, with the instruction and guidance of government. In the process, members of nonprofits learn valuable skills that can enhance their organisation's potential to access funds or other forms of support from government and the public. Writing on the benefits to government, Rodal and Mulder (1993: 31) state: "Collaboration stimulates the productive blending of resources, creative problem-solving and avoidance of duplication or pursuit of conflicting goals"; by pooling resources, a synergistic effect is created where "the combined impact will be greater that the sum of efforts of each partner acting alone" due to the enhanced delivery of services by all parties working on common goals. 28 2.3.2.8 Increased Understanding and Respect When a good track record accompanies an organisation, it is possible for all parties to benefit from the legitimacy and respect they bring to a cooperative arrangement. As Brown (in Endicott, ed. 1993) has found with the U.S. National Park Service, "[their] reputation for expertise in natural and cultural resources adds tremendous credibility to any study or recommendation". In turn, good reviews by the public and media can build public and political support for the organisation and those who team up with it. Notwithstanding this, it is not surprising that government and NGOs regularly view each other as adversaries, given their differing approaches to social and environmental imperatives. Yet there is great potential for partners to expand their understanding of each others' position when working on a day-to-day basis. "In most instances," says Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 301), "as [government] officials and private groups work together more closely, they develop more understanding of the advantages of collaboration, and the niche each occupies". Successful cooperative arrangements can increase a collective commitment by all parties to protected areas and to advancing from this common ground. So too may those outside of the partnership, namely the public and the media, gain a greater interest in, and understanding of, an issue and the players involved when otherwise disputing parties come together to work towards shared goals. 29 2.3.2 What are the Concerns and Issues in Partnering? Evidently, cooperative arrangements can lead to the solving of problems or advancement of goals which otherwise would have been less effective, if achieved at all. Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993) believes that the formalization of these relationships for environmental protection has in general, lead to more continuity and less confusion over how nonprofit projects are handled, including the setting of priorities and compensation for groups. But others would disagree; while significant challenges are met, some uncertainties and tensions remain, with new issues arising as a result. Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman (eds. 1994: 7) believe that the biggest problems associated with partnerships "almost unanimously [point] to lack of a clear consensus and turf consciousness". Suspicion arising from turf issues are not easily resolved, due to the shifting of responsibilities during the life of a partnership (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). For example, some governments worry, and rightly so at times, that the nonprofit sector may try to set agendas for them. Problems such as this are lessened or alleviated by engaging in a cooperative agreement that has clear boundaries and limits. Rodal and Mulder (1993: 27) say that the government's "power to act in the overall public interest" is retained when public issues are treated or resolved through a partnership endeavour which is specific to a particular issue or goal. In a less positive assessment, government devolution often means a sharing or transfer of responsibility to the public as government decreases its financial and administrative 30 involvement (Rodal and Mulder 1993). The implication of a formal agreement may therefore "be perceived as the government's abdication or off-loading of responsibilities that it is no longer prepared or able to carry out" (28). Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993) has seen concerns of partners that include such things as the importance of adequate staff in both the public and private sectors to carry out , responsibilities associated with the arrangement and negative effects of irregular funding. Norris and Camposbasso (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 180) agree, "[having] experienced so many instances of program derailment caused by the 'funding available syndrome'". For example, the government agency providing funding may restrict the type of activities recipients can undertake, or require strategic planning reports that recipients have, for various reasons, difficulty writing. Indeed, issues around funding and resource availability seem common for all parties. Government representatives experience similar difficulties when working in a partnership. Rodal and Mulder (1993) reiterate this sense that agendas are overloaded in reference to Canadian government agencies. They must access funds within already stretched budgets, and select and train staff "to effectively negotiate, consult and share information with partners and the public" (Lindquist 1993: 24). As a result, governments are more proactively developing the capacity to invest in and monitor partnerships, to plan budgets and projects. In the interim, note Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman (eds. 1994: 8): "Career park personnel may bridle at new programs that enable nonprofit organisations to obtain funding for land stewardship when the park agency's own budget 31 is being slashed". Jealousy, suspicion and fear may emerge as a result of these challenges. Some concerns are inherent to the arrangement due to the differing goals or mandates of the parties involved and of their constituents. Say Norris and Camposbasso (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 180), "besides planning capability, [the] attitudes and policies of the participating organisations have a profound effect on the symmetry or lack of same in the relationship". The prevalent conception of NGOs is that they are a source of competition for funds, as strident critics of political policy, or as tending to amass community-based power (Lees in McNeely, ed. 1995). By the same token, governments are often perceived as inefficient, lacking in integrity and unresponsive to public needs (Lindquist 1993, McCandless 1993). To be fair to all parties, it must be recognised that there is wide cultural, social, economic and political diversity in partners; a diversity that is also apparent in the nature of relationships with government and its representatives. Issues based on these perceptions are most often managed during the course of an arrangement, as representatives from all parties learn more of each other's position, and learn to base their working relationship on common interests instead of differences (Norris and Camposbasso in McNeely, ed. 1995). Nevertheless, division often comes with diversity, and there are good reasons for some organisations not to enter into a partnership. Notably for some environmental groups, there is a reluctance to interact with government because of a belief that a formal 32 association would jeopardize the independence of their group (Reid 1991). In addition, says Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 291): "Some members of private groups have feared that accepting public [i.e. government] funds would adversely affect an organisation's ability to raise money privately because donors would think that their funds were no longer needed or would criticize [them] for consorting with a public agency". Clearly, member loyalty may be affected as a result. It can also be unrealistic to work together if one or all parties are short of time or resources, or have schedules and additional commitments that do not mesh well with those of prospective partners. For nonprofits, says Reid (1991), internal problems such as low membership and low energy levels limit the projects a group can assume. Nonprofits may also feel that the partnership process sometimes slights their reasonable needs (Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1994). For example, private organisations may chafe at government agencies asking for their help but then not being willing to pay the legitimate costs associated with rendering that help. In these sorts of cases cooperative arrangements may best be considered at a future date, or after further discussions. Additional support or replacement agencies may also be found, though care must be taken not to burn any bridges. Say Norris and Camposbasso: "At their best, interorganisational relationships and collaboration generate increased resources, public support and flexibility for protected area management. At their worst, disagreements and competition lead to the formation of more NGOs to 'set things right' (in McNeely, ed. (1995:178-179). It is critical that one partner not be compromised because of the poor practices, limited 33 abilities or incompetencies of another. Government representatives in particular presume that partners can get the job done, even though, according to Lindquist (1993), nonprofit and community organisations, especially volunteer agencies, may not have sufficient budgeting and other management skills to meet government reporting standards or client needs. While this concern is understandable, experience shows that private groups can bring capabilities to certain tasks that are equal to or sometimes superior to those of government bodies (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). Where experience or resources are indeed lacking, "the capabilities of the nonprofit can be supported and enhanced by government or other organisations that have additional know-how by offering technical assistance to help strengthen project development and management capabilities" (295). The challenge ahead is how to carry out new cooperative arrangements without draining the funds and resources needed to manage and maintain existing parks and protected areas (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society 1997). Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 302) remarks: "The big difference is that these issues are now discussed in the context of how to improve partnerships rather than in the context of whether to have partnerships at all". Remarks the chief of wetlands programs for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: "The key question is not how [can we] avoid failure but how can we enable nonprofits and give them the opportunity to succeed?" (276). 34 2.4 Typologies of Cooperative Arrangements Cooperative arrangements are difficult to classify into a few categories because their variety is so great (Kernaghan 1993). Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993) states that, for the most part, there are no clear ideal structural approaches to partnerships. Heder (1995: 19) concurs: "Partnership categories are not watertight compartments". Partnerships may evolve from one typology or model to another and have elements of more than one category (Kernaghan 1993). Nonetheless, interest is growing in categorizing them to facilitate mapping the range of partnering options. Rodal and Mulder (1993) believe this trend is occurring within government in order to anticipate the implications of various options for management and to provide a framework within which to assess the suitability and success of specific arrangements. By identifying different relationship models and consciously selecting from them in order to relate all parties' interests and priorities, every organisation can become more effective at offering feedback and negotiating for needed support. The results can be translated into workable agreements that achieve both good relations and results. Studies involving cooperative arrangements between ENGO and government interests identify a range of typologies or models. All styles have positive and negative elements. The following is a review of a range of typologies and what their classification is based on. In 1956, Katz (in McNeely, ed. 1995) established two models of partnerships which are 35 still recognised today. These span a scale between two distinct relationship types: Interventionist and Interactive. Katz's typologies are based on the directional flow of power and resources between partners. The Interventionist relationship is characterised by dominance and control. The organisation with the stronger agenda uses information, funding, technical and organisational assistance and whatever influence it may have as tools to recruit other organisations to carry out its agenda. Labeled by Norris and Camposbasso (in McNeely, ed. 1995) as 'shallow participative style', application of this model results in a rigidly defined relationship because power is concentrated in one organisation. The dominant partner usually has experience in dealing with certain situations and has its own formula for decision-making and conflict resolution. As a result, decisions may be limited and less than flexible. Other problems frequently associated with the application of this model, according to Norris and Camposbasso (in McNeely, ed. 1995) include 'boom and bust' funding cycles. The 'more reports than projects' syndrome is also common when the dominant organisation has reporting, accounting systems and needs beyond the recipients' capacity to understand or work with. Another criticism of this style according to Evia and Gudynas (in McNeely, ed. 1995) is the risk of 'selling' the environment as other companies sell commodities. The interventionist relationship also has advantages. It usually is less ambiguous in its terms than the interactive approach (Norris and Camposbasso in McNeely, ed. 1995). The recipient or implementing organisation has a secure source of funding and technical 36 assistance as long as it conforms with the objectives of the donor. The risks associated with program selection and the responsibility in case of failure fall much more heavily on the shoulders of the donor. The recipient can also leave the relationship once its obligations have been met, accessing required resources on its own or with other partners. It can use this power to gain concessions from the donor agency. The Interactive relationship is defined by a two-way flow of resources, power and on-the-ground conservation results. Parties are clear about their individual goals and needs, though partners are interdependent, and accept and respect the differences of others. Their working relationship is defined within the areas where goals and values are shared. Partners also have a clear and mutually determined decision-making process (Norris and Camposbasso in McNeely, ed. 1995). In their experience working with NGOs and government in protected areas, Norris and Camposbasso found that most NGOs prefer an interactive arrangement. Though these unions are more difficult to develop and maintain because of the increased likelihood of communication breakdowns and lack of results, they offer increased opportunities for sharing challenges and rewards. Numerous variations exist between the extremes of Interventionist and Interactive models. It is possible for any organisation to be exceedingly dominant in some aspects of its programs (e.g. project objectives or paperwork requirements) and exceedingly flexible in others (e.g. field procedures). Norris and Camposbasso found it worthwhile to simplify Katz's models according to the partners involved in protected areas work. They labeled NGOs or government who 37 oversee projects and distribute funds as donor agencies. Partner agencies, primarily the NGOs doing the hand-on work for protected areas were labeled implementers. Kernaghan (1993) identified typologies based primarily on the distribution of power and responsibility for carrying out key functions of the arrangement. Secondary elements of classification included the purpose of the partnership and the contribution each party makes to the relationship. Using Kernaghan's typologies, Rodal and Mulder (1993: 36) described and ranked them according the extent of power-sharing: Type of partnership (1) Consultative (2) Contributory (3) Operational (4) Collaborative Purpoc* Advisory: to obtain relevant input for developing policies and strategies, and for program/service design, delivery, evaluation and adjustment Support-sharing: to leverage new resources or funds for program/service delivery Work-sharing: to permit partners to share resources and work, and exchange information lor programmer-vice delivery Decision-making: to encourage joint decision-taking with regard to policy development, strategic plan-ning, and program/service design, delivery, evalua-tion and adjustment Extant of power-sharing Government retains control, ownership and risk, but is open b input from clients and stakeholders: the latter may also play a role in legitimizing government deci-sions. Government retains control, but contributors may propose or agree to the objectives ol the partner-ship. Government retains control. Partners can influence decision-making through their practical involvement. Power, ownership and risk are shared. 38 It may be argued that Consultative or Advisory partnerships are not really partnerships since control is retained by the government and public involvement is limited to offering advise only. Contributory or Support-Sharing partnerships are also regarded as not being a true partnership because the relationship does not include operational involvement or decision-making of the nongovernmental entity. In Operational or Work-Sharing partnerships, efforts and resources such as work, information, advertising and expenses are shared, though decision-making may not be. As a result, these partnerships may not empower all parties, though they can lead to better coordinated and responsive operations. It is indisputable that Collaborative or Decision-Making partnerships are the most cooperative in that they are the most mutually dependent, involving all parties in all or most levels of operation and decision-making (Rodal and Mulder 1993). In her experience with land trusts, Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993) identified two basic partnerships models: Proactive and Reactive. Differences between the two are based on the extent of the role of the various cooperating organisations, which in turn affects the structure of the relationship and the level of public involvement. The Proactive Model is one "in which the nonprofit program is overseen by a specially tailored institution responsive to both [government] officials and private groups that actively fosters partnerships and cooperative projects and assists nonprofit groups as a central part of its mission" (274). One example might include the creation of a small institution which has a broad mandate to oversee a grant program fostering innovative partnerships between government and private groups. Another example is that of a 39 quasi-public group that operates similarly to an NGO. Like the former example, this group would also work outside the confines of the traditional bureaucratic structure and be given leeway to organize activities and circumvent government boundaries to accomplish its missions (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). While the proactive approach is innovative, one issue to be alert to is that, over time, it may lose some of the distinction of being on the cutting edge of political and social change. Another issue is that its quick response, bureaucratic freedom and flexibility may raise questions about the cohesiveness of the overall program, especially when public funds are in short supply. It may also be difficult to create a new agency, even if it is small, given the current climate of strict budget cuts (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). The Reactive Model is one in which a nonprofit program is fit into a traditional government land management agency. The program responds to projects proposed by nonprofits but is not required to pursue them. An example of this model includes a review board representing citizens and government officials who examine projects submitted by NGOs. The board makes recommendations for accepting proposed projects, though these are subject to higher levels of approval. Detailed regulations guide the programs. In this model, although the land acquisition process is modified up front to accommodate the objectives of the new programs, many of the agencies' conventional procedures remain in place. Government staff members with an affinity for working with the public may offer assistance in forwarding certain projects, though there is not a direct, legislated mandate to implement these projects (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). 40 The principal advantage of the reactive model is that it is less likely to be seen as a threat to vested interests because it involves organisations that already exist. It can therefore be strengthened gradually without threatening outside interests. However, it is less institutionalized, and therefore may be more vulnerable to being shut down. Another disadvantage in applying this model is that it may lead to a program that is more rigid and bureaucratic and less integrated with the spirit of the nonprofit community (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). In both reactive and proactive models, NGOs are seen as important elements in program service delivery (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). Strong representation by NGOs whose members understand the nonprofit community and government officials who know the priorities of their agency, is obviously essential. Myers maintains that, in general, some type of proactive model seems desirable in order to reap more of the advantages of working with NGOs. Rather than create a new institution, it may be possible to adapt an existing agency that works with nonprofits and that can accept risk, in order to gain the benefits of flexibility, creativity and innovation. There is great variability in the typologies discussed above. Rodal and Mulder (1993), Kernaghan (1993) and Katz (in McNeely, ed. 1995) distinguish between typologies based on the extent of power-sharing among parties. Rodal and Mulder believe that how power is distributed within the partnership is of fundamental importance in shaping the type of partnership and how it will need to be managed. Power distribution may be determined 41 by how decisions and actions that directly influence policy and program design are delegated. Katz (in McNeely, ed. 1995) also based his classifications on the directional flow of resources. Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993) selected the level and stage of public involvement as a basis for classification. In keeping with the typologies presented, the definition of a partnership, as determined by Environment Canada (1995) summed up these ideas when stating that a partnership involves shared and/or compatible objectives and an acknowledged distribution of specific roles and responsibilities, as well as resources, risk-taking, authority and benefits. Rodal and Mulder (1993) have considered all of the same elements of partnership models that the authors reviewed above have selected, and incorporated concepts into a continuum of participation involving government and other parties. Points along the participation continuum include consultations and devolution, though these associations are not considered by Rodal and Mulder as true partnerships. At one end of the continuum the government is influenced by input from others via consultations, but has total control and is responsible for decisions. At the other end of the spectrum government devolves responsibility for programs, service design and delivery. State Rodal and Mulder (1993: 33): "In a devolved arrangement, a greater measure of power or responsibility is transferred to the other party". Other points along the continuum represent relations between government and other parties where dialogue, decision-making, service delivery and design are increasingly shared. 