Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Tripping the traps and pitfalls of community-initiated conservation using good collaborative principles Walls, Timothy Stuart 2001

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2001-0603.pdf [ 12.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0090124.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0090124-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0090124-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0090124-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0090124-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0090124-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0090124-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0090124-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0090124.ris

Full Text

TRIPPING THE TRAPS AND PITFALLS OF COMMUNITY-INITIATED CONSERVATION USING GOOD COLLABORATIVE PRINCIPLES by TIMOTHY STUART WALLS B.A., Webster University, 1992 M.B.A., Webster University, 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 Regional Planning We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 2 001 ® Timothy Stuart Walls, 2 001  Authorisation In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e requirements f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n .  F a c u l t y o f Graduate S t u d i e s S c h o o l o f Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  ^ Oc-Toseg.  2oo]  Abstract T h i s thesis analyses a special f o r m o f land conservation, community-initiated conservation ( C I C ) . C I C is r o o t e d i n communities w o r k i n g to protect lands that they deem biologically or recreationally important. A c o m m u n i t y starts the C I C process, n o t government or conservation organisations. T o protect spaces, communities may l i n k w i t h governments for institutional r e c o g n i t i o n and management, o r the land and its management may remain i n the hands o f the c o m m u n i t y . Social research methods that place the author/researcher w i t i i i n the context o f his value system and the values o f the c o m m u n i t y studied form the cornerstone o f the thesis. O f the m a n y ways o f analysing C I C , this thesis utilises collaboration theory. T o apply collaboration theory to the C I C processes o n G a l i a n o , the thesis first sets the context: h o w land conservation i n B C is effected, followed by what makes C I C unique. Ultimately, the theory o n collaboration is c o m b i n e d w i t h C I C experiences to develop a framework o f analysis, w h i c h is then applied to two C I C processes o n G a l i a n o Island, B C and answers the f o l l o w i n g questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.  Is collaboration theory a relevant tool for evaluating CICs, particularly i f CICs are not "as collaborative" as other processes? Can C I C on Galiano Island, B C be considered collaborative? If C I C on Galiano is collaborative, to what extent was it collaborative i n a multistakeholder sense? H o w well did the citizens o f Galiano collaborate? H o w can collaboration theory strengthen CIC?  T h e research concludes that collaboration theory is a relevant t o o l to analyse C I C s , despite their limited inclusion o f potential public stakeholders suggested by other multistakeholder processes such as the B C R o u n d t a b l e o n the E n v i r o n m e n t a n d the E c o n o m y . C I C as practised o n G a l i a n o d i d n o t follow the ideal steps for collaboration according to collaboration theorists; however, the groups d i d ultimately conserve land. T h e consequences are a continued contentious atmosphere o n the Island, reluctance by all parties to enter other collaborative efforts a n d mistrust w i t i i i n the c o m m u n i t y . Finally, the thesis r e c o m m e n d s actions for other C I C s i n B C based o n the experiences o f the G a l i a n o processes. These recommendations are categorised under the headings: the collaborative process, stakeholders a n d stakeholder interactions a n d the larger context o f the C I C process.  ii  Table of Contents Abstract T a b l e o f Contents L i s t o f Tables L i s t o f Figures L i s t o f Plates List o f Acronyms Acknowledgement Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 1: Introduction Conservation Collaboration Theory G o a l Statement Research Questions Methodology O u t l i n e o f Future Chapters Chapter 2: A Path in the Woods Chapter 2: A P a t h i n the W o o d s T h e Researcher T h e Interpretive P a r a d i g m T h e Strategy o f Inquiry and M e t h o d o l o g y Interpretation o f the D a t a Chapter 3: The Compleat Hiker Chapter 3: T h e C o m p l e a t H i k e r H o w Areas are Protected i n B . C Government-initiated Processes Public-initiated Processes T h e Potential o f C I C  .'.  .,  C I C s ' U s e , Popularity and G r o w i n g Significance i n the U S L e a r n i n g from C o l l a b o r a t i o n T h e o r y W h y use collaboration theory? C o l l a b o r a t i o n T h e o r y A p p l i e d to N a t u r a l Resources P l a n n i n g and Management T h e five stages o f collaboration L e a r n i n g from C I C G r o u p s ' Experiences C o m b i n i n g the T w o : C o l l a b o r a t i o n T h e o r y and C I C E m p i r i c a l Literature Chapter 4: Pack Checklist Chapter 4: P a c k Checklist Antecedents  ii iii vi vii viii ix x 1 2 2 5 6 6 6 6 8 9 9 10 12 14 16 17 17 17 23 25 27 30 30 33 34 42 44 45 46 46  W h a t force(s) led to the collaboration a n d h o w m i g h t that force be characterised? 47 D i d the actors consider whether collaboration was the best m e t h o d for achieving land conservation? 48 W h a t was the general approach to the collaboration? P r o b l e m Setting  iii  49 49  D i d the collaborative identify and include all legitimate stakeholders?  50  W h a t are the characteristics o f the interactions between the self-interests and collective interests o f individual stakeholders? W h a t are the characteristics o f interactions between stakeholders?  50  D i d stakeholders maintain a core value set o f f limits to negotiation? W h a t was the c o m m o n p r o b l e m , and h o w was it identified? D i r e c t i o n Setting  52 52 54  D i d the group set an agenda that reflects all parties' interests? 54 D i d the group set g r o u n d rules, rules for decision-making, goals, subgroups a n d tasks together? 54 D i d participants discover c o m m o n l y held beliefs t h r o u g h discussion o f values, goals and interpretations o f the future? 55 D i d the collaborative jointly search for i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d was that i n f o r m a t i o n mutually examined? 56 W e r e adequate resources initially available to the C I C group? H o w were the necessary resources obtained? 56 Structuring 57 D i d the participants formalise the relationship? 57 H o w d i d geography between stakeholders affect the process? 58 Outcomes 58 W h a t was the agreement? 59 D i d the stakeholders consider the p r o b l e m solved? 59 W h a t d i d the stakeholders see as the impacts o f the process? 59 W h a t are the participants' personal reflections o n the process, and h o w d i d it change them? 60 Chapter 5: Using Trail Guides and Maps. 63 Chapter 5: U s i n g T r a i l G u i d e s and M a p s 64 Introduction 64 A Summary D e s c r i p t i o n o f G a l i a n o Island, B . C A Short H i s t o r y o f L a n d U s e C o n f l i c t o n G a l i a n o Island B o d e g a Ridge Timeline P e b b l e B e a c h Reserve Timeline O u t c o m e Issues Chapter 6: Hiking Chapter 6: H i k i n g  64 67 70 73 76 77 82 84 85  Antecedents  85  W h a t force(s) l e d to the collaboration and h o w might that force be characterised? 85 D i d the actors consider whether collaboration was the best m e t h o d for achieving land conservation? 88 W h a t was the general approach to the collaboration? P r o b l e m Setting  91 93  D i d the collaborative identify a n d include all legitimate stakeholders? 93 W h a t are the characteristics o f the interactions between the self-interests and collective interests o f individual stakeholders? W h a t are the characteristics o f interactions between stakeholders?  99  D i d stakeholders maintain a core value set o f f limits to negotiation?  iv  105  W h a t was the c o m m o n p r o b l e m , and h o w was it identified? D i r e c t i o n Setting D i d the group set an agenda that reflects all parties' interests?  108 Ill Ill  D i d the group set g r o u n d rules, rules for decision-making, goals, subgroups and tasks together? 113 D i d participants discover c o m m o n l y h e l d beliefs through discussion o f values, goals and interpretations o f the future? 116 W a s diere a joint search for i n f o r m a t i o n , and was that i n f o r m a t i o n mutually examined? 119 W e r e adequate resources initially available to the C I C group? H o w were the necessary resources obtained? 122 Structuring '. 127 D i d the participants formalise the relationship? 127 H o w d i d geography between stakeholders affect the process? 128 Outcomes 130 W h a t was the agreement? 130 D i d the stakeholders consider the p r o b l e m solved? 132 W h a t d i d the stakeholders see as the impacts o f the process? 134 W h a t are the participants' personal reflections o n the process, and h o w d i d it change you? 138 Conclusion 140 Chapter 7: Reflections 145 Chapter 7: Reflections 146 Summary o f C o n c l u s i o n s 146 Recommendations 152 T h e Collaborative Process 153 Stakeholders and Stakeholder Interactions 155 T h e Larger C o n t e x t 158 R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for F u r t h e r Study 160 C o n c l u d i n g Remarks 161 Bibliography .164 A p p e n d i x 1. M a p s  172  v  List of Tables T a b l e 1. L a n d T e n u r e i n B . C . , 2001 T a b l e 2. Types o f C o n v e n o r s T a b l e 3. A P a c k Checklist  18 36 60  T a b l e 4. C o n t e x t Surrounding L a n d U s e and L a n d Conservation o n G a l i a n o Island T a b l e 5. T h e Process to Protect B o d e g a Ridge T a b l e 6. C o n s e r v i n g Pebble B e a c h  68 74 78  vi  List of Figures Figure 1. G u l f Islands  List of Plates Plate 1. E m i l y Cart: Potlatch Welcome  xi  Plate 2. T i m Walls: End of the Path to Pebble Beach Plate Plate Plate Plate  3. 4. 5. 6.  Caspar D a v i d F r i e d r i c h : Riesenbirge E m i l y Carr: Untitled. Caspar D a v i d F r i e d r i c h : Eisenbaum Charles M . Russell: Lewis and Clark on the Lower Columbia River  Plate 7. T i m Walls: Waves on Pebble Beach Plate 8. T i m Walls: Bicycle at the Head of Pebble Beach Trails Plate 9. T i m Walls: Ridgeline on Galiano Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate  10. E m i l y Carr: Arbutus Tree 11. B e r k e Breathed: Burrito 12. K e v i n O k e : The Spectacular View from Bodega Ridge 13. T i m Walls: Signage at Pebble Beach 14. T i m Walls: EookingAlong Pebble Beach 15. B i l l Watterson: Worth Fighting? 16. T i m Walls: From the Trail to Pebble Beach 17. T i m Walls: Viewfrom Montague Provincial Park 18. T i m Walls: View of Montague Provincial Park 19. T i m Walls: View of North Galiano from Pebble Beach 20. T i m Walls: View of Coast Mountains from Pebble Beach 21. T i m Walls: Sunsetfrom Montague Provincial Park 22. E m i l y Carr: Masset Bears  vi i i  1 3 8 12 16 29 45 53 63 67 71 76 78 83 84 93 Ill 126 130 145 163  List of Acronyms B C R T E E = B C R o u n d T a b l e o n the E n v i r o n m e n t and the E c o n o m y C B E P = Community-Based Environmental Protection C C A = Clear C u t Alternatives C I C = Community-Initiated Conservation C O R E = C o m m i s s i o n O n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t D L - District L o t E N G O = E n v i r o n m e n t a l N o n - G o v e r n m e n t a l Organisation E P A = U S (Federal) E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y F L U C = Forest L a n d U s e C o m m i t t e e F O G = Friends O f G a l i a n o G C A = G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n G I F T = G a l i a n o Island Forest T r u s t I T F B = Islands T r u s t F u n d B o a r d L R M P = L a n d and Resource Management Plans L U C O = L a n d Use Coordination Office M B = MacMillan Bloedel M E L P = B C M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d s and Parks N C C = N a t u r e Conservancy Canada N G C A = N o r t h Galiano Community Association N G O = N o n - G o v e r n m e n t a l Organisation O C P = Official C o m m u n i t y P l a n P A S — Protected Areas Strategy P M H L = Pacific M a r i n e Heritage Legacy R P A T — R e g i o n a l Protected Areas T e a m T I E S = Turtle Island E a r t h Stewards  ix  Acknowledgement F o r all the help, encouragement, laughs, frustration and kicks i n the rear, I want to thank family, friends and m y advisors. I c o u l d not have done it w i t h o u t y o u . Y o u have lived this thesis w i t h me. T o the people o n G a l i a n o , w h o p r o v i d e d rides i n the one and only cab, subjected themselves to interviews, lent encouragement, spirit and determination, I extend a heartfelt thank y o u . Y o u have p r o v i d e d m o t i v a t i o n to m y w o r k b e y o n d the thesis and enriched m y education.  x  Plate 1. Emily Carr: Potlatch Welcome  Chapter 1: Introduction Plate 2. T i m Walls: End of the Path to Pebble Beach  (Walls, 2000)  1  I  Chapter 1: Introduction T h i s thesis focuses o n a particular type o f conservation i n B . C . , community-initiated conservation ( C I C ) . T o analyse C I C , the thesis builds u p o n the general theory o n collaborative processes and, m o r e specifically, the natural resources applications o f collaboration theory, to arrive at an analytic framework. W h i l e collaboration theory provides the structure o f the analysis, the analytic framework is further developed utilising the experiences o f C I C groups, enriching, elaborating a n d specifying the theory's application to C I C . T h e framework provides a series o f questions that guide interviews w i t h the participants i n t w o C I C processes o n G a l i a n o Island, B . C . T h e results o f the interviews w i t h key participants, as w e l l as file material, p r o v i d e the basis for analysis, interpretation a n d recommendations for i m p r o v i n g C I C processes i n B . C .  Conservation T h i s thesis looks i n t o a special k i n d o f l a n d conservation; however, leaving this term, conservation, o p e n to interpretation is to invite trouble. Since the latter half o f the 1 9  th  Century, the concepts o f conservation a n d protection have been bandied about as i f the " e c o p h i l o s o p h e r s " are playing verbal tennis (Sessions, 1992, 105-7). M y use o f the term follows the example o f M i c h a e l F r i e d m a n , w h o elaborates the ideas o f conservation biologist M i c h a e l Soule. F r i e d m a n uses the term ecosystem conservation, w h i c h "involves the preservation o f ecosystem wilderness: enough o f the l a n d area a n d functional components — the creatures a n d their habitat — to insure the continuation o f processes w h i c h have c o evolved over time" (Sessions, 1992, 107). F o r the purposes o f simplicity, the thesis w i l l use " c o n s e r v a t i o n " rather than ecosystem conservation. C o n s e r v a t i o n itself may be analysed according to its biological/ecological dimensions o r its social dimensions. C o n s e r v a t i o n has heretofore focused o n protecting specific species (Noss, 1998). A l t h o u g h species protection is important, scientists have since recognised that a conservation system focused exclusively o n a species is too narrow. F o r example, M a c A r t h u r a n d W i l s o n developed the theory o f island biogeography i n 1963, w h i c h suggests that extirpation o f large carnivores i n parks is the result o f a park system that is too small and fragmented to support large carnivores' habitat range a n d genetic diversity (Western, 1997, 175). M a c A r t h u r a n d W i l s o n ' s theory a n d other studies l e d to the development o f the field o f conservation biology, w h i c h stresses the importance o f protecting large tracts o f l a n d that are interconnected by habitat corridors a n d buffered f r o m intensive h u m a n use ( M a n n a n d P l u m m e r , 1993, 1868). A c c o r d i n g to A r n e Naess, a conservation biology-based system o f protected areas w o u l d i n v o l v e strict protection for nearly one third o f the ecosphere (land  2  and coastal marine), one third free nature (i.e. areas o f relatively sparse h u m a n habitation where natural processes are essentially still intact) and one third h u m a n development (Sessions, 1992, 117). Conservation biologists today stress the importance o f a multi-tiered system o f conservation planning (Noss, 1998) that may include: ecoregional conservation ( W o r l d Wildlife F u n d , 2001), conservation for large carnivores such as grizzly bears (The W i l d l a n d s Project, 2001), cumulative effects analysis ( D o b s o n , 2000), connectivity (The W i l d l a n d s Project, 2001), and local parks (Canadian Parks A n d Wilderness Society O t t a w a Valley Chapter, 2000). C o n s e r v a t i o n i n these multiple scales w i t h the above multiple objectives necessitates that planning and practice come " h o m e , " to o u r communities where we live and w o r k . T h i s type o f approach to conservation inside and outside o u r communities means that conservation planning must incorporate a social d i m e n s i o n . Conservation has changed w i t h the e n v i r o n m e n t a l and social movements through time. A s stated by W i l l i a m C r o n o n (1996), the concept o f " w i l d nature" (that nature w h i c h is i n its pristine, u n t o u c h e d state) was a social construct that evolved i n western, highly urbanised countries. Carrying that a bit further, Plate 3. Caspar David Friedrich: Riesenbirge  Maser states, " H o w we participate w i t h Nature i n creating our environment is a matter o f h o w we treat Nature and h o w Nature i n turn responds to the treatment received. It is not a matter o f management, because we can not manage Nature; we can only manage ourselves — our motives, thoughts, actions, and the things we introduce  (Friedrich, 2001)  into our environment" (Maser, 1999, 94-5). I n the early 2 0 Century, citizens th  o f the U S c o n c e i v e d o f the v is io n o f a "national park," or conserved land. O n e objective, i n some persons' eyes, for this v i s i o n o f parks was to set aside lands f r o m the rapid development and resource extraction i n the W e s t e r n U S for the purpose o f mamtaining w i l d nature. T h i s objective eventually became a c o n c e p t i o n o f w i l d nature as something untouched (in some cases Eden-like) by a "fallen" humanity. Therefore, conservation should seek to protect w i l d nature as something w h o l l y separate f r o m society ( C r o n o n , 1996, 85-6). T h e concept o f "national parks" was transplanted f r o m the richer countries to those "lessd e v e l o p e d " during the 1960-70s ( G h i m i r e and P i m b e r t , 1997, 8). H o w e v e r , the social  3  construction o f parks was neither understood, n o r accepted, by the communities and governments o f those less-developed nations ( G h i m i r e and P i m b e r t , 1997, 8). R u r a l indigenous communities c o u l d not identify w i t h a split between environment, something "out there," separate f r o m themselves, and society, something "here," daily experience and existence. E n v i r o n m e n t and nature were concepts rooted i n everyday life, inseparable f r o m their being. D e s p i t e the indigenous v i e w p o i n t prevalent i n less-developed countries, conservation organisations pressured governments to create national parks, w h i c h displaced people f r o m their homes. D u r i n g the 1980s, this t o p - d o w n approach to conservation was i n part rejected i n b o t h the developed and less-developed worlds ( G l i i m i r e and Pimbert, 1997, 8). Parallel to the rejection o f parks i m p o s e d o n landscapes and societies and the development o f conservation was a change i n the publics' role i n planning processes and policy development. T h r o u g h o u t the 1970s, p l a n n i n g and p u b l i c policy processes were undergoing a shift to greater p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t i n decision-making processes, as illustrated i n Sherry Arnstein's (1969) "ladder o f citizen participation." T h e m o v e to include stakeholders was a p r o d u c t o f increasing demands for p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t i n planning and a recognition that spending greater resources up front i n the p l a n n i n g process w o u l d lead to plans that achieve broader support during i m p l e m e n t a t i o n (Thomas, 1995, 1). E n v i r o n m e n t a l groups and scientists utilised p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t knowledge and grassroots activism experience to involve nearby communities i n conserving l a n d and water systems, creating an approach called " c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d conservation" (Western, 1997, 270). T h e basis for this approach was to g r o u n d natural protection i n society conscientiously and holistically, and to apply this approach i n a socio-economically equitable, multiethnic, gender sensitive and ethical fashion. T h u s , i n b o t h developed and less-developed countries, community-based conservation approached the process o f conservation by recognising the important role that communities play i n protection and management.  I n g r o u n d i n g conservation i n a holistic community,  W e s t e r n envisions conservation as something that is once again a part o f everyday life, part o f our conscience and part o f our creating an equitable society. M y objective is to explore h o w conservation m i g h t be brought h o m e by analysing communities that have seemingly adopted this " n e w " conscience o f conservation, through community-initiated conservation ( C I C ) . C I C is the ultimate e m b o d i m e n t o f c o m m u n i t y based conservation i n the hopeful v i s i o n o f D a v i d W e s t e r n (1997) and falls w i t h i n the multiple scales required by conservation biology. I n C I C processes, communities themselves w o r k toward conservation ends o f their o w n v o l i t i o n . T h e members o f the c o m m u n i t y c o m e together to protect spaces important to them, w i t h o u t governments or environmental groups to p r o d t h e m into action.  4  A s illustrated above, analysing C I C can flow i n two different directions, the biological c o m p o n e n t l o o k i n g at the structure and function o f ecosystems, or the sociological c o m p o n e n t l o o k i n g at the structure and function o f the process o f conservation i n society. T h i s thesis looks at the societal/process side o f C I C , using collaboration theory i n a pragmatic, strategic and self-reflexive manner.  Collaboration Theory Because the community-based conservation v i s i o n , and i n turn C I C , is holistic i n its perspective, any m e t h o d to analyse its sociological process should also be holistic. I n this way, collaboration theory is uniquely suited as an analytic tool. It views the entire collaborative process f r o m the preceding context to the impacts o f the process. C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory also looks at aspects o f the process that D a v i d Western views as important to conservation, such as equity (i.e. by p r o p o u n d i n g that processes should be inclusive o f all legitimate stakeholders). T h e usual application o f collaboration theory is to evaluate multistakeholder processes, such as the B . C . R o u n d T a b l e o n the E n v i r o n m e n t and the E c o n o m y ( B C R T E E ) evaluation by K o f i n a s and Griggs (1996). C I C processes are not always large multistakeholder processes. C I C s often act quickly and decisively to protect spaces w i t h less regard for w h o is i n v o l v e d or h o w the group goes about the process than large multistakeholder methods traditionally allow. O n l y a few essential stakeholders are i n c l u d e d i n the C I C process to achieve their conservation ends. I n such situations, the question arises: h o w collaborative (in a large multistakeholder process sense) must a C I C process be before it can be considered collaborative; and by extension, is collaboration theory an appropriate t o o l for analysis? T h i s question is one o f the objectives o f the thesis, to see whether collaborative theory is useful and insightful i n analysing C I C f r o m the sociological perspective. A n o t h e r key assumption o n w h i c h the thesis rests is that a g o o d collaborative process, one f o l l o w i n g the theory's principles, yields a better conservation result. Since this thesis is l o o k i n g at the sociological c o m p o n e n t o f C I C , not its biological component, it w i l l not to answer whether a better collaborative process w i l l enhance the structure and function o f ecosystems. T h e thesis' task is to deconstruct C I C , under the assumption that better conservation results f r o m a better collaboration process, ceterisperibus (i.e. all other variables remaining equal). T h i s assumption underlies the rest o f the thesis. C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory and those w h o have applied it p r o v i d e a relatively simple framework w i t h w h i c h to view and analyse case studies. T h e theory looks at the forces under w h i c h the collaborative forms; h o w the group determines the p r o b l e m that the process attempts to solve; defines the steps and necessary tasks; h o w the collaborative structures itself to achieve  5  its goal; and the outcomes o f the process. E a c h part is reviewed i n a methodical and temporal order, developing a list o f questions for the above "sections" o f the theory i n chronological order (starting w i t h antecedents and ending w i t h outcomes).  Goal Statement T h e goal o f this thesis is to analyse community-initiated conservation ( C I C ) efforts i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , through case studies o f two C I C efforts o n G a l i a n o Island. S u c h analysis w i l l lead to recommendations for strengthening C I C processes that may be employed by B C communities to conserve land.  Research Questions T h e questions the thesis seeks to answer are: 1.  Is collaboration theory a relevant tool for evaluating CICs, particularly i f CICs are not "as collaborative" as other processes? 2. Can C I C on Galiano Island, B C be considered collaborative? If C I C on Galiano is collaborative, to what extent was it collaborative in a multistakeholder sense? 3. H o w well did the citizens o f Galiano collaborate? 4. H o w can collaboration theory strengthen CIC?  Methodology T h e research i n this thesis is based primarily u p o n qualitative methodologies. Qualitative research involves five steps ( D e n z i n a n d L i n c o l n , 2000). T h e first step i n the process o f research is for the researcher to understand h i m / h e r - s e l f and develop ethical considerations for the research. S e c o n d , the researcher selects an interpretive paradigm that defines h o w the researcher approaches the study o f the p r o b l e m . T h i r d a strategy o f inquiry is designed. F o u r t h , the methodology, w h i c h is the way i n w h i c h the researcher researches the p r o b l e m (e.g. texts, interviews, case study, action research), is adopted a n d used to obtain data. Finally, the researcher interprets the data to p r o d u c e an outcome, i n this case a thesis. E a c h o f these ideas w i l l be explored i n A Path in the Woods, the next chapter.  Outline ofFuture Chapters F o l l o w i n g the Introduction, the thesis contains six m o r e chapters. A s outlined above, the second chapter, A Path in the Woods, walks the reader through the m e t h o d o l o g y and philosophy o f qualitative research applied i n this thesis, w h i c h is based i n qualitative research methods. T h e tiiird chapter, The Compleat Hiker, takes the first step i n creating an analytic framework for the research. It introduces land use p l a n n i n g i n the B . C . context, stepping through the overarching types o f conservation, as w e l l as the mechanics o f land conservation w i t h i n the  6  context o f levels o f government and land holdings. T h e n , the chapter moves o n to acquaint the reader w i t h community-initiated conservation ( C I C ) . T h e general theory o n collaboration, its application to natural resources p l a n n i n g and the experiences o f C I C groups are used later to analyse C I C ; therefore, the chapter seeks to i n f o r m the reader o f the key concepts o f collaborative processes and their evaluation. T h e next chapter, the Pack Checklist takes the f o r m o f questions and is arranged i n the temporal flow o f the process favoured by collaboration theorists: Antecedents, Problem Setting, Direction Setting, Structuring and Outcomes. T h e questions are descriptive a n d evaluative, designed to determine h o w w e l l the process o f collaboration proceeded. Analysis o f the cases follows these questions, w h i c h also provides the basis for the interview questions used i n interviews w i t h key participants i n the G a l i a n o Island case studies. Using Trail Guides and Maps introduces the reader to the contextual issues i n v o l v e d i n land use planning o n G a l i a n o Island, B . C . T h e chapter also outlines, i n timeline format, the processes that sought to protect B o d e g a Ridge and Pebble Beach. These timelines establish the t i m i n g o f events i n v o l v e d i n the collaboration, and their significance to collaborative processes. T h e Hiking chapter draws u p o n the i n f o r m a t i o n gleaned f r o m files a n d other media o n G a l i a n o and interviews w i t h the participants. Questions from the interviews are used to answer the analytical questions, w h o s e structure follows the Pack Checklist. Finally, the thesis concludes w i t h Reflections. T h i s chapter summarises the conclusions reached i n the Hiking chapter, then suggests actions and considerations for communities considering initiating a C I C project. T h e chapter reviews and answers the research questions. A t the end, the chapter posits a role for C I C s to play i n the larger conservation picture.  7  Chapter 2: A Path in the Woods  Plate 4. Emily Carr: Untitled  r  (Carr, 2001)  8  Chapter 2: A Path in the Woods T h e goal o f this chapter is to define a n d explain the research approach, w h i c h includes the following components: •  The Researcher  •  The Interpretive Paradigm  •  The Strategy of Inquiry  •  The Methodology  •  Interpretation o f the Data  The Researcher T h e qualitative researcher can not be r e m o v e d f r o m the study or research, but affects and is affected by it. T h i s concept o f affecting research is not new. N i e l s B o h r ' s 1921 Copenhagen interpretation o f W e r n e r Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle i n q u a n t u m mechanics asserts that the mere act o f observation acts o n the observed (Ferris, 1997, 256-8). T h e quantum observer, one w h o studies atomic a n d sub-atomic particles, must exist within the system o f observation i n order to discover anything i n the quantum realm. H o w e v e r , qualitative research does not stop there. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. Such researchers emphasize the value-laden nature o f inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress how [emphasis authors'] social experience is created and given meaning (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, 8). T h e relationship between researchers a n d that w h i c h they study i n D e n z i n and L i n c o l n ' s eyes is m o r e mtimate, b o r n out o f the researchers' values and b a c k g r o u n d as w e l l as their acts o f observation, a concept they call the interpretive paradigm. A c t i n g i n this realm o f intimate social constructs, a researcher must b e c o m e a sort o f philosopher, one aware o f the epistemological grounds o n w h i c h the mquiry rests (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998, 32). F o r me, this thesis reflects the conservation a n d environmental ethic developed from outdoor pursuits, m y education, and professional practice i n progressive business circles. Educationally speaking, I completed ninety-six hours o f engineering coursework followed by c o m p l e t i o n o f an undergraduate degree i n business aclministration and an M B A i n international business. A t first, I attempted to utilise these skills i n product development w i t h i n the o u t d o o r equipment industry. W h e n this endeavour failed, I started w o r k i n g as a manager i n an o u t d o o r equipment store. A s manager, I represented the store and a major equipment manufacturer (Patagonia, Inc.) at the annual meeting o f the Texas O r g a n i c C o t t o n M a r k e t i n g C o - o p . T h i s meeting catalysed a change i n m y view o f our relationship to the earth, w h i c h eventually led to m y application to the planning s c h o o l at the University o f  9  British C o l u m b i a , where I have completed m y coursework. T h e focus o f the thesis c o m p o n e n t o f the p l a n n i n g degree is played out i n the thesis' subject — a collaborative, grassroots approach to l a n d conservation. T h e focus reflects m y c o n v i c t i o n that conservation plays an important role i n finding ways o f living o n the planet that are strongly sustainable (i.e. maintain the earth's dynamic, natural systems i n perpetuity).  The Interpretive Paradigm W h i l e m u c h o f qualitative research is tied to the h u m a n / h u m a n , human/literature interactions w i t h i n the research, the researcher, by taking o n theoretical constructs, develops a certain v i e w o f the w o r l d , and the research follows. F o r example, i f a researcher adopts a gendered perspective, that researcher w i l l necessarily focus some part o f the research o n gender issues. I n this way, the researcher practices m i n d f u l inquiry (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998, 58). I n other w o r d s , the researcher is reflexive and learns f r o m the research at the same time as s h e / h e consciously searches for cause, m e a n i n g and interpretation. W h a t follows is qualitative research that is tied to a research methodology w h i c h is pragmatic, strategic and self-reflexive ( D e n z i n and L i n c o l n , 2000, 4). Qualitative research — and this thesis — is a process, something w h i c h takes place i n , and changes through, time; it becomes " a practice, not simply a way o f k n o w i n g " (Schwandt, 2000, 203). I n D e n z i n and L i n c o l n ' s w o r d s , qualitative research is a process i n w h i c h a gendered, multiculturally situated researcher approaches the world with a set o f ideas, a framework (theory, ontology) that specifies a set of questions (epistemology) that he or she then examines in specific ways (methodology, analysis). That is, the researcher collects empirical materials bearing on the question and then analyzes and writes about them. Every researcher speaks from within a distinct interpretive community that configures in its own special way, the multicultural gendered research act (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000, 18). T h i s thesis takes a constructivist paradigmatic perspective. Ontologically, constructivism is relativistic, meaning that the piece can not be understood except i n the context o f the w h o l e ( L i n c o l n and G u b a , 2000, 168). C I C can not be understood w i t h o u t a basic knowledge o f the larger conservation picture. T h e research reflects the local and specifically constructed realities, taking o n the views and values o f the persons i n v o l v e d : the researcher, advisors and participants. T h e literature review captures C I C w i t h i n a larger picture o f conservation i n B . C . and the influence o f U . S . C I C s . C o n s t r u c t i v i s m adopts a transactional/subjectivist epistemology ( L i n c o l n and G u b a , 2000, 168). T h e application o f theoretical principles to C I C comes through a rational argument that the researcher, advisors and participants feel justify its use. Furthermore, this  10  epistemological view means that dialogue between the researcher, the advisors, the participants a n d the literature reviewed drives the development o f the framework o f analysis and the case study analysis o f C I C events o n G a l i a n o . A constructivist methodology is hermeneutic and dialectic (Lincoln a n d G u b a , 2000, 168). C o n s t r u c t i v i s m seeks understanding o f the w o r l d a n d its contradictions through interpretations and an u n f o l d i n g o f the significance o f events drawn f r o m a n u m b e r o f sources. U n d e r s t a n d i n g C I C processes i n B . C . through the lens o f collaboration requires a t w o f o l d approach starting w i t h a review o f the literature o n collaboration theory and C I C s . T h e literature review is c o m b i n e d w i t h the C I C participant interviews i n order to reconstruct the reality o f what happened i n the cases t h r o u g h a convergence o f these multiple viewpoints. V a l u e - l a d e n constructions are included i n the analysis and i n f o r m what happened largely because constructivism is interested i n the recreation o f events through the eyes o f participants and observers o f the time. T h e convergence o f multiple viewpoints lends validity to the research ( L i n c o l n and G u b a , 2000, 178). M o r e specifically, validity is characterised critically by authenticity, transgression (debate a m o n g the participants, advisors a n d researcher), a n d an ethical relationship. Research is authentic i f it is fair to all i n v o l v e d i n the research, uses sound and critically reviewed theory, and causes the participants a n d others to act o r learn f r o m the research ( L i n c o l n and G u b a , 2000, 179-80). F r o m this perspective, validity is gained only i f it is questioned, fluid, partial and causes debate. I n other w o r d s , research gains validity w h e n the researcher w o r k s w i t h others, has difficulty w i t h concepts a n d is challenged by advisors, researchers or c o m m u n i t y members. Finally, validity is an ethical relationship between the researcher, the advisors and the participants i n the research. " T h e way i n w h i c h we k n o w is most assuredly tied up w i t h b o t h what we k n o w a n d our relationships with our research participants [all emphases authors']" ( L i n c o l n a n d G u b a , 2000, 182). E t h i c s plays out i n the h o w and what o f the research i n all aspects, f r o m voice to meeting places to reciprocity. A thesis must encompass each o f these principles before it can be considered valid.  11  Plate 5. Friedrich: FJsenbaum  (Friedrich, 2001)  The Strategy ofInquiry and Methodology A strategy o f inquiry connects the researcher — and h e r / h i s interpretive paradigm - to methods o f collecting and analysing empirical i n f o r m a t i o n ( D e n z i n and L i n c o l n , 2000, 371). T h e strategy for analysing C I C o n G a l i a n o Island is accomplished first through literature review o f material o n conservation, C I C s and collaboration. T h e literature review employs peer-reviewed journals, magazines and newspapers, and archival material f r o m the C I C processes o n G a l i a n o Island. T h e c u l m i n a t i o n o f this literature review is the development o f an analytic framework, a series o f questions based o n the insights gained from the literature ( Y i n , 1984, 20). B y studying two cases i n the same area, specifically the same island, the thesis benefits f r o m a multiple case perspective, lending m o r e weight to the analysis without having to separately research the b a c k g r o u n d material typically required for each case study. A case study is an in-depth, multifaceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, o f a single social p h e n o m e n o n . T h e study is c o n d u c t e d i n great detail and often relies o n the use o f several data sources (Feagin, 1991, 2). T h e thesis design blends two types o f case study, instrumental and collective. Instrumental cases are those used to provide insight into, or make generalisations about, a particular issue (Stake, 2000, 437). Collective case studies use several cases to foster better understanding and theorise about a larger set o f cases (Stake, 2000, 437). T h e cases i n this thesis are used to provide insight into C I C o n G a l i a n o  12  Island and to make generalisations about collaboration as an analytic t o o l for C I C s , even though a particular C I C may not be as collaborative as other processes. Case studies are a v a l i d and appropriate m e t h o d for studying C I C using collaboration, because the research questions o f this thesis are geared to the strengths o f case study methodology. Case studies g r o u n d the research i n natural settings close at hand; permit a holistic, c h r o n o l o g i c a l study o f c o m p l e x social networks, events and meanings; allow the researcher to examine continuity and change; and facilitate theoretical i n n o v a t i o n and generalisation (Feagin, et al., 1991, 6-7). P u t another way, "Case studies are particularly valuable w h e n the evaluation aims to capture individual differences or unique variations from one p r o g r a m setting to another, or f r o m one p r o g r a m experience to another" (Patton, 1987, 19), as d o the G a l i a n o C I C cases. T o p e r f o r m such case analyses, the analytic framework is applied as a series o f questions to guide interviews w i t h key participants i n each G a l i a n o C I C process (case) and review o f caserelated literature and archival material. T h e interview guide is used because interviewees were asked the same questions resulting i n increased compatibility between interviews; the data is complete for each interview; and it facilitates organisation and analysis o f the data (Patton, 1987, 117). T h e interviewees were chosen for their knowledge and participation i n the G a l i a n o C I C initiatives and were asked prescribed, though open-ended, questions. A d d i t i o n a l l y , interviewees were allowed to ask questions during the interview and w i l l be p r o v i d e d a c o p y o f the final report u p o n request. A g a i n , interviewees were selected o n the basis o f their willingness to participate i n the interview and their intimate knowledge as participants i n one o f the two C I C processes o n G a l i a n o Island, either B o d e g a Ridge or P e b b l e B e a c h . I n total, seven persons were interviewed for the thesis, four for B o d e g a Ridge, and three for Pebble B e a c h . F o r B o d e g a Ridge, two interviewees were lead members o f the B o d e g a Partners. A n o t h e r interviewee was a c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r and former President o f the N o r t h G a l i a n o C o m m u n i t y A s s o c i a t i o n ( N G C A ) . T h e final B o d e g a interviewee was one o f the lead members o f the G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n ( G C A ) . Because n o current employee o f the N a t u r e Conservancy Canada ( N C C ) was employed at the time o f this process, none was interviewed. F o r Pebble B e a c h , the first interviewee was a D i s t r i c t Manager for B C Parks and a participant i n the Pacific M a r i n e Heritage Legacy ( P M H L ) . T h e second w o r k s for Canada Parks and was a m e m b e r o f the P M H L board. T h e tiiird interviewee was a lead m e m b e r o f the G C A . Because n o current employee o f the N C C was employed at the time o f this process, none was interviewed. T h e Islands T r u s t F u n d B o a r d ( I T F B ) , the final participant group i n the Pebble B e a c h process, declined a request for an interview.  13  U s i n g multiple data sources is necessary, where the persons (and events) i n v o l v e d "are complex, a n d . . . changing; the m o r e methods we use to study them, the better our chances to gain some understanding o f h o w they construct their lives and the stories they tell us about t h e m " (Fontana and Frey, 2000, 668). M u l t i p l e interviews are used for each case, because interviews, "are not neutral tools o f data gathering, but active interactions between two (or more) people leading to negotiated, contextually-based results" (Fontana and Frey, 2000, 646). C o m p l e x i t y and negotiated reconstructions o f reality necessitate multiple data sources to satisfy the validity requirements. E m b e d d e d w i t h i n validity requirements is the n o t i o n that undertaking any f o r m o f research brings ethical questions into play. S o m e o f the most pressing questions arise i n "institutional" research w i t h the public, because o f legal liability and past manipulation by institutional actors, such as potentially deceptive psychological experiments by research psychologists. T h e University o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a requires that all research pass through an Ethical Review. T h i s thesis was a p p r o v e d o n its second request at the end o f N o v e m b e r 2000.  Interpretation of the Data Research m e t h o d o l o g y and the ethical review necessitate an approach to handling data: interview tapes, transcripts, contact i n f o r m a t i o n (e.g. names o f interviewees) and h o w the data is written into the thesis and referenced (Patton, 1987, 137). I contacted the G C A and other interviewees i n the research to ask for their consent to participate, maintaining the o p t i o n for their refusal at any time d u r i n g the research. U p o n their agreement to participate, individuals were contacted for an interview at a place and time o f their convenience. A l l interviewees signed an i n f o r m e d consent f o r m allowing and acknowledging their participation. T h e final report, this thesis, placed relevant transcript quotations into the analytic framework question structure for analysis. T h i s first analytic tactic is dependent u p o n the theoretical foundations o f the thesis, seeking to m a t c h patterns i n the interview answers that shed experiential light o n the theoretical inquiry into collaboration and C I C s ( Y i n , 1984, 100). A n o t h e r important aspect is the descriptive analysis that is built over time, through the archival material and discussion w i t h the participants ( Y i n , 1984, 101). H e r e , the analysis formulates an explanation o f the events i n the case, b u i l d i n g understanding and insight into the w h o l e o f the case based o n i n d i v i d u a l components ( Y i n , 1984, 107). Case description development furthers the constructivist nature o f the thesis, i n that the event reality is unravelled through a convergence o f multiple sources over time. T h e thesis captures b o t h the descriptive and theoretical elements i n the analysis.  14  Finally, the thesis develops conclusions based o n the interviews that answer the thesis research questions. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s based o n these conclusions suggest ways to solve the problems that arose i n the G a l i a n o case studies. O u t o f the conclusions and recommendations, the thesis proposes areas for further study.  15  Chapter 3: The Compleat Hiker  1  Plate 6. Charles M . Russell: Lewis and Clark on the Lower Columbia River  (Russell, 2001)  1  The above painting is used as historical representation of the early exploration of the Northwestern  US/Southwestern Canada in the 1800's and because the painter is from Saint Louis, Missouri (the author's birthplace). A n y inferences to race, politics or otherwise whether overt or covert are unintended. T h e spelling o f "Compleat" is a reference to the first flyfishing (one o f the author's passtimes) text written in O l d English, The Compleat Angler.  