Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Swimming upstream : citizen involvement in the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) McNaney, Kevin Colin 2000

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2001-0074.pdf [ 5.83MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089711.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089711-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089711-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089711-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089711-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089711-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089711-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089711-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089711.ris

Full Text

SWIMMING UPSTREAM: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE FRASER RIVER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM  (FREMP)  by KEVIN COLIN McNANEY B.A., M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y ,  1995  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  (PLANNING)  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and R e g i o n a l  Planning)  We accept, t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2000 ® K e v i n C o l i n McNaney, 200 0  ESTUARY  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  study. I further agree that permission for extensive  and  copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may department  or  by  his or  her  representatives.  be  granted by  It is understood  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be  the head of  my  that  or  copying  allowed without my  permission.  Department  of  ^ckoo( o£  Cc*/ijVuyv.iTy  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  <3(  tSeoe^gr  diOOO  a^A  (le.a io/v<x\ / H O - A A I A  written  Abstract From the inception of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program ( F R E M P ) in 1985, F R E M P has continually espoused a shared-decision making approach to managing this fertile and rapidly developing estuary. While F R E M P has been arguably quite successful in facilitating collaboration and shared-decision making among the various levels of government in the region, the nongovernmental community (including environmental and community groups, academia, industry and the general public) has only had occasional and unsatisfactory involvement in these decision making processes despite continued promises of greater community involvement (CI). The "product" of this CI effort is marked by conflict with a community that is increasingly critical of the credibility of F R E M P , hostile to the decisions made by the program, and questioning of the basic foundations of the estuary management plan (EMP). The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the "process" of community involvement in F R E M P from 1985 to 1998 (from estuary planning to implementation) through a series of interviews with individuals who actively participated in F R E M P , and through a review of the various reports produced throughout the process. This research is approached within a framework developed for an evaluation of citizen involvement in the land and resource management planning (LRMP) process in British Columbia (Duffy et al., 1998). The project concludes by recommending various policy options for F R E M P ' s ongoing CI efforts that accentuate clarity of process, involvement beyond "tokenism", communication and feedback, and the provision of adequate resources. The recommendations include a spectrum of possible future approaches to CI that range from a complete retreat from CI in F R E M P ' s decision making processes, to building on the lessons from the past in an effort to explore new, progressive means of involving citizens in the management of the Fraser River estuary.  ii  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  H  LIST O F T A B L E S  V  LIST O F FIGURES  VI  LIST O F A C R O N Y M S  VII  SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION  1  T H E E V O L U T I O N OF T H E F R A S E R R I V E R E S T U A R Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M  1  T H E DECISION M A K I N G S T R U C T U R E O F F R E M P  3  T H E DECISION M A K I N G PROCESS O F F R E M P  8  OPPORTUNITIES A N D M E C H A N I S M S FOR C I T I Z E N I N V O L V E M E N T IN F R E M P  10  PROJECT OBJECTIVES  12  PROJECT M E T H O D O L O G Y  13  PROJECT SCOPE  14  S E C T I O N T W O : T H E RISE O F CITIZEN I N V O L V E M E N T FINDING T H E W O R D S !  15 15  U N D E R S T A N D I N G T H E S P E C T R U M OF C I  16  Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation Thomas' Contingent Approach to Shared Decision Making  16 18  T H E D E M A N D FOR C I T I Z E N I N V O L V E M E N T IN C A N A D A  20  T H E INSTITUTIONAL R E S P O N S E  21  Mid 1960s- Late 1980s The 1990s  21 22  T H E C O M M I T M E N T T O C I T I Z E N I N V O L V E M E N T IN T H E M A N A G E M E N T OF T H E F R A S E R R I V E R E S T U A R Y .. 23 T H E S T A G E IS S E T  24  SECTION THREE: T H E "PROCESS"  O F C I T I Z E N I N V O L V E M E N T IN F R E M P  25  T H E C H A L L E N G E OF E V A L U A T I N G C I T I Z E N I N V O L V E M E N T  25  F R A M E W O R K FOR E V A L U A T I O N  25  1.  PARTICIPANT SUPPORT FOR PROCESS  29  2.  G O V E R N M E N T SUPPORT FOR PROCESS  32 35  3.  INCLUSIVE R E P R E S E N T A T I O N OF INTERESTS  4.  E F F E C T I V E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N OF INTERESTS  38  5.  SUFFICIENT R E S O U R C E S FOR PARTICIPANTS  42  6.  E F F E C T I V E PROCESS M A N A G E M E N T  45  7.  C L E A R T E R M S OF R E F E R E N C E  46  8.  PARTICIPATORY D E S I G N  48  9.  COMPREHENSIVE A N D EFFECTIVE PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK  10.  S T R U C T U R E D A N D I N T E G R A T I V E DECISION M A K I N G F R A M E W O R K  S U M M A R Y OF T H E R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S FOR F R E M P ' s F U T U R E C I PROCESSES S E C T I O N F O U R : T H E " P R O D U C T " O F C I T I Z E N I N V O L V E M E N T IN F R E M P  49 51 55 58  T H E OUTCOME: CONFLICT  59  S E L E C T I V E I N V O L V E M E N T IN T H E E S T U A R Y M A N A G E M E N T P ROCESS  60  CITIZEN FRUSTRATION F R O M L A C K OF INFLUENCE  62  SUMMARY SECTION FIVE:  •. CONCLUSIONS  AND RECOMMENDATIONS  PROPOSED P O L I C Y DIRECTIONS  63 64 64  iii  Policy Direction A: "Retreat from CI Altogether" Policy Direction B: "Maintain the Status Quo" Policy Direction C: "Build Upon the Lessons From the Past"  64 65 65  LIMITATIONS O F THIS P R O J E C T  65  S U G G E S T E D A R E A S FOR F U R T H E R R E S E A R C H  65  A P P E N D I X I: I N T E R V I E W Q U E S T I O N S  70  A P P E N D I X II: W O R K S H O P C O M P O S I T I O N A N D D E S C R I P T I O N  72  iv  List of Tables Table 1.1 Table 1.2 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1  The evolution of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program F R E M P ' s mechanisms for citizen involvement in the management of the estuary Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation The conceptual framework Framework for process evaluation criteria for shared decision making processes Summary of recommendations The location of F R E M P ' s activities within the conceptual framework  V  Page 2 Page 12 Page 16 Page 20 Page 28 Page 55 Page 61  List of Figures Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 4.1  The organisational structure of F R E M P Decision making in F R E M P Summary of representation of F R E M P ' s committees and workshops (1985-1998) Affiliation of F R E M P committee and workshop participants (19851998) Number of F R E M P committees and workshops (1985-1998) Number of non-governmental participants in F R E M P committees and workshops (1985-1998) The outcome of F R E M P ' s CI process in the management of the estuary  vi  Page 4 Page 9 Page 36 Page 52 Page 52 Page 52 Page 58  List of Acronyms BIEAP CI CPR EMP ENGO ERC FREMP FRES LRMP NGI  Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program Citizen Involvement Coordinated Project Review Estuary Management Plan Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation Environmental Review Committee Fraser River Estuary Management Program Fraser River Estuary Study Land and Resource Management Planning Non-Governmental Interests  vii  Section One: Introduction If the crux of sustainable development relates to the interaction of human and natural systems, then estuaries—the region where land meets water, fresh water meets salt water, and human terrestrial and aquatic resource needs collide—are at ground zero. Estuaries are among the most productive ecosystems on the planet and, as such, have attracted human settlement throughout the short history of human civilisation. The Fraser River estuary of South Western British Columbia is no exception. The estuary is the focal point of the outflow of the Fraser River into the Pacific Ocean, which drains an area of nearly a quarter of a million square kilometres and is home to the largest salmon run in the world. This exceptionally rich and diverse ecosystem has been the site of human settlement for thousands of years and the population of the Lower Mainland is expected to continue this growth with a doubling of the current population (1.8 million people) in the next 30 years ( F R E M P , 1994). This emerging population will undoubtedly continue to look to the estuary to satisfy needs for port facilities, industry and housing, while simultaneously demanding improvements to the environment and preservation of sensitive habitat. The management of such explosive growth in a region of incredibly complex ecosystems is a daunting task. The management of the region is further complicated by several factors: The Canadian governmental context is such that the regulation of land and water falls within the jurisdiction of local, regional, provincial and federal agencies. This meshing of jurisdictional boundaries and Acts of legislation complicates an already complex situation. Furthermore, the dynamic mix of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems inherent to the estuary calls for a holistic approach to science that is not currently met by our fragmented and specialized approach to knowledge. For example, the plight of a stock of salmon in the estuary is not a problem entirely within the realm of biology, but rather requires a level of interdisciplinarity that calls on knowledge of planning, chemistry, economics, sociology and history. Finally, even if the science of this complex region were to be fully comprehended science alone cannot provide solutions to problems that are laden with human values. The management of the Fraser River estuary thus requires a regime that crosses jurisdictions, brings together knowledge from various realms in the natural and social sciences, and addresses human needs and values in an inclusive decision making process. It is from this starting point that the Fraser River Estuary Management Program ( F R E M P ) evolved.  The Evolution of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program The ecological importance of the Fraser River estuary and the urgency of the need for a coherent management plan for the region came into light as the population of the Lower Mainland continued to climb throughout the second half of the twentieth century. In 1977, the governments of Canada and British Columbia initiated the Fraser River Estuary Study ( F R E S ) in recognition of several emerging conditions ( F R E M P , 1994, p.92): • Public concern about the negative effects of continued development in the estuary; • Rapid population growth in the Lower Mainland; • Deterioration of the estuary's high levels of biological productivity and natural features; and • Communication problems between responsible government agencies. F R E S had two distinct phases: The first phase conducted a review of the environmental conditions and trends in the estuary while the second phase brought together individuals from government agencies, the general public and user groups and culminated in the report, A Living River By the Door (1982). This report outlined a common vision of: "a healthy natural river and estuarine environment, valued for its intrinsic qualities and serving a range of important biological, social and economic functions." ( F R E M P , 1994, p.92) The period following the completion of F R E S was characterized by the realization that something had to be done to protect the human and ecological value of the estuary. In 1984, these musings  1  were formulated into a publication entitled An Implementation Strategy for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program, which outlined numerous options for the establishment of a management program for the estuary. A "linked management" option was recommended in recognition of the limited resources and potential administrative overlap of a new agency. In 1985, this "linked management" program became a reality through a five-year agreement signed by Environment Canada, the B C Ministry of Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the North Fraser Harbour Commission and the Fraser River Harbour Commission. ( F R E M P 1994, p.92) The first phase of F R E M P , which was completed in 1990, largely focussed on current and anticipated estuary needs through eight activity work groups/committees that focussed on navigation and dredging, waste management, log management, port and industrial development, water quality, habitat, environmental emergencies, and recreation. In 1991, the Greater Vancouver Regional District joined the original five signatories in initiating the three-year Phase II of F R E M P , which focused on the concrete implementation of the findings of Phase I and culminated in the development of the Estuary Management Plan ( E M P ) in 1994. F R E M P has continued since the development of the E M P through numerous extensions of the Phase II agreement and a Memorandum of Understanding of the partners in 1997 has extended the program for an indefinite period of time. This timeline is presented in Table 1.1. 1  Phase I  Fraser River Estuary Study (FRES)  1977-79  • •  Phase II  •  A Living River by the Door—a proposed management program  •  An Implementation Strategy for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program  1980-82  Phase III 1982-84  Phase I  Inventoried existing conditions and trends in the estuary. Invited user groups, agencies and the public to develop a plan  Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP)  1985-90  Phase II  • •  Completed eight activity work groups Mapped and classified all habitat areas  •  Greater Vancouver Regional District joins Policy and planning Implementation  1991-94 • •  Phase II+  • Extension to Phase II agreement • Implementation continues Table 1.1: The evolution of the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (adapted from F R E M P , 1994, p.91) 1994-present  While F R E M P has continued to present through several extensions of the agreements between the six partners, its structure and mandate has remained virtually the same since the  These work groups are further described in the subsequent section on decision making within FREMP. 1  2  development of the E M P . In essence, the period from 1994 to present has been focussed on the continued implementation of the E M P and the review of proposed projects against the E M P through the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Coordinated Project Review process. 2  The Decision Making Structure of FREMP The establishment of F R E M P created an organisation that was based on a "linked management" approach to governance. Each of the partner agencies would retain their legislated decisionmaking power but would share the responsibility of making decisions through coordinated decision making. The Estuary Management Plan describes this fundamental principle of the program as: " F R E M P operates on the basic principle that responsibility for improving the management of the estuary rests with those agencies that currently have management authority. The emphasis is on developing coordinated policies and programs for estuary management, thereby strengthening linkages among existing agencies." ( F R E M P , 1994, p.93) In essence, F R E M P itself does not have decision making power perse, but rather acts to coordinate the decision making process among the various jurisdictions of the partner organisations. The basic organisational structure of F R E M P , as presented in Figure 1.1, reflects this coordinating role. The ultimate decision making power in F R E M P rests with the elected officials whose power resides in respective provincial or federal legislation. In the case of F R E M P , this includes the Canadian Minister of the Environment, the British Columbia Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. At this same level of power also rests the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board, and the Fraser River and North Fraser Harbour Commissions. These governing bodies are not directly elected but nevertheless have legislated decision making power through the B C Municipal Act and the Federal Harbour Commission Act respectively. Although the ultimate decision making power in F R E M P does reside with these individuals, they are essentially figurehead positions and are represented by individuals from their respective agencies in the decision making process.  The one change that should be noted is the combination of the administrative functions of F R E M P with those of the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Program (BIEAP). While this transition has affected the administrative side of F R E M P , there has been no apparent change to the mandate or strategic function of the management program.  2  3  C a n a d a Minister of Environment B C Minister of Environment, Lands S P a r k s C a n a d a Minister of Fisheries and O c e a n s Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Fraser River Harbour Commission North Fraser Harbour Commission  MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Environment C a n a d a Department of Fisheries and O c e a n s B C Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Greater Vancouver Regional District North Fraser Harbour Commission Fraser River Harbour Commission F R E M P Office  ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Other Committees (as needed)  Environment C a n a d a Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks Department of Fisheries and Oceans  Other Committees (as needed)  Figure 1.1: The organisational structure of F R E M P (adapted from F R E M P , 1994, p.103)  Below the legislative powers in F R E M P rests the Management Committee. The Management Committee consists of representatives from the six partners of F R E M P and is responsible for the overall management and operation of the program. These responsibilities include formulating budgets, management of staff and resources, coordinating the various committees, and setting the overall policy direction for the program. The Management Committee meets on a regular basis to ensure that the program is operating effectively within the legislated mandates of the partner agencies and is fulfilling the objectives that are outlined in the Estuary Management Plan. The Management Committee is ultimately responsible to the partner agencies from which the representatives came. The F R E M P office falls at the administrative level of F R E M P ' s organisational structure. The F R E M P staff is responsible for providing administrative support for the program including communications, public outreach, and other activities that support the day-to-day operations of the program. In doing so, the F R E M P office does not actively engage in decision making but rather acts as the public interface with the program and is generally responsible for administering the programs and policies that are put forth by the Management Committee. At the heart of the F R E M P decision making process are the various committees that are formed to address fundamental questions about the future of the Fraser River Estuary. While many of the committees are formed as specific needs arise in the estuary management process, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) is a permanent committee that was established to manage the F R E M P ' s Coordinated Project Review. The E R C is comprised of representatives  4  from Environment Canada, the B C Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There are no non-governmental representatives on this committee. This committee is essential to F R E M P ' s decision making process in that it meets biweekly to review proposals for new projects in the estuary to ensure that they comply with both the relevant legislation as well as the Estuary Management Plan. The E R C coordinates the response to the applicant from all the agencies and makes a recommendation for the rejection or approval of the project from the lead agency (the agency that has the mandate and authority to make the final decision). In addition to the E R C there are numerous committees that are struck as required to address issues pertinent to the management of the Fraser River estuary. These committees are extremely important in the decision making process in F R E M P as they are the point at which the various interests gather around a specific issue and attempt to find a solution that meets the present and future needs of the estuary. The recommendations of these committees play a fundamental role in influencing the Management Committee's overall policy direction, the content and extent of the Estuary Management Plan (indeed, the committees of Phase I and II were largely responsible for the creation of the EMP), and the policies that direct the implementation of the E M P on a projectby-project basis. These committees are formed largely of governmental representatives from various agencies and may include non-governmental stakeholder groups. Each of the committees in the various Phases of F R E M P from 1985-1998 is described below: Phase I Committees  (1985-1990)  Port and Industrial Activity Work Group The Port and Industrial Activity Work Group was established to address the concern that there would be a shortage of waterfront industrial land in the estuary unless actions were taken to preserve some of the existing land for this use. The committee examined current trends in the use of waterfront lands and attempted to devise a strategy to meet the needs of water-dependent industry over the next twenty years. The key concerns that were considered by this study included: "the loss of waterfront industrial land base; the need for coordinated and integrated planning; the need for environmental protection to be built into the planning process; and the need for public information and education in the implementation of the strategies". ( F R E M P , 1994, p.4) This committee was composed of twenty individuals and included representatives from municipal and regional government (12), provincial government (2), federal government (2), F R E M P (1), and port or harbour agencies (3). Navigation and Dredging Activity Work Group The Navigation and Dredging Activity Work Group was struck to "identify the future dredging and navigation channel requirements on the lower Fraser River and the environmental and engineering implications of these requirements". (Ibid., p.6) The heavily travelled channels must be constantly cleared and maintained in order to ensure the safe passage of commercial and pleasure vessels through the sediment-rich waters of the estuary. This process has implications for fishing harbours, log handling areas, land reclamation, moorage and berths, and marinas. In addition, the committee identified eight major issues that needed to be addressed: 1. Reliable navigation and channel depth; 2. Future port and channel development; 3. Environmental guidelines for dredging; 4. Dredging effects on sediment budget; 5. Contaminants testing procedures and standards; 6. Availability of dredge material disposal sites; 7. Habitat designation and enhancement; and 8. Navigation safety. This committee included twelve individuals representing provincial government (1), federal government (6), port and harbour agencies (3) and industry (2). Log Management Activity Work Group  5  The forestry industry is a major source of economic activity in British Columbia and sufficient log storage and booming sites are integral to the health of the industry. The Log Management Activity Work Group was created in recognition of this situation and sought to "analyse the supply and demand for log storage in the estuary and to identify potential modifications to the log handling and storage system". (Ibid., p.9) Given that the logs are stored for processing, trade, and sale, there are many groups that rely on the estuary as a suitable place to conduct business. The principal issues that were identified as pertaining to this activity include the security of storage areas, as well as concerns about the biological effects of log transport and storage. There were eleven members of this committee including representatives from provincial government (2), federal government (2), port and harbour agencies (4), and industry (3). Waste Management Activity Work Group The Waste Management Activity Work Group was struck to determine the nature of waste management concerns in the estuary and to devise an appropriate means of addressing these issues. Given the large number of waste issues around the estuary, the areas of concern "were prioritised into (a) sewage treatment plants, (b) industrial effluents, (c) urban runoff and combined sewer overflows, (d) agricultural wastes and rural runoff, (e) groundwater contamination, and (f) miscellaneous wastes". (Ibid., p.11) All fourteen committee members considered the relative impact of the pollution sources on the estuary in order to develop the recommendations contained within the Recommended Waste Management Activity Plan. The committee was comprised of representatives from municipal and regional government (3), provincial government (6), federal government (3), F R E M P (1), and consultants (1). Standing Committee on the Fraser River Estuary Water Quality Plan The Standing Committee on the Fraser River Estuary Water Quality Plan was established to "review the existing programs and present a program to improve the monitoring of water, sediments and fish and wildlife, and the measurement of environmental quality in the estuary". (Ibid., p.13) The committee sought to identify the sources of contaminants including municipal and industrial liquid waste discharges, storm water and sewer outflows, non-point source discharges, dredging and dumping of sediments, upstream runoff, and atmospheric sources. The seven-member committee prepared a plan that established agreed-upon water quality objectives, as well as coordinated environmental monitoring. This committee included representation from municipal and regional government (1), provincial government (3), and federal government (3). Habitat Activity Work Group The role of the Habitat Activity Work Group was to examine the issues related to fish and wildlife habitat in the estuary. The group sought to identify areas of concern, to develop conclusions and to make recommendations on "issues related to five topics: habitat protection and conservation, restoration and enhancement, management plans and programs, public awareness and workshop results". (Ibid., p.16) The committee consisted of nine members who were affiliated with provincial government (1), federal government (4), port and harbour agencies (2), environmental and community groups (1), and consultants (1). Recreation Activity Work Group The Recreation Activity Work Group was created to assess and plan for recreational activities within the F R E M P management area. The group worked to create a recreation plan with the following objectives: • To provide an integrated system of parks, linear units (trails and water pathways) and street ends that give frequent and substantial access and view to the Fraser River; • To reduce potential conflicts between recreational users and other river users by designing a multiple use approach to recreational development; • To create a management model for the integrated recreation system (including existing and potential recreational sites so that the plan can be achieved in many jurisdictions); and • To devise a recreation system and management structure that facilitates public communication, debate and modifications.  6  The committee was comprised of twenty-nine members including individuals from municipal and regional government (19), provincial government (2), federal government (1), F R E M P (1), environmental and community groups (4), and consultants (2). Environmental Emergency Activity Work Group The Environmental Emergency Activity Work Group was created "to review all emergency plans in the estuary, to identify overlaps, gaps and linkages between plans, and to propose solutions to improve the management of environmental emergencies". (Ibid., p.21) The committee defined environmental emergencies as those that are a threat to air quality, water quality, fish habitat and wildlife habitat. The committee reviewed twenty-six emergency plans in total in order to determine a coordinated approach to environmental emergencies. There were eight members on the committee with representation from provincial government (3), federal government (2), and port and harbour agencies (3). Phase II Committees  (1990-1994)  Water and Land Use Committee The Water and Land Use Committee formed in May 1992 to produce the Estuary Management Plan. The method of creating the plan was "an iterative process with members of the Water and Land Use Committee and input from non-governmental organisations, business and the general public, with the Committee taking the responsibility for managing this process and providing direction". ( F R E M P , 1994, p.4) The purpose of the committee was to bring the various interests together to undertake the following activities: • identify and establish needs • develop a clear sense of vision and purpose • establish guideposts for decision making • set targets and actions in support of the goals • identify areas of competing use and develop conflict resolution procedures • outline steps to carry out the Plan • provide procedures for monitoring all aspects of the Plan and processes for updating and amending the plan The Water and Land Use Committee was composed of 49 individuals representing municipal and regional government (24), provincial government (4), federal government (8), port and harbour agencies (8), and first nations (5). Water Quality Management Committee The Water Quality Management Committee was initiated to devise monitoring systems for water quality within the F R E M P management area, as well as to develop a water quality management plan. In the Estuary Management Plan, the role of this committee is described as: Using the results from the monitoring program, the Committee can provide directions for developing a more comprehensive monitoring program, assessing the health of the estuary, determining the adequacy of the Province's Provisional Water Quality Objectives, and assessing the effectiveness of waste treatment and disposal to protect aquatic life. (Ibid., p. 24) The committee was composed of thirty-six individuals who were affiliated with municipal and regional government (20), provincial government (2), federal government (3), F R E M P (1), and first nations (3). Phase 11+ Committees Shoreline Protocol  (1994-1998)  3  Committee  In February 1997 Fraser River Estuary Management Program held a public meeting to introduce the Shoreline Protocol Development Committee which would address habitat issues in green  3  Although Phase II+ continues to present, the scope of this study limits this period to 1998.  