42 Exclusive government decision-making, little or no consultation with clients/stakeholders Listening, dialogue, limited consultation, no necessary impact on decisions CONSULTATION More open debate, shared analysis ot problems, scope to influence decision-making Consultative advisory / partnerships Joint agreement on solutions, strong potential to influence decision-making PARTNERSHIPS / l t ifl  I •naki on a: j . I del* Joint decision-ma ing with regard to implementation s well as policy Participation in design and ivery of programs / services CONTROL M O D E BRIEFING M O D E DEBATE M O 0 E C O N S E N S U S M O D E COORDINATION M O D E OPERATIONAL PARTNERSHIP Shared decision-making with regard to policy development, in addition to program / service design and delivery COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP DEVOLUTION < Transfer of responsibility for program / service design and delivery DEVOLUTION Figure 2: Consultation-partnerships-devolution continuum (source: Rodal and Mulder 1993: 29) In practice, differentations between relationship classifications listed along the continuum may be indistinct. Additionally, long-term relationships often evolve over time and may move along the continuum by increasing or decreasing participation of any of the parties. Cooperative arrangements that are framed around the objective of providing a particular service or delivering a specific program are likely to evolve differently from those that aim to empower clients and stakeholders to do more for themselves. Rodal and Mulder (1993) state that organisations may develop their own partnership model after considering 43 the dimensions that are of greatest relevance to their current or potential activities, modifying the arrangement format accordingly. Application of the typologies will have different policy and management implications for the parties involved. Government accountability will be much greater in Operational or Collaborative partnerships than in Devolved relationships. A Donor government agency on the other hand, may have financed and set up a Devolved arrangement with an NGO Implementer partner, while still maintaining high standards of accountability for the project to its agency representatives and the taxpaying public. 2.5 The Criteria for Cooperative Arrangements 2.5.1 What It's All About Cooperative arrangements, in the most general sense of the term, are the basis of considerable study; literature pertaining to the subject includes the public and private sector, be it labour, business, public and private interest groups, individuals and governments of all kinds. Cooperative arrangements may be referred to as partnerships, joint ventures, co-management agreements, specific forms of community involvement processes and so on, depending on the field of study, the participants and goals, the year or decade (i.e. some terms are promoted within a given time-period or may lose their appeal), or an author's personal choice. By the same token, what is described here as 44 criteria are also referred to in the literature as principles, elements, factors, guidelines and so forth. For the purpose of this particular study, the scope of the literatures has been narrowed by reviewing the themes noted above with particular emphasis on environmental management. In so doing, the field of study became much more limited, providing a modest number of relevant documents beginning in the last decade. Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart's (1996) highly touted book, Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future, for example, involves resolving environmental decision-making disputes between parties; Endicott's research into land trusts entitled Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships (ed. 1993) and McNeely's Partnering for Conservation (ed. 1995), were given considerable attention, as were other documents, indicated on the pages that follow. It is with the purpose of generating a broadly-based criteria list1 that this segment of the literature review was done. The list was created by identifying the factors that experts in the fields of environmental management recognised as being, or having been, important to the success of the ventures they reflecting upon. Findings are organised into themes, some being process-based (i.e. how partners relate), while others are product-based (i.e. what constituent parts the arrangement and partners should collectively possess). The criteria headings are followed by evaluation indicators, phrased as questions, which are in turn followed by statements that served as prompts (in brackets) during the 1 It is with the purpose of generating a broadly-based criteria list: identifying the criteria that are present and/or recommended for the success of cooperative arrangements in environmental management and; primary research of four successful partnerships between BC Parks and ENGOs for the purpose of challenging the criteria list developed in the literature review and testing the validity of the criteria in the study of these groups. 45 interviews. Like the criteria, indicator questions and prompts were generated directly from the literature, as is evident upon review of the text that follows each criterion heading. Not all points raised in the text for each criterion have been reworked as indicator questions and prompts; rather, the researcher constructed the questions and prompts based on what authors clearly expressed as key to the success of their cooperative arrangements, and which more than one author made reference to. In cases where material was referred to in the text but not reworded as an evaluation indicator or a prompt, this occurred because either only one author raised the point, or the information was recommended for ensuring a minimum standard rather than being noted for its relevance in the success of these partnerships. 2.5.1.1 Criterion 1 Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles Is there a formal agreement in writing that establishes project goals and terms of the relationship? (Some sort of Letter of Intent exists that indicates objectives of the project and organisational protocols.) Did the parties work together to design and commit to the agreement? (The agreement was created and approved by both parties.) Are all parties clear on what and how each will contribute? (Partners understand each party's roles, responsibilities and expectations.) Before committing to a cooperative arrangement, all parties should openly and honestly discuss and agree upon the specific elements and limits of the partnership (Endicott, ed. 1993). A written agreement which people can identify with is important, says Lucas (1992: 70), but they should "see [it] as a springboard rather than as a straight jacket". An 46 agreement is best when it formalizes and describes the agreed-upon elements of the relationship, without being overly rigid and inflexible in detail. Partners must be clear, and agree on their expectations and what each will tangibly contribute so as not to create confusion and dissension as the arrangement progresses (Brown in Endicott, ed. 1993). Partners may choose to have an agreement that is a formal written contract that sets forth the roles of the different partners in a particular project, to a form letter that establishes 'organisational protocols' (Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996; Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman eds. 1994). Essential elements include project objectives and major program components, responsibilities and roles of key participants, time schedules and decision-making structures. "The trick is to keep the goals of partnerships in mind as paperwork requirements are laid down" says Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 295). Graziano adds: "Accomplishing [mutual objectives] has required a mini-partnership tailored to the particular goals" (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 100). Setting guidelines and other rules can do a lot to clear up confusion and solve conflicts sometimes resulting from opportunistic partnerships. For example, agencies that have carried out many partnerships in the past may hurry into a new arrangement whereby misunderstandings may crop up because crucial details were not worked out in advance (Endicott, ed. 1993). In addition, the question of who sets the agenda is inherent in programs involving closer collaboration between government and nonprofit groups. Formalized plans therefore help overcome interagency turf issues. These issues are also less likely to occur when key participants from both parties work together to create and adopt the agreement. The ground rules of the agreement should therefore accommodate 47 each party's situation (Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996) while being reflective of the broader agenda of the arrangement. A delicate balance needs to be maintained between the advancement of their agendas. 2.5.1.2 Criterion 2 Common Vision and Goals Do partners have consistent and attainable (conservation) objectives for the project? (Project objectives are realistic and agreed to by all parties.) Is there agreement over how to achieve these goals? (The mechanisms for attaining the goals are mutually acceptable to all parties.) Between the parties there exists a "potential for misunderstanding about motivation and [parties] therefore should have clearly stated objectives and terms" says Rabb (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 87). McNeely notes: "The construction of interorganisational relationships requires time and a symmetry of intent and attitude" (ed. 1995: 179). It is much easier for the public and private sectors to communicate clearly and arrive at consensus when they are working toward a shared goal (Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, ed. 1994). Endicott (ed. 1993: 8) adds: "The most effective partnerships take place when the government officials who run such programs can rise above politics to inspire the entire land conservation community and citizenry to work in support of an ambitious vision". Without a commonality of interest it is difficult to sustain such an effort beyond the initiating persons, says Rabb (in McNeely, ed. 1995). Goals that pertain to the particular 48 project must be consistent among partners, though an organisation's motivations not specific to the partnership project may vary significantly1. The arrangement must serve each's interests (Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996), though a common vision is key to the ultimate success of the endeavor. "It is essential for all involved with protected landscapes to have a clear and common understanding of the concept, the goals and the mechanisms by which the goals are to be achieved" (Lucas 1992: 81). 2.5.1.3 Criterion 3 Honouring Differences Do partners recognise and respect their differences? (Each party understands and honours each's motives, varying levels of involvement and approach.) Do the parties maintain their independence? (Partners keep their distinctiveness; their entity and uniqueness.) While dependence is mutual in a balanced relationship (McNeely, ed. 1995), partners have their own particular needs. Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart (1996) state that acceptance of the diverse values, interests and knowledge of the parties is essential. Norris and Camposbasso recommend that partners consider the following: "Each person's view is a unique perspective on a larger reality. If I can 'look out' through your view and you through mine, we will each see something we might not have seen alone" (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 186). Understanding the other party's position can also be a source of mutual dialogue (Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993). O'Connor (in Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993: 301) adds: "To maximize the benefits of collaboration, both public officials and private groups need to be venturesome about roles and risks while being 1 Reviewed in Criterion 3 - Honouring Differences. 49 sensitive to the special and differing constraints under which the two parties work"; and: "We should not ask [partners] to put on a shoe that doesn't fit" (295). Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman (eds. 1994) also note that important differences between parties must be maintained if both are to contribute complementary strengths, though a certain amount of bureaucratic uniformity is necessary. There are territories that must be respected" (Bendick in Endicott, ed. 1993: 166-167). Parties must make their positions and limitations clear in terms of the level of involvement they can commit to based on time restrictions, agency authorisation or personal choice. Organisations that take the time to be clear on their differences, are less likely to set inappropriately high expectations of each other (Norris and Camposbasso in McNeely, ed. 1995). For their part, government representatives should keep in mind that the interest and involvement of ENGO members is usually motivated by a sense of purpose, commitment and duty based on personal and long-term interests in community or global welfare (Reid 1991). Sentiments are stronger for those who have an attachment to a place or issue, based on this sense of belonging or affinity (Carr 1993). Bendick (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 165) offers a government agency's perspective: "Nothing is more likely to sour a partnership relationship than people ... treating officials as less than competent and as less dedicated than they are to the cause of land conservation". Respecting and understanding the goals and values of partners is therefore possible only when partners are sincere in sharing what motivates them to participate in the relationship. 50 2.5.1.4 Criterion 4 Effective Conflict Management Are partners open to problem-solving approaches? (They are open-minded about methods to work through issues.) Is there a plan for dealing with differences that relate to the project? (There is a strategy for managing opposing opinions, including those that may be unresolveable.) Are concerns and issues dealt with in a timely fashion? (Partners react to problems before they get out of hand.) "Things do not always go well. ... conflicts over land conservation are inevitable", notes Bendick (in Endicott, ed. 1993). According to Norris and Camposbasso: "The point is not to reject those that fail to 'measure up' but to be informed of areas where conflict is likely to occur, or extra support is likely to be needed and be prepared to manage it" (in McNeely, ed. 1995: 185). Thompson (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 59) adds: "As in marriage, it is only as things progress that differences of opinion emerge", so patience is important. Norris and Camposbasso (in McNeely, ed. 1995) believe that ensuring that a system is in place for sharing information and engaging in meaningful dialogue before critical choices are made affords a forum for addressing potential conflicts before they escalate and possibly marginalize people1. Thompson (in Endicott, ed. 1993) ventures that open-mindedness by all partners to different problem-solving approaches is another critical element of successful partnerships, and once a project is initiated, the need for flexibility becomes even greater. This is especially important when the arrangement involves more than one fixed-term project, as these almost never go the way they were initially structured and the more complex, the more likely to depart from the original plan. 1 See Criterion 5 - Two-way Communication Strategy for more on this idea. 51 Conflict also often stems from ineffectual communication. Partners need to be clear about what their most pressing issues are and understand the concerns and interests of others (Lucas 1992; Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996). Parties should reach agreement early in the partnership as to how they will identify means of conflict resolution and strategies for dealing with potentially unresolveable differences of opinion. Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993) reminds us that the Formalized Agreement or Letter of Intent (Criterion 1) usually addresses concerns, though what is also needed is attention throughout the process of implementation, "in rule-making, in maintaining working relationships, and so on. ... Attention must be given to both reality and perception" (Endicott, ed. 1993: 301). Thompson (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 59) adds: "At some point a critical juncture is reached and differences must be resolved or the partnership is likely to dissolve". 2.5.1.5 Criterion 5 Two-way Communication Strategy Is there an agreed-upon strategy for communicating? (There is a plan for communicating and recording formalities and individual needs.) Is communication ongoing and consistent? (Communication proceeds regularly and well.) Is there a personal contact for each party when necessary? (There is someone 'in the know' that is reachable at any time if need be.) Is information available to everyone in a format that is understandable? (The format that the information is in accounts for differences in aptitude of partners.) Crucial to cooperative agreements is clear and consistent communication among all parties (Lucas 1992). Two-way communication should be promoted and encouraged 52 t through a variety of channels. Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996: 43) recognize that: "Communication can be helped by establishing ground rules up front1, and allocating time for the participants to appreciate each other's values and interests2". Wherever possible, the modes and frequency of interaction required for a given project's components or actions should be determined and agreed upon in advance. Myers (in Endicott, ed. 1993) emphasizes the importance of close communication in a range of activities beyond specific collaborative projects - from needs assessments and strategic planning to informal discussions, "so that private groups and officials will be attuned to changing opportunities and perspectives" (301). Given the differing backgrounds of partners, coupled with the potential for 'information overload', partners must ensure that information is presented in a concise manner that is understandable to all. Besides simply sharing information and ensuring coordination, two-way communication provides a forum for expressing individual needs of partners3. Endicott (ed. 1993) offers the example of government agencies needing to protect the interests of the taxpayer. For its part, it is essential that government partners have a 'human face' and work around bureaucratic impediments that might stand in the way of personal contact when it is necessary. Issues for either party may stem from feeling slighted by the other, an imbalance of power (real or perceived), lack of clear consensus and turf issues (Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman, eds. 1994: 110): "Universally, nonprofit organisations and their government partners point to better communication and consensus 1 Reviewed in Criterion 1 - Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles. 2 This idea is discussed further in Criterion 3 - Honouring Differences. 3 Detailed in Criterion 3 - Honouring Differences. 53 building as the best cure to these problems. On a day-to-day level, this means lots of communication, which in turn usually leads to trust and goodwill". Along with the need for communication comes the need for clarity. Endicott (ed. 1993: 36) recognises: "What was clearly communicated, say, eighteen months ago, when a partnership project was entered into, may not be so clearly remembered now". Written documentation of consensus is especially important in long-term projects, when nonprofit and agency staff members as well as elected officials may well change. 2.5.1.6 Criterion 6 Professionalism and Competence Is the time-frame for the project realistic for all parties? (The phases or, where applicable, final completion of the project is reasonably attainable for everyone.) Are partners accountable to each other on an ongoing basis? (All parties are reliable and flexible.) Is skill and creativity applied where appropriate? (Partners adapt well to the changing needs, timelines and so on of the project.) In their experience with building consensus in natural resources issues, Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart (1996) believe that accountability of partners is essential, "both to their constituents and to the process that they have agreed to establish" (7). Endicott adds: "For nonprofit organisations, the need for reliability stands above all others" (1993: 36, 37). Trust and respect develop when members are accountable to each other and through positive, shared experiences, accrued over time. 54 "From the,government partner's side, the main message is that to be effective, a local [group] must be reliable and professional" (Endicott and Contributes in Endicott, ed. 1993: 214). ENGOs clearly feel the same way about government partners: "When decisions require government action, the participation of government authorities from the outset is crucial" (Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996: 98). These authors add: "The support and commitment of any parties ... is critical". Partners will enhance their respect and credibility, while furthering the efforts of the cooperative arrangement by applying skill and creativity where appropriate. This can be achieved in part by establishing a realistic time frame for the arrangement and its proposed goals. It must take into account the limits of individual and collective commitment1. These constraints include personal and job priorities and schedules, shifts in political and financial realms, changes in organisational structure, communications and technologies. 2.5.1.7 Criterion 7 Support Between Parties Are there positive working relations between partners? (Partners work effectively together.) Is there cooperation and a shared commitment to the project and the relationship? (There is a team-oriented approach whereby support is available as needed; Partners follow through on commitments.) Does each party have a key person working on the project? (Each party has a primary, knowledgeable individual working on the arrangement.) Do partners feel they have adequate opportunity to participate effectively throughout the project? (All parties feel that the arrangement is equitable and fair.) 1 Establishing a realistic time frame for the arrangement and its proposed goals is discussed further in Criterion 1 - Formal Agreement and Defined Roles; limits of parties' commitment is discusses in Criterion 3 - Honouring Differences. 55 The effective implementation of protected areas depends on the degree of support and partnership achieved with local people and government (Dearden and Rollins, eds. 1993, Lucas 1992). Lucas continues: "Goals can be identified and means of achieving them, but to be effective, committed people are needed to make the system work" (97). Endicott (ed. 1993: 9) believes it is the personalities of the individuals involved that make the difference: "Most important of all to the success of local partnership projects are the character and personality of the ... staff members. ... If the participants believe in doing everything possible to make a project work, it will work and minor resentments ... will not get in the way". McNeely (ed. 1995) continues in this vein, stating that a positive attitude toward the relationship is essential. "A strong, shared commitment to achieving mutual objectives is another important, if not essential, ingredient of a successful conservation partnership" (Thompson in Endicott, ed. 1993: 59). Cooperation and consultation, to be effective, must stem from a positive commitment to it. Thompson continues: "It should be real and not patronizing as, if it is seen purely as a procedural requirement... and is grudgingly implemented, it will not be successful". Spector, Sjostedt and Zartman (eds. 1994) note that the most effective partnerships take place when the government officials who run such programs can rise above politics to inspire the entire land conservation community and citizenry to work in support of an ambitious vision and communicate enthusiasm and high expectation for the project. This should not take away from the fact that all partners should have adequate opportunity to participate in the project as set out in the agreement' (Endicott, ed. 1993). 1 See Criterion 1 for details on a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles. 56 At the operational level, it is essential that effective communication and positive working relationships exist between partners that work closely together (Lucas 1992). Taking a team-oriented approach by following through on commitments, being attentive to the decision-making process and offering support as needed, are all important elements (Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996). "If one partner must do all the work or all the compromising, the arrangement will suffer from lack of mutuality and again is likely to break down" (Thompson in Endicott, ed. 1993: 59). Additionally, when information or resources required by those working on a cooperative arrangement is not available as arranged or required, members can be disheartened and hindered in their work (Endicott, ed. 1993). There should therefore be a strategy for communication and decision-making and a method by which to gauge and develop fairness and equity on an ongoing basis. 