16  Chapter 3: The Compleat Hiker T h i s chapter introduces l a n d conservation i n B . C . , w i t h a focus o n C I C i n particular. T h e chapter further identifies the b u i l d i n g blocks o f the analysis, drawing u p o n the literature o n collaborative processes, the application o f collaboration theory to natural resources p l a n n i n g and the experiences o f C I C s i n the U S and Canada.  How Areas are Protected in B. C. I n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , p r o t e c t i o n o f land areas is accomplished through two means: initiatives by government, or by citizens.  Government-initiated Processes Before discussing the actual mechanisms that protect land areas i n B . C . , a discussion o f the web o f land holdings, levels o f government, and agents o f government is necessary.  Levels of Government There are three officially recognised levels o f government: federal, p r o v i n c i a l and local (which includes regional districts and municipalities). First N a t i o n s are recognised by the other three as h a v i n g a unique status, having specially recognised legal authority and responsibility outlined i n the Canadian Constitution, rulings o f the Supreme C o u r t o f Canada and adopted legislation and policy.  Land Holdings in B.C. B . C . is a unique case i n that 9 2 % o f the land base is C r o w n L a n d , o w n e d by either the P r o v i n c i a l or Federal government ( C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t , 2000, 4). A s o f 2001, 12.24% o f l a n d i n B . C . was under some f o r m o f protection, as s h o w n i n Table l . 2  Federal Crown Lands include defense lands, agency lands and Indian Reserve Lands. The recent passage of the Nis'ga Treat)' places 202,000 ha o f land in fee simple tide held by die Nis'ga. This land is a mix of Federal and Provincial Crown Lands and is not represented in this table. Land Area in <> is calculated based on percentages given on B C A L ' s website. 2  17  Table 1. Land Tenure in B.C., 2001 L a n d Status Category  Area (ha)  Percent  Total Land Area in B.C.  94,758,429  100.0  Total Federal Crown Lands in B.C.  <947,000>  1.0  Total B.C. Crown Lands Total Private Land in B.C. Total Protected Areas in B.C.  87,177,755  92.0  <4,740,000>  5.0  11,596,081  12.24  Sources: (Land Use Coordination Office, 2000; British Columbia Assets and Land Corporation, 2001)  Federal C r o w n L a n d includes l a n d o w n e d by Federal Agencies, defence lands, and Indian Reserve L a n d s . T h e Federal government also has delegated constitutional authority over navigable waters, fisheries and oceans and areas o f national or international significance, such as transportation. T h e P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a owns all lands i n B . C . , except those o w n e d by the Federal government, lands alienated to local governments and lands sold to private parties. T h e P r o v i n c e also has constitutional regulatory authority, particularly i n governing natural resources and the e n v i r o n m e n t (e.g. lands used for forestry). Private land embodies lands alienated to private individuals, corporations or municipalities. These lands are regulated t h r o u g h authority delegated to municipalities through the Municipal Act (which is being amended to become the B.C. Local Government Act), or legislation by other government agencies (e.g. the M i n i s t r y o f Forests' Forest Practices Code). First N a t i o n s L a n d s have unique status, because they impact and are i m p a c t e d by all levels o f government. Reserve L a n d s are quoted i n the C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t ( C O R E ) documents as Federal C r o w n L a n d s , because First N a t i o n s o w n the land but are stewarded by the Federal G o v e r n m e n t . First N a t i o n s have authority to regulate land use and development o n their lands. I n addition, the trend i n the last ten years has been for greater participation o f First N a t i o n s i n l a n d use planning i n B . C . Recent Supreme C o u r t o f Canada decisions, such as the Delgamuukw Decision, have established legal precedent for their participation, for admission o f o r a l history i n courts and for policy changes leading to co-management o f l a n d areas w i t h i n l a n d claims. Some First N a t i o n s are pursuing their land claims t h r o u g h the Treaty process, i n w h i c h the Federal and P r o v i n c i a l governments and First N a t i o n s are attempting to resolve l a n d ownership disputes and establish new relationships based o n trust, mutual respect and understanding. M a n y o f the First N a t i o n s that are not i n v o l v e d i n Treaty negotiations also have legally documented land claims. Essentially, a treaty w o u l d give First N a t i o n s greater autonomy i n l a n d governance and compensation for land lost f r o m E u r o p e a n settlement.  18  National Parks Canada's first national park, Banff, was created i n 1885. Instead o f preserving ecological systems, B a n f f was created for e c o n o m i c benefit, derived f r o m the hot springs and m i n i n g ( M c N a m e e , 1996, 40). O v e r the past century, cultural and environmental attitudes have changed. N o w , national parks are created for ecological or cultural heritage. Proposals for parks may be made to either M e m b e r s o f Parliament a n d / o r Cabinet Ministers. T o be considered for designation as a national park, Parks Canada outlines five criteria each site must m a t c h before it becomes a national park. T h e criteria are: 1.  Identify representative natural areas w i t h i n the chosen natural region. I n this step, areas are characterised using concepts such as ecological health, h o w they represent a particular ecosystem, species, its potential for restoration, naturalness (i.e. degree o f h u m a n impact), adjacency to other protected areas (thus fitting the c o r e / c o n n e c t o r theory f r o m conservation biology), etc (Octeau, 1999).  2.  Select the area f r o m the potential sites. Sites are selected by adding h o w representative the sites are based o n each characteristic and c o m p a r e d to one another (Octeau, 1999).  3.  Assess the feasibility to create a park i n the area. H e r e sites are further studied to determine the effects o f a park o n the h u m a n and biological resources i n the area. F o r example, the park s h o u l d n o t fragment habitat or species i n the area, n o r s h o u l d it encompass established, permanent communities (Octeau, 1999).  4.  Negotiate the new park w i t h the p r o v i n c e or territory. Because m o s t lands are o w n e d by P r o v i n c i a l or Territorial governments and private parties, the federal government must negotiate the purchase or expropriation o f land w i t h the landowners (Octeau, 1999).  5.  E s t a b l i s h the park through legislation (Octeau, 1999).. Currently, a N a t i o n a l Park may only be created through an A c t o f Parliament. A c c o r d i n g to Parks Canada, proposals to create national parks are enacted by an ' O r d e r i n C o u n c i l , ' subject to a p p r o v a l by b o t h houses o f Parliament (Parks Canada, 2000, 1,3). O r d e r i n C o u n c i l is achieved through Cabinet or Legislative action, signed by the G o v e r n o r G e n e r a l w h o is the Queen's representative.  F o r now, removal o f  lands or other changes to a N a t i o n a l P a r k still require an A c t o f Parliament. O n c e a park is established, the Canada Parks A g e n c y has regulatory p o w e r over uses, access, fees and permitting (Parks Canada, 2000).  19  Provincial Parks Parks planning and conservation were achieved through a number o f initiatives during the 1990s. These initiatives include the B C R o u n d t a b l e o n the E n v i r o n m e n t and the E c o n o m y ( B C R T E E ) , C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources a n d the E n v i r o n m e n t ( C O R E ) , L a n d and Resource Management Plans ( L R M P ) , the Parks and Wildernessfor the 90s project, the Old Growth Strategy and the Protected Areas Strategy (PAS). P r i o r to 1990, total l a n d area devoted to parks was 6.2 per cent (split 0.5% N a t i o n a l parks, and 5.7% P r o v i n c i a l parks), covering 5.8 m i l l i o n hectares ( C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t , 2000, 33). Identification and selection o f areas to become parks was a process largely left to science and government agencies, w i t h litde public participation (Octeau, 1999). Biologists and other experts judged what areas were significant i n terms o f habitat or representativeness and the government agencies followed up w i t h recommendations to Cabinet and the appropriate Legislature, w h o w o u l d then pass the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n through an O r d e r i n C o u n c i l . B C R T E E was established i n 1990 w i t h the mandate to generate ideas and consensus o n the achievement o f sustainability. C O R E was f o r m e d i n 1992 w i t h the mandate drawn f r o m B C R T E E and numerous other public i n v o l v e m e n t processes to develop a strategy for land use planning i n B . C . C O R E ' s objectives were to develop land use allocation and management objectives at the regional level. R e g i o n a l management plans designate specific land uses, decision-making and resource management o n smaller scales ( C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t , 2000, 4). These plans are typically developed and implemented by government agencies, inter-agency management committees or regional districts. G r o w i n g out o f C O R E , sub-regional plans, L R M P s , were developed to allocate land use w i t i i i n the larger C O R E picture. L R M P s focus primarily o n resource management decision m a k i n g at the sub-regional or timber supply area level. B o t h C O R E and L R M P s attempt to allocate use o f lands at their respective levels, w h i c h includes industrial activity (e.g. m i n i n g and forestry), m u n i c i p a l development and protected areas. L U C O is a government agency under M E L P , reporting to the D e p u t y M i n i s t e r , and was established i n 1994 to direct and oversee land use p l a n n i n g decisions w i t i i i n B . C . Finally, local, site or area level plans specify management regimes and controls to specific plots o f l a n d ( C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t , 2000, 4). Z o n i n g is an example o f a site-specific plan. A t this level, government agencies, interagency management committees, regional districts or municipalities develop and implement plans.  20  Specific protected areas p l a n n i n g started i n 1990 w i t h the Parks and Wilderness for the 90s project, w h i c h , identified parks and wilderness study areas for consideration under protected areas status. A t more than 100 public meetings, many groups and individuals throughout the province had the opportunity to discuss and endorse the goals and the potential study areas, and propose additional areas for study. (Commission on Resources and the Environment, 2000, 5). A t the same time, the O l d G r o w t h Strategy identified the importance o f o l d g r o w t h ecosystems and the need to protect them. B o t h o f these processes as w e l l as p u b l i c input into C O R E a n d other processes highlighted the need for a p r o v i n c i a l strategy o n protecting natural and cultural areas. T h e p r o v i n c e initiated a process, i n w h i c h the, "first stages i n the development o f a Protected A r e a s Strategy were laid out i n Towards a Protected Areas Strategy for B.C., released i n M a y 1992" ( C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources a n d the E n v i r o n m e n t , 2000, 4). T h e P A S was to identify and w o r k toward the protection o f terrestrial a n d marine natural and cultural spaces ( C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t , 2000, 4). T h e P A S w o u l d identify areas through various teams and interagency committees, but designation was still up to Cabinet. T h e P A S also identified a key goal o f protecting 1 2 % o f B . C . ' s land and marine base for protection b y the year 2000. E a c h o f these processes was either a l a n d use planning process i n itself or was to feed into such processes. O f each o f the initiatives, only the L a n d U s e C o - o r d i n a t i o n Office, w h i c h implements the sub-regional L R M P s , is still i n existence. T h e other agencies completed their mandates o r dissolved because o f political realities. A f t e r identification, actual designation o f parks is left to traditional mechanisms w i t h i n government described below. T h e B . C . M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t L a n d s and Parks ( M E L P ) creates a protected area or areas either through legislation o r an act o f the Cabinet. T h e Legislature and C a b i n e t are delegated p o w e r by the Parliament to make conservation decisions. H o w e v e r , an area achieves its official protection status through an ' O r d e r i n C o u n c i l , ' w h i c h means that the Lieutenant G o v e r n o r signs the a p p r o v e d legislation (i.e. legislation that receives a majority vote) or cabinet decision. O n c e signed, this designation is referred to as an action or order o f the Lieutenant G o v e r n o r i n C o u n c i l . A n y decision to create a protected area under either the P a r k A c t or the E c o l o g i c a l Reserve A c t must be signed by the Lieutenant G o v e r n o r before it can become law. M E L P receives its authority to manage l a n d and water resources as parks, through the P a r k A c t a n d E c o l o g i c a l Reserve A c t , by a delegated p o w e r o f Parliament. P r o v i n c i a l Parks are established w h e n ratified by an O r d e r i n C o u n c i l . T h e M i n i s t e r o f the B C M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d and Parks has the p o w e r to redefine boundaries,  21  expropriate, lease and accept gifts o f land. F u r t h e r m o r e , permits are granted or sold by the Minister, w h i c h allow for certain types o f resource extraction or grant certain interests. T h o s e interests, or allowances for extraction, are called uses or consumptive values. T h e difference between a use and a consumptive value is that a consumptive value explicitly takes away f r o m the park (e.g. agriculture) while uses take place w i t i i i n the park. B o t h impacts o n the park and uses determine the park's classification (A, B, C or Recreational Area).  F o r example, a Class A Park is one i n w h i c h resource extraction activities are  prohibited, w i t h some exceptions i n 1995 amendments to the Park Act (British C o l u m b i a Ministry o f E n v i r o n m e n t , 1999, 67). U n d e r the present system, parks are required by the Park A c t to receive a category rating {1-6) at the time o f their classification. H o w e v e r , i n practice, parks d o not usually receive a category rating; m o s t are assumed to fall under Category 6, w h i c h is a park w i t h t w o or m o r e purposes (British C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , 1999, 67). A t the time o f this writing, park classifications and categories are under review by M E L P . Lastly, the Lieutenant G o v e r n o r i n C o u n c i l under the P a r k A c t has the p o w e r to establish boundaries, classification and fees for use w h e n the park is created (The Queen's Press, 2000). I n general, the M i n i s t e r has the authority to issue permits and generally administer, m o n i t o r and maintain parks.  Ecological Reserves T h e E c o l o g i c a l Reserve A c t states that an area designated as an ecological reserve is not subject to disposition, w h i c h means that the use for w h i c h it was designated may not be sold or otherwise changed {Ecological Reserve Act, 2000, 2). Typically, ecological reserves have a higher conservation value than a park, meaning h u m a n uses and impacts are m o r e restricted than i n parks. E c o l o g i c a l reserves are established for ecological purposes, but may also be (Ecological Reserve Act, 2000, 2): ^ ^ ^ ^ >  A n area A n area A n area A n area A n area  suitable for scientific study or educational purposes, specific to the natural environment of representative ecosystems of representative ecosystems modified by humans to study ecosystem recovery where rare or endangered species or habitats may be preserved that contains unique biological, zoological or geological phenomena.  U s e , or consumptive values, are what set parks and ecological reserves apart. E c o l o g i c a l reserves are not o p e n for recreation or c o n s u m p t i o n , but they are open to non-consumptive or observational uses, outlined above. A n E c o l o g i c a l Reserve is established using the same m e t h o d as P r o v i n c i a l Parks, through an O r d e r i n C o u n c i l .  22  Municipal Parks M u n i c i p a l governments create parks; however, a typical m u n i c i p a l park's m a i n function is not to protect species, ecosystems or habitats. M u n i c i p a l parks are usually created for recreational use a n d scenic greenspace w i t h i n communities. U n d e r the Municipal Act, municipalities have a n u m b e r o f ways they can acquire land to create parks, such as the following sections. Subdivision o f land (§305.1), development cost sharing (§936 and 941), protection o f waterways (§725.1), protection o f trees (§708) and m u n i c i p a l forests (§306) are all ways that communities can acquire land for parks (The Queen's Press, 1996). T h e above sections o n protection o f trees and water a n d the section o n m u n i c i p a l forests are not often used for parks; however, they can aid i n protection o f land and establish greenways. Municipalities may use these sections o f the M u n i c i p a l A c t to set aside lands, although they may not actually designate the lands as parks, w h i c h leaves o p e n the o p t i o n for future development. T o designate land as a park requires that the municipality not register title for the land at the L a n d T i d e Office ( Y o u n g , 2001). F o r example, under § 3 0 5 . 1 , five percent o f lands being subdivided must be set aside for parks. O n c e the A p p r o v i n g Officer (agent o f the municipality, such as a planner) approves this subdivision plan, the municipality does not register title for that section o f land at the L a n d T i d e Office, m e a n i n g it can not be marketed. T h i s land i n essence becomes " C r o w n " i n function a n d is managed and controlled by the municipahty. M u n i c i p a l governments usually create greenspaces or parks w i t h high consumptive or recreation values, but this c o n c e p t i o n o f the role o f municipalities i n conservation is changing. S o m e m u n i c i p a l governments are recognising that their parks can contribute to large landscape conservation plans such as the A l g o n q u i n to A d i r o n d a c k s ( A 2 A ) C o n s e r v a t i o n Initiative (Canadian Parks A n d Wilderness Society O t t a w a Valley Chapter, 2000, 79). T h a t said, because m o s t m u n i c i p a l parks d o not focus o n ecological integrity, they are not included i n this study.  Public-initiated Processes Public-initiated processes are the second m e t h o d o f parks creation i n B . C . I n these processes, citizens or groups act to protect spaces that they feel are important, through activism, the courts, individual action o r collaboration. P r o t e c t i o n may result from l i n k i n g w i t h government or solely f r o m the actions o f individual citizens or citizen groups.  Linking with Government F o r an area to achieve institutional recognition, the citizens (i.e. groups or individuals) must at some p o i n t approach and act w i t h a Regional, P r o v i n c i a l or Federal government. Institutional recognition requires that citizens and government act i n partnership, because  23  governments w i l l only manage parks they institutionaHse. Because an O r d e r i n C o u n c i l or A c t o f Parliament are the only ways to establish the " p a r k " designation, a grassroots initiative w i l l have to take its p r o p o s a l before a Cabinet Minister, or to the P r o v i n c i a l or N a t i o n a l Legislatures, f o l l o w i n g the procedures outlined earlier.  Citizen Control and Management A process i n w h i c h citizens themselves design and i m p l e m e n t the process o f protecting an area is best described as citizen c o n t r o l and management. T o achieve durability, or lasting protection, citizen groups may turn to legal mechanisms to protect land, i n w h i c h they purchase rights to the l a n d i n question rather than paying a greater amount o f m o n e y for fee simple title. F o r example, for some groups i n the U . S . , "the only way to keep private land f r o m being developed is often to purchase it directly f r o m the landowner or acquire an easement" (Medberry, 1998, 1). Because m o s t l a n d i n B . C . is C r o w n land, citizens often must l o b b y government to protect land. H o w e v e r , citizens i n B C may use instruments similar to those used i n the U . S . to protect spaces that intersect private lands or are i n highly developed areas. Citizens have several options to establish legal protection for an area: conservation easements, l a n d trusts or purchases.  T h e legal term, 'conservation easement,' designates a charge against title, or deed, to a property w i t h the a i m to restrict use or development o n the land to further conservation goals (West Coast E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w , 2000). T h i s charge passes w i t h the title, or deed, to the land and is negotiated between the property o w n e r and a person or group. F o r example, a landowner w i t h fee simple title (full ownership rights) may grant an individual or group h e r / h i s rights to development or forfeit uses o f the land inconsistent w i t h the goals o f conservation (e.g. biological diversity, or the protection o f species or habitats). T h e owner receives compensation, usually monetary, for c o n c e d i n g certain rights o f use or development o f their property. T h a t the agreement passes w i t h title to the land is important. I f the o w n e r sells the property, dies, or passes title o n i n some other way, the easement still holds effect o n the property. T h e only instances i n w h i c h an easement c o u l d be invalidated are through a court ruling or by the i n d i v i d u a l or group that purchased the agreement relmquishing the right to the easement.  Management o f the easement is subject to negotiation between the landowner and the purchaser o f the easement, w i t h the stipulations and enforcement mechanisms i n c l u d e d i n the title to the property. T h e M u n i c i p a l i t y o f Q u a l i c u m B e a c h , B . C . has used conservation covenants (as easements are called i n B.C.) to create a greenways system that w i l l enhance the ecological (e.g. s a l m o n habitat) and tourism aspects o f the c o m m u n i t y (The Stewardship  24  Centre, 2001). T h e system connects parks, watersheds, p u b l i c and private lands i n an integrated n e t w o r k o f habitats to p r o m o t e its resort character. T o create a l a n d trust, a landowner grants specific rights to a property. Typically, a land is sold or donated to an individual or group, called the trustee, for a specific purpose negotiated into the trust agreement, specifically conservation o f species, habitat or ecosystems (The L a n d T r u s t A l l i a n c e , 2000). T h e trustee is responsible for mamtaining or managing the l a n d according to the agreement, w h i c h may specify m o n i t o r i n g and enforcement mechanisms. F o r example, the Sheepscot W e l l s p r i n g L a n d A l l i a n c e i n M a i n e serves as a p u b l i c l a n d trust to manage their properties as wildlife sanctuaries (George, 2000, 90). I n B . C . , the T u r d e Island E a r t h Stewards ( T I E S ) are w o r k i n g to accept 120ha o f land i n the K e t d e R i v e r Valley, near Westbridge, B . C . (Turde Island E a r t h Stewards, 2001). T I E S L  w i l l h o l d this l a n d w i t h conservation covenants i n perpetuity. Sometimes groups purchase l a n d outright. I n this case, they h o l d fee simple tide to the land and can manage it as private property so l o n g as these uses are consistent w i t h local bylaws, such as z o n i n g and O f f i c i a l C o m m u n i t y Plans. T o purchase land outright costs m o r e m o n e y than an easement or l a n d trust, w h i c h o n l y purchase specific rights to the land. Therefore, b u y i n g l a n d is n o t used often by groups w i t h few resources. O n G a l i a n o Island i n 1991, the G a l i a n o C l u b purchased outright M o u n t G a l i a n o after a successful fundraising effort yielded the $250,000 asking price ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000).  The Potential of CIC C I C may be defined as a local, grassroots citizen approach to protecting and establishing management o f the natural values o f l a n d areas i n perpetuity. Because most o f the literature is n o t theoretical but rather tells the stories o f C I C s , the definition is derived f r o m a review o f citizen initiatives. C I C is a citizen-initiated process for land protection. U n l i k e activism or using the courts, C I C does not always use legal or political processes to conserve land. C I C groups usually w o r k to include interests often excluded f r o m activist efforts, such as businesses, farmers, ranchers and First N a t i o n s . It is important to be clear, however, that not all C I C efforts are the same, although they d o display some commonalities i n their characteristics. D r a w i n g u p o n the literature o n C I C s , C I C s vary according to stakeholder involvement, community-based processes and the means by w h i c h to accomplish conservation ends. Stakeholder Involvement: A C I C might:  25  ^  ^ ^  ^  ^ ^  Collaborate with persons, government, corporations and N G O s to achieve their aim, protection of land into perpetuity (Connelly, 2000, 25). Most CICs are collaborative (i.e. where stakeholders representing different interests act together for conservation purposes). Include stakeholders who can not act decisively, given the constraints they work widiin (i.e. the stakeholders are interdependent) (Reilly, 1998, 117-8). Include local people and allow them to run die process, though they may not be acquainted with or have in depth knowledge in conservation planning or other environmental issues (Gordon, 2000,16). Bring together diverse stakeholders o f a local place (Kittredge, 2000, 11). For example, a logger and environmentalist may sit at the table to discuss issues and work together toward conservation goals. Use dialogue to bring diverse interests to agreement, because the group feels that everyone in their community should have a say in how lands are managed (Kittredge, 2000, 11). Rely heavily on volunteer time to run meetings, communicate to the wider community and bring other groups to the table (Reilly, 1998, 119). Community-based: A C I C might:  ^ ^  ^  ^  A c t in the physical realm, locally (Gordon, 2000, 16). That is, a C I C works to protect lands, not to form policies or lobby to the exclusion of their stakeholders' contact with natural resources. A c t to protect areas important to the local community, not necessarily explicidy or immediately important to either government or E N G O s (Brick, 1998, 1-2). Sometimes government and E N G O s neglect areas that communities venerate as important to the character of the community. Bring community members together to protect the space only but leave management to another organisation (Connelly, 2000, 25). Maintaining involvement of local people is a major concern for CICs. Sometimes leaving management to another organisation is necessary because the process of conservation exhausts the local people. Involve the wider community in projects (Connelly, 2000, 24). For example, some conservation projects include some habitat restoration, where members of a C I C group may work together to replant vegetation in a riparian zone. Means to Accomplish Conservation: A C I C might:  ^  ^  ^ ^  Be opportunistic, meaning they will use readily available, and legal, means to conserve lands (Porter and Salvesen, 1995, 283). For example, a C I C group may incorporate educational uses in land management to obtain funding that would not odierwise be available were they to manage the land more stricdy. C I C groups work widi and build on what resources they find within their own community. Work through problems of social equity or environmental justice. The environmental movement in recent years has been accused of being elitist, reliant largely on an urban upper middle class constituency (Shutkin, 2000, 139). Environmental justice seeks to build awareness of the distributive impacts of environmental groups and policies. Further, it advocates for a healthy environment for all social classes. Use innovation and local knowledge to solve local environmental problems and conserve lands (Brick, 1998, 3). Be transient, meaning that they come together to solve environmental problems, in tiiis case land conservation, but may not continue to exist in the longer term (Coggins, 1998, 6).  26  ^  >  Recognise that problems are not often solved through strict compartmentalisation (Knopman, Susman and Landy, 1999, 26). A watershed does not exist stricdy witiiin political boundaries, nor do grizzlies limit their range within those same political boundaries. Recognise that the cost of inaction is higher than the cost of action (Gordon, 2000, 17).  T h e list above is not exhaustive, n o r w i l l every C I C have all these characteristics; rather it represents patterns f o u n d i n the literature. C I C is not a panacea. A n u m b e r o f issues arise surrounding its use and " s u d d e n " popularity, such as whether consensus is attainable, o r whether such groups actually solve the root causes o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l problems. Questions arising around consensus, the ability o f individual participants to co-opt the process a n d the limited n u m b e r o f stakeholders lead authors, such as C o g g i n s to w o n d e r whether C I C processes are really collaborative.  CICs' Use, Popularity and Growing Significance C I C arose out o f the desire, a n d sometimes frustration, o f local citizens as an alternative to the m o r e traditional government-initiated or n o n - l o c a l E N G O methods o f land conservation that ignore local e n v i r o n m e n t a l concerns (Brick, 1998, 1-2). I n experiences w i t h government, citizens f o u n d that g o v e r n m e n t agencies were not interested i n the spaces that citizens f o u n d important, or o v e r w o r k e d government staff/departments/agencies  could  not help t h e m o r responded too slowly to requests. S o m e c o m m u n i t y members found that the methods o f others (e.g. N G O s a n d other actors i n civil society) were often m i r e d i n conflict, tied up i n courts, confrontational, a n d were not sensitive to the spaces w i t h the most local interest. I n C l a r k C o u n t y , N e v a d a , government, developers and E N G O s were l o c k e d i n court battles over land use conflicts that were not responsible to local needs, or the needs o f the Desert T o r t o i s e , w h i c h is listed as an endangered species (Reilly, 1998, 125). I n the later 1980s and early 1990s, the U S court system was overloaded w i t h cases, and methods such as m e d i a t i o n to resolve social issues and business disputes were increasingly employed to reduce the n u m b e r o f cases entering the courts. A t the same time, there was a g r o w i n g and already widespread awareness o f environmental issues and the pressing need to conserve spaces. E a c h o f these three developments l e d communities to act o n environmental issues o f their o w n v o l i t i o n , as i n C l a r k C o u n t y , where the c o m m u n i t y started a process that ultimately created the C l a r k C o u n t y H a b i t a t C o n s e r v a t i o n Plan. In the communities surrounding Chesapeake B a y , ordinary people, such as businessmen and c o m m u n i t y leaders brought together other people w i t i i i n communities to discuss h o w they might protect those spaces they f o u n d important ( K n o p m a n , et al., 1999, 26). N e i g h b o u r s sat together, whether they were environmentalists, teachers, businessmen, farmers or bureaucrats to discuss h o w they m i g h t w o r k to conserve local lands. Discussions focussed o n h o w the c o m m u n i t y might solve environmental problems, such as urban sprawl,  27  threatened ways o f life, habitat destruction and contaminated urban o p e n spaces w i t h o u t help f r o m government or E N G O s . T h e successes o f several groups i n protecting lands through land trusts, conservation easements or by l i n k i n g w i t h governments spread quickly. O t h e r groups s o o n tried to m i m i c the successful initiatives and C I C has g r o w n i n the U S to become a force i n protecting o p e n spaces, agricultural ways o f life and restoring habitat during the latter 1990s. Nationally, approximately 1200 l a n d trusts protect nearly 4.7 m i l l i o n acres (George, 2000, 92). I n the state o f O r e g o n alone, the government "officially recognizes and funds 85 collaborative watershed c o u n c i l s " ( K n o p m a n , et al., 1999, 27). G r o w t h i n protecting spaces o n this scale attracted the attention o f many N G O s and E N G O s . T h e O r i o n Society was f o r m e d to assist communities i n education o f place and nature and to p r o m o t e changes i n ethics to tackle global environmental problems (The O r i o n Society, 2000). A smaller group, the N o r t h e r n Lights Research and E d u c a t i o n Institute, writes a journal, The Chronicle of Community, and w o r k s almost exclusively o n p r o m o t i n g and learning f r o m C I C initiatives (The N o r t h e r n L i g h t s Research and E d u c a t i o n Institute, 2000). T h e N a t u r e Conservancy's President, J o h n Sawhill, has stated, " W e boast today o f being a multi-local organization, but the future w i l l find us even m o r e decentralized, even m o r e responsive to the distinct conservation needs o f local c o m m u n i t i e s " (Brick, 1998, 4). A c c o r d i n g to M . Rupert C u d e r , w h o was President o f Defenders o f the Wildlife, Senior V i c e President o f the N a t i o n a l A u d u b o n Society and Assistant D i r e c t o r o f the Wilderness Society, After devoting 45 years to the goal o f wildlands protection, I've come to the conclusion that all wildlands protection is local — that it's at the local level where we must build support and public understanding to proceed... The burgeoning local land trust movement is as helpful a trend as we've seen recendy in American conservation efforts (George, 2000, 92). N G O s have had towrecognise and some n o w support the g r o w t h o f C I C , because it has g r o w n rapidly and protects a significant amount o f l a n d area. Besides N G O s , funding organisations recognise the significance o f the number o f C I C initiatives and their c o n t r i b u t i o n to protected areas i n the U S . O n e o f the major foundations i n the U S , the F o r d F o u n d a t i o n , has developed a web-site and special funding for what they call conservation-based development (The F o r d F o u n d a t i o n , 2000). Conservation-based development is a way o f l o o k i n g at c o m m u n i t y development that is sensitive to and protects the natural ecosystems i n the area. N o t only are N G O s and foundations paying attention and b e c o m i n g resources for C I C groups, but the government is also b e c o m i n g i n v o l v e d . F o r example, the " E P A [the federal U S E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency] has funded more  28  than 300 b r o w n f i e l d grants, totalling more than $69 m i l l i o n and leveraging nearly $1 billion i n redevelopment m o n e y and 2,000 new jobs" ( K n o p m a n , et a l , 1999, 27). A l s o , C o m m u n i t y - B a s e d E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n ( C B E P ) by the U S E P A is a fund specifically set up to assist local collaborative processes. " I n short, the p o w e r o f citizens is i n acting locally to address environmental concerns has been recognized formally and informally at the highest levels o f the federal government" (Scheberle, 2000, 565). B o t h governments and foundations recognise the value o f C I C groups adding to protected areas. C I C groups will c o m e to b o t h w i t h specific plans to protect areas, after assessing their needs i n terms o f funding and other resources. In the U S local communities are c o m i n g together to protect spaces, i n significant ways. In terms o f the total area protected, land trusts alone account for nearly 5 m i l l i o n acres. E N G O s and government alike have had to recognise that C I C groups arc actively conserving land, because their action is d o i n g what E N G O s and government may not have the resources to accomplish. Finally, groups funding conservation efforts have recognised the value i n C I C groups i n achieving their conservation mandates and goals. F o r each o f these reasons, C I C is significant i n protecting lands i n the U S . Plate 7. T i m Walls: Waves on Pebble Beach  (Walls, 2000)  29  A l t h o u g h C I C does exist i n B C , it is not as widely studied and analysed as i n the U S . C I C has conserved lands i n B C , such as T e t r a h e d r o n P r o v i n c i a l P a r k (Smith, 2000), the two cases o n G a l i a n o Island and a n u m b e r o f l a n d trusts and easements elsewhere (Turde Island E a r t h Stewards, 2001). T h e r e is also an infrastructure o f resources, available to C I C groups, should they form. W e s t Coast E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w is a resource for i n f o r m a t i o n o n and legal assistance i n f o r m i n g l a n d trusts and conservation easements. B o t h the L a n d Conservancy o f B C and the N a t u r e Conservancy Canada can provide m o n e y and real estate expertise to C I C groups. Federal and P r o v i n c i a l G o v e r n m e n t have supported C I C . International capital markets are accessible for conservation purposes as well, through actions such as debt for nature swaps and donating a p o r t i o n o f profits to conservation causes. E v e n though the resources are available, C I C has not burgeoned i n B . C . , as it has i n the state o f O r e g o n , despite its greater size. S o m e reasons for this may be that the C r o w n owns most o f B . C . ' s land; smaller communities are n o t grappling w i t h sprawl to the same extent as those i n the U S ; and the knowledge o f C I C projects i n actual operation or the high level o f c o m p e t i t i o n for resources means few projects are successfully funded. T h i s thesis is an attempt to analyse t w o cases o f C I C i n B . C . to determine i f groups here might learn f r o m collaboration theory and f r o m experiences o f those i n the U S . C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory has been used to evaluate multistakeholder processes i n B . C . , applied across the range o f natural resources p l a n n i n g and management processes, such as L R M P s and local watershed planning processes. C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory forms a useful backbone to study the process o f C I C to determine whether a C I C group i n B . C . d i d collaborate and h o w well the collaboration process proceeded.  Learningfrom Collaboration Theory T h i s thesis bases its examination o f C I C i n a framework d r a w n from the literature o n collaboration. T h i s section elaborates o n the key concepts developed by collaboration theorists Barbara G r a y and D o n n a W o o d (1991), followed by the theory's subsequent application to natural resources p l a n n i n g and management by Steve Selin and D e b o r a h Chavez (1995), G a r y K o f i n a s and Julian Griggs (1996), and K a t h y G r a n t (1996). M a n y C I C projects i n v o l v e some f o r m o f collaboration, often between individual c o m m u n i t y members and existing c o m m u n i t y groups. T h e use o f collaboration theory promises to p r o v i d e relevant insights into the function and eventual success or failure o f C I C s .  Why use collaboration theory? P r o v i d i n g justification for using collaboration theory is important, because it is only one o f many available theories to evaluate multistakeholder processes. Before entering a discussion  30  o f w h y this theory is m o s t applicable to the C I C case study examined i n this thesis, we must first define some basic terms. A c c o r d i n g to Barbara G r a y and D o n n a W o o d , collaboration "occurs w h e n a group o f autonomous stakeholders o f a p r o b l e m d o m a i n engage i n an interactive process, using shared rules, n o r m s , a n d structures, to act or decide o n issues related to that d o m a i n " ( W o o d and G r a y , 1991,' 146). F o l l o w i n g their definition, G r a y and W o o d go o n to explain each o f the terms i n the definition o f collaboration. ' A u t o n o m y ' refers to stakeholders retaining their independent decision-making powers even w h e n they agree to abide by shared rules w i t h i n the collaborative process. 'Interactive processes' are those processes o f a certain duration that i n v o l v e stakeholders i n some fashion that changes their orientation to the process and each other. Stakeholders must share a 'negotiated order,' w h i c h has explicitly agreed u p o n rules and n o r m s that g o v e r n their interactions. T h e collaborative group must act or make a decision, w h i c h directs or orients t h e m toward achieving some objective, whether that is a shared v i s i o n or conflict resolution. Finally, collaborative processes are problem-orientated, meaning the process, action a n d / o r decision should be directed to the original p r o b l e m that brought the parties together. G r a y and W o o d set out to develop a general theory o f collaboration that is descriptive and proscriptive, a n d at the same time evaluative. T o arrive at a comprehensive theory w i t h b r o a d application across disciplines, they review nine articles from six disciplines, identify the overarching questions each article raises a n d show h o w they can be c o m b i n e d into a general theory. T h e six disciplines, o r theoretical perspectives, are resource dependence, corporate social performance/institutional economics, strategic management/social ecology, m i c r o e c o n o m i c s , institutional/negotiated order a n d political. G r a y and W o o d are quick to stress that unlike other writers, they seek to achieve an interorganisational perspective ( W o o d a n d G r a y , 1991, 141). T h i s frame o f reference means that the theory takes a holistic l o o k at the process o f collaborating and the context i n w h i c h the alliance takes place. T h e implication o f this perspective is that G r a y a n d W o o d ' s collaboration theory focuses o n the link between the configuration o f organisations and the sequence o f events, a n d does not explore issues such as p o w e r i n depth (Gray and W o o d , 1991,6). G r a y and W o o d limit their discussion o f p o w e r as it affects a collaborative alliance for multiple reasons. First, potential stakeholders must perceive benefit to themselves before they w i l l participate ( W o o d and Gray, 1991, 161). Second, the participants must perceive they have high stakes i n the collaboration a n d high interdependence i n acting w i t h other participants.  I n other w o r d s , a single participating stakeholder lacks the p o w e r to act  unilaterally. T h i r d , stakeholders should w o r k to achieve a shared understanding, w i t h a shared purpose using shared rules for collaborating. I f these characteristics are not i n place,  31  stakeholders decline to participate and the collaborative alliance disintegrates. Finally, G r a y and W o o d state that the relationships raise interesting questions regarding the extent to which the pattern of shared, differing, and opposing interests among the stakeholders has a differential influence on a collaboration's potential for successful outcomes. Answers to that question remain for future researchers to explore (Wood and Gray, 1991, 161). T h e goal o f collaboration is i n part to balance the p o w e r a m o n g a diverse group o f stakeholders. I f the p o w e r relationships are too skewed to one or two stakeholders, or i f participants perceive a lack o f interdependence, the authors assume that the collaborative w i l l cease to exist. Therefore, G r a y and W o o d drop the concept o f p o w e r at this point, leaving it to further discussion by other researchers. H o w e v e r , several theories have developed that illustrate and analyse the complexity o f participant interactions i n multistakeholder processes, particularly the p o w e r relationships between stakeholders. P l a n n i n g theorists, such as J o h n Forester (1989), J u d i t h Innes (1998) and Patsy Healey (1997), delve into these issues i n detail. F o r the purposes o f this thesis, and following G r a y and W o o d ' s lead, p o w e r w i l l be treated briefly, only as it affects and relates to the collaborative process and stakeholder relationships as a whole. A n in-depth analysis o f p o w e r is not i n c l u d e d i n this thesis to keep the analysis focused o n the G a l i a n o Island C I C processes as a w h o l e . Forester, Innes or Healey provide a full discussion o f the issue o f p o w e r and its effects o n multistakeholder or collaborative processes. H a v i n g defined collaboration and the frame o f reference o f the theory, we can n o w turn to the question o f w h y collaboration theory is appropriate for evaluating the C I C process and outcomes o n G a l i a n o Island.  T h e G a l i a n o C I C cases i n v o l v e a n u m b e r o f stakeholders  brought together for the purpose o f conserving land. O n G a l i a n o Island, the process to conserve l a n d i n v o l v e d several different interests, ranging f r o m E N G O s to government to residential groups. These groups w o r k e d together through dialogue and discussion to achieve protection for B o d e g a Ridge and P e b b l e B e a c h . T h u s , overall, C I C o n G a l i a n o fits Gray's definition o f a collaborative process. C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory outlines the practical considerations o f h o w to set up and solve a p r o b l e m i n a given context, or a p r o b l e m d o m a i n ; however, the thrust o f this thesis is to use collaboration theory as a t o o l to analyse whether and h o w w e l l C I C s used collaboration to conserve land. Stakeholder interdependence is identified as essential to collaborative processes (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 14). A l t h o u g h the government stakeholders had the autonomous authority to protect spaces, they d i d not have the financial or time resources to protect the two spaces o n G a l i a n o Island and fulfil other conservation needs i n the province. T h e other stakeholders d i d not have the institutional authority, or other resources required  32  to act alone. A s illustrated above, the stakeholders were interdependent, w h i c h made collaboration a g o o d alternative to pursue for the G a l i a n o parties to proceed w i t h their mandate and objectives. C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory looks at h o w the stakeholders interact and h o w that affects the planning process as w e l l as the results. F o r consensus to be achieved, the stakeholders must c o m e to agreement o n the issues through discourse (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 190). I f dialogue does n o t happen, the groups w i l l n o t develop a c o m m o n language, define a c o m m o n p r o b l e m or find solutions that reflect their interests. Essentially, the collaborative falls apart as the stakeholders exercise other alternatives. A l t h o u g h C I C groups may n o t be aware o f it, knowledge o f collaboration theory is a resource that c o u l d potentially help guide their processes. A s an analytic framework, collaboration theory suggests ways i n w h i c h a collaborative group should structure and run the process, such that the group stands a greater chance o f success i n achieving its ends. O n e o f the underlying assumptions o f collaboration theory is that a better process yields a better result. B y developing a process using the principles o f collaboration theory, a C I C group may w o r k together m o r e easily, efficiently and effectively to protect lands important to them. T h e question then becomes h o w w e l l d i d C I C participants o n G a l i a n o act i n terms o f their collaborative process and c o u l d the use o f this theory and the experiences o f other C I C efforts aid other C I C start-ups i n B . C . ?  