7  coded areas (low habitat value) of the shoreline. Several public members were elected to join the committee. The committee met for the first time in the same month and continued to work towards this task for almost a year before disbanding. There was representation on this committee from provincial government (1), federal government (2), port and harbour agencies (2), environmental and community groups (6), industry (3), and unaffiliated individuals (1).  The Decision Making Process of FREMP For the purposes of this project, F R E M P ' s coordinated decision making process will be viewed as a cohesive series of decisions for the entire duration of the estuary management process, from estuary planning to implementation. For example, while an application for a log booming ground may be made to F R E M P for a given parcel of land, there were numerous decisions made previously in the overall estuary planning process that determine the acceptance or rejection of the proposal. In taking this approach, one can garner a clearer understanding of the overall decision making process at F R E M P and the way in which these decisions culminate in day-today, "on the ground" outcomes in the estuary. F R E M P ' s decision making can be viewed as an extensive process that began with the recognition of the need for management in the estuary, led to a planning phase that culminated in the production of the E M P , and finally resulted in the ongoing implementation of the E M P through the Coordinated Project Review. In both the planning and implementation stages there were a number of decision making mechanisms and opportunities for citizen involvement which will be further explored below. While the planning stage (in Phase I and II) can be viewed as more or less complete with the release of the E M P , the implementation stage is ongoing as projects are continually presented by proponents and considered by F R E M P . The basic process of decision making in F R E M P is presented in Figure 1.2:  8  Recognition of the Need for Estuary Mgmt.  Development of an Estuary Management Plan Workshops  Committees  <<;  i Citizen Involvement  <2  i Citizen Involvement  1 > Public Open Houses  JJ Acceptance of the Estuary Management Plan Mgmt. Committee  FREMP Partners  JJ A Project is Proposed in the Estuary  JJ Project Application to the Lead Agency  JJ Application Accepted by Lead Agency  JJ FREMP Office  <r^  i Citizen Involvement  <]  i Citizen Involvement  Application Distribution  Comments Returned to FREMP Office  JJ Environmental Review Committee Review  JJ •ERC Response to Lead Agency  iCitizen Involvement  JJ Lead Agency Decides on Project  JJ Project Proceeds  Project Rejected  Figure 1.2: Decision Making in FREMP (adapted from FREMP, 1994, p. 107)  9  The initial stage of the decision making process in F R E M P involves planning for the future of the estuary. The basic process for this stage involves the coordination of various governmental and non-governmental (e.g. industry, non-governmental organisations, academia, and the general public) interests in a decision making process that uses committees as the principal mechanism for decision making. A s described in the preceding section, these committees brought the decision makers together around specific issues (e.g. channel dredging) to decide on a plan for the future of the estuary. The committees were extremely important to F R E M P ' s decision making process in that they provided an integral forum for the planning of the estuary and represent a key decision making mechanism in the management of the estuary. These committees were often supported by informational workshops. These workshops had two general purposes: The first purpose was to bring together experts from around the region to inform the decision making process of the committees. The second reason for the workshops was largely informational in that they were often held to inform the general public of the progress and results of the individual committees. A more significant example of these informational workshops was the public open houses. These open houses gave an opportunity for F R E M P to report back to the general public on their progress and to answer any questions that may have arisen. F R E M P is required to have a public open house on an annual basis. 4  The next component of decision making in F R E M P ' s planning process was the acceptance of the E M P by the F R E M P Management Committee and the partner organisations. The E M P was created through the incorporation of the decisions and recommendations of the various preceding committees into a single, comprehensive plan for the management of the estuary. This plan was then presented to the Management Committee who in turn brought it back to their respective partner organisations for approval. The Management Committee and F R E M P partners' decision to approve the E M P in 1994 effectively ended the planning stage of F R E M P ' s decision making process and initiated the process of implementing the plan. The implementation of the E M P is an ongoing process that decides on the acceptability of individual projects and determines their compliance with both the E M P , as well as with the relevant legislation. The projects commonly include proposals for dredging, moorage facilities, filling for land or breakwaters, log storage, habitat development and restoration, and shoreline protection works. ( F R E M P , 1994, p. 103) The principal decision making mechanism within this process is the Coordinated Project Review, which is administered by F R E M P ' s Environmental Review Committee (ERC). While E R C itself has no legislated decision making power, the members of the committee do have such authority and E R C acts as a unified decision making body to coordinate the response. The E M P describes this process as: This Committee, with F R E M P staff support, reviews all project applications, considers all environmental comments for each application, and compiles a coordinated set of recommendations. Representatives of the Lead Agencies generally attend the bi-weekly E R C meetings to give and receive clarification in order to expedite the review process. Representatives of municipalities may also periodically attend these meetings to discuss projects of concern to their communities. Neither F R E M P nor the E R C are government agencies, and have no legal authority of their own. All responses by the E R C are founded on the authority of one or more of its member organizations. ( F R E M P , 1994, p. 103) Since the E R C is comprised of representatives of the lead agency as well as representatives of the other F R E M P partners, their recommendations are virtually always accepted and implemented by the lead agency, (from personal communication with an E R C representative, November 1998). E R C ' s Coordinated Project Review thus represents an important decision making mechanism within F R E M P and for the overall management of the Fraser River estuary.  Opportunities and Mechanisms for Citizen Involvement in FREMP  4  Please refer to the Appendix for a description of the workshops from 1985-1998.  10  The management of the Fraser River estuary requires an extensive process that involves planning for the future of the estuary and making decisions on proposed projects that aid in the implementation of this vision. There are a number of key decision points in F R E M P ' s approach to managing the estuary, which include: 1. The decisions undertaken in the various committees that resulted in the production of the Estuary Management Plan; 2. The amalgamation of the committees' recommendations into the E M P and the decision to accept the plan by the Management Committee and the F R E M P partners; 3. The decisions made by E R C (via the authority of the lead agency) on whether to permit proposed projects in light of the relevant legislation and the project's compliance with the EMP. These decision points present a number of opportunities whereby non-governmental interests can become involved in the management of the estuary. These opportunities can be divided into two general categories, those which are related to decision making and those which are more general in nature and do not necessarily impact F R E M P ' s decision making process. These mechanisms for citizen involvement are presented in Table 1.2: 5  5  Please refer back to Figure 1.2.  11  Description IT, Opportunities exist for citizens to become involved in the various committees that are struck to address estuary issues and to make decisions on how to proceed with the management of the estuary. Workshop Membership Opportunities exist for citizens to participate in workshops which provide information on the progress and results of the various committees, and help to inform the decision making process within these committees. Input into the Coordinated Opportunities exist to submit comments Project Review to the E R C on projects under review in F R E M P ' s Coordinated Project Review. These comments may be submitted verbally, in written format or through F R E M P ' s website. Stewardship Program F R E M P ' s "Public Participation Habitat General Involvement Restoration Project" provides ongoing opportunities for citizens to help in the physical restoration of estuary habitat. Teacher's Kits F R E M P prepared numerous "teacher's kits" that provided curriculum on the biological functioning of the estuary and the issues surrounding its management. Annual Newsletter Periodically, F R E M P has sent out a newsletter that describes their activities for the preceding year. Participation on this mailing list is voluntary and additional copies are available at the F R E M P office. F R E M P ' s website provides information Website on the program's structure, objectives, publications and general activities. The site may be found at www.bieapfremp.org Table 1.2: F R E M P ' s mechanisms for citizen involvement in the management of the Fraser River estuary.  Involvement with Implications for Decision Making  Committee Membership  6  7  8  Project Objectives The objectives of this project are: 1) To evaluate the overall approach or "process" of citizen involvement (CI) in F R E M P ; 2) To understand the outcome or "product" of CI in F R E M P ; and 3) To propose policies for the improvement of F R E M P ' s approach to CI.  Please refer back to Figure 1.2 for visual representation of the input process. A s of 1999, there had yet to be any comments submitted through F R E M P ' s website in spite of the inclusion of this functionality from 1998. (from personal communication with F R E M P staff, 1999) A s of later 1998, 2,558 individuals had participated in this program ( F R E M P , administrative records, 1998) 8  7  8  12  Project Methodology The methodology employed in this project is based on a "means and end" approach. This approach recognises that the product of CI in F R E M P does not occur in isolation from the process from which it evolved. Conversely, the process of CI involvement in F R E M P cannot be fully understood without careful consideration of the outcome of this activity. By simultaneously viewing F R E M P ' s experience with CI in the formulation of the estuary management plan through this bi-focal lens, this project is better able to uncover the underlying dynamics among all of those involved. In an ideal world, the most effective method of completing this analysis would have been to observe the process first-hand. Since the E M P was already in its final stages at the initiation of this project, the alternative is to understand the history of the process through the eyes of the participants themselves. This understanding is garnered from two methods: i) Through a review of the written records produced throughout the E M P preparation period; and ii) Through interviews with numerous individuals who participated in the development of the E M P and in F R E M P ' s CI process in general. The first method, a study of the written documentation, involved a careful review of the various workshop summaries, committee reports, and annual reports produced from the inception of F R E M P , to timeline of this project in the fall of 1998. These documents were surveyed in order to determine who had participated in the process, to what extent (for example, was it a workshop or a committee?), and the substance of the decisions at hand (for example, the development of policies for log booming). These data provide a rich source for understanding the trends and extent of CI throughout the duration of the process. This project would not get at the full complexity of F R E M P ' s CI activity through reports alone. The written record of contentious processes such as CI does not provide a complete understanding since it is subject to fragmentation where resources were unavailable for the production of a written record, as well as being "one-sided" since the reports were largely produced from the governmental perspective. To overcome this hurdle, several interviewees were chosen from a list of current and past participants in F R E M P to include representatives from government, industry, F R E M P staff, members of the general public , and members of community groups and environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO). These individuals were chosen for their long standing participation in the program and their knowledge of F R E M P (over eighty percent of them had been involved in the program since its inception), the issues facing the estuary and the legislative context for its m a n a g e m e n t . Requests for interviews were sent to twenty-two people. Fifteen individuals agreed to be interviewed and, in order to provide more context to their remarks, their comments are coded as follows: i) Government (G1) ii) E N G O s ( E 1 , E2, E3, E4, E5) iii) F R E M P Staff (F1, F2, F3, F4) iv) Industry (In1, In2, In3) v) Citizens/General Public (P1.P2) 9  10  These individuals have participated extensively in F R E M P but do not affiliate themselves with any organization for the purposes of their involvement. These individuals were chosen based on the extent to which they have participated in the past. Preference was given to those with the most experience in F R E M P ' s CI activities. Representatives from First Nations groups declined to be interviewed in light of the ongoing treaty negotiations in British Columbia. The pre-evaluation of the participant's knowledge was purely subjective and based on the perceptions of the F R E M P staff.  9  1 0  13  Throughout this project, these participants are grouped into two categories: The government participants and F R E M P staff are referred to as governmental participants while the individuals from E N G O s , industry and the general public (e.g. did not provide affiliation to any particular group) are considered to be non-governmental participants. This distinction is important in order to understand the involvement of non-governmental interests in the management of the estuary as well as to provide context to the participant's collective comments on their participation in the program. Where and when possible, this project will attempt to illustrate any discrepancies or differences of opinion that may arise within these two groups. These distinctions are not always possible, however, since the interviewees were free to answer the questions as they saw fit and the interviews occurred individually rather than in groups. As such, the participants did not always address the same issues and their silence on a given issues cannot be construed as either agreement or disagreement. The questions that were posed to the interviewees were open in nature and were chosen in order to facilitate an extensive discussion of their experiences with CI in F R E M P . A s per the requirements set out during this project's ethical review process at the University of British Columbia, the interviewees participated in a voluntary manner and were free to disregard any questions and to end the interview at any time. The interviews took place in the fall of 1998, lasted approximately one hour in length, were recorded on audiotape and subsequently transcribed. The transcripts were sent to the participants for their review and correction before any of the data were brought into this project. This method produced over two hundred pages of transcripts that outlined the participant's thoughts, ideas, unique perspectives, likes and dislikes on their experience at F R E M P . When observed as a cohesive whole of sometimes-varied perspectives, these interviews tell an extremely rich story of the citizen involvement process at FREMP. 1 1  Project Scope The scope of this project is limited by a number of factors. These include: • Time. The project examines CI in the management of the estuary from F R E M P ' s inception in 1985, to this project's participant interviews in the fall of 1998. The findings of this project are thus limited to that time frame. • Geography. This project is limited to the F R E M P study area, which roughly extends from Kanaka Creek and the mouth of Pitt Lake in the east, to the tip of Point Grey in the west and north, and across the United States border in the south. • Types of CI. Since this project is concerned with an evaluation of CI in the management of the estuary and recommendations for future policy directions, the focus will be on the CI activities that have implications for decision making and will exclude an analysis of those that do not (for example, the stewardship program, the teacher's kits and the F R E M P website). • Dafa. The project is limited by the existence and availability of data for the management of the estuary during the study period. While numerous reports and studies were available through F R E M P to allow for some quantitative analysis of the rate and extent of CI, other useful data was not always available in a practical manner. For example, a quantitative analysis of CI in the Coordinated Project Review process was not practical for this project due to the immense amount of resources required to attempt to track the verbal and even written input of the non-governmental interests over the y e a r s . 12  Please refer to the Appendix for the interview questions. In spite of this quantitative limitation, the interviews provide an overall understanding of the non-governmental participants' view of the C P R process in their comments that pertain to CI in the implementation phase. 11  1 2  14  Section Two: The Rise of Citizen Involvement The purpose of this section is three fold: First, to define citizen involvement and other related terms that are employed throughout this project. Second, to provide a brief synthesis of the literature developed around CI and the conceptual space that it forms in the realm of shared decision making. Finally, this section traces the evolution of CI at the national level and in the Province of British Columbia so as to set the context for an analysis of CI in the management of the Fraser River estuary.  Finding the Words Since the emergence of citizen involvement in North America in the 1960s, there has been much confusion as to what constitutes citizen involvement, public participation, community engagement, empowerment, conscientisacion, and other similar terms. A s Dorcey and McDaniels comment: A potential source of confusion in analysing CI trends is that different processes or writers may use the words "public" or "civic" or "community" or "stakeholder" instead of "citizen", and "participation" or "engagement" or "consultation" in place of "involvement". Sometimes these terms are used synonymously, other times there are significant differences in meaning. For example, in certain instances "stakeholder involvement" is differentiated from "citizen involvement", by limiting the former to only those who have a specific interest in the issue as opposed to being generally interested as citizens (e.g. the affected landowners versus all voters in a jurisdiction)." (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p.5) Indeed, both the terms and the intended definition need to be clearly stated so as to avoid miscommunication and confusion. For the purposes of this project, citizen involvement (CI) is defined "broadly as processes for the involvement of citizens in advising and making decisions on matters under government authority, that augment or supplant decision making through established channels of representative government." (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p.5). Other related and relevant terms employed in this project include: Citizen refers to the individuals residing in the community in which the decision has direct or indirect impacts. A citizen may be affiliated with an organisation (e.g. community group, environmental non-governmental organisation, lobby group) or may simply be a concerned and engaged individual. For the purposes of this project, estuary management refers to the decision making processes that are inherent to planning for the future of the estuary, as well as the implementation of this plan. Non-governmental interest refers to any citizen or group that is outside the realm of government. A non-governmental participant may be from industry, community groups, academia, environmental non-governmental groups ( E N G O s ) or the general public. Shared decision making "means that those with the authority to make a decision and those who will be affected by the decision are empowered to jointly seek an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all concerned." ( C O R E , 1992, p. 25. In Duffy et al., 1998) Autocratic decision making is meant to be the opposite of shared decision making. The term refers to a unilateral decision making process where the government agency (or agencies) solely make a decision that is then communicated to the citizens.  15  Understanding the Spectrum of CI Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen  Participation  In 1969, Sherry Arnstein, a former Chief Advisor on Citizen Participation in Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Model Cities Administration, authored an article that provided an entirely new vision of the emerging field of citizen involvement. The article arose out of her concern for the level of spending on urban renewal at that time and its social implications for the "have nots" of American society. Arnstein sought to clarify all the questions of the contemporary discussion of CI in government programs and attempted to place all these issues within a broader social context. Arnstein writes: "In short: What is citizen participation and what is its relationship to the social imperatives of our time?" (Arnstein, 1969, p.216) In exploring the typology of CI, Arnstein developed a provocative model of CI based on the metaphor of a ladder, with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizen power in determining the plan or program. The principal criterion for determining the relative amount of citizen involvement is power over decisions and outcomes, and Arnstein saw much of the current social structure to be to the benefit of the affluent at the cost of the less empowered. She asserted that it is only through a conscious involvement of the "have-nots" in this social system that they can enjoy the full benefits of an affluent society. Arnstein comments that; "it is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future". (Ibid, p. 216) Any citizen involvement exercise without a concomitant redistribution of power, Arnstein writes: "...is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless. It allows the power holders to claim that all sides were considered, but makes it possible for only some of those sides to benefit". (Ibid., p.216) It is from this premise of the need for the redistribution of power that Arnstein develops her "ladder" of CI. Arnstein's ladder of CI is depicted in Table I: Arnstein's Ladder Citizen Control Degrees of Citizen Delegated Power Power Partnership Placation Degrees of Tokenism Consultation Informing Therapy Non-participation Manipulation Table 2.1: Arnstein's ladder of citizen involvement (Arnstein, 1969) The lowest rung on Arnstein's ladder of CI is manipulation. At this level, citizens are involved in the public process yet they are not given power over decisions nor over the process itself. In fact, the reason that they have been invited to participate in the process is so that they may be "educated" as to the intentions of the government. Arnstein writes: In the name of citizen participation, people are placed on rubberstamp advisory committees or advisory boards for the express purpose of "educating" them or engineering their support. Instead of genuine citizen participation, the bottom rung of the ladder signifies the distortion of participation into a public relations vehicle by power holders. (Ibid, p.218) This form of CI frequently involves the establishment of local committees that are designed to provide comment on the activity to the decision-makers, yet the committees have little legitimacy or power. As a result, the officials can proclaim that they have conducted extensive consultation with the "grassroots" while simultaneously retaining their exclusive decision making capacity. The lowest level of Arnstein's ladder is therefore characterised by a complete lack of power sharing which often results in the manipulation of the citizens.  16  Although located on the next "rung" of Arnstein's ladder, the therapy stage of public involvement is equally characterised by a low level of power-sharing. Therapy is precisely as it sounds-it is the conscious effort to change the opinions of the citizens in order that they fit the ideology of the authorities. Arnstein commented that: What makes this form of 'participation' so invidious is that citizens are engaged in extensive activity, but the focus of it is curing them of their 'pathology' rather than changing the racism and victimization that create their'pathologies'. (Ibid, p.218) This approach to CI is based on the assumption that powerlessness is a result of social maladjustment. Citizens can consequently be "cured" of their delusions through therapy that is completed under the auspices of CI. The dishonesty of the authorities and lack of power for the "have-nots" make therapy an appropriate second rung of Arnstein's ladder of CI. While manipulation and therapy occur within the "non-participation" portion of Arnstein's ladder, the next level of informing is located in a section that she referred to as "degrees of tokenism". The process of informing revolves around the rhetoric that comes from the authorities in the form of posters, news clips and pamphlets. Although the citizens are given extensive information on a project or program, they are not allowed to act within the sphere of influence. The information flows in only one direction without feedback from the citizens and "under these conditions, particularly when information is provided at a late stage in planning, people have little opportunity to influence the program designed 'for their benefit'". (Ibid, p.219) In essence, all of the decisions have already been made by the authorities who are, in turn, informing the public of the outcome. A s the third rung of Arnstein's ladder, informing is thus characterised by a level of power that can be regarded as little more than tokenism. The fourth stage of Arnstein's ladder of CI is the first point where citizens' opinions are actually heard by the authorities. At the consultation stage however there is no guarantee that the citizens' opinions will have any bearing on the decision making process. The decision makers still decide on the program as well as on the amount of power given to the citizens through the process of consultation. A s a result, "what citizens achieve in all this activity is that they have 'participated in participation'. And what power holders achieve is the evidence that they have gone through the required motions of involving 'those people'". (Ibid, p.219) Although the consultation level may not necessarily imply that the citizens' opinions will actually be incorporated into the final decision, it is a first step in recognising the legitimacy of the citizens in the decision making process. Consultation is, therefore, a higher level of CI than the lower rungs of Arnstein's ladder. At the placation level of CI, citizens are given a small degree of influence over the decision making process but it can still be considered to be no less than tokenism. A s Arnstein noted, the most common form of this type of CI is the advisory committee where some key local representatives may be placed on the committee, yet their decision-making power is controlled either through minority status in voting or through a lack of accountability to their "constituency". Furthermore, the problem with these processes is that "they allow citizens to advise or plan ad infinitum but retain for powerholders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice". (Ibid, p. 220) The authorities essentially retain control of the degree of involvement and determining the amount of power to give to the citizens in order to placate their often legitimate concerns. A s a fifth stage of Arnstein's ladder of CI, placation presents the first transfer of power to the citizens by the authorities yet still embodies a certain degree of tokenism. Partnership is the first of the final three "rungs" of Arnstein's ladder, which she categorized as "degrees of citizen power". This stage of CI is characterized by a sharing of power in planning and decision making that is governed by a mutually agreeable set of ground rules which cannot be changed unilaterally. The partnership is based on the principles of "give and take" and works most effectively when: There is an organized power-base in the community to which the citizen leaders are accountable; when the citizens group has the financial  17  resources to pay its leaders reasonable honoraria for their time consuming efforts; and when the group has the financial resources to hire (and fire) its own technicians, lawyers, and community organizers. (Ibid, p.221) In this situation, the citizen groups are equipped with the resources that are needed to ensure that they have an equivalent position in the negotiation process. If these conditions are maintained and neither of the parties is disloyal to the agreement, then the partnership results in a level of CI that can affect the type of change required by the community. When negotiation leads to citizens retaining dominant control over a project or program, they are considered to be at the delegated power stage of Arnstein's ladder. Such is often the case when committees have been struck which possess decision making powers and have a clear majority of votes delegated to the citizens. Arnstein commented: "At this level, the ladder has been scaled to the point where citizens hold the significant cards to assure accountability of the program to them". (Ibid, p.222) If any differences of opinion occur, the powerholders are bound to the negotiation process in order to seek resolution. The delegated power rung of Arnstein's ladder presents the citizens with the power to ensure not only that their opinions are considered, but also that they are implemented as a result of a clear transfer of power from the authorities. The final stage of CI in Arnstein's model is citizen control. While Arnstein recognises that absolute control is very unlikely, she envisioned a situation where the citizens make all of the decisions over a project or program with minimal external interference. Arnstein noted: Though no one in the nation has absolute control, it is very important that the rhetoric not be confused with intent. People are simply demanding that degree of power (or control) which guarantees that participants or residents can govern a program or an institution, be in full charge of policy and managerial aspects, and be able to negotiate the conditions under which "outsiders" may change them. (Ibid, p.223) In terms of the practical realization of this stage, a community corporation with direct access to funding is the most common model. Regardless of how citizen control is realized, the principle remains that the community is responsible for the decisions, financing and execution of the project or program. It is at this final "rung" of Arnstein's ladder that citizens reach the apex of CI in public decision-making-c/r/zen control. Thomas' Contingent Approach to Shared Decision  Making  In many cases, there is no legislation present which explicitly states the extent to which the community must be involved in public decision-making processes. In essence, the decision is left to the public manager as to whether to involve the public and, if so, how much, in what capacity and for how long. To analyse choices in this contingent approach, John Clayton Thomas (1995) looked to decision making processes in the business hierarchy of large organisations, and more specifically to the Vroom-Yetton theory of contingent decision making. In applying the VroomYetton effective decision model to citizen involvement processes, Thomas states that there are five decision-making approaches and that each of them varies in terms of community's influence over the eventual decision. Thomas summarises these approaches as follows (Thomas, 1995, p.39): 1. Autonomous managerial decision. The manager solves the problem or makes the decision alone without public involvement. 