2.5.1.8 Criterion 8 External Support Is there a strategy for educating and involving the general public in a meaningful way? (There is a system for enhancing local community awareness of the arrangement and responding to relevant concerns and interests.) Is there solid, local support for the project? (The majority of the public support the arrangement and believe it is 'transparent' in actions that are perceived to affect them.) "Local support is not just a means to an end ... It is also an end in itself" says Brown (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 209) in reference to protecting lands. People who have lived in a town for a long time may have deep feelings about a project; earning solid, visible 57 support from this 'old guard' in town is important. Public support includes the participating ENGO(s) as well as members of the public-at-large. Carr (1993) notes that community and government representatives alike must establish and maintain trust and respect by being 'transparent' in any actions that involve the partnership, or are perceived to affect the public. Partnership projects that appear to be avoiding potentially contentious issues should be as proactive as possible in involving or informing associated communities, or at minimum, offering some forum for informal educational opportunities. Confidentiality may be essential at some stages, but, if there is any reason why people outside of the arrangement may disapprove or view it as being secretive, then a strategy for communicating with the public and providing information should be developed before problems surface in the media. Being responsive to citizen concerns and interests, and following through on commitments is essential in the short and long term, especially for government partners. A government partner has a large membership (its constituents), and its public image may be negatively affected if it is not perceived as being equitable and fair in its work. If this is not done in a timely fashion, projects may receive criticism, be interrupted or terminated due to outside scrutiny (Brown in Endicott, ed. 1993). 58 2.5.1.9 Criterion 9 Resources, Training and Education Are partners clear on what resources are available to them? (All parties know what is available to them from each other.) Are there opportunities for appropriate skill enhancement? (There are opportunities for partners to learn; for the environmental interest group in particular.) Is the knowledge and expertise of each partner accessible? (The particular skills of partners are accessible; in a format and time frame that people can access.) By its definition, a cooperative arrangement involves the sharing or exchange of resources between partners. The wealth of knowledge and expertise from all parties can be shared with partners and other interests by both formal and informal means and are increasingly legitimized and available if recorded in a format that can be accessed by others (Endicott, ed. 1993). While government partners and for that matter, ENGOs, continue to experience restrictions in finances and time, methods for accessing information that are worth considering include personal information exchanges, workshops, standardized scientific research, or other means. Partners do however, have the prerogative of setting boundaries over what they choose to contribute, whom they wish to offer their resources to and limits of time invested within a particular time frame or project (Endicott, ed. 1993). Communication over resources and the parameters of their use therefore needs to be clearly defined for everyone who may wish access to them. What may be required to overcome obstacles within an arrangement or improve the quality of a project is additional support for those involved in the on-the-ground work. 59 Dower (in McNeely, ed. 1995) believes it is a wise idea to invest in skill development of ENGO partners. In addition to improving the product, he adds that such an investment leads to greater understanding and interest, enhanced personal confidence and commitment to the partnership or project. This may in turn lead to the development of future leaders and project supporters. In addition, specific skill instruction for ENGO members often results in a more consistent, quality product, which may supplement ongoing or future research efforts by government and other interests, thereby further endorsing and legitimizing a project or arrangement (Dower in McNeely, ed. 1995). 2.5.1.1.1 Criterion 10 Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness Is flexibility designed into the process? (The arrangement is open to adjustments that may be required or desired.) Are partners flexible and innovative? (Partners are open to changing needs and logistics and respond as required.) Is there a general plan for making adjustments to the project if necessary? (There is a strategy for responding to unforeseen changes to the project.) Progress in a project often brings with it changes to plans or expectations which cannot be anticipated, though the approach to be taken with these realities can be planned for in a general sense. Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart (1996) recommend that flexibility be designed into the process in order to address challenges as the project develops. Partners should therefore be willing to discuss how they might contribute to adjustments in needs and logistical support and respond as required. In reference to stewardship programs, O'Connor (in Myers in Endicott, ed. 1993: 296) writes, 60 "partnerships must allow for testing of new relationships, evaluation and midcourse corrections when some innovations do not work as well as was hoped". Plans may need revision as new information becomes available and basic conditions change (Lucas 1992). Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart (1996) concur: "It is impossible to anticipate everything. By designing flexibility into the process, participants can anticipate and better handle change when it faces them" (53). Partners should therefore be willing to discuss how they might contribute to adjustments in needs and logistical support, and respond to these situations as required. Monitoring programs may need to be established whereby continuous feedback is available for those who need it (Machlis in McNeely, ed. 1995). All parties should keep in touch with, and stay informed of, the advancements being made on a project. A pre-established format or plan for making use of progress reports suggested in order to set priorities for action, to note inconsistencies or difficulties in meeting smaller goals (Machlis in McNeely, ed. 1995). 2.5.1.1.2 Criterion 11 Resiliance and Continuity Is continuity and integrity built into the structure? (There is a system by which to transfer resources and knowledge if needed.) Is there an adequate alternate who can carry on in the absence of each parties' key person? (There is a replacement for each parties' lead person in the short and long term.) 61 While the significance of key people has already been noted1, it is also important to build continuity and redundancy into a cooperative arrangement if it is based on long-term goals (Endicott and Contributors in Endicott, ed. 1993). Brown (in Endicott, ed. 1993) says: "Each project is a learning experience and it is important to have staffers who will be around long enough to apply the lessons they have learned". It is also important to ensure there is mutual understanding of the responsibilities of key people, identifying their replacements given changing scenarios throughout the length of the partnership. For example, ENGOs cannot survive indefinitely if local volunteer support depends on only one or a very few individuals. Partners need to keep abreast of the real possibility for changes and delays due to seasonal or holiday cycles for all parties and political cycles for government and how these may affect a project or projects. When an arrangement or project is completed, a written report should be made which includes all salient aspects of the project from start to finish so it can be used as a reference tool by others at a later date (Lucas 1992; Cormick, Dale, Emond, Sigurdson and Stuart 1996). 2.5.1.1.3 Criterion 12 Accomplishments and Empowerment Are there attainable, smaller goals within the project? Do partners share challenges as well as successes? Do partners understand and respect each's need for recognition outside of the relationship? (Credit and publicity are appropriately shared.) 1 This is discussed in Criterion 5 - Two-way Communication and Criterion 7 - Support Between Parties. 62 When challenges shared between parties or members are met, the resulting sense of fulfillment creates a synergistic effect that strengthens commitment and involvement. In addition to meeting large-scale goals, a sense of accomplishment is more readily realized when a partnership involves concrete components, strategies or steps, and has clear and attainable smaller goals (Dower in McNeely, ed. 1995). Endicott and Contributors (in Endicott, ed. 1993: 214) also note the merits of smaller goals, but add that partners should: "Share the benefits as well as the burdens". By doing so, all parties have a better understanding of what it takes to make the project succeed and then work together to make the necessary adjustments. There is often a need for credit and publicity for either partner. Bendick (in Endicott ed. 1993: 166) says: "Good publicity is often critical to leaving all parties to an effort with a good feeling. When press coverage is favorable, others want to become part of the team". Partners should recognise this as good media reports build interest and therefore membership from the local community for the ENGO, while government representatives have a renewed interest in a project or proposal when smaller goals are met and when their superiors are pleased with a project's progress (Endicott, ed. 1993). A balance therefore needs to be struck between the needs of all parties in this regard. Sharing fairly or devolving power promotes empowerment and self-reliance among NGO partners and reinforces opportunities for esteem-building and personal growth such as when individual or group goals are attained. Affording opportunities to recognise their achievements also reinforces a positive sense of territoriality and self-determination. 63 2.5.1.1.4 Summary The purpose of the literature review of the criteria has been to investigate what is known about the elements that lead to the success of cooperative arrangements in environmental management. Twelve criteria were generated by the researcher. Alone, the criteria headings conjure images particular to each reader's unique experience, and hence may not reflect the context that the authors referred to them in. Evaluation indicators and prompts were therefore designed to prevent misinterpreting the meaning of the criteria, each of which is then expanded upon in the text. The text itself is a summary of the reflections of authors on particular cooperative arrangements and, as such, some criteria may be of greater relevance to specific forms of partnerships than others. For example, land trust transactions involving joint purchasing of land, reaching consensus in dispute resolution of natural resource issues, and protecting landscapes where park authorities work with landholders, all involve parties with expectations and needs particular to their unique form of arrangement. It is therefore likely that certain criteria have greater significance to a specific type of arrangement, as well as possibly being case-specific. Of the authors that have written in more general terms about more than one partnership, the following criteria have been referred to as "crucial", "essential" or "very important" to the success of the range of cooperative arrangements: Criterion 1 - some sort of written formal understanding that addresses the essential elements of the arrangement and roles of participants; Criterion 2 - agreeing upon primary objectives and a common goal; Criterion 3 - recognising and respecting differences; Criterion 5 - clear and consistent communication involving key individuals; Criterion 6 - professional, accountable 64 partners and; Criterion 7 - supportive partners. The remaining criteria: 4 - Effective Conflict Management; 8 - External Support; 9 -Resources, Training and Education; 10 - Performance Monitoring, Iterativeness and Feedback; 11 - Resilience and Continuity, and; 12 - Accomplishments and Empowerment, were noted for being important by some authors or were recommended, though with less emphasis or for only one, particular form of arrangement, as something that "should" or "may need" to be met. The case study research has been designed to test the findings noted above and determine what, if any, criteria are common to the case study arrangements, and reflect on disparities among the groups1. In so doing, it is expected that it will be possible to determine the criteria critical to the success of cooperative arrangements between ENGOs and BC Parks in the stewardship of natural resources in British Columbia's provincial parks, and those that are of less relevance to their success. Chapter 3 (Methodology) reports on the method by which these case study groups were selected, interviewed and reported oh'. Interpretation and analysis of the findings are discussed at length in chapters 4 through 6. 65 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the rationale and method for selecting the case study groups and their representatives (i.e. respondents). The purpose, design and structure of the questionnaire is also presented here, along with a description of the procedure by which it was administered and comments were documented. Summaries of the comments are presented in the Appendix, and are discussed in the Results (Chapter 4) and Analysis (Chapter 5). 3.1 Case Study Selection 3.1.1 Cooperative Arrangement Selection Case study groups were selected from a larger sample of arrangements, the representatives of whom were involved in a study in the spring of 1998 for BC's Park Legacy Project (1998a). The former study was a preliminary assessment of the strengths and limitations of eight successful cooperative arrangements between BC Parks and ENGOs involved in planning and managing BC's parks and protected areas. A large number of arrangements for the former study were recommended by three senior level BC Parks staff based at the headquarters in Victoria. These and other arrangements were then recommended by senior staff at each associated district office. From this larger sampling, the selection was narrowed to eight arrangements based on factors that included their representativeness and diversity in the following areas: a range of BC Parks districts they were located in; diversity in the mandate and goals of the ENGOs and 66 variations in the size of the park the arrangements were occurring in. Four of the eight cooperative arrangements from the former study were chosen for the current thesis based on the following: The researcher had personally conducted the majority of interviews for four of the arrangements from the previous study and had a basic understanding of the arrangements and their players and the representatives from these groups were agreeable to possible further contact. For the case study portion of this thesis, it was essential that, for each of the four arrangements, at least one key representative from BC Parks and from the ENGO involved in the arrangement be interviewed. Representatives were selected based on their understanding and direct involvement in the particular arrangement. All of the final eight respondents (i.e. one from each agency or organisation for a total of two from each of the four arrangements) were recommended by their partnering agencies as being the key person, or one of the key people, to be interviewed for the study. 3.1.2 Selection of Representatives Introductory phone calls were made to BC Parks in order to determine which staff person was most appropriate for the interview. The researcher also took this opportunity to introduce the study and the particulars of the interview (e.g. types of questions, length of time required for the interview and so on). Senior level managers were selected from 67 each of the four districts targeted in the study; one interviewee was a District Manager, one an Area Supervisor and two were Extension Officers. All were involved in their respective cooperative arrangement to a significant degree. In the two cases where Extension Officers (E.O.) were interviewed, they suggested that the Area Supervisor might also like to be interviewed, though they (the E.O.) were also appropriate for the interview. Because the interview portion of the research included only one representative per party, no attempts were made to contact additional people beyond those initial contacts who indicated that they were both an appropriate representative and available for the interview. ENGO representatives were, or had very recently been, instrumental players in their organisation; three of these four interviewees were without a doubt the key person representing their organisation (as stated by both the BC Parks and the ENGO representative); the fourth representative was in the process of training a replacement chairperson and hence had the best overall understanding of the organisation and its involvement in the arrangement. 3.2 The Questionnaire 3.2.1 Purpose The questionnaire was created in order to challenge the criteria that were extrapolated from the literature review and apply them to more specific examples of cooperative 68 arrangements for environmental management. The researcher also wanted to learn more from current, 'real life' examples of cooperative arrangements for parks in BC and form recommendations for making them more effective. 3.2.2 Design and Structure The questionnaire was designed by reviewing the twelve criteria described in the literature review and identifying the salient features that embodied each and summarizing these points into concise statements. It was noted that there was some likelihood that respondents might interpret the meaning of a criterion differently than what was intended by the researcher in the original meaning. In order to prevent this from occurring and to ensure the meaning of the criterion was clearly represented without leading the respondent, between two and five evaluation indicators were listed under each criterion and were used as the basis of the interview questions. The indicators were phrased as questions, and respondents were asked to comment on the degree that each indicator was met in their arrangement. Each criterion was represented by between two and five evaluation indicator questions. Criteria and questions were organised and numbered in a logical format for readability and were therefore not listed according to significance. Under each criterion heading, questions were most often followed by a statement that served to restate the question in the event that respondents needed further clarification of the question. For example, under criterion # 9 entitled Resources, Training and Education, the following appeared: 69 Are partners clear on what resources are available to them? (i.e. All parties know what is available to them from each other.) Are there opportunities for appropriate skill enhancement? (i.e. There are opportunities for partners to learn; for the public interest group in particular.) Is the knowledge and expertise of each partner accessible? (i.e. The particular skills of partners are accessible; in a format and time-frame that people can access.) Respondents were requested to answer each question with a Yes, Primarily, Somewhat, No, or Not Applicable. The questionnaire also read: "Examples or comments to clarify your choice are encouraged and appreciated." Following the questions pertaining to the twelve criteria, respondents were requested to comment on the following statement: Please comment on which criteria have been most and least important to the success of the cooperative arrangement. Feel free to give specific examples in the space below. A listing of the twelve criteria followed this statement. Since all interviews were conducted by telephone, this was achieved by way of the researcher slowly reading the criteria list aloud and the respondent making appropriate comments during and after the list was read. The final question respondents were asked to respond to was the following: Are there any criteria (i.e. aspects of the arrangement) that are not listed? Please explain. 70 3.3 The Interviews 3.3.1 Procedures To begin the interview, respondents were asked if the researcher could quote them in writing and use their name and/or the name of their organisation or agency, including the district, in any material related to the research project (e.g. the thesis defense, publication of study findings and so on). All eight approved, though on occasion during the interviews, a respondent requested that a particular comment not be recorded, or would restate a comment more accurately to supersede the original comment. Interviews were semi-structured and followed the general format of the questionnaire. The researcher attempted to elicit a direct Yes, Primarily, Somewhat, No, or Not Applicable response to each question in order to prevent the need to interpret comments later. Wherever possible, comments were recorded verbatim and indicated as such by quotation marks. More detailed comments were recorded in shorthand, the essential elements of which respondents were requested to repeat or which the researcher read back to the respondent in order to ensure accuracy. On occasion, respondents strayed from the particular question. In these cases, the researcher continued to document their comments, but would direct the respondent back to the question when appropriate. After the questionnaire was completed, respondents were read a summary of background 71 information pertaining to their particular cooperative arrangement1. They were asked to suggest improvements or update the summaries where appropriate. Modifications were then incorporated into the original summaries. Six of the interviews were completed in approximately one hour, while two took forty-five minutes and two hours respectively. Upon completion of each interview, the researcher reread all notation for clarity, filling in any missing words where appropriate and ensuring that all comments were intelligible and legible. 3.3.2 Documentation The transcribed notes were reviewed on a question-by-question basis. Responses from both parties for each arrangement (i.e. the BC Parks and the ENGO representative) were combined and given an overall value within the Yes- No continuum with regard to the extend that a criterion was or was not exhibited2. The following method was used to determine how to place a value on these combined comments. When both respondents gave the same reply for one-hundred per-cent of the questions for a particular criterion, that response was recorded in the summary notes. For example, if a "Yes" was stated by both parties to all questions for a criterion, then "Yes" was 1 Background summaries are presented in section 4.1. This material was originally compiled by Octeau and Tamm (for BC's Park Legacy Project 1998a) in their preliminary assessment of the strengths and limitations of eight successful cooperative arrangements in planning and managing BC's parks. 2 Combined responses from each arrangement are reported in section 4.4 -Comparison of Comments made by Representatives from each Arrangement. 72 recorded. If parties said "Yes" to seventy-five per-cent of the questions and "Primarily" or "Somewhat" for the remaining twenty-five per-cent, then "Yes" was recorded, along with a summary of the range of comments. The following example from Garibaldi/Sunshine District pertains to Effective Conflict Management: a) Are partners open to problem-solving approaches? BC Parks: "Certainly. They are always willing to sit down in a meeting and work through any potential issues and things. ..." ENGO: "Yah sure, they always listen to us and we listen to them ... except for the dog issue." b) Is there a plan for dealing with differences that relate to the project? BC Parks: "If there's a problem, they're open to solving that." ENGO: "No, Nothing on paper. It's left to common sense and people's personalities." c) Are concerns and issues dealt with in a timely fashion? BC Parks: "Somewhat. ... It's all in a question in what you define as timely. ... Of course, it varies issue-by-issue " ENGO: Yes. Reasonable well." "Yes" was recorded for this criterion, followed by:, "Parties are open to resolving differences as the need arises. There is no formal strategy, just common sense. 73 Responses to concerns and issues may take a bit of time on the part of Parks, but the Society thinks it is reasonable." When fifty per-cent or more of responses were "Yes" through to "No", then the range was recorded in the summary. Consider the example in the South Island District referring to External Support: a) Is there a strategy for educating and involving the general public in a meaningful way? BC Parks: "No. We don't have the staffing. We can't do as much outreach as we'd like.' ENGO: "No. Not really." b) Is there solid, local support for the project? BC Parks: "[I have] no idea." ENGO: "Oh Yah!" He gives the example of the trail they are building and the groups and newspapers that are assisting and interested. Then: "The Society is the conduit for all this stuff ...". He continues with examples of the groups that then assist according to their expertise. The summary states: "Yes and No. There is no formal public outreach; Parks cannot afford it; but various sectors of the public support the Society when the need arises". When seventy-five per-cent or more of responses were "Yes" and "Primarily", or "Primarily" and "Somewhat", or "Somewhat" and "No", then the midrange response of 74 either "Primarily" or "Somewhat" was recorded, followed by a summary of the comments. When seventy-five per-cent of responses were "Primarily" or "Somewhat", while the other twenty-five per-cent were "Yes", then ."Primarily" was recorded followed by a summary of the comments. In cases where seventy-five per-cent of responses were "Primarily" or "Somewhat", while the other twenty-five per-cent were "No", then "Somewhat" was recorded followed by a summary of the comments. 