Collaboration Theory Applied to Natural Resources Planning and Management C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory has been successfully used i n the past i n evaluating multistakeholder natural resources p l a n n i n g initiatives and can further develop the evaluation o f C I C . Steve Selin and D e b o r a h C h a v e z (1995) apply collaboration theory to forestry p l a n n i n g and management.  G a r y K o f i n a s and J u l i a n Griggs (1996) illustrate the theory's effectiveness i n  evaluating the B . C . R o u n d T a b l e o n the E n v i r o n m e n t and the E c o n o m y ( B C R T E E ) . Finally, K a t h y G r a n t (1996) used collaboration theory to p e r f o r m a participatory analysis o f the S a l m o n R i v e r Watershed p l a n n i n g process. E a c h application o f the theory is slightly different but lends a perspective and insight i n t o h o w effectively and efficiently collaboration is used i n natural resources p l a n n i n g and use.  33  Thesis Question #1: Is collaboration theory a relevant toolfor evaluating CICs,  •'•  particularly if CICs are not "as collaborative" as other processes? In, the case o f G a l i a n o Island-as i n other C I C processes, collaboration dicory is a relevant t o o l to analyse the process o f conservation. Primarily, C I C , fits .the definition o f a coUaboratiyeprocess according to Gray  a  n  d W o o d . T h e process is  one i n w h i c h a group o f iiiter-organisational stakeholders that seek a c o m m o n goal, conservation o f land, use dialogue to develop a shared understanding to achieve  :,  that goal. Furthermore, because o f its success i n evaluating multistakeholder  \\  s  natural.rcsources p l a n n i n g efforts, it is reasonable to suppose collaboration theory  :  w i l l be an effective m e t h o d for evaluating C I C . C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory provides use'fuKinsielit into h o w the process affects the outcornc o f the collaborative effort. S. ;.A;:i-grs=rgg:^  •.•  L.LJSSi>.hA^..  ......  1  ...:»:^iMi-Lu,  > . . . . . . . . ' . . ;  The five stages of collaboration T h e theory o n collaboration follows the process through c h r o n o l o g i c a l stages. G r a y and W o o d suggest breaking the time surrounding the collaborative process into three categories, "(a) the preconditions that make collaboration possible a n d that motivate stakeholders to participate, (b) the process through w h i c h collaboration occurs, a n d (c) the outcomes o f the collaboration" (Gray a n d W o o d , 1991, 13). T h i s thesis uses the stages suggested by Selin and C h a v e z a n d G r a n t , w h o further break d o w n G r a y and W o o d ' s "collaborative process" to arrive at: Antecedents, P r o b l e m Setting, D i r e c t i o n Setting, Structuring a n d Results. This section o f the thesis describes each stage a n d provides some examples o f the issues that arise at that stage i n the process. I n practice, it is difficult to determine where one stage passes into the next. A l s o , the unique characteristics o f each collaborative process mean that some o f the examples i n each stage may n o t be present i n a particular collaborative effort. V i e w i n g the examples o f issues as conditions that facilitate collaboration i n each stage allows for the flexibility that reflects the unique aspects o f collaborative processes (Kofinas a n d Griggs, 1996, 20). I n addition to being unique i n nature, collaborative processes are iterative and w i l l n o t follow a particular set o f steps i n order, j u m p i n g forward or backward a m o n g these steps as participants w o r k through the process.  Antecedents Antecedents contextualise the p r o b l e m , describing the forces a n d / o r people that led the interests to collaborate to achieve either a shared v i s i o n or resolve conflict. G r a y a n d W o o d develop three key issues that must be addressed i n the Antecedents phase a n d suggest a n u m b e r o f environmental factors that lead to collaboration. Participants or potential participants must acknowledge that the costs o f inaction are higher than action a n d that to act they must w o r k w i t h other individuals or groups. T h u s , the participants are said to  34  experience two factors: h i g h stakes and high interdependence (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 14). Participants must also start to perceive some linkage between their o w n interests and those o f the collective. Finally, the group must share a c o m m o n purpose to achieve a c o m m o n transmutational (change-producing) end (i.e. define the problem). Some o f the observed environmental factors leading to collaboration are: the need to protect a share i n a c o m m o n resource, m a x i m i s i n g efficiency and reducing transaction costs, the need to achieve a c o m m o n understanding o f the environment and develop collective responses to it, the configuration o f societal resources, strategic management, and achieving some desired level o f d o m a i n organisation (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 14). E v e n t s and changes i n the environment or i n governance and new methodologies a l l lead groups to collaborate. B C R T E E evolved out o f a call by the N a t i o n a l Task F o r c e o n the E n v i r o n m e n t and the E c o n o m y ( N F T E E ) , w h i c h itself was a response to the 1987 R e p o r t by the B r u n d t l a n d C o m m i s s i o n (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 17-8). O t h e r forces that can lead groups to f o r m a collaborative venture include a crisis, tliird party brokers, mandates by legislation or other means, seeking a c o m m o n v i s i o n , existing networks seeking to restructure their environment, strong leaders, and incentive programs (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 191). G r a y and W o o d p r o v i d e a simple characterisation o f these forces. Stakeholders convene to develop a shared v i s i o n o f the future or to resolve conflict, w h i c h K o f i n a s and Griggs call the m o t i v a t i o n for collaborating. T h e intended outcome, K o f i n a s and G r i g g s ' second characteristic, refers to the objective o f the collaboration, to exchange i n f o r m a t i o n or reach some sort o f joint agreement. Forces leading to collaboration may be individuals called 'convenors,' such as tiiird party brokers and strong leaders. T h e convenor's role is to b r i n g stakeholders to the table ( W o o d and G r a y , 1991, 150). It is not always necessary to have a single convenor. F o r some C I C groups, a n u m b e r o f citizens came together to discuss conservation and built the collaborative together. G r a y and W o o d developed a matrix that identifies the types o f convenors that call the stakeholders together.  Table 2, G r a y and W o o d ' s matrix, shows the  type o f intervention, influence and the central attribute characteristics that identify convenors ( W o o d and G r a y , 1991, 152). Intervention refers to whether a c o n v e n o r is responsive (i.e. is requested by the stakeholders) or whether the convenor is proactive (i.e. initiates the collaboration). T h e types o f influence s h o w n i n a process by a c o n v e n o r are formal or informal. T h e central attribute is the key trait the c o n v e n o r displays. In legitimation, the c o n v e n o r uses formal authority but is asked by the stakeholders to act as convenor. T h e central attribute, fairness, drives the convenor's behaviour, manifesting itself i n the convenor's c o n c e r n for legitimacy a m o n g the stakeholders. A government agency has  35  formal p o w e r over a resource and is sometimes called o n by stakeholders seeking a party that w i l l not act arbitrarily, or abuse its authority ( W o o d and Gray, 1991, 152). I f the c o n v e n o r is asked by the stakeholders to convene the group but has littie or n o formal authority, that c o n v e n o r is called a Facilitator. A facilitator is most concerned w i t h the trust participants place i n them, because the facilitator has n o coercive p o w e r ( W o o d and Gray, 1991, 152). Facilitators arose out o f alternative dispute resolution, where parties attempt to use a third party to help t h e m resolve their differences outside o f the court system.  Table 2. Types of Convenors Influence Formal Responsive  Intervention  Proactive  Informal  legitimation: Central attribute is  Facilitation: Central attribute is  fairness; the convenor desires to  trustworthiness; the convenor  be perceived as fair.  wants to be trusted.  Mandate: Central attribute is  Persuasion: Central attribute is  control and power over  credibility; the convenor tries  resources; the convenor is  to maintain their credibility.  powerful. A c o n v e n o r has a Mandate, i f the stakeholders are c o n v i n c e d to collaborate by the convenor's formal authority over resources ( W o o d and G r a y , 1991, 152-3). A c t o r s i n the collaboration fear a loss o f access to resources, or are d r i v e n by the possibility o f achieving greater access through relationship b u n d i n g w i t h the convenor. G o v e r n m e n t s act i n this role drawing disparate interests to the table to negotiate controversial land-use settlements. Finally, convenors may be Persuasive, using their knowledge or credibility to b r i n g participants to collaborate ( W o o d and G r a y , 1991, 153). Because they lack legal authority and are not asked to participate, persuasive convenors must convince stakeholders o f their knowledge and skill i n the subject o f the p r o b l e m d o m a i n . Furthermore, the persuasive c o n v e n o r must convince stakeholders that they w i l l benefit m o r e than lose by participating. N G O s w o r k to convince actors that their knowledge w i l l lead stakeholders to new and beneficial solutions o f societal problems. T h e m a i n objective o f the. Antecedents section is to define what type o f forces and convenor brought the stakeholders together, and i n a general sense h o w the collaboration w i l l m o v e forward.  36  Problem Setting P r o b l e m Setting, as the term implies, is concerned w i t h b r i n g i n g all the legitimate interests together, recognising their interdependence and reasons for entering the process. Ultimately i n this stage, the participants define what the collaborative hopes to achieve (i.e. the problem). T h e first step is to identify and include all the legitimate stakeholders, those that are influenced by the process a n d can influence the process a n d / o r its outcome(s). T h e range o f stakeholders i n v o l v e d i n a process needs to be as c o m p l e x as the issue to reflect all the interests i n the p r o b l e m d o m a i n (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21). T h e idea is that i n c l u d i n g all interests w i l l p r o v i d e a broader range o f alternatives, w i l l cover the diversity o f the c o m m u n i t y a n d issues i n the p r o b l e m d o m a i n , w i l l aid implementation and w i l l foster broadbased social capital. Social capital refers to the norms a n d networks o f civic engagement, social trust and generalised reciprocity, w h i c h , "facilitate c o o r d i n a t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n , amplify reputations, and thus allow dilemmas o f collective action to be resolved" (Putnam, 1998, 2). Social capital then forms resilience i n a c o m m u n i t y aiding their handling o f change and diversity. I m p l i e d is that a c o m m u n i t y w i t h greater amounts o f social capital w i l l w o r k m o r e effectively i n collaborative processes. M e r e identification o f stakeholders is not enough. T h o s e stakeholders should be brought into the collaborative process, p r o v i d i n g aid for t h e m i f necessary. F o r example, inclusion o f l o w - i n c o m e persons i n a p l a n n i n g process may require remuneration or aid i n getting to and f r o m meetings, or the p r o v i s i o n o f babysitting. O n e difficult p r o b l e m found i n many collaborative alliances is the inclusion o f interests that are unable to represent themselves, such as future generations or other species (Brick, 1998, 3). T h e theory does not p r o v i d e any solutions to this p r o b l e m , although some groups have found a p r o x y m e t h o d o f representation useful. Stakeholders must also recognise the legitimacy o f other stakeholders, such that achieving the desired result is b o u n d e d by the actions o f these other stakeholders. T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n is called interdependence (Kofinas a n d Griggs, 1996, 21). T h e stakeholder interests present should also state w h y they are i n v o l v e d and what their expectations are for the process (Grant, 1996, 52-3). Clearly stating expectations link group members to the process a n d results. I f other stakeholders k n o w those expectations, their expectations are m o r e likely to be met. Legitimacy, interdependence and clarity o f expectations form the basis for stakeholders' c o m m i t m e n t to collaborate a n d participate i n the process. T h e use o f collaboration theory, as structured by G r a y and W o o d using an inter-organisational perspective, places greater emphasis o n the interactions between stakeholders than the  37  traditional i n d i v i d u a l participant focal orientation ( W o o d and Gray, 1991, 140). A t the heart o f these interactions, the individual interests o f stakeholders are c o m p a r e d to the collective interests o f the alliance. T h o s e interests may be shared, differing or o p p o s i n g ( W o o d and G r a y , 1991, 161). A stakeholder w i l l share interests w h e n he or she agrees w i t h the collective. D i f f e r i n g interests occur w h e n an actor values sometlring unlike others i n the collective. D i f f e r i n g interests do not materially affect the collaborative effort, meaning such interests w i l l n o t prevent agreement or furtherance o f a stakeholder's participation. O p p o s i n g interests result i n obstacles to decisions or continuation o f the collaborative alliance, or b o t h . T h e interests and interrelationships o f participants span the complexity o f h u m a n social interactions. Participants w i l l l o o k for benefits themselves, mamtaining access to resources and h o w exchanges o f interests may benefit several parties i n the collaborative. T o take a d o m a i n perspective, stakeholders must be interdependent, have a stake i n the collaboration and w o r k toward a c o m m o n or shared understanding. A t this point, the micro-sociologic v i e w o f collaboratives comes into play, l o o k i n g at p o w e r dynamics, sharing types o f knowledge, social learning and e m o t i o n . A l l o f these interactions and interests have "a differential influence o n a collaboration's potential for successful o u t c o m e s " ( W o o d and Gray, 1991, 161). In the latter parts o f Problem Setting, the participants begin a dialogue w i t h the objective o f developing a c o m m o n language and identifying key issues o f c o n c e r n (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 192). A c o m m o n language m o u l d s a shared understanding o f the environment, or p r o b l e m d o m a i n , and a better understanding o f others' value structures (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 14). T h r o u g h discourse the constituents o f a process w i l l also b u i l d trust.  Both  components, a c o m m o n definition and shared understanding, are necessary for a w e l l defined p r o b l e m . T h e p r o b l e m s h o u l d be defined communally, so stakeholders have a c o m m o n c o n c e p t i o n o f what they are trying to achieve, m c l u d i n g recognition o f their interdependence (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21). Problem Setting is the begmning stage o f the collaborative process. Stakeholders should identify other legitimate stakeholders and b r i n g them to the table. T h e y s h o u l d recognise other participants' legitimacy, m u t u a l interdependence, and clearly state their interest i n and expectations o f the collaboration. Finally, the stakeholders should start to develop a shared understanding, w h i c h leads to a c o m m o n p r o b l e m definition, w h i c h the collaborative process w i l l attempt to solve. T h e steps i n the Problem Setting phase w i l l s m o o t h the following phases o f the process, i f followed. H o w e v e r , it is possible that these steps may arise later i n the process.  38  Direction Setting W h i l e Problem Setting sets up the p r o b l e m and the collaborative group, Direction Setting deals w i t h the procedural and substantive issues o f the process. Participants define the nature o f their interactions through setting an agenda, g r o u n d rules and norms. T h e role and nature o f stakeholder interactions play an important role i n the process and ultimately determine whether p o w e r is evenly distributed a m o n g them. D i a l o g u e becomes richer, developing a shared understanding, and it conveys values, beliefs, goals and conceptions o f the future, w h i c h are important to finding acceptable solutions. T h e group also identifies, collects and disseminates the knowledge and i n f o r m a t i o n necessary to solve the p r o b l e m . Because dialogue and c o m m u n i c a t i o n play an essential role i n collaborative efforts, stakeholders s h o u l d develop procedures that establish m u t u a l respect and foster trust and understanding. G r o u n d rules define h o w parties should interact, through listening, respect and acknowledgement o f other views. I n d o i n g so, the parties reinforce h o w collaboration is different f r o m individual or adversarial action (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21). Setting an agenda that reflects all parties' interests aids the group i n setting timeframes, provides a clear understanding o f the steps necessary to complete their goal, and can make the most efficient use o f their resources (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 22). I n addition, setting decision rules reduces future conflict by p r o v i d i n g clear distinctions between the types o f consensus needed to make a decision. F o r example, unanimous agreement may not be necessary for all decisions and may allow an i n d i v i d u a l stakeholder a way out o f c o m p r o m i s i n g important values. Information flows and interactions between people, w h i c h comprise collaborative processes, are subject to the relative p o w e r o f different stakeholders. Stakeholders may have m o r e or less power, depending o n the weight accorded them by civil society. C i v i l society may be defined as, " A n intermediate realm situated between state and household, populated by organised groups or associations w h i c h are separate f r o m the state, enjoy some autonomy i n relations w i t h the state, and are f o r m e d voluntarily by members o f society to protect or extend their interests, values or identities" (Institute o f D e v e l o p m e n t Studies, 2000). F o r example, government institutions are afforded m o r e p o w e r v i a their regulatory authority, while persons or groups h a v i n g less p o w e r may be disenfranchised. H o w e v e r , p o w e r is not limited to institutions; it is " m u c h m o r e than that manifested i n the overt interplay o f interests. It is embedded i n systems for defining acceptable rules o f behaviour, i n flows o f resources and i n the ideas and frames o f reference people use" (Healey, 1997, 259). Just as relationships between people are n o t static, p o w e r is dynamic, changing over time, between groups and individuals. A s Healey states, p o w e r is constantly re-negotiated and redistributed. F o r these reasons, p o w e r should not be concentrated w i t h a few stakeholders  39  w h o may co-opt the process; however, dispersion o f p o w e r may lead to stalemates (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 22). F o r m i n g g r o u n d rules and setting an agenda p r o v i d e a stage from w h i c h the actors o f a collaborative may gain a broader, richer understanding o f each other's views, values, goals and conceptions o f the future. B y discussing their values and beliefs relating to the p r o b l e m d o m a i n , the c o m m o n l y h e l d beliefs and shared understanding provide a foundation for exploring m u t u a l options to solve the p r o b l e m (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 192). M u t u a l understanding and learning lead to innovative solutions that individual actors c o u l d not discover o n their o w n ( W o o d and G r a y , 1991, 160). T o solve the p r o b l e m , the collaborative group must identify and collect the resources necessary to i n f o r m the process and lead to solutions, as w e l l as to continue collaborating. J o i n t i n f o r m a t i o n searches and examination o f the subsequent data facilitates shared understanding and reduces conflict (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 192). Seeking resources together reinforces interdependence and leads to small successes that create a sense o f accomplishment and shared purpose. Direction Setting sets the operational and procedural aspects o f the collaboration i n m o t i o n . G r o u p s s h o u l d define the norms, agendas and decision rules necessary for day to day, or meeting to meeting, operations. Interactions between stakeholders are a deterrnining factor i n the success or failure o f the collaborative. P o w e r o f and between stakeholders affects their interactions, particularly i f it is too highly concentrated or too devolved. Important to the entire process is value discussion and definition, w h i c h leads to shared understanding and mutually agreeable decisions. Finally, the group s h o u l d search for resources, i n c l u d i n g information, together.  Structuring Structuring does not happen i n all collaborative processes; it is left to those that are longerterm or require sustained effort o n the part o f the participants. I n cases that do require extra c o m m i t m e n t , formalising the relationship and the responsibilities o f the parties i n v o l v e d clarifies understanding o f individual and process expectations. A l s o important is the p r o x i m i t y o f stakeholders to each other. C o n t i n u a l l o n g distance travel drains resources and people. P l a n n i n g the structure o f interactions explicidy i n longer-term processes leads to clearer understanding and facilitates clear c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f the expectations and responsibilities o f individuals i n collaborative efforts and w i t h the process itself. A c t o r s i n the process define their roles, institutionalise their relationship and agree o n m o n i t o r i n g and compliance for the  40  future o f the collaborative (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 192). E x a m p l e s o f formal relationships are formation o f N G O s and joint ventures. L o c a l collaborative groups have an advantage i n that regular face-to-face meetings do not drain the resources or the individuals i n v o l v e d . A l t h o u g h l o n g distance travel to meetings can impede the process, the c o n t i n u i n g development o f i n f o r m a t i o n technology is reducing the i m p a c t o f i n c l u d i n g stakeholders f r o m outside the c o m m u n i t y .  Outcomes Outcomes are the end products o f the collaboration. E x a m p l e s o f outcomes are programs, policies, plans, legislation, restrictions, etc. H o w e v e r , an outcome may also be an impact, benefit, or creating a sense o f c o m m u n i t y , g o o d w i l l , trust, etc. T w o related questions asked by G r a y are whether the p r o b l e m was solved and whose p r o b l e m was solved (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 18). A solution to the p r o b l e m is not enough. F o r example, creating a management b o a r d to oversee wetlands protection w i t h o u t the resources necessary to carry out its mandate, such as funding, does not fully solve the p r o b l e m . Therefore, varying degrees o f solving the p r o b l e m are possible. T h e danger o f c o o p t i o n arises, resulting i n someM«'s p r o b l e m being solved m o r e than the group's p r o b l e m b e i n g solved. I n part, c o - o p t i n g is a function o f the other parts o f the process, such as the p r o b l e m definition i n the Problem Setting phase and developing a shared understanding i n Direction Setting. I f the p r o b l e m is not defined communally, then the result is unlikely to reflect the interests o f the collective. Similarly, i f the group does not c o m e to a shared understanding o f the environment, the danger o f one participant c o - o p t i n g the process is higher. L o o k i n g at the impacts and the changes i n the environment that m i g h t evolve from i m p l e m e n t i n g the agreement provides insight into the effectiveness o f the process and the stakeholders i n dealing w i t h the p r o b l e m . E n s u r i n g an agreement is carried out involves "dealing w i t h constituencies, b u i l d i n g external agreements, and setting i n place a chain o f actions and a way o f m o n i t o r i n g those a c t i o n s . . . " (Grant, 1996, 53). Implementation o f an agreement does not stop at releasing findings, or setting up a management board. T h e stakeholders bear the responsibility to act i n the external environment to m o n i t o r and manage impacts and changes, b u i l d relationships and perhaps re-evaluate further collaboration (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 22). T h e outcomes o f the collaborative process are b o t h tangible and intangible. Some outcomes may be intended, but environmental effects may b r i n g about unintended outcomes. O n e o f the m o r e c o m m o n unintended outcomes is a person or group claiming to not have been  41  consulted and s h o u l d have been. T h e collaborative must p l a n for b o t h types o f outcomes and be responsive to changes i n the d o m a i n .  Learningfrom CIC Groups' Experiences T h i s section serves as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the empirical data supplied by communities i n v o l v e d i n C I C . It also justifies C I C s empirical role i n the Pack Checklist to c o m e i n the next chapter. Because o f its empirical, anecdotal nature, the C I C literature bolsters o r adds a new perspective to the use o f collaboration theory and is used as a filter to narrow the range o f questions asked by applications o f G r a y a n d W o o d ' s general theory o n collaboration. A s stated earlier, a g r o w i n g b o d y o f literature conveys the experiences o f C I C groups to audiences that largely include other C I C groups as w e l l as the general public. M o s t o f this literature is f o u n d i n p o p u l a r conservation magazines a n d the web-sites o f groups i n v o l v e d i n C I C . A n u m b e r o f E N G O s and other N G O s have developed magazines and web-sites, such as the S o n o r a n Institute's C o m m u n i t y Stewardship E x c h a n g e (http://www.sonoran.org) a n d the O r i o n Society's Orion and Orion Afield magazines. A l t h o u g h many o f those inside C I C w a r n that each project is unique to the individuals and geographic areas i n w h i c h they are located, the literature does reveal some similarities, pitfalls and innovations between initiatives (The N o r t h e r n L i g h t s Research and E d u c a t i o n Institute, 2000). F o r example, nearly all the groups discuss the importance o f group members hstening and d e v e l o p i n g c o m m o n definitions t h r o u g h dialogue. U s i n g the empirical data f r o m groups that are engaged i n C I C w i l l add new dimensions to the collaboration theory framework outlined earlier. B y way o f example, collaboration theory asks whether a n d h o w the group obtained adequate resources, and the C I C literature illustrates the opportunistic nature o f a C I C collaborative. C I C s often b r i n g up the issue o f i n v o l v i n g interests, but collaboration theory provides b o t h a rationale and a m e t h o d for evaluating whether all relevant interests are i n v o l v e d i n the process. B o t h literatures espouse the need for d e v e l o p i n g a shared understanding, but the C I C literature roots this concept i n h o w a shared understanding affects land conservation. U s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m b o t h literatures gives a richer perspective o f how C I C s cooperate to conserve land. I n addition, the C I C experience is used to help develop a m o r e manageable evaluative framework by refining the list o f questions asked i n the applied collaboration theory literature. G o v e r n m e n t s and E N G O s i n the U S are w o r k i n g to understand, evaluate a n d take advantage o f C I C . I n d o i n g so, they are considering starting, or continuing, to support C I C s . A n o t h e r objective o f government and E N G O evaluations is to determine where C I C projects fit i n the overall conservation picture. T h e r e are several E N G O s , such as the Wildlands Project, that w o r k for conservation o n a landscape level, trans-secting large areas  42  o f land, and they m i g h t w o n d e r h o w C I C w o u l d add to or detract f r o m their planning process and projects (The W i l d l a n d s Project, 2001). Finally, government and E N G O s may learn f r o m the past and apply this knowledge towards shaping strategies and methods i n the future. T h e C I C literature reflects what has happened i n communities that have undertaken C I C projects. Some are successful i n their conservation efforts; some are not. Some met their needs; some have h a d to scrape by o r dissolve their membership. N e a r l y all have experienced pitfalls. Because the literature is not evaluative by design, examples a n d criteria to be added to the collaboration theory framework must be interpreted f r o m the stories given. Therefore, rather than develop an exhaustive list, b e l o w are some representative advantages or benefits o f C I C as w e l l as examples o f pitfalls that befell them. T h e next chapter, Pack Checklist, uses the empirical literature m o r e fully i n the development o f analytic questions to ask o f the G a l i a n o Island case studies.  Advantage s / Be ne fit s ^  ^  ^  When government and/or E N G O s fail to protect an area, either from lack o f resources or political willpower, C I C groups can intervene (Knopman, et al., 1999, 26). CICs, unlike government or E N G O s , have a vested interest in local lands that a community values and are perhaps best suited to make conservation decisions at the local level. Furthermore, C I C groups may have access to other resources unavailable to government or E N G O s . CICs are innovative. Because they have limited resources available, CICs must use what is at hand to protect spaces. For example, in fundraising, many groups have found it necessary to extend their mandate to include education objectives, acceptance of corporate donations and call upon their neighbours to hold barbecues or auction artists' paintings to raise funds (Sojourner, 2000, 13). CICs in some cases have better access to and are more likely to utilise local knowledge, because the community members know to whom to mrn for information (Gordon, 2000, 17).  Pitfalls ^  ^  y  Sometimes a C I C group conflicts with the conservation mandates of larger institutions (Brick, 1998, 2). Some larger E N G O s will not work with local collaboratives, because their values clash with the local groups or they do not see such groups as aiding in achieving conservation goals. A n example o f a value clash is the refusal o f groups like Greenpeace to work in CICs that include logging interests, because they believe logging should not take place at all. More powerful stakeholders may co-opt the C I C group and turn it toward their advantage (Coggins, 1998, 5). For example, a business may use its resources and influence to drive a C I C collaborative away from the collective interests, towards a different or unintended agenda. C I C groups may not serve the wider public interest any better than other groups (Coggins, 1998, 4). The question arises wheuier CICs can effectively involve all of the legitimate stakeholders, such as other species or future generations. Alternatively, other parts o f the community may not want to participate in land conservation or think the land the C I C group wants to protect should not be conserved.  K n o w l e d g e o f some o f the pitfalls a n d advantages o f other C I C processes may ultimately help a C I C group to act m o r e effectively a n d give them a greater chance o f success.  43  Combining the Two: Collaboration Theory and CIC Empirical Literature C I C provides communities w i t h the opportunity to conserve lands they believe are important to the c o m m u n i t y and the ecosphere, but whether the results effectively add to the maintenance o f the structure and function o f ecosystems remains to be determined. Regardless, C I C has conserved lands i n the U S and i n B . C . T h i s thesis w i l l determine to what extent t w o B . C . case studies o f C I C are collaborative, whether they have experienced the pitfalls o f other C I C projects and i f these pitfalls c o u l d have been avoided using the principles o f g o o d collaboration. E a c h o f these questions w i l l be answered through examination o f two cases o n G a l i a n o Island, B . C . , using the c o m b i n e d framework outlined i n detail i n the next chapter. T h e t w o initiatives to be evaluated are B o d e g a Ridge and Pebble Beach. T h e former has received institutional recognition (i.e. is n o w a p r o v i n c i a l park), and the latter has not. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f the collaboration theory and empirical ( C I C ) literatures provides a unique l o o k into one type process o f protecting land, those initiated by communities. I m p l i e d i n this framework is that a better C I C process w i l l lead to better results, b o t h tangible and intangible. C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory provides a valuable l o o k at h o w processes can become better, i n terms o f structuring, efficiency, process and results. T h e following chapter, Pack Checklist, uses the structure and evaluative criteria p r o p o s e d by collaboration theorists, enriched w i t h the experiences o f C I C groups. T h e Pack Checklist is a complete application o f G r a y and W o o d ' s general theory, though it does not use all o f the evaluative criteria suggested by Selin and C h a v e z , K o f i n a s and Griggs, and G r a n t , i n the interests o f space, relevance and usability o f the framework developed. T h e amalgamation o f questions extrapolated f r o m the C I C literature is used to b o t h enrich and specify the collaboration theory framework and to narrow the scope o f questions as p r o p o s e d by the above authors that applied it to natural resources planning and management.  T h e Pack Checklist developed i n this fashion provides a unique evaluative l o o k  at C I C and is used to analyse the G a l i a n o Island case study. Furthermore, the thesis tests whether the case studies o n G a l i a n o Island might have learned f r o m the enriched collaboration theory framework w h e n designing and w o r k i n g through their processes. T h i s analysis may also aid other B . C . communities initiating conservation by p r o v i d i n g suggestions for communities, government and E N G O s to aid and structure assistance for communities to protect spaces they consider important.  44  Chapter 4: Pack Checklist Plate 8: T i m Walls: Bicycle at the Head of Pebble Beach Trails  (Walls, 2000)  45  Chapter 4: Pack Checklist T h e previous chapter i n t r o d u c e d the concepts o f collaboration a n d the experiences o f c o m m u n i t y groups i n v o l v e d i n C I C a n d f o r m e d the argument for using t h e m to analyse C I C processes. T h e Pack Checklist gmunds, these concepts i n questions that w i l l reveal whether C I C o n G a l i a n o Island was a g o o d collaborative process and whether the groups i n v o l v e d c o u l d have learned f r o m collaboration a n d other C I C experiences. T o accomplish this task, the Pack Checklist places the experiences o f C I C groups into the framework p r o p o s e d b y collaboration theorists. T h e resulting questions reflect only those i n c l u d e d i n b o t h sets o f literature. T h o s e questions serve as the m o d e l b y w h i c h C I C s o n G a l i a n o Island, B . C . , the cases, w i l l be studied. T h e questions are structured chronologically to follow the ideal sequence o f events for any collaboration as suggested b y the theorists. Furthermore, the questions w i l l be grouped to parallel c o m m o n steps i n collaboration theory, as suggested b y several o f the authors used i n this thesis (e.g. G r a y and W o o d (1991), Selin a n d C h a v e z (1995), K o f i n a s a n d Griggs (1996), and G r a n t (1996)). The Antecedents section places collaboration i n the context o f the forces leading to it and asks whether collaboration is the best m e t h o d to solve a given p r o b l e m . Antecedents leads into Problem Setting where the groups and individuals i n v o l v e d i n the collaboration determine stakeholder i n v o l v e m e n t and interactions, define the p r o b l e m and their collective approach to s o l v i n g it. I n Direction Setting, the group sets a detailed agenda, creates decision rules, determines the i n f o r m a t i o n needed, performs the i n f o r m a t i o n search, and examines the i n f o r m a t i o n obtained. Structuring looks specifically at formalising the stakeholder relationships a n d the process, a n d h o w geography affects those relationships, such as difficulty i n setting meeting times o r bringing collaborators to the table. Results, as the name implies, discusses what came o u t o f the process, whether the p r o b l e m was solved, and the implications o f the process o n the participants inside the process and parties outside o f the process. E a c h subsection (question) is split into two parts. T h e first part elaborates o n the concept raised i n the question f r o m the perspective o f collaboration theory a n d sets the standard for what s h o u l d happen i n a collaborative process. T h e second part explores the experiences o f C I C groups. T h e C I C perspective amplifies a n d occasionally adds another d i m e n s i o n to the question n o t necessarily p r o v i d e d by collaboration theory.  Antecedents A s stated earlier, collaboration theory antecedents contextualise a p r o b l e m , and act as a platform from w h i c h to decide whether collaboration is the best m e t h o d o f solving that  46  p r o b l e m , i n this case conserving land. W h i l e exogenous pressures often c o m p e l the participants to f o r m the collaborative venture, preconditions need not be socio-economic forces (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 14). P e o p l e or institutions can be the catalysts that b r i n g stakeholders together and are called convenors (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 191). A c o n v e n o r may be a mediator, or a government b o d y that calls together the collaborative group. Based o n their research, Selin and C h a v e z argue that the type o f convenor w i l l affect the process and outcome o f the collaboration. T h e forces leading to collaboration or a c o n v e n o r influence potential participants i n their decision about whether collaboration is the m o s t effective m e t h o d to solve their p r o b l e m (Grant, 1996, 92). Finally, the stakeholders decide o n a general approach to collaboration, formal or informal. T h e following subsections discuss h o w the participants successfully c o m e together to collaborate and why.  What force(s) led to the collaboration and how might that force be characterised? Forces outside the control o f groups in society necessitate the formation of alliances to either control the environment or deal with uncertainty (Wood and Gray, 1991, 160). In other words, the objective o f collaborating may be to manage conflict or create a shared vision of the problem domain (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 14). Such forces may be domain-related, or they may be institutionally based. Domain-related forces arise out of the field in which an organisation is an actor. Kofinas arid Griggs identified a number o f compelling reasons for organisations to react to exogenous pressures using collaborating (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 18). Examples of these pressures include rapid technological change, global interdependence, shrinking government resources, or dissatisfaction with government processes for solving problems. Such pressures can increase tension and conflict, or they can confuse an individual or group's perspective o f their environment. Therefore, these individuals, or groups, form a collaborative group to resolve differences, or to reach a common understanding. Existing institutions in the socio-political realm may serve as an impetus for collective action. Because lines between institutions and the problem domain are blurry, distinguishing between institutional and domain-related forces is difficult. For example, although a shrinking ministry budget may be domain-related, causing organisations to act in place of government, a smaller budget can also cause government to use collaboration to find innovative solutions to problems. Frequendy, institutional forces compel collective action, such as in cases of arbitration or regulatory mandates (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 191). In other situations, institutions may attempt systematic change through seeking a common vision. Strong leaders, incentive structures or existing networks are common catalysts for pursuing shared views.  47  Either of the types of forces, domain-related or institutional, may lead groups or individuals to act collectively with others. Conflict or a desire for a common vision of these forces might result in collaboration (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 19). Viewing collaborations in this simplified manner is helpful; however, there are complexities involved where the collaboration is a result of both vision and conflict within the community. For example, some C I C projects may use existing networks to reduce conflict in land use planning and at the same time give birth to a community vision for protecting natural spaces. Similar forces act in the realm o f C I C . Conflicts over land use, such as development or resource extraction, may end in collaboration (Coggins, 1998, 2-3). Also, a leader, existing networks, or seeking a consensus in a complex world may provide an impetus for collective action (Brick, 1998, 3). A community may push to protect spaces it deems important to its social or environmental health, or it may desire to create more liveable spaces through protection of natural spaces allowing multiple uses, such as recreation and conservation or even ecologically sensitive commercial use. F o r example, some land trusts conserve land that includes agricultural use.  Did the actors consider whether collaboration was the best method for achieving land conservation? There are places and times in which collaboration is the best method for achieving an end result. In the case o f watershed planning in B C , the case for using consensus roundtables is well established and often a good method for achieving watershed plans (Grant, 1996, 92). CICs use a number of methods to conserve land (e.g. legal processes, purchases, etc.), of which collaboration is only one. Even C I C s ' use o f collaboration is different than the large multistakeholder processes like the one outlined in Kathy Grant's thesis. CICs often involve only the stakeholders that are essential to achieve their ends. The ultimate goal is to gain insight into the function o f CICs and how they decide what method is best for conserving land. Critics and supporters of C I C state that collaborative systems have a place, though they are not for every case, or every community. Collaboration is not a panacea. "Instead o f gridlock, we can find consensus and move forward. But no one has really been able to articulate where that 'forward' might be... Are we really ready to devolve the management o f public land to local consensus councils?" (Brick, 1998, 2-3) Similarly, those who participate in communities are not always reasonable (Coggins, 1998, 3, 4, 6). Consensus is not always possible. The wider public interest is not always served. Local knowledge does not always result in better planning. Group collaboration is transient at best, lacking the durability of established institutions, because the groups form to handle one problem and then potentially disband. Furdiermore, collaboratives often do not have a mandate, or adequate resources to continue into the long-term. Collaborative alliances lack legal authority, instead relying on coercion and "peer pressure."  48  Brick and Coggins illustrate that the participants i n collaboration must make it work. These ventures take commitment, time, considerable effort, resources, and a willingness to listen to all sides of an issue. Despite these potential pitfalls, collaboration can still achieve results where traditional institutions can not. Sometimes the costs o f non-participation are higher than continuing to participate (Knopman, et a l , 1999, 27). If a person or group refuses participation, they may be perceived by the community as part of the problem, rather than part o f the solution (Gordon, 2000, 17). For die reasons outlined above, potential collaborative alliances should not enter into a process lighdy, blithely initiating a process without regard to the consequences of such actions. Therefore, this question is directed at whether CICs, such as the two case studies on Galiano, considered alternative methods of conservation and whether they truly thought collaboration was the best method to conserve Bodega Ridge and Pebble Beach. Because collaboration is often used by CICs, this question focuses on whether or not a C I C consciously makes this choice and attempts to include stakeholders for achievement of their ends. Alternatively, CICs could be collaborative through convenience, using only the stakeholders they must to achieve their conservation ends, without regard to other potential benefits, such as building social capital.  