2. Modified autonomous managerial decision. The manager seeks information from segments of the public, but decides alone in a manner that may or may not reflect group influence. 3. Segmented public consultation. The manager shares the problem separately with segments of the public, getting ideas and suggestions, then makes a decision that reflects group influence. 4. Unitary public consultation. The manager shares the problem with the public as a single assembled group, getting ideas and suggestions, then makes a decision that reflects group influence. (This approach requires only that all members of the public have the opportunity to be involved, such as in well-publicised public hearings, not that everyone actually participate.)  18  5. Public decision. The manager shares the problem with the assembled public, and together the manager and the public attempt to reach agreement on a solution. There are several caveats that Thomas accentuates when a manager is considering these options for a decision making process. Firstly, citizen involvement does not involve informing the public of a decision already made by the manager: Thomas does not see this as true involvement and this approach has thus been excluded from the options for CI. In addition, Thomas notes that "underlying these options is the assumption that varying degrees of involvement equate with varying degrees of public influence; that is, the more extensive the involvement, the greater the public's influence over a decision". (Ibid, p.40) This assumption requires that the manager's intentions for sharing decision making power are genuine and that, except for the case of modified autonomous decisions where public opinion may be garnered by a phone survey, managers who seek involvement without giving influence to the community's opinions are risking a failed public process. In choosing the appropriate option or combination thereof, a manager is thus confronted with a number of limiting factors that require careful consideration. In essence, every decision requires a different approach to CI: This factor makes Thomas' model more of a contingent approach than the spectrum proposed by Arnstein. Although the temptation exists to directly map the conceptual frameworks such as Arnstein's and Thomas' to one another, Dorcey and McDaniels (2000) note that there are several problems with this technique. The authors caution against attempting to understand a CI process without considering a number of factors. First, the analyst must consider the type and sequence of tools that are employed in the process. McDaniels and Dorcey write: "One complicating factor is that a CI program may well employ a wide variety of the tools either at the same time or at different stages in the program. For example, a popularist approach might start with an information program and surveys before going on to add consensus processes." (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p.3) In addition, the authors caution against analysing a CI process by looking at the practise of CI without considering the intent of the sponsor. They write: "A second complication is the differences between use in principle and in practice. For example, it should not be assumed that the managerialist perspective will only be associated with the lower rungs of Arnstein's ladder and the use of tools such as information programs. A CI program may well be using tools higher up the array such as negotiation in a consultation process but the intent of the sponsors remains nonetheless managerial."(Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p.3) In essence, conceptual frameworks of CI can be mapped in multiple combinations based on the tools that are employed, the sequence of these tools, and the intent of the sponsor in any given case study. One potential interrelationship between Thomas' and Arnstein's models is presented in Table 2.1. When Thomas' model is combined with that of Arnstein, an interesting conceptual framework arises for the analysis of CI. While Arnstein's model has its roots in the struggle against urban renewal in the 1960s American city, Thomas' approach arises from starkly contrasting roots in corporate decision analysis. The common thread between the two models however is a spectrum of power. At the low end of Table 2.1 for example, are Arnstein's levels of therapy and manipulation, which are potentially comparable to Thomas' autonomous managerial decision. These terms fall within the realm of autocratic decision making by virtue of their lack of shared or delegated power from the authorities to the citizen or citizen groups. The other end of the spectrum (citizen control for Arnstein and public decision for Thomas) are shared decision making processes since, in both cases, those with the authority to make a decision and those who are affected by the decision are empowered to jointly come to a mutually-acceptable outcome. While the framework that evolves from this mapping of Thomas' and Arnstein's models provides only one of many possibilities, the emergent framework provides an important conceptual touchstone for understanding the relative levels of delegated power in F R E M P ' s citizen involvement process, and the impacts of this variability on the outcome of process.  19  Arnstein's Ladder  Thomas' Approach  Concentration of  jjjj^ Citizen Control Delegated Power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing  1 Degrees of Citizen | Power | fy | | | Degrees of $ Tokenism | 1 |  Public Decision Unitary Public Consultation Segmented Public Consultation Modified Autonomous Managerial Decision  | |  Shared Decision Making  | | | | f | | § Autocratic Decision | Making  Therapy Manipulation  Non-participation  1 |  Autonomous Managerial Decision  | |  Table 2.2: The conceptual framework. This figure illustrates a potential relationship between Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Involvement (Arnstein, 1969) and Thomas' approach to CI in public decisions using the effective decision model (Thomas, 1995). The column "concentration of power" is added to further articulate the spectrum of power sharing.  The Demand for Citizen Involvement In Canada Although the framework provided by Thomas and Arnstein is very powerful in providing a conceptual space in which to consider F R E M P ' s activities, these CI processes cannot be full appreciated without an understanding of the larger processes taking place at the federal and provincial level. Over the last 20 years, there has been a demand for CI at the national level in affairs that are normally considered to be within the function of the state. A s the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future found: Overwhelmingly, [Canadians have] told us that they have lost faith in the political system and its leadership. Anger, disillusion and a desire for fundamental change is very often the first issue raised in discussion groups, and usually produces unanimous agreement.There is no apparent regional variation in the identification of this as a major issue facing the country. Canadians are telling us that their leaders must be governed by the wishes of the people and not the other way around. (The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, 1991). Although this sentiment was recorded to be equally pervasive across the country, it would be simplistic to conclude that the desire for increased CI were the product of the contemporary government alone. Indeed, the demand for increased CI in Canada is the product of a much more complex societal evolution. Ann Dale (1995) argues that this demand has largely been fuelled by three principal causes. The first arises from the initial regulatory mechanisms that were implemented to address concerns about the environmental impacts of government decisions. A s regulatory bodies began to make decisions about complex and necessarily value-laden choices such as the location of proposed land fill sites, citizens became more aware of the issues at hand and how the implications are related to their own lives. Dale writes: "Given the context of environmental issues, where its science is imprecise, the information is incomplete, surprise and uncertainty the norm, a new and necessary integrative form of dispute resolution had to emerge if the interests of all stake holders are to be heard and, ultimately, met." (Dale, 1995, p.1) In this sense, the public's more sophisticated understanding of environmental risk led to the rise of NIMBYism ("Not-ln-My-BackYard") as a significant force in policy development and CI was incorporated as a means of addressing these tensions in the policy development process.  20  In addition to the public's emerging understanding of environmental risk, the sophistication of Canada's post-industrial society added enthusiasm for increased CI in the Canadian public policy arena. This era was different from the preceding eras as a result of its socio-economic and multicultural diversity, increased pluralism and the explosive expansion of communications systems that not only provided access to more information, but also provided a larger forum for personal expression. Dale remarks: The interested publics no longer readily accept the decisions made by their political leaders on an ad hoc basis, rather they demand explicit criteria and explanations about their approach and logic. Post-industrial society has been culturally influenced by both technological developments and an information explosion, giving full expression to increasing diversity. Voices are demanding to be heard that previously had no voice, the indigenous, women, immigrant and visible minorities, and the disabled. (Dale, 1995, p.1) Further fostering the demand of all voices to be heard in the policy arena was the value that society increasingly placed on the "right to be heard" in the policy arena. This process was exacerbated by a concomitant decrease in the fear of prosecution resulting from criticism of government policy (Ibid, p.1). In essence, the post-industrial era had transformed Canadian society and the nascent values were such that all citizens began to demand the right to participate more fully in the decisions that would inevitably affect their lives. An additional factor that led to an increased demand for CI in C a n a d a was the complexity of the problems facing a society in an era of globalisation and the equally complex decision making processes needed to address these emergent challenges. Problems such as the inequitable distribution of wealth, the dichotomy between environmental and economic decision making and the nature of human development itself added new elements to the already difficult realm of public policy. Dale comments: Further complicating the Holy Grail of increased public participation and transparency in decision making is the growing imperative to integrate environmental and economic decision making, and the consequent push to move from the traditional sectoral approach to multipartite approaches. Two additional pressures stimulating this demand are the seeming inability of current public institutions to quickly respond to the emerging environmental imperatives and growing convergence and acceptance of sustainable development as a governance approach. (Dale, 1995, p.2) The need for holistic and inclusive decision making in response to these pressures became evident not only to the institutions who were concerned with how to adapt to them, but also to the Canadian citizens who perceived the inability of the institutions to single-handedly provide acceptable solutions. A s sustainable development moved from rhetoric to implementation, the people of C a n a d a became increasingly restless to induce change through increased citizen involvement.  The Institutional Response The demand for increased citizen involvement in Canadian public policy did not go unheard. In fact, the desire for more CI induced several phases of institutional reform and experiment in Canada, and notably in British Columbia. These phases can be articulated into a phase of great experimentation in and reconsideration of CI from the mid 1960s to the late 1980s, and the expansion of CI into other societal realms beyond environmental decisions during the 1990s (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000). Mid 1960s-Late  1980s  In the period from the sixties to the late eighties, there was a surge of CI initiatives across the country. These processes were largely spawned by the rise of environmentalism in Canadian  21  society and a deepening concern for the impacts of public policy on the natural environment. The adoption of CI in Canada was generally focussed within three areas: These included the development of comprehensive plans for urban centres (for example, Vancouver's Liveable Region Strategic Plan), the initiation of programs for river basin management (for example, the Saint John River Basin) and the systematic assessment of mega projects (for example, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline). (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000) In each of these areas, new and innovative approaches to CI were employed such as public meetings, the use of the media, citizen advisory boards, and public workshops. There was a concerted effort made to involve citizens from the start of the process and the possibilities seemed to be endless for CI in all realms of environmental management. Indeed, several initiatives such as the Vancouver Liveable Region Strategic Plan and the Mackenzie Valley process were touted as being the highly successful and innovative processes. (Ibid.) While these decades embraced CI in public decision making processes with great enthusiasm, all Canadians did not share the excitement and desire for the proliferation of CI. Increasingly, there were complaints about the amount of time required for CI and critiques of the actual effectiveness of the various approaches that had been employed. A s Dorcey and McDaniels assert: Not all innovations during the 1970s were viewed with such enthusiasm; opinions differed among interested parties. In the second half of the decade increasing disenchantment with the results of planning and impact assessment lead to questioning of the innovations. The river basin studies were seen by some as unproductive in resolving issues and too time consuming and costly. The experiments with public involvement were criticized for delaying the process, overemphasizing the interests of the active publics and usurping the role of elected officials. There were commonly delays of up to two years in responding to recommendations, which frustrated the heightened expectations that had been created by public involvement and sometimes meant that the recommendations were overtaken by events. (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p. 10) As the economy weakened after the boom years of the 1980s, the CI processes were perceived with significant negativity and were usurped by other concerns that were largely economic in nature. The experiment in CI had accomplished a significant accomplishment however in that major precedents had been set in the practical application of CI in environmental management and many of the initial doubts about the role of CI had been calmed. (Ibid.) In effect, Canadians began to see the validity of CI and indeed began to expect it in environmental planning processes. The 1990s In the 1990s, there was a second wave of interest in CI initiatives. While CI was largely confined to environmental management during the preceding decades, the release of the 1987 report from the Brundland Commission and the subsequent orientation towards sustainable human development began to enrich both the depth and the scope of CI in Canada. Inherent to sustainable development was a holistic approach to decision making that considered all choices in light of the social, economic and environmental implications. Moreover, since the Canadian governance system, educational system, and institutional system were very much fragmented along sectoral and disciplinary lines, there were few institutions that were capable of the breadth of understanding needed for sustainable development. Sustainable development required coordinated decision making among all of these groups and Canada reacted with an abundance of multistakeholder, consensus-based processes whose scope went beyond environmental management to include holistic human development. This was especially the case in British Columbia where: By 1992, a bewildering array of initiatives involving multistakeholder and consensus processes were underway in British Columbia. These included processes being conducted by the Round Table and [ B C ' s Commission on Resources and Environment] as well as province-wide "policy dialogues" on new water, energy and environmental legislation. In addition, agencies were  22  beginning to incorporate multistakeholder and consensus processes into their ongoing planning and management programs, most notably the B.C. Ministry of Forests in Land and Resource Management Planning efforts. (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p. 12) These processes were proceeding at a rapid pace at the federal level (for example, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, N R T E E ) , the provincial level (for example, C O R E ) , the basin level (for example, the Fraser Basin Management Board) and in numerous instances at the local level. Citizen involvement, it seemed, was a major force in regional governance and offered a chance to implement sustainable development. A s in the great period of growth from the late 1960s to the mid 1980s, there was a fundamental reconsideration of CI processes acting in parallel to their expansion in the public sphere. S o m e of the concerns raised over the CI processes included stakeholder burn-out, the development of conflict in highly contentious decisions, and a general perception that things were getting worse rather than getting better. (Ibid.) Nevertheless, Pandora's box" had already been opened and the public developed higher expectations for involvement in decision making. Throughout the entire period from the inception of CI in the 1960s to the large processes of the 1990s, the use and diversity of CI in Canada continued to increase. Moreover, the breadth of the application of CI continually expanded to include all aspects of human development as sustainable development became a driving force in the Canadian policy arena. (Ibid.) In spite of several periods of reconsideration, thirty years of experimentation resulted in the proliferation of citizen involvement not only in Canadian governance systems, but also in the philosophy and expectations of the country's citizens.  The Commitment to Citizen Involvement in the Management of the Fraser River Estuary When the governments of Canada and British Columbia instituted the Fraser River Estuary Study in 1977, they recognised the complex and value-laden nature of the task at hand. A s previously described, citizen involvement was becoming not only an expectation of the public, but also mechanism that was increasingly necessary for the success of complex public deliberations, such as developing management regime for the Fraser River estuary. In discussing the utility of public involvement and its role in contemporary institutions, F R E S remarks that: Viewed in the foregoing perspective, undertaking a study of the Fraser River estuary would have been doomed to failure if the concerned public was not given the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way. For over a century the Fraser River estuary has been the source of pleasure to some and a means of making a living to others. Their association with the river and its environs, regardless of their interest, have produced in them what can be best described as a'guardianship syndrome'. Their perceived rights, whether legal of otherwise, had to be known, considered and incorporated into a management strategy for the river.(Harvey et al, 1982,p.7) The completion of F R E S not only created an expectation of continued community involvement in the management of the estuary, but also included it as a key component of the management program. When the Fraser River Estuary Study (FRES) ended in 1984, the parameters were in place for the establishment of F R E M P . F R E S created high expectations for citizen involvement in the management of the Fraser River estuary and when F R E M P formed in 1985, the program seemed willing to continue the tradition. While F R E S had determined the vision for the estuary, F R E M P was tasked with devising and implementing a plan to achieve that vision. The first step was to turn the vision into a set of principles and objectives for the plan. One of the three key principles 13  The other two principles are "conserve and enhance the estuary" and "integrated management". ( F R E M P 1994, p.13) 1 3  23  upon which the E M P is based addresses the notion of "fairness, equity and accountability", which is further articulated as: 1. Promote and employ consensus-based decision making; 2. Provide equitable access to the estuary; 3. Establish and maintain accountable management processes; and 4. Develop active partnerships with the public in management activities. The implications of this stated principle are two fold: First, that consensus would be employed in decision making regarding the management of the estuary; and second that the nongovernmental interests would be actively involved in management activities. Beyond the underlying principles of the E M P , F R E M P stated its commitment to citizen involvement through the strategic and action-oriented components of the E M P . F R E M P writes: A s a strategic document, the Estuary Management Plan will establish a framework linking goals, interests and activities. Linking interests and activities means fostering mutual understanding and working partnerships between government, business and community interests to achieve common directions and mutually-agreed upon actions. A s an action plan, the Estuary Management Plan will provide the steps to put the Plan in place: program targets and activities; management tools such as Area Designation Agreements, habitat conservation guidelines and conflict resolution processes; and opportunities to involve business and citizens. ( F R E M P , 1994, p.6, bold in original) A s the key document that was meant to devise F R E M P ' s future activities, and indeed the activities occurring on or around the estuary, the E M P made firm commitments to the strategic involvement of citizens to achieve common objectives, and to engage in consensus-based decisions for "mutually agreed upon actions". Furthermore, the E M P promised active implementation of the Plan with "opportunities to involve business and citizens". The formal commitment to citizen involvement in the management of the Fraser River estuary thus began with the activities of F R E S and continued throughout the years with F R E M P ' s commitment to citizen involvement through active partnerships in planning, decision making, and implementation.  The Stage is Set The context within which F R E M P entered the scene with the intention of managing the Fraser River estuary is deeply rooted in citizen involvement and its evolution in the Canadian context. A s this section has illustrated, CI evolved from an emerging idea of new forms of governance, to a comprehensive theory that was developed in the literature to provide terminology and a spectrum of conceptual understanding, to a three-decade history of experimentation and diversification of process in Canada, and especially British Columbia. The precedents set out at the federal and provincial level, the enthusiasm created by the Fraser River Estuary Study, and the demand for holistic and sustainable human development have all created heightened expectations for CI in F R E M P . This demand was acknowledged and promises for extensive CI were consistently affirmed by F R E M P , yet as this project will show the "product" of CI in F R E M P ' s estuary management planning process was citizen frustration and eventually conflict. In the following sections, this project attempts to elicit the causes of this outcome through an evaluation of F R E M P ' s citizen involvement process in the management of the Fraser River estuary.  24  Section Three: The "Process" of Citizen Involvement in F R E M P While the previous sections have provided important language, concepts and a broader context to this project, the purpose of this section is to foster a greater understanding of the dynamics of the CI process in management of the Fraser River estuary. This understanding is fundamental for an exploration of the implications of the CI process (the "product") and for the recommendations for future policies at the end of the project.  The Challenge of Evaluating Citizen Involvement The evaluation of CI is somewhat of a daunting task for a number of reasons. The first relates to the timing of the evaluation. If CI is evaluated while in progress, then the analyst is without the benefit of simultaneously understanding the outcome of the process and the retrospective knowledge that it provides. Moreover, there is always the risk that the evaluation will in itself affect the outcome of the process. Second, an evaluation of CI that has the benefit of addressing both the process and outcome lacks a neutral point of reference. What if CI had not have occurred in the decision making process? Would the process have been better or worse? Finally, there are practical problems inherent to the execution of the evaluation. A s Dorcey and McDaniels assert: Beyond the complexities in specifying the goals and objectives to be used in evaluation of CI are immense practical difficulties in undertaking empirical assessments of the extent to which they are achieved. It is difficult to design and implement appropriate methods and instruments for assessing CI for a particular decision. Also the immense differences among the governance contexts within which decisions are made create major challenges in undertaking assessments of the use of CI. (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p.8) If the process of evaluating CI is fraught with all of these drawbacks, what then is the benefit of taking an evaluative approach to understanding citizen involvement in regional governance? A s noted in the previous section, CI has been a significant component of public deliberation for three decades in Canada. The public has come to expect involvement and it is thus necessary to reflect on the process and to improve it for the future. The feedback that evolves from evaluation may not be perfect, but it at least has a role in advancing the art. A s Duffy et al. note: "Evaluation may provide valuable feedback on the effectiveness and accountability of government initiatives. Government policies and programs are evaluated in order to understand how they are working, what they are doing, and how they might be improved." (Duffy et al., 1998, p.7) There is little doubt that CI will remain a force in Canadian governance in years to come (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000) and, in spite of its shortcomings, the evaluation of CI is a necessary feedback to ensure that CI continues to meet the needs of collective and collaborative decision making processes.  