75 C H A P T E R 4: R E S U L T S This chapter presents the findings from the study. The material is organised according to two central themes: 4.1 A summary of background information listed by each arrangement that pertains to: - the provincial park of relevance to the arrangement; - relevant information about the ENGOs; - the history and current status of the arrangement; and - comments from both respondents on their arrangement. 4.2 A more detailed account of comments from respondents: - combining those of ENGO and BC Parks representatives for each arrangement; - comparing ENGO and BC Parks representatives within each arrangement; - concerning each respondent's opinion of the most and least important criteria within their arrangement. 4.1 Background Information This section includes a case-by-case summary of the park, the ENGO, the cooperative arrangement and comments about the arrangement from both ENGO and BC Parks respondents. The information was originally presented in a report by Octeau and Tamm for BC's Park Legacy Project (1998a) and has been updated and modified from the interviews of February and March 1999. In all but one of the cases (i.e. South Vancouver 76 Island District of BC Parks) the same respondents were interviewed for the 1998 study as for the current project. In Okanagan District, two ENGO members were interviewed for the 1998 study; in 1999 one of these same people was interviewed. No distinction has been made in the summary between representatives of the same agency or group. Quotations in the Comments on the Arrangement (presented in the latter part of each summary) have not been attributed by name, but rather, are indicated as being those of either the ENGO or the BC Parks representative. BC Parks is often referred to as "Parks" which should not be confused with the lowercase use of the term. A description of the projects that have been completed or are in the works are listed under the heading for the respective ENGO and not under the Arrangement. This has been done because, in the majority of cases, the bulk of the work was being performed by the volunteers or staff from the ENGO. 77 4.1.1 Sargeant Bay Society and BC Parks at Sargeant Bay Provincial Park, Garibaldi/Sunshine Coast District The Park Sargeant Bay Provincial Park was created in March of 1990. It is a day use park comprised of a natural bay, wetland and forested area, a lake and a bog. The park supports much birdlife, a marsh and some spawning salmon. Adjacent to the bay, Triangle Lake is a recent addition to the park and includes a sphagnum bog. The Society The Society was officially formed prior to the establishment of the park. Primarily local, public interests rallied for the protection of Sargeant Bay as a park in order to keep it in as natural a state as possible and abate any further destructive acts on the local environment. The Society is a registered, non-profit society with close to two-hundred members. The Society emphasizes conservation, though it also supports recreational interests that are in keeping with protecting the area's resources. Public education is a strong element of their mandate and involvement with the park, though their interests also extend to the ecosystem beyond the parks' boundaries. In the early days of the Society, members developed the background report to the park Master Plan and presented the draft Plan to the rest of the public. Following acceptance of the Master Plan, the Society became actively involved in the rehabilitation of degraded areas of the bay and wetland, accessing sufficient sponsorship to finance a hydrological 78 and archeological assessment of the area. With additional funding, in-kind donations and employment grants, the Society has engaged in further rehabilitation projects, limited trail development, public nature interpretation programs and events, school group activities and the proposal and acceptance of neighbouring Triangle Lake and its bog for inclusion within the Protected Area Strategy and the park. Projects presently underway include creating their quarterly newsletter, annual work bees for projects like the eradication of non-native blackberries and continuous monitoring of the park and visitors. The Society is also working with BC Parks staff to revise the Master Plan to include Triangle Lake. The Society also has a small service contract with Parks to provide basic services that include some ongoing clean-up and other small projects. The Cooperative Arrangement BC Parks has a Volunteer Agreement with the Society as well as a small service contract for specific maintenance projects. The Society is actively involved in making recommendations to Parks concerning all levels of park management and planning, including the establishment and expansion of the park, some rehabilitation and maintenance projects and development and access within the area. BC Parks provides regular guidance and support including some financing, training and logistical assistance. They also work closely with the Society when the, need arises for public consultation and inclusion in planning decisions and support. There are no regular meetings between parties, though there are on-site meetings from time-to-time and personal contact is made as required. The primary method for corresponding is via phone and e-mail. 79 Comments on the Arrangement Both parties agree that their arrangement is mutually beneficial and in many ways "couldn't be better" (ENGO). Both partners acknowledge the contribution that the Society has made and continues to make, not the least of which was the expansion of the park. The Society does "everything that relates to nature" while Parks "[does] all the maintenance things" (ENGO). BC Parks also acknowledges that the Society accesses funds and additional support that Parks cannot. The Society is also "a good sounding board for some of the decisions Parks makes in more of a planning'sort of way" (BC Parks). Over time, partners have developed much trust and respect for each other and clearly understand their roles, responsibilities and needs within the arrangement and as independent bodies. This was not always the case in the early stages when the Society "had to fight Parks' paternalistic attitude" (ENGO). Some outstanding issues remain between parties, but they are generally viewed as small irritants rather than obstacles. In addition, both parties noted that Parks requires a lot of paperwork and compliance with regulations, though the Society understands these needs. 80 4.1.2 Adams River Salmon Society and BC Parks at Roderick Haig Brown Provincial Park, Thompson River District Though this arrangement is ongoing, it is primarily referred to in the past tense because its central project - running the "Salute to the Sockeye" event - took place in the fall of 1998. The Park The focus on this arrangement is not so much a park or parks, but the Sockey salmon that migrate through Roderick Haig Brown Provincial Park. The salmon return to the area in full force every four years, traveling through the park via the fourteen kilometres of river between Shuswap Lake and Adams Lake. Since the park was established in 1978, many trails and viewing platforms have been created within it to promote visitor appreciation of the salmon and other resources within the area. The Society The Society is a registered, non-profit agency. It was officially formed in February of 1994 with the impetus, financial and logistical assistance of BC Parks, who realized that budget cuts would end their role as primary organizers of the internationally renowned Salute to the Sockeye event. The event itself has been ongoing since the 1950s. Since the park was established, Parks was the key body that financed, planned and managed the event, with some assistance from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). Until the Society became involved, Parks was incurring substantial costs hosting the event. 81 One of the objectives of creating the Society was therefore to have an agency through which corporate donations could be received to partially fund the event. BC Parks also had the expectation that the local communities would increase their involvement in the event if a public agency took over. The primary objective of the Society has been to organise the event every four years. Beginning in January 1997 an eleven member Board of Directors planned and orchestrated the fall 1998 event. Nine board members were from the public-at-large, while one represented Parks and another the DFO. At least half of the Directors were very active in planning for the event. Since the 1998 event has now successfully passed, expectations have shifted to directing the seed money ($36,000) that the Board raised, to engage in activities for the years between events. The goal of these activities is to garner additional public support and raise awareness of the need to conserve, sustain and enhance the salmon, promote recreation opportunities of Roderick Haig Brown Provincial Park and other nearby parks and support the continuous, long-term integrity of these parks. The Cooperative Arrangement This arrangement has been in practice since the 1994 Salute to the Sockeye event. The Society has an Operations Permit with Parks in order to plan and run all aspects of the event. In 1998 this included being able to charge for on-site parking as a way to generate much-needed capital to finance initiatives in the years between primary salmon runs. 82 Efforts continue to be made to bring the local community in to shape the event. Both parties are increasingly making strides in this direction, though Parks will continue to participate in planning the event. Executive members for the event included the Society's Board members, one senior level Parks employee and one DFO representative. The DFO is not considered to be an active player in the cooperative arrangement. The District Manager of Parks also oversees the event. BC Parks has attempted to devolve operational responsibility to the Society and assist them in becoming self-sustaining and ongoing. However, under the previous format, the Society is not prepared to carry on in the arrangement for the 2002 event. BC Parks has also recognised some of the issues with the previous arrangement and encourages the Society to be frank in their reporting of the planning and implementation of the event. In their Annual Report for 1998 the Society proposed three options for modifying the arrangement. BC Parks is expected to heed their recommendations. Comments on the Arrangement Both parties stated that the Society's Board is comprised of a highly skilled and committed group of people, though they are aging and are fatigued from the very demanding task of most of the planning and implementing of the successful fall 1998 event. There is little continuity of event organizers and volunteers, partially due to its four year cycle, which results in a declining interest in the Society between years. The Society was given a free hand by Parks in planning the last event and had numerous 83 committees for various aspects of it. Even though tasks were shared, members felt that they "were used to offset a lot of government expenses" (ENGO) and resented some of the tasks they were given that Parks was itself capable of doing. These problems occurred for reasons that both parties reflected on: the arrangement was primarily focussed on a deadline which increased the pressure on everyone; "there are not many touchstones in this process" (BC Parks) because of the four year cycle and parties often could not recognise or learn from their mistakes until after the fact and; attempts were being made to put the Society front and centre wherever possible, so that, by working face-to-face with the community, they would garner more support than Parks was capable of generating. Additionally, with regard to volunteers, Parks "really likes to follow the same kind of process that they do with staff people" (BC Parks) including providing support and respect, though the Society wants "to be recognised as a volunteer and not as an employer/employee relationship". In spite of the intense pressures on partners of this arrangement and that members had their differences, they communicated well, adapted to changing demands and acknowledged their mutual support and respect. They also succeeded in running a very successful international event. 84 4.1.3 Koksilah River Park Society and BC Parks at Koksilah River Provincial Park, South Vancouver Island District The Park This is a small (207 hectare), linear park that runs along a stretch of river. The area is comprised primarily of Coastal Douglas Fir, though the area has been extensively logged and Macmillan Bloedel maintains rights to adjacent lands. The park is much used as a central location from which many forms of users then fan out to or return from neighbouring areas and parks. There is some historical use in this way as the Seniors' motorcycling club and horseback-riders have a long history of using the area as a point of entry or exit for their trips. The park was described as previously being a "war zone" because of its use and abuse by high-impact users and resulting conflicts with other interests. The Society This ENGO is a registered non-profit society. It was formed with the initiative of local, lighter-impact users. Created in 1993 to look after the restoration and preservation of the. park, their mandate is the overall conservation of the park, as well as the identification of special resources within it. Current members are from the horse club, mountain-bikers and seniors' motorcycle club. There are approximately nine core members - some are retired; several have expertise in different areas. Members are well-connected to the community, are very informed of forest practices and have a good working relationship with the regional district of BC Parks. The Society is described as being the liaison 85 between Parks and the wider community. Members meet about every six months. BC Parks staff participate in these meetings though the Society works independently from them. Society projects are proposed and accepted on a project-by-project basis once they are reviewed by Parks. Past projects that the Society has completed, with assistance on occasion from Parks, include creation of a trails map that includes a record of sensitive ecosystems, identification of prospective land acquisitions and some clean-ups. They had some input into the Park Management Statement and are currently putting in a three km trail, accessible to foot-traffic only. The Cooperative Arrangement The Society has signed a Stewardship Agreement with BC Parks and efforts are currently underway to formalize it more appropriately to the existing arrangement. In the past the Society had volunteer agreements that were renewed every year. Although they work cooperatively with Parks, the Society is very organized and knowledgeable and promotes their own conservation agenda to Parks. Hence in some instances they take on the role of a lobby group. Comments on the Arrangement BC Parks believes that Society members are dedicated and accessible and acknowledges that they have contributed significantly to the park. They also indicated that the Society provides valuable information to them about the region. The group feels that while the lower levels of Parks are "super supportive, ... capable and ... likable", they question the 86 level of competence and the motives of other employees and feel unwelcome and undervalued by some of the senior staff. The Society feels that they themselves are "the conduit for all this stuff [that gets accomplished]" and that "there should be a lot more respect for that". Both parties state that the approval process for projects is time-consuming and that this irritates the Society. More importantly to the group however, is what they consider poor accountability and inappropriate management on the part of Parks on a number of issues that relate to the integrity and protection of the park. They also believe that Parks has a limited understanding of the region. Both parties concur that part of the problem is that Parks can only provide limited support for the Society because they are severely limited in funding and time. BC Parks adds that they are therefore "more reactionary than proactive" and that they find it difficult to meet the demands of the Society. The Society believes that Parks withholds information that is of relevance to them, the most notable example referring to a grassland meadow that the Society would like Parks to acquire. BC Parks on the other hand, states that they are in the job of managing existing parks only and that all but in-house information is available to the Society to use as they choose. BC Parks says that on the part of the Society, "there is some discrepancy in understanding our involvement in land acquisition" and that the group does not clearly understand Parks' policies and the restrictions this imposes on decision-making. While the Society takes issue with how Parks has applied its mandate of conservation and 87 recreation, they believe the agency is slowly changing its focus for the better. The representatives that normally interact, respect and trust each other and share a commitment to their work. Even though people get irritated on either side in this relationship, all-in-all, when the dust settles, everyone is pleased with what they have accomplished. 4.1.4 North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club and BC Parks at Silver Star Provincial Park, Okanagan District The Park The mission of Silver Star Provincial Park is to protect a representative portion of the Okanagan highlands landscape and offer recreational opportunities to enable people to understand, enjoy and appreciate the natural environment. The park was initially created to include a downhill ski area. With a classification and boundary change the ski area is now outside of the park. The park is now over 18,700 hectares in size. Cross-country ski trails are located in roughly 500 hectares in a corner of the park. The Club People have cross-country skied in the area for decades, well before the creation of the park. The Club was formed by local skiers dedicated to the sport of cross-country skiing. The Club now has a membership base of approximately 1,400 and boasts some of the best snow conditions and terrain across Canada. 88 The Club is a registered non-profit society. It manages the park's trails system to the specifications of the agreement it has with BC Parks. The Trails Management Committee (also known as the Operations Committee) is comprised of approximately seven people and oversees all aspects of the Club's involvement in the park. In addition to the permit it has with Parks, the Club also fundraises and manages projects and events of its own. One such recent project it worked on with Parks approval was the construction of a day lodge within the park. The Cooperative Arrangement Over seven years ago the District was spending funds to maintain the cross-country ski trails in the area, though there were no user fees at the time. BC Parks asked the Club if they would like to take over the job. The Club then signed on as permittee of the Sovereign Lakes Cross-Country Permit. This joint relationship involves the Club hiring four staff to groom trails and collect user fees, setting prices at the approval of Parks. Profits are put back into improving the park for cross-country skiers, though other groups, namely snowmobilers, also benefit from investments that the Club puts into the area. In the early years the Club managed the area with little input from Parks. More recently, Parks staff have taken a more proactive role in determining what new trails will or will not be developed within the area, authorizing or limiting events the Club runs within the park and so on. This contrast in involvement over the years has created some dissent over responsibility and decision-making for the area. Formal discussions between Parks and the Club include some financial meetings each year and reviewing of a special events 89 itinerary once a year. Other meetings take place on an issue-by-issue basis. A new permit is presently being developed by Parks in cooperation with the Club. Comments on the Arrangement BC Parks says that the Club seems to have the view that they operate the area independent of Parks. While Parks recognises that they were far less involved in managing the area in the past, this is no longer the case. They note that the park is public land and the ski area is part of a much larger park that must be managed under the mandate of conservation and recreation. Parks also comments that they draw from a much broader base of information and people in addition to Club members. They add that the Club has access to the land at no (purchasing) cost. The Club states that they have managed the area without Parks' intervention in the past and often view them as barriers today. While they recognise that Parks is accountable to the public, they also state that the area does not have any unique ecological features that warrant the strict approach being taken in the management of the area. Both parties have concerns over the communication process within the arrangement, though different reasons have been noted. BC Parks indicates that, while "we've worked very cooperatively through identifying problems", with a change-over in the Club's key person, "misunderstanding occurred in some of the things" resulting in some difficulties for Parks. Additionally, Parks observes that partners do not clearly understand the capabilities and expertise of each party. Parks says there is an arms length working 90 relationship here, though there are opportunities for working one-on-one. Financial reports and other records are submitted by the Club and meetings are held when setting plans. The Operations Permit guides day-to-day matters. While both parties agree that the existing permit is impossible to fulfill if taken verbatim, Parks believes they manage it on a very flexible basis. The Club states that management of the area is at the discretion of whoever the current Parks person in charge is and how the park is managed therefore may or may not be in keeping with the expectations of the Club. They add that Parks is very "control-oriented" with regard to rules, procedures and financial matters and is "often obstructionist" without leaving room to make decisions over matters that the Club needs some lattitude over in order to manage effectively. They say that "[there is] a power-imbalance. ... It's one-way accountability. ... It's not a two-way relationship of equality" and that there are still points of confusion that come along. The Club would like to see "less micro-management and more outcome-oriented" management. While "there are some areas of disparity" (BC Parks) between Parks and the Club "the bulk of objectives are common". Parties concur that the Club has invested a lot in the park, often in ways that Parks is not capable of achieving. In addition, the Club believes that their standard of work exceeds the required standard. 91 4.2 Comments from Respondents The following material concerning the twelve criteria summarizes the comments1 made by ENGO and BC Parks representatives for each arrangement. These results have been generated by combining the comments made by the two representatives from each arrangement2. The information is first presented in table format so that comparisons between the four arrangements may be made at a glance, followed by a discussion3 based on each criterion reported in the table, and then a summary of these statements and of the most and least important criteria as stated by respondents. The results will be interpreted in chapters 5 and 6 (Analysis and Conclusions). 1 The method used to determine cumulative comments referred to in Table 1 is detailed in section 3.3.2. 2 Inconsistencies in comments from partners of the same arrangement are presented and interpreted in section 5.2. 3 References to individuals have been replaced with the name of the organisation they represent. Comments from BC Parks representatives are simply referred to as "Parks". 