What was the general approach to the collaboration? A collaborative process can be formal, with detailed agendas and set procedures, or it can be ad hoc, feeling its way through the process one step at a time (Grant, 1996, 92). Typically, groups develop their own methods for working together over time, but they should decide early on i f a facilitator is necessary. Facilitators are at times useful because they can keep the group on task and maintain participants' respect for each other. A t other times, such formality might smother the innovation that can arise out of a collaborative process. C I C experiences also suggest both approaches, formal and ad hoc. Some CIC-experienced persons recommend that groups tackling procedures for operating die collaborative get professional help, to set up meetings, procedures, and for teaching how to collaborate (Poole, 2000, 12). Others suggest that groups should work "with people from the area... What's in front of you is the raw material of your organization" (Gordon, 2000, 17).  Problem Setting T h e Problem Setting phase has four components. Stakeholders identify the legitimate interests and seek to i n v o l v e them. Stakeholder interactions are an important part o f Problem Setting. Inclusion i n the process, relationships w i t h others and p o w e r dynamics are three major forms o f these interactions. Participants need to determine their interests and values as they  49  relate to the p r o b l e m , especially their core values, w h i c h are o f f limits to negotiation. Interests f o r m the basis for discussions a n d formulating solutions. Finally, the group c o m m u n a l l y defines the p r o b l e m , or what the collaboration hopes to achieve.  Did the collaborative identify and include all legitimate stakeholders? One of the early steps in collaboration is when stakeholders collectively decide who takes part in the process (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192). A legitimate stake is defined as "the perceived right or capacity to participate in die process or ability to affect the outcome" (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21). Determining a party's legitimacy is difficult. Groups must discuss whether a particular stake really does influence either the process or the outcome. Ideally, a collaborative effort will include a wide range of stakeholders, representing all o f these interests, and they will exhaustively work to include others in die process. In the C I C experience, inclusion, identifying, and inviting disparate interests is just as much an issue as it is with other collaborative efforts. Some examples of interests that may not be readily apparent to some groups are: non-human interests, those groups or constituencies outside of the immediate local area (e.g. non-local E N G O s ) , future generations, or First Nations (who have a legal right to consultation). Often, interests, such as future generations, are represented by proxy, although this method is imperfect. Critics of C I C question whether a small ad hoc group can be truly inclusive (Brick, 1998, 3; Coggins, 1998, 2). For example, a local group may not adequately represent the interests o f global tourists or future generations. O n a positive note, local collaborators may foster equality and eliminate discrimination between the environmental "elite" and communities (Brick, 1998, 3, Shutkin, 2000, 139-40). Either way, whether or not inclusiveness is present in die C I C effort will have ramifications on the legitimacy of the project, may foster a more just society and may enable obtaining die resources necessary for continued collaboration.  What are the characteristics of the interactions between the selfinterests and collective interests of individual stakeholders? What are the characteristics of interactions between stakeholders? Throughout a process, stakeholders interact with other stakeholders, share information and build relationships. Because these interactions form the basis for the collaborative effort, the structure and types of relationships are essential to the success or failure of the process. T o structure them, collaboration theorists analyse the reasons for individual involvement, individual versus collective interests, power and interdependence.  50  Individual stakeholders should repeatedly ask themselves why they are involved, and how the group is serving their interests. Reasons for inclusion are complex, because the interests are often difficult to separate (Wood and Gray, 1991, 160). Essentially, there are three types of relationships between the individual and collective interests: shared, differing, and opposing. When an individual stakeholder's interests are essentially the same as those of the collective, they share interests. Shared interests make consensus possible. Differing interests are to be understood as inconsistencies that may not interfere with the group's interests. Opposing interests, on the other hand, occur when there is a fundamental difference between the interests of individual(s) and the collective. A t this stage, the collective and the individual must ascertain whether to continue the collaboration, and how they will deal with this fundamental difference. Other types of interactions involve relationships between stakeholders, one of the most important being power. Power is inherent in information and all types of interactions between people. In collaboratives, the basis for reaching a mutual agreement to solve the problem lies in an individual stakeholder's comfort in bringing together ideas, information and action. Power can disrupt the flow o f information and resources, or cause participants to act solely in their own interests rather than the collaborative's interests. Collaborative processes continually deal with flows of resources, in relationships between individuals and institutions. It is i n that sense that power is a very important in collaborative processes and affects their outcomes (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 23). Collaborative efforts should strive to balance power between interests through high interdependence between stakeholders and to intervene when powers countervail each other. Furthermore, Kofinas and Griggs suggest that i f the division between powers is too great, to the extent that one person or group can act unilaterally, there is little incentive to collaborate. Relationships can have positive or negative effects on C I C groups, or in their processes. Following are a list of some o f the effects of relationship interactions: ^  Egos and personality conflicts — Sometimes stakeholders don't want to get along, or something happened long ago over which they still carry a grudge (Kittredge, 2000, 11).  ^  "Raging brawls" — Conflicts surrounding peoples' ways of life are touchy issues and can lead to very heated discussions (Connelly, 2000, 26).  ^  Independence — Stakeholders come to the table in small towns with an attitude of independence, shown in their resistance to authority or exercise of autirority over their private lands (Connelly, 2000, 26).  y  Flow groups are approached or invited to participate — B . C . First Nations require adherence to "protocol." They want groups, who are legally required to consult widi them, to come to their band councils to talk about what they are doing, rather than sending a letter requesting their presence at a meeting. In a U S collaborative, time (over a year), patience and understanding were necessary to bring First Nations to the table (Gordon, 2000, 17).  Power may affect C I C in some o f the following ways:  51  ^  A group could use its influence to help protect an area important to the community (Brick, 1998, 5).  ^  Power can change a local economy, changing local livelihoods (Brick, 1998, 5).  ^  Powerful stakeholders can co-opt others views, or use their influence to push the collective in one direction or another (Coggins, 1998, 5, Kofinas, 1996, 19).  ^  Industry has economic power, which they can use to influence a group in need of resources, or they can work against them through litigation or other monetarily expensive means (Brick, 1998, 3).  Groups must work with what they have. Therefore, finding ways to deal with the issues of power and relationships between participants is important. Some effective means are to explicitly define a participant's stake in the collaboration, maintain an explicit and high degree of interdependence among stakeholders, and discuss ideas openly and respectfully (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192; Knopman, et. al, 1999, 30, 32; Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21; Poole, 2000, 12). Dealing with relational issues takes time, as illustrated by Connelly, "One of the things I have learned while working to organize things in my watershed is that rural communities are a lot like cows, and like my dad always told me when I was a kid, the fastest way to move a cow is slow" (Connelly, 2000, 26).  Did stakeholders maintain a core value set off limits to negotiation? One disincentive to collaborate occurs when a group, or the process, infringes on another individual or group's core value set (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 15). Ideally, a participant should take time to consider what their values are and which ones remain non-negotiable. These core values should be raised with the group. By doing so, all groups are clear on issues open to negotiation and can develop mutually agreeable solutions. Many C I C groups suggest that participants take the time to define dieir core values, and state when they are breached during discussions. F o r example, the Northern Plains Resource Council, in the state of Montana, touts their success at including diverse groups and accomplishing many of their aims as a result o f sticking to their shared core values (Gordon, 2000, 16). Core values may also prevent collaboration for some o f the more radical environmental groups, such as Earth First!, who will never participate in a collaborative effort that involves the logging industry (Coggins, 1998, 4; Reilly, 1998,119).  What was the common problem, and how was it identified? A characteristic of good collaborative processes, common problem definition involves many aspects. Solving this common problem is what has brought the stakeholders together. Following are some common characteristics of defining the problem: ^  A common conception of the issue tiiat explicidy emphasises the interdependence of participants (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21)  52  5^  Communal discussion/communally discussed (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192)  ^  A common understanding using common definitions (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 14)  ^  Stakeholders' perception that collaboration will produce positive outcomes (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21)  C I C groups emphasise that die group eventually will have to tackle defining a single problem. Sometimes, this problem is the catalyst that brings them together and is obvious. For example, although already established as a group widi common interests, the Sheepscot Wellspring Alliance acted decisively when they found that a nearby bog was to be logged. The group managed to raise the required funding to purchase the land through donations and private foundations (George, 2000, 92). In this case, the common problem was immediately evident.  In  other cases, an alliance may need to understand the context of the situation, and to define their objectives and ultimately the problem. For example, sometimes it is necessary for the parties to get to know each other before they will work together. Environmentalists and ranchers in Routt County Colorado learned about each other and their ways of life through informal meetings over coffee in each others' kitchens (Shutkin, 2000, 197). In such meetings, stakeholders work together to develop a common language, one without jargon or rhetoric (Kittredge, 2000, 11; McNally, 1999, 27; Poole, 2000, 12). T h e group ultimately arrives at a shared context and shared problem through development of a common language. Further, C I C groups find that focus in their efforts is key. If they can develop, "measurable outcomes and products, [and] deadlines," the group will accomplish their task more easily using fewer precious resources (McNally, 1999,  (Walls, 2000) 53  Direction Setting Direction Setting is the phase i n w h i c h collaborators agree o n procedures for addressing the p r o b l e m and start w o r k i n g to solve it (Grant, 1996, 96). P r o c e d u r a l issues include setting a c o m m o n agenda, g r o u n d rules, goals, subgroups, and tasks. Substantive issues include discussion o f values, obtaining adequate resources, joindy searching for i n f o r m a t i o n and examining the resulting data. T h i s section discusses each o f these issues.  Did the group set an agenda that reflects all parties' interests? Setting an explicit agenda for the overall collaborative process achieves three main objectives. First, it reflects all o f the issues with which the group must work and will maintain commitment of the participants (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 22). Second, the agenda will air any constraints of those involved in the process, such as time or other resource constraints. Third, an agenda will build support through stakeholder knowledge of the process and events to come. Depending on the type of approach (i.e. formal or informal), the group may wish to set individual agendas to govern meetings and break the process into more manageable tasks. Because C I C participants must act with limited resources, particularly time and money, setting an agenda may make the most efficient use o f those resources. In spite of this, none of the C I C literature states the benefits or drawbacks o f agenda setting. F o r the reasons given above, agendas may prove crucial to the success o f collaborative ventures.  Did the group set ground rules, rules for decision-making, goals, subgroups and tasks together? The collaborative group should establish decision rules, set ground rules, and define the role and formation of subgroups (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192). Decision rules outline how groups make decisions (e.g. voting or secret ballots). They also explain how to handle dissent or abstentions, and how decisions are communicated within the group and with the wider community. Ground rules should be collectively determined and mutually acceptable (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21). They establish boundaries for acceptable behaviour and dealing with uncertainty. Furtiiermore, ground rules are proactive. They prescribe a vision o f how collaboration will be different from adversarial, position-based discussions and negotiations. Often, collaborative efforts will break the problem into tasks and use subgroups to accomplish those tasks. T o make subgroups effective, the collaborators should define their role, formation, constituency and goals. Subgroups should be limited in size, though maintain diversity, to facilitate effective functioning and achieving their desired outcome or goal. Goals for the subgroups should be specific, clearly defining the objectives and scope o f the group and setting a timeline to reach those objectives.  54  The C I C experience raises the question whether consensus is possible in the first place. Many of these collaborative groups are dealing with issues where stakeholders have been in conflict in the past, where their ideas are very divergent; therefore, agreement or general consensus may be unattainable (Coggins, 1998, 3-4). Groups should set decision rules early in the collaborative effort, so members with divergent ideas may opt out of decisions. Another author outlines a few ground rules for C I C groups: honour diversity, listen, respect and acknowledge and don't blame others at the table (Poole, 2000, 12). Poole goes on to highlight the importance of immediate progress of the collaborative, by designing small projects with easy completion to instil a sense o f accomplishment within the group. For example, visiting a riparian zone to extirpate non-native plants represents something that improves the ecology of the area and is easy to accomplish together.  Did participants discover commonly held beliefs through discussion of values, goals and interpretations of the future? Discussion o f pertinent knowledge is intrinsic to any collaborative process: participants share their bekefs, values, goals, and interpretations of the future (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192). This dialogue leads to a common understanding of the problem, but more importandy highlights commonly held beliefs between stakeholders. Discussing beliefs and values leads to a better understanding of the other parties in the collaborative and builds trust. Trust was a key issue identified i n two studies of collaborative processes, Trust was a major issue throughout both collaborative efforts. Due to past perceptions and the controversial nature o f the various issues, establishing a level of trust between members was seen as the most crucial element for most members. Several members said they have become more tolerant and have developed a greater understanding of the 'other side' (Reilly, 1998, 137). Discussion o f beliefs and building trust form a foundation upon which the collaborative can deal witii substantive issues relating to the problem domain. Nearly all C I C alliances mention the importance o f finding a common language based upon commonly held beliefs. A t the outset, the collaboration's constituents are often at odds, philosophically and/or in action (Sojourner, 2000,13; Kittredge, 2000,11; McNally, 1999, 27). Through discussion of values, beliefs and goals, they become familiar with the other participants' backgrounds and how diey approach problems. A s stated by Shutkin, finding common ground does not have to take place in formal meetings; ranchers and environmentalists met regularly in each others' kitchens over coffee (Shutkin, 2000, 197-8). F r o m this point, the participants can find the common ground, such as shared concepts and definitions, necessary to devise creative solutions to the problem, solutions that can achieve the goals o f individuals and the collective.  55  Did the collaborative jointly search for information, and was that information mutually examined? The collective group, during and after discussing tiieir commonly held beliefs, will start to acquire knowledge as well as assess their information needs (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192). Stakeholders may provide needed information, but the group will also have to acquire relevant material to continue the discussions, through purchase or directed research (Grant, 1996, 99). The driving force behind discussions, perceptions of the problem and potential solutions is the development of a group knowledge base (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 21). For C I C initiatives, searching for information is not isolated within the collaborative process. Individuals and groups should always come prepared, having done their "homework" (Gordon, 2000, 17; Poole, 2000, 12). Further, groups are encouraged to use what they already know and, work with people in their area (Gordon, 2000, 17). Although there are times where individuals will initiate a search on their own, their findings should be shared and discussed with the group (Huffman, 2000, 20). Sometimes, when an individual does get information on her/his own, she/he will have to justify its inclusion in the discussions. In one case, Huffman uses the example of conservation-certified beef as an example of the kind of information that can create creative solutions. Ranchers and environmentalists working together in Colorado found that they had to find new ways to add value to ranching to compete with the onslaught of development offering up to three times the appraised value of the land. Certifying beef represents a way to add value over and above the compensation ranchers receive for a conservation easement on the tide to their land. One of die participants worked outside the process to develop the idea that has resulted in certification and more conservation easements on ranching properties.  Were adequate resources initially available to the CIC group? How were the necessary resources obtained? Collaborative processes are resource intensive, taking time, money, humanpower and coundess meetings to develop plans (Reilly, 1998, 119). Meeting places cost money. People put in hours developing ideas, planning for and holding meetings and compiling the results. Once the process is complete, monitoring and implementation use resources (Reilly, 1998, 134). For example, sampling from a stream to test for toxins takes time to collect and money for the lab results. Kathy Grant's thesis on the Salmon River Watershed planning process illustrates how the group funded itself and provided training to participants (Grant, 1996, 87, 95, 7). The watershed-planning project received funding from foundations and from government. In one instance, a workshop taught some participants facilitation skills. Individuals and groups participating in a collaborative alliance should work to provide and be provided with equal access to resources. Resources should not just be purely financial in nature, but potentially include transportation to and from die process, education and training or photocopies of materials.  56  Fundraising to maintain an alliance and achieve their conservation goals is a critical part of any C I C project (George, 2000, 90, 2). Here again, C I C groups display opportunistic characteristics. Often that drive for funding can lead to other activities, such as nature centres, education, habitat restoration, holding artist workshops, barbecues and serving as a source of community information,'etc. (George, 2000, 92; Huffman, 2000, 20-1; McNally, 1999, 29; Porter ad Salveson, 1995, 277-8). C I C projects must also find people who are willing to donate their time (Gordon, 2000, 16). Resources such as scientific or technical knowledge or the financial capability to pay for them may be unavailable to local collaborative groups (Brick, 1998, 3). Limited resources are the cause o f many C I C groups' opportunistic nature, using whatever legal resources and methods are available to accomplish their ends. Throughout the C I C literature, the question of government assistance, in what form, how and when arises. One example of government financial assistance is the U S Environmental Protection Agency's Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) program. " C B E P projects are meant to be holistic, both in die ecological sense and in involving a variety of stakeholders. E P A provides tools and sometimes grant money to local communities to help them achieve their goals" ("Civic Environmentalism by A n y Other Name," 1999, 31). Often, C I C groups will lean upon government for assistance in gathering resources, such as scientific information, legal tools and mechanisms, funding and experience (Knopman, et al., 1999, 30, 2). Others wonder what the role o f government agencies should be in assisting the process, in implementation o f the outputs and in their reaction to the process during and after the process itself (Porter and Salvesen, 1995, 276). Still others call upon government to provide this assistance, as part o f governance (Reilly, 1998, 116).  Structuring T h e structuring phase does n o t happen i n all collaborative efforts. F o r the m o s t part, longterm collaborative alliances, o r those that require sustained c o m m i t m e n t o n the part o f stakeholders, need to establish a m o r e formal structure to the collaboration (Selin and C h a v e z , 1995, 192). F o r these longer-term commitments, stakeholders must plan for future interactions and responsibilities o f all parties, so there is clear understanding o f individual and process expectations.  Did the participants formalise the relationship? Clearer understanding of commitments and responsibilities may take the form of a legal agreement, which institutionalises the collaborative alliance and provides a framework for future action, monitoring and development of programs (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192). Other formal agreements might include partnerships, work plans, contracts and relationship building (Grant,  57  1996, 104). Formalising relationships between stakeholders and the outside community will foster greater understanding and buy-in to the process, lending it greater legitimacy. For CICs, formalising relationships may include creating tax exemptions, establishing non-profit status for the organisation, establishing working relationships, becoming a clearinghouse of information in the area, or becoming environmental advocates in the area (George, 2000, 90, 92; Porter and Salveson, 1995, 279; Soujourner, 2000, 13). In other examples, the groups have formed land trusts, started regular artist workshops, established a business cooperative and started nature centres (George, 2000, 92; Huffman, 2000, 20; Sojourner, 2000, 13). These initiatives illustrate C I C alliances' drive to endure.  How did geography between stakeholders affect the process? Being geographically proximate will aid in a collaborative process (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 22). Proximity facilitates meetings times and places, and it uses fewer resources i f the alliance must pay to bring people together. However, recent technological advances in telecommunications lessen this advantage. C I C groups take full advantage of proximity. Generally, CICs are made up of local people and local groups, facilitating group meeting times and notice o f meetings. However, there are three problems associated with geography that hamper either relationships or communication. Local initiatives may lose out on valuable information from regional, national or global institutions (Coggins, 1998, 4). Similarly, local alliances acting in their area may conflict widi the goals and objectives of such institutions (Brick, 1998, 5). Finally, a local collaborative may not serve the wider public good as effectively (Coggins, 1998, 4).  Outcomes O u t c o m e s are the end products o f the collaborative process; however, they are n o t confined to the agreement o f the process. T h e y include impacts o f the agreement, the collaborative process itself or the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f the agreement. F o r example, one C I C o u t c o m e w o u l d be the l a n d that is conserved, but another can be a sense o f connection to the land, i n or out o f the c o m m u n i t y . P u t another way, outcomes may be the agreement(s) or the impacts o f the process and implementation o f the agreement(s).  T h e questions relevant to  outcomes o f C I C processes relate to the f o l l o w i n g topic areas: the agreement, whether the p r o b l e m was solved, the impacts o f the process and the personal reflections o f the participants.  58  What was the agreement? Programs, policy and work plans are examples of intended outcomes of a collaborative process (Grant, 1996, 103-4). Other examples are rules or agreements for governing the resource, such as whether such governance should be shared or individual (Wood and Gray, 1991, 157-8, 60). For C I C groups, the desired outcome is conserved land. H o w they achieve this depends on the process, but it could result in land trusts, conservation covenants (or easements), land purchases, various levels o f park designation, or agricultural land with more ecologically sensitive management (George, 2000, 92; Shutkin, 2000, 203; Soujourner, 2000, 13). Conservation should also be in accordance with certain standards, which are laid out by established institutions (Coggins, 1998, 6). C I C protection o f lands sometimes meets and sometimes exceeds these standards.  Did the stakeholders consider the problem solved? A t the beginning o f this framework, the group may have defined the problem that it set out to solve through the collaborative process. Was this problem solved? N o t only should the question o f whether the problem was solved be asked, but also how well the problem was solved (Gray and W o o d , 1991, 18; Reilly, 1998, 133). If the collaborative alliance set up a group to manage a resource, and they did not provide for its funding or other resources, then the problem was not fully solved. Two issues identified in C I C are the funding o f the result and whether the collaborative alliance will stick to the plan during implementation (Porter and Salvesen, 1995, 278-9). Because a collaborative venture can be transient in nature, there is litde assurance that the land will continue to be protected and managed, unless there is funding to back it up. Furthermore, participants in the collaboration must how to enforce the agreement, since collaborative agreements are often non-binding in a legal sense.  What did the stakeholders see as the impacts of the process? Collaborative alliances have impacts beyond the scope of the problem solved. They impact the socio-cultural, political and economic systems of the local, regional, national levels, or even the global arena. The group and others should address such impacts (Selin and Chavez, 1995, 192). In addition, successful implementation may depend upon the participants' management of complexities outside the collaborative effort, including their constituencies (Kofinas and Griggs, 1996, 22). Managing this environment involves building outside partnerships, monitoring changes and acting as a collective when necessary. C I C may protect lands, but such protection may not serve the wider public interest (Coggins, 1998, 4). Such public interest issues may be equity (environmental justice), or use of resources  59  owned by that wider interest. Other impacts discussed by C I C initiatives are a greater connection to the land, more effective resource management, a sense of working together, building social capital in the community, and serving as a resource to other groups (Connelly, 2000, 25-6; George, 2000, 90-1; Huffman, 2000, 21).  What are the participants' personal reflections on the process, and how did it change them? Collaboration can influence people (e.g. the participants in the process). Influences can be personal, changing an individual's oudook (Wood and Gray, 1991, 160). A collaborative effort may change the person's views on acting collectively in the future, or it may change how diey perceive their environment and complexity within that environment. Collaborators may act, live and work differendy in their community as a result o f working in a collaborative venture (Knopman, et al., 1999, 27). Participants may seek to become more educated, take more responsibility for their community, and work together with their neighbours to achieve a more liveable community. People in C I C groups act out of a mutual self-interest (Gordon, 2000, 16). The land they are conserving is their own; it is nearby, a place they and their children can enjoy. Participating in a collaborative group has changed the oudook of some members. In fact, one collaborator put it this way, " I f anything, I've become more of an environmentalist. Didn't really start out as one, but I think I've become a lot more environmentally conscious. Some of the things I'd never considered became important. We had to educate ourselves on water quality; we had to educate ourselves on air quality. Y o u look at water quality and all o f a sudden you think, okay, I'm criticizing these people for leakage out o f their ash mine, and the power plant, maybe I'm a hypocrite i f I'm not also concerned about riparian habitat along the creek here [emphasis author's]" (Gordon, 2000, 17). This clearly illustrates what has already been stated, that some people develop a greater connection to the land, their neighbors and a sense of responsibility for community development. T h e chart b e l o w summarises the components o f the Pack Checklist, elaborated above, w i t h the m a i n points tied to each question.  Table 3. A Pack Checklist Framework  Question  wit  Potential Im/taits or Questions Facilitating  Variables  Auliceilents  •  C o n t r o l the e n v i r o n m e n t / d e a l w i t h u n c e r t a i n t y  W h a t force(s) l e d to the c o l l a b o r a t i o n  •  M a n a g e c o n f l i c t o r a c h i e v e a shared v i s i o n  a n d h o w m i g h t that f o r c e b e  •  characterised?  T y p e o f change: d o m a i n - r e l a t e d (exogenous pressures) o r institutionally-based  •  Leaders, existing networks, or groups seeking consensus  D i d the actors c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r  •  O f all d i e o p t i o n s o p e n to a C I C , w h y c o l l a b o r a t e i n this way?  c o l l a b o r a t i o n was the best m e t h o d  •  T h e r o l e o f c i t i z e n c o n t r o l o f resources  considered for achieving land  •  C o m m u n i t i e s a n d c i t i z e n s are r e s p o n s i b l e  60  conservation?  •  Is c o n s e n s u s p o s s i b l e ?  •  O p p o r t u n i t y costs o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n  •  L i n k i n g interests a n d w i l l p a r t i c i p a n t s b e p a r t o f the p r o c e s s o r seen as a p a r t o f the p r o b l e m b y n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g  W h a t was the g e n e r a l a p p r o a c h to the collaboration?  •  F o r m a l (often facilitated) o r ad hoc p r o c e s s  •  W o r k w i t h w h a t is i m m e d i a t e l y available w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y , w h i c h m a y d e t e r m i n e h o w the c o l l a b o r a t i v e p r o c e e d s  Questions I'adlitaliii"  D i d the c o l l a b o r a t i v e i d e n t i f y a n d  I'mhleui  Stlliii"  •  P a r t i c i p a t i o n affects b o t h p r o c e s s a n d o u t c o m e s  •  L e g i t i m a c y - a g r o u p ' s capacity to affect the p r o c e s s o r outcome  i n c l u d e all l e g i t i m a t e s t a k e h o l d e r s ?  •  C a n s m a l l , ad hoc g r o u p s be truly i n c l u s i v e o f all legitimate interests, thus e l i m i n a t i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ?  •  Reasons for involvement  •  Interests s h a r e d , d i f f e r i n g o r o p p o s i n g  •  W h a t are the characteristics o f the i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n the self-interests  to c h a n g e s i n l i v e l i h o o d s , c o - o p t i n g the c o l l a b o r a t i v e ' s o r  a n d c o l l e c t i v e interests o f i n d i v i d u a l  c o m m u n i t y ' s interests, o r i n f l u e n c e e c o n o m i c a n d s o c i a l  stakeholders? W h a t are the characteristics o f i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n stakeholders?  D i d stakeholders m a i n t a i n a core value set o f f l i m i t s t o n e g o t i a t i o n ?  W h a t w a s the c o m m o n p r o b l e m a n d h o w was i t i d e n t i f i e d ?  A t t e m p t to balance the c o l l a b o r a t i v e ' s p o w e r d y n a m i c s . P o w e r c a n i n f l u e n c e g r o u p s a n d the c o m m u n i t y t o p r o t e c t l a n d , l e a d  systems. •  Stakeholder interdependence  •  O p e n discussion  •  H o w p a r t i c i p a n t s are a p p r o a c h e d to p a r t i c i p a t e  •  I n d e p e n d e n c e o f stakeholders a n d c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s  •  E x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e c o r e values  •  A c t i v e c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f their c o r e values a n d interests  •  D e v e l o p a s h a r e d set o f c o r e values f o r the c o l l a b o r a t i v e  •  C o m m o n c o n c e p t i o n o f issues that h i g h l i g h t s i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e  •  C o m m u n a l discussion and continual discussion  •  C o m m o n understanding using c o m m o n definitions  •  Perceived positive outcomes  •  C o u l d b e the catalyst that b r i n g s the g r o u p t o g e t h e r  •  N e e d to u n d e r s t a n d the c o n t e x t first  •  Measurable outcomes, products and deadlines  Questions:Facilitating •  Direction Setting  R e f l e c t s issues, m a i n t a i n s c o m m i t m e n t to c o l l a b o r a t e  D i d the g r o u p set a n agenda that  •  A i r c o n s t r a i n t s to the p r o c e s s a n d o u t c o m e s  reflects all parties' interests?  •  B u i l d s u p p o r t a n d i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e t h r o u g h k n o w l e d g e o f the  D i d the g r o u p set g r o u n d rules,  •  decision-making, goals, subgroups and  •  Set d e c i s i o n s rules early  tasks together?  •  I m m e d i a t e progress f r o m subgroups/task b r e a k d o w n  D i d participants discover c o m m o n l y  •  Pertinent knowledge  h e l d beliefs t h r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n o f  •  Trust  values, goals a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the  •  C o m m o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g , shared values a n d i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e  •  Pre-process information  process Is c o n s e n s u s p o s s i b l e  future?  D i d the c o l l a b o r a t i v e j o i n d y s e a r c h f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d was that i n f o r m a t i o n mutually examined?  •  H o w i n f o r m a t i o n is o b t a i n e d  •  D i d the g r o u p d o its " h o m e w o r k ? "  •  K n o w a n d w o r k w i t h w h a t is available  •  S h a r e the i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h others i n the c o l l a b o r a t i v e  61  W e r e adequate r e s o u r c e s initially  •  M o n e y , time  available to the C I C g r o u p ?  •  R e s o u r c e s for m o n i t o r i n g a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  •  E d u c a t i o n as a r e s o u r c e  •  E q u a l access to r e s o u r c e s  H o w were  the necessary r e s o u r c e s o b t a i n e d ?  •  Fundraising  •  O p p o r t u n i s m / l i m i t e d r e s o u r c e s as a characteristic o f C I C s  •  G o v e r n m e n t assistance  Questions Facilitating  Structuring  •  F o r m a l agreements  D i d the p a r t i c i p a n t s f o r m a l i s e the  •  U s e a facilitator  relationship?  •  D i d the c o l l a b o r a t i v e b e c o m e a n o r g a n i s a t i o n (e.g. a l a n d trust)?  H o w d i d geography  between  stakeholders affect the p r o c e s s ?  •  P r o x i m i t y facilitating/hindering process  •  R e g i o n a l / n a t i o n a l / g l o b a l i n f o r m a t i o n available a n d u s e d  •  C o n f l i c t w i t h g r o u p s o u t s i d e the c o m m u n i t y  •  C o l l a b o r a t i v e serve the w i d e r p u b l i c g o o d  Questions Facilitating W h a t w a s the agreement?  D i d the s t a k e h o l d e r s c o n s i d e r the p r o b l e m solved?  Outcomes  • .  W a s the l a n d c o n s e r v e d ?  •  Level o f protection  •  Standards  •  E x t e n t o f s o l v i n g the p r o b l e m  •  P r o v i d e r e s o u r c e s for m o n i t o r i n g a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  •  A c c e p t a n d s u p p o r t the p l a n after c o l l a b o r a t i n g  •  S o c i o - c u l t u r a l , p o l i t i c a l , e c o n o m i c systems  •  B u i l d i n g p a r t n e r s h i p s , m o n i t o r i n g changes a n d a c t i o n  W h a t d i d the s t a k e h o l d e r s see as the  •  W i d e r p u b l i c interest  i m p a c t s o f the p r o c e s s ?  •  Equity  •  L a n d ethic, w o r k i n g together, s o c i a l capital, s e r v i n g as a resource  • W h a t w e r e the s t a k e h o l d e r s '  personal  Change views about collaboration  •  C h a n g e v i e w s a b o u t life i n their c o m m u n i t y  reflections o n the p r o c e s s a n d h o w d i d  •  D i d they b e c o m e m o r e e d u c a t e d , take m o r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ?  it c h a n g e t h e m ?  •  D i d they d e v e l o p a greater c o n n e c t i o n to the l a n d a n d d i d n e i g h b o u r s share a sense o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ?  C o l l a b o r a t i o n is a process. It involves many stakeholders through a period o f time. It is resource intensive, i n terms o f time, i n f o r m a t i o n and governance.  E a c h collaborative  process is different. H o w e v e r , there are similarities between them, and the thesis is an attempt to see i f for the cases o n G a l i a n o Island, B . C . , C I C practice might have learned f r o m the practices i n other communities and f r o m the theory o f collaboration. T h e f o l l o w i n g chapter introduces the C I C story o n G a l i a n o Island, f o l l o w e d by a chapter analysing the cases using the above framework.  62  Chapter J: Using Trail Guides and Maps  63  Chapter 5: Using Trail Guides and Maps Introduction T h i s chapter introduces the G a l i a n o Island cases used i n this thesis. T h e primary goal is to determine i f the problems experienced b y major actors i n the G a l i a n o Island cases c o u l d have benefited f r o m application o f the principles o f collaboration theory to their conservation efforts. T h e first section introduces the context for the i n c e p t i o n o f local conservation activities: c o m m u n i t y concerns about the impacts o f logging practices and residential development o n the ecological integrity o f the island. N e x t comes a brief description o f an area o n G a l i a n o Island k n o w n as B o d e g a Ridge f o l l o w e d by a timeline o f events relating to the conservation o f the Ridge. F o l l o w i n g that timeline comes another brief description and timeline for the second area, Pebble B e a c h . T h e timelines place key events under the headings that m a t c h the structure o f the approach o f collaborative theorists, to p l a n n i n g processes and solutions: Antecedents, Problem Setting, Direction Setting, Structuring and Outcomes. C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory has been chosen for this analysis because it has a wellestablished history o f use i n evaluating natural resource p l a n n i n g processes i n British C o l u m b i a (B.C.), f r o m local watershed planning to L a n d and Resource Management Plans ( L R M P s ) . B o d e g a Ridge was completed 12 July 1995, and attained institutional protection and management. It should be noted, however, that Pebble B e a c h has not reached a conclusion, because the m a i n parties, the G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n ( G C A ) and M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d s and Parks ( M E L P ) , have not resolved issues surrounding use, access and p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t i n the management plan.  A Summary Description of Galiano Island, B.C. G a l i a n o Island is one o f the G u l f Islands o f f the lower coast o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . It sits i n the Strait o f G e o r g i a between the m a i n l a n d and V a n c o u v e r Island. G a l i a n o Island is approximately 25 kilometres l o n g and averages two kilometres w i d e (shown i n the map below).  64  Figure 1. Gulf Islands Map Gabriolo  ^ \  Valdes  To Vancouver  XI. Thetis Lady smith  . God'ono  ^^.--j  Crohn )  I Saltan ig ^  - V ^ P ^ ^ J S r ^  Duncan C f f o r k w r ^  V  Pender'  Swart z Bay  <!  ^ ( T o Victoria  (Victoria Tourism Mall, 2001) G a l i a n o has a Mediterranean-type climate i n the rainshadow o f V a n c o u v e r Island, experiencing m i l d , wet winters and w a r m , dry summers [Statistics on Galiano Island, B.C., 2001). T h e Island receives about 85 c m o f rain per year, averages 23 C and has more than 2,000 hours o f sunlight per year (Galiano Island, 2001). Geologically, G a l i a n o is typical o f the G u l f Islands w h i c h consist o f conglomerate, sandstone, sdtstone, shale and coal from the N a n a i m o G r o u p deposidon [Appendix 10 Natural I Jistory of the Study Area, 2001). A l l o f the Southern G u l f Islands were further affected d u r i n g the last Ice A g e , w h i c h ended between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago. G l a c i a t i o n shaped the Islands and left beds o f loose aggregate behind. Because the glaciers receded recendy, i n geologic terms, soils are less developed, containing significant amounts o f sand, gravel and pebbles. These soils contain little organic matter, rendering t h e m less suitable for agriculture than sods rich i n such matter {Appendix 10 Natural History of the Study Area, 2001). H o w e v e r , some wetlands, w h i c h are spaces i n l o w l a n d areas that collect water, caught the glacial till and developed enough organic matter to support the w e t l a n d vegetation and even agriculture. The B . C . C o n s e r v a t i o n D a t a Centre identifies 114 plant species and 18 plant communities  65  considered rare or vulnerable i n die E a s t V a n c o u v e r I s l a n d / G u l f Islands E c o r e g i o n . T h e hoary manzanita is one o f those vulnerable species, at the N o r t h end o f its natural range. Coastal D o u g l a s F i r and arbutus trees comprise the dominant vegetative landscape. G a l i a n o also includes one o f B . C . ' s registered b i g trees, an arbutus {Arbutus men^iesii) w i t h a circumference o f 5.50 meters and a height o f 19.5 meters (B.C. Conservation Data Centre: B.C. Register of Big Trees, 2001). A n i m a l species diversity o n the G u l f Islands is limited because o f the Islands' size {Appendix 10 Natural History of the Study Area, 2001). D e e r are the largest m a m m a l i a n species. Smaller mammals include racoons, otters and the T o w n s e n d ' s Big-eared Bat. O t h e r classes o f animals include a variety o f reptiles (e.g. the N o r t h e r n Alligator L i z a r d and Sharp-tailed snake) and amphibians (e.g. the R o u g h - s k i n n e d N e w t and Pacific Treefrog). T h e G u l f Islands further support nearly 9 0 % o f all b i r d species i n B . C . (e.g. the G r e a t B l u e H e r o n and the D o u b l e Breasted C o r m o r a n t ) . First N a t i o n s settled and used the G u l f Islands, m c l u d i n g G a l i a n o , since approximately 10,000 years ago. T h e i r primary uses o n G a l i a n o were subsistence agriculture, fishing and hunting and temporary settlement. G a l i a n o contains Indian Reserve L a n d s , o n w h i c h 5 First N a t i o n s persons live, according to the 1996 Census {Statistics on Galiano Island, B.C., 2001). G a l i a n o is claimed by two First N a t i o n s under L a n d Claims i n Treaty Negotiations, the T e ' M e x w and the H u l q u m i n u m ( H a n s o n , 2000). T h e Spanish were the first Europeans to explore B . C . ' s coast, and G a l i a n o Island is named after one o f Spain's explorers, D i o n i s i o G a l i a n o , w h o sailed i n the region i n 1792 {The Gulf Islands Guide, 2001; Galiano Island - Galiano Information, 2001). I n 1863, the m a i n E u r o p e a n e c o n o m i c activities o n the Island were fishing, hunting, shepherding and g r o w i n g fruit. G a l i a n o was logged before W o r l d W a r II, and a cannery and saltery were established. T o d a y , the Island is still primarily a subsistence economy, w i t h e c o n o m i c bases i n tourism and the arts. G a l i a n o is a municipality and part o f the Islands T r u s t w i t h 904 full-time residents {Statistics on Galiano Island, B.C., 2001). T h e Islands T r u s t is a designated level o f government between municipalities and the P r o v i n c e . T h e Islands T r u s t seeks to preserve the G u l f Islands' culture and protect their ecosystems through land use p l a n n i n g and by delegation o f authority f r o m the P r o v i n c e o f B . C .  66  A Short History of Land Use Conflict on Galiano Island Plate 11: Berke Breathed: Burrito A»*<m vmotm OF wm auntamrrmoF  vs».  VOUR RKW ?  f  5«W1FC _ WtKUfiKHi-T  evoonx** a * fl».  (Breathed, 1983) Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, G a l i a n o Island has been a "battieground" for a bitter land use war, pitting residents originally against a forestry company, M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l ( M B - Weyerhauser since 2000), and subsequentiy against n e w landowners, after purchase o f forest-zoned lands f r o m M B . G a l i a n o Island serves b o t h residents and visitors as a retreat and as a h o m e for some formerly urban dwellers, artists and others seeking to escape ever increasing development o f B . C . ' s cities, principally V a n c o u v e r and Victoria. A s far back as 1987, residents, then n u m b e r i n g about 800, were w o r r i e d about the logging practices o f M B . T h e i r concerns led to t w o courses o f action. Residents and members o f the local Naturalists Society formed an environmental non-governmental organisation, called Clear C u t Alternatives ( C C A ) . C C A ' s objectives were to, " b e c o m e educated about forestry, encourage M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l to seriously consider the community's forestry concerns, and keep everyone i n f o r m e d " (Kyle, 1998, 5). I n three years, C C A managed to map sensitive areas (i.e. areas w i t h ecosystems that degrade significantiy f r o m forestry activity), convince loggers to leave a narrow c o r r i d o r o f trees along visible clear cuts, and help establish the Forest L a n d Use C o u n c i l ( F L U C ) (Kyle, 1998, 6). F L U C , the second course o f action, was made up o f three representatives each f r o m M B , the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y , and the P r o v i n c i a l government (Kyle, 1998, 6). F L U C also served as a m e c h a n i s m for the c o m m u n i t y and M B to resolve disputes and concerns over logging practices. A s a result o f C o u n c i l discussions, M B p r o m i s e d to experiment with selective logging and set up its first demonstration forest. In 1989, M B o w n e d fifty-four percent o f G a l i a n o . Because o f escalating costs o f logging o n the island and rising real estate prices, M B turned to a developer, Intrawest, to start planning a process to sell and develop their land holdings o n G a l i a n o . It is important to note that M B had to obtain c o m m u n i t y support for their development plans, because they called for changes i n the z o n i n g bylaws as stated i n the Official C o m m u n i t y Plan. A public meeting o n  67  18 N o v e m b e r 1989 started a l o n g chain o f events o n G a l i a n o that has led to the current environment o f bitterness and a contentious atmosphere around l a n d use planning issues o n the Island. B e l o w is a timeline adapted f r o m the newsletter o f the G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n , Archipelago Winter 1997, w i t h additions f r o m the Times Colonist and the Gulf Island Tides. It illustrates some o f the events o f this time period.  Table 4. Context Surrounding Land Use and Land Conservation on Galiano Island October 1987  November 1987  December 1987  February 1988  March 1988 April 1988  May 1988  May 1989  M B was present at the Galiano Chamber of Commerce meeting. Here, the company proposed increasing commercial logging on the Island, which was quite low in intensity until this point. Their plan included clear cutting and slash and burn logging with yields nearly doubling. Over sixty of the 800 residents of the Island gathered at the N o r t h Hall to discuss logging. They reached consensus on the following points: • Clear cut logging was inappropriate for Galiano. • M B should have considered alternatives to large-scale logging. • A t this meeting, a group called Clear Cut Alternatives (CCA) was formed to represent the Islanders' views. M B and C C A agreed on a moratorium on logging until January. M B also conceded to modify their clear-cut practices, leaving "weed trees," leaving tree corridors along roads and giving advance notice to the community as to when and where logging would take place. M B , C C A and die Galiano Chamber of Commerce agreed on changes to logging practices. M B recognised diat as it impacts the community as a whole, regular input from the community was necessary. The C C A agreed to a suggestion from M B ' s Chief Forester to inventory, in map form, those areas the community considers sensitive — recreationally, environmentally and aesthetically. The Chamber o f Commerce would add its economic development plan to the negotiations upon its completion. A preliminary sensitive areas map was open for viewing and comment after a series of public workshops. The Island Trust Committee and C C A held a symposium, "Green Galiano: A Vision for the Future." Its purpose was to look at the effects of clear cut logging and explore alternatives that were economically and environmentally more "viable and credible." The results o f an Island-wide (all 800) resident poll in which over half the Islanders responded, the Sensitive Areas Survey, was reported and unanimously adopted. The Survey has driven conservation initiatives on the Island since its release. The questionnaire listed 23 sensitive areas based on the maps developed earlier with public input. These areas were ranked in order of percentage of residents desiring protection for each area. The questionnaire also listed 12 statements of concern, related to logging practices and government responsibilities, with which the residents could either agree or disagree. A new citizens group formed, called Friends of Galiano ( F O G ) . F O G was opposed to C C A ' s views, believing that M B had the right to do what it wished with its private lands on Galiano. They also called for a voice on F L U C .  68  1991  January 1991 June 1991  January 1992 March 1992 November 1992 August 1993 October 1993  May 1995 June 1995 July 1995 August 1995  September 1995  The revised Islands Trust and the Islands Trust A c t were enacted. The objecdve o f the Islands Trust has been to "preserve and protect the trust area and its unique amenides and environment for the benefit of the residents o f the trust area and of British Columbia generally, in cooperation with municipalities, regional districts, improvement districts, other persons and organizations and the government of British Columbia" (Islands Trust Act, 2000, 3) M B put its Galiano tree farm up for sale. This tree farm covered approximately 54% of the Island. In reaction to the sale of M B ' s lands, Bylaws 81-85 received their first public reading. In essence, the Bylaws disallowed rezoning and development on all lands zoned F l , until the community adopts a new Official Community Plan (OCP). Nearly all o f M B ' s lands for sale were zoned F l , lands on which forestry activity was the primary use. Bylaws 81-85 were enacted. M B filed suit against the Galiano community and the Islands Trust, claiming that Bylaws 81-85 were discriminatory and therefore invalid. The community began its O C P review process. The B . C . Supreme Court ruling declared Bylaws 81-85 invalid. The Galiano Trust Committee immediately appealed the decision. "Compromise" first appeared in the O C P draft. The compromise would have allowed owners of land zoned F l to go through the public process to rezone their land to allow one residence per twenty hectares (fifty acres). Public hearing held on the O C P draft. B C Court o f Appeal heard the Trust Committee's appeal on the B C Supreme Court decision. The O C P received its third reading. Unanimous Court o f Appeal decision declared Bylaws 81-85 valid and non-discriminatory. Note that this decision not only bolstered the Official Community Plan of Galiano Island, but also the use of zoning by the Islands Trust to manage growth and development on the G u l f Islands. Minister of Municipal Affairs signed Bylaw 108, enacting the revised OCP.  A l l o f these events taken together illustrate that Galiano's l a n d use p l a n n i n g underwent radical changes d u r i n g the 1990s. M a n y o f these changes were contentious. T h e entire institutional context o f the Island changed w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the new Islands T r u s t A c t i n 1991 by the P r o v i n c e , and the review and eventual a d o p t i o n o f a new Official C o m m u n i t y P l a n o n G a l i a n o i n 1995. M B sold o f f its l a n d holdings to new landholders, comprised o f b o t h private individuals and development companies. S u c h a large change i n land ownership, b o t h i n terms o f numbers o f landowners and geographic area, had the potential to irreversibly change the l o o k and character o f any c o m m u n i t y . Residents o f G a l i a n o Island feared their new neighbours w o u l d increase logging, r o a d bunding, and residential and c o m m e r c i a l development, thus changing b o t h the Island's character and  69  ecological integrity. Consequently, the question o f appropriate land use planning divided residents and p u b l i c o p i n i o n o n G a l i a n o f r o m the first sale o f land by M B . L a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n and understanding exacerbated this division. Residents o f G a l i a n o t o o k an immediately defensive stance toward the new property holders, as illustrated by passage o f Bylaws 81-85. I n part, this defensive stance was a result o f Intrawest's development proposal and M B ' s subsequent marketing o f the lands' development potential. M B d i d not fully disclose the z o n i n g restrictions and institutional changes taking place. Further, M B used their court challenge and initial victory as a marketing tool, espousing the lands' development potential. N e w and potential landowners d i d not research all o f these issues before purchasing the properties. T h u s , m i s i n f o r m a t i o n , defensiveness, misunderstanding and personal and financial restrictions led to p o o r l a n d management i n the early 1990s by some landowners. S o m e property owners were forced to l o g their lands intensively to help pay for mortgages they thought w o u l d be financed by development. Some landowners became entrenched i n their p o s i t i o n and b a d feelings toward the c o m m u n i t y , because they d i d not understand the legislative processes o f z o n i n g , O f f i c i a l C o m m u n i t y Plans, or the Islands Trust. M i s i n f o r m a t i o n and misunderstandings added to tension and difficulties encountered i n l a n d use p l a n n i n g o n G a l i a n o Island. T h e changing institutional context, the sale o f M B ' s land, the niisunderstandings o f new landholders and the threat o f development were events that lent a sense o f i m m e d i a c y to conservation o f l a n d o n G a l i a n o . H e n c e , members o f the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y decided they needed to start to conserve lands o n their o w n whether government or non-government organisations ( N G O s ) w o u l d assist them or not. T h i s thesis evaluates t w o different land conservation initiatives o n G a l i a n o Island, B o d e g a R i d g e and the Pebble B e a c h . Please refer to the maps in. Appendix  1, w h i c h show the l o c a t i o n o f b o t h Reserves o n the Island, as w e l l  as an aerial p h o t o g r a p h o f the Reserves. T h e G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n permitted use o f b o t h maps.  Bodega Ridge T h e first o f the citizen-initiated conservation efforts o n G a l i a n o Island was the G a l i a n o Club's purchase o f M o u n t G a l i a n o f r o m M B . I n 1991, this process brought the c o m m u n i t y together and generated enormous publicity. T h e M o u n t G a l i a n o Reserve covers 81 hectares o f land, i n c l u d i n g the m o u n t a i n , w h i c h rises 311 meters above A c t i v e Pass and is the highest p o i n t o n the Island (Again, please refer to the maps i n Appendix  70  1).  Plate 12. K e v i n Oke: The Spectacular View from Bodega Ridge  (Oke, 2000) A b o u t a m o n t h past the successful c o m p l e t i o n o f the M t . G a l i a n o campaign, several residents turned their attention to B o d e g a Ridge, a 282-metre high ridge just n o r t h o f Retreat C o v e o n the north-west side o f the Island (Bodega Partners, 1998). T h e process to protect Bodega Ridge started w i t h the purchase o f District L o t ( D L ) 73 by the Bodega Partners, made up o f three G a l i a n o residents and a gentleman from another o f the G u l f Islands. T h e i r original v i s i o n was to establish a trad network that w o u l d extend from the southern end o f the Ridge N o r t h to C o o n Bay, w h i c h later became a part o f D i o n i s i o P r o v i n c i a l Park. M o s t o f the Ridge properties were o w n e d by M B , and were for sale i n early 1991 (Bodega Partners, 1998). T h e B o d e g a Partners were the convenor i n this case, and since they had neither legal authority, n o r were they asked to initiate the process o f conserving Bodega Ridge, they were a persuasive convenor. T h e Bodega Partners were responsible for guiding the collaborative effort and attempting to convince the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y that together they c o u l d successfully protect the Ridge. S o o n after the B o d e g a Partners purchased D L 73, they learned that one o f the Ridge lots, D L 76, was g o i n g to be logged by its owner, a logger from Saltspring Island ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). O n e o f the Partners negotiated a setdement to send the loggers h o m e w i t h o u t logging and a purchase price for the Ridge i n one day. T h e mortgage that was eventually signed was a v e n d o r take back mortgage, i n w h i c h the seller o f the property (i.e.  71  the Saltspring logger) w o u l d reclaim tide to the property i f the c o m m u n i t y missed payments. T h i s mortgage was for three years. Interest was due each m o n t h , w i t h the principle due at the end o f the three years. A t this point, the B o d e g a Partners and several other Islanders k n e w that the S o u t h Island c o m m u n i t y had few resources, i n terms o f time or money, after the protection o f M t . G a l i a n o . Therefore, they enlisted the aid o f the N o r t h G a l i a n o C o m m u n i t y A s s o c i a t i o n ( N G C A ) for raising the m o n e y necessary to purchase D L 76. A n o t h e r o u t g r o w t h o f the N G C A ' s meeting that passed the resolution to accept the D L 76 mortgage was the f o r m a t i o n o f a group called the G a l i a n o Island Forest T r u s t ( G I F T ) . T h e resident B o d e g a Partners, some N G C A members and a few others c o m p r i s e d G I F T .  GIFT  and the N G C A successfully raised enough funding to pay the m o n t h l y interest payments o n the mortgage, t h r o u g h an array o f c o m m u n i t y events such as author readings and benefit dinners. I n order to pay the p r i n c i p l e for D L 76 and potentially purchase D L 75, the members o f G I F T decided to develop four waterfront properties o n D L 73 b e l o w Porlier Pass R o a d . I n the spring o f 1994, they received Preliminary L a y o u t A p p r o v a l for the properties. A t approximately the same time and after l o n g negotiations, the G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n ( G C A ) managed to enlist the help o f the N a t u r e Conservancy o f Canada ( N C C ) to purchase three D i s t r i c t L o t s (73, 75 and 76). O n e o f the conditions o f entering the B o d e g a R i d g e project set by the N C C was that someone w i t i i i n the c o m m u n i t y s h o u l d purchase D L 75, w h i c h was eventually arranged by some o f the board members o f the G C A under a B C corporation, renamed L e a p o f Faith. L e a p o f F a i t h obtained guarantees f r o m 20-30 Island residents for a mortgage to purchase D L 75. L e a p o f Faith also negotiated a new mortgage guaranteed by another twenty to tiiirty G a l i a n o residents. A f t e r negotiations w i t h G I F T , the w i d e r G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y and L e a p o f Faith, the N C C obtained purchase and sale agreements for each o f the L o t s . Finally, after negotiations w i t h the Federal and P r o v i n c i a l governments, the N C C obtained an agreement to protect B o d e g a Ridge through a n e w F e d e r a l / P r o v i n c i a l program, the Pacific M a r i n e Heritage Legacy ( P M H L ) . T h e P M H L was to be formed w i t h an equal amount o f funding f r o m each government, $30 m i l l i o n , w i t h the objective o f protecting coastal and marine areas i n the G u l f Islands o f B . C . B o d e g a Ridge was the first area protected i n this new program.  72  Thesis Question #2:Can CIC on Galiano Island, BC be considered collaborative?. If  :  CIC on Galiano is collaborative, to what extent was it collaborative in a  i  multistakeholder sense? T h e process to protect B o d e g a Ridge is collaborative, because it involved several . autonomous'stakeholders that w o r k e d together to achieve a" c o m m o n goal, p r o t c c d n g the Ridge. E a c h o f die stakeholders, the Bodega Partners, N G C A , L e a p o f Faith, the P M H L , and the N C C were independent and'relied u p o n the resources o f the others to ,, achieve the c o m m o n end, achieving P r o v i n c i a l Park status for the Ridge, as the first acquisition o f the P M H L . -  •  Timeline T h e timeline b e l o w summarises the above i n f o r m a t i o n i n tabular f o r m , w i t h m o r e detail. Furthermore, the timeline details the approximate timing o f events interpreted under the major headings f r o m collaboration theory. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n is an amalgamation o f sources: the files o f the B o d e g a Partners, the G C A a n d interviews w i t h the participants i n the process. T h e timeline is divided into sections that reflect the stages o f collaboration: Antecedents, Problem Setting, Direction Setting, Structuring and Outcomes. Because reality rarely fits neatly into theoretical frameworks, the cut-offs for each stage are somewhat arbitrary. H o w e v e r , the stages attempt to reflect the intention o f the collaboration theorists. T h e division between Antecedents and Problem Setting is fairly cut a n d dry, since Antecedents represent what happened before the collaborative is formed. A p r i l 1991 is the start o f the collaborative process to protect B o d e g a Ridge. T h e split between Problem Setting and Direction Setting is set because the vote at the N G C A meeting represents a n e n d to the beginning stage, where G I F T is formed and the process leads into m o r e substantive issues relating to h o w to obtain protection for B o d e g a Ridge. Structuring is left out o f the timeline, because the collaborative d i d n o t formalise relationships between the stakeholders, remaining an ad hoc process till its completion. Outcomes represent the e n d to the collaborative process where the parties reach and i m p l e m e n t the agreement. T h e agreement between the N C C a n d the P M H L was closed o n 12 July 1995, representing the e n d to the B o d e g a process, instituting park status for the L o t s c o m p r i s i n g the Ridge a n d i m p l e m e n t i n g their management.  73  Table 5. The Process to Protect Bodega Ridge Date  M a y - J u l y 1990  April 1991  April 1991  May 1991  May 1991  May 1991  Event  Significance to Collaboration  A nU a dents A biological survey was performed on Bodega Ridge, which identified a number of rare species. One of those species, a shrub called Manzanita, was in its northernmost tip- of its range. Galiano residents successfully raised $250,000 to conserve M t . Galiano, taking thirty days to pay M B for the land.  Problem Setting The Bodega Partners learned of the logging threat on D L 73. They purchase the land from M B with $39,000 down with the principle due in August 1991 - $395,000. A Saltspring Island logger arrived on Galiano, intending to log D L 76. T w o of the Bodega Partners met an entire day with him and paid $5,000 to send the logging crew home without logging. They negotiated a vendor-take-back mortgage with him with gave three years to pay the principle - $399,000. Interest payments came to $3,500 per month. The Bodega Partners proposed to the N G C A to take over the mortgage on D L 76. The special resolution passed with 89% in favour. The resolution set out to: 1. Establish a special trust fund to receive money. 2. Use their charitable tax number to receive money and pay interest. 3. Accept the mortgage and tide to D L 76. Direction Selling A group of residents plus the Bodega Partners who lived on the Island formed a new non-profit called G I F T with the objectives o f saving Bodega Ridge and paying the $3,500 per month interest payments on D L 76.  74  The survey was one of the pieces of information that the N C C used to establish Bodega Ridge as a place of significance in die G u l f Islands, when negotiating with the P M H L . The M t . Galiano project was successful and led to a positive atmosphere that the community could rally to protect Bodega Ridge.  These events defined the immediacy in protecting Bodega Ridge and served to define the problem.  The Bodega Partners convened the process by asking the N G C A to participate in the collaborative venture.  Each of these events described how the collaborative worked to raise funding and protect the area.  Date  Event  Significance to Collaboration  June 1991  G I F T and the N G C A opened an office next to a local market. They also hired the Island resident, who was successful at fundraising for the Mt. Galiano campaign, although she had volunteered for the latter effort.  June 1991-1995  The community held approximately 37 fundraising events for the interest payments including: art auctions, concerts, poetry festivals, author readings, tours, wine festivals, dinners, a psychic fair, rubber ducky races, a comedy night, a murder mystery night, pancake breakfasts, raffles, tshirts and coffee mugs.  July 1991  The N G C A and one member o f G I F T travelled to Saltspring Island to sign the transfer of tide of D L 76. G I F T received a Preliminary Layout Approval (PLA) to develop four waterfront lots on D L 73, which was land zoned F l . The intent was to sell the lots for $800,000. G I F T would use the money to retire the N G C A ' s mortgage and purchase the L o t between D L s 73 and 76, D L 75.  Spring 1994  Summer 1994  Summer 1994  Summer 1994  After a long courtship, the G C A garnered the support of the N C C for protecting Bodega Ridge. The N C C set two conditions for entering: 1. Purchase and sale agreements from the Bodega Partners and the N G C A for D L s 73 and 76. 2. A n y party to purchase D L 75 with the intent of conveying tide to die N C C through another purchase and sale agreement. Several board members took over an established corporation, named it Leap of Faith, and purchased D L 75 with a mortgage guaranteed by 20-30 Galiano residents. Leap of Faith negotiated another mortgage guaranteed by another 20-30 Galiano residents to retire the vendor-take-back mortgage for the N G C A , allowing them to sign a purchase and sale agreement with die N C C on D L 76.  75  The agreement between the logger and the collaborative group was signed.  G I F T invented one method for paying off the principle on D L 76.  The G C A brought the N C C into the relationship between the community and G I F T . The G C A , N C C , N G C A and G I F T went to the community to see i f they approved of the N C C ' s offer to work to protect the area, which meant relinquishing community control of Bodega Ridge. Leap of Faith was formed to speed the ability to acquire D L 75. They became the second to last member o f the collaborative effort.  The N C C required a regular mortgage before they would agree to the purchase and sale agreement. Leap of Faith assisted in this task.  Date  Event  S i g n i f i c a n c e to Collaboration  July 1995  The P M H L was formed with $30 million each from the Federal and Provincial governments with the objective to purchase  The P M H L was die final  a network o f coastal and marine parks in  member of the collaborative.  the G u l f Islands. T h e P M H L also intended to establish a national park using the lands purchased. Outcomes 12 July 1995  The agreement was completed between the N C C and P M H L . Bodega Ridge was  Bodega Ridge was protected for  turned over to B C Parks for management,  perpetuity as a Provincial Park  as the P M H L ' s first purchase. The  and will be managed by B C  agreement was $950,000 paid by the P M H L  Parks.  and $350,000 by the N C C .  Pebble Beach Reserve P e b b l e B e a c h Reserve, as e n v i s i o n e d by the G C A , encompasses D i s t r i c t L o t s 60, 63 and part o f 66 (Ridington, 1998, 4). T h e s e lots are slightiy N o r t h o f the centre o f the island, facing the Strait o f G e o r g i a to the East. C o n s e r v i n g this area i n v o l v e d negotiations between the G C A , what was then B C T e l (now Telus), the P r o v i n c i a l and Federal governments and the NCC.  T h e g o v e r n m e n t agencies i n v o l v e d were the B . C . M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d s Plate 13: T i m Walls: Signage at Pebble Beach  J0 T V PFBBLI Bfi IY YOUKVAIKflW TAND ROCHES.  r  .PROHIBITED.  (Walls, 2000)  76  and Parks ( M E L P ) and the P M H L . Pebble B e a c h is an area that was identified by C C A as a significant site, one that s h o u l d be conserved to receive the m a x i m u m protection f r o m logging ( E r i c k s o n , 1998, 16-7). T h e G C A , i n this case, w o u l d also be a persuasive convenor, responsible for c o n v i n c i n g the other stakeholders that protecting Pebble B e a c h was a g o o d idea and that a collaborative effort was necessary to do so. District L o t 60 was C r o w n L a n d and was logged early i n the 2 0  th  Century. It includes stands  o f Western R e d Cedar, D o u g l a s F i r and A r b u t u s , wildflowers and m u s h r o o m s , and it is h o m e to a variety o f b i r d species throughout the year (TUdington, 1998, 4). T h e section o f District L o t 66 i n c l u d e d i n the Reserve is a naturally regenerated forest. A naturally regenerated forest is one that is allowed to undergo natural succession, w i t h o u t h u m a n intervention. Succession o n the coast o f B . C . is a natural process i n w h i c h the d o m i n a n t species i n the vegetative landscape change, f r o m deciduous bushes and trees, such as alders, eventually to coniferous forest, i n this case Coastal D o u g l a s F i r . District L o t 63 was also logged approximately tliirty years ago and is n o w a tree plantation, though undergoing the process o f natural succession. Tree plantations can undergo natural succession i f left alone; however, h u m a n intervention alters the process by planting desirable tree seedlings, chosen for their c o m m e r c i a l value.  multistakeholder sense?  _  ;  ;  The process to prompt Pebbic Bead, w » c o l l a b o ^ v e because i , involved several . ".. . . ... , , . r - r A the P M H L the the RaH-e. E a c h o f the stakeholders, the G C A , the 1 A i m - ,  1 B and the i\v.A,  r::Z:Z:ii:.  • I l d e p e n d e n . andrel,cd upon A c — s o f ,he « M » ach,eve end, achieving protecriomof-District I.ots 60, 63 and & e section o f 66.  ZZ...  t h e _  Timeline T h e timeline b e l o w shows the activities that t o o k place i n the Pebble B e a c h process. T h e information for this timeline was adapted f r o m the files o f the G C A and newspaper articles. T h e m a i n sources f r o m the files are the Pebble B e a c h Reserve Management P l a n and a binder, w h i c h holds the documentation (letters and faxes) surrounding the conservation process.  77  Plate 14: T i m Walls: Looking Along Pebble Beach  (Walls, 2000) A g a i n , the table is structured somewhat arbitrarily to follow the collaboration theory approach to planning processes. T h e Antecedents seem to end w h e n the G C A wrote the letter to M E L P to initiate the collaborative process to c o m b i n e the three L o t s to f o r m a single reserve. T h e following three stages are not nearly so clear as i n the Bodega process and are i n part placed to highlight a particular event. Problem Setting ends w h e n the letter from the A c t i n g C h a i r o f the Regional Protected Areas T e a m ( R P A T ) is written, signalling that M E L P is acting o n the G C A ' s proposal. T h e Pebble B e a c h process was ad hoc, meaning it is not formally configured. Because Direction Setting and Structuring are very similar i n the Pebble Beach process, the Structuring stage was set to highlight the important "framework for conservation" letter, written by M i n i s t e r Sdiota. T h i s letter detaded what w o u l d be required f r o m each o f the collaborating parties to achieve conservation and transfer o f title from the P r o v i n c e to the Islands Trust F u n d B o a r d ( I T F B ) , thus lending a sense o f formality. N o agreement has been reached that protects all o f Pebble Beach, so no outcomes necessarily exist, except the purchase o f D L 63 f r o m B C T e l and its transfer o f tide to the G C A . Nevertheless, " N o v e m b e r 2000" is set as the date to measure the impacts o f the process to this point, thereby b e c o m i n g the p o i n t at w h i c h Outcomes are assessed.  78  Table 6. Conserving Pebble Beach D.itc  1924  1960  1977  Event Anita tit ills D . L . 60 was forfeited to the Crown for non-payment o f taxes  M B merged with the Powell River Company and assumed tide to all their landholdings, which include Galiano Island. Lot 1 (Plan 18194) of D . L . 66 was reacquired by the Crown.  1988  Pebble Beach was labelled a significant area in C C A ' s Sensitive Areas Survey.  1991  Although their original aim was to obtain a covenant (or easement) to install a fibre optic cable on D . L . 63, B C T e l purchased the L o t from M B . B C T e l hired I.R. Wilson Consultants L t d . T o perform an archaeological assessment after First Nations' artefacts were found on site. Wilson reports it was a significant find with artefacts dating to earlier than 2500 years ago (through Carbon Dating). The G C A wrote a letter to M E L P requesting a meeting to discuss potential protection of the area on the island known as Pebble Beach. The plan would join D . L . 63, owned by B C T e l and to be purchased by the G C A , and D . L . 60, Crown land. The proposal was for the G C A to manage it as a land trust.  1992  30 July 1992  30 September 1992  Problem Setting The G C A and a M E L P Deputy Minister met to discuss the conservation of D . L . 60 and 63 as a land trust. A suggestion arose that Pebble Beach might fall within the Protected Areas Strategy, and a meeting that same day was held with the Director of the Protected Areas Strategy.  79  Significance to Collaboration Crown ownership of the L o t continued to the present, making the Crown a legitimate stakeholder. Established M B as the major landholder on Galiano Island, and establishes their ownership of Pebble Beach. This step established Crown tide to the portion o f this Lot, reinforcing their legitimacy as a stakeholder in the process. Pebble Beach was established as an area that the community wants to protect. B C Tel, in acquiring this Lot, became the second landowner, making them a legitimate stakeholder. This find aided First Nations' claim to Galiano in their Treaty process and suggested that they have a stake in what happens to Pebble Beach.  This letter initialised the process to protect Pebble Beach.  Preliminary discussions took place to negotiate a potential solution: protection of Pebble Beach.  Date 4 October 1992  25 October 1993  2 February 1994  9 December 1994  11 September 1995  19 January 1996 8 April 1996  26 April 1996  Event A letter to the G C A from tire Deputy Minister stated that a land trust might indeed be the best way to protect lands, where private land predominates. H e also suggested that land protecdon would benefit from cooperation between government, land trusts and private landowners. G C A wanted to add the Pebble Beach area, classed in the Coastal Douglas Fir biogeoclimatic zone, to the Protected Areas Strategy, which at this time lacked Coastal Douglas Fir protected areas. Direction Setting A M E L P letter from the Acting Chair of the Vancouver Island Regional Protected Areas Team (RPAT) said that R P A T will meet soon to evaluate areas that have petitioned for protection under the Protected Areas Strategy. A letter from the Minister o f Municipal Affairs recognised the use o f land conservation as a method for limiting development on the G u l f Islands.  A letter from G C A requested to add Pebble Beach to the P M H L . I f the petition was successful, Pebble Beach would be managed for enjoyment, education and research. In addition, die G C A had available $100,000 in a trust account to pay for part of the purchase price of D L . 63. [BC T e l purchased the land from M B in 1991 for $325,000. The G C A hoped to purchase the land for a similar amount from B C Tel.] The P M H L decided to conduct a field assessment o f Pebble Beach. McCoskrie/Melissa Roads Neighbourhood residents wrote a letter expressing unanimous approval of a reserve at Pebble Beach. Stmcturinf* A letter from the Minister o f M E L P detailed a "framework for conservation." Included in the framework was an agreement to contribute towards conservation of D . L . 63, an agreement to  80  Significance to Collaboration  The parties negotiated about how Pebble Beach might be protected and Crown Lands could play a part in a larger reserve.  M E L P , in these meetings, decided whether Pebble Beach met their criteria for protection. The G C A reached out to attempt to garner broader support for a reserve and to create a fallback plan. Part of this strategy included soliciting the support o f the Minister of Municipal Affairs  The G C A reached out to the P M H L , which successfully protected Bodega Ridge. Negotiations began to determine whether Pebble Beach might fit into the P M H L vision.  Protecting Pebble Beach received some support from the broader community, as evidenced by this letter.  Date  E\eiu contribute toward D L 63's purchase from B C Tel, and dedication of D . L . 60 to the reserve, and potentially adding part of D . L . 66. However, this agreement required approval from the P M H L . A l l points within the agreement were subject to the establishment o f a management plan by the G C A detailing appropriate use, development and management.  Early May 1996  22 May 1996  25 May 1996  The G C A received letters of support from both the University o f British Columbia and University o f Victoria for conserving Pebble Beach and working toward an agreement on research and education. The "framework for conservation" gained approval o f the Islands Trust, subject to transferral of tide to D . L . 60 and the section of D L 66 to the I T F B by the Province and the restrictions laid out in the framework by the Province. A letter from the G C A to M E L P said recreational use should be appropriate to that on page 15 of the Galiano Official Community Plan. The O C P stated the object of nature reserves was to "preserve natural values," and nature protection policies that permit trails and uses in the Ecological Reserves Regulations of the Ecological Reserves Act.  22 August 1996  A fax from the G C A stated that the Ministry o f Transportation and Highways said the Bell Gravel Pit was not good for roads and would require a crusher on site, were it to be used [provision o f which was implied to be unlikely]. If the gravel pit was to be used, it would take land away from the reserve and would require road construction and maintenance within the reserve.  Early March to midApril 1997  The N C C , M E L P and the G C A discussed issues surrounding a reversionary clause, where forfeited lands would revert to the Crown, immediately rather than to the N C C then to the Crown. Also discussion continued surrounding appropriate uses.  15 April 1997  A letter from die G C A to the N C C agreed to terms on the purchase of D . L . 63.  81  Significance to Collaboration The "framework for conservation" could be seen in part as a formalisation of the process.  The G C A built support for the type o f management and uses it desired in the area. The I T F B became a stakeholder at this point, because the Crown lands' tide would be passed to them, while the G C A would manage the reserve.  The G C A and M E L P disagreed as to the type of management that was appropriate for the reserve.  The Province and the G C A disagreed about access to the potential reserve. A s a consequence, the G C A contacted the Ministry o f Transportation and Highways to discuss whether the road cut to the gravel pit was necessary, or whether it would ever be used, an access issue.  Discussions with the N C C , M E L P and the G C A led to an understanding of how the N C C wants tide to D L 63 pass and under what conditions.  1 A i-ni  Date Late April - midAugust 1997  Discussions and negotiations continued regarding transfer of Crown lands to the I T F B . Time became an issue for the G C A and N C C , because B C Tel was setting deadlines for the sale o f their property (D.L. 63).  11 August 1997  A draft Memorandum of Understanding was circulated, which agreed to terms of purchase of D . L . 63, and it set up conditions on the transfer o f tide o f the Crown lands by M E L P . Discussions between all parties continued regarding the transfer of Crown lands to I T F B and appropriate land use within the reserve. The H o n . Cathy McGregor, Minister of M E L P , conveyed support for the transfer of Crown lands once documentation was received to the satisfaction of the Province. Discussions continued regarding use  Mid-August 1997 January 1998  6 January 1998  Mid-January — midMay 1998 7 May 1998  Mid-May 1998 January 2000  November 2000  A fax from the G C A , regarding meeting with G C A , I T F B , M E L P and N C C , spoke to issues of the management plan and use. M E L P wanted assurances that the management plan would include public involvement. Discussions continued on details relating to roads and access, appropriate uses o f the reserve, the forestry road on D.L.66, and parking. M B encumbered title to D . L . 66 with an easement for a forestry road. The road has not been used since the area was last logged. The G C A and M E L P still disagreed on access, use and the level of public involvement necessary for the management plan.  Significance to Collaboration The M o U formalises the sale o f D L 63, by B C Tel to the N C C and G C A . B C Tel wanted assurance that the lands involved in the negotiations would become the Pebble Beach Reserve before it sold the property.  The parties, M E L P , the G C A and I T F B continued to disagree on transfer o f land tide, uses within the reserve, public participation in reserve management and access to the reserve.  Essentially, there was no agreement between the parties; therefore, the problem was not solved.  Outcome Issues Currendy, the fate o f the P e b b l e B e a c h Reserve is i n dispute. M E L P has yet to sign o f f o n the negotiated setdement enacting the institutional p r o t e c t i o n o f the area and actual transfer o f title o f the C r o w n lands to the I T F B . O n e s t u m b l i n g b l o c k is the disagreement between the G C A a n d the P r o v i n c e about appropriate uses, such as whether kayak users should be  82  permitted to camp i n the Reserve, and issues surrounding parking and access for handicapped persons. Plate 15: Bill Watterson: Worth Fighting?  (Watterson, 1990) In the meantime, the N C C and the G C A have purchased D . L . 63, and the G C A holds the lot's tide, w i t h the encumbrances negotiated between the two parties i n place. E n c u m b r a n c e s are placed o n the title to the property, and i n this case they state that the land shall be used and maintained as a nature conservancy according to the E c o l o g i c a l Reserve A c t . A p p l i e d conservation and management practices are underway now. Students and other residents have w o r k e d to i m p r o v e the ecology o f D . L . 63, elirninating some invasive species o f plants. Further, the G C A has used the property for education and research, such as nature walks w i t h local s c h o o l children. I n late July 2000, the G C A held a public w o r k s h o p , w h i c h resulted i n the purchase o f other lands o n D . L . 6 6 to expand the Pebble Beach Reserve. Discussions i n the w o r k s h o p centred o n the site o f L a u g h l i n Lake. M e m b e r s o f the G C A unanimously agreed to conserve this area and it has been purchased as well. Recently, a consultant has been hired to try to resolve the issues at hand between the interested parties and enact the protection o f the Reserve. Discussions continue as o f 14 December.  83  Chapter 6: Miking  Plate 16. T i m Walls: From the Trail to Pebble Beach  (Walls, 2000)  SI  Chapter 6: Hiking W h i l e the previous chapter served to introduce the reader to the community-initiated protection o f t w o areas o n G a l i a n o Island, B o d e g a Ridge and Pebble Beach, this chapter analyses the case studies i n depth using the Pack Checklist developed earlier. B o t h areas w i l l be evaluated simultaneously, w h i c h w i l l contrast the cases as w e l l as illustrate h o w cases i n the same general region and i n the same time period can differ. T h i s analysis w i l l follow the now familiar structure: Antecedents, Problem Setting, Direction Setting Structuring and Outcomes. T o further aid the reader, the questions f r o m the Pack Checklist highlight the discussion i n each section. D i s c u s s i o n follows a c h r o n o l o g i c a l order, B o d e g a Ridge first, and Pebble B e a c h after.  Antecedents What force(s) led to the collaboration and how might that force be characterised? B o t h B o d e g a R i d g e and Pebble B e a c h were convened by a persuasive convenor, members o f the c o m m u n i t y . I n the case o f B o d e g a Ridge, the c o m m u n i t y members w h o started the process were the B o d e g a Partners, a group o f four individuals, whde the process to protect Pebble B e a c h was instituted by the G C A , a local organisation. T h e m o t i v a t i o n for collaboration was to c o m e to agreement, a shared vision, o n protecting an area o f G a l i a n o Island, for the purpose o f ecological protection i n perpetuity. I n order to achieve this vision, b o t h efforts drew o n the local c o m m u n i t y , the N C C , government and other outside groups, such as B C T e l i n the case o f Pebble B e a c h . N o single party had the p o w e r to act unilaterally i n protecting the area i n question. T h e individual parties i n v o l v e d d i d not have the financial resources, n o r d i d they have enough political pressure to l o b b y for protection. In the eyes o f b o t h groups, action was necessary s o o n after M B decided to sell its forest lands i n 1991. Inaction might have resulted i n development o f the forest lots, an outcome incompatible w i t h the B o d e g a Partners' environmental values. I n the case o f Pebble B e a c h , the G C A seized the opportunity to achieve a part o f their vis ion o f a significantiy protected northern end o f the Island by connecting the C r o w n lands surrounding P e b b l e B e a c h w i t h D L 63, w h i c h sits i n between. Interestingly, each group i n v o l v e d i n the process had a slighdy different v i e w o n what started the protection process.  Bodega Ridge Bodega Ridge started i n a contentious land-use climate. I n 1991, M B decided to sell o f f its Island holdings, creating a sense o f immediacy surrounding land-use planning b o t h by the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y and the Islands Trust. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the c o m m u n i t y had designated B o d e g a Ridge as an area they wished to protect i n the Sensitive Areas Survey conducted by  85  C C A . W i t h the M B lands selling quickly to b o t h individuals and to developer/loggers, the c o m m u n i t y was also anxious about the forest lands' future. I n the eyes o f one observer, We had a Trust Committee that at the time introduced bylaws saying that there would be no development on the forest lands until there was a planning process in place. In fact those bylaws went to public hearing in 1991, and they received in my view, and I think the record will show, overwhelming support. It took until January 1992 until the bylaws were adopted... So, we have one approach that was initiated by the Islands Trust, which would be to negotiate a community wide planning process that would try to determine the future o f these lands. We have individuals in this community who were very anxious, as to the future o f those lands. A n d I guess in that crucible, you E n d . . . Bodega Ridge (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e first initiative o f the c o m m u n i t y i n this time p e r i o d was to protect M o u n t G a l i a n o , c o m i n g "together, for sentimental reasons mostly. A n d we decided that Galiano's namesake had to be saved. T h i s is M t . G a l i a n o at the S o u t h end o f the Island. E v e r y b o d y rallied around, ' Y e s , yes. W e must save it.'" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). N o t everyone was c o m m i t t e d to saving just one area. Some wanted to save all the M B lands, as was the case w i t h the G C A .  O n e o f the members o f the N G C A , w h o became a m e m b e r  o f G I F T , was a v o i c e interested i n saving m o r e than just M t . G a l i a n o . " A t the time, I felt that they s h o u l d not just save that, but the Ridge as well, and I d i d say that at the meeting. B u t the immediate desire was to save M t . G a l i a n o . A n d that was never heard o f again for at least several m o n t h s " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A third group o f c o m m u n i t y members was disinterested i n any o f these processes. I n the end, only M t . G a l i a n o was saved through a widely p u b l i c i z e d campaign that took place over the course o f one m o n t h , the amount o f time that M B had given the G a l i a n o C l u b to meet their selling price. A p p r o x i m a t e l y one m o n t h after the c o m m u n i t y successfully protected M t . G a l i a n o , the B o d e g a Partners purchased D L 73. T h i s was the first step i n protecting the Ridge, w h i c h they saw as threatened by potential logging. T h i s threat became reality as a Saltspring logger brought loggers to G a l i a n o to start clear cutting D L 76. A c c o r d i n g to one o f the B o d e g a Partners, " W e were so lucky that w e heard about the logging. A s we say, we heard about 24 hours before they were going to be logging up there... W e just couldn't tolerate that thought, that it was g o i n g to be clear cut" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). T h i s B o d e g a Partner spent the day w i t h the logger, negotiating two points o f interest. First, the Partners p a i d his workers to leave the Island w i t h o u t logging o n the L o t . Secondly, they negotiated a purchase price for D L 76.  86  T h e B o d e g a Partners d i d not have the resources to purchase D L 76; n o r d i d the G a l i a n o C l u b . T h e Partners turned to the N G C A for help and started the process o f collaboration to save as m u c h o f the Ridge as they could.  