Framework for Evaluation A comprehensive and well-researched framework is a requisite for a structured and systematic evaluation of a CI program. The evaluative framework developed by Dorli Duffy et al. for an evaluation of public participation in Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) in British Columbia provides such a framework (Please refer to Table 3.1). Although specifically developed for shared decision making in the L R M P process, the framework has a wider appeal and relevance. Duffy writes: The frameworks for process evaluation and the analysis and the analysis of community capacity outcomes should be widely applicable, but the specific findings are limited to the three L R M P case studies. The findings of this research will be of interest to conveners, managers and participants of future processes, as well as to members of the wider public interested in participatory initiatives focussed on moving society toward sustainability. While the project concentrates  25  on experiences with L R M P , the lessons are applicable to a variety of participatory decision-making processes." (Duffy etal., 1998, p.6) In addition to the general applicability of the framework, there are a number of more specific reasons why the evaluative framework is employed in this project Duffy et al.'s framework evolved from a rich understanding of CI and its discussion in a wide breadth of contexts and literature. The framework was developed from a careful examination of both CI in theory, and in practice. The framework criteria evolved from a survey of the literature on alternative dispute resolution, conflict management, interest-based negotiation, consensus decision making and land use planning. Each of the criteria is carefully referenced and placed within the context of the larger research, which provides a valuable synthesis of an often daunting body of work. A s a result, Duffy's framework represents an amalgamation of the key ideas from various related pools of understanding in realm of CI and presents these ideas in a clear, easily applicable collection of criteria. 14  The evaluative framework created by Duffy et al. also is effective at linking the individual criterion into a single, unified whole. In doing so, the framework meaningfully reflects the chronology and complexity of a CI process. This is accomplished in two ways: First, the framework incorporates the activities that are actually required to develop a CI process from design through to completion within each of the criterion. The criteria are then broadly incorporated into four categories that describe the larger components of a CI process, including support for process, representation, resources and process design. This approach makes it simple to account for a myriad of aspects of a CI program. Furthermore, the evaluative framework has a basic temporal component that reflects the chronology of the CI process itself. Duffy writes: Although it is understood that many of the criteria are interrelated and interdependent, the criteria have been arranged to reflect a general flow to the creation of a [shared decision making] process. Thus, beginning with process support and generally moving down the framework to each category, the criteria generally build on each other. For example, it is important to secure the support of participants and government before building representation and assigning resources to a process. Similarly, representatives and sufficient resources should be in place before process terms of reference and design are tailored and finalised. (Duffy et al.,1998, p.8) The framework is thus both prescriptive and descriptive in its evaluation, which allows the analyst to understand what has and what has not occurred in the CI process based on the criteria established in the literature. This form of "gap analysis" is very informative when it comes time to review the outcome of the process and to make recommendations for future processes. Finally, the framework proposed by Duffy et al has specific relevance to the question at hand; the evaluation of citizen involvement in the management of the Fraser River estuary. The framework was originally developed for shared decision making processes that address land and resource planning on a regional basis. Although F R E M P is markedly different from the L R M P process in form and structure, the large number of governmental, non-governmental, public, business and academic participants gives it the same multistakeholder emphasis as the L R M P process. In addition, the basic foundations for the creation of the E M P committed for consensus-based decisions and active partnerships not only among government, but also among the citizens in general (please refer to Section One). In doing so, F R E M P adopted a similar approach to shared decision making as embraced by the L R M P process, for which the evaluative framework was developed. Finally, the framework largely evolved from an examination of the unique experience and practice of CI in British Columbia. The application of the framework to a case study that took place within the same geopolitical and societal context thus seems to be especially relevant. The framework developed by Duffy et al. is not without caveat however. These limitations largely center on the selection of criteria and whether these criteria actually contribute to the "success" of 1 4  Please refer to Duffy et al, 1998, Appendix G : Process Evaluation Criteria.  26  a CI process. Dorcey and McDaniels question whether it is possible to accurately generali: critical components of CI and assert: The notable weakness of this approach follows from its strength in that generalizations about the merits of CI approaches are difficult. A s evident in the study, conclusions and recommendations tend to focus predictably on what needs to be done to faithfully implement the "best practices" espoused at the outset rather than questioning whether they are the "best practices" and how they can be made "better". (Dorcey and McDaniels, 2000, p.31) Duffy et al add a similar caveat in noting that even when the criteria are fully accepted as critical components of a CI process, there are always other ecological, economic and social pressures that can derail the process, in spite of the incorporation of the key process criteria. These two comments provide well-founded criticism on the selection and validity of using "criteria for success" in evaluating CI processes and point to the need to continue to develop the research in this realm. While the criteria proposed within the framework developed by Duffy et al may not necessarily be the proper recipe for guaranteeing a successful CI process, the literature from which they arose suggests that their inclusion will greatly increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. With this is mind, the next portion of this project applies these evaluative criteria against the information provided in the F R E M P documentation, as well as that provided by the participants themselves, in an effort to understand the successes and shortcomings of F R E M P ' s CI process in the management of the estuary.  27  Criteria  Description  Support lor Process  1. Support for process  2. Government support for process  Representation 3. Inclusive representation of interests  4. Effective representation of interests  ^Resources 5. Sufficient resources for participants  6. Effective process management  Process Design 7. Clear terms of reference  8. Participatory design  Participants acknowledge need for a new process and are committed to it. They acknowledge the legitimacy of all participants. Participation is voluntary. Appropriateness of negotiation is assessed prior to the start of the process. Government demonstrates leadership, commitment, and integrity by establishing clear objectives, allocating sufficient financial and human resources, and acting upon consensus recommendations. It provides timely and clear policies, and coordinates the process with related policies and initiatives. Government supports participation by its agencies and their representatives. It legislates S D M processes and the public's right to participate. All interested and affected parties are invited to participate, including local and government interests. Timely notification of opportunities to participate is given and provision is made to add parties after the process begins. The number of participants is manageable. The wider public is kept informed of the process. All participants-public and government-are committed as demonstrated by their willingness to participate in good faith, work, and attend regularly. All participants are interest-based, communicate openly and share ideas, empowered to represent and make decisions on behalf of their constituents, maintain communication with constituents, knowledgeable, and use limited resources efficiently. Government representatives are also neutral, available for consultation, skilled in communication and public processes, technically knowledgeable, understand planning, committed to public participation, and work well with people. All participants are provided sufficient and timely funding, training, and information. Information is appropriate-accurate, understandable, and relevant. Experts are available to explain and interpret information. All participants are able to dedicate sufficient time to the process and manage their time so as to avoid burn-out. Process managers-convenors, coordinators, facilitators, mediators, administrators-are committed, neutral, skilled in process management and communication, knowledgeable, and available for consultation with participants. A detailed project plan identifying tasks and timelines is created. An appropriate meeting facility conducive to effective meetings is provided. Terms of reference are clear and agreed to by all parties. They establish: a clear mandate which is scoped appropriately such that the process is manageable; clear roles, responsibilities, and authority for all participants; a geographic scale which is appropriate to the process mandate and meaningful to all participants; a realistic time frame with milestones and deadlines; and a fallback mechanism if consensus cannot be reached. All participants are involved in tailoring a process in order to accommodate all interests. Mechanisms for process assessment are implemented to allow participants to provide feedback and to facilitate changes in process.  28  9. Comprehensive and effective procedural framework  A comprehensive procedural framework delineates clearly: a participant code of conduct; organization, roles, and authority of subgroups; consensus; a dispute settlement process; meeting logistics; and a media policy. The process is able to adapt to changing circumstances. Ultimately, a procedural framework is effective only if all participants adhere to procedural agreements. 10. Structured and All participants are involved meaningfully in decision-making. integrative decision Complexity of substantive issues is managed by providing structure to the decision process. Explicit decision criteria are used to clarify making framework decisions, bound discretion, and monitor and evaluate decisions. Joint fact-finding, wherein all participants jointly determine, gather, and share information relevant to decisions, is used to promote cooperative and productive problem-solving. Creative approaches to promote effective problem-solving and teamwork are utilized. The process is comprehensive and integrative to promote decisions rooted in the social, economic, and environmental principles of sustainability. Table 3.1: Framework of process evaluation criteria for shared decision making processes. (Duffy e t a l , 1998)  1.  Participant Support for Process  Participants acknowledge need for a new process and are committed to it. They acknowledge legitimacy of all participants. Participation is voluntary. Appropriateness of negotiation is assessed prior to the start of the process. Acknowledge  the  need for process.  When F R E M P came onto the stage in 1985, there was an enormous demand for a new way to manage the estuary. F R E S had produced an abundance of research that pointed to all of the environmental problems and it was clear that the existing, fragmented institutional framework could not adequately address all of the issues at hand. A s discussed in Section One, F R E S had also established a precedent for CI and the continued involvement of the citizens in the management of the estuary became an expectation rather than a hope. During the interviews, all of the participants acknowledged that there was a need for progressive management in the estuary and saw an E M P as a way of proceeding. One of the respondents questioned whether citizens could bring about the type of institutional change that is required for a new approach to estuary management. The participant noted: "While we can do something, I am really beginning to wonder whether we can do a hell of a lot. You run up against the law eventually. I don't know that anything would change by having the public involved quite frankly." (In3) Although all of the interviewees agreed that a new process for estuary management was in order and that there should be a CI component, there was some dissention as to the potential effectiveness of the citizen involvement process. Committed to consensus. There is an interesting contrast between the governmental and non-governmental participants on the role of consensus in the management of the estuary. All of the citizens who participated in the process thought that consensus-based decision making should be employed and implied that citizens should have an equal voice in the decision making process. The government representatives saw unity and consensus within the partner organisations of F R E M P and this solidarity was reinforced by several interviewees who made comments such as: "I can say very clearly that the managing minds of F R E M P are a democracy based on consensus. W e define consensus as much unity as possible. If a model was put forward that there was an estuary czar, my agency, and probably North Fraser and Vancouver Port Corporation, wouldn't vote for it." (G1)  29  Interestingly enough, when it came to extending this consensus approach to the members of the public, the level of commitment seemed to decline in the government participants and they tended to rely on traditional, legislative-based decision making processes. Although the basic principles from which the E M P began stated a commitment to consensus, the government participants seemed to embrace a more hierarchal view of decision making. The justification for the lack of commitment to consensus decision making with the citizens was varied. An explanation that arose a number of times was that consensus would be too time consuming of a process. A member of the management committee commented that: "We had a Management Committee meeting this morning. There were five of us that attended. It should taken an hour and a half, it took three hours and we got through four items on the agenda but it was all policy, it was all pertinent. If we had to do that in a public forum and hold an open mike after each agenda item, I'm not sure that I'm going to live long enough to get through the first couple of meetings." (G1) Another reason for a lack of commitment to consensus on the part of the government participants came from the basic power structures that were in place in F R E M P and the partner institutions. One of the staff of F R E M P commented that: ".though we may individually see consensus as valuable, we are not the management we can't make these kinds of decisions. The fundamental decision-making and the role of the program come from the management committee and their superiors." (F2) Other interviewees from both governmental and the non-governmental affiliations attributed the lack of commitment to consensus as being a result of fear of risk. They saw the various government officials as being too afraid to completely, break away from the hierarchal structure in .favour of more equal, consensus decision making. One of the F R E M P staff remarked: "I think that is where the cautiousness comes from. They do not like to put themselves voluntarily in situations where they know that there is going to be conflict. I am sure that would be perceived as the outside world as being closed." (F3) Finally, one of the participants from the government disagreed clearly with the notion of a consensus-based process in F R E M P . This person felt that the ultimate decision lay in the ands of government who have contributed the resources to the process and have the legislative authority to make decisions. The participant noted: "[The citizens] would never get a vote on the Management Committee because the people that are there are mandated either under the laws of the Province, or the laws of the Fisheries Department, or whoever. They are also putting the money up so they are going to make the decisions. (G1)  Acknowledge legitimate stake of all participants. Since participation in the estuary management process was voluntary, there was a high degree of respect between all the participants for the dedication and devotion to the process. Even when personalities clashed from competing perspectives, the participants never offered any criticism of the legitimacy of the other groups. While cognisant of everyone's legitimate stake in theory, there were some reservations however among the participants about the role of some of the participants in practise. While all of the non-governmental interviewees were in favour of open participation, several of them (most notably from the E N G O community) feared a differential level of access to decision making by certain participants, especially those from industry. Their concern was that although industry was a legitimate participant in the process, their voice already figures prominently in the decision making process to the detriment of groups without as many resources or skills. One of the interviewees remarked: "When I think of industry on the river, there are some pretty slick developers with lots of resources and lots of money, and they probably have access to the decision-makers in ways that I don't even want to know about." (E3)  30  The government participants saw a role for all participants, but had concerns about the actual participants themselves. Two reasons were given for this uncertainty. The first was a general concern that the non-governmental interests coming to the table were not necessarily representative of the larger public. These participants were perceived to be representing only a narrow range of public opinion and that they were solely committed to furthering the agenda of special interest groups. A member of the F R E M P staff summarised this sentiment clearly in stating that: "We don't get very much input from the general public. W e get a lot of input from special interest groups which are more often than not site specific, or river specific or estuary specific. The average person, in my view, wants to know that someone is taking care of the environment and then wants to get on with his or her life. The special interest group obviously has its own agenda." (F2) The second concern put forth by the government participants related to their own conscious or unconscious identification of participants for the CI process. While they expressed concern about special interest groups not necessarily representing a common view, they indicated that they themselves were responsible for a similar problem by asking past participants to join new processes based purely on familiarity. One government respondent: "We tend to dwell too much on how things were done in the past. S o if there was an industry that took part in workshops that took place back in 1990, they are probably going td have a lot more influence because they're more familiar with the people and they're more connected to what's going on." (F2) While both government and non-government participants recognised the legitimate stake of all parties at the table, there was concern that the actual participants represented only a narrow spectrum of the public's view and that more members of the "general public" would have been beneficial. Participant Support for Process:  Conclusions  The need for a new process was made very clear by the participants who came to the table as a result of their growing concern for the future of the estuary. Both governmental and nongovernmental participants recognised the need for new institutional arrangements and the legitimacy of citizen involvement in the planning of the estuary. There was, however, a concern that the effectiveness of the process would be hampered by the existing legislation. The non-governmental participants, who wanted to have an active negotiation with the management committee and saw themselves as equal participants in the process, largely supported consensus. The governmental participants saw consensus as being justified within the decision making of the management committee, but not necessarily in the discourse with the nongovernmental interests who participated in the process. This was largely due existing power structures in F R E M P and the partner organisations, the amount of time needed for consensus, the unwillingness to take the risk of involving non-governmental interests in the key decisions at the heart of managing the region, and from a recognition of those who were funding the process. In general, both the governmental and non-governmental participants supported the active participation of all groups in the negotiation process, but had some reservations about the legitimacy of some of the individual participants. While many of the non-governmental participants were very committed to open participation, some of them (most notably from E N G O s ) had reservations about the potential differential access to decision making by groups such as industry. The governmental participants had concerns about the legitimacy of the various participants due to concerns about the overrepresentation of special interest groups, and worries that the non-governmental participants continued to be the same people throughout the process. Recommendations  for future CI processes:  31  1. If consensus is deemed to be appropriate for the process, the same rules must be applied to all of the parties at the table. 2. While participation should remain voluntary, financial support should be given to those who do not have the resources to participate effectively in the process.  2.  Government Support for Process  Government demonstrates leadership, commitment, and integrity by establishing clear objectives, allocating sufficient financial and human resources, and acting upon consensus recommendations. It provides timely and clear policies, and coordinates the process with related policies and initiatives. Government supports participation by its agencies and their representatives. It legislates SDM processes and the public's right to participate. Policy Support. Although F R E M P had a clear policy of commitment to active partnerships with non-governmental interests in the management of the estuary, there were no clear policies that fleshed out the commitment in practice. The linked management approach was also somewhat deleterious to the CI effort in that there were often overlapping approaches to CI. In one sense, the result was a lack of a single unifying policy from F R E M P on CI in the decision making process, and a simultaneous overabundance of policies from the partner agencies that added to the confusion. One of the participants stated: "If you're looking at the [Environmental Review Committee], we could probably set up an impact assessment process, a review process that is inclusive of everyone. But it then is difficult because some of the mandates of the government agencies, according to the legislation they handle certain responsibilities. They have certain legal responsibilities. So they can take the public in to consideration, but only to a certain point. They are almost confined by regulations." (F1) The interviews indicated that there was a strong agreement from both the government and nongovernment participants that the level of policy support was inadequate for several other reasons: First, the policies and legislation that were already in place within the various partner agencies were too rigid to allow any flexibility for meaningful CI in the decision making process. In recollecting their experience in the Habitat Committee, one of the governmental representatives commented: "There was no flexibility. It was Federal fish policy, which was not going to change. There are some things that they're are keen on, but unless everyone in a process, including the agencies, are willing to be flexible, then there's no point in having CI." (G1) This rigidity was not seen to be such an impediment to CI in decision making with the harbour and port authority partners however since they do not operate under the same legislative framework and can work with the citizens to find innovative solutions. An industry representative remarked: "On the other hand, I have to say that the people who are managing, like the Harbour Commissions, are more open to finding solutions than I find that the regulatory agencies are. I think that it is probably because they are simply constrained by their law." (In1) Another reason put forth for inadequate policy support was a lack of clarity. Many of the nongovernment participants complained that their participation was hindered by confusion as to where the actual decision making power resides. They desired a clear policy statement that outlined the sharing of power among the partner agencies, and the points of entry for CI in the decision making process. One non-government participant who was active on numerous F R E M P committees commented: "It's a bit confusing because we are so used to going to one government agency to get your problems solved, and my understanding is [that F R E M P doesn't] really have legislative power except through the agencies that are involved. It's sort of a different way to approach a problem." (P1)  32  Legislate SDM  Processes.  There is no legislative backing for CI in F R E M P . There is only a commitment to CI that was initiated in F R E S , confirmed at the outset of F R E M P , stressed at the beginning of the E M P preparation process, and re-affirmed on a regular basis in the annual reports. While each of the partner agencies has a component of the legislation that recognizes CI, there is no legislation that formally requires citizen involvement in the decision making process. A s noted above, this created misunderstanding of the role and extent of CI in the decision making process at F R E M P . Integrity. There were some serious concerns raised by the non-governmental participants about their trust in the government and its willingness to implement their decisions. Since the interviews took place after the E M P process was completed, the non-government participants had time to reflect on the process and the manner in which F R E M P acted upon their recommendations. Almost all of the participants volunteered that they would not participate in a F R E M P process again unless there was some way to either ensure that there voices were heard, or to justify explicitly why their suggestions were ignored in the decision making process. One participant commented: "In order for me to be drawn into this process again, I have to be convinced that we are going to be treated with respect and as valuable members of the community, as decision-makers. That should be part of a decision-making process, that we should be able to give some direction." (E2) The governmental participants recognised this problem as well. They didn't see the issue as a question of integrity however, but rather as a product of their limited ability to respond to citizen's recommendations and expectations. The governmental participants felt that the law and the intent of government were paramount and that these factors sometimes inhibited the implementation of the recommendations resulting from the CI process. One of the F R E M P staff said: "Whether we will be ever able to meet their expectations, I don't know.because their expectations are far greater than what the law is or what the intent of government is." (F1) Another member of the F R E M P staff thought that this issue could be overcome though by clearly communicating the problem back to the participants: "We need to get some alignment, or provide a vehicle to make [the citizen's] views known, feel that they have a meaningful role." (F2) This staff member thought that the problem was not so much a distrust in the integrity of government, but rather a miscommunication of what could and could not be accomplished within the existing legislative system. Support by participating  agencies.  Although F R E M P has been rightfully praised for its ability to bring together various levels of government and a multitude of agencies, many of the participants still acknowledged that there was inadequate representation from all of the relevant agencies (such as agriculture and forestry). There were several participants who thought that the tight knit structure of the F R E M P partnership might be a limitation for which agencies could enter into the process. One of the governmental participants argued: "I don't think that any of the groups have been ignored, but they have certainly been excluded. If you think about F R E M P as the partnership making decisions, then only that small number of government agencies are part of that partnership." (F3) Moreover, another F R E M P staff member thought that adding more agencies wouldn't necessarily be appropriate since it would change the nature of the organisation: "I think that if it were possible to change the mandate, that it would change it so much that it wouldn't be F R E M P anymore...it wouldn't be the same. Because the essence of F R E M P is the partnership between those specific agencies, as long as F R E M P is about those specific agencies having a partnership and involving other people in activities, then it maintains that same mandate." (F2)  33  Many of the participants, from both governmental and non-governmental affiliations, felt that the CI activities were not made a priority by the participating agencies. One of the F R E M P staff admitted that this was indeed the case and stated: " F R E M P has its priority activities. CI would have to be given a priority in terms of the intentions of doing that within the management group. It really hasn't been a focus. W e have to say this is something we are going to expand, and we are going to allocate this much money from the budget." (F1) There were several reasons proposed for the lack of support by the participating agencies. The first reason was that there are so many problems and issues that need to be addressed in the estuary that the agencies are unable to respond to the citizen's recommendations for them all in a timely manner. A F R E M P staff member said: "In the river, there are so many issues like Burn's Bog, Robert's Bank, Boundary Bay, the North Arm, Pitt River, Pitt Lake...to try and create an agenda for our small staff of six and the few agencies, we would be dealing with a ten year agenda. For a lot of the public demands, we have to be more responsive than that. I am concerned about how we would address that. But then, may be something as simple as a needs workshop and those with the highest needs would be addressed first." (F4) The second reason proposed for the lack of agency support for CI activities in F R E M P is the limited amount of resources available to the agencies as a result of decreasing budgets, increasing workloads and overworked employees. One of the participants commented: "The disadvantage is that [CI] takes up a lot of time. Managers don't seem to have any more time. All of the staffs have been shortened, all the budgets are evaporating, and everybody is spread out thinner. Nobody has the time." (In3) Government  Support for Processes:  Conclusions  There was a real lack of policy support for the F R E M P ' s CI process with the policy either being too rigid, unclear, or non-existent. This is not surprising given F R E M P ' s experiment with linked management and the overlapping myriad of policy that this entails. The lack of legislation for S D M processes in British Columbia posed a difficulty for F R E M P . This would have helped to clarify the process of CI in the management of the estuary, especially in light of the overlapping mandates and legislation. There was a large fear for the integrity and productivity of the process as a result of the nongovernmental participants' mistrust that their voices would be meaningfully considered in the decisions. Many of these participants said that they would not participate in another F R E M P CI process without more established accountability. The challenge of meeting the citizen's expectations for the implementation of their recommendations was echoed by the F R E M P staff as well. F R E M P has been successful in bringing many agencies to the table and most of the participants agreed that the key agencies had already been engaged (two participants recommended that forestry and agriculture should also be involved). There was a general perception that the agencies that were involved were not entirely supportive of the CI process. The reasons for the lack of agency support included the failure to make the CI process a priority within F R E M P , the abundance of issues that the public wishes to deliberate, and the lack of resources for CI in light of decreasing budgets and increasing workloads. Recommendations  for future CI processes:  3. F R E M P must provide stronger policy support if a CI process is to succeed. While S D M processes may not be legislated in the Province, F R E M P still needs to make it a priority for the organisation and should fund it accordingly. Resources will need to be allocated from staff time as well and this must be considered in the planning of the CI process.  