92 4.2.1 Comparison of Comments made by Representatives Table 1: Comments made by Representatives from each Arrangement The table depicts the cumulative responses1 from both partners to the extent that each criterion is exhibited in their cooperative arrangement. The Criteria Koksilah R. Park Society and BC Parks Sargeant Bay Society and BC Parks Adams River S. Society and BC Parks N. Ok. X-Ctry Ski Club and BC Parks 1 Formalized Agreement & Defined Roles Yes Yes and No Primarily Primarily 2 Common Vision & Goals Primarily Yes Yes Primarily 3 Honouring Differences No and Yes Yes Yes Primarily 4 Effective Conflict Management Primarily-Somewhat Yes and No Primarily Yes / No * 5 Two-Way Communicat'n Strategy Yes Yes Yes Primarily 6 Professionalism & Competence Primarily Yes Yes Yes / No * 7 Support Between Parties Primarily * Yes Yes Primarily-Somewhat 8 External Support No and Yes No and Yes Primarily-Somewhat Primarily-Somewhat 9 Resources, Training & Education Primarily Yes, Primarily, Some, No, N/A Yes Somewhat 10 Performance Monitoring, Feedback, Iterativeness Primarily Primarily Yes Yes/ No * 11 Resiliance & Continuity Primarily Somewhat Yes Primarily 12 Accomplish-ment s & Empowerment Primarily Primarily Yes Yes BC Parks Districts South Van. Island Garibaldi/ Sunshine Thompson River Okanagan * There are wide discrepancies in partners' responses for this criterion. See section for 5.2 for details. The method by which comments were tallied is described in section 3.3.2. 93 4.2.2 Comments from Parties of Each Arrangement 1 Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles Is there a formal agreement in writing that establishes project goals and terms of the relationship? (Some sort of Letter of Intent exists that indicates objectives of the project and organisational protocols.) Did the parties worked together to design and commit to the agreement? (The agreement was created and approved by both parties.) Are all parties clear on what and how each will contribute? (Partners understand each party's roles, responsibilities and expectations.) Koksilah Society and the Ski Club take issue with what they perceive to be a rigid or excessively detailed permit or agreement and all parties agree that there are points of confusion. The Club states: "The bottom line issue is that we want more operational freedom". In both cases, Parks has noted these issues and is in the process of redesigning the agreement with the ENGOs' input. Sargeant Bay Society has an old agreement though parties were hard-pressed to even remember it. Small projects are governed by verbal understandings only, though there are current safety and liability-based forms. Parties in the Thompson River District1 had a permit for the Sockeye event, but there is no formal agreement in writing beyond that. 1 This arrangement is usually referred to in the past tense as the primary project, the Salute to the Sockeye event, was last held in the fall of 1998 and plans for the next event are not yet underway. 94 2 Common Vision and Goals Do partners have consistent and attainable (conservation) objectives for the project? (Project objectives are realistic and agreed to by all parties.) Is there agreement over how to achieve these goals? (The mechanisms for attaining the goals are mutually acceptable to all parties.) All parties from the four arrangements answered affirmatively when questioned about whether they and their partners have common goals and agree on the mechanisms used to achieve these goals. Sargeant Bay Society added: "That is the main purpose for being". In South Island District, Parks stated that there can be discrepancies and "muddiness" at times, though "on-the-ground stuff is really clear". The Ski Club gave an affirmative response, but added: "If we want it, we build it" and that Parks is "a bit schizophrenic" when applying its conservation and recreation mandate. 3 Honouring Differences Do partners recognise and respect their differences? (Each party understands and honours each's motives, varying levels of involvement and approach.) Do the parties maintain their independence? (Partners keep their distinctiveness; their entity and uniqueness.) All but one (ENGO) representative indicated that this criterion is exhibited within their arrangement; Koksilah Society stated that Parks (especially the District Manager) does not recognise and respect their differences and: "We're not allowed'to participate in ... bigger issues [though] we point more money into the park"; Parks noted that this criterion is exhibited, but added that people from this Society "don't ... completely understand our staffing and time limitations and paperwork requirements [and] they're frustrated by it"; 95 At Garibaldi/Sunshine District, parties agreed that the criterion is exhibited on all levels. Sargeant Bay Society added "one of the keys to success" is that they are an independent organisation and can access resources that Parks cannot. At Thompson River District, Parks stated that recognising and respecting differences was really important and parties maintained their distinctiveness given that they all had a seat on the Board. At Okanagan District, Parks said that they "recognise that races are important to the Club" though Parks needs to use caution such that these kinds of events do not push the margins of Parks' mandate. The Ski Club noted that some Parks people "don't talk to us as equals". 4 Effective Conflict Management Are partners open to problem-solving approaches? (They are open-minded about methods to work through issues.) Is there a plan for dealing with differences that relate to the project? (There is a strategy for managing opposing opinions, including those that may be unresolveable.) Are concerns and issues dealt with in a timely fashion? (Partners react to problems before they get out of hand.) Within South Island District, the Society added that there is waffling on the part of Parks, though problems are dealt with in a reasonable amount of time. Sargeant Bay Society acknowledged the effectiveness of one-on-one communication and added: "It is left to common sense and people's personalities". The circumstance for Thompson River District was unique because parties were working towards a major deadline (The Sockeye event). Partners noted there were definite differences of opinion and no formal plan to deal with them, though objectives were mutual and problems were quickly resolved. At Okanagan District, partners had opposing viewpoints with regard to conflict management. 96 Parks indicated that parties "work very cooperatively through problem identification" and that the permit sets "a legal precedence for rights and obligations", as well as there being "one-on-one opportunity". The Ski Club concurred that "one-on-one is effective" and problems get solved, "but usually they've [Parks] come on strong"; and "this really is the key issue"; "the problem-solving is us, and they create it". 5 Two-way Communication Strategy Is there an agreed-upon strategy for communicating? (There is a plan for communicating and recording formalities and individual needs.) Is communication ongoing and consistent? (Communication proceeds regularly and well.) Is there a personal contact for each party when necessary? (There is someone 'in the know' that is reachable at any time if need be.) Is information available to everyone in a format that is understandable? (The format that the information is in accounts for differences in aptitude of partners.) All parties said they had a strategy for communicating that they and their partners found acceptable. The primary method used by most groups is one-on-one communication. Koksilah Society added that communication with the lower levels of Parks is open and ongoing, though the higher levels are unreachable. While Garibaldi/Sunshine District partners have a strategy, over time and the development of the relationship, they no longer need (nor does the Society want) official meetings; instead, partners use e-mail regularly and meet on an ad hoc basis. In Thompson River District, Parks said there was a process for communicating. Parties agreed that information was always available. The Society added: "Everyone was cut in". For Okanagan District, Parks said partners communicate "strictly one-on-one" and it is "primarily issue-based". The Ski Club said 97 that "beyond the formal stuff it's not so clear" and "in theory" there is personal contact with Parks when necessary, "but [the Parks person] is really, really hard to get a hold of". They added that there is no formal direction from Parks and reporting is only one-way. 6 Professionalism and Competence Is the time-frame for the project realistic for all parties? (The phases or, where applicable, final completion, of the project is reasonably attainable for everyone.) Are partners accountable to each other on an ongoing basis? (All parties are reliable and flexible.) Is skill and creativity applied where appropriate? (Partners adapt well to the changing needs, timelines and so on of the project.) All but one (ENGO) party responded affirmatively to the statements above. The discrepancy occurred within Okanagan District; The Club took issue with the subject of accountability: "It's ... one-way ... not a two-way relationship of equality", adding that skill, creativity and innovation comes from the Club and not Parks. The parties at South Island District were in agreement that for the most part partners do a good job, though on occasion the Society has disputed Parks' accountability and competence. At Garibaldi/Sunshine District, Sargeant Bay Society recognised that though "BC Parks .. is short-staffed ... they pay attention to whenever we need [or] contact them and it's always a prompt response". Both parties offered that each applies creativity as needed. The Society added that "there has never been any attempt [by Parks] to suppress that" in the Society. At Thompson River District, parties concurred that the time frame of the project was realistic, everyone was accountable and skillful and creative where appropriate. The 98 Society added that, when the fish arrived early, everyone scrambled but adapted successfully. 7 Support between Parties Are there positive working relations between partners? (Partners work effectively together.) Is there cooperation and a shared commitment to the project and the relationship? (There is a team-oriented approach whereby support is available as needed; partners follow through on commitments.) Does each party have a key person working on the project? (Each party has a primary, knowledgeable individual working on the arrangement.) Do partners feel they have adequate opportunity to participate effectively throughout the project? (All parties feel that the arrangement is equitable and fair.) Parties within the districts of Garibaldi/Sunshine and Thompson River agreed wholeheartedly that this criterion is being or was exhibited by both parties. Adams River Salmon Society added: "It couldn't be better, while Parks said: "It was fundamental". At South Island District, Parks responded affirmatively to all questions relevant to this criterion. For its part, the Society said relations with Parks, "at the lower levels", are very good, though there is "a huge problem" with some of the other staff and there are typical office politics with the same people. At Okanagan District, parties indicated that working relationships are primarily positive, but the Club added that Parks has not provided anything and they (the Club) "don't feel that it's a team". 99 5 External Support Is there a strategy for educating and involving the general public in a meaningful way? (There is a system for enhancing local community awareness of the arrangement, and responding to relevant concerns and interests.) Is there solid, local support for the project? (The majority of the public support the arrangement and believe it is 'transparent' in actions that are perceived to affect them.) For the most part there is strong, local support for the projects that partners share, though only partners of Thompson River District had a formal plan for involving the public in planning and running the event. Notably however, the latter partners stated their disappointment in the lack of effectiveness in this regard, though support for the event itself was strong. A l l other E N G O s work independently from Parks in their strategy for enhancing public understanding and involvement of their organisation and its goals. The Ski Club and Sargeant Bay Society are particularly pleased with their programming and methods for disseminating information (both have regular newsletters and public programs). Within Okanagan District both partners indicated that a strategy for promoting public awareness of the partnership is limited to Parks requiring their logo on all signage, maps and so forth. 9 Resources, Training and Education Are partners clear on what resources are available to them? (All parties know what is available to them from each other.) Are there opportunities for appropriate skill enhancement? (There are opportunities for partners to learn; for the environmental interest group in particular.) Is the knowledge and expertise of each partner accessible? (The particular skills of partners are accessible; In a format and time-frame that people can access.) 100 Comments ranged widely with respect to this criterion. Within two arrangements - South Island and Okanagan districts - E N G O s stated that Parks offers finances and other resources in theory only. At South Island District, Parks said Koksilah Society's needs are met, but added that Parks has severe staffing limitations. For Thompson River District, Parks noted "what wasn't already there was provided"; the Society concurred, adding, "we learned a lot, that's for sure". Partners stated that they understand and have access to what each can contribute given Parks' limited funds; the Society added that they never felt the need for any of this kind of support from Parks as they already possess the skills, or can access skills and resources they do not have from their own contacts. 10 Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness Is flexibility designed into the process? (The arrangement is open to adjustments that may be required or desired.) Are partners flexible and innovative? (Partners are open to changing needs and logistics and respond as required.) Is there a general plan for making adjustments to the project if necessary? (There is a strategy for responding to unforeseen changes to the project.) Only Thompson River District had a strategy for responding to unforeseen changes to the project where, during the Sockeye event, daily meetings were held and partners adapted the plan as needed. In South Island District, partners said that both parties exhibit flexibility and adaptability as needed; the Society added that their calls to Parks take about a week to be responded to. At Garibaldi/Sunshine District the Society noted "when a problem [is] rising, you deal with it" so a formal plan is not required. Partners within Okanagan District gave conflicting and wide-ranging responses. B C Parks said the legal 101 process of the arrangement is very inflexible and it is therefore managed with great flexibility though there is no plan for making adjustments other than the amendment process which is "a pain The Sk i Club said that "between renewal periods of the contract ... they [Parks] are wi l l ing to move [though] we are [flexible]; they aren't". 11 Resilience and Continuity . Is continuity and integrity built into the structure? (There is a system by which to transfer resources and knowledge if needed.) Is there an adequate alternate who can carry on in the absence of each parties' key person? (There is a replacement for each parties' lead person in the short and long term.) Partners of all four arrangements thought this criterion was important to their long-term viabil ity, but only South Island and Thompson River Districts indicated that they had implemented strategies for continuity and the long-term integrity of the arrangement. O f the two remaining arrangements, partners of Garibaldi/Sunshine District recognise the advantages of having a particular committed and capable E N G O person, but also recognise and are planning around the hazards this may present. Both partners at Okanagan District commented on how their counterparts have made changes in their key representatives, which, while understandable, lead to some communication problems. The Society added that, though their key person has been replaced, he has made himself available throughout the year to assist in getting the replacement up to speed. 102 12 Accomplishments and Empowerment Are there attainable, smaller goals within the project? Do partners share challenges as well as successes? Do partners understand and respect each's need for recognition outside of the relationship? (Credit and publicity are appropriately shared.) In three of the four arrangements ENGO partners have smaller projects which they work on without Parks. Only one party responding (affirmatively) that challenges are shared between partners; in Thompson River District partners indicated that they work together towards attaining long-term and secondary goals (e.g. formalizing the Society, generating seed money). Parks volunteered that the agency could have done more to show their appreciation for Society members. For Garibaldi/Sunshine District the Society emphasized that roles of partners are distinctly different. They do all the maintenance things". Parks stated that their view is that goals, challenges and successes are shared, though they would also like to do more for the Society by way of training and recognizing the volunteers. In Okanagan District, Parks said that they were constantly improving the area and "there's a multitude of little steps in achieving that". The Ski Club had similar things to say but added: "We're the ones with the vision for the area". 103 4.2.3 Summary of Comments to Criteria Questions The following generalizations are based on key points made by all of the respondents. 1. At minimum, a basic form of agreement or permit is common to all arrangements though these vary greatly in level of formality, detail and how much 'to the letter' they are implemented. Partners agreed that BC Parks is primarily responsible for design and approval, though all ENGOs have some leeway in making adjustments to fit their particular circumstance. 2. Representatives from the four cooperative arrangements indicated that the vision and bulk of their goals are common. 3. All but one (ENGO) representative stated that they and their partnering agency recognise and respect their differences. 4. Most representatives stated that they do not see the need, nor do they have, an official conflict management strategy, though one-on-one communication is recognised as being the most effective method for dealing with concerns and issues. 5. All parties indicated that they have a process or system for communicating, which tends to be one-on-one between a key ENGO person and an appropriate, pre-established Parks staff member. 6. All but one (ENGO) party felt that professionalism and competence is exhibited by their partners within their arrangement. 104 7. Parties from two districts agreed wholeheartedly that there is support between parties, while ENGOs from the remaining two arrangements said Parks was not doing their share in this regard. 8. For the most part there is strong, local support for the projects that partners share, though only one arrangement had1 a formal plan (which was not successful to the extent that was hoped) in involving the public in the partnership. 9. Arrangements differed greatly with respect to their needs and expectations for resources, training and education. Two ENGOs stated that they have good support from Parks, though one does not feel the need to access it. The other ENGOs stated that Parks does not offer the support that they said they would make available to them. One Parks representative offered that they and their partner are not clear on the skills and resources each has. 10. Most of the arrangements do not have a strategy for making adjustments to unforeseen changes, but rather, adapt as the need arises. Some parties said that this approach works well for them, while others stated that it is ineffective. 11. Representatives from all four arrangements noted that resilience and continuity is important to their long-term viability, but only two of the districts indicated that they have implemented plans accordingly. 12. ENGOs in particular celebrate smaller successes. They stated that this is often done independent of Parks, as three of the ENGOs work on smaller projects with little input from their Parks counterparts. Only one partner stated that challenges are also shared, while the other ENGOs did not answer this question. Three Parks districts said they would like to do more to recognise their partners, but are limited by cutbacks. 1 Past tense is used with respect to this arrangement because the most recent primary goal of partners refers to the Salute to the Sockeye event from fall 1998. 105 4.2.4 Most and Least Important Criteria as Stated by Each Respondent After responding to the questions pertaining to the twelve criteria, representatives1 were asked to comment on the criteria they found to be most and least important to the success of their arrangement and to identify missing criteria. Some representatives simply gave a direct reply of " Y e s " or " N o " in reference to whether a criterion was important to the success of their arrangement, adding little or no context with regard to their particular experience; others chose to take the time to speak frankly about their arrangement, describing what they thought the strengths and limitations were, discussing criteria that have led to the success of their relationship or that they thought were important to arrangements in general. The following narrative summarizes this material. Italics and capital letters have been added to highlight key words or criteria. South Island District BC Parks indicated that Moving Forward is very important to this relationship: "It's really important to get going" and not stay in the past said the representative. Though lacking at this point in the arrangement, Parks said that a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles are important to all arrangements as are Key People in getting any group started. Koksilah River Park Society responded by saying that a Commitment to the Environment, 1 As noted in section 4.2.1, in order to respect the autonomy of respondents and because they represented their respective agency or organisation, representatives are simply referred to by the name of their affiliate (i.e. "BC Parks" or "Parks" refers to the BC Parks representative, while E N G O representatives are referred to as "the Society" or "the Club". 106 on the part of some staff at Parks was very important. The Society added that, i n part because of the lack of support from Parks, the group is thinking of disbanding and possibly reforming into a watershed group. Garibaldi/Sunshine District B C Parks noted that a Common Vision is the most fundamental and important criterion because partners come from different perspectives therefore requiring that they work together to determine what is agreeable to al l . Parks added that having a Similar Mandate also has a positive impact on the relationship. Two-way Communication was noted as being essential for achieving the Common Vision. Trust was indicated as another key element in this arrangement that has developed over time. Time was stressed again as a factor i n the effectiveness o f this relationship, because, over the course of time, partners have come to understand each's motives. In addition, Parks said that the parties have a Similar Mandate of both conservation and recreation. Sargeant Bay Society said that a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles is "totally unimportant", but having a Common Vision and Goals is very important. Thompson River District B C Parks said that it is "an absolute necessity" to have a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles and recommended that all parties "need to spend more Time [developing] this in the beginning". Parks reflected on how many groups tend to agree on and "pay attention in a motherhood statement kind of way". Also in this regard, B C Parks said 107 that, in a park setting, a Common Vision and Goals is very important though "it 's almost a given A cautionary comment was also made to all partners i n general as follows: "because people have a common intent doesn't mean they have a common vision" and partners tend to "stumble over" the method of attaining common goals. Effective Conflict Management, Honouring Differences and Professionalism and Competence were also noted as being very important to the relationship. B C Parks added: "Volunteers need the same sort of support as staff people ... [and] there isn't much difference ... in how you manage them". Parks also noted that the twelve criteria could be ranked in order of importance, though the order would require adjustments depending on whether an arrangement was short or long term and whether it was based on "relationship [or] product issues". Final comments were made that, for this particular arrangement, the more Effort Invested by the partners translated into a greater benefit attributed to those people, though for this particular arrangement much of the energy invested was in an attempt at increasing community participation. Adams River Salmon Society recommended that all arrangement should, at minimum, draw up a basic Letter of Understanding. Identifying Goals and Knowing Roles were also noted as being important to this arrangement and were recommended for partners of other arrangements as well . A Two-Way Communication Strategy, Professionalism and Competence, Support Between Parties and Key People were recognised as having a lot to do with the success of the parties. Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness were "pretty important". The Society also noted that Continuity is important in this relationship because of the four year nature of the Sockeye event, " ... so there has to be 108 some kind of continuity". Effective Conflict Management, External Support and Resources, Training and Education were noted for NOT being a high priority in this arrangement. Final comments from the Society were: "The highlight for us is that we want to be Recognised as a Volunteer and not an employer/employee relationship". Okanagan District BC Parks said that Defined Roles is essential as, "even with a contract in place we have conflicts based on the roles". BC Parks added that a sense of ownership of the area on the part of the Club has created a problem between parties because the area falls within a park and really has no authority outside of that. North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club regards a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles as central to the arrangement, though the Club stressed: "What we [want to] see evolve is less micro-management and more outcome-oriented management" on the part of Parks. Effective Conflict Management was noted as being "another hot button [because Parks comes] from a very control-oriented paradigm" that must change. Another complaint was with regard to Professionalism and Competence as the Club feels Parks does not apply appropriate problem-solving or communication strategies. Accomplishments and Empowerment were recognised as "what keeps us [the Club] going 109 CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS The following identifies the criteria essential to arrangements by determining patterns and discrepancies between the data pertaining to the case study arrangements and literature review. Additional, relevant information is also included. The analysis proceeds as follows: • Section 5.1 identifies the typology lies that each arrangement most clearly matches, expectations partners have of the arrangement and of the partnership relationship, general mandates of parties, and the result or outcome, including some of the benefits, that the arrangement brings to partners; • Section 5.2 identifies the criteria that are determined to be of great significance to all case study arrangements and in the literature, followed by any discrepancies or ranges in responses from partners for the same case study arrangement; • Section 5.3 examines the criteria of minor significance to the case study arrangements and comparing these with information generated from the literature review in the broader field of environmental management; • Section 5.4 presents reflects on what partners from the same arrangements said as being their most and least important criteria and comparing this to the level of success of their arrangement; • Section 5.5 summarizing the analysis. 110 5.1 Typologies, Expectations and Outcomes Keeping in mind that cooperative arrangements may evolve from one typology or model to another and have elements of more than one category (Kernaghan 1993), the four case study arrangements have been categorized according to Rodal and Mulder's (1993) typologies'. These typologies are framed according to the extent of power-sharing of partners. Each party's expectations of the arrangement and eventual outcomes in this regard are addressed below. In addition, the primary objective of the partnership and the mandate of partners is noted, followed by a summary of the expectations parties have for the relationship, framed within the context of the benefits2 of partnering. Sargeant Bay Society and Garibald/Sunshine District of BC Parks It is difficult to classify this arrangement because partners work collectively and independently on a wide range of projects. The relationship primarily exhibits the characteristics of Collaborative and Consultative partnerships and secondarily, Operational partnerships. This is evidenced by partners having their own distinct 1 Rodal and Wright's (1993) typologies include: 1) Consultative, where the purpose is to obtain input for developing policies and strategies for service design, delivery, evaluation and adjustment, though power-sharing is limited because government retains control, ownership and risk, but is open to input from the group; the latter may also play a role in legitimizing government decisions; 2) Contributory, where the purpose is to leverage new resources or funds for program/service delivery; where power-sharing is distributed such that government retains control, but contributors may propose or agree to the objectives of the arrangement; 3) Operational, where the purpose is to permit partners to share resources and work and exchange information for program/service delivery; the government retains control though the group influences decision-making through practical involvement; and 4) Collaborative, where the purpose is joint decision-making regarding policy development, strategic planning and program/service design, delivery, evaluation and adjustment. 2 Italics and capital letters are used to emphasize the secondary benefits of the arrangement as referred to in section 2.3.2. I l l programs and services which they are accountable for, though Parks retains ownership of the area. The Society is responsible for the design and delivery of interpretive programs and works on restoration projects. Parks also encourages and seeks input from them on decision-making regarding the Master Plan and when they need input on matters that relate to public sentiment. Both parties are pleased with the extent that they divide power within the relationship, as it is shared wherever possible, though they look upon this as a matter of teamwork and not as an issue of control. The Society and Parks have similar, dual mandates that balance conservation with appropriate forms of recreation in the park, though the Society's interests extend to the larger ecosystem. In addition to other elements of the relationship, Parks made a point of emphasizing that this commonality of intent likely has a lot to do with the success of meeting the objectives of the arrangement and in each party's satisfaction with their interactions. Partners offered that they both are capable and committed and that there is Strength in their Diversity. Both mentioned some of the limitations of their partners, though each raised these points less as impediments than as realities that are worked around and which are far outweighed by the Increased Effectiveness and Additional Expertise they contribute. Adams River Salmon Society and Thompson River District of BC Parks This relationship is considered to primarily be Contributory and secondarily Operational and Collaborative. The Society was established with the impetus of Parks, a key objective being to leverage funds for delivering the event and future programs. 112 Decision-making and program delivery is being devolved to the Society and they set objectives for the arrangement with regular input from Parks. Parks retains control and ownership of the area, though partners share the work, their skills and resources and exchange information regularly. Partners are generally pleased with how power has been devolved to the Society with Parks acting in an assisting and advisory capacity. The central objective of the arrangement, running a popular and profit-generating Salute to the Sockeye event, was always clear to both parties, as the Society (which has two Parks members on its Board) was established with this as its central mission. For the most part, parties were very satisfied with the outcome of the event, the process by which partners interacted and the effort and level of competency partners exhibited. Parks and the Society were quick to make positive comments about the contributions of partners and the fact that they were always available to offer support. Though not to be overstated as the strengths of the relationship were stressed by both parties, the Society also stated that there were issues for some members who were overworked and felt used to offset expenses and effort by Parks. The Society has indicated in their report to Parks that the relationship must change if members are to continue to take charge of the event. For its part, Parks is pleased with the process of the relationship as it exists, though it concurs with the Society's issues and is making plans to improve the relationship based on this advice. For both partners, the immediate benefits of the arrangement are evident: without the involvement of the other party, neither would be capable of holding an event of this magnitude. While additional expectations of partners were for Greater Local Support and 113 Community Outreach and Education based on the Society's involvement, the reality was that the public (namely businesses) was no more interested then when Parks fronted the event. However, with seed money that was raised through the Society, the goal of Improving Finances and later, Enhanced Service Delivery and Community Outreach and Education is expected to be realized. The Society also commented on how they have an Increased Understanding and Respect for Parks and as a result will be better "goodwill ambassadors". Koksilah River Park Society and South Vancouver Island District of BC Parks Parties have a cooperative arrangement that is primarily Operational and secondarily Contributory. This is characterised by the Society leveraging new resources in the way of projects it proposes and with Parks' approval, that it works on with very limited resources from Parks. Parks retains control, ownership and risk of the land and resources. The Society has some influence on decision-making within the park through the projects it is involved in, though they are not called upon to comment on other matters they feel they have much to contribute towards. The Society would like more sharing of power on the part of Parks, as it feels excluded and undervalued by the agency. The Society has a conservation mandate while Park's mandate for the park also included recreation. This discrepancy is likely to be cause for some of the differences of opinion between partners in how the area is managed, though the Society suggests that is based on politics. Some key people from both parties have ongoing issues outside of the concrete 114 projects they work on. These process-related issues have as much to do with how the Society perceives their partner's commitment to the park, the project and the relationship, as it does with how Parks perceives the Society placing inappropriate expectations and demands of them. Because of these and other matters outside of the relationship, the Society is thinking of disbanding and possibly reforming into a watershed group. That said, 'when the dust settles', partners are ultimately pleased with their achievements. The benefits to partners outside of meeting the product-based goals of the arrangement are not as evident in this relationship as they are for the other case study arrangements; While the Society has success in the areas of Local Support and Community Outreach and Education, partners do not benefit from the arrangement in this regard. Parks reflected on how the Society accesses funds and contributes to the park, thereby Improving the Finances and Increasing the Effectiveness of Parks. Relations with partners are very good at the lower levels and the relationship leads to Increased Understanding and Respect for these partners, though this is less the case with other members. North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club and Okanagan District of BC Parks This cooperative arrangement can be classified as primarily Operational and secondarily Contributory. This is evidenced by the arrangement being contractual in nature and formalized in the methods required by Parks of the Ski Club to meet their obligations. The Club leverages new resources in the way of projects it proposes and it performs most of the hands-on work. B C Parks 'holds the purse strings' and retains control, ownership 115 and risk of the land and resources, though the Club generates these funds as set out in the arrangement. The Club has an influence on decision-making through their day-to-day involvement in the park, however their input is limited because there are other constituents Parks must be accountable to, and the agency's mandate puts conservation first and recreation second. Partners agree that the primary objectives of arrangement are successfully met and that the relationship must remain formalized in order to continue to provide quality cross-country skiing opportunities and collect associated fees, yet there are stark differences in how partners view the success of the arrangement in other capacities, including the extent of power-sharing. While the Club is satisfied with the outcomes of the arrangement as they achieve a very high standard in their work and have a strong membership, they also feel that contributions to the arrangement are one-sided. They would like the arrangement to be more collaborative and involve greater support-sharing as they believe Parks places undue restriction on their actions and decision-making capacity. B C Parks is content with the arrangement though they recognise and are responding to the need to rework the Operations Permit. Parks entered into this partnership because it could not continue to manage the area in the same capacity it had previously and hence it recognized the Strength in Diversity of the Club's involvement. Parks also commented on the Improved Finances resulting from this arrangement for both parties, though the latter is not inclined to view this as something brought on by Parks' involvement or design, but rather, considers Parks to be an 116 impediment to their long-standing use of the area. The Club emphasizes that it has Increased the Effectiveness, Improved Finances and Enhanced the Service Delivery of Parks on numerous levels, though they say that Parks has done nothing in the way of enhancing the group's capacity or effectiveness. Both parties indicate that they provide Additional Expertise to the relationship though Parks reflected on the fact that each's potential contribution is underutilized. 5.2 Criteria Determined to be of Great Significance to the Success of the Case Study Arrangements The following criteria are common to all four Case Study Arrangements1 and are identified for being of great significance to their success. 1. Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles; 2. Common Vision and Goals; 3. Honouring Differences; 5. Two-Way Communication Strategy; 6. Professionalism and Competence; 7. Support Between Parties; 10. Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness; 12. Accomplishments and Empowerment. When reviewed in isolation, the significance of these criteria is limited to the particular case study groups only. But these eight criteria, and the criteria indicated in the literature as being "crucial", "essential" or "very important" (section 2.5.1.4) are identical, with the 1 These criteria were recorded with "Yes" or "Primarily" by both of the representatives from all four case study arrangements. 117 exception of criteria 10 and 12 for all case study partners. Because these criteria are so remarkably similar, this seems to indicate that correlations can be made between theory and practice. While criteria 1 through 3, 5 through 7 and 10 and 12 are consistently emphasized for their relevance in all four case study arrangements, the extent to which they are formalized and applied varies significantly. For example, partners in Okanagan District have a formal agreement that is based on a permit which rigidly defines all aspects of the duties and responsibilities of the Club. By contrast, Thompson River District also had a permit, though it was primarily instituted as a means of authorizing the Society's access to the park. It did not include specifics of the process by which the parties interacted, though partners had clearly defined roles that were determined in the planning stages of the project. Another example of how the criteria that are common vary to the extent that they are implemented includes a two-way communication strategy. Although the partners from all the arrangements agreed that they possess and need a strategy for two-way communication, partners of three of the four arrangements are satisfied with having regular one-on-one opportunities versus a more formalized approach. There are also wide discrepancies to the extent that partners within some of the arrangements note the existence of a criterion. These discrepancies are indicated below. While Criterion 6 - Professionalism and Competence, is noted for being exhibited or primarily exhibited within all four arrangements, the Ski Club gave a completely different response than Parks; they said "No" to all aspects of this criterion, adding that "it's a 118 one-way accountability ... not a two-way relationship of equality" and that "[Parks is] stuck in the old paradigm. . . . we're the servant and they're the master". Additional discrepancies between these same respondents involve Criterion 4 - Effective Conflict Management. B C Parks gave the reply of "Yes" in reference to partners being open to problem-solving approaches, a plan for dealing with differences and concerns and issues being dealt with in a timely fashion; The Club stated "No" to all questions, giving the example that Parks creates a problem or conflict and the Club must go "cap in hand" and solve it. In response to Criterion 7 - Support Between Parties, the following was recorded for Koksilah Society and B C Parks. Parks responded with "Yes" or "Primarily" to all questions. The Society replied with "Primarily" to the first two of four questions, but added that, while there are positive working relations and support from Parks on the lower levels, there is a "huge problem" with some of the other staff. The Society responded with "Yes" when asked if parties have a key person working on the project. When asked whether partners feel they have adequate opportunity to participate effectively throughout the project, the reply was: "Somewhat... I really wish that... a society goes out and puts a lot more money than the park [sic], there should be a lot more respect for that". The discrepancies in opinion between partners of Koksilah Society and South Vancouver Island District of B C Parks, and the Ski Club and Okanagan District of B C Parks are reflective of the fact that the parties have limited opportunity to discuss, and therefore do 119 not share how well the process of the arrangement is proceeding in terms of interactions between partners. As such, it is likely that partners view the criteria in terms of how well the arrangement meets their own needs versus the needs of both partners. On two occasions, Sargeant Bay Society provided a range of responses that included Not Applicable (N/A). The first was noted for Criterion 1 - Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles. To the question of whether there exists a formal agreement that established project goals and terms of the relationship, the Society said "No. The only agreement we had was concerned with safety; to be covered for compensation ...[though] BC Parks scrutinized [our] plans, and rightly so ... ." The Society replied with "Not Applicable" to the question of parties working together to design and commit to the agreement and "Yes" to parties being clear on what and how each contributes because: "We know what to expect from BC Parks and they know [what to expect from us]". Parks replied with "Yes" to all three questions. The following was noted under Criterion 9 - Resources, Training and Education. Sargeant Bay Society affirmed that partners are clear on what resources are available to them. When asked if there are opportunities for appropriate skill enhancement the Society replied: "No" and "Not Applicable" adding: "We never felt the need for that" and "whatever we do, we know what to do and we know how to do it. ... Other things we don't know we hire people on". The Society added that the knowledge and expertise of partners is accessible. The response from Parks ranged from "Somewhat" to "Yes". 120 From the range of responses given within one question by Sargeant Bay Society and Garibaldi/Sunshine District of Parks, it is evident that the parties have a relationship that they shape and adjust according to their needs and to the particular project or projects at hand. This has not always been the case, as partners have come to trust each other in terms of the quality of projects they produce and the process by which they interact. Findings from the case study research point to Criteria 10 and 12 as being of great significance to both ENGO and government partners, though the literature review places far less emphasis on their importance in the broader field of environmental management. This discrepancy in the findings is most likely because Criteria 10 and 12 (as well as Criterion 11 - Resilience and Continuity1), as the literature review indicates, come into play in a cooperative arrangement only after a project is well underway, and because of this timing, in some cases the criteria are given little or no thought or recognition by those overseeing the arrangement (usually government). It is therefore likely that these criteria are less significant to an arrangement - especially for government partners - unless the parties experience problems with each other and/or with their project. This seems to be evident for the case study arrangements; in terms of Criterion 10 - Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness - Thompson River District had2 a strategy for dealing with unforeseen changes and meeting regularly to troubleshoot as needed. Partners of the three other case study arrangements note the value of incorporating this criterion on an ongoing basis, though they apply this criterion in more of a reactionary 1 This criterion will be discussed further in section 5.3. 2 Past tense is used for this arrangement as its primary project took place in the fall of 1998. 121 and self-correcting manner depending on the availability and approachability of their partners. It is also surmised that Criterion 12 - Accomplishments and Empowerment - is of significance to partners of the case study arrangements for different reasons; E N G O s , whose membership is largely voluntary, are primarily rewarded when large and small project goals are met. Government partners on the other hand, tend to consider the final product, the approval of their superiors and of the larger constituent body when considering the success of an arrangement. Therefore E N G O partners tend to rate this criterion as being of great significance to the success of their arrangement, while B C Parks partners consider it to be important, though to a lesser extent. 5.3 Criteria Determined to be of Minor Significance to the Case Study Arrangements A number of criteria have been found to not be common to the case study arrangements as determined by identifying those allotted a mid-to-low range response by respondents. These are: 4 - Effective Conflict Management; 8 - External Support; 9 - Resources, Training and Education; 11- Resiliance and Continuity. Originally generated from the literature review in the broader field of environmental management (sections 2.5.1.1 through 2.5.1.1.3), these criteria, in addition to the others, 122 represent aspects of cooperative arrangements that were recommended by authors in order to most likely ensure their success. However, as in the previous section (5.2), it is worth considering the emphasis that authors did or did not place on each criterion. Authors writing on Criteria 4, 8, 9 and/or 11 use the words "important", "recommend" and "worth considering" when recommending them, and only very infrequently refer to a criterion as "very important". Evidently these criteria, though significant because they were recommended in the first place, have less import in the success of cooperative arrangements than others. The following suggests a reason for this. Within all of the case study arrangements it is common for partners to most often work independently from one another. Indeed, for the most part, it is primarily ENGOs that perform the projects agreed upon by both parties, with BC Parks providing assistance and approval at its discretion or when called upon by the ENGO. Criteria 4, 8 and 9, therefore have greater relevance when additional input is needed by the party or individuals who normally engage in a project; otherwise these criteria are not of great significance in the case study arrangements because parties manages well without the supplemental support they provide. Criterion 11 seems to only be of relevance for cooperative arrangements that have a lengthy timeline and projects that are ongoing or for those who have yet to be successful in a project. Since all case study arrangements have achieved a measure of success (they were selected to be studied for this reason), resilience and continuity have more to do with future successes than current or past ones, especially in cases where key people are 123 at risk of leaving and where capable replacements for them are in short supply. The findings generated from the literature review and the case study research that are identified as being less significant are therefore consistent - while these criteria are certainly worth consideration and have some relevance to the success of cooperative arrangements in environmental management, it appears that they are not essential. 