Pebble Beach T h e P e b b l e B e a c h process started because the G C A envisioned connecting and protecting two C r o w n lands, D L s 60 a n d part o f 66, by purchasing D L 63, w h i c h sits between the two L o t s . Perhaps the best description o f the context o f the Pebble B e a c h process lay i n the words o f the convenor, the G C A : In 1992, there was a call by the provincial government to put forward proposals for the P A S . This included private lands. We, the G C A , put forward a proposal, which was fairly bold. A t this time, all the M B lands were on the market, for sale. Our proposal ran essentially from Pebble Beach up to Dionisio Point. It included most o f the M B lands that were for sale in that time. In that sense, we have that on the record, and that record has been very important in the sense o f looking at Crown lands for their protection. It put on the record a plea, a response to their request for protected areas... We have one district lot, which is D L 60, which is older growth forest. It is as close as you are going to find to old growth forest to that extent in the Coastal Douglas Fir (biogeoclimatic] zone (CDF). I will give you an anecdote to express that. Somewhere in the early 1990s, the Ministry of Forests was doing a gap analysis in the C D F . They phoned our Association, and said that they were looking for unmodified land o f C D F zone, and they were having trouble finding any. Would we be interested in a contract to find it? So, we went in, myself and another Director, to the office of this individual. H e pulled out his map and satellite imagery. H e said we know there is some out there, in the size of lOOha. H e said, W h a t about this?' A n d he thumped his hand down on D L 60. W e said, 'Yeah, that's older forest that has been modified, but it is smaller than your lOOha grid size.' It is quite clear when you are looking at it with the satellite imagery that there is nothing, nothing of any size. This little district lot, which is about 130 acres in size, stands out in the whole C D F as a large green area. We didn't get the contract. There was no reason for it. I think he was correct that there was nothing that fits their criteria in the C D F . Nonetheless, it's a jewel because it's what used to be common. N o w it sits there in isolation as the only area of any size of older growth C D F . Our vision was to connect this Crown land parcel and this parcel, which was a remnant of D L 66. T o do that, there was this lot 63 in between. L o t 63 was an M B lot, and it was purchased fairly early by B C Tel, because B C T e l was in the process o f putting in this communications, this light fiber communications system from coast to coast (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000).  87  T h u s , the m o t i v a t i o n to collaborate was this v i s i o n to create a system o f protected areas, as per the Sensitive Areas Survey. T h o u g h this process to protect Pebble B e a c h was essentially a reaction to the l a n d use debate precipitated by M B ' s sale o f their G a l i a n o holdings, it was part o f a larger vision, j o i n i n g private and C r o w n lands i n the m i d d l e to the N o r t h end o f the Island. T o a c c o m p l i s h this end, the G C A c o u l d proceed a number o f ways; " O n e c o u l d take an alternative route to try to protect them. O n e way was to acquire them. A n o t h e r was to use other avenues, such as l a n d use p l a n n i n g " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source 2000). I n the end, the G C A teamed up w i t h the N C C , B C T e l and the P M H L to acquire D L 63, w h i c h w o u l d then be c o u p l e d w i t h the surrounding C r o w n lands ( D L 60 and the section o f D L 66) to create a park. T h e G C A d i d not pursue the l a n d use planning o p t i o n , because obtaining a park designation for the area was a m o r e permanent f o r m o f protection than lands set aside f r o m development, through z o n i n g . H o w e v e r , for the p r o v i n c i a l government, a partner i n the P M H L , receiving a proposal to create the Pebble B e a c h Reserve i n 1995 or 1996 f r o m the G C A started the process. T h e G C A requested $150,000 to be used to purchase D L 63 and for donation o f the surrounding C r o w n lands to establish the Reserve (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h e w o r k i n g relationship between the P M H L and the G C A , established during the Ridge process, aided the G C A ' s supplication.  Summary B o t h processes were instigated by persuasive convenors. W h i l e the B o d e g a Ridge process sought to protect the Ridge f r o m uses i n direct conflict w i t h the interests o f a majority o f the Island c o m m u n i t y , conserving P e b b l e B e a c h was part o f a v i s i o n whose desired outcome was a system o f protected areas o n the northern part o f the Island. B o t h processes were affected by the l a n d use conflict surrounding the sale o f M B ' s l a n d holdings. T h e processes were also affected by a major p u s h by the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments to conserve lands i n B . C . ' s G u l f Islands. Finally, b o t h groups utilised existing networks and institutions to aid their respective efforts.  Did the actors consider whether collaboration was the best method for achieving land conservation? B o t h the B o d e g a Partners and the G C A chose to collaborate w i t h other parties to achieve their aims, albeit for different reasons. T h e B o d e g a Partners d i d not have the resources required to save b o t h D L s 73 and 76. T h e C r o w n ' s ownership o f D L 60 and the section o f D L 66 i n the Pebble B e a c h Project necessitated collaboration.  88  Bodega Ridge I n the end, the p r o t e c t i o n o f B o d e g a Ridge cost $950,000 and coundess hours o f volunteer and paid time i n meetings, negotiations, l o b b y i n g and fundraising w h i c h were not i n c l u d e d i n the purchase price. G a l i a n o Island is a small c o m m u n i t y , w i t h 800 residents, meaning that the Ridge cost nearly $1,200 per person, after the M t . G a l i a n o campaign cost a large number o f residents a lot o f time and money. A c c o r d i n g to the G C A , Island residents, did the best they could to raise money up there just to keep up with the mortgage payments, much less paying down the principle. There wasn't a week that went by where there wasn't some kind o f fundraising event. That is a prescription to wear people out. That is exacdy what was happening. Y o u just can't take on a debt load of $400,000 for a small community association that doesn't want to do it and expect them to raise the interest payments every month. It was just an enormous burden. That's why I . . . to me, having an organisation to come in, like the N C C , who has some resources, is important. But, you know, they are not wealthy either. They don't have a lot o f extra cash to deal with. A n d to try to pull these different groups together was really the best solution possible. A l l we had was the ability to get a group like the N C C to agree to come in on this, and try to get government to respond to it (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). Because this Island c o m m u n i t y is so small, w i t h a n u m b e r o f people l i v i n g o n subsistence wages, this b u r d e n necessitated the help o f other residents, an E N G O and eventually government. E v e n groups (such as the G a l i a n o C o n s e r v a n c y Association), w h i c h later had a difference o f o p i n i o n , recognised that the c o m m u n i t y , the B o d e g a Partners and the N G C A , c o u l d not a c c o m p l i s h this task alone. " I didn't k n o w h o w w e were ever gonna raise all the money. W e were g o i n g to have to get help f r o m some environmental group, or government or sometbing to do it. I was so busy trying to keep the H a l l i n repairs, and putting o n these affairs that I d i d not have the time or the context to d o i t " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A f t e r a successful campaign to save M t . G a l i a n o and early o n i n the B o d e g a campaign, many o f the residents felt that it was possible to c o m e together to save B o d e g a Ridge as well. T h e citizens realised that w o r k i n g w i t h other members o f the c o m m u n i t y , as w e l l as people outside the c o m m u n i t y (e.g. foundations) w o u l d play an integral part. Therefore, citizens w o r k e d to link their interests w i t h others to a c c o m p l i s h this end.  Pebble Beach Pebble B e a c h is slighdy different because it i n v o l v e d C r o w n lands. D L 60, i n particular, was a significant part o f protecting this area, "because it's what used to be common.- N o w it sits there i n isolation as the only area o f any size o f older g r o w t h C D F . O u r v i s i o n was to connect this C r o w n l a n d [ D L 60] parcel and this parcel, w h i c h was a remnant o f D L 6 6 "  89  (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e Reserve was to be managed locally by the G C A , after a transfer o f land tide o f these two lots to the I T F B , because C r o w n lands c o u l d not be transferred to the G C A (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h u s , the G C A had to w o r k w i t h those outside o f the c o m m u n i t y from the start, regardless o f h o w they accomplished a campaign o n the Island. C o l l a b o r a t i o n o f some sort was the only way to conserve Pebble B e a c h , inclusive o f those C r o w n lands. F r o m the government perspective as well, collaboration was necessary. I n some cases, government agencies a n d local groups have the mandate to conserve land and marine areas, while they have just an interest i n others. N e a r l y all the groups i n v o l v e d felt that each party had a role to play i n the larger conservation picture, as stated by the Federal government source, A n d there is more here than one agency can do by itself. We all know that. So, we would encourage organisations like B C Parks and the C R D [Capitol Regional District], and the N G O s that are out there, like the Galiano Conservancy, to do whatever they can to help improve the situation... A n d the Conservancy, the C R D , die Islands Trust do things that we would never be able to do. Mosdy, because they deal with small parcels o f land. Because they are so small, they are not really attractive to governments to create something like a national park. A 5 or 10 acre parcel isn't going to attract a government agency, whereas, it might attract a local conservation initiative. A n d those kinds of things need to happen and should happen and they're great. They complement what we do, and they really do, and it is all part o f the conservation picture, the collective i f you will (Federal Government Source, 2000). W i t h o u t the collaboration c o m p o n e n t , protection o f Pebble B e a c h , as the G C A envisioned it (i.e. i n c l u d i n g D L s 60 and part o f 66) w o u l d not have been attained. Furthermore, the G C A c o u l d n o t have started to a c c o m p l i s h their larger goal, a system o f protected areas running up to D i o n i s i o P o i n t (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  Summary C o l l a b o r a t i o n was the best m e t h o d for the B o d e g a Partners to protect the Ridge, given the time and resources constraints i n effect. O n the other hand, collaboration was the only m e t h o d for the G C A to conserve Pebble Beach, because o f C r o w n ownership. I n b o t h collaborative efforts, the parties sought links w i t h others they considered had similar interests. A l s o , i n a c t i o n w o u l d have resulted i n logging D L s 73 a n d 76 and the loss o f the opportunity to enact a protected areas v i s i o n for the G C A i n P e b b l e Beach.  90  What was the general approach to the collaboration? B o t h collaborative efforts were m o r e ad hoc i n nature than formal. E a c h drew u p o n resources that were necessary at the time, such as the G C A ' s knowledge that some government agency w o u l d have to h o l d tide to the C r o w n lands around Pebble B e a c h . H o w e v e r , circumstances revealed a sense o f urgency to protect the Ridge f r o m logging, w h i c h led Islanders to act quickly, leaving h o w to protect it until later.  Bodega Ridge Bodega R i d g e was protected by an ad hoc process and arrangement o f persons and organisations. A f t e r purchasing D L 73, the B o d e g a Partners learned o f the i m m a n e n t logging o f D L 76 and sought protection i n perpetuity. It was, " a very few dedicated people o n the islands [who] said, 'It looks really tough w i t h the odds, but let's see what we can do.' W e went along w i t h those l i n e s . . . " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). T h e B o d e g a Partners t o o k their p r o p o s a l to the N G C A to enlist their help i n fundraising and i n using their tax-exempt status. A c c o r d i n g to the President, it, "was, 'Let's save it.' A n d then, w e had this m e e t i n g " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). T h e meeting took place i n M a y o f 1991, i n w h i c h the B o d e g a Partners asked the N G C A membership to help i n protecting the Ridge. T h e N G C A agreed. T h i s storyline is indicative o f h o w the entire process proceeded. T h e members o f G I F T , the group f o r m e d to administer the process, "were never really enamoured i n the way that w e wanted to a c c o m p l i s h i t . . . " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). T h e y merely w o r k e d w i t h what they had at the time. H o w e v e r , one important p o i n t here is that the group had to raise $3,500 per m o n t h just i n interest payments, or else the lot w o u l d revert back to the Saltspring logger f r o m w h o m they bought the property. T h i s task, as the N G C A m e m b e r had said earlier, t o o k a majority o f the planning and time effort o f the group and left litde time for p l a n n i n g to pay back the principle or for attempting to b r i n g other groups not already o n the Island into the process. A t the same time, members o f the G C A , w h o for a time chose to not participate because o f the potential development o f D L 73, w o r k e d o n a separate alternative. T h e y enlisted the aid o f the N C C to purchase the lands and l o b b y the government for the Ridge's protection. T h e other parties eventually agreed to this plan. T h e fact that the members o f the G C A w o r k e d outside o f the actions o f G I F T , w h o was unaware o f the efforts o f the members o f the G C A until approached by the N C C , illustrates the fadure o f the parties to c o m e together to w o r k o n the project u n t i l the last m o m e n t .  Pebble Beach P r o t e c t i o n o f Pebble B e a c h required the assistance o f the P r o v i n c i a l government, the owner o f C r o w n lands. T h e P a r k A c t allows the M i n i s t r y to enter into agreement w i t h landowners, be they individuals or agencies, such as the N a t u r e T r u s t o f B . C . (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t  91  Source, 2000). A t the same time, there are p r o v i n c i a l criteria for areas p r o p o s e d for protection (e.g. representativeness, consistency w i t h other areas and P r o v i n c i a l strategies) (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). These conditions meant that the G C A , u p o n initiating this process, h a d to w o r k w i t i i i n the M E L P guidelines for types o f information, access and use, as w e l l as those o f the M u n i c i p a l i t y o f G a l i a n o and the Islands Trust, o f w h i c h G a l i a n o is a part. E v e n though meetings a n d other c o m m u n i c a t i o n between the parties was necessary, according to the Federal government source, he d i d not, "sense any formal organisation a m o n g them. T h e meetings, I think have been arranged o n an ad hoc basis" (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). C o m m u n i c a t i o n s dealt w i t h substantive issues and negotiating points between parties, not as part o f a process. H o w e v e r , at one point, it became clear that the parties needed some sort o f guideline for future action. T h i s guideline was a, process that was outlined by Minister Sihota in 1996 [and] was somewhat as follows. The P M H L would make a donation to the acquisition of D L 63, which was contingent on B C Tel, the G C A and the N C C coming up with an acceptable agreement between themselves so that the additional donation by the P M H L would happen. It would then be concluded. It also committed the Province to transferring tide to the I T F B , committing them... to the process not to the actual transfer. I think that was A p r i l of 1996 (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). S o o n after all parties agreed to this structure, its holes became apparent. B C T e l d i d not want to sell D L 63 w i t h o u t some guarantee i n place that the other L o t s w o u l d also be transferred, thus c o m p l e t i n g the protection o f the entire area. T h e G C A was left to negotiate a m o r e formal framework w i t h the P r o v i n c i a l government and the I T F B . These negotiations were protracted, w i t h the result that, government agreed to a Memorandum o f Understanding in January of 1998, which... B C Tel wouldn't commit to it [ D L 63], until the Province turned over the Crown land parcels, so we had the M o U between all parties, tiiat lays out how D L 63 would be purchased. It had a covenant in favour o f M E L P and the I T F B on D L 63, which laid out the Crown would make its best efforts to transfer the tide o f 60 and 66 to the I T F B by some date in 1998." (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000).  . Summary T h u s , the process to protect Pebble B e a c h was necessarily more structured than that o f B o d e g a Ridge. G o v e r n m e n t and the other organisations i n v o l v e d felt it was i n their best interests to have an agreement that w o u l d b i n d the parties to act i n a m o r e legalistic manner. G I F T s h o u l d not necessarily have adopted a m o r e formal structure, because i n the end, the  92  Ridge was protected; the process w o r k e d for all the parties included i n the process. T h e two cases, though slighdy different, illustrate that formalising a process depends o n the interests o f the parties i n v o l v e d and does not always result i n a 'better' outcome. Plate 17.Tim Walls: View from Montague Provincial Park  (Walls, 2000)  Problem Setting Did the collaborative identify and include all legitimate stakeholders? Inclusion is a matter that was resolved i n the case o f Bodega Ridge, but it has been identified as a p r o b l e m i n Pebble Beach. T h e cases are only slightly different i n terms o f the number o f groups or people that were i n v o l v e d i n the actual negotiations. T h e main difference between them is the time i n w h i c h they took place, time that allowed other organisations to learn more about the contentious context o f land use planning o n Galiano Island. Bodega Ridge Inclusion i n the Bodega Ridge process was resolved i n the end, i n the sense that nearly all the parties w h o identified each other as important to the process were eventually included i n  93  protecting the area. H o w e v e r , this statement glosses over the contention that existed between the parties d u r i n g the process. F o r m a t i o n o f the group k n o w n as the B o d e g a Partners was up i n the air, u n t i l it actually happened. A c c o r d i n g to one o f the Partners, I proposed it to the Board of the G C A to try and tackle this, but they couldn't see that this could be accomplished. I put a call in to [name deleted], and basically, I got him and I talked to his wife too. She was a key part in this. A t that time, things were a littie uncertain who the other partners were going to be. I had an idea that this one fellow, [name deleted], would come in. H e told me he would come in i f [the first gentleman] would come in. We were still wondering i f we could find a fourth partner, and then much to my amazement, and to the others... There was a fellow, who was older and retired, and I didn't think that he had these kind of resources, but [name deleted] came into it, and the four partners were able to buy D . L . 73 (Community Source Number 1, 2000). F o r m a t i o n o f the partnership between the N G C A and the B o d e g a Partners happened s o o n after the B o d e g a Partners agreed to terms o n the purchase o f D L 73. In the meantime, D . L . 76 was being tiireatened... Then, the N G C A undertook to do that. Yes, the core of... the executive committee was G I F T , the Galiano Island Forest Trust, was a very small dedicated group. There was never any more than four or six. It was well balanced in that everyone contributed to the cause. But, I would think that you could say that we had the backing of a more diverse group of citizens on this... The N C C and the G C A came in at the end with money from the P M H L to purchase the properties and arrange the financing (Community Source Number 1, 2000). W h i l e the B o d e g a Partners instigated protection o f the Ridge, G I F T , w h i c h i n c l u d e d members o f the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y and the N G C A , as well as one o f the Island Trustees, was f o r m e d to administer and r u n the process. I n the end, the N C C and some members o f the G C A , using the corporation they n a m e d L e a p o f Faith, joined the process. N o t all people o n the Island were i n v o l v e d , and the members o f the G C A w h o f o r m e d L e a p o f F a i t h came into the process to protect the R i d g e later. O n e o f the members o f G I F T explains that he personally became very i n v o l v e d i n the process and that the N G C A helped. O t h e r groups and individuals o n the Island decided to not participate, w h i c h i n c l u d e d the, Galiano Club, who runs the South Hall didn't want their tax number used, because diey were spent from having saved M t . Galiano. They wanted to get on with life and repair their Hall. So, we were elected to use our tax number [the N G C A ' s ] as a means of collecting the money. This did not go over very well in the community, and there are still people that will have nothing to do with us. Even now. However, the decision was made... It wasn't  94  that they did not want to save the Island. They did not like being imposed on, I guess. It almost looked like they wanted to use our tax number, so diat's why we were doing it. As I say, it didn't get the support of everybody. I think people were glad it's the way it is now. They didn't want to be involved. I really think it was a case of people that were non-participants tfiat couldn't be bothered. It didn't bother them that there would be more people on the Island. A lot of people who really objected to more people on the Island were those who bought property near the ferry. They don't like the traffic going back and forth (Community Source Number 2, 2000). A s illustrated i n the above quote, some c o m m u n i t y members were against the N G C A ' s participation i n the process, and some were disinterested. These people, whde a minority voice at the meeting (the special resolution passed w i t h 88.9% i n favour), d i d not participate, n o r d i d they approve o f the actions o f the group. I n fact, some wrote letters against protecting the Ridge. E a c h o f the parties i n v o l v e d at the end o f the process agrees that this group was i n the minority o n the Island. Implicit is that those groups were not asked, outside o f this meeting, to participate. T h e i r interests were not represented during subsequent meetings, i n decision-making o r any o f the fundraising activities, n o r d i d anyone make an effort to include t h e m as the process drew toward a conclusion. Besides some c o m m u n i t y m e m b e r s ' non-participation, the G C A was, as one G I F T m e m b e r put it, "conspicuously absent." T h e G C A ' s seeming, non-participation for two and one half years was disturbing to some a n d is the catalyst that further divided Islanders i n their quest to protect this area a n d subsequent areas. A g a i n , according to one m e m b e r o f G I F T , The Galiano Conservancy, who should have been helping us at that time... I really feel that they felt that we were doing the wrong thing. They were trying to save all M B ' s lands, and they felt that because we were trying to save just a specific area, that was spoiling their attempts to get the whole thing (Community Source Number 2, 2000). T h o s e w h o were i n v o l v e d i n the process, it seems, were left guessing as to w h y the G C A w o u l d not become i n v o l v e d . M a n y o f the c o m m u n i t y members acknowledge that members o f the G C A were, "very knowledgeable [about conservation]. S o m e o f t h e m w o r k e d for g o v e r n m e n t . . . and we're [the community] not [very knowledgeable about conservation]" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). T h e fact that the G C A d i d not become i n v o l v e d at the onset left many i n the c o m m u n i t y upset. T o this day, some people oppose the G C A for this reason only (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). A n o t h e r p r o b l e m w i t h inclusion i n this process was the context o f land use p l a n n i n g o n the Island. Referring back to the initial timeline, the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y was i n the midst o f a bitter debate w i t h M B , the Islands T r u s t and the people w h o purchased the M B lands. T h i s  95  issue was only partially resolved w i t h the passage o f the O C P i n 1998. M e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y are still divided about the forest z o n e d lands, as evidenced by the last Trustee elections, w h i c h were divisive and called into question by some residents (Bodega Partners, 1998). After the t w o and one-half years, the G C A d i d enter the process, by bringing w i t h t h e m the N C C and eventually the P M H L to protect the area.. Several members also played a role i n protecting the t h i r d and final lot, D L 75. A c c o r d i n g to one o f the G I F T directors, the Conservancy, they were the ones that basically saved that one. We certainly couldn't handle any more, and the fellows diat were all tied up in 73... This was 75 now, and it was wide down at the seafront and comes up to a point. Various people guaranteed loans to save that property from being logged until such time as it could be included in the P M H L . So, it was basically the Conservancy that did that one, but they put together the three o f them, a sizeable hunk" (Community Source Number 2, 2000). T h e G C A has a different v i e w o n their non-participation and what they d i d to further the protection o f the Ridge. " T h e r e was extreme pressure o n our association, the G C A , to participate i n this process. W e chose to not take a stand o n i t " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e y felt that the original p l a n by G I F T was to develop some o f the land i n D L 73, i n order to save the larger area. T h e Islands Trust and the c o m m u n i t y decided p r i o r to this p r o p o s a l that n o development s h o u l d take place o n the Island until the O C P review was complete. Therefore, they c o u l d n o t take a stand o n the issue, out o f institutional respect for the rule o f law.  Furthermore, they felt that gaining institutional  recognition for the R i d g e was i n the best interests o f the wider public. O n c e they d i d j o i n the process, one o f the directors o f the G C A felt it, "was fairly o p e n i n a personal p o i n t o f v i e w . . . I don't k n o w w h o else c o u l d have been involved. I think that everyone w h o wanted to b e c o m e i n v o l v e d was i n v o l v e d " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). The context i n w h i c h they had to operate obscures whether anything could have prevented the level o f mistrust and animosity the c o m m u n i t y felt. T h e development and potential logging o f areas o n the Island and the official capacities o f the organisations i n v o l v e d are possibly irreconcilable. I n any case, neither G I F T , n o r the N C C seemed to have attempted to ensure that all voices o n the Island were heard. L a c k o f i n v o l v e m e n t was due to the m o r e ad hoc nature o f the process o f protecting the Ridge. Furthermore, they d i d not consult First Nations. T h e latest o f the t w o Statements o f Intent for First N a t i o n s claiming G a l i a n o Island i n their L a n d Claims was i n 1994, before the final agreement o n protecting Bodega. F o r these reasons, the p r o t e c t i o n o f B o d e g a Ridge was not fully inclusive.  96  Pebble Beach P r o t e c t i o n o f P e b b l e B e a c h differed i n that it i n v o l v e d a limited n u m b e r o f stakeholders, the c o n v e n o r b e i n g a local c o m m u n i t y organisation acting w i t h the consensus o f the c o m m u n i t y , through the Sensitive Areas Survey. T h a t c o n v e n o r was the G C A . T h e stakeholders i n this collaborative effort were C r o w n L a n d s B r a n c h o f B C M E L P (now B C L a n d a n d Asset Corporation), Islands T r u s t F u n d B o a r d , G C A , the N C C , B C T e l a n d the P M H L (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h e G C A immediately i n v o l v e d the P r o v i n c i a l government, B C M E L P , i n the process, because the lands surrounding D L 63 were C r o w n lands and the government c o u l d not easdy relinquish tide o f them. M E L P later brought the I T F B into the process as a m e t h o d o f transferring tide to another level o f government whde allowing c o m m u n i t y control, w h i c h the G C A wanted. H o w e v e r , the m a i n negotiation, from the standpoint o f the G C A , was between itself (with help from the N C C ) , B C M E L P and B C T e l , There were three parties involved, and it took us until 1996 to get an agreement, especially with B C T e l in principle to sell the property to us, and the Provincial government to join into the process (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). M o s t o f the negotiations to this p o i n t between the G C A and the P r o v i n c i a l government have been somewhat contentious a n d m o s d y a l o b b y i n g effort. F o r M E L P , t w o problems arose as to w h o s h o u l d have been i n v o l v e d i n the process. T h e first p r o b l e m was w h o should have been i n v o l v e d i n the negotiations to create the park and the second i n h o w to manage the park. A c c o r d i n g to M E L P , the first was a question as to, how to bring the persons together to get consensus for Provincial and community lots. What should have been asked was who was working with whom? With w h o m was M E L P negotiating? Ultimately, I think the agreement should have been between M E L P and the I T F B , with the I T F B and the G C A consulting on management o f the area. There were just too many interests there at one time. It made it hard to come to consensus on where to go with things (Provincial Government Source, 2000). Protecting P e b b l e B e a c h f r o m the standpoint o f the P r o v i n c i a l government was pursuant to a letter dated 26 A p r i l 1996, w h i c h laid out the requirements as stipulated by b o t h the G C A and M E L P . A m o n g the issues discussed were use and management o f the area. T h e n Minister M o e Sihota said, " T h a t dedication is also subject to h a v i n g the particulars o f a management agreement w o r k e d out o n matters such as appropriate use, development and management" (The G a l i a n o C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n , 2000). Furthermore, the N C C required that the G C A develop a management p l a n for D L 63 before the N C C w o u l d sign over tide to the property. T h e G C A had developed a management plan, w h i c h was accepted  97  by its board i n O c t o b e r 1998. M E L P ' s concern w i t h this agreement has been the inclusion and i n v o l v e m e n t o f the public i n developing the management plan. A c c o r d i n g to M E L P , The management plan must consider the broader interests, something with which the Ministry and the Province are charged, by the public, to administer. A question then becomes, how can the local people bring in the interests of all islanders in a way that respects divergence. It is not a simple task, and we want to ensure that all parties are represented in the management plan. First Nations consultation must happen for both management and the Free Crown Grant (which would fall on the shoulders of the I T F B or G C A to ensure that consultation was in accordance with M E L P ' s criteria). Management can not infringe on aboriginal rights or title... The problem is that Galiano is such a contentious area tiiat no matter what they say about public participation, it will be suspect in the eyes o f the Province. The fact that the G C A came forward and said, "Yeah, we got public input" calls into question how — from a Provincial government standpoint. I realise that they are talking about a local plan and that input from outside the Island would be limited. The second aspect, First Nations consultation, is a matter of policy for B C P a r k s / M E L P . This policy is meant to determine (1) that actions do not infringe on aboriginal tide. A n d (2), that actions do not infringe on aboriginal rights. It is a legal checklist and must fit these criteria (Provincial Government Source, 2000). Essentially, this means that the b u r d e n o f p r o o f is o n the G C A to demonstrate that they included the wider public according to the criteria developed by M E L P for their o w n park management p l a n process. D e s p i t e documentation o f the level and extent o f public i n v o l v e m e n t i n the management p l a n process, the G C A has been unable to convince M E L P that the p l a n is inclusive o f all parties. O n e potential issue that stands out is the somewhat vague level o f consultation that is necessary for First N a t i o n s . T h e Delgamuukw Decision calls for consultation o n lands i n c l u d e d i n First N a t i o n s L a n d Claims. H o w e v e r , there is another standard, that o f co-management, w h i c h calls for the p l a n n i n g process to be a joint process between M E L P (or i n this case, the G C A ) a n d the First N a t i o n s . D e p e n d i n g o n w h i c h criteria must be met, the G C A has o r has not satisfied the consultation requirement. T h e other partner i n the P M H L , w h i c h included the federal government, was i n v o l v e d i n the process f r o m a resource standpoint. It was formed earlier i n 1995 and protected B o d e g a Ridge as its first area. W h i l e the P M H L played an active part i n ensuring that all L o t s c o n f o r m e d to the P M H L criteria for protection, the P M H L and the federal government played a lesser role, passing the tasks o f title transfer and management to the P r o v i n c i a l government.  H o w e v e r , the Federal government d i d observe what happened i n protecting  Bodega Ridge, and one official i n v o l v e d i n the P M H L stated,  98  I can't imagine what other groups should have been involved, because I think the Islands Trust has been there... I don't know whether the C R D has been involved. But I think it should have been somediing that could have and should have been with the Islands Trust, B C Parks and the Conservancy Association. Should there have been public involvement?... But those are the parties that should been able to resolve it. A n d to my knowledge, they've not been able to do it. That's not a judgement on my part. That's a fact (Federal Government Source, 2000). I n the end, the process to protect P e b b l e B e a c h was inclusive i n terms o f protection, albeit the level o f First N a t i o n s i n v o l v e m e n t was questionable i n development o f the management plan.  Summary These C I C processes included only those parties that c o u l d directiy affect the outcome: protecting B o d e g a Ridge and Pebble B e a c h . N e i t h e r collaborative sought to include other groups i n the process, w h i c h ultimately damaged relations between the participants, other organisations a n d the wider c o m m u n i t y . T h e s e damaged relationships i m p a c t e d other conservation efforts a n d the willingness o f the federal and provincial governments to enter into sirrular partnerships (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000).  What are the characteristics of the interactions between the selfinterests and collective interests of individual stakeholders? What are the characteristics of interactions between stakeholders? Interactions between the various parties i n b o t h cases have been quite contentious. T h e animosity that developed out o f protection o f each area, but particularly out o f B o d e g a Ridge, has m a r r e d relations i n the c o m m u n i t y to this day. T h e context o f the sale o f M B lands and their subsequent development c l o u d any p l a n n i n g process taking place o n G a l i a n o .  Bodega Ridge O n e o f the m a i n issues d u r i n g the protection o f the Ridge dealt w i t h the p r o p o s e d development o f the section o f D L 73. I n light o f all the development pressures f r o m the new owners o f former M B lots, M B ' s court action against the c o m m u n i t y and the Islands Trust, the idea to develop four lots, "didn't go over too w e l l " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A c c o r d i n g to the same source, members o f the G C A entered the process, "because the members that group wanted to save the w h o l e Island, and they didn't want anybody to live up there at all. I think this is one o f the reasons that they finally sort o f came i n to h e l p " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000).  99  I n the B o d e g a Ridge protection process, animosity developed a r o u n d the G C A ' s n o n participation i n the initial stages. A c c o r d i n g to one member o f G I F T , They [the G C A ] couldn't see the resources. One of them said, 'Ok, it will be logged, but then we can buy it back cheaper.' There were always the 'Doubting Thomases,' both within the N G C A and without, with the G C A . They were saying that this just would not work. It was a logical position for them to take at the time (Community Source Number 1, 2000). A c c o r d i n g to another m e m b e r o f G I F T , it was t h e " G a l i a n o Conservancy, w h o should have been h e l p i n g us at that time... I really feel that they felt that w e were d o i n g the w r o n g t h i n g . . . " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A l s o , these feelings were longer-term because, "they weren't c o m i n g out to help us, [and] that hurt a little bit, and I c o u l d understand w h y at the beginning, because they were trying to save the w h o l e place. After a while, y o u feel they should be helping. I n the end, they d i d . B u t they never let us k n o w what they were d o i n g " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). I n the words o f the G C A itself, there "was extreme pressure o n our association, the G C A , to participate i n this process. W e chose to not take a stand o n it. T h i s caused a great deal o f anger o n the part o f the B o d e g a Partners, and I think the N G C A " (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h i s animosity extended outside the B o d e g a Partners and the G C A . A n g e r extended to the N C C , because they were, very much against any kind of development. That was very much their main thrust was to stop any kind of development, completely. This was where part o f the difficulty was with the G C A crowd, because they were primarily in this camp. They did not want to see any development, period. They felt that some other metiiod o f raising money would be more desirable, and that was what ultimately happened. That was part of the bone o f contention, that they didn't want any development at all, because they felt that was the start of something witii which they were opposed. In other words, they were basically trying to preserve the whole area without development. But we could never understand why there was such opposition to this, because it impacted noone really, but die people that put up the money, and die N o r t h end people (Community Source Number 1, 2000). Because the G C A was supporting the O C P review initiated by the Island Trustees, the two groups were seen to be i n league w i t h one another. Therefore, the enmity between the members o f G I F T and the Islands Trustees was a hot p o i n t as well. O n e o f the Island Trustees was a m e m b e r o f G I F T . O n e o f the other members said G I F T , had quite a number o f meetings at the home of one of the Bodega Partners, and one of ladies, who was a Trustee of Galiano. She was involved quite heavily with the Galiano Club. She was totally  100  unreasonable. Whatever was proposed, she would turn down for one reason or another. So, there was a lot of friction between those two groups (Community Source Number 2, 2000). G I F T at one point, hired a facilitator, w h o , tried to get the hard core G C A supporters, the purists on board, and it more or less with us all the way. It was a strategy that was really important. But it never really worked. There is a hard core of people that don't wish to work... They were environmentalists, but they wanted it to happen in a certain way. (Community Source Number 1, 2000). I n the end, the groups never came to agreement o n terms for a face to face facilitated meeting. A c c o r d i n g to a b o a r d member o f the G C A , the intensity was too great, saying, I never felt hatred towards the others, but I could sense that they felt hatred towards the G C A , because it did not jump on board with their proposal. There were intermediaries that would talk to me, then go talk to them, and I just did not know how to deal with them... I am very willing to sit down and discuss things, but I will not deal with those sorts o f pressures [referring to threats against members of the G C A ] . T w o o f our directors and some of the members of G I F T , at that time, who met on a regular basis with a facilitator to try to put together a format. I think too much effort went into that, and yet we couldn't find some sort of way for anyone on our board to sit down and talk with anyone on their group. I can't... Personalities were involved. When you come to a small island, somehow the idiosyncrasies of personalities become exaggerated, and that is where we found ourselves" (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h o s e idiosyncrasies exaggerated other issues that were contentious. F o r example, at the ceremony that recognised the groups i n v o l v e d i n protecting the Ridge, the G C A left out the three-year c o n t r i b u t i o n o f the c o m m u n i t y . T h e speaker, f r o m the G C A , "unwittingly put a damper o n our efforts by saying that we had a couple o f bake sales to try and make money. A n d that was the biggest understatement.  It didn't go over very w e l l w i t h a lot o f p e o p l e "  ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). F o r one m e m b e r o f G I F T , the c o m m u n i t y involvement, was really a tremendous feat for them. I mean they really, to assume that kind of responsibility... A l l the fundraising was theirs... The N o r t h end hall people never got recognition for all the work tiiat they did. These were the creative people that constandy came up with the different ideas that kept tire money coming in... It was well balanced in that everyone contributed to the cause... W e needed the backup o f all our ingenious ways of raising money, ideas from the community. A n d we had to keep coming up with the ideas for the three years (Community Source Number 1, 2000).  101  F o r the shear effort, hours o f input a n d m o n e y raised by those people w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y , they felt they s h o u l d gain recognition. Three other issues that arose were that the N G C A was asked to use their tax number, the sudden influx o f people i n the N G C A and that G I F T hired someone to raise money. First, using the N G C A ' s tax n u m b e r did not go over very well in the community, and there are still people that will have nothing to do with us. Even now. However, the decision was made... It wasn't that they did not want to save the Island. They did not like being imposed on, I guess. It almost looked like they wanted to use our tax number, so that's why we were doing it" (Community Source Number 2, 2000). Protecting B o d e g a stirred a lot o f interest i n members o f the c o m m u n i t y , w h o were till this p o i n t inactive i n the c o m m u n i t y . T h e i r sudden interest was also a p r o b l e m . T h e feelings o f some i n the N G C A were that there had been a sudden influx o f people, who had nothing to do with us normally and don't even live in this area, who tried to push this through. The membership up here runs about 60 or 70 in normal times... It was almost 120, and it was people that came in with the purpose to make tiiis happen. In the end, maybe it is just as well that they did. It did not cause much happiness up here for those who are plugging along to suddenly have a lot of people coming and telling us what we were going to do (Community Source Number 2, 2000). B e y o n d that meeting, G I F T h i r e d the woman that worked so hard to save Mt. Galiano... She, however, wanted to get paid, because she didn't have any other work. That rankled with a lot o f people too. Here they were trying to raise all this money, and here they were paying her. , In her defense, she was marvellously inventive. She left no stone unturned (Community Source Number 2, 2000). E a c h o f the above issues l e d to a deep and abiding mistrust between c o m m u n i t y members. T h i s mistrust continues today. H o w e v e r , n o t all interactions were bad. O n c e the N C C became i n v o l v e d , they w o r k e d to keep others i n f o r m e d about what was happening w i t h and between them. T h i s meant that each group, " k n e w what the other was doing. There was an effort to keep us i n f o r m e d , and I think there was for the others as well. T h a t is crucial, because otherwise y o u are out there by y o u r s e l f (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). O u t s i d e o f the business o f protecting the ridge, the process was not painful. F o r one participant, this was a time i n w h i c h , "we really d i d stretch our imaginations to d o it. It was k i n d o f f u n " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000).  