34  3.  Inclusive Representation of Interests  All interested and affected parties are invited to participate, including local and government interests, timely notification of opportunities to participate is given and provision is made to add parties after the process begins. The number of participants is manageable. The wider public is kept informed of the process.  All parties are invited and  represented.  The workshops and committees at F R E M P provided numerous opportunities for various parties to become involved in the management of the estuary. In spite of the opportunities, all of the interviewees acknowledged that various groups were missing from the process. The one group that was mentioned most by both the governmental and non-governmental participants was the First Nations. The participants felt that this was a large weakness in the process given the amount of estuary foreshore that is under land claim negotiations, but appreciated the First Nation's interest in remaining external to the process until the negotiations were complete. Other groups that were identified as being underrepresented in the process included organised labour, agriculture organisations and farmers, and forestry. Many of the participants, both governmental and non-governmental, also thought that the views of the "general public" were not adequately represented in the process. One of the participants stated: "The general public [are not adequately represented]. The industrial sector's need appears to be predominant. Whether its location of log booms, or how much area the log booms take up, other than if you want to say the citizens are represented by the G V R D and the sewage treatment plant. If you exclude that then I'd say the industrial sector and the farming community have had a lot of say. So agriculture and forestry have had a big impact even though they are further up the river." (G1) Indeed, a study of the membership of the workshops and the committees from 1985-1998 seems to support this sentiment and presents a strong governmental presence with a general lack of participation from First Nations and unaffiliated individuals from the general public. These data are presented in Figure 3.1.  35  Affiliations of Participants in FREMP Committees and Workshops (1985-1998)  Figure 3.1:  S u m m a r y of R e p r e s e n t a t i o n F R E M P ' s c o m m i t t e e s a n d w o r k s h o p s f r o m 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 9 8  Inform wider public. C o m m u n i c a t i o n s with the w i d e r p u b l i c h a s b e e n o n e of the key p r o b l e m s identified within F R E M P . W h i l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n within the p r o g r a m itself a n d the partner a g e n c i e s h a s b e e n a d e q u a t e , the o u t r e a c h p r o g r a m to the w i d e r c o m m u n i t y h a s b e e n largely n e g l e c t e d . O n e F R E M P staff m e m b e r c o m m e n t e d : " R i g h t n o w w e k e e p getting h u n g up on internal c o m m u n i c a t i o n , w h i c h is important. F R E M P is s u p p o s e d to b e a m u l t i - s t a k e h o l d e r p r o g r a m but the c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n the s t a k e h o l d e r s h a s b e e n through the a g e n c i e s at best. If w e h o p e to h a v e the public a r o u n d the table a s s t a k e h o l d e r s , t h e n w e ' r e not d o i n g a very g o o d j o b of r e a c h i n g t h e m . " (F2) T h i s s e n t i m e n t w a s affirmed by a n o t h e r staff m e m b e r w h o s a i d : " T h e a v e r a g e p e o p l e w h o aren't e v e n remotely c l o s e to r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t i s s u e s , w h o don't live o n the river or h a v e anything to d o with w a t e r - b a s e d industries don't h a v e a c l u e w h a t ' s g o i n g o n with F R E M P . S o w e ' r e very poor in r e a c h i n g the g e n e r a l public." (F3) T h e n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l participants in the CI p r o c e s s h a d the s a m e i m p r e s s i o n of F R E M P ' s o u t r e a c h p r o c e s s . O n e of the industry r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c o m m e n t e d : "I w o u l d really like to h e a r m o r e from F R E M P . I m e a n I h a v e n ' t got any n e w s from t h e m in a y e a r a n d a half, s o I h a v e no i d e a w h a t they a r e doing or w h a t other c o m p a n i e s or d i v i s i o n s a r e d o i n g a l o n g the river. T h e r e ' s no c o m m u n i c a t i o n . W e h a v e no w a y of k n o w i n g w h a t e v e r y o n e e l s e is d o i n g . " (In2) T h i s s a m e p r o b l e m w a s articulated by o n e of the other n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l participants w h o h a d a h a r d time getting to the information that w a s r e q u i r e d in o r d e r to stay a b r e a s t of the i s s u e s u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . T h e participant n o t e d : " T h i s is o n e p r o b l e m with F R E M P . H o w d o y o u k n o w w h a t ' s g o i n g o n ? O f c o u r s e , y o u r a i s e this q u e s t i o n a n d they s a y 'our files are o p e n y o u just h a v e to g o d o w n to the office a n d o p e n the files', but that's a lot to a s k ! " ( E 4 ) S e v e r a l of the g o v e r n m e n t participants g a v e r e a s o n s w h y the e x t e r n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d o u t r e a c h w a s poor. O n e r e a s o n w a s a lack of skill in c o m m u n i c a t i o n s a n d public relations. T h e participant reflected on the e x p e r i e n c e in c o m m u n i c a t i n g with the larger public a n d r e m a r k e d : "In  36  the past, because I'm a manager and not a communicator, I see this stuff as data and I haven't been able to determine how I take this data, turn it into this policy, and get something out at the end." (F1). While another governmental participant noted that the media had a lot to do with the lack of external communication and outreach: "In the case where a meeting is covered by the press, it tends to get a negative twist where they will take the side of the N G O s and it's always the big, bad government." (G1) Provision to add parties after the start of the process. The governmental and non-governmental participants all agreed that the process was open to new members throughout its duration but this was difficult in practise. Once the process had begun, there was a steep learning curve to grasp the appropriate legislation, the process of decision making, the issues at hand, and the powers of the relevant agencies. One of the participants asserted: "I think that when you're immersed in something and doing it all the time you don't realise how other people don't know what you're doing and it takes a while to get up to speed. And this particular issue [habitat] is very tough because there's not much manoeuvrability. There isn't if you know the issue. The solutions are quite complex in my understanding." (P1) The need to be "brought up to speed" was confirmed by a member of the F R E M P staff who said: "There is a certain amount of time required to involve people so they are brought up to speed and can understand the issues, so they can effectively participate." (F4) Thus, although the interviewees agreed in principle that it was possible to add parties after the start of the process, they saw the learning curve of understanding the issues to be an impediment to joining the CI process in progress. Manageable  numbers.  There was a high level of agreement between the government and non-government participants that the number of participants should not increase too much, but for different reasons. The nongovernment interviewees wanted to keep the overall numbers low so that their voices could be adequately heard in the decision making process. They felt that their opinions were already difficult to get across and that they often felt like "little more than furniture in the public workshops." (E3). The government participants thought that the numbers should remain low due to resource constraints and their ability to deal with more members of the public in a meaningful way. One member of the F R E M P management committee said: "We have people say: 'OK. Put us on the list, and send us individual applications that affect us.' W e have a hard enough time getting eight or ten referrals out. How do we have enough time to get them out to twenty or thirty interest groups and send them stuff within a 30 day turnaround?" (In1) Inclusive Representation  of Interests:  Conclusions  The participants agreed that although F R E M P had made significant progress in bringing many stakeholders to the table, there were some gaps in representation from First Nations, organised labour, agriculture organisations and farmers, municipal government, forestry and, most notably, the general public. The CI process in the management of the estuary was weak in the realm of external communication and outreach. There were a number of reasons suggested for this inadequacy including a lack of training in communication skills, inadequate resources, and fear of a "negative spin" in the media. The CI process at F R E M P was always open to new comers in theory, but this proved to be very difficult in practice. There was a steep learning curve to climb before an individual could meaningfully participate and this made it difficult to join into a process that was already in progress.  37  Both the governmental and non-governmental representatives did not want to see the number of participants grow continuously. The non-governmental members were concerned that more participants would exacerbate their frustration at being heard in the decision making process, while the governmental representatives did not feel that they had the resources to deal with more members of the public. Recommendations for future CI processes: 4. All participants and staff who are involved in the CI process should have adequate training in communicating within the group and to the public at large. If FREMP cannot provide this training, then the organisation should provide a dedicated communications person for the process. 5. Given resource constraints, FREMP should strive to keep the number of participants at a reasonable level subject to adequate representation of the diversity of interests. It is more appropriate to give full support to small numbers than vice versa. 4.  Effective Representation of Interests  All participants-public and government-are committed as demonstrated by their willingness to participate in good faith, work, and attend regularly. All participants are interest-based, communicate openly and share ideas, empowered to represent and make decisions on behalf of their constituents, maintain communication with constituents, knowledgeable, and use limited resources efficiently. Government representatives are also neutral, available for consultation, skilled in communication and public processes, technically knowledgeable, understand planning, committed to public participation, and work well with people. Committed and willing to communicate and share ideas. All of the participants praised the commitment of the non-governmental representatives. Since participation in the process was voluntary, most of these representatives gave up their personal time (and sometimes weekends) to stay involved. There was a marked difference between the commitment to the committees and the workshops however. The participants noted that while the membership of the committees tended to be static, the workshops attendance was more inconsistent both in numbers and in the individuals who regularly participated. This made it difficult to accomplish anything of substance since there was often a high degree of redundancy in summarising what had previously occurred. One possible factor that influenced the irregular attendance of some of the participants was a lack of encouragement and feedback from FREMP. Although FREMP had an annual awards night, this was seen as insufficient for the regular volunteers since it only gave credit to the high profile volunteers (for example, lumber companies). One of the participants commented: "I guess right now just thinking that a little more recognition would be nice. Volunteers thrive on recognition. Little things always go a long way. Keeping volunteers in the organisation is vital, because once they have an idea of how the system works, they tend to pick up speed."(In2) The non-governmental representatives did not indicate that they had the same problems expressing their ideas openly with one another as they had with FREMP and the governmental participants. Two non-governmental participants from the ENGO community did raise a concern however that the industry groups had a "hidden agenda for development" or were primarily concerned with being involved in the process for public relations reasons. Challenges to Being an Effective Representative. There were two key challenges to being an effective representative that were raised by the participants. The first was the time required to attend all of the meetings and to stay informed of all the issues that were under discussion. Three of the non-governmental participants specifically  38  mentioned that they were experiencing "stakeholder burnout" and that they did not have the time to fully participate any longer. The second challenge to being an effective representative that was identified by the nongovernmental participants was the amount of knowledge that was needed to participate. One of the participants summarises this sentiment in saying: "I've found the topic of the Fraser River difficult to grasp because it is a pretty technical topic that requires understanding of the Fisheries Act, what motivated people to do things this way, the value of riparian vegetation, why they cut it down. There are all sorts of sub-issues. You couldn't just sit down; you have to have all of this background information which I don't think F R E M P realized up front." (P1) Non-Governmental Participant's Awareness of Commitment, Alternate Representatives.  Efficient use of Resources  and  While all of the participants were aware of the time commitment of engaging in F R E M P ' s CI process, many of them inevitably committed more time than they had initially anticipated. For example, one participant entered into the process as an academic observer, and eventually became a participant in the process itself for several years. Because the meetings of the committees were quite small (generally less than 1 0 people), the scheduling was relatively flexible and there were few occasions where the members could not attend. If the non-governmental participants were unable to attend, they could rely on other colleagues within their organisation (for example, the Fraser River Coalition). Non-Governmental  Participants Ability to Communicate  with Constituency.  Many of the non-governmental participants were affiliated with organisations such as the Fraser River Coalition, The Burns Bog Preservation Society, the T. Buck Suzuki Foundation and the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation. All of the participants reported back to these organisations throughout their participation in the E M P process for informational purposes, and for advice. Level of Knowledge of Non-Governmental  Participants.  All of the non-government participants had lived around the Fraser River estuary for at least seven years. Many of them had lived on the estuary for their entire lives. A s such, they were extremely knowledgeable about the historical development of the estuary, and very passionate about the direction of future development and preservation efforts. Power. The tension between preservation and development is at the heart of F R E M P and the E M P process. Both governmental and non-governmental participants saw the tension between industrial development and environmental preservation as a strong force in the process, but none of the participants suggested that either position had any more influence at the table. This is not to suggest that there was trust of industry though, especially from the participants who were affiliated with environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs). When one of the participants was asked if any groups had more influence in the decision making process, their answer was: "I am certain that industry does. It has more access everywhere really." ( E 4 ) The governmental representatives took a more subdued approach to the perceived advantage of industry and noted: "Industry obviously, as a group. They have a very close ear to partner agencies. The harbour commission's basic job is economic development. They're out there to help industry. There's nothing wrong with that." ( G 1 ) There was also some concern from the participants that some of the groups other than industry had more resources than others and could have a greater influence on the decision making  39  process. A participant from a larger environmental organisation said: "The smaller operations are perennially outside. No one listens to them or they feel like no one listens to them. They feel like development and change is happening all around them and they are not able to make their point of view heard." (E3) Other participants went so far as to say that these groups should be subsidised. One participant, who is affiliated with government, commented: "There's quite a range of groups: For example, there is the Fishermen's lobby group, which has quite a lot of money behind them. There's the community groups, some of which are quite large and have good money behind them. If you started a public process and had stakeholders on either side, and you had to come up with a balanced decision, then there's a definite argument that some people don't have the ability to put forth their argument. May be that should be subsidized if you really want to have a balanced discussion." (G1) Neutrality of Government  Participants  The non-governmental participants were very much split when it came to their perception of the governmental participants neutrality in the E M P process. Several of the respondents said that they saw F R E M P as a concentrated source of neutral information where they could learn about the issues facing the estuary, get data on the extent of the problem, and determine who should be contacted (see the skilled and knowledgeable section below) There were other non-governmental members who felt strongly that the governmental participants from F R E M P were strongly biased in favour of development. One participant passionately remarked that: "We wrote up proposals, which were rejected. W e came to meetings and workshops. At the workshops, I would see them stand up and give their speech that they gave time after time that would say that ' F R E M P is one stop shopping for the developers.' Clearly, there was nothing in their speech that acknowledged our work or acknowledged us as partners. In that kind of way they were very dismissive." (E3) Another non-governmental participant affirmed the same sentiment and added: "In order for me to be drawn into this process again, I have to be convinced that we are going to be treated with respect and as valuable members of the community, as decision makers. That should be part of a decision-making process, that we should be able to give some direction." (E2) Skills and knowledge of Government  Participants.  Several of the respondents saw the governmental participants as a valuable source of wellresearched and unbiased information. A participant from one of the E N G O s noted: "When people from the community approach [FREMP] they want to get answers, and if they can't get the answers they want to know where they can go to get the answers. I think they look at the organisation as one of expertise so what they say is valid and has been researched and is correct, so there is confidence in the relationship. Sort of like a library, but with people of expertise." (E5) Another participant echoed this notion and stated: "I see them as a source of information that's reliable, and someone we can go to access this information. W e know that there is someone working on that river and knows about that river. And with whatever work they do they can tell me about it and not try to hide anything to protect their position, job, or government policy or whatever." (E1) There was one voice of dissent in this realm however that thought that the government scientists in particular were inherently biased about the citizen's role in the scientific process. The participant commented: "Some of the scientists were reluctant to have lay people involved in their domain (e.g. monitoring). They are very territorial about their area of expertise. And this idea that somehow citizens can't be involved in monitoring because they just aren't reliable. So there is a mind set there that has to be changed." (E2) Level of Commitment of Government  Participants.  40  The non-governmental participants were very supportive of the level of commitment illustrated by the governmental participants. They saw the issues as being very tough and crossing many jurisdictions and agencies, and were impressed by the effort on the part of the government representatives to work through these barriers. One of the non-governmental participants complimented F R E M P and said: "I guess they were trying to solve some very difficult problems and I was told several times and I think it's true that they are farther ahead in managing estuaries than other jurisdictions. And having done some research on that I think there is some truth in it, because I haven't found anything else it like that. So I like the idea that they are innovative and trying to work on some very difficult issues and they really worked hard. There is a lot of commitment and knowledge there." (P2) On an individual basis, the governmental participants were perceived to be committed but could not always attend all of the meetings and workshops. A s one of the industry representatives noted, this often produced an inconsistent approach to dealing with the issues at hand: "That is a problem and sometimes people cannot show up to every meeting. So you end up getting part of the information. Sometimes you may have the manager of the Harbour Commission trying to describe what Fisheries is doing and that's not a very good idea. He might have a whole different idea." (In3) There was a perception among the non-governmental participants that the participation of some of the government representatives was fleeting and non-committal. A s one of the industry representatives asserted, this uncertainty created confusion and had an impact on the level and extent of CI in estuary management process: "We've toned it down a little bit in the last while for a couple of reasons. Number one, there has been quite a bit of change in the stand of the organisational or volunteer level in that the [ F R E M P coordinator position] seemed to have new faces very frequently and unfortunately there wasn't much continuity being passed along. Each person had a different focus, some of them didn't really have a focus, because I personally think this may have been a jump off to other things and this was just a springboard or a waiting position." (In2) This idea was confirmed by another participant who attributed the lack of commitment to the nature of the organisation itself: "It seems there were a lot of young people there who relied on a slim budget, and they basically relied on volunteers." (In3) Effective Representation  of Interests:  Conclusions  Since participation in the E M P process was voluntary, the non-governmental participants were very committed and gave up much of their personal time. This time commitment in fact became one of the challenges of being an effective participant in the process. All of the non-governmental participants had an abundance of knowledge about the estuary and strong passion for its future. The majority of them were involved in E N G O s or community groups and relied on this infrastructure for support and advice, while simultaneously keeping their colleagues abreast of the issues under discussion at F R E M P . The non-government participants were suspicious that the industry groups may have had more influence on the decision making process, yet did not perceive this directly among the parties at the table. Both the governmental and non-governmental participants were concerned that many groups did not have the resources to be heard in the decision making process. There was a split in the non-governmental participants as to the neutrality of the government representatives. Some of them thought that F R E M P was a valuable source of neutral data and information, while others saw F R E M P as being heavily influenced by those who were interested in further developing the estuary. All of the participants thought that the governmental members were strongly committed to the process as a whole, but commented that staff turnover was a source of confusion.  41  Recommendations  for future CI processes:  6. F R E M P must recognise the importance of continuity to the process and should dedicate the same staff to the process on a consistent basis. 7. Communication is absolutely mandatory for effective representation. F R E M P ' s future CI initiatives should involve a training component for participants on expressing their interest, communicating with their constituency or agency, and effective listening.  5.  