5.4 Summary of Comments made to Question of Most and Least Important Criteria The comment made by South Island District of BC Park's about Moving Forward and "not staying in the past" refers to the criterion Honouring Differences or, put more aptly, agreeing to disagree. This comment seems to be directed towards the Society, as the parties are 'stuck' on a number of issues. Having a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles was identified as being most important, though, interestingly, Parks noted that their agreement needed to be rewritten. Again, this statement is reflective of the need for parties to work out their differences and then more forward. Key People were noted in a general sense as being essential for getting an ENGO started. Most other parties also raised this idea earlier on in their interviews. Koksilah River Park Society reflected on how important it is to them that BC Parks still has some people who are Committed to the Environment. This concept is central to the critierion Common Vision and Goals. Garibaldi/Sunshine District of BC Parks stated that a Common Vision and Similar 124 Mandate are important to the success of this arrangement which does indeed seem to be the case in this arrangement as both parties have mandates that put conservation first, followed by appropriate recreational pursuits. Two-way Communication, Trust and Time were also noted for being very important to their success and findings from the study reiterate this. Sargeant Bay Society stated that a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles are not at all important, though having a Common Vision and Goals are very important. These comments are reflective of the partners having a long-standing relationship that has improved over time to the point that they no longer require the formalities that others do. Thompson River District of Parks had a lot to recommend about arrangements in general, and suggested that All Criteria are of Importance and should be given due consideration for every arrangement, though their order varies with each circumstance. Final comments concerning how Effort Invested by parties has a direct bearing on what they gain in return is considered to be an element of Support Between Parties. Adams River Salmon Society spoke in general about the importance of having at least a very basic version of a Formalized Agreement and Knowing (versus Defining) Roles. Interestingly, all the other criteria that were noted for being "pretty important" - a Two-way Communication Strategy, Professionalism and Competence, Support Between Parties (including Key People) and Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness were common to all arrangements, though Continuity was also recognised within this relationship because of its four year cycle. The Society concluded with comments referring to the importance of being recognised as Volunteers versus employees. 125 Okanagan District of BC Parks stated that for this particular arrangement, Defined Roles are key. Given the contractual nature of the relationship, this does appear to be necessary. A final comment about the negative implications of the Club's sense of ownership of the area seems to indicate that Effective Conflict Management is necessary, as is the need to Honour Differences, or, as in South Island District, agreeing to disagree and then moving forward. North Okanagan Cross-Country Ski Club identified a Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles as being central to their arrangement, just as BC Parks had done. The Club also commented on how Accomplishments and Empowerment is one of their most important criteria as this keeps the group going. The other ENGOs did not include this criterion, probably because the question pertained to the importance of the criterion to the arrangement and not an individual partner. The latter point about accomplishments and empowerment is the case for ENGOs in general, as individually, members are not motivated by financial rewards as paid employees are. The ENGO also reflected on how Effective Conflict Management and Professionalism and Competence needs attention on the part of Parks. This is consistent with the premise that the partners continue to have unresolved issues between them and have not come to terms with their differences. 5.5 S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s The central goal of cooperative arrangements (discussed in section 2.3.2) is to enable partners to meet objectives that they could otherwise not meet on their own. Each party therefore provides a means of forwarding the objectives of a project or has something 126 unique to offer the relationship. In addition to working towards accomplishing a project or projects, partners expect to benefit by their participation with respect to their own particular goals and organisational mandate. Their expectations of the benefits of entering into the relationship are therefore actualized to the extent by which the arrangement promotes the common vision and each party's unique mandate and goals. The purpose of questioning respondents concerning the criteria deemed to be of importance to cooperative arrangements in the literature on environmental management has been to determine the validity and applicability of these criteria when applied to four successful, current, 'real life' examples in provincial parks of BC - essentially, to challenge the criteria generated from theory with that of practical examples. Because the criteria identified as essential within both theoretical and practical components of this study - the literature review and case study arrangements - are virtually identical (exceptions noted below), these criteria are likely to be key to the success of other arrangements involving similar partners. These criteria are: 1 - having some sort of written formal understanding that addresses the essential elements of the arrangement and roles of participants ; 2 - agreeing upon primary objectives and a common goal; 3- recognising and respecting differences; 5 - having clear and consistent communication involving key individuals; 6 - partners that are professional and accountable, and 7 - supportive partners. In addition, criteria 10 - Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness and 12 - Accomplishments and Empowerment, have been identified by partners of the case study groups as being very important to their success, likely because their partners, in particular the ENGOs, have come to recognise 127 the need to overcome issues and recognise smaller achievements when an arrangement extends into the long term. All remaining criteria: 4 - Effective Conflict Management; 8 - External Support; 9 -Resources, Training and Education; and 11- Resilience and Continuity have been allotted a mid-to-low range value in both theory and practice, and therefore appear to be of little to no relevance to the success of the kinds of arrangements identified in this study. The nature of this subset (excluding Criterion 11) is founded on externalities that often have little bearing on the key individuals working on a project - those who have little need for input from their partners or the public - hence these criteria are not key to the project's success. Criterion 11 - Resilience and Continuity has more to do with ensuring the long term success of arrangements, and as such has been recommended by many authors in the literature and by all case study partners, though not as a key or essential criterion of their current success. In addition to the relevant criteria, expectations of partners impact on their interactions and therefore on the projects they pursue. The degree that expectations of partners are met, which may be translated as the perceived level of success of the arrangement, appears to have as much to do with the outcome or product of the arrangement (i.e. the primary goal that the arrangement was established to meet) as does the process by which the primary goal or goals are met. The process of the relationship refers to the methods 128 by which the goals are achieved and includes how well partners perceive their interactions. In general, the process by which partners relate can be categorized as a particular typology of cooperative arrangement. Framed within these typologies, ENGOs prefer an arrangement that exhibits more power-sharing and therefore less control of the minutia of decisions that must inevitably be made throughout the course of a project (i.e. Collaborative, Consultative and Contributory typologies). There is no one preferred approach taken by BC Parks within the four arrangements, though those districts that require continuous reporting have an Operational arrangement that retains most of the power within Parks. 129 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The intent of this thesis has been to identify what leads to the success of cooperative arrangements between government and ENGOs for the management of parks and protected areas and, more specifically, the success of the case study arrangements working within four of BC's provincial parks. In addition, the arrangements have been reviewed to determine how they might ensure and improve upon their success. Findings are based on the literature review and interview results. 6.1 Conclusions Effective cooperative arrangements for parks and protected areas involve rewards and responsibilities for all parties involved. By meeting the following criteria, partners can expect to be successful at achieving their primary, collective objective. Some sort of formalized, written agreement, however basic, that establishes the roles of partners; a shared common vision and related primary goals for the arrangement and the project/s; partners that recognise, maintain and honour their differences; a method of two-way communication though it need not be very formal; exhibiting professionalism and competence in the relationship and the project or projects; at least one key person working in a primary capacity from each party, who is supportive and available as needed; a method of monitoring and reporting progress and problems and for responding accordingly; and accomplishments and empowerment that each party can acknowledge. 130 These criteria have been identified as being the most essential for the success of the range of forms of cooperative arrangements in the literature and are likely to be the same or similar to those involving B C Parks and E N G O partners. Other criteria are apparently not essential for the success of cooperative arrangements within both the broader field of environmental management (as identified in the literature review) and within B C Parks and E N G O arrangements (as determined within the case study research), though they are still deemed to be important or recommended by some partners. Effective conflict management; external support; resources, training and education; and resilience and continuity should therefore be given due consideration in any cooperative arrangement. In addition to implementing and exhibiting the criteria noted above, the following process-based actions have relevance to fulfilling the criteria that are essential to arrangements for parks and protected areas. Key to establishing a formal agreement, having a common vision and defined goals, and honouring differences is ensuring that the secondary or smaller goals that partners have for their own organisations are understood by all parties. Partners need to spend time, up front preferably, recognising each other's expectations - those that they can assist each other on and those that should remain at the discretion and implementation of each party. Support between parties is exhibited when partners are committed to teamwork. A positive commitment to the relationship is actualized by meeting the goals of the relationship first, versus disparate, individual objectives. Keeping each other informed, ideally, every step of the way, ensures that parties are 'singing the same song'. This is not necessarily of great consequence for secondary goals or projects, especially when parties are familiar with each other's 131 approach and standards. Nor does it have to be a significant time commitment - for example, accessing timesaving technologies can serve doubly for record-keeping purposes, while simple, regular one-on-one interactions also work well. Keeping good records is a good way of ensuring resilience and continuity and is especially important for parties that experience, or risk experiencing, a change in key people and if there are multiple projects. Competence is exhibited in part by partners who are flexible and responsive to changing demands. ENGO partners tend to have greater capability in being flexible as the structure of their organisation is less rigid and cumbersome. Both parties however, need to have the capability of responding to each's concerns in a prompt, thorough and professional manner. The value, especially for ENGO partners, of recognising accomplishments and being empowered is more readily achieved when there are smaller, 'doable' goals that they can take pride in. It is also noted that the development of trust between partners affects how each perceives the other's commitment to the relationship, the goals of the arrangement and the quality of work that each performs. Trust develops when the essential criteria - honouring differences, exhibiting competence, maintaining effective communication and so on, are achieved. Trust develops over time with mutual understanding and respect and recognised accomplishments. 132 With respect to power-sharing, it is determined that E N G O partners will more strongly support the arrangement, their B C Parks partners and a project or projects when government partners do their best to provide support for those working directly on the project or projects, and when the latter are given maximum flexibility, independence and authority. With the myriad decisions required in more complex projects, partners involved in a project are much more effective in their work and as a result, more committed to the arrangement, when they have the authority to make smaller decisions without multiple, distant authorizations. Methods for applying the key criteria are at the discretion of the parties, as their design, modification and implementation must be suited to the particular circumstance of the parties and their project or projects. The perceived level of success of partners varies according to the expectations they have for the outcome of the project or projects and the process by which the arrangement is conducted. E N G O partners in particular tend to prefer an arrangement that shares power more equally between parties. Their perceived level of success is therefore affected by both the expectations they have of how power will be shared, and the reality of how it unfolds within the relationship. While E N G O s are recognised for having a greater commitment and obligation to stewardship of the environment than to their relationship with government, be it formal or otherwise; nonetheless, their satisfaction with the process of their arrangement will affect their commitment to it and to their government partners - if E N G O partners do not feel that power has been shared equitably within the 133 arrangement, they may consider other options to fulfilling their objectives outside of an arrangement with government. For its part, government also carefully weighs the benefits of partnering with E N G O s , though its representatives must take into account that E N G O members represent a portion of their constituency as well as having some influence on other members of the public. 6.2 Implications The management of parks and protected areas is clearly value-laden and connected within the wider social fabric. They must serve the social and economic needs of people around them if they are to maintain their viability and good favour of local people. Concerns and issues, if dealt with honestly and with effort in seeking just solutions by both parties, will be minimized and overcome. Every arrangement is different, as are the goals and needs of its partners. With this comes a unique set of challenges and opportunities. If nonprofit organisations and public sector representatives are to make their cooperative arrangements work, they must fully understand the array of forms of partnerships open to them and be clear on the extent that power will be shared, and choose the method best suited to the job at hand, be it a formalized, rigidly defined structure, a loosely-based 'at-arms-length' arrangement, a venture that is equally shared by both parties, or some combination thereof. Knowledge of the full array of tools available is particularly important when funds, time and resources are scarce. This study has identified the criteria that are essential to the success of particular 134 arrangements in the stewardship of parks in BC and those that are of lesser importance. Cooperative arrangements for parks and protected areas can be more effectively planned and managed when all associated parties meaningfully contribute throughout the partnership process in considering and implementing these criteria. In addition, by engaging in dialogue of expectations in terms of the extent of power-sharing, partners are more likely to succeed in achieving other benefits that are important to them. Given the importance of cooperative arrangements to the future of our parks and protected areas, the long-term success of existing and future arrangements in and around these areas will have significant influence on the integrity of these areas in our changing world. 6.3 Avenues for Future Research As is the case with most research projects, this thesis has generated as many questions as it has answered. The study focussed on existing, successful cooperative arrangements. Additional avenues to explore in this subject area include arrangements that have developed and modified over time to meet the changing demands on parks and protected areas. Such a study could identify how these partnerships adjusted their structure or mandate in the face of competition for limited funds and a more informed public. This thesis went into significant detail with the four case study arrangements. While it is recognised that these partnerships were distinctly different from one another in terms of the projects they pursued, their partners and the parks and districts they took place in, thereby affording a diversity of insight, this diversity also has its limitations. Studies 135 could be conducted that compare and contrast arrangements within the same BC Parks district, or with ENGOs that have more closely aligned mandates, the same typologies and so on. In so doing, findings would more accurately identify the criteria that are essential to arrangements that involve particular partners. These kinds of studies would like draw out more of the subtleties that define the success or lack of success within these arrangements. There is great potential in studying arrangements that involve different levels of government, forms of parks and protected areas and locations across the province and elsewhere. This thesis did not address how changes in provincial government as seen by different political parties being in power must surely impact on the support for, and forms of, cooperative arrangements throughout BC. Studies that delve into how the political climate affects cooperative arrangements would have significant influence on how ENGOs approach and work with potential partners in government. The ENGOs studied in this thesis are representatives of communities that neighbour a particular protected area. But the wider community and not only members of these ENGOs, are also directly affected by the establishment and operation nearby parks and protected areas. The impact on communities can be positive, negative, or both and much can be studied with regard to how ENGOs and communities can work together for their mutual success and the betterment of these areas. Variations in the possibilities for research in this field abound and are only limited by the interests and creativity of researchers and partners engaged in these arrangements. 136 In Closing There is significant agreement within the field of cooperative arrangements for the stewardship of parks and protected areas over what makes a relationship successful. Effective functioning of these partnerships does not occur by chance, nor by osmosis, but by thought and effort and the building of a coordinated team concept. The arrangements presented here have provided important examples of the critical role ordinary citizens can play in reshaping and invigorating the relationship of parks and people, which will become more crucial to the long-term viability of these areas in the years to come. Truly, mighty oaks from little acorns will grow. 137 Bibliography Agee, James K. and Johndon, Darryll R. 1987. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness, University of Washington Press, Seattle. Adams, W.M. 1996. Future Nature: A Vision for Conservation, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London. B.C.'s Park Legacy Project, 1998a. Cooperative Arrangements for Planning and Managing B. C. 's Parks and Protected Areas, B.C.'s Park Legacy Project, Victoria, B.C. B.C.'s Park Legacy Project, 1998b. Sustaining Our Protected Areas System: Recommendations for Public Review and Comment, B.C.'s Park Legacy Project, Victoria, B.C. Canadian Nature Federation. 1990. Follow Your Instincts, , Ottawa, Ontario. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, British Columbia Chapter. 1997. Proceedings of the Public Forum: Working Together to Sustain Parks and Protected Areas, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Vancouver, B.C. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, British Columbia Chapter. 1994. The Wilderness Vision for British Columbia: Proceedings from a Colloquium on Completing British Columbia's Protected Area System, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Vancouver, B.C. Carr, Anna. 1993. Community Involvement in handcare: The Case of Downside. Center for Resources and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Working Paper 1993/2. Carr, Anna. 1993. Community Participation in Water Quality Monitoring: The Case of Water Watchers. Center for Resources and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Working Paper 1993/7. Carr, Anna. 1992. Community Participation in Water Quality Monitoring: The Case of Water Watchers. Center for Resources and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University, Canberra. Working Paper 1992/6. Commission on Resources and Environment. 1994. The Provincial Land Use Strategy: Volume 3: Public Participation: Rights and Responsibilities; Community Resource Boards, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. Commission on Resources and Environment. 1995. The Provincial Land Use Strategy: 138 Volume 4: Dispute Resolution: Developing a Comprehensive System; Ensuring Fairness and Effectiveness, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. Coombs, H.C., McCann, H.R.H., Williams, N. 1989. Land of Promises, Center for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australia National University and Aboriginal Studies, ANU & AS Press, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra. Cormick, Gerald, Norman Dale, Paul Emond, S. Glenn Sigurdson and Stuart, Barry D. 1996. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Putting Principles into Practice, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, Ontario. Cozby, Paul C. 1993. Methods in Behavioral Research: Fifth Edition, Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View, Colorado. Daly, Herman E. and Cobb, John B. Jr. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future, Beacon Press, Boston, Massachusetts. Dearden, Philip and Rollins, Rick. eds. 1993. Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. Oxford University Press, Toronto. Dorcey, Anthony H. J. ed. 1991. Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Toward Agreement in the Fraser River Basin, Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Dorcey, Anthony H. J. 1987. Bargaining in the Governance of Pacific Coastal Resources: Research and Reform, Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Endicott, Eve. ed. 1993. Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Island Press, Washington, D.C. Environment Canada. 1995. Sea to Sea to Sea: Canada's Marine Conservation Areas Systems Plan, Parks Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Environment Canada. 1992. Canada's Green Plan, Supply and Services., Ottawa, Ontario. Environment Canada. 1990. 1987 Public Survey of Perceptions of Canadian Wildlife, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. Fraser River Action Plan. 1996. Urban Stream Stewardship: From Bylaws to Partnerships: Summary Report, Dovetail Consulting, Vancouver, B.C. Gardner, Julia E. 1990. "Park System Planning: Limitations in the Pursuit of Rationality", 139 in Plan Canada, September 1990, Vol. 30, No. 5: 10 - 18. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1998. GVRD Parks Partnership Vision, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Vancouver, B.C. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1996. Parks Partners Letter, GVRD, Regional Parks Department, October 1996, Vancouver, B.C. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1991. GVRD's Regional Park and Outdoor Recreation System: Proposed Action Plan on Needs and Issues; Draft, GVRD, Vancouver, B.C. Hankin, Rick. 1997. Presentation for the conference: Working Together to Sustain Parks and Protected Areas, April 11-13, 1997. Vancouver, B.C. Heder, Heidi. 1995. Partnerships for Environmental Non-Government Organizations and Government Agencies. Natural Resources Institute, The University of Manitoba. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Henning, Daniel H. 1990. "Wilderness Politics: Public Participation and Values" in Environmental Management, Vol.. 11, No. 3: 283 - 293. Howell, R.E. 1987. Designing a Citizen Involvement Program: A Guidebook for Involving Citizens in the Resolution of Environmental Issues, Western Rural Development Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1980. World Conservation Strategy, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 1996. Environmental Strategy: Newsletter of the IUCN Commission on Environmental Strategy and Planning, Sacramento, California. January 1996, no. 11. Kernaghan, Kenneth. 1994. "Partnerships and Public Administration: Conceptual Administration and Practical Considerations", in Canadian Public Administration, Spring 1994, Vol.. 36, No. 1: 57-76. Kernaghan, Kenneth. 1993. "Empowerment and Public Administration: Revolutionary Advance or Passing Fancy?", in Canadian Public Administration, Spring 1993, Vol.. 35, No. 2: 194 - 214. Landre, Betsy K. and Knuth, Barbara A. 1992. Success of Citizen Advisory Committees in Consensus-Based Water Resources Planning in the Great Lakes Basin, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 140 Lerner, Sally, ed. 1993. Environmental Stewardship: Studies in Active Earthkeeping, Department of Geography Publication Series, University of Waterloo, Ontario, No. 39. Lindquist, Evert. 1993. Public Managers and Policy Communities: Learning to Meet New Challenges, Canadian Centre for Management Development, Ottawa, Ontario. London, Scott. 1995. Building Collaborative Communities: A Paper Prepared for Pew Partnerships for Civic Change, Homepage http://www.pin.org/library/ppcc.htm. Lucas, P.H.C. ed. 1992. Protected Landscapes: A Guide for Policy-Makers and Planners, Chapman and Hall, London. MacKinnon, J.R., MacKinnon, K, Child, G. and Thorsell, J. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Magoon, C. ed. 1987. Canadian Policy for Natural Marine Parks, in Coastal Zone 1987: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, , Ottawa, Ontario. McCandless, M. 1993. Land Use Planning: The Financial Implications, Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba. McNeely Jeffrey A. ed. 1995. Expanding Partnerships in Conservation, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, The World Conservation Union. Island Press, Washington, D.C. McNeely, Jeffrey A. and Pitt, David, eds. 1985. Culture and Conservation. The IUCN and Natural Resources, Croom Helm Australia Pty Ltd. Sydney, Australia. McNeely, Jeffrey A. and Miller, K. R. eds. 1984. National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1998. BC Parks Overview, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1998. Management Plan for Koksilah River Provincial Park, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1996. Protected Areas Strategy Update, Land Use Coordination Office, Homepage http: //www. luco. gov. be. ca. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. . Provincial Park Stewardship Agreement Between and BC Parks South Vancouver Island District, 141 Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1997. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Annual Report 1997, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C. Mowrey, M. and Redmond, T. 1993. Not in Our Backyard: The People and Events that Shaped America's Modern Environmental Movement, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York. Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia. 1997. Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.: Public Observations and Prompts, speaker notes for Dr. Pamela Wright for the conference: Working Together to Sustain Parks and Protected Areas, April 11-13, 1997. Vancouver, B.C. Oxford University Press. 1984. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Walton Street, Oxford, England. Parks Canada. 1994a. Guiding Principles and Operational Policies, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Parks Canada. 1994b. State of the Parks 1994 Report, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Parks Canada. 1998a. Partners: National Newsletter of the Canadian Parks Partnership, Parks Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Parks Canada. 1998b. State of the Parks: 1997 Report, Ministry of Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Reid, Susanna. 1991. Interaction of Ontario Volunteer Environmental Stewardship (VES) Groups with Government and Non-Governmental Organizations, Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Rodal, Alti and Mulder, N. 1993. "Partnerships, Devolution and Power-sharing: Issues and Implications for Management", in The Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.. 24, No. 3: 27 -48. Rodal, Alti and Wright, 1993. "Managing Partnerships", in The Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 24, No. 3: 49 - 60. Romaine, Mike. 1995. Stewarding Our Watersheds: Linking Local Round Tables and Provincial Planning: A Discussion Paper , Integrated Resource Planning and Management, Fraser River Action Plan, Vancouver, B.C. Roseland, Mark. 1992. Toward Sustainable Communities: A Resource Book for 142 Municipal and Local Governments, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, Ontario. Savoie, Daniel. 1995. Governance in a Changing Environment, McGill - Queens University Press, Montreal, Quebec. Sewell, W. R. Derrick, Dearden, Philip and Dumbrell, John. 1989. "Wilderness Decision making and the Role of Environmental Interest Groups: A Comparison of the Franklin Dam, Tasmania and South Moresby, British Columbia Cases", in Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 29, Winter 1989: 147 -169. Spector, B.I., Sjostedt, G., Zartman, I.W. eds. 1994. Negotiating International Regimes: Lessons Learned from the United Nations Conference of Environment and Development (UNCED), Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, London. Trzyna, Thaddeus C. and Gotelli, Ilze M. eds. 1989. The Power of Convening: Collaborative Policy Forums for Sustainable Development, California Institute of Public Affairs, Claremont, California. Wellman, J. Douglas. 1987. Wildland Recreation Policy, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Western, David, Wright, R. Micheal, and Strum, Shirley C. eds. 1994. Natural Connections: Perspective in Community-based Conservation, Island Press, Washington, D.C. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, New York. World Wildlife Fund. 1996. "Letter from the President", in Conservation Issues, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D .C , Vol. 3, No. 4: 1 - 3. 143 Appendix Each criterion was comprised of between two and five evaluation indicators that were restated as questions. Responses to the questions for each criterion were summarized and then assigned an overall response representing all questions under a criterion, from both respondents. A summary of comments by both parties follows each criterion. 1 Formalized Agreement and Defined Roles Is there a formal agreement in writing that establishes project goals and terms of the relationship? (i.e. Some sort of Letter of Intent exists that indicates objectives of the project and organisational protocols.) Did the parties worked together to design and commit to the agreement? (i.e. The agreement was created and approved by both parties.) Are all parties clear on what and how each will contribute? (i.e. Partners understand each party's roles, responsibilities and expectations.) South Island District Yes. Both parties say they have a Volunteer Stewardship Agreement that includes liability. It is being rewritten. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes/No and N/A. Parties said that there is or was an agreement that included matters of liability, though in some cases there is no agreement, as they know what to expect from each other. Thompson River District Primarily. Parties said there was a park use permit that they all worked on; the Society added that otherwise there was no formalized agreement. Everyone clearly understood how and what they were to contribute. Okanagan District Primarily. Parties said there is a Park Use/Operations Permit. Parks noted parties worked together on it "to a minor extent". It is up for renewal and the Ski Club stated that they will "want a different approach" and "more operational freedom". Parties are generally clear on their roles, and so on, though they also agreed that there are areas of confusion and concern. 144 2 Common Vision and Goals Do partners have consistent and attainable (conservation) objectives for the project? (i.e. Project objectives are realistic and agreed to by all parties.) Is there agreement over how to achieve these goals? (i.e. The mechanisms for attaining the goals are mutually acceptable to all parties.) South Island District Primarily. Parks said there can be discrepancies and "muddiness", though on-the-ground stuff is really clear". Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes. Both parties said there is; the Society added that, "That is the main purpose for being". Thompson River District Yes. Okanagan District Primarily. Comments from parties were quite positive. Parks said "the main bulk of objectives are common" and parties create business plans in advance. The Ski Club noted: "If we want it, we build it", and that Parks is "a bit schizophrenic" when applying its [conservation/recreation] mandate. 3 Honouring Differences Do partners recognise and respect their differences? (i.e. Each party understands and honours each's motives, varying levels of involvement, and approach.) Do the parties maintain their independence? (i.e. Partners keep their distinctiveness; their entity and uniqueness.) South Island District No/Yes. The Society said frustrations exist over what Parks is willing to do for the betterment of the area; Parks stated that the Society does not fully understanding Parks' role or limitations. Parties agreed that they maintain their independence and distinctness. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes. Parties agree that they respect their differences and maintain their independence. The Society noted that "one of the keys to success" is that they are an independent organisation and can access resources that Parks cannot. Thompson River District 145 Yes. Parks stated that recognising and respecting differences was really important, and parties maintained their distinctiveness given that they all had a seat on the Board. Okanagan District Primarily. Parks said that they "recognise that races are important to the club" though they must use care here. The Ski Club noted that some Parks people "don't talk to us as equals". Parks stated that there is an arms length working relationship as the Club is "a separate working entity". 4 Effective Conflict Management Are partners open to problem-solving approaches? (i.e. They are open-minded about methods to work through issues.) Is there a plan for dealing with differences that relate to the project? (i.e. There is a strategy for managing opposing opinions, including those that may be unresolveable.) Are concerns and issues dealt with in a timely fashion? (i.e. Partners react to problems before they get out of hand.) South Island District *Varies from Yes-No. Parties noted they tend to communicate one-on-one; The Society said that otherwise there is no plan, and waffling on the part of Parks; Parks said there is a plan. Parties both stated that problems are dealt with in a reasonable amount of time. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes/No. Parties acknowledges that both are always open to listen and work things through; there is no formal plan as: "It is left to common sense and people's personalities" (the Society). Thompson River District Primarily. Parties said there were definite differences of opinion and no formal plan to deal with them, though objectives were mutual and problems were quickly resolved; Parks noted they were working towards a deadline. Okanagan District Primarily-Somewhat. Parks said that they "work very cooperatively through problem identification" and that the permit sets "a legal precedence for rights and obligations" as well as there being "one-on-one opportunity". The Ski Club stated that "one-on-one is effective" and problems get solved, "but usually they've come on strong"; and "this really is the key issue"; "the problem-solving is us, and they create it". 146 5 Two-way Communication Strategy Is there an agreed-upon strategy for communicating? (i.e. There is a plan for communicating and recording formalities and individual needs.) Is communication ongoing and consistent? (i.e. Communication proceeds regularly and well.) Is there a personal contact for each party when necessary? (i.e. There is someone 'in the know' that is reachable at any time if need be.) Is information available to everyone in a format that is understandable? (i.e. The format that the information is in accounts for differences in aptitude of partners.) South Island District Yes. The Society stated that communication with the lower levels of Parks (i.e. one-on-one) is open and ongoing, though the higher levels are unreachable. Both said they have personal contacts and info is made available. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes. Parks said they have a strategy, though the Society stated that the group no longer needs or wants official meetings - "It's ad hoc as needed" and everyone use e-mail now. Thompson River District Yes. Parks said there was a process for communicating. Parties agreed that information was always available. The Society added that "Everyone was cut in". Okanagan District Primarily. Parks stated that communication is "strictly 1-on-l" and "primarily issue-based". The Ski Club said paperwork requirements are clear; but "beyond the formal stuff it's not so clear". The Club stated that "in theory" there is personal contact with Parks when necessary, "but [the Parks person] is really, really hard to get a hold of". The Club added that Parks supplies no formal direction and there is only one-way reporting [from the Club to Parks]. 6 Professionalism and Competence Is the time-frame for the project realistic for all parties? (i.e. The phases or, where applicable, final completion, of the project is reasonably attainable for everyone.) Are partners accountable to each other on an ongoing basis? (i.e. All parties are reliable and flexible.) Is skill and creativity applied where appropriate? (i.e. Partners adapt well to the changing needs, timelines and so on of the project.) 147 South Island District Primarily. For the most part, partners think each does a good job, though on occasion the Society has disputed Parks' accountability and competence. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes. The Society stated: "It has to be [realistic because] the Society is a volunteer organisation", and though "BC Parks .. is short-staffed ... they pay attention to whenever we need/contact them and it's always a prompt response. Parties noted that both are creative; the Society added that "there has never been any attempt [by Parks] to suppress that". Thompson River District Yes. Everyone said "Yes" on all levels. Regarding skill and creativity the Society added that, when the fish arrived early they scrambled but adapted was very successfully. Okanagan District * Yes/No. Parks said "Yes" on all counts; the Ski Club said "No". Parks noted that the "duties for maintaining the project are all readily achievable and that monthly and yearly accounting is done. The Club said "It's ... one-way ... not a two-way relationship of equality", and that they themselves are very innovative. 7 Support between Parties Are there positive working relations between partners? (i.e. Partners work effectively together.) Is there cooperation and a shared commitment to the project and the relationship? (i.e. There is a team-oriented approach whereby support is available as needed; partners follow through on commitments.) Does each party have a. key person working on the project? (Each party has a primary, knowledgeable individual working on the arrangement.) Do partners feel they have adequate opportunity to participate effectively throughout the project? (All parties feel that the arrangement is equitable and fair.) South Island District Primarily. Parks responded affirmatively to all aspects of this criterion. The Society noted that relations with Parks, at the lower levels, are very good, though there is "a huge problem" with some of the other staff and there are typical office politics with the same people. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes. Both parties agreed on all levels. 148 Thompson River District Yes. Parties agreed fully that: "It couldn't be better" (the Society) and: "It was fundamental" (Parks). Okanagan District Primarily/Somewhat. Parties indicated that working relationships are primarily positive. Parks noted that all these indicators are exhibited. The Club said that Parks has not provided anything and that they "don't feel that it's a team". 8 External Support Is there a strategy for educating and involving the general public in a meaningful way? (i.e. There is a system for enhancing local community awareness of the arrangement, and responding to relevant concerns and interests.) Is there solid, local support for the project? (i.e. The majority of the public support the arrangement and believe it is 'transparent' in actions that are perceived to affect them.) South Island District No/Yes. Parties said there is no formal public outreach; Parks added that they cannot afford it; the Society stated that various sectors of the public show a lot of support; also: "The Society is the conduit for all this stuff". Garibaldi/Sunshine District No/Yes. While parties said there is no official strategy, the Society runs a busy interpretive program in the park, and there is strong community support for them. Thompson River District Primarily-Somewhat. Partners said that they had a strategy and were striving to increase public involvement, though the public continued to be disinterested in assisting in event planning. They added that support for the actual event was strong. Okanagan District Primarily. Parks stated that, other than having their logo on essential material, they do not have a public strategy. The Ski Club said that "one of the strengths with our setup" is that members number about 1,400 and there are many methods for regularly disseminating information. 149 9 Resources, Training and Education Are partners clear on what resources are available to them? (i.e. All parties know what is available to them from each other.) Are there opportunities for appropriate skill enhancement? (i.e. There are opportunities for partners to learn; for the environmental interest group in particular.) Is the knowledge and expertise of each partner accessible? (i.e. The particular skills of partners are accessible; In a format and time-frame that people can access.) South Island District Primarily. BC Parks answered affirmatively to all questions, but added that they have severe staffing limitations; the Society noted that parties are somewhat clear on the resources each has to offer and knowledge and expertise is accessible, but Parks offers things like fiancees in theory only. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes-No, N/A. Partners state that they understand and have access to what each can contribute, noting Parks' limited funds; the Society added they never felt the need for training, and so on from Parks as they are skilled or can access skills they don't have from their contacts. Thompson River District Yes. Parks said that, "what wasn't already there, was provided". The Society noted that they "learned a lot, that's for sure". Okanagan District Somewhat. Parks noted some opportunities for skill enhancement for a key Ski Club person, but also said that parties don't really have an "understanding of [each's] expertise pool". The Club said that Parks has provided nothing and they "feel the process is often obstructionist at times". 10 Performance Monitoring, Feedback and Iterativeness Is flexibility designed into the process? (i.e. The arrangement is open to adjustments that may be required or desired.) Are partners flexible and innovative? (i.e. Partners are open to changing needs and logistics, and respond as required.) Is there a general plan for making adjustments to the project if necessary? (i.e. There is a strategy for responding to unforeseen changes to the project.) 150 South Island District Primarily. Parties said the process and partner are flexible and that the parties respond quite well to adjustments. However, the Society added "there's nothing in black and white" in terms of a plan, though they make calls and get a respond in about a week. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Yes/No. Parties stated that there is nothing formalized; SBS said "there is nothing by design" and "when a problem [is] rising, you deal with it" so a formal plan is not required. Thompson River District Yes. Parks said that during the event there were daily meeting and partners adapted as needed. The Society said that adjustments will be made for next time as they submitted a report to Parks which will be given due consideration. Okanagan District * Yes-No. Both parties gave very conflicting and wide-ranging responses. Parks said the legal process is very inflexible, so it is managed with great flexibility. Parks added that the process is flexible and innovative, but that there is no plan for making adjustments other than the amendment process that is "a pain The Ski Club said that "between renewal periods of the contract... they [Parks] are willing to move". The Club said "we are [flexible]; they aren't" though there are one-on-one opportunities. 11 Resilience and Continuity Is continuity and integrity built into the structure? (i.e. There is a system by which to transfer resources and knowledge if needed.) Is there an adequate alternate who can carry on in the absence of each parties' key person? (i.e. There is a replacement for each parties' lead person in the short and long term.) South Island District Primarily. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Somewhat. Both parties stated that there is continuity with Parks, but that the Society is in many ways one person, which is a hazard, though the Society has done a good job documenting their information. Thompson River District Yes. Okanagan District Primarily. Parks said continuity is built into the structure though the Ski Club executive 151 changes yearly so their priorities also change. The Club stated that "formally [continuity] has been a problem ... getting new [Parks staff] educated and up to speed". The past Club Chair is assisting the new Chair over the year, so there is continuity with the Club. 12 Accomplishments and Empowerment Are there attainable, smaller goals within the project? Do partners share challenges as well as successes? Do partners understand and respect each's need for recognition outside of the relationship? (i.e. Credit and publicity are appropriately shared.) South Island District Primarily. Parties stated that their attainable goals are met and they share in challenges and successes; However, the Society said that parties don't interact much. Garibaldi/Sunshine District Primarily. The Society responded affirmatively to all questions, adding that roles of partners are distinctly different: "We do all the things that relate to nature. They do all the maintenance things". Parks' view is that goals, challenges and successes are shared, though they'd like to do more for the Society in the way of training and recognition. Thompson River District Yes. Parties said that they work together towards attaining the long term and the smaller, though still significant goals (e.g. formalizing the Society, generating seed money). Parks recognised that, though they realize the importance of the Society, they could have done more to let them know. Okanagan District Yes. Parks added that "We're constantly improving the area and there's a multitude of little steps in achieving that". The Ski Club concurred, but added that "we're the ones with the vision of the area". 152 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0089202/manifest

Comment

Related Items