102  Pebble Beach T h e collaborative process for protecting Pebble B e a c h was not without antagonism, b o t h a m o n g the collaboration participants a n d w i t h the c o m m u n i t y . I n fact, m u c h o f the contention that surrounded the B o d e g a process continued to haunt the collaborators i n the Pebble B e a c h process. T h e first question that s h o u l d have been asked was h o w the negotiations should have proceeded, but it was not raised at the time. A c c o r d i n g to the federal government source, they should have asked, If various parties put in money, who's going to end up with the tide in the end? Is it going to be C R D Parks, is it going to be B C Parks, is it going to be Parks Canada? I f we all put in money, who owns it once you've bought it? A n d it's a big issue, and clearly that has to be and that should be resolved before you can complete the acquisition... A n d i f this had been clarified earlier, would this have been as contentious as it turned out to be? A n d then, whoever does own it, their policies with respect to management are different. A C R D Park is going to be managed differendy than an ecological reserve, and then i f you don't clarify those things up front, you're just setting yourself up for controversy. Sometimes you don't have time to figure that kind of thing out. W i d i M i l l Farm, we didn't have that kind of time for the parcel that was for sale. With Pebble Beach, we probably should have taken the time, if I am remembering things correcdy, to a certain extent (Federal Government Source, 2000). T h e statement above suggests that had the parties c o m e together and detaded their requirements and expectations o f b o t h the process a n d outcomes, the negotiations might have gone m o r e s m o o t h l y a n d Pebble B e a c h might n o w be protected. T h e first part o f the negotiations ran into problems, because o f the archaeological sites that were discovered o n D L 63. H o w e v e r , according to the G C A , " T h e y [ B C Tel] were very o p e n w i t h us, a n d they p r o v i d e d us w i t h the archaeologist's report. T h e y were sympathetic to dealing w i t h us. T h e y preferred to deal w i t h us than other options from a public relations standpoint" (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h o s e relations became somewhat strained after B C T e l started m a k i n g m o r e demands o f the N C C and G C A . B C Tel's last request was m o r e difficult to fulfill. T h e y required an M o U that w o u l d b i n d all the parties to protect all o f the L o t s , after the sale o f D L 63 to the N C C and its subsequent transfer to the G C A . I n spite o f this, relations between the G C A and B C T e l seemed to remain fairly g o o d . T h e m a i n dispute was between the G C A and the P r o v i n c i a l government. " T h e Ministry and the G C A i n particular were divergent o n management, legal rights and First N a t i o n s consultation" (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). O n e o f those legal rights was access  103  to the area and access for the privately o w n e d lots S o u t h o f the Reserve. T h e r e was an easement o n D L 63, w h i c h grants access along a gravel road going to the residences. T h i s easement is still i n place, but contains a "sunset clause," w h i c h basically means that the easement dissolves at such time as there is p u b l i c access from another source (i.e. another r o a d c o n n e c t i o n is built) (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e differences o f o p i n i o n have l e d the parties to n o agreement o n terms. " S o what really stands out about Pebble B e a c h is the lack o f ability o f these parties to get together and c o m e to terms w i t h h o w these lands w i l l be used, who's g o i n g to administer them, what their future's g o i n g to b e " (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). A c c o r d i n g to the G C A , these negotiations were l o n g and involved, even f r o m their v i e w a little unnecessary. T h e w h o l e process has been, Frustrating. It just required persistence. This folder here [referring to a three inch binder] is just correspondence, correspondence that I have had.... It was almost a weekly correspondence, a weekly going in to see someone, and the N C C was involved in a certain amount of that. I'm not sure what to... It just required persistence in some things, but other things happened by the stroke of a pen. There was just an extraordinary amount of work in there" (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). I n the end, the G C A has become a bit cynical a n d unnerved by the inaction and frustration w i t h the politics o f the process. It is perhaps s u m m e d up best i n their o w n words, I don't think it has been a healthy experience for B C Parks. It hasn't been a healthy experience for our Association to work on this either... I don't think they worked with us in good faith. We had a hard time judging their expectations. I just can't understand where they're coming from (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e dissention a n d antagonism was n o t restrained to dealings between the partners i n the collaboration, extending into the c o m m u n i t y . A s I mentioned there are some animosities, and there are ongoing animosities related to forest land owners and the Islands Trust. We seem to attract those animosities, because there is a perception that G C A members generally support the Trust. If you can't attack them directly, dien you attack their supporters. I sense that there's a fair amount o f anger and antagonism directed at our organisation, not only from what happened on Bodega Ridge, but also from the other political conflicts that have gone on in the community. I know there have been strong letter writing campaigns about Pebble Beach by those who actually support it, but oppose the G C A for being there. It becomes another political issue. Politicians are sensitive to views expressed by citizens. I know there have been some letters. What I cannot explain is when there are legal agreements how the Provincial government can just ignore them. I  104  have no explanation for that. It was explained to me by someone last summer, who tried to act as a mediator in this tihat tihere are personality problems. But there is an agreement in principle. What about that? If you let personalities govern... It shouldn't be allowed to enter into that, but they have (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). B a d feelings f r o m the B o d e g a Ridge process have made it difficult for the G C A to carry out other business o n the Island. It has resulted i n b l o c k i n g initiatives and a lack o f support a m o n g some c o m m u n i t y members, not because o f value-based interests but because the G C A is merely i n v o l v e d (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  Summary Ultimately, the problems that developed w i t h i n the B o d e g a Ridge process extended to P e b b l e Beach. I f B o d e g a h a d been resolved m o r e amicably, P e b b l e B e a c h may have flowed m o r e easdy. These p o o r feelings d i d not stop the protection o f the Ridge, because all parties were interested i n the end goal o f protecting the Ridge. H o w e v e r , i n the Pebble B e a c h campaign, the ariimosity f o u n d its way to the P r o v i n c i a l government i n the f o r m o f letters by G a l i a n o residents. It has left the government questioning whether inclusiveness i n the process o f protection and management can really take into account the interests o f all Islanders. T h i s feeling i n government resulted i n the fadure o f the G C A and M E L P to c o m e to terms.  Did stakeholders maintain a core value set off limits to negotiation? In the protection o f b o t h areas, there was n o explicit discussion o f values; however, over time several core values became apparent. I n the case o f B o d e g a Ridge, the core values were expressed as to whether or n o t development should be allowed o n D L 7 3 along the waterfront. I n the case o f P e b b l e B e a c h , the core value issues were access, use and public participation.  Bodega Ridge T h e ultimate core value i n the Ridge campaign was i n the end revealed as natural protection over use, logging i n this case, o n the Ridge. T h i s goal transcended all the rhetoric and hostility that developed through the 1990s. A c c o r d i n g to one o f the partners i n G I F T , " W e just thought this was a piece o f property that just h a d to be saved as a park. T h a t was the vision: there w o u l d n ' t be any further l o g g i n g " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). I n this sense, each m e m b e r o f the collaborative shared the value o f protection o f the Ridge over its exploitation, either through large-scale development or logging. A s stated by the G C A , their "very clear understanding, a n d that o f the N C C , was that this w o u l d be an ecological reserve.  105  W h a t the P r o v i n c e chooses to d o w i t h that may be very different. It was sold to the P r o v i n c e for protection purposes" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e differences were value differences surrounding h o w that protection s h o u l d take place and h o w m u c h development, toward that end goal, was acceptable. T h e B o d e g a Partners, and m o s t members o f G I F T , felt that developing four residential lots under Strata T i d e o n D L 73 was an acceptable sacrifice to protect the larger area o f the Ridge. T h e i r reasoning lay i n the practice o f other trust groups that develop part o f their lands to pay o f f the debt o f the larger purchase. T h e G C A had a different feeling, especially w h e n taken into the context o f the " n o development" climate created by the introduction and eventual passage o f Bylaws 81-85. T h e i r p o s i t i o n was, "that there must be better alternatives that must be pursued other than development, given the path that the bylaws led, and they were eventually adopted" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e members o f G I F T reasoned that the N C C was anti-development, as well, stating that the N C C was very much against any kind of development. That was very much their main thrust was to stop any kind o f development, completely. This was where part of the difficulty was with the G C A crowd, because they were primarily in his [a G C A member's] camp. They did not want to see any development, period. They felt that some other method of raising money would be more desirable, and that was what ultimately happened (Community Source Number 1, 2000). A s registered organisations, the N C C and G C A felt responsible to officially stay out o f the debate o n l a n d use and development o f forest lots o n G a l i a n o (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h a t was a matter for the wider citizens o f G a l i a n o to decide i n the O C P review already underway, not i n the process to protect the Ridge. Outside o f the controversy surrounding development o n D L 73, the G C A had o n record since 1992 a plea to purchase all o f the u n s o l d M B lands to add to the Province's Protected Areas Strategy (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h e members o f G I F T felt that this also was a major reason that the G C A w o u l d not participate i n the process to protect the Ridge. " T h e y were trying to save all M B ' s lands, and they felt that because we were trying to save just a specific area, that was spoiling their attempts to get the w h o l e t h i n g " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A final value was that o f the members o f the P M H L . T h e G C A and N C C , i n their l o b b y i n g efforts, had to show the Ridge " h a d almost W o r l d - C l a s s significance; those are the words that they like to use i n order for it to be the first acquisition" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). I n the end, the biological inventory o f the area, w h i c h details a  106  n u m b e r o f rare species p r o v e d that p o i n t to the members o f the P M H L , and the Ridge was the first acquisition.  Pebble Beach T h e P e b b l e B e a c h process d i d not explicidy define core values either. A c c o r d i n g to the P r o v i n c i a l government, everyone was, "fairly clear o n defining everyone's interests i n the area. A l l were intent o n protecting it f r o m c o m m e r c i a l and extractive development" (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). O t h e r core values came out i n time, but even then, they were n o t discussed. T h e core values that s t o o d out over time were those o f public involvement, access and use. T h e Federal g o v e r n m e n t source stated, The main thing that stands out is the differences of opinion primarily between the B C government and the Galiano Conservancy Association as to the use of these lands... It was subsequent to that in how the lands would be used, especially in terms o f public access. A n d I believe that continues to be a problem to this day (Federal Government Source, 2000). A n d i n furtherance to that idea, N o w , I think the major issue that has caused the disagreement between the B C government and the Conservancy Association revolves around access, and administration. I think those are the two issues. So there may be a tendency for the Galiano Conservancy Association to want less public access than what B C Parks would like to see. A n d I think there is probably an issue around community control as well, even to the point o f tide (Federal Government Source, 2000). T h e G C A w o u l d have to p r o v e that their criteria for use, access and management o f the park were the same as those o f B C Parks. A n example o f the issue o f use was B C Park's assumption that the park w o u l d allow for overnight c a m p i n g by kayakers (The G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n , 2000). T h i s was an issue inconsistent w i t h the values that the G C A placed o n the area. T h e G C A ' s , idea was to have it consistent in the O C P and in the way it was zoned. The uses allowed on the two Crown land parcels are hiking trails and uses as allowed in the Ecological Reserve Act. It was zoned nature protection. D L 63 was zoned Forest 1. A n d fortunately, activities were allowed in that. O u r motivations were several. 1. We have an ideal opportunity to do biodiversity monitoring from the impact of man in forest... Another really important objective is to use this area as a facility for education. We have been doing it through the years... Education in this area; it is not entirely protection. There are two covenants on the land that are for non-consumptive use o f the forest, but diey do allow for consumptive or First Nations use. So maybe someday, we will  107  want to strip some bark from a cedar tree and learn something about the use of cedar or cedar bark for baskets or clothing or whatever. Although not extensive, we do allow for uses for education purposes (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e P r o v i n c e also felt a fiduciary duty to see that the area is managed w i t h appropriate c o m m u n i t y involvement, where "the question then becomes, h o w can the local people b r i n g i n the interests o f all islanders i n a way that respects divergence" (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T o this p o i n t i n time, the M E L P has n o t been satisfied. " T h e p r o b l e m is that G a l i a n o is such a contentious area that n o matter what they say about p u b l i c participation, it w i l l be suspect i n the eyes o f the P r o v i n c e " (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000).  Summary N e i t h e r group clearly and explicitly defined the core values o f each o f the members; however these values were revealed over time. T h e m a i n value, that o f protecting b o t h areas f r o m development and extraction, was shared by all parties. T h i s core value c o u l d have served as a starting p o i n t to discuss the other values that each m e m b e r held, leading to the ultimate goal o f collaborative agreements, a shared value set that allows them to develop mutually agreeable solutions.  What was the common problem, and how was it identified? B o t h groups had a rather simplistic and readily available p r o b l e m definition. I n the case o f Bodega Ridge, the p r o b l e m was defined for the parties, stopping immanent logging and raising the capital to purchase the properties. F o r Pebble B e a c h , the p r o b l e m was the partial fidfillment o f a vision, protecting three parcels o f land that were unique to G a l i a n o Island and could serve as a site for education and biodiversity m o n i t o r i n g purposes.  Bodega Ridge T h e threat o f logging or development o n D L 73 catalysed protection o f the Ridge. T h e Bodega Partners, "thought this was a piece o f property that just had to be saved as a park" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). Because o f the i m m a n e n t logging o f D L 76, the Bodega Partners went to the N G C A meeting at the N o r t h E n d H a l l w i t h a p r o p o s a l to enlist the Association's help i n raising the m o n e y to purchase the land and to use their charitable tax status. " T h e result o f that meeting was we w o u l d " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). T h e general consensus at the meeting, according to the one m e m b e r o f G I F T , "was, 'Let's save i t ' " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A l t h o u g h the c o m m u n i t y defined the p r o b l e m as saving the Ridge, the m e t h o d o l o g y became problematic.  108  Pebble Beach Closer analysis o f Pebble B e a c h reveals that n o t all parties agreed to a single communally defined p r o b l e m . A c c o r d i n g to M E L P , the members o f the group, "were intent o n protecting it f r o m c o m m e r c i a l and extractive development...  T h e m a i n objective was  consistency w i t h the P M H L objectives, and presumably w i t h the national park that w o u l d be created i n the G u l f Islands (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h e federal government p o s i t i o n o n assisting the protection o f Pebble B e a c h , w i t h the assistance o f the P M H L , t o o k a different perspective f r o m the one given by M E L P above i n terms o f h o w Pebble B e a c h fit into the P M H L framework. A c c o r d i n g to the Federal government source, the vision from Parks Canada perspective is very clear. Those islands that would be included in a national park won't include lands on Galiano Island. So, Pebble Beach is clearly either going to be a Provincial protected area, or I suppose, a regional protected area under C R D Parks. O r , I suppose, it could even go to the community level, which if you think about what the Galiano Conservancy wants, it's community control. So, it will either go Provincial or Regional, in terms of designation. It won't go National. Just the area of interest has been clearly identified (Federal Government Source, 2000).  T h e P r o v i n c e and Parks Canada had differing perspectives o n the role Pebble B e a c h should play. T h i s type o f inconsistency illustrates a lack o f dialogue i n defining the p r o b l e m communally. N o t surprisingly, the G C A h a d a slighdy different v i s i o n f r o m either o f the other two groups, although this was only apparent through study o f the correspondence between the parties. G a l i a n o ' s O C P classed all protected areas o n the Island as equivalent to p r o v i n c i a l ecological reserves. T h e G C A ' s idea was protection, consistent in the O C P and in the way it was zoned. The uses allowed on the two Crown land parcels are hiking trails and uses as allowed in the Ecological Reserve Act. It was zoned nature protection. D L 63 was zoned Forest 1. A n d fortunately, [these] activities were allowed in that. O u r motivations were several. (1) We have an ideal opportunity to do biodiversity monitoring from the impact of man in forest. There has been a program that has been in existence for a short while, called S I M A B [Smithsonian Institution Monitoring and Assessment of Biodiversity]. One of the things we wanted to do was establish these forest, biodiversity monitoring plots in the different types of forests that we have there... Another really important objective is to use this area as a facility for education (Galiano Conservancy Association Source,  2000).  109  Uses consistent w i t h an ecological reserve were at the core o f the dispute w i t h M E L P , because the only uses allowed according to the E c o l o g i c a l Reserve A c t were educadon, research and n o n - c o n s u m p t i v e or observational uses (British C o l u m b i a Ministry o f E n v i r o n m e n t , 1999). H o w e v e r , i f M E L P was attempting to establish Pebble B e a c h w i t h status equal to a provincial or regional park, m o r e consumptive uses w o u l d have been allowed. O v e r n i g h t camping, identified earlier as a p o i n t o f contention, was a more consumptive use disallowed i n ecological reserves.  Summary W h a t the t w o cases reveal was that a better, m o r e defined p r o b l e m had greater chances to succeed, since the groups w o u l d have established a dialogue, an essential element i n successful collaborative ventures. I n the case o f B o d e g a , the c o m m u n i t y defined the p r o b l e m i n a rather o p e n manner, leaving detads o p e n to interpretation, w h i c h led to misunderstandings as time progressed. Pebble B e a c h better illustrated this p r o b l e m , because each group defined the p r o b l e m differendy i n the interviews. T h e collaborators i n Pebble B e a c h were hampered by a lack o f discussion to formulate the p r o b l e m beyond just protecting the area. H a d they discussed the type o f protection early o n i n the process, many o f the problems s u r r o u n d i n g use, access and p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t may not have arisen.  110  Plate 18. T i m Walls: View ofMontague Provincial Park  (Walls, 2000)  Direction Setting Did the group set an agenda that reflects all parties' interests? O u t o f discussions w i t h participants and from the files, neither collaborative set an overall agenda. There was n o agenda set d u r i n g the process to protect Bodega Ridge. D u r i n g the Pebble Beach collaboration, Minister Sihota outlined the process i n his letter, w h i c h was called a "framework for conservation." N o timeline was attached to this framework. Bodega Ridge T h e process to protect the Ridge was entirely ad hoc. T h e collaborative dealt w i t h issues as they arose. H o w e v e r , the collaborative had a definite time limit, three years, i n w h i c h they had to raise enough funds to pay the m o n t h l y interest payments and pay o f f the principle. T h e payments leant some structure to the process.  Ill  Pebble Beach T h e P e b b l e B e a c h collaborative h a d the luxury o f time, but it d i d not set a timeframe i n w h i c h to achieve their goals and tasks. T h e structure, outlined by Minister Sihota in 1996 was somewhat as follows. The P M H L would make a donation to the acquisition o f D L 63, which is contingent on B C Tel, the G C A and the N C C to come up with an acceptable agreement between themselves so that the additional donation by the P M H L would happen. It would then be concluded. It also committed the Province to transferring title to the I T F B , committing them to the process not to the actual transfer. I think that was A p r i l of 1996. It took until January 1998 for B C T e l to get through all of their problems to get to a point where they would sell it. It took enormous pressure. The government agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding in January of 1998, which was... B C T e l wouldn't commit to it, until the Province turned over the Crown land parcels, so we had the M o U between all parties, that lays out how D L 63 would be purchased. It had a covenant in favour o f M E L P and the I T F B on D L 63, which laid out the Crown would make its best efforts to transfer the tide of 60 and 66 to the I T F B by some date in 1998 (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h i s letter defined an agenda for tasks necessary to the agreement and establishment o f P e b b l e B e a c h as a protected area.  Summary Because b o t h groups d i d have a loose structure, they m i g h t have benefited from a more formal agenda that set goals for accomplishment o f tasks and a timeframe i n w h i c h to achieve them. T h e Ridge process came closest to this idea. T h e partners i n v o l v e d k n e w they h a d three years, i n w h i c h they h a d to pay m o n t h l y interest payments and s o m e h o w raise the principle. T h e group d i d not discuss options for raising the $399,000, w h i c h fuelled the animosity generated w h e n the G C A a n d N C C w o u l d not agree to the development plans for the four lots o n D L 73. D i s c u s s i o n d u r i n g an agenda setting session might have highlighted the need for m o r e than one o p t i o n a n d not set reliance u p o n obtaining development rights for D L 73. Pebble B e a c h h a d the luxury o f time, but this luxury, i n part, l e d to its downfall. F o r the P r o v i n c i a l government, the time c o m m i t m e n t allowed t h e m to set the Pebble B e a c h process aside for lack o f incentive to p u s h forward. A d d i t i o n o f a timeline to the framework, either i n M i n i s t e r Sihota's proposal, or p r o p o s e d by one or m o r e o f the other parties m i g h t have intensified negotiations or set a time limit for negotiation, after w h i c h the parties w o u l d have to question the collaboration's continuation.  112  Did the group set ground rules, rules for decision-making, goals, subgroups and tasks together? N e i t h e r group adopted decision rules, or g r o u n d rules. O n e c o u l d infer f r o m their interactions w i t h funders and i n their negotiations that they adopted basic societal norms and business negotiation styles.  Bodega Ridge T h e members o f the collaborative effort to save B o d e g a d i d not establish g r o u n d rules for interactions, b e y o n d adopting a basic democratic meeting and decision-making style. Simple majority rulings made decisions. I n the case o f the N G C A meeting, the vote passing the special resolution was nearly 9 0 % i n favour ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). Majority rule might not encompass m i n o r i t y views, w h i c h became problematic i n this case. G I F T formed the executive committee charged w i t h administering the plan to save the Ridge. T h e group accepted any help w i t h developing and i m p l e m e n t i n g ideas for fundraisers. T h e group w o r k e d o n tasks as they arose, following the ad hoc nature o f the entire process. H o w e v e r , the mortgage o n D L 76 p r o v i d e d some structure to the tasks the group needed.to perform. E a c h m o n t h , G I F T had to send a cheque to the Saltspring logger to pay the interest o n the mortgage. A t the end o f the three years, the principle was due. M e m b e r s o f G I F T t o o k o n tasks to achieve these targets. G I F T hired someone to tackle fundraising for the m o n t h l y payments.  She  was the woman that worked so hard to save Mt. Galiano... She, however, wanted to get paid, because she didn't have any other work. That rankled with a lot of people too. Here they were trying to raise all this money, and here they were paying her. In her defense, she was marvelously inventive (Community Source Number 2, 2000). I n all, she and other c o m m u n i t y members generated ideas for and implemented over 37 different events to successfully raise the m o n e y for the interest payments. F u n d r a i s i n g was a difficult task, one that the G C A has recognised. T h e G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y " d i d the best they c o u l d to raise m o n e y up there just to keep up w i t h the mortgage payments, m u c h less paying d o w n the principle. T h e r e wasn't a week that went by where there wasn't some k i n d o f fundraising event. T h a t is a prescription to wear people out" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e process nearly d i d wear people out, but it was successful, w h i c h spoke to the c o m m u n i t y ' s desire to protect the Ridge, whether or not a heated debate h u n g over obtaining the principle and developing forest z o n e d lands. O n e m e m b e r o f G I F T talked about paying the principle o n the mortgage, saying, "there is n o way we w o u l d have made it, and the G a l i a n o Conservancy got busy i n those last months, maybe longer thanthatr, I ' m not sure. I n those last months, they d i d a lot to get government  113  help to do this" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). T h e efforts o f the G C A and the c o m m u n i t y helped to pay b o t h the principle o f $399,000 and the $133,000 i n interest payments. O n e o f the final tasks, as alluded to above, was the purchase o f D L 75 and the renegotiation o f the mortgage o n D L 76. T h e same m e m b e r o f G I F T said that the c o m m u n i t y , couldn't handle any more, and the fellows that were all tied up in 73... Various people guaranteed loans to save that property [ D L 75] from being logged until such time as it could be included in the P M H L . So, it was basically the Conservancy that did that one, but they put togedier the three of them, a sizeable hunk (Community Source Number 2, 2000). T h e G C A acted to purchase D L 75 i n reaction to the conditions laid out by the N C C .  The  conditions were that the N C C , " w o u l d acquire a purchase and sale agreement f r o m b o t h the Bodega Partners and the N G C A . . .  [and] also that some entity acquires the intermediate lot,  D L 75, w i t h the i n t e n t i o n to turn it over to the N C C . H e required a purchase and sale agreement o n that lot as w e l l " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). A n o t h e r o f the final tasks was to l o b b y the government to take a part i n protecting Bodega Ridge. T h e N C C , along w i t h the G C A t o o k o n this task. T h e G C A described this effort as, a massive effort, a massive effort. Lobbying government for protection purposes is. Some o f the meetings were so frustrating... A t that time, he [the Director o f the N C C ] had all of Canada to worry about, and he kept pushing and lobbying protection in this local area. A n d I have enormous respect for him, because he stuck with it... It is not just a simple statement that the government decides to do this. There is an enormous amount o f effort that goes into helping that decision be made" (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). O n c e again, this was an unstructured task, one for w h i c h the G C A and N C C t o o k responsibility, and accomplished. Finally, all parties signed their purchase and sale agreements, and the N C C t o o k tide and transferred that tide along w i t h its c o n t r i b u t i o n to the purchase price to the P M H L .  Pebble Beach F o r the participants i n the P e b b l e B e a c h process, everything, "was handled o n an as needed basis" (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). Therefore, the group d i d not decide o n decision-rules, goals or subgroups. T h e tasks, as the G C A saw them, started w h e n they, tried very hard with the N C C to get them [BC Tel] to donate it [DL 63], or something like that. Eventually, we worked an agreement to purchase it. There were three parties involved, and it took us until 1996 to get an agreement, especially with B C T e l in principle to sell the property to us, and the Provincial government  114  to join into the process (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). In 1996, the E n v i r o n m e n t M i n i s t e r drafted the "framework for conservation" i n his letter to the G C A . A t this point, B C T e l d i d not want to c o m m i t to the sale o f D L 63 until they received assurances that the P r o v i n c e w o u l d transfer the C r o w n lands, creating the protected area. T o meet these demands, the G C A negotiated the M o U . L o b b y i n g government and drafting the M o U took enormous pressure. The government agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding in January o f 1998, which was... [The] M o U between all parties... lays out how D L 63 would be purchased. It had a covenant in favour of M E L P and the I T F B on D L 63, which laid out the Crown would make its best efforts to transfer the title of 60 and 66 to the I T F B by some date in 1998" (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). M o s t o f the process i n v o l v e d l o b b y i n g government to agree to c o m b i n e the purchase o f D L 63 w i t h the C r o w n lands to establish the P e b b l e B e a c h Reserve. Outside o f accompHshing that task, the collaborative h a d to negotiate a price w i t h B C T e l , and follow the "framework for c o n s e r v a t i o n " a n d the M o U . T h e p r o b l e m w i t h this m e t h o d o l o g y was that none o f the parties k n e w what the other was doing, n o r d i d they k n o w what the other parties expected. A s stated by the federal government representative, I guess the big lesson would be to clarify up front before you put money on die table, and those issues that revolve around management. People need to know. I mean it needs to be clear that before the land is actually purchased how these lands are going to be used, who's going to manage them" (Federal Government Source, 2000). O n c e the participants determined management and acceptable uses, the group c o u l d then proceed to the purchase agreements. Otherwise, if, . you're purchasing them in partnership, and the parties involved in the partnership haven't agreed before we've purchased how these lands are going to be used and who's going to manage them, etc., you're just setting yourself up for a Pebble Beach situation. A n d , I guess, those kinds of things need to be resolved beforehand to avoid... Pebble Beach has been four years now, and it's unresolved, and those kinds of things are hard" (Federal Government Source, 2000). These words highlighted some o f the frustration w i t h the process. T o this date, four years after the " F r a m e w o r k , " none o f the parties has agreed, and tide has not been transferred to the I T F B .  115  Summary N o n e o f the groups i n v o l v e d discussed what duties were necessary to a c c o m p l i s h the protection o f B o d e g a Ridge, c o m m u n a l l y or otherwise. T h a t the Ridge was protected illustrates that C I C s were capable o f accompUshing their objectives w i t h i n an ad hoc structure. A t the same time, clear c o m m u n i c a t i o n between parties about their duties, their objectives and timeframes m i g h t have l e d to a less contentious atmosphere. Clear c o m m u n i c a t i o n about duties, objectives and timeframes m i g h t also have led to m u t u a l understanding u p o n w h i c h they m i g h t develop a shared understanding and eventually a mutually beneficial result. I f the collaborative does not set tasks c o m m u n a l l y , the risk o f duplication o f effort and m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n increases. C o u p l i n g disintegrated tasks w i t h decision rules that do not include m i n o r i t y rights can lead to disenfranchisement and bitterness. A l t h o u g h B o d e g a is protected, some o f the above characteristics appear present. Furthermore, the disintegrated task management especially i n defining terms a n d procedures that handicapped the Pebble B e a c h process have resulted i n the inability to c o m e to agreement after four years.  Did participants discover commonly held beliefs through discussion of values, goals and interpretations of the future? Bodega Ridge Because o f the ad hoc nature o f the negotiations, the participants i n the B o d e g a collaborative d i d not spend m u c h time trying to b u d d consensus through dialogue w i t h a range o f interests i n c o m m u n i t y . A t the same time, m o s t o f the c o m m u n i t y d i d support protecting B o d e g a Ridge, i f they were not directiy i n v o l v e d i n the process o f protecting it (albeit quite possibly d i d support it through monetary contributions). Persons w i t h n o interest also existed. A s to the c o m m u n i t y members w h o expressed their o p p o s i t i o n to d e v e l o p i n g D L 73, G I F T went through a couple of efforts. Well, once we got a facilitator, and we tried to get the hard core G C A supporters, the purists on board, and it more or less with us all the way. It was a strategy that was really important. But it never really worked. There is a hard core of people that don't wish to work... I'm sure you're a bit confused by this, because here I'm talking about a community solidly working towards a goal, and yet there was always a certain element that somehow... They were environmentalists, but they wanted it to happen in a certain way (Community Source Number 1, 2000). T h i s statement evinced crossing a core value. T h e "different" environmentalists this G I F T speaker talked about were u n w i l l i n g to allow development. I f either " s i d e " recognised the core value (i.e. development s h o u l d be disallowed), they might have set aside the disagreement i n search o f c o m m o n g r o u n d and acceptable alternatives.  116  In spite o f the lack o f discussion, the members o f the G C A that eventually f o r m e d L e a p o f Faith w o r k e d separately and came up w i t h an alternative that was acceptable to all parties. T h e N C C was that alternative, entering the process w i t h a clearer agenda for c o n c l u d i n g the process (with their conditions) and executed their plan. T h e timing o f this acceptable alternative likely saved the process. T h e members o f L e a p o f Faith were fortunate that this alternative was acceptable, because alternatives f r o m outside a process lack the discussion around values that makes solutions viable. T h e failure o f the facilitator to b r i n g the parties together suggested this type o f discussion m i g h t n o t have been possible. T h e biggest issue was that none o f the parties c o m m u n i c a t e d the reasons for their actions w i t h the other parties, n o r d i d they communicate what actions they were taking. I n a clear statement, one m e m b e r o f G I F T said that after some time, " y o u feel they [the G C A membership] s h o u l d be helping. I n the end, they did. B u t they never let us k n o w what they were d o i n g " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). T h e strained c o m m u n i c a t i o n s l e d to difficulty w i t h i n the G I F T meetings. Because the c o m m u n i t y saw the G C A a n d the Island Trustees as supporting one another, discussions i n v o l v i n g one o f the Trustees, w h o sat i n o n the G I F T meetings, were labourious at best. She was described as, "totally unreasonable. Whatever was proposed, she w o u l d turn d o w n for one reason or another. So, there was a lot o f friction between those two g r o u p s " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). B o t h "sides" p o i n t out that a considerable a m o u n t o f time was spent attempting to b r i n g the groups together. B o t h sides made what they felt was a, concerted effort made to draw these two groups into the same room and get them to talk. A n d it was not easy. There were preparations that went on for months in preparation for such a meeting; it was not what I would call a resounding success. I think too much effort went into that, and yet we couldn't find some sort of way for anyone on our board to sit down and talk with anyone on their group" (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). A l t h o u g h the process to protect B o d e g a Ridge d i d not fail i n the end, it was not entirely successful because o f the ramifications that eventually hindered protection o f P e b b l e Beach. T h e groups d i d n o t get together to discuss what values were driving t h e m i n their seemingly different directions; therefore, c o m m u n i c a t i o n between t h e m never got b e y o n d rhetoric and position-based statements.  Pebble Beach L i k e B o d e g a Ridge, P e b b l e B e a c h was a l o b b y i n g effort, except this time the G C A controlled the process, p u s h i n g the P M H L a n d M E L P to c o m e to terms o n a transfer o f title, w h i c h w o u l d allow the G C A to manage the area. A c c o r d i n g to the G C A , l o b b y i n g to  117  protect the area, " t o o k enormous pressure" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e pressure was n o t directed to district managers, but " t o w a r d the Minister's office" (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). Furthermore, the pressure was protracted, taking place over six years, just to reach the M o U stage. T h e G C A and M E L P ' s discussions were, "almost a weekly correspondence, a weekly g o i n g i n to see someone, and the N C C was i n v o l v e d i n a certain a m o u n t o f that. I'm not sure what to... It just required persistence i n some tilings, but other tilings happened by the stroke o f a pen. T h e r e was just an extraordinary a m o u n t o f w o r k i n there" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). Discussions d i d not range outside o f the business at hand, m e a n i n g that the parties d i d not discuss values and beliefs, just protection and h o w to proceed, o r devising alternatives. Discussions w i t h b o t h government sources revealed that discussions s h o u l d have included h o w the group w o u l d agree o n protection a n d management. First, the P r o v i n c i a l government source felt they s h o u l d have asked, how to bring the persons together to get consensus for Provincial and community lots. What should have been asked was who was working with whom? With w h o m was M E L P negotiating? Ultimately, I think the agreement should have been between M E L P and the I T F B , with the I T F B and the G C A consulting on management o f the area. There were just too many interests there at one time. It made it hard to come to consensus on where to go with things. The management plan must consider the broader interests, something which the Ministry and the Province are charged, by the public, to administer. A question then becomes, how can the local people bring in the interests of all islanders in a way that respects divergence. It is not a simple task, and we want to ensure that all parties are represented in the management plan (Provincial Government Source, 2000). These questions were illustrative o f the need to discuss values and interests before getting into the m o r e substantive issues. T h e Federal government source h a d sirnilar feelings, staling that if, you're purchasing them in partnership, and die parties involved in the partnership haven't agreed before we've purchased how these lands are going to be used and who's going to manage them, etc., you're just setting yourself up for a Pebble Beach situation. A n d , I guess, those kinds o f things need to be resolved beforehand (Federal Government Source, 2000). T h u s , defining the process a n d each group's interests before negotiating the detads might have l e d to better understanding, m o r e trust a n d alternatives that evolved f r o m shared understanding.  118  Summary N e i t h e r collaborative process t o o k time to determine each participant's interests, n o r d i d they w o r k to define decision-rules and h o w to manage dissension. H a d they developed a shared understanding, the groups c o u l d have w o r k e d through some o f the problems (e.g. development or management) and developed alternatives that reflected each other's interests. W i t h o u t definitions and discussion early i n the process, the actors o p e n e d the collaborative to future conflict based o n assumed shared definitions, as happened i n Pebble Beach.  Was there a joint search for information, and was that information mutually examined? C C A developed one o f the m o s t influential pieces o f i n f o r m a t i o n for b o t h projects, the Sensitive Areas Survey. C C A was the group w h o s e objective was to develop alternatives to the forestry practices o f M B i n the late 1980s. D u r i n g the negotiations, C C A had a discussion with M B , their chief forester at the time [name deleted] had met with C C A , and had suggested that C C A initiate a survey of the community to find out those areas that were important to the community. That study did take place in 1988 and was called the "Sensitive Areas Survey." It took a number of months to complete. It started in a meeting gymnasium and after that an activity centre, with large tables. These people had a map and there were twelve people at each table, and each table put on the maps the areas that were important to them. That information was gathered togedier and was put in survey form, which went to every house on the Island and they asked what they felt about this. There were rating scales. It was an elaborate and sophisticated survey. It was done by people on the Island who did it as volunteers, but diey were professionals at that sort o f activity. What came back were the areas that were responses. Those results were tabulated and brought forth at a public meeting. They were very strict in what was accepted, somediing like 80-90% of the community had to accept the area i n order for it to be considered a valid sensitive area. Some of the areas that were included are the two that we were talking about. W e are talking about Bodega Ridge and Pebble Beach (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e Sensitive Areas Survey was one source o f i n f o r m a t i o n that formed the basis for negotiations between C C A and M B . It also served as a catalyst and basis for conservation efforts o n the Island. T h e Survey c o u p l e d w i t h the actions o f C C A p r o m p t e d the formation o f the G C A , by identifying the need for a v o i c e for protection o n the Island (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  119  Bodega Ridge B o d e g a Pvidge was one o f the areas identified i n the Sensitive Areas Survey, meaning that a general consensus a m o n g Islanders (and over 8 0 % o f respondents to the Survey) felt it should be protected. T h e B o d e g a Partners and G I F T acted o n this i n f o r m a t i o n to start their campaign. G o v e r n m e n t agencies used criteria to prioritise areas for protection. A c c o r d i n g to G I F T , "there was never anytiiing like that done. I don't recall anything like that happening. It was presented to us that N C C w i t h the government m o n e y w o u l d buy the property. N o , there was never any talk... W e l l , we d i d discuss it, I guess, but it was never a p r i o r i t y " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). A s stated, n o discussion about types o f i n f o r m a t i o n or i n f o r m a t i o n o n - h a n d was necessary for the groups to seek protection. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n at hand was important and aided i n the eventual protection o f the area. In addition to C C A ' s Survey, Bodega, " h a d been identified i n a number o f P r o v i n c i a l studies for p r o t e c t i o n " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). A U B C professor and, ecologist had collected samples. H e used to live here on the Island, and in the samples, he found some very rare samples of invertebrates. Pardy because this is an area where you have a very dry southwest exposure, you provide cover for things that need that exposure. H e also had done studies on migration corridors in this area. There is rock face up there. There is the Manzanita up there. This is sort of the very northern extreme where you will find that shrub. There are compelling reasons to protect that ecosystem from the water to the Ridge (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). G I F T and the N C C used this i n f o r m a t i o n to support their b i d to protect the Ridge. T h e i n f o r m a t i o n became important i n the l o b b y i n g effort by the N C C and members o f the G C A . B o d e g a Ridge, to be the first area protected under the new P M H L , had to be shown drat it had almost World-Class significance... There were the people from the Conservation Data Centre, or some precursor to it, that came over and surveyed i t . . . I never sought access to it. That information was secure, and noone was questioning the validity o f it. It was information that I am sure was available to the public, but it was not crucial in pushing it forward. It was important, but crucial was generating the political will to move this thing forward (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). A g a i n , this underscored the political l o b b y i n g effort by the N C C directed toward the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments o f the day.  