Sufficient Resources for Participants  All participants are provided sufficient and timely funding, training, and information. Information is appropriate-accurate, understandable, and relevant. Experts are available to explain and interpret information. All participants are able to dedicate sufficient time to the process and manage their time so as to avoid burn-out. Funding and training. Almost all of the governmental and non-governmental participants (12 of 15) highlighted the lack of funding and training in F R E M P ' s CI activities as a key problem with the process. The participants thought that training was important for quickly educating themselves on the legislative and scientific context of the decisions pertaining to the estuary. A number of the nongovernmental participants accentuated this lack of knowledge as a major barrier to participation and asserted that F R E M P should offer training for the non-governmental participants to bring them to the same level as the governmental participants, who are intimately familiar with the issues from their daily work. This lack of training was perceived to be symptomatic of a larger funding issue however. Several members of the F R E M P staff thought that there was a lot of support at the lower levels of the organisation for CI, but that this support did not carry through to the management level, where the budgets are formulated. One staff member expressed frustration with this dynamic and said: "I think the people that are working within the program definitely see the advantages from [CI], but it's difficult to prove that to the management committee from the different agencies that are responsible for doing our budget." (F2) One of the non-governmental participants was particularly upset about the lack of funding and support from F R E M P for CI activities. The interviewee saw a role for paid employees to help in the estuary planning process, but this notion was negatively received by F R E M P . The participant recollected: There was a complete negativity to [providing funding for participants]. In fact, I was the subject of derision at one meeting when I suggested that we had to have a budget to buy sunscreen, sunglasses and sun hats for workers that were going to be on the marshes all day. This was a meeting at F R E M P , they laughed and thought that it was really funny what I was suggesting. Volunteerism is very good, but there is also a role for paid workers. F R E M P was very, very opposed to our philosophy that some people needed to be paid workers for this and that they should get a fair rate. That this should be considered work. Second to that, they really laughed at us about the health and safety issues. I don't think that is funny. (E2) This same participant noted that they had earlier received a small quantity of funding during the initial years of F R E M P for an educational voyage on the estuary for program participants but when the program director for F R E M P changed, the commitment for future financial assistance was lost. One of the non-governmental participants had a slightly different interpretation for the lack of funding which incorporated an element of risk for F R E M P . The participant thought that there was  42  an initial reluctance on the part of F R E M P to provide funding for the CI process since this would raise future expectations for further funding, and would eventually come up against the program's resource constraints. The participant noted: There is nothing wrong with [providing funding] but you had better be prepared to deliver on that. You are creating this awareness and people believe that there are great opportunities for involvement and that there will be great resources and education materials to support it. I don't know whether F R E M P has committed to following up on that. They created it, and I don't know whether they have the resources to commit to that. (P2) All of the governmental participants and many of the F R E M P staff as well affirmed this lack of resources for funding the program's CI efforts. Information. Information presented a significant barrier to CI in the management of the Fraser River estuary. The participants were certain that all of the information needed to plan the estuary was available, but the problem related to its accessibility and communication. Several of the F R E M P staff and other governmental participants (four interviewees) claimed that the information and reports were all available to the general public but recognized that the onus was on the interested individual to gather the information from the F R E M P offices. One of the F R E M P staff commented: "As far as I am concerned, it's open. W e do have a secretariat office. People can go in there and find the information that they are looking for if it's available there. I feel that we have done a fairly wide publication of stuff we have done. Those reports are certainly available." (F4) The non-governmental participants did not share this opinion however. They perceived F R E M P to be less than forthright with their information and that this lack of accessibility largely inhibited their ability to participate in the decision making process. A member of one of the E N G O s complained: One of our members happened to be talking to someone from Boundary Bay Preservation Society and she had been walking down there and talked to the caretaker of the park and he said something about the barges. So she alerted everyone, and then Wendy Turner, Terry Slack and I had a meeting with George Colquhoun and he confirmed it. But if she hadn't met this person, the public would have no knowledge of the barges. (E4) Another non-governmental participant who complained that F R E M P was not providing enough information to allow the full participation of industry groups affirmed this opinion: "I don't know if there is enough information out there for the companies. This is the one thing I don't know, if they're keeping us all up to speed by telling us how complex it is to manage the river with the amount of industry on it." (In3) Finally, a number of governmental and non-governmental participants claimed that the format of the information was often not appropriate for those who lack specialized knowledge. This presented a barrier to participants who lack a scientific background. One of the F R E M P staff commented: "All the reports and publications that we have right now are very technical, they are not catered to the public." (F2) The government representatives recognized the nature of this problem but complained that there was little that they could do about it since the reports had to be technically sound in order to address the management problems on the estuary, and that there was not a budget to transfer all of the information in the reports into a more appropriate format for general consumption by the public. Experts  available.  Several of the participants expressed gratitude that there were so many experts available throughout the process to give further information and detail on the decisions at hand (6 of 15). They saw these experts to be key in the interpretation of the data since many of the experts were  43  the individuals who had collected the data initially, and who knew about the limitations of the studies. One participant did look back to their experience with another CI process in the region and was somewhat disappointed that F R E M P had not provided the same level of collaboration among the researchers. The participant remarked: When I was on S P E C (88 or 89), I saw that there were all these scientists from various backgrounds including agriculture coming together with a multidisciplinary approach to problems. It was cross-ministerial, federal and provincial. That was very attractive for me to have access to a professional body that did work on the river (up the river) that I could access information from without phoning the whole government. This was a concentrated source of information. (E1) In spite of this one drawback, the participants saw F R E M P as being quite effective in drawing expert knowledge from the partner organisations and into the CI process. Time. A s can be expected from a long, voluntary process, there were numerous comments that the estuary management planning exercise took a lot of time. Several of the non-governmental participants suggested that they would not participate in another F R E M P process because of this time constraint. Sufficient Resources for Participants: Conclusions The participants acknowledged the high level of understanding that was needed to be an effective participant in the estuary planning process and suggested that the lack of training and financial support was one of the key barriers to the success of the CI process. It was suggested that the root of this lack of funding arose from the insufficient commitment to CI activities in the F R E M P management committee (although this commitment was strongly supported in the lower levels of the organisation), from an unwillingness to see a role for paid participants in the planning process, and from a fear of creating a demand for funding that could not be supported by the limited resources available to the program. There was general agreement among the participants that the information needed for comprehensive estuary planning was available, just not very accessible. The non-governmental participants thought that F R E M P ' s "open door" policy for information was not acceptable since the onus was on the public to learn about the decisions at hand. Moreover, the participants felt that the information may have been written at too technical of a level to allow the non-scientists to adequately engage in the decision making process. The participants were very happy with their access to expert knowledge in the CI process and saw this as one of the strengths of F R E M P ' s estuary management planning activities. A s in most CI processes, the participants complained that the time constraints of participation were somewhat overbearing and would dissuade them from future participation in F R E M P . Recommendations for future CI processes: 8. Participants need to be trained in the relevant issues, legislation and the decision making processes of the agencies before they can be effective participants. F R E M P must budget for this training when planning future CI process. 9. F R E M P needs to have a firm commitment to actively providing the citizens with the information that they require in order to participate. This information needs to be not only "available" but "accessible" as well. Accessibility implies both the ease of obtaining the information, as well as making sure that the information is presented in a manner that is understandable to the participants.  44  10. The CI process should be made as quick and efficient as possible in order to avoid stakeholder burnout. This does not imply however that quality should be sacrificed for speed.  6.  Effective Process Management  Process managers-convenors, coordinators, facilitators, mediators, administrators-are committed, neutral, skilled in process management and communication, knowledgeable, and available for consultation with participants. A detailed project plan identifying tasks and timelines is created. An appropriate meeting facility conducive to effective meetings is provided.  Project Plan. The lack of a larger, overall plan for CI in the management of the estuary led to some confusion on the part of the participants. Although there were plans in place for the work of several of the committees/working groups, the participants complained that they were unaware of an overall guiding plan for the E M P or did not think that one existed at all. Three of the non-governmental participants felt that this created problems in recognizing the progress on the problems since there were no tangible milestones from which to measure. Several of the staff at F R E M P agreed and stated: I think the structure that is set up for [CI] doesn't marry well with the expectations for the public to be more specifically involved. I think that with the structure of some of the public development programs, it's difficult to show what the linkage is and to see what really happens. (F1) The participants suggested that if there had been a visible and accessible plan for the E M P process, they would have better understood where their contributions were incorporated and likely would have been less confused and frustrated. Independent  facilitator.  F R E M P employed independent facilitators only as required. They were not a regular part of the committees but were often brought into the process for large public meetings. These facilitators were perceived neutrally by the participants as they were felt to help in the diffusion of the tension between the program and the general public, but did little to alleviate the problems therein. Leadership, neutral, available for consultation and committed. The participants acknowledged on a number of occasions that they were confused as to who actually "owned" the process of CI in management of the estuary. F R E M P had a number of staff who worked within this realm (for example, a Communications Coordinator and a Stewardship Coordinator), but these staff were only tangentially involved in the actual CI management. Several of the governmental and non-governmental participants complimented the dedication and genuine interest of these staff, but were often unclear about their ability to direct the process from the sidelines. Clearly, F R E M P created confusion among the participants by lacking a single coordinator for the CI process. Two of the governmental participants noted that in the case of severe conflict there was a conflict resolution process available that included an independent and neutral arbitrator, but that this function was never employed during the period from 1985-1998. Effective Process Management:  Conclusions  While several of the committees produced their own work plans, the lack of an overall, coordinated work plan that was visible to all of the participants created some confusion as to the progress being made in the E M P process and in the overall management of the estuary.  45  Independent facilitators proved somewhat useful for facilitating large public meetings, but they were not employed in the negotiations inherent to the designated committees and working groups. While F R E M P had several staff who were tangentially involved with the non-governmental interests, they lacked an individual coordinator for the CI process. This individual would have provided some much needed consistency and leadership to the process. Recommendations  for future CI processes:  11. F R E M P should develop a comprehensive plan to guide the CI process rather than adopt an ad hoc approach. This will ensure consistency of process for the participants. 12. F R E M P should hire a dedicated process manager for their CI activities. This is a large undertaking and effective coordination is very important to the success of the process. 13. Facilitators should be available to the process whenever they are needed. 7.  Clear Terms of Reference  Terms of reference are clear and agreed to by all parties. They establish: a clear mandate which is scoped appropriately such that the process is manageable; clear roles, responsibilities, and authority for all participants; a geographic scale which is appropriate to the process mandate and meaningful to all participants; a realistic time frame with milestones and deadlines; and a fallback mechanism if consensus cannot be reached. Clear and manageable mandate, clear objectives and products. The committee-driven approach to decision making in the management of the estuary was very beneficial in providing focus to the non-governmental and governmental participants. Each of the committees had clear objectives and was aware that they had to produce recommendations and plans for their specific area of focus. Clear participant roles and  responsibilities.  In contrast to the committees as a whole, there was a great deal of uncertainty in the roles of the various participants in the management of the estuary. The overlapping agencies and mandates that are at the heart of the program made it difficult for the non-governmental participants to understand the roles of the various agency staff. Three of the non-governmental participants commented that there were various times in the process when they were unclear about which agency actually had the legislated power to make the decision. The non-governmental participants were also unclear about their own role. Two of these participants noted that they perceived their role differently depending on the governmental participants to whom they were speaking at the time. S o m e of the governmental participants made them seem to be very much in a partnership role with equal footing, while others made them feel as if they were involved in more of a consultative capacity. The governmental participants seem to feel more secure about their role in the process since the linked-management approach to F R E M P was such that the legislation and policy under which they worked was the same as in their own agency. Four of these participants commented that they were comfortable with their knowledge of the intention and extent of these policies and laws as well as the range of interpretation that could be brought to the F R E M P process. Appropriate geographic  scale.  46  The geographic scale of the F R E M P study area was seen to be an impediment to the creation of the E M P by all of the participants. The participants deemed this scale to be inappropriate for a number of reasons. The first reason was that in concentrating only on the water component of the estuary, the management process missed the important activities on the land surrounding the estuary and potential accomplishments that could be achieved by improving these activities. One of the participants noted: " F R E M P really focuses on the shoreline, so a lot of that activity happens a bit beyond that. It's never really focused on everybody living in the area, living more of a conserving lifestyle. So it hasn't really met that or done that." (F1) Because of this focus on the shoreline, the F R E M P study area also fails to address the larger problems and opportunities that are created by the specific dynamics of a large rapidly growing area such as Vancouver. A governmental participant asserted: The urban growth has been missed by F R E M P . They've managed specific sites, but they haven't looked at the larger context of how Vancouver develops. Whether it is appropriate to save a small piece of habitat here, when there is a big town going up beside it. Perhaps there is a better place to save habitat somewhere else. I think that there has been a mistake on being so focused on the estuary and not on what's behind it. (G1) This limitation was also noted from a more biophysical sense by one of the participants who saw the study area as failing to include upstream effects on the health of the estuary that begin in the smaller tributaries. The participants commented: My perception is that F R E M P has things in hand with the E R C on the main stem, but a lot of what is happening is on the smaller streams and tribs. This is where the fish go to spawn and rear and where a lot of industry and urbanization is occurring. It would be nice if F R E M P considered extending its mandate a little bit up these streams. W e were always told to go further upland but we really didn't have the jurisdiction so we stuck to the water side of the dike. (P2) Finally, the geographic scope of the study area was seem to be limiting since it created an abstract planning area that was not meaningful or engaging for the general public. The study area was perceived to be inconsequential to the general public since it does not directly affect their daily lives. One participant articulated this problem as follows: "It's kind of hard to involve the community unless you go upland because the community doesn't live where F R E M P works. A lot of the land is provincial or federal land. I think that you have to expand, and get all of the interests." (G1) Realistic timeframe. The majority of the participants (9 of 15) thought that the CI process for their involvement in the management of the estuary took a reasonable amount of time given the complexity of the process. Two of the participants cited one particular committee however (the Shoreline Protocol Committee) as an example of where the time line was vastly underestimated given the amount of work to be completed. Terms of reference defined by all. The staff of F R E M P , the agency representatives and the members of the management committee largely determined the terms of reference for the creation of the E M P and F R E M P ' s CI process as a whole. The non-governmental participants were invited to join committees or to attend workshops after the initial terms of reference were established. Several members of F R E M P ' s staff asserted that the terms of reference were indirectly influenced by the non-governmental participants in the various workshops and public meetings. Clear Terms of Reference:  Conclusions  47  The committee-based approach to managing the estuary provided clear objectives, mandate and products for those involved in them. There was some confusion regarding the roles of the various groups in the management of the estuary, with most of this uncertainty coming from the non-governmental participants who were sometimes unclear of the agency representatives' roles, and their own general role in the decision making process. The agency representatives were comfortable in the role in the E M P process since they operated under the same policies and legislation as in their own regular position. Virtually all of the participants saw the geographic scope of the study area to be limiting since it ignored important regional dynamics, focused only on the foreshore, and did not resonate in the daily lives of the general public. With the exception of one committee, the participants thought that the timeline for the CI process (largely focusing on committees and workshops) for their involvement in the management of the estuary was reasonable. The governmental officials, the management committee and F R E M P staff largely determined the terms of reference for the E M P process with little direct influence from the non-governmental participants. Recommendations for future CI processes: 14. F R E M P must clarify the roles and responsibilities of all of the participants (governmental and non-governmental) before the process begins to ensure that everyone is aware of their commitments. 15. The boundaries of the study area should remain flexible so as to encompass any processes or knowledge that need to be considered within the evolving process. 16. The process manager should ensure that the timeline for the CI process is reasonable and well understood by all of the participants.  8.  Participatory Design  All participants are involved in tailoring a process in order to accommodate all interests. Mechanisms for process assessment are implemented to allow participants to provide feedback and to facilitate changes in process. The primary focus of F R E M P was to coordinate decision making among the various government agencies. A s one of the F R E M P staff noted: "The current mandate is unchanged: To develop and implement a management plan for the river. Now there is a role for public involvement that is being examined and it has to be firmed out." (2) From this perspective, the process was well tailored to governmental coordination of decision making but may not have been ideal for the incorporation of CI in the estuary management process. A s several of the governmental and nongovernmental (4 of 15) participants noted however, the committee structure did give some lee way in the design of the process. One participant who was a member of several committees noted that in a number of instances the group became frustrated by the lack of process and altered the group's tasks accordingly (but not the overall objectives). Thus, while process may have been designed for governmental decision making, the committee structure provided an inherent flexibility that provided opportunities (albeit limited) to tailor the process. Participatory Design:  Conclusions  The basic structure and functionality of the estuary management process was determined before all of the participants were brought onboard and was largely designed to fit F R E M P ' s mandate of  48  coordinating government decision making in the estuary. The committee-based structure of the process did provide some flexibility and the participants (governmental and non-governmental) had the opportunity to monitor their progress through the process and make some changes where necessary. Recommendations for future CI processes: 17. All of the participants should be involved in the design of the CI process in order to ensure that it meets the needs of all of the parties at the table.  9.  Comprehensive and Effective Procedural Framework  A comprehensive procedural framework delineates clearly: a participant code of conduct; organization, roles, and authority of subgroups; consensus; a dispute settlement process; meeting logistics; and a media policy. The process is able to adapt to changing circumstances. Ultimately, a procedural framework is effective only if all participants adhere to procedural agreements. Ground rules. The lack of an overall process for CI in F R E M P meant that there was not an overarching policy or set of ground rules. Many of the committees adopted their own ground rules however, which made the process run more smoothly. For example, three of the participants recounted their committees had a media policy: This policy entailed that no one on the committee could approach the media during the process without making all of the others aware of the purpose and the extent of the information beforehand. This helped to alleviate fears of participation in the committees (especially among the governmental participants), which in turn made the committees more productive. Subgroups. The subgroups, or committees, of F R E M P ' s estuary management regime gave the overall process its strength. While the process as a whole lacked coordination and even direction, the committees were focused on individual topics and had clear objectives. A s one of the F R E M P staff noted: "There is no way that the plan could have been produced without the dedication and the focus of the committee members." (F3) The utility of the committees was also appreciated by the non-governmental members (3 of 10) who saw their interaction with their fellow committee representatives as one of the most rewarding components of their experience at F R E M P . Effective and productive  meetings  While the committees were seen to be productive and effective, the public meetings and workshops were perceived to be a complete failure by all of the participants. Several of the governmental representatives commented that the workshops were little more than an opportunity for the public to complain and vent their frustration at the program. One governmental participant said: "Outside of the sort of hands-on enhancement, clean-up the foreshore activities, very little. In the agreement, there's a need for an annual public meeting, but I don't think they're effective. It gives people the opportunity to take pot shots at the program, without them getting involved in it at all." (G1) The responses from the non-governmental participants seemed to affirm the ineffectiveness of the public workshops and open houses. These participants complained that the workshops were little more than an opportunity for F R E M P to tell the public what was going on and then leave under the auspices of collecting input from them. In effect, the workshops turned into a frustrating and confrontational place for governmental and non-governmental interaction. One member of the E N G O community commented:  49  We went to open houses. If you want to go and be a piece of furniture, then you can go to an open house. Our people are very busy and don't need to go and be a piece of furniture in [FREMP's] open houses. That was the most inclusive that they would ever be. I don't know if there were other barriers, it was just a complete wall. (E2) Another non-governmental participant echoed this sentiment in stating: "I got something from F R E M P in the mail the other day about yet another open house. I'm not planning on attending.it's a huge waste of my time." (E4) Meeting location, frequency and timing. There were several problems indicated by the participants with the committees, and more specifically with the workshops. The first related to their timing. There were two complaints that the meetings tended to occur during business hours which was convenient for the governmental representatives, but not very reasonable for the non-governmental participants who were employed on a full time basis elsewhere. This also made it difficult for participants who had children and were forced to seek childcare. The second problem related more specifically to the workshops, and the frequency of opportunities for CI in general at F R E M P . The only firm time commitment that was outlined in the agreement between the F R E M P partners was the need for an annual public meeting and open house. The resulting situation was one of inconsistency where there might have been one year with several committees and workshops, followed by another with only one public workshop. This inconsistency proved very frustrating to the non-governmental participants who had a desire to remain involved on a continual basis. The need to change this situation was accentuated by one of the governmental representatives who espoused the need for consistency and described the current situation as: "I think that it's a lot better than just going out to the general public and saying: 'Hey, how are you? This is what we did this year. What should we do next year?" (6) Comprehensive  and Effective Procedural Framework:  Conclusions  There were not any procedural ground rules laid out for the CI process as a whole, but several of the committees developed their own as needed (for example, a media policy). The committee structure of F R E M P ' s approach to estuary management proved to be one of the most valuable constructs within the CI process. These committees were appreciated by the participants and allowed for true interaction among both non-governmental and governmental participants as they addressed the complex issues at hand. In contrast, the workshops and open houses were seen to be ineffective since they were perceived to be informational rather than inclusive and often led to conflict between the governmental and non-governmental participants. Many of the participants referred to the workshops as a "waste of time". The scheduling of the various meetings during business hours, which conflicted with the nongovernmental participants work schedule, hindered their participation in the planning process. The frequency of the workshops and committees was also frustrating for the non-governmental participants since their infrequent scheduling did not mesh well with the public's ongoing desire for citizen involvement in the planning process. Recommendations for future CI processes: 18. A proposed set of ground rules for the CI process should be presented to the participants. These should not be binding but rather should provide an example so that they may establish their own ground rules as appropriate.  50  19. F R E M P should continue to allow the governmental and non-governmental participants to interact and make decisions in small committees. Large workshops do not allow for a two-way flow of information and can lead to frustration for the participants. 20. F R E M P should be conscious of the participants' time constraints when scheduling meetings. When possible, these meetings should be scheduled outside of regular business hours. 10.  Structured and Integrative Decision Making Framework  All participants are involved meaningfully in decision-making. Complexity of substantive issues is managed by providing structure to the decision process. Explicit decision criteria are used to clarify decisions, bound discretion, and monitor and evaluate decisions. Joint fact-finding, wherein all participants jointly determine, gather, and share information relevant to decisions, is used to promote cooperative and productive problem-solving. Creative approaches to promote effective problem-solving and teamwork are utilized. The process is comprehensive and integrative to promote decisions rooted in the social, economic, and environmental principles of sustainability. All participants involved meaningfully. To understand the meaningfulness of F R E M P ' s approach to CI requires an understanding of the difference between the committees and the workshops in the overall decision making process. A s previously discussed in Section One, the committees are one of the key decision forums where stakeholders gather around pressing problems in the estuary and formulate solutions to address these problems. The workshops, conversely, are largely informational where by the committees may gather information needed for their decision making processes, as well as share results with the members of the general public. A study of the make up of the workshops and committees from 1985-1998 reveals some interesting trends that have implications for whether the non-governmental participants were indeed involved in a meaningful and effective manner. The trends in the committees and workshops from 1985 to 1998 include: • A relatively constant level of involvement of governmental participants in F R E M P ' s committees and workshops with a steady and substantial increase in the number of nongovernmental participants; • A significant decrease in the number of committees throughout this period with a concomitant increase in the number of workshops; and • A s a result of the interaction of these trends, a significant growth of the number of nongovernmental participants in the workshops with a continual decline in their participation in F R E M P ' s committees. These data are presented in Figures 3.3 through 3.6.  51  g Governmental • No n-Go vnnma nta I  I—  Figure 3.2: Affiliation of F R E M P Committee and Workshop Participants (1985-1998)  ! Q Number of Committees [ gNumberolWorkshops  LJ Figure 3.3: Number of F R E M P Committees and Workshops (1985-1998)  Figure 3.4: Number of Non-Governmental Participants in F R E M P Committees and Workshops (1985-1998)  52  The implications of these trends for the meaningful involvement of non-governmental interests are significant and many of the participants commented on their resulting frustrations. Although the decision making process for the management of the estuary was stated to be based on "shared decision making", "strong partnerships with the public", and "consensus", both the governmental and non-governmental participants in the process spoke of a different experience. A s the process progressed, there was a general move towards increased tokenism for nongovernmental participants. The non-governmental interests were increasingly involved in workshops (Arnstein's levels of "informing" and "placation") and decreasingly involved in committees ("partnership" sometimes "delegated power"). Numerous non-governmental participants expressed their continued frustration with the marginalisation that evolved from the limited opportunity for involvement through F R E M P ' s workshops (E1,E2,E3,P1,ln1). One of the non-governmental participants expressed their frustration in continually being "consulted without any influence" in these workshops when they said: It's not that you want to change the perception, it's that you have to change the decision-makers. You would have to actually build some kind of advisory group that includes stakeholders such as working fishers and environmental groups. I have consultation gridlock, I don't go to F R E M P ' s consultations anymore. They are put on just to try to keep me out of mischief while decisions are being made elsewhere. (E2) The non-governmental participants were not alone in noticing this movement towards tokenism as several of the governmental participants expressed their dissatisfaction over this trend. Several members of the F R E M P staff (F1 ,F2,F3) felt a strong commitment to CI but thought that the workshops did little in providing any influence from the citizens in the E M P process. One of these staff members remarked: " F R E M P itself would be receptive to CI, but historically [citizens] have been left out of the loop. W e give lipservice to it so we say 'public input was sought on the E M P ' or something like that, but it was just a workshop or some public information session." (F2) The shortcomings of the workshops and the general movement towards tokenism were also perceived by other governmental participants (F1 and G1). One of the F R E M P staff suggested that the workshops were little more than an opportunity for the partner agencies to garner support for the E M P , without actually incorporating any input from the citizens. The participant commented: If you think of F R E M P as a planning agency, like putting together the E M P , there was a lot more of an attempt made to include not just government groups, but members from all of those different groups. However in the end, those [nongovernmental] groups were invited to submit input, but it was the partners that approved the E M P and that went around trying to get others to endorse it. (F1) Another of the governmental participants also thought that it may be the case that the process was moved away from true citizen involvement and towards tokenism in saying that: "I haven't seen anything to suggest they want community involvement. Maybe a small token gesture, it seems to be a pretty much "closed boys club"." (G1) Means of structuring decision  making.  The structure of the decision making framework in F R E M P is just as complex as the structure of the organisation itself, which greatly complicated the decision making process in the eyes of the participants. Since F R E M P is based on a linked-management approach, it is little more than a loosely knit organisation with each of the partners maintaining their own policies and legislated decision making power. The result is a decision making structure where it appears that there are great opportunities for flexibility and change but the reality is that the participants were faced with a complex web of legislation that limited the potential range of solutions. One of the governmental  53  representatives sums this problem up quite succinctly when they said that: " S o the legislation stays, but some of the public believe that if they come in and sit on certain committees, they can make changes, but the agencies can't do that either." (G1) The complexity of F R E M P ' s decision space and the lack of a structured approach to dealing with this complexity inevitably led to great confusion among the non-governmental participants. This confusion left many of the non-governmental participants wondering if F R E M P indeed had any power or if their efforts would be better spent in working with the agencies themselves. A participant from the E N G O community suggested: "I think that F R E M P has far too high of a budget for the effectiveness of what they have done. I don't know what they are doing that D F O could not just put some other people in and they could do approvals. F R E M P doesn't do a thing." (E2) Means of promoting effective problem  solving  Several of the participants noted that the frequent boat tours of the estuary to be very beneficial to the process. The participants saw the excursions tours as a great opportunity to learn more about the issues since the tours were guided by experts from the partner organisations (for example, biologists from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks). They also provided an opportunity to break down some of the barriers among the governmental and non-governmental participants in a neutral, fun environment. One of the participants (In3) disagreed with the utility of the boat tours though since the individual often left even more confused about the role and ability of individual citizens in F R E M P . Use of local knowledge and joint fact finding. The main route for incorporating local knowledge into the group decision making processes was through the non-governmental participants. Many of these participants were representatives of long standing E N G O s in the community, who had an incredible capacity to generate local knowledge from their members, and the participants readily offered this information to the process. Several of the participants (E2 and E3) expressed concern however that these data were not taken seriously by some of the governmental representatives. Structured and Integrated Decision Making Framework: Conclusions There was a general movement towards tokenism for the non-governmental participants in the management of the estuary from 1985-1998. This trend resulted from fewer opportunities to participate in the committees where decisions were being made regarding the future of the estuary and more instances of public workshops, which were perceived to be a one-way flow of information from F R E M P . This sentiment was acknowledged by the non-governmental and governmental participants alike. The decision making processes in the management of the estuary were complicated by the overlapping policies and legislation of the partner agencies. This complexity generated confusion among the non-governmental participants who were never quite certain where the actual decision making power resided within F R E M P . The process would have been much more productive had there been a clear, structured means of decision making. The boat tours with expert guides in the estuary provided a team building and group learning exercise for the participants and were greatly appreciated for their ability to break down the barriers between the governmental and non-governmental participants. The estuary management process did incorporate some local knowledge, which was largely provided by the E N G O community and their respective representatives who participated in F R E M P . There was a concern among the non-governmental participants however that the governmental participants did not fully recognize the validity of the data.  54  Recommendations  for future CI  processes:  21. F R E M P should maximize opportunities of shared decision making and deliberation with participants while minimising the presentation of information to the group. 22. The participants must be made aware of the influence of their input on the decision in order to ensure that there is not a perception of tokenism. In instances where the citizen's input is not incorporated into the decision, there should be written explanation of the discrepancy. 23. F R E M P needs to coordinate the policies of its partner agencies to ensure that the participants are fully knowledgeable of the decision making powers and processes within the organisation. 24. Governmental representatives and agency staff should be trained on the collection and analysis of data. This will ensure that they are prepared to incorporate any local data that is presented by the participants into the decision making process.  Summary of the Recommendations for FREMP's Future CI Processes Criteria Support for Process 1. Participant support for process  2. Government support for process  Representation 3. Inclusive representation of interests  4. Effective representation of interests  Resources 5. Sufficient resources for participants  Recommendations 1. If consensus is deemed to be appropriate for the process, the same rules must be applied to all of the parties at the table. 2. While participation should remain voluntary, financial support should be given to those who do not have the resources to participate effectively in the process. 3. F R E M P must provide stronger policy support if a CI process is to succeed. While S D M processes may not be legislated in the Province, F R E M P still needs to make it a priority for the organisation and should fund it accordingly. Resources will need to be allocated from staff time as well and this must be considered in the planning of the CI process. 4. All participants and staff who are involved in the CI process should have adequate training in communicating within the group and to the public at large. If F R E M P cannot provide this training, then the organisation should provide a dedicated communications person for the process. 5. Given resource constraints, F R E M P should strive to keep the number of participants at a reasonable level. It is more appropriate to give full support to small numbers than vice versa. 6. F R E M P must recognize the importance of continuity to the process and should dedicate the same staff to the process on a consistent basis. 7. Communication is absolutely mandatory for effective representation. F R E M P ' s future CI initiatives should involve a training component for participants on expressing their interest, communicating with their constituency or agency, and effective listening. 8. Participants need to be trained in the relevant issues, legislation and the decision making processes of the agencies before they can be effective participants. F R E M P must budget for  55  6. Effective process management  Process Design 7. Clear terms of reference and realistic scope  8. Participatory design  9. Comprehensive and effective procedural framework  10. Structured and integrative decision making framework  this training when planning future CI process. 9. F R E M P needs to have a firm commitment to actively providing the citizens with the information that they require in order to participate. This information needs to be not only "available" but "accessible" as well. Accessibility implies both the ease of obtaining the information, as well as making sure that the information is presented in a manner that is understandable to the participants. 10. The CI process should be made as quick and efficient as possible in order to avoid stakeholder burnout. This does not imply however that quality should be sacrificed for speed. 11. F R E M P should develop a comprehensive plan to guide the CI process rather than adopt an ad hoc approach. This will ensure consistency of process for the participants. 12. F R E M P should hire a dedicated process manager for their CI activities. This is a large undertaking and effective coordination is very important to the success of the process. 13. Facilitators should be available to the process whenever they are needed. 14. F R E M P must clarify the roles and responsibilities of all of the participants (governmental and non-governmental) before the process begins to ensure that everyone is aware of their commitments. 15. The boundaries of the study area should remain flexible so as to encompass any processes or knowledge that need to be considered within the evolving process. 16. The process manager should ensure that the timeline for the CI process is reasonable and well understood by all of the participants. 17. All of the participants should be involved in the design of the CI process in order to ensure that it meets the needs of all of the parties at the table. 18. A proposed set of ground rules for the CI process should be presented to the participants. These should not be binding but rather should provide an example so that they may establish their own ground rules as appropriate. 19. F R E M P should continue to allow the governmental and nongovernmental participants to interact and make decisions in small committees. Large workshops do not allow for a two-way flow of information and can lead to frustration for the participants. 20. F R E M P should be conscious of the participants' time constraints when scheduling meetings. When possible, these meetings should be scheduled outside of regular business hours. 21. F R E M P should maximize opportunities of shared decision making and deliberation with participants while minimising the presentation of information to the group. 22. The participants must be made aware of the influence of their input on the decision in order to ensure that there is not a perception of tokenism. In instances where the citizen's input is not incorporated into the decision, there should be written explanation of the discrepancy. 23. F R E M P needs to coordinate the policies of its partner agencies to ensure that the participants are fully knowledgeable of the decision making powers and processes within the organisation.  56  24. Governmental representatives and agency staff should be trained on the collection and analysis of data. This will ensure that they are prepared to incorporate any local data that is presented by the participants into the decision making process. Table 3.2: Summary of Recommendations.  57  Section Four: The "Product" of Citizen Involvement in FREMP While the previous section explored F R E M P ' s experience with CI in the management of the Fraser River estuary from a "process" perspective, the purpose of this section is to present the larger dynamic that was created by this process. The "product" of this process is largely characterised by conflict between the non-governmental interests and F R E M P . While each of the dynamic linkages will be further explored on an individual basis, it is important to maintain an understanding of the cohesive whole in order to grasp a true understanding of the complex dynamic between the non-governmental interests and F R E M P . These relationships are depicted in Figure 4.1.  Program Rigidity (FREMP)  Poor Process Design (FREMP)  Resistance to Change (FREMP)  Selective Involvement (FREMP)  Frustration from lack of influence (N.G.I.)  Poor Communication (FREMP)  Lack of Feedback (FREMP)  Figure 4.1: The outcome of FREMP's CI process in the management acronym "N.G.I." refers to non-governmental interests.  58  High Expectations (N.G.I.) of the estuary. The  The Outcome: Conflict The principal product that arose from F R E M P ' s attempt to involve non-governmental interests in the management of the Fraser River estuary was conflict. This conflict resulted from general hostility between the non-governmental participants in the estuary management process and F R E M P , rather than specifically between any given individuals. The conflict often came to an apex at the annual workshops where the non-governmental participants expressed their great frustration with the overall management process. The manifestation of this conflict is expressed in two key ways: The loss of F R E M P ' s credibility in the eyes of the citizens, and the loss of trust in their ability to balance environmental and economic concerns in the estuary. The completion of the estuary management planning process and the movement towards the implementation of the plan created a great rift in the relationship between the F R E M P and the non-governmental interests who participated in the process. There was a general perception that because F R E M P was a mere partnership of various organisations, that it in effect was incapable of delivering a new approach to managing the Fraser River estuary. The citizens openly began to question the utility of F R E M P and wondered whether the decision making context was better before the existence of the program, when the participants knew exactly how to deal with the issues that arose in the estuary. One of the participants who was interviewed for this project summarized this perception in saying: "I think that F R E M P has far too high of a budget for the effectiveness of what they have done. I don't know what they are doing that D F O could not just put some other people in and they could do approvals. F R E M P doesn't do a thing." (E2) One of the other participants hypothesized that F R E M P sensed this hostility and began a process of public relations to "save face". The participant commented: I think F R E M P has become very entrenched and they do quite a lot of publicity and think that that's the way to solve their problems, but I don't think that's true. I think they could be doing more really to preserve the river than they are. Of course when you get all that publicity, the whole world thinks F R E M P is wonderful. A s a whole I still don't see them as really making that much of a difference. (E4) Indeed, F R E M P ' s effectiveness as an organisation and their utility for the management of the estuary was being brought to question in the eyes of the past non-governmental participants. In addition to the loss of credibility, F R E M P ' s approach to CI in estuary management produced feelings of serious mistrust of F R E M P , most notably for those with a strong concern for the environmental conditions of the estuary. While it can potentially be argued that environmental groups are never satisfied with the state of ecological preservation, the same people who were initially attracted to F R E M P for its sustainability focus (balancing ecology, economy and society) became convinced that F R E M P had become pro-development. This led to immense conflict and general distrust about the underlying motives of the organisation. One of the participants, who had previously expressed an interest in F R E M P ' s "living, working river approach", commented: "The general feeling I get, and I know a lot of people in [the environmental community], is extreme worry about the estuary. F R E M P is much more to do with allowing development than protecting the river, and we feel the main thing should be to protect the river." (E3) Other participants were much more emphatic and emotional about their mistrust for F R E M P . One of the more vocal past participants asserted: So the way that F R E M P is perceived in the communities that I work in, both environmental and fisheries, is fast tracking for the developers. So that is their mandate as far as I can make it out. Government trying to make it as easy as possible for them to ignore the red zones as much as possible, push it as far as possible. If they can't develop in red zones, at least in yellow zones. It would be preferably in red zones so that they can do some irrelevant mitigation project somewhere else. (E1) Although F R E M P openly espoused a sustainability approach to managing the estuary, many of the past participants regarded the cumulative impact of their decisions as less  59  than sustainable. They saw F R E M P as being pro-development and a significant distrust of the organisation evolved.  Selective Involvement in the Estuary Management Process The conflict between the citizens and F R E M P largely arises from the dynamics of two high-level processes: These include the citizen's perceived lack of influence on the decision making processes in the management of the estuary, and the inconsistent and selective involvement of the citizens on the part of F R E M P . The first issue that contributed to the selective involvement of citizens in the decision making process resulted from the legislative and multi-agency approach taken by F R E M P . Although this process was beneficial for the coordination of decision making among the various partner agencies in F R E M P , the intricate web of legislation and agency mandates presented only limited flexibility and opportunity for citizen involvement in the decision making process. Even when citizen involvement was possible in a given decision, the proposed solutions generally did not neatly fit into any given piece of legislation or agency mandate, which effectively increased the level of frustration among the participants. A member of the F R E M P staff noted: I think that ever since that time, [non-governmental participants] have wanted direct access to how the decisions are made and the agencies have traded that off with what their mandate allows them to do. Around here, you hear a lot from the agency representatives that, 'my legislative mandate requires me to...I'm responsible for making such and such a decision...' and they feel that they are not allowed to give that up to someone else. From the outside looking in, I'm sure that it looks like government is not willing to let in people who want to make policy change. (F3) The opportunities for involvement were thus limited by the very nature of F R E M P itself, a collection of agencies with coordinated mandates and power. A s with the legislation and mandate limitations, the design of F R E M P ' s CI process led to limited involvement in the decision making process and increased the level of conflict between F R E M P and the non-governmental interests. The problems with this design arose from two factors: The perceived intent of the sponsor, in this case F R E M P , and the sequence with which the tools for CI (namely the committees, workshops, and opportunities for input into the Coordinated Project Review) were applied. The first factor affecting the design of CI process and contributing to the creation of conflict relates to the non-governmental participants' perception of the F R E M P ' s intent in engaging them in the estuary management process. At the outset of the process (during the planning stage), F R E M P ' s documentation alludes to solid partnerships with the public in a context of shared, consensual decision making for the management of the estuary. While it can be argued that this language was conceived at the inception of the program and was meant to be more philosophical than operational, the message to the non-governmental interests was that a new relationship was being forged between their concerns and the coordinated governmental decision making processes embodied in F R E M P . Whether intentional or not, F R E M P portrayed itself as intending to create a process of shared decision making with non-governmental interests in the management of the estuary and conflict arose F R E M P ' s true intentions became clear. 15  The second element of design in F R E M P ' s approach to CI that caused conflict was the sequence and duration of the tools for citizen involvement. The CI process was designed and implemented in such a manner that it gave inconsistent glimpses of higher levels of power sharing to the nongovernmental participants, while more generally leaving them in a context of tokenism or placation. At the heart of this dynamic was the significant difference between the committees and the workshops/open houses, and the frequency with which they occurred. A s mentioned earlier in 1 5  Please refer to Section Two for a more thorough examination of F R E M P ' s language.  60  this project, the committees were the mechanism for substantial decision making in F R E M P . The workshops, in contrast, were largely informational sessions with a one-way flow of information from F R E M P to the citizens. A s the estuary management process progressed over the years, opportunities for CI in the committees decreased while the number of workshops and open houses increased. By 1998, there was only one committee, a handful of open houses . The only means of providing input into the management of the estuary was through the Coordinated Project Review (CPR), which provided only limited opportunity to comment on specific proposals, rather than to formulate policy or plans. In essence, the tools employed in the process began with those that offered great opportunities for input, deliberation and impacts on the decision making process (the workshops) and progressed over time to tools such as the workshops and the C P R , which provided little opportunity for input into F R E M P ' s decision making. The net effect was that the citizens were engaged in higher levels of power sharing early in the process, and fairly rapidly disengaged as the committees were replaced with more limited opportunities for effective CI during the later stages of the estuary management process. In essence, the citizens participated initially at levels that began to hint at shared decision making (Arnstein's partnership and sometimes placation levels; Thomas' unitary public consultation and sometimes segmented public consultation) only to be later subjected to autocratic decision making (largely within Arnstein's informing, consultation and placation stages; and Thomas' manageriaLdecision, modified autonomous and segmented public consultation stages). This situation was exacerbated by the language employed earlier by F R E M P which implied that their intention was to create a higher level of power sharing and shared decision making with the nongovernmental interests. This process is depicted in Table 4.1.  Arnstein's Ladder  : Thomas' Approach :  Citizen Control  Public  Delegated Power Partnership Placation  Consultation  Informing  Degrees of Decision Citizen Power <;< Unitary Public | Consultation | Segmented Public Consultation Degrees of Tokenism v> Modified _ ! Autonomous ~ | Managerial | Decision  Concentration of Power  FREMP  Shared Decision  FREMP's Language/ NGIs Expectations  Making  ;  $ |  FREMP's Committees  |  FREMP's other Activities*  | f  Autocratic Decision Making  Therapy f Autonomous |> ti Managerial M a n a n e r i a l >S Nonparticipation .Decision » Table 4.1: The location of F R E M P ' s activities within the proposed conceptual framework. ( T h e s e include activities such as workshops and annual open houses). Manipulation  The final factor that created limited opportunities for involvement in F R E M P came from the organisation's resistance to change and adapt from its original form at the program's inception. The initial idea for F R E M P was a group of government agencies that could coordinate their interest and decision making in the estuary through a coordinating organisation. A s F R E M P evolved and they attempted to meet both the challenges of sustainability and live up to the legacy  61  of participation created in F R E S , there was an increase in the citizen's demand for involvement and F R E M P generally responded positively. The interviews conducted within the scope of this project revealed however, that this decision for increased CI in F R E M P was not unanimous and that there was significant resistance to change. One of the F R E M P staff commented: We should stick to the original goals. A s I said, the original mandate was to get government to work better together with better communication, coordination and improved consultation...that would be a major shift. I don't think that agencies are going to be keen to give up any major decision-making power. I'm not sure that they should necessarily. (F1) This philosophy was even more pronounced in another governmental participant who felt that since citizens elected a government and its concomitant policies in a democratic environment, they should step back and let democracy take its course. This individual asserts: The agencies have to be really willing to give up something. In the past, we've sort of said, 'well, should we open it up? W e could get this or that but...' and that's why you have to be careful when you pick the issues. There are some issues that you cannot involve the public. I mean the public just has no business there. You elected the government; the government sets the laws, and just because you don't like the law does not mean that you can change it. (G1) Thus, like the poor process design and legislative barriers, the resistance to transforming the original governmental focus of F R E M P contributed to only selective opportunities for CI in the management of the Fraser River estuary.  Citizen Frustration From Lack of Influence A parallel force to the selective involvement in F R E M P was the frustration that the nongovernmental interests felt from their perceived lack of influence in the decision making process. This process acted very much in concert with the F R E M P ' s selective involvement to produce increased conflict between these interests and F R E M P . A s the opportunities for involvement became more limited and their scope became more of tokenism, the non-governmental participants became increasingly frustrated and hostile to the organisation. The non-governmental interests' frustration from a perceived lack of influence came from a number of factors. One of the key elements that led to this dissatisfaction and eventual conflict was the high expectations that F R E M P created for CI through the rhetoric that the organisation espoused in the basic principles of the E M P process, as well as from the expectations created by the Fraser River Estuary Study. One of the F R E M P staff recognized this dynamic and lamented: " F R E S created expectations about community involvement that F R E M P has never been able to fulfill. I don't think that you could really say by any standard that we have been successful." (F3) The citizens eventually came to recognize that their expectations were out of line with the reality of F R E M P ' s decision making process and conflict developed. The citizens heightened expectation for CI in the E M P process was compounded by poor communication and a lack of feedback, which inevitably resulted in increased frustration for the non-governmental participants. First, F R E M P was not very effective in communicating opportunities for involvement where the citizen's influence could truly be felt. Second, when one of these opportunities had indeed occurred in the estuary management process, F R E M P was poor at providing feedback to the citizens that their input had had an impact on the decision. A participant in the process noted: "I guess that the other thing is reporting back. If a decision is made with public input, it is really important to report back to the community so that they can understand how a decision is made. If a point of input was solicited, it is important to let people know that they have been heard." (P2) This frustration was confirmed by one of the participants from the E N G O community who asserted: "I would go to a consultation or advisory committee if I were given some kind of assurance that it is going to be decision-making there, not elsewhere. They have to show that they are doing something." (E2) The lack of feedback and poor communication between F R E M P and the non-governmental interests thus contributed to the non-  62  governmental participant's frustration with their perceived lack of influence and contributed to the evolution of conflict in their relationship with F R E M P .  Summary The product of F R E M P ' s foray into CI in its S D M process for the management of the Fraser River estuary has been a significant degree of conflict between F R E M P and the non-governmental interests who participated in the process. This conflict came to fruition through a gradual decline in opportunities for effective citizen involvement and shared decision making in the management of the estuary, which eventually culminated in a context of tokenism and placation. Several of the causes for the decreasing opportunities for CI in F R E M P included the rigidity of the program, the poor design of the CI process, and a general resistance to change within F R E M P . These factors led to selective involvement in the decision making processes. The selective involvement on the part of F R E M P inevitably led to even more conflict as the nongovernmental interests became frustrated with their perceived lack of influence in the decision making process. This frustration was compounded by numerous promises for increased CI that heightened the non-governmental interests' expectations for involvement in F R E M P , and a general lack of feedback and poor communication of the instances where the participants had had an influence on the management process. All of these elements interacted to produce an overall dynamic of conflict between the nongovernmental interests and F R E M P that has had a deleterious effect on the organization's credibility, their perceived integrity, their power to affect change, as well as their ongoing ability to manage the Fraser River estuary.  63  Section Five: C o n c l u s i o n s and Recommendations The Fraser River Estuary Management Program ( F R E M P ) evolved from the Fraser River Estuary Study ( F R E S ) in 1985 with the noble and ambitious task of coordinating decision making among the multiple levels and jurisdictions of government within the estuary. The advent of F R E M P coincided nicely with two forces that were rapidly changing the face of governance in C a n a d a : the first was the holistic approach to human development embodied in sustainability. The second force was the widespread experimentation with citizen involvement (CI) in decision making realms that were normally attributed to government. The nascent program was highly influenced by these philosophies and actively sought to coordinate not only government decision making, but also to involve non-governmental interests in powerful partnerships for decision making in the quest for sustainable development in the Fraser River estuary. When the time came to produce an Estuary Management Plan (EMP), F R E M P put its philosophy to work and involved hundreds of governmental and non-governmental participants in various workshops, committees and open houses with the intention of the creating and implementing the plan. Although the intentions of F R E M P were to create an E M P in an inclusive manner, interviews with both the non-governmental and governmental participants, as well as a review of the documents produced throughout the process, illustrate that their CI process had many shortcomings relating to the support for the process, the representation of interests, the resources for participants, and the design of the process itself. The "product" of this "process" was a non- . governmental community who increasingly questioned the integrity and credibility of F R E M P , as well as their power to actually implement the E M P . The conflict between the non-governmental participants and F R E M P was largely driven by a number of dynamics that centred around the limited opportunities for involvement at the shared decision making level of CI, and the non-governmental participant's rapidly increasing frustration from their perceived lack.of influence on the decision making process at F R E M P . This dynamic operated throughout the process in much the same way a s a revolving door: The nongovernmental interests were given brief glimpses of movement towards shared decision making in the management of the estuary, but were also continuously blocked from entering the process by autocratic decision making.and tokenism. The resulting conflict remains between F R E M P and the non-governmental interests to this day, which is making the actual implementation of the E M P difficult. Clearly, F R E M P must assess their past approach to CI and determine a new policy direction for their interactions with the public at large.  Proposed Policy Directions Although the literature presented in this project has illustrated a spectrum of CI, F R E M P must take a more consistent position on the spectrum in order to minimise the conflict that arises from the high expectations and disappointment inherent to an inconsistent approach. With this in mind, there are three principal policies that F R E M P should consider adopting for their present and future CI activities in decision making processes. Each of these is a discrete policy direction but may in fact take various forms in its actual implementation. Every one of these possible directions also has consequences, which need to be carefully considered. Policy Direction A: "Retreat from CI Altogether" One possible policy direction for CI in F R E M P is to retreat altogether from citizen involvement in decision making. This policy direction would require a reconsideration of the current CI activities in F R E M P and a retreat to the basic premise that F R E M P is merely a coordination program for collaborative decision making among governmental agencies only. This option would not necessarily alleviate the conflict with the non-governmental interests who are still interested in participating in the program, but would provide a high degree of clarity and honesty to the limited role of these interests and their influence (or lack thereof) in the decision making process.  64  Policy Direction B: "Maintain the Status Quo" A second policy option is to maintain the existing approach to CI in F R E M P ' s decision making process. While this approach would not alleviate the conflict that has developed over the years, it would not require any further investment of resources in the CI activities and would remain within the "comfort zone" of the agencies and bureaucracies in F R E M P that are highly resistant to change. The key consequence of maintaining the status quo is that the continued conflict with the non-governmental interests will inevitably make it more difficult to implement the E M P in light of their poor image in the eyes of these groups. Policy Direction C: "Build Upon the Lessons From the Past" The final policy direction available to F R E M P is to completely revisit their CI approach with a keen eye to the mistakes and successes of the past. This approach must take into account the recommendations contained in Section Three of this project and will require a significant alteration to the level of resources and priority given to citizen involvement in F R E M P . The transition will be met with great resistance from many of the partner agencies in the program but the potential benefits of actually achieving "active partnerships in shared decision making in the estuary" with the non-governmental interests is a definite step towards sustainability in the region. The commitment of the agencies to this renovation of policy and the level of political support needed for this transition will be great, but the potential advantages for F R E M P ' s future are significant.  Limitations of this Project There are several limitations that need to be considered when reading this project. First, this project is a mere snapshot in time (1985-1998) of F R E M P ' s CI activities in management of the estuary. The program's approach to engaging non-governmental interests has continued to evolve since 1998 and these dynamics fall outside of the scope of this project. Second, the project is largely based on the thoughts, experiences and opinions of fifteen individuals who come from diverse backgrounds and affiliations, but who have participated extensively in the F R E M P ' s CI process. A larger sample size of interviews would help to broaden the range of experiences and potential for innovative future approaches to CI in F R E M P . In addition, the open nature of the interview questions made it difficult to compare the various opinions of the individuals within the governmental and non-governmental categories. While this open nature provided a great diversity of opinions, a firmly structured approach to questioning could better highlight any discrepancies within the categories. Finally, as noted earlier in the project, the evaluation of CI processes is a very difficult task. While this project has attempted to examine F R E M P ' s CI activities from both a "process" and "product" approach, the limitation inherent to this approach is similar to taking Echinacea for an impending cold: How do you know how bad (or good) things would have been otherwise?  Suggested Areas for Further Research There are several areas that require further study. These include: • Research into the most appropriate form for future CI activities in F R E M P . For example, would an estuary citizen's advisory committee to which the management committee is accountable be. effective at improving the decision making process? This approach was suggested by many of the participants but it clearly needs further research. • A further research question relates to the effectiveness of the decision making process in F R E M P . Has citizen involvement improved the decisions that have taken place in the program over the years? Is this even measurable? • An additional area for potential investigation relates to the implementation of the E M P itself. How has the "product" of F R E M P ' s CI processes affected the current attempts to implement fifteen years of planning and decisions contained within the E M P ?  65  Finally, there is a need to further advance the art of evaluating citizen involvement. If CI processes are to be improved over time, their relative advantages and shortcomings must be better understood in order that we may learn from past experience and venture into new untested waters.  66  Bibliography Abbott, J . 1996.Sharing the City: Community Participation Earthscan Publications Ltd.  in Urban Management.  London, UK:  Arnstein, S.R. 1969."A Ladder of Citizen Participation". American Institute of Planners (July). 216-224.  Journal.  B.C.Ministry of Forests. 1981.Pi/Mc Involvement Handbook. Victoria, B C : Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Forests. B.C.Ministry of Environment and Environment Canada. 1980.An Implementation Strategy for the Fraser River Estuary Management Program. Victoria, B C : B.C. Ministry of Environment. Beresford, P. and S. Croft. 1993.Citizen Involvement: A Practical Guide for Change. London, UK: The MacMillan Press Ltd. BIEAP. 1996a.Burrard Inlet Environmental 31, 1996. Burnaby, B C : BIEAP.  Action Program Annual Report: April 1, 1995-March  BIEAP. 1996b."New Directions". Burrard News. North Vancouver, B C : BIEAP.(Spring 1996). 1-3. Boeren, A. 1992."Getting.Involved: Communication for Participatory Development". Development Journal. 27(3). 259-271.  Community  Boon C, and.D. Kinnoh. 1987.Pt/Mc Participation in Government Decision-Making: A Review of the Literature. Hull, P Q : Voluntary Action Directorate, Department of the State. Bregha, F.J. 1973. Public Participation of Culture and Recreation.  in Planning Policy and Programme. Toronto, O N : Ministry  Brenneis, K. and M. M'Gonigle. 1992."Public Participation: Components of the Process". Environments. 21(3). 5-11. Connor, ,D. \98l.Constructive Press.  Citizen Participation:  A Resource Book. Victoria, B C : Development  Dale, Ann. 1995: Multistakeholder Processes: Panacea or Window Dressing?. Department of Natural Resource Sciences: McGill University. DeKadt, E. 1982."Community Participation for Health: The C a s e of Latin America". World Development. Great Britain: Pergamon Press Ltd. 10(7). 573-584. Dodge, J . 1990."Living By Life: Some Bioregional Theory and Practice".Home! A Bioregional Reader.Gabriola Island, B C : New Society Publishers. Andruss V e , editors.p. 5-12. Dorcey, Anthony and Tim McDaniels. 2000. "Great Expectations, Mixed Results: Trends in Citizen Involvement in Canadian Environmental Governance". Paper prepared for S S H R C Environmental Trends Project, [http://www.interchg.ubc.ca/dorcey/tony/news.html] Duffy, D . M , M. Roseland and T. Gunton. 1996."A Preliminary Assessment of Shared DecisionMaking in Land Use and Natural Resource Planning". Environments. 23(2). 1-15. Duffy, D.M. et al. April 1998. "Improving the Shared Decision-Making Model: An Evaluation of Public Participation in Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) in British  67  Columbia". Paper prepared by the S F U Department of Geography and School of Resource and Environmental Management for Forest Renewal of British Columbia. [http://cwis.sfu.ca/cedc/research/other/duffy.htm] Fraser River Estuary Study. 1982.A Living River By The Door: A Proposed Management Program for the Fraser River Estuary. Surrey, B C : Fraser River Estuary Study. F R E M P . 1989. Third Annual Fraser River Estuary Workshop on Monitoring and Research. Westminster, B C : F R E M P . F R E M P . 1990.Proceedings of the FREMP  New  Habitat Workshop. New Westminster, B C : F R E M P .  F R E M P . -\992a.Annual Report: June 1, 1991-March 31, 1992. New Westminster, B C : F R E M P . F R E M P . 1992b. Summary of Activity Programs and Proposed Framework Westminster, B C : F R E M P .  for Action. New  F R E M P . 1993.Proceedings of the 1993 Workshop on Environmental Quality And Research & Inventory of Monitoring and Research for 1992/93. New Westminster, B C : F R E M P . F R E M P . 1994a. A Living Working River: An Estuary Management Westminster, B C : F R E M P . F R E M P . 1994b.Proceedings of the 1994 Seminar on Environmental Westminster, B C : F R E M P . F R E M P . 1995.Proceedings of the 1995 Habitat Management FREMP.  Plan for the Fraser River. New  Quality and Research.  New  Workshop. New Westminster, B C :  F R E M P . 1995. The Working River: Designing the Future. Burnaby, B C : F R E M P . F R E M P . 1996a. Annual Report, 1995-96. Burnaby, B C : F R E M P . F R E M P . 1996b.T/?e Fraser River Estuary: Environmental  Quality Report. Burnaby, B C : F R E M P .  F R E M P and BIEAP. 1996a. New Directions for BIEAP and FREMP: Panel Discussion Proceedings. Burnaby, B C : F R E M P  Public Input Session and  F R E M P and BIEAP. 1996b. Quay to Quay. Burnaby, B C : BIEAP and F R E M P . Friere, P. 1970.Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press. Myra Bergman Ramos (Trans.), editor. Glass, J . J . 1979."Citizen Participation in Planning: The Relationship Between Objectives and Techniques". APA Journal. (45). 180-189. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1993. Guidelines for Public Consultation and Advisory Committees. Burnaby, B C : Communications and Education Department, G V R D . Harvey, C et al. 1982.Fraser River Estuary Study-Phase BC: The Fraser River Estuary Study.  II.Results of Public Involvement. Surrey,  Kelly, R.A., and D. Alper. 1995. Transforming British Columbia's War in the Woods: An Assessment of the Vancouver Island Regional Negotiation Process of the Commission Resources and Environment. Victoria, B C : UVic Institute for Dispute Resolution.  68  on  Kennett, K. and M. McPhee. 1988. The Fraser River Estuary: An Overview of Changing Conditions. New Westminster, B C : F R E M P . Lambertson, G.K. 1987/4 Guide to the Coordinated BC: F R E M P .  Project Review Process. New Westminster,  Moughtin, C. , T. Shalaby and H. McClintock. 1992.IV/70 Needs Development? Planning with the Poor in Third World Countries. Nottingham: Institute of Planning Studies, University of Nottingham. Paranteau, R. 1988.Public Participation in Environmental of Supply and Services Canada.  Decision-Making.  Ottawa, O N : Minister  Rahman, MA. 1995."Participatory Development: Toward Liberation or Co-optation?".Community Empowerment: A Reader in Community Participation and Development. London: Zed Books Ltd. Craig G , Mayo M, editors. Rohse, M and K. Ross. 1992.How to Put the People in Planning. Salem, O R : Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Sanders, IT. 1970."The Concept of Community Development".Community Development Pracess.Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Cary L J , editors.  as a  Schaftan, C. 1996."Debate: The Community Development Dilemma: What is Really Empowering?". Community Development Journal. 31(3). 260-264. Sewell W.R.D. and S.D. Phillips. 1979."Models for the Evaluation of Public Participation Programmes". Natural Resources Journal. (19) 337-358. Shaull, R. 1970."Foreward".Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  New York: The Seabury Press.  Skinner, S. 1997.Building Community Strengths: A Resource Book on Capacity Building. London, UK: Community Development Foundation Publications. Smith, H.H. 1993.The Citizen's Guide to Planning. Chicago.IL: American Planning Association. 3rd ed. Smith, L G . 1982."Alternative Mechanisms For Public Participation in Environmental PolicyMaking". Environments. 14(3). 21-24. Strauss, A. and J . Corbin. 1990.Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory and Techniques. London, UK: Sage Publications.  Procedures  Sutton, W.A. 1970."The Concept and Context of Community Development".Community Development as a Process.Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Cary L J , editors. The Sustainability Ventures Group and E V S Consultants Ltd. 1996.Environmental Quality of the Fraser River Estuary and Burrard Inlet: Abstracts and Discussion Summaries of a Technical Seminar. Burnaby, B C : BIEAP and F R E M P . Thomas, J . C . 1995.Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.  69  Appendix I: Interview Questions I.  In g e n e r a l , in what a r e a s a r e y o u involved in public involvement activities? V o l u n t e e r ?  II. H o w long h a v e y o u lived on or a r o u n d the F r a s e r river e s t u a r y ? III. W h a t activities a r e y o u presently e n g a g e d in relating to the m a n a g e m e n t of the e s t u a r y ? W h a t activities in the p a s t ? IV. W h a t s p a w n e d your interest in the future of the e s t u a r y ? V . W h a t w a s your first contact with F R E M P ? W h e n ? VI. T o what extent h a v e y o u participated in a n y activities at F R E M P ? In w h a t c a p a c i t y ? VII. W h a t did y o u like about your e x p e r i e n c e a s a participant in the p r o g r a m ? VIII. W h a t barriers, if any, did y o u e n c o u n t e r in y o u r e x p e r i e n c e a s a m e m b e r of the community w h o is interested in participating in F R E M P activities? IX. W h a t g o a l s or ambitions d o y o u think a m e m b e r of the community h a s w h e n they a p p r o a c h F R E M P to v o l u n t e e r ? X . W h a t d o y o u p e r c e i v e the m a n d a t e of F R E M P to b e ? XI. D o y o u think that the c o m m u n i t y ' s g o a l s a r e c o m p a t i b l e with the m a n d a t e of F R E M P ? If not, what could be d o n e to r e c o n c i l e the t w o ? XII. H o w would y o u d e s c r i b e the t y p e s of i s s u e s that a r e e n c o u n t e r e d in t h e m a n a g e m e n t of the F r a s e r river estuary a n d its s u r r o u n d i n g s ? XIII. W h i c h form of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g d o y o u feel is best for a d d r e s s i n g t h e s e i s s u e s ? XIV. W h e r e d o y o u p e r c e i v e the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p o w e r to reside within F R E M P ? X V . W h o d o y o u s e e a s the key p l a y e r s in the m a n a g e m e n t of the e s t u a r y ? X V I . W h o d o y o u feel h a s b e e n e x c l u d e d from t h e m a n a g e m e n t of the e s t u a r y ? XVII. H o w would y o u c h a r a c t e r i z e the relationships a m o n g the v a r i o u s interests within the community at l a r g e ? XVIII. If p r o b l e m s arise a m o n g the interests, d o y o u u s e F R E M P a s a forum to s o l v e them or d o y o u s o l v e them a m o n g y o u r s e l v e s ? X I X . H o w d o y o u feel about s o m e interests h a v i n g more opportunity for i n v o v l e m e n t or more a c c e s s to the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s ? X X . W h a t d o y o u s e e a s the a d v a n t a g e s of involving the community in F R E M P activities? W h a t d o y o u s e e a s the d i s a d v a n t a g e s ?  70  XXI. If the community were more involved in making decisions at FREMP, what effect do you think this would have on the mandate and effectiveness of the program? XXII. How do you envision the role of the community in decision-making processes at FREMP (for example, in the Environmental Review Process)? What about the ideal role? XXIII. How would you describe FREMP's policy of community involvement? XXIV. In general, do you feel that FREMP has been successful in involving the community in the management of the Fraser river estuary? Why or why not? XXV. What modifications could be made to FREMP toallow more community participation in the program? Questions for people on ERC or management committee: How does the decision-making process work in practise? What happens if consensus cannot be reached? How are disputes resolved? Do you feel this approach to decision-making works well? What could be improved? Is there an ideal approach?  71  Appendix II: Workshop Composition and Description Phase I Workshops (1985-1990) Workshop on Monitoring and Research™ This workshop was presented by the Standing Committee on the Fraser River Estuary Water Quality Plan in order to "review new environmental information and foster communication between scientists actively working in the estuary, resident industry, government agencies and environmental interest groups". ( F R E M P , 1989, p.ii) The workshop was held on February 21 and 22, 1989 and involved seventy-five participants. In terms of community representation, there were individuals affiliated with municipal and regional government (12), provincial government (7), federal government (25), environmental and community groups (4), industry (8), academics (8), consultants (9) and those who did not claim affiliation (2). On the basis of these figures, there was 59% representation by government and 4 1 % by non-governmental groups in this workshop. FREMP Habitat Workshop * A habitat workshop was held on June 27 and 28, 1990 with the objective "to identify and discuss perceived deficiencies in habitat research and to recommend possible solutions. The workshop consisted of 21 individuals who briefly presented their research into habitat in the estuary, followed by a discussion period of nine issues. The participants in the workshop represented provincial government (2), federal government (9), port and harbour agencies (1), F R E M P (1), environmental and community groups (1), academics (4) and consultants (3). The relative representation in this workshop between government and non-government groups was 6 7 % and 33% respectively.  Phase II Workshops (1991-1994) Water and Land Use Workshop In April and June 1993, the Water and Land Use Committee held two workshops to invite public comment on the proposed Estuary Management Plan. The acknowledgements simply state that: "Draft versions of the Estuary Management Plan were reviewed at two successive workshops with representatives from several interest groups and those government agencies not represented on the Water and Land Use Committee". ( F R E M P , 1995, p.iv) These individuals included representatives from municipal and regional government (2), provincial government (2), F R E M P (2), Fraser Basin Management Program (2), environmental and community groups (9), industry (13), academics (2), consultants (2) and unaffiliated individuals (5). Of the thirty-nine people at these workshops, 2 1 % were affiliated with government and the remaining 79% were from non-governmental groups.  7993 FREMP Workshop on Environmental Quality and Research On February 23, 1993 F R E M P hosted a workshop on environmental quality and research in New Westminster, B C . The purpose of the workshop was to provide a current update of the research and monitoring activities occurring in and around the F R E M P management area. The workshop was largely technical in nature and brought together scientists from many fields to determine the level of pollution in the Lower Fraser River. The workshop proceedings record representatives from municipal and regional government (14), provincial government (6), federal government (29), port and harbour agencies (1), environmental and community groups (2), industry (1), academics (14), consultants (18), and unaffiliated individuals (22). T h e r e was 4 7 % government representation and 53% non-governmental representation in the one hundred and seven person registrant list.  This is the Third Annual Workshop on Monitoring and Research. There were unfortunately no proceedings for the two preceding workshops so their membership composition is unavailable.  1 6  72  1994 Seminar on Environmental Quality and Research The 1994 Seminar on Environmental Quality and Research was held on February 15, 1994 to continue the practise of communicating research and monitoring around the F R E M P area. The workshop attracted sixty-seven participants from municipal and regional government (12), provincial government (7), federal government (18), port and harbour agencies (1), Fraser Basin Management Program (1), environmental and community groups (2), industry (5), academics (4), consultants (12), and unaffiliated individuals (5). These participants represented both government (58%) and non-governmental groups (42%).  Phase 11+ Workshops (1994-1998) Environmental Quality of the Fraser River Estuary and Burrard Inlet Technical Seminar This technical seminar was jointly hosted by both B I E A P and F R E M P on November 5 and 6, 1996 in New Westminster, B C . The proceedings state that: "The seminar focused on contaminants in the Fraser River Estuary and Burrard Inlet. It consisted on presentations made by individuals in government and academia on key findings from the F R E M P monitoring program, studies completed through the BIEAP program, and other monitoring and assessment activities being conducted in the estuary and inlet external to B I E A P / F R E M P " . (The Sustainability Ventures Group and E V S Consultants, 1997, p i ) The technical workshop was attended by representatives of municipal and regional government (18), provincial government (8), federal government (35), port and harbour agencies (8), Fraser Basin Management Program (1), first nations (1), environmental and community groups (17), industry (11), academics (10), consultants (43), and unaffiliated individuals (3). Of the one hundred and fifty-five people who attended, 4 5 % were from government and 5 5 % were from non-governmental groups. 1995 Habitat Management Workshop On February 23 and 24, 1995, F R E M P and the Fraser River Action Plan (DFO) held a workshop in New Westminster entitled, Evaluating A Decade of Habitat Management in the Lower Fraser. The purpose of the workshop was to review habitat management activities in the F R E M P management area over the past decade and to develop recommendations for integrating policies and programs; improving habitat management tools; setting research, monitoring and information priorities for habitat management; and improving assessment, inspection and enforcement activities.(Quadra Planning Consultants, 1995, p.91) There were one hundred and four registrants at the workshop with representation from municipal and regional government (12), provincial government (16), federal government (34), port and harbour agencies (5), environmental and community groups (9), industry (6), academics (14), consultants (2), and unaffiliated individuals (6). In general, 64% of the participants were from government while 36% were from non-governmental groups. New Directions for BIEAP/FREMP: A Public Input Session On March 14, 1996, members of community groups and the general public were invited to a joint meeting with BIEAP and F R E M P to discuss the future of community involvement in the programs. There were a series of panellists who discussed their perceptions of public involvement in BIEAP, F R E M P , and in various American examples. This panel was followed by a question period and finally a brainstorming session for the community to offer suggestions on improving the programs. While a participant list was unavailable, a member of the F R E M P staff estimated that there was representation from provincial government (1), F R E M P (3), environmental and community groups (20) and unaffiliated individuals (6). Of the approximately thirty individuals who attended the workshop, virtually 100% were from non-governmental organizations. The Working River: Designing the Future F R E M P held a workshop for water dependent industries on November 27, 1997 in Vancouver to discuss "nodal development for water-dependent industries and to gather industry input on how to implement nodes". ( F R E M P 1998, p.1) The workshop revealed that there is continued support for this approach to industrial development. There were thirty participants registered in the workshop who represented municipal and regional government (4), port and harbour agencies (4), Fraser  73  Basin Management Board (1), and industry (21). This resulted in a 30% representation of government and a 70% representation of non-governmental groups.  74  

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.831.1-0089711/manifest

Comment

Related Items