Pebble Beach B y the time that P e b b l e B e a c h came into play, the P M H L had,  120  identified what our selection criteria would be, for identifying lands that might be suitable not only for Provincial Park protection, but also potential Provincial Parks and Ecological Reserves. That's all part o f P M H L . . . So we developed a list o f selection criteria, and an evaluation form that enabled us to go into the field and look at these properties and to evaluate each parcel against the criteria we had identified. A n d they mosdy had to do with representativeness, naturalness... H o w well did these properties represent the biophysical characteristics o f the G u l f Islands. H o w natural are they? What condition are they in? If they're not perfectly natural, how could they be restored to their natural condition? A n d they also look at other things like adjacency to protected areas, or possibly lands that could be available in the future. We try to see how large the assemblies of land can be. I f the parcels of land are isolated and will always be isolated, then it wouldn't be as attractive to us as a parcel that could be linked up to other Crown lands or other lands that could be bought in the future. So that's a big part of it. There's a number o f criteria like that... A n d so we evaluate each parcel against the same criteria (Federal Government Source, 2000). P e b b l e B e a c h had to be weighed against these criteria, i n c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h areas other communities sought to protect i n the G u l f Islands. T h e members o f the P M H L stated that they, "use whatever i n f o r m a t i o n is avadable f r o m anybody. T h a t helps us to do the evaluation" (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). Furthermore, all i n f o r m a t i o n gathered o n the area, w i t h the exception o f the evaluation f o r m itself, was o p e n to the public. A c c o r d i n g to the Federal government source, Whatever information we had was publicly available. When we did our fieldwork there, the members of the Galiano Conservancy were there. So there was nothing that wasn't shared to my knowledge. They were certainly willing to share their information. A n d the information that we had was based on either what they told us, or what we got in the field... We don't actually share the filled out evaluation forms... That's an internal thing. The source of information we had was primarily local (Federal Government Source, 2000). In addition, the P r o v i n c i a l government source noted that the, " G C A had m o r e info than B C Parks. T h e i r i n f o r m a t i o n was used and they participated i n the survey o f the area w i t h P M H L / B C Parks s t a f f ( P r o v i n c i a l G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). N o t a b l e i n this situation was that the G C A felt the biological i n f o r m a t i o n became less important as the process continued. T h e y felt that, " B C Parks has not really been interested i n technical information, but m o r e i n political i n f o r m a t i o n " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  121  B o t h M E L P and the G C A had i n f o r m a t i o n c o m i n g into their respective processes. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was o p e n to the p u b l i c and was accepted by all parties i n the process. A l l participants w o r k e d w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n at h a n d to w o r k to protect the area. O n e type o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n particular s t o o d out at this point. A l t h o u g h b o t h groups " d i d their h o m e w o r k " o n the biological side o f protection, their lack o f knowledge o f the other parties was apparent. F o r example, there were some differences i n the type o f protection that P e b b l e B e a c h c o u l d have garnered. T h e G C A d i d not take steps to i n f o r m M E L P o f their intent to protect the area to ecological reserve standards i n the early stages o f the process. I n addition, M E L P d i d n o t research the types o f protection that were consistent w i t h the Islands T r u s t and the G a l i a n o ' s O f f i c i a l C o m m u n i t y P l a n ( O C P ) , w h i c h were m o r e strict than a p r o v i n c i a l park designation i n terms o f use and access as evidenced by their actions. F o r example, the G a l i a n o O C P states that the Island's parks w i l l be managed as consistent w i t h ecological reserves. H a d B C Parks been aware o f this policy, the conflict over acceptable uses w i t h i n Pebble B e a c h Reserve c o u l d have been handled i n a manner that w o u l d put the G C A i n the p o s i t i o n o f acting against G a l i a n o ' s O C P . T h i s difference i n i n f o r m a t i o n led to the considerable problems that developed late i n the process and c o n t i n u e d through the present.  Summary B o d e g a Ridge i g n o r e d the historical l a n d use conflict that surrounded the B o d e g a Ridge process. Clearly, the members o f G I F T , as residents o f the Island, k n e w the contention surrounding development o f the Island's forestlands, formerly o w n e d by M B . Y e t , they continued w i t h a plan to develop D L 73 w i t h four residential lots, w i t h o u t a contingency plan. A contingency plan i n this case was reasonable considering political action against such development was not only likely; it was inevitable. Because the P M H L had i n f o r m a t i o n requirements by the start o f the P e b b l e B e a c h process, the participants k n o w what scientific i n f o r m a t i o n was required. H o w e v e r , the participants, especially B C Parks and the G C A , struggled w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n necessary for l o b b y i n g , process and management.  This  struggle damaged the relationship between the parties and drew out the process.  Were adequate resources initially available to the CIC group? How were the necessary resources obtained? B o t h cases exemplify what is typical o f many C I C projects. T h e groups start o f f w i t h little to n o resources and b u i l d t h e m i n whatever legal way possible.  Bodega Ridge T h e actors o f the collaborative w o r k i n g to conserve B o d e g a Ridge started w i t h nothing. T h e i r feeling was, "we were o n our o w n " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). W h e n the  122  B o d e g a Partners t o o k their proposal to the N G C A to enlist their assistance i n purchasing D L 76, they k n e w they were asking a lot, "because they had a mortgage o n the property, so this was a really stressful thing for them. Because there weren't any really extremely wealthy people up there" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). A sirrular statement f r o m another G I F T m e m b e r spoke o f the meeting, where the N G C A , "made an agreement... that they w o u l d pay a mortgage, and I think it was about $3500 per m o n t h u n t i l such time as they c o u l d get m o n e y to pay it off. T h a t was not easy, especially since a lot o f people had given m o n e y to save M t . G a l i a n o and they didn't have it to give. T h a t was hard g o i n g " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A n early lack o f financial capital and the size o f the mortgage payments necessitated swift and continuous fundraising. O n e o f the B o d e g a Partners reflected that, it was a tremendous community effort, and as the community got into it, they really did benefit from it. There were something like 22 or more individual events and ongoing raffles and dances. A n d so in a sense it was a very active community endeavour. There was no shortage o f ideas coming forth. The Provincial government kicked in $900,000 [actually, $600,000], but we had no idea that something like that would happen. Maybe they had information that we didn't have. We even went so far as to contemplate doing some selective logging and had [someone] from Wildwood come in, who are well known for this. But they said, it could be thinned out a litde bit, and he was not really in favour of that. So, we abandoned the idea, and drat was another o f the backup schemes that we had. But we never did, and we ended up with the development of the four lots as the development scheme (Community Source Number 1, 2000). T h e c o m m u n i t y was attempting to raise the capital necessary to protect the area w i t h o u t outside help, government or E N G O , using any legal means possible. T h e N G C A w o r k e d hard to raise the money. O n e m e m b e r o f G I F T , f r o m the N G C A , stated that they, had the major responsibility, and I . . . felt we should be raising money as fast as we could. I didn't know how we were ever gonna raise all the money. We were going to have to get help from some environmental group, or government or something to do it. I was so busy trying to keep the Hall in repairs, and putting on these affairs that I did not have the time or the context to do it. We weren't getting very much help (Community Source Number 2, 2000). T h e N G C A felt the sense o f urgency, because the mortgage was i n their name. G I F T and the c o m m u n i t y managed to raise the money for the three years, to pay the interest, but they still had to raise funds to pay the principle: $399,000. T o raise that money, the N G C A and  123  G I F T felt it w o u l d take something like an outside group, or sale o f the developed properties, as the B o d e g a Partners proposed. A n o t h e r party shed m o r e light o n the payment o f the principle issue. T h e G C A simply stated the collaborative, had no resources. We had a few people who had money who bought one lot. A community association at the north end, this acquisition was thrust upon them. They didn't seek it out. They did the best they could to raise money up there just to keep up with the mortgage payments, much less paying down the principle. Y o u just can't take on a debt load o f $400,000 for a small community association that doesn't want to do it and expect them to raise the interest payments every month. It was just an enormous burden. That's why, to me, having an organisation to come in, like the N C C , who has some resources. But, you know, they are not wealthy either. They don't have a lot of extra cash to deal with. A n d to try to pull these different groups together was really the best solution possible. A l l we had was the ability to get a group like the N C C to agree to come in on this, and try to get government to respond to it. But they wouldn't do it alone. A n d foundations were not responding very well to this" (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T i m e was a factor i n the protection o f Bodega. Because o f the anxiety surrounding the Ridge (i.e. the reaction to its i m m a n e n t logging), the citizens purchased the property first, then followed through w i t h fundraising. T h e G C A ' s n o r m a l m o d e o f operation was to line up funding through fundraising, then purchase the property. O t h e r C I C groups operate m u c h the same as the G C A , raising the necessary m o n e y before signing a mortgage, even i n situations that require speed. I n cases where speed is required, the groups were usually able to halt activity for at least one m o n t h . I n this case, negotiations w i t h the logger resulted i n paying the interest o n the logger's mortgage u n t i l they c o u l d purchase the property, suggesting that they h a d been unable to negotiate a better alternative. Alternatively, since the logging crew was already o n the Island, they may have been given n o other alternative.  Pebble Beach T h e P e b b l e B e a c h project had few funds, although the G C A was already an established organisation, w i t h staff, but their budgets were extremely tight. F o r Pebble B e a c h , the G C A found donors and raised the capital w i t h help f r o m the N C C to a c c o m p l i s h its aim, the purchase o f D L 63. T h e end o f the process drew, some funds from the P M H L . There were some funds from the N C C , and a major donor that we cannot announce. A n d our Association put $100,000 toward the purchase price, and we paid all the expenses, G S T , legal fees, all the expenses surrounding that. It came out to about $120,000. That was raised through donations within the community. There has been no foundation money  124  directly in that, though there have been directed funds from foundations to the programs. A l l the rest of it has come from the community. W e were able to pay for it on interest free loans, and we are down to the point (from last August, where we have our promissory notes come due in there) of $42,000. Since then, we have raised about $25,000, so it is down to the range of about $15,000 that we have to raise (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h r o u g h associations, the G C A was able to finance their projects, using interest free loans. T h e term o n those loans was indeterminate, so the G C A c o u l d take a longer p e r i o d o f time to pay t h e m off. T i m e was not as significant a factor as it was for the Ridge. A n o t h e r interesting p o i n t was revealed i n the interviews. Several o f the persons spoke to issues outside o f financial burdens or m o n e y to purchase land. I n one case, the provincial government stated that management, is a problem. Groups often want to donate lands to government, because it is difficult to find funding for the day in and day out operations o f a park. This is also a problem for the Ministry, since it has to find staff, time and other resources to manage the parks. Further, they have to have management plans developed, including the criteria for public participation (Provincial Government Source, 2000). F u n d i n g operations was one o f the criteria f r o m G r a y and W o o d . T o fully solve a p r o b l e m , groups should think forward enough to see what it takes to i m p l e m e n t the agreement, not just sign it. I n the case o f C I C s , to ensure the areas they protect w o u l d remain protected and managed into the future necessitated forward t h i n k i n g earlier i n the process. T h e G C A has not had to rely entirely o n volunteer hours. T h e A s s o c i a t i o n managed to secure funding for a student to develop the management plan for Pebble B e a c h (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h a t individual continued w i t h the organisation w o r k i n g o n other funded projects. Furthermore, the G C A m e n t i o n e d other resources that were needed to carry out its plans w i t h i n the Reserve. T h e G C A was to set up S I M A B (Smithsonian Institution M a n and the Biosphere) biodiversity m o n i t o r i n g plots i n the Reserve, and so they needed the materials and expertise to establish the plots. S I M A B , a p r o g r a m instituted by the Smithsonian Institution, set up biodiversity m o n i t o r i n g plots to track changes i n biodiversity i n m o d i f i e d forests, or forests undergoing m o d i f i c a t i o n . T h e G C A and the Smithsonian agreed to m o n i t o r areas o f the P e b b l e B e a c h Reserve, s h o u l d it be established. T h e G C A needed people certified to set up and m o n i t o r these sites. Since that time, the G C A has had, "three people w i t h our A s s o c i a t i o n w h o are certified to designate and set up these p l o t s " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). Sirnilarly, the G C A has reached out to other organisations to carry out conservation and research around the Island. T h i s also required  125  staff to w o r k w i t h comiTiunity schools and other E N G O s (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). Summary B o t h sites required significant funding to implement protection. T h o u g h they started w i t h limited resources, b o t h groups w o r k e d w i t h what was available, and each utilised government as a resource i n their end result, whether for purchase o f land only or also for management.  F o r the Pebble B e a c h site, the G C A turned to research and education to aid  i n management and to maintain the organisation. T h e major difference between the two was i n the time that each was allowed to fulfill its objectives, w i t h Pebble B e a c h having the luxury o f greater time to pay o f f its debts incurred i n the purchase o f D L 63. T h e cases also revealed the importance o f h o w they gathered money. T y p i c a l o f many C I C projects, the Ridge process left little time to raise the funding to purchase D L 76. H o w e v e r , the group signed the legal documentation w i t h little more than hope that it could raise not only the interest payments due each m o n t h , but also the principle due at the end o f the term, three years. Seemingly, most groups, as the G C A d i d for Pebble Beach, w o r k e d to line up funding, then m o v e d to purchase lands, because time allowed for more planning. Plate 19. T i m Walls: View ofNorth Galiano from Pebble Beach  (Walls, 2000)  126  Structuring Did the participants formalise the relationship? S o m e C I C groups choose to formalise their relationship, such as f o r m i n g a land trust, o r by drawing u p legal documentation that spells o u t the responsibilities o f each party, o r m a k i n g use o f a facilitator. B o t h processes o n G a l i a n o are ad hoc, i n that neither process has a formal structure.  Bodega Ridge G I F T administered the process to raise the interest payments a n d perhaps the principle. T h e participants i n that group stated that there was, " N o formal relationship" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). A b o u t the only legal document required was the mortgage signed by the N G C A a n d the logger o n Saltspring Island. Because o f the animosity between the c o m m u n i t y and the G C A over the G C A ' s involvement, G I F T hired a facilitator to try to help the parties s m o o t h their differences. I n the words o f one m e m b e r o f G I F T , " W e l l , once we got a facilitator, a n d we tried to get the hard core G C A supporters, the purists o n board, a n d m o r e o r less w i t h us all the way. It was a strategy that was really important. B u t it never really w o r k e d " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). A n d according to the G C A , there was concerted effort made to draw these two groups into the same room and get them to talk. A n d it was not easy. There were preparations that went on for months in preparation for such a meeting. It was not what I would call a resounding success. There were intermediaries that would talk to me, then go talk to them... T w o o f our directors and some of the members of G I F T , at that time, who met on a regular basis with a facilitator to try to put together a format. I think too much effort went into that, and yet we couldn't find some sort of way for anyone on our board to sit down and talk with anyone on their group (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h i s attempt at creating a m o r e formal structure faded because the two sides were entrenched i n their positions w i t h respect to allowing development o n D L 73.  Pebble Beach Pebble B e a c h d i d n o t have a formal structure either. A l t h o u g h there were many meetings and other communications between the participants^ the "meetings... have been arranged o n an ad h o c basis... I don't sense any formal organisation" (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). H o w e v e r , M i n i s t e r Sihota's letter, the "framework for conservation," served as a formal agreement to w h i c h all the parties agreed and signed. Furthermore, the G C A and N C C created a n d signed a covenant o n the deed to D L 63, w h i c h primarily restricts public access.  127  T h e G C A also w r o t e and signed the management plan for the Reserve. T h e other parties have not signed o f f o n the management plan (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  Summary In general, collaboration theory d i d not require that the processes adopt a formal structure for the relationship, so l o n g as they followed the general structure o f g o o d collaborative processes, w h i c h i n c l u d e d a shared p r o b l e m definition, shared values f o r m e d through discussion, etc. N e i t h e r group created a formal structure for their respective process. I n the case o f B o d e g a Ridge, the lack o f formality hurt the group, because the parties lacked a structure i n w h i c h they c o u l d communicate and b u i l d a shared understanding. T h e hired facilitator notwithstanding, the groups i n v o l v e d w o u l d have benefited f r o m a discussion o f their interests and their positions. Pebble B e a c h lacked formality i n meeting, but the agreements between the groups f o r m e d a formal structure i n w h i c h the parties c o u l d w o r k . T h i s framework s m o o t h e d some steps. O t h e r steps, such as defining o f terms (e.g. appropriate uses) l e d to the failure o f the parties to c o m e to agreement.  How did geography between stakeholders affect the process? Geography can affect various parts o f the collaboration. F o r example, the group m i g h t be unable to meet quickly to resolve problems, or they m i g h t have had to pay travel expenses for participants. F o r B o d e g a Ridge, the majority o f the participants were Island residents, so travel and time resource restrictions were m i n i m a l . H o w e v e r , the majority o f participants i n the Pebble B e a c h campaign lived o f f the Island, m e a n i n g they had to communicate via telephone and fax. Face to face meetings required the parties to travel either to the Island or to V a n c o u v e r Island or the L o w e r M a i n l a n d .  Bodega Ridge T h e groups that set out to protect B o d e g a R i d g e were small, i n terms o f management, and were c o m p r i s e d o f those individuals w h o lived o n the Island.  T h e group r u n n i n g the  process, or, "the core o f the executive committee was G I F T . It was a very small, dedicated group. T h e r e was never any m o r e than four or six. W e were an efficient team" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). T h e membership o f G I F T was c o m p r i s e d o f members o f the N G C A , the B o d e g a Partners that lived o n the Island and other c o m m u n i t y members, w h i c h meant that all were a m o n g the Island's year-round p o p u l a t i o n . T h e other persons i n v o l v e d i n the process were the G C A members w h o f o r m e d L e a p o f Faith, w h i c h were all Island residents, and the N C C . T h e N C C was the only group consistently i n v o l v e d that was not o n the Island, and its director traveled to G a l i a n o o n  128  several occasions. T h e N C C paid for his accommodations and transportation. Furthermore, the N C C and the m e m b e r o f the G C A were present at a number o f meetings between themselves and the government parties that started the P M H L . T h e face-to-face meetings required travel, but other meetings required a p h o n e call, w h i c h could be paid through E n q u i r y B . C . , a p h o n e line that p a i d for l o n g distance charges for persons calling government offices i n B . C . T h e parties i n v o l v e d paid for their faxes and letters. T h e facilitator was also not a G a l i a n o resident. H i s billing covered his travel expenses, w h i c h was paid by G I F T .  Pebble Beach T h e P e b b l e B e a c h project was based o n G a l i a n o and i n v o l v e d residents there, but most o f the l o b b y i n g effort and negotiations were between parties that were not only o f f the Island, but also split between V a n c o u v e r Island a n d the L o w e r M a i n l a n d . A s suggested by the G C A , " O n c e y o u get outside groups i n v o l v e d , it does require an extra effort o n their part and some resources for t h e m " (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e majority o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n was v i a letter, fax a n d telephone. H o w e v e r , the G C A initiated a n u m b e r o f meetings w i t h M E L P a n d the N C C to discuss arrangements and points o f negotiation. T h e meetings, telephone calls and office equipment cost the G C A considerably m o r e than the process for protecting Bodega. T h e p r o b l e m i n this lay i n foundations a n d other binders' unwillingness to donate funding for administrative and operational expenses (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000).  Summary B o t h processes were locally based, w h i c h facilitated meetings between interested c o m m u n i t y parties. Dealings w i t h outside groups were relegated to m o r e formal discussions w i t h government a n d other organisations, E N G O s and funding groups. I n the case o f B o d e g a Ridge, these discussions were a part o f the overall picture but played a lesser role than i n the protracted l o b b y i n g effort o f P e b b l e B e a c h .  129  P l a t e 20. T i m W a l l s :  View of Coast Mountains from Pebble Beach  (Walls, 2000)  Outcomes What was the agreement?  T h e agreement to protect B o d e g a Ridge i n the end was fairly simple. T h e parties i n v o l v e d i n Pebble B e a c h have reached agreement i n some aspects o f the overall objective, but there has been no agreement that completed the framework laid out i n Minister Sihota's letter. Bodega Ridge T h e collaborative set out to protect D L s 73, 75 and 76, w h i c h , "the P M H L n o w o w n s . . . T h e thing is that B o d e g a was saved through the efforts o f many, many people. A n d i n the end, the government came t h r o u g h " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). Before tide passed to the P M H L , the, " N C C actually purchased the lands, and very briefly held tide before turning them over to the C r o w n " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). T h e government, as the final entrant i n the process, was "not i n v o l v e d i n the negotiations w i t h the loggers, or the N C C .  It was somewhat removed. So, they were i n a supporting  r o l e " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). G o v e r n m e n t was i n the f o r m o f the  130  P M H L , w h i c h "was initiated to protect lands i n the Southern G u l f Islands, and B o d e g a Ridge was the very first to be protected" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  Pebble Beach P e b b l e B e a c h was a m u d d i e r situation, where there "has been n o agreement. T h e problems that B C Parks sees w i t h the current arrangement are s u m m e d up i n the following problems. (1) A c c e s s issues need to be resolved. A c c e s s has to be legal to C r o w n l a n d and to private land. W e want to ensure that the Reserve does not infringe o n access to the private lands b e y o n d (which c o u l d be an easement). (2) Certainty i n h o w the l a n d is to be used. A management plan has to be i n place" (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h e p r o v i n c i a l government saw n o agreement i n place, and neither d i d the federal government, saying that the " m a i n t h i n g that stands out is the differences o f o p i n i o n primarily between the B C government and the G a l i a n o C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n as to the use o f these lands" (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). O n the other hand, the G C A v i e w e d the agreements, b o t h the "framework for conservation" and the M o U as b i n d i n g , so l o n g as each party implemented each o f the tasks. Repeating what the G C A said earlier, the framework, that was outlined by Minister Sihota i n 1996 was somewhat as follows. The P M H L would make a donation to the acquisition o f D L 63, which is contingent on B C Tel, the G C A and the N C C to come up with an acceptable agreement between themselves so that the additional donation by die P M H L would happen. It would then be concluded. It also committed the Province to transferring tide to the I T F B , committing them to the process not to the actual transfer. I think that was A p r i l o f 1996. It took until January 1998 for B C T e l to get through all o f their problems to get to a point where they would sell it. It took enormous pressure. The government agreed to a Memorandum or Understanding in January of 1998, which was... B C T e l wouldn't commit to it, until the Province turned over the Crown land parcels, so we had the M o U between all parties, that lays out how D L 63 would be purchased. It had a covenant in favour o f M E L P and the I T F B on D L 63, which laid out the Crown would make its best efforts to transfer the tide o f 60 and 66 to the I T F B by some date in 1998 (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e G C A saw these agreements as a virtual legal framework, i n w h i c h the parties were b o u n d to act. T h e idea that the G C A saw these as legal documentation is illustrated i n the G C A ' s summary o f the Pebble B e a c h process, " W h a t I cannot explain is w h e n there are legal agreements h o w the P r o v i n c i a l government can just ignore t h e m " (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  131  Summary T h e agreements i n the t w o cases were similar, i n that b o t h i n v o l v e d purchase and sale o f land, i n conjunction w i t h government. T h e y differed i n that B o d e g a Ridge had been protected, whde the Pebble B e a c h lands' future was ^ d e t e r m i n a t e .  D L 63 has been sold to  the N C C , and title has passed to the G C A . T h e P r o v i n c e had not carried out its actions, as outlined i n the F r a m e w o r k ; however, they saw the G C A as having faded to carry out their respective actions.  Did the stakeholders consider the problem solved? B o d e g a Ridge was protected, and the p r o b l e m , w h i c h was defined as bringing a halt to the i m m a n e n t logging o n the R i d g e and raising the capital, was solved as well. T h e process, even w i t h its shortcomings i n c o m m u n i c a t i o n and animosity, succeeded. F o r Pebble B e a c h , the p r o b l e m was m o r e a v i s i o n to connect t w o C r o w n lands w i t h the property i n the middle, conserving t h e m i n perpetuity. T h i s p r o b l e m was n o t solved to the satisfaction o f any o f the participants.  Bodega Ridge A c c o r d i n g to the B o d e g a Partners, they "wanted to save as m u c h o f the Ridge as p o s s i b l e . . . T h a t was the ultimate goal, and this has almost happened. M o s t o f the properties i n between were quite cooperative" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). T h e three L o t s i n v o l v e d i n the process, 73, 75 and 76, c o m p r i s e d a substantial part o f the Ridge; however, they d i d not constitute the full Ridge. Property owners around the Ridge informally agreed w i t h the B o d e g a Partners that their l a n d w o u l d neither be developed nor logged. T h e landowners also agreed to allow access to the Ridge and other h i k i n g trads already i n place. T h e other m e m b e r o f G I F T interviewed, specifically the m e m b e r o f the N G C A , said they were trying to prevent it from being logged. We were hoping it would be made into a park that all could enjoy. N o w , both o f those tilings have happened. The problem with it is, and it is still a problem, is that there is no legal access into the park. The various legal aspects to get that route have been proposed, but the Trust has turned them all down. F r o m diat point o f view, I guess, it is protection for the Ridge in a way, but you can't get to it, so it is not what we had in mind, well most of us (Community Source Number 2, 2000). T h i s individual stated that legal access to the Ridge is not currendy i n place. I n f o r m a l trads existed, such as a logging r o a d that cut through another property. S u c h trads had implicit, not explicit, support o f the owners, allowing hikers to climb the Ridge. G a l i a n o Parks and Recreation d i d have an easement and trad accessing L o v e r ' s L e a p i n part o f D L 75 (Galiano  132  Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). A l l o w i n g protection for an area w i t h n o legal access was i n direct contrast w i t h the legal access issues s m r o u n d i n g P e b b l e Beach. Protecting the Pudge was not enough. T h e individuals i n v o l v e d h a d to include management o f the Ridge, i n terms o f fire protection, trail maintenance, enforcement and safety. Because the three L o t s were transferred to the P M H L , that issue was resolved as well. G i v e n the contentious atmosphere that surrounded the process, one participant commented, " S o , it's saved... O f all o f the various possibilities for it to be l o o k e d after, I think that Parks was the best o n e " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). O t h e r participants d i d n o t share this v i e w regarding o n g o i n g management o f Bodega Ridge. Despite an admitted bias, steniming f r o m subsequent negotiations w i t h M E L P over Pebble B e a c h , the G C A stated they are, pleased that the land is protected. I think that everyone in the community is pleased. There is a litde concern over how it will be protected. M y experience with the management plan for Dionisio Point, while I was not direcdy involved, I was someone who observed that process... I don't know how much confidence I have in the extent of community, real community [emphasis speaker's] input they had in that management plan (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). Later, the G C A cited an example, i n w h i c h B C Parks set out to m o v e the trail near the top o f the Ridge. T h e trail was very near the edge o f the Ridge, p o s i n g a safety risk and an environmental risk f r o m erosion. T h e trail was instead widened, a n d many Manzanita shrubs were cut i n the process. T h e M a n z a n i t a shrubs were one o f the reasons for protecting the Ridge. T h e r e were other options that w o u l d n o t have disturbed the shrubs, though they were not taken, alarming residents o f the Island a n d the G C A . T h i s example also fed the lack o f mistrust i n governmental management o f the area. Pebble Beach T h e parties i n v o l v e d i n the P e b b l e B e a c h campaign have not reached agreement since the M o U was drafted i n 1998. T h e P r o v i n c i a l government's response, regarding whether the p r o b l e m was solved was, " N o , again, the m a i n issues are access and use" (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h o s e issues prevented the final step i n the process, transfer o f tide o f the C r o w n lands to the I T F B . T h e G C A a n d M E L P , "are the parties that should been able to resolve it. A n d to m y knowledge, they've not been able to d o it. That's not a judgement o n m y part. That's a fact" (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h e end p r o b l e m , according to the G C A , becomes anotiier political issue. Politicians are sensitive to views expressed by citizens. I know there have been some letters [against the G C A and the process of protecting Pebble Beach]. What I  133  cannot explain is when there are legal agreements how the Provincial government can just ignore them. I have no explanation for that. It was explained to me by someone last summer, who tried to act as a mediator in this. H e said that there are personality problems. But there is an agreement in principle. What about that? I f you let personalities govern... They shouldn't be allowed to enter into that, but they have (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e G C A had, since 1998, been attempting to explain their views and provide evidence that the issues o f use, access and public i n v o l v e m e n t have been remedied. T h e G C A ' s o w n "political pressure was being directed t o w a r d the Minister's office. There have been m a n y Ministers. I a m a litde weary o f it myself." (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). A t this point, the federal government source and the G C A wearied o f all the l o b b y i n g and the lack o f results. T h e p r o b l e m , connecting the two C r o w n lands by purchasing the m i d d l e L o t , remained unresolved.  Summary B o t h processes illustrate that issues may remain after an agreement is i n place. Questions about access and management surround a protected B o d e g a Ridge, and use, access and p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t around P e b b l e B e a c h continue to haunt the G C A and M E L P .  The  participants must remain c o m m i t t e d to the process and follow through o n agreements, m o n i t o r i n g other actors to ensure they p e r f o r m their responsibilities.  What did the stakeholders see as the impacts of the process? B o t h processes impacted the c o m m u n i t y and the potential for other C I C projects. B o d e g a Ridge had positive and negative impacts, as has P e b b l e B e a c h .  Bodega Ridge A c c o r d i n g to one m e m b e r o f G I F T , the protection o f B o d e g a Ridge had a number o f impacts. H o w e v e r , there was a caveat. H e believed, "saving M t . G a l i a n o had m o r e impact i n a way, because it had so m u c h m o r e advertising and p u b l i c i t y " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000).  B o t h processes, M t . G a l i a n o and B o d e g a Ridge, helped G a l i a n o  economically, because it brought tourists to the Island. They heard about Mt. Galiano. They heard about Bodega Ridge. There was a steady stream of people going up there. There were a lot [of tourists] that made donations. I'm sure the bed and breakfast people, and the servers of food benefited too. I think it has fallen off a lot, because it is no longer in the public mind (Community Source Number 2, 2000). T h i s person brought up another p o i n t that has had an impact o n Galiano's conservation o f other areas, stating that it,  134  has been a while now, since it has been accomplished, but the Trust got upset because they were not given die care of die land. They have saved land on some o f the other Islands since then, and the government has through their marine heritage, and maybe it was a harbinger o f what was going to occur. Yeah, I think it probably had quite an effect (Community Source Number 2, 2000). Because, the Islands T r u s t d i d not get management c o n t r o l o f Bodega, the second c o m m u n i t y source suggested, Galiano's relationship w i t h the Trust suffered. Relationships also suffered between levels o f government as well. A c c o r d i n g to another G I F T member, the group itself a n d the Island, "were pretty widely recognised. A n d that is where m o s t o f our m o n e y came from. So, i n a sense, w e were respected. T h e y w i s h e d us w e l l " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). A s he saw it, tourists, E N G O s a n d government thought enough o f the w o r k o n protecting the Ridge that they donated time a n d m o n e y to its cause. W i t h o u t that favourable view a n d support, the process itself w o u l d have failed. O n c e again, the G C A held a different perspective o n the effects o f the process. T h e i r view is that, it has made it more difficult for conservation, because the animosities that developed around diis are still present. A n d I find that unfortunate, but it is a reality that I have to face. For instance, in Pebble Beach, I am well aware that there are people who oppose it simply because the G C A is involved in it. A n d they are not very open about this. There are particular letters that go to the provincial government, and I found out about this when someone is kind enough in die provincial government tells me about it or sends me a copy o f it. A n d it is important, because it is not in the open. It is done in a sort of clandestine way. It has not been a healthy thing for conservation here (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e animosities that developed a n d intensified d u r i n g the B o d e g a Ridge campaign have continued to this day, and they have made other agreements and management o f lands already protected m o r e difficult.  Pebble Beach T h e process o f protecting P e b b l e B e a c h had a n u m b e r o f significant impacts. T h e Province's experience c o l o u r e d their v i e w o f any G a l i a n o process having a public i n v o l v e m e n t c o m p o n e n t , stating that the, " p r o b l e m is that G a l i a n o is such a contentious area that n o matter what they say about public participation, it w i l l be suspect i n the eyes o f the P r o v i n c e " (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h i s perspective w o u l d likely have ramifications o n developing a management p l a n for B o d e g a Ridge.  135  T h e federal government source posited that P e b b l e B e a c h has affected government's interest i n partnering w i t h local communities. H e said, I think the whole Pebble Beach controversy has had a great impact on the willingness of senior executives in the P M H L to get involved i n more of the cost sharing, partnership arrangements, as Pebble Beach was, as the M i l l Farm on Saltspring was. Those two experiences were very early in the days of the P M H L , and they were both surrounded by controversy. A n d I think those two experiences left the P M H L Management Committee with the view that they shouldn't do this anymore. A n d so other opportunities were lost where I think P M H L could have made contributions... A n d I think it's because we don't want another Pebble Beach on our hands (Federal Government Source, 2000). Despite the troubles o n G a l i a n o , the Federal government source thought that, "governments have to be i n v o l v e d . Generally speaking, any government is a source o f money, and they have the legal tools to manage the l a n d " (Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). H o w e v e r , governments have suffered f r o m budget cutbacks and constraints, such that, there is no way we can do it all ourselves. A n d we shouldn't do it all ourselves. Perhaps partnerships with local conservation groups are the way to go, like what's happening on Saltspring right now, with Texada lands, and like what South Pender is trying to do with... A l l those things, I think, we should be able to play a role in, and it doesn't have to be ours, but you can make a contribution to help the community achieve whatever it is they want to achieve. A n d a lot o f stuff wouldn't happen at all unless it was communitydriven... It just couldn't happen, but we should be able to play a partnership role, plus do our own thing... A n d P M H L speaks of partnerships. If you look at the M o U for the creation of P M H L , it is all about partnerships (Federal Government Source, 2000). Creating partnerships h a d been a t o o l used by governments i n the U S and Canada, w i t h some results positive and negative. T w o outcomes resulted f r o m this government source's experience d u r i n g the Pebble B e a c h process: (1) that he had been wary o f further partnerships, a n d (2) i f he were i n v o l v e d i n other partnership arrangements, he w o u l d approach t h e m differendy. T h e process h a d three m a i n affects o n the G C A . T h e i r interactions w i t h M E L P have not, been a healthy experience for B C Parks. It hasn't been a healthy experience for our Association to work on this either. I suspect it has had a negative impact on B C Park's willingness to work with other community groups. I don't think they worked with us in good faith. We had a hard time judging their expectations (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e G C A source continued, stating that, " o u r experience is n o t one w h i c h I w o u l d r e c o m m e n d to any other c o m m u n i t y group. I just can't understand where they're c o m i n g  136  f r o m " (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). F o r the G C A , governmentc o m m u n i t y partnerships became something to avoid. T h e third effect was the c o n t i n u e d animosity i n the c o m m u n i t y , w h i c h the organisation seemed, to attract..., because there is a perception that G C A members generally support the Trust. I sense that there's a fair amount of anger and antagonism directed at our organisation, not only from what happened on Bodega Ridge, but also from the other political conflicts that have gone on in the community. I know there have been strong letter writing campaigns about Pebble Beach by those who actually support it, but opposing the G C A for being there. It becomes another political issue. (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). T h e personality conflicts and differences o f o p i n i o n o n G a l i a n o made any effort or process they have entered a political process, w i t h each side positionally o p p o s e d to the other. P r o t e c t i o n o f D L 63, w h o s e title has remained i n the G C A ' s possession, h a d another effect. T h e area was used, as a facility for education. W e have been doing it through the years. We have hosted a lifeboat flotilla through here twice, which is a student group that comes by boat. They come through on spring break, and they have come here twice. Once, they had a quick time spent at Pebble Beach. Another time, they actually came and spent the day. They broke up into small groups. They did streamkeeper, restoration work, identifying the bugs and so forth that are in the stream. They did forest walks. They did some First Nations walks. There was a group that throughout the day, cut broom, because there is a major infestation of broom. They did not work on it all day, but rotated the groups. They seemed to enjoy it and got a lot o f work done for us. That is the sort of thing that we would like to see there. We have also been developing with Sea Change Conservation Society, a project called "From the Forest to the Sea," where we are focussing on Greg Creek, and the Greg Creek watershed. W e have been working with the community school, and we raise salmon fry and coho fry and release them in the stream. A n d we have last year put in hatch boxes, so that they get close to the borderline, we don't expect any to come back. We will be doing that again this year. The F r o m the Forest to the Sea project utilises land on D L 60 and Pebble Beach, and it uses our recent acquisition Laughlin Lake, which is the headwaters of Greg Creek. What they are doing, they are trying to look at the entire process, from the top of the waterfalls, down somewhere in the watershed and out into the sea. A look at the habitats that are there, what the species are, how they  137  interact with each other. Their first session with the timing of the year, Sea Change came out and brought some divers out here. They brought up seashells and starfish, anything they found, so that we could look at and handle it i f it was safe, and they were eventually returned to the sea. One of our employees has been working with us for a while, and she has been working with Sea Change, with the community schools. They have been doing stream assessments, forest walks. It has been a very exciting program. Foundations seem to be paying attention to it for funding. Education in this area; it is not entirely protection. There are two covenants on the land that are for non-consumptive use of the forest, but they do allow for consumptive or First Nations use. So maybe someday, we will want to strip some bark from a cedar tree and learn something about the use of cedar or cedar bark for baskets or clotiiing or whatever (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). E d u c a t i o n l e d to a greater understanding o f the chddren o n and o f f o f the Island.  Summary B o t h processes h a d considerable negative impacts o n the c o m m u n i t y and outside o f the c o m m u n i t y . H o w e v e r , the Islanders and others interviewed m e n t i o n e d some o f the positive aspects o f b o t h the experience a n d the results o f the processes, l e n d i n g hope that reconciliation m i g h t be possible i n the future.  What are the participants' personal reflections on the process, and how did it change you? Personal reflections o n the processes ranged f r o m a sense o f c o m m u n i t y to personal thoughts o n collaborative conservation ventures. T h e quotes b e l o w have outlined the thoughts o f each o f the individuals i n v o l v e d .  Bodega Ridge O n e o f the B o d e g a partners felt the process, "was a tremendous c o m m u n i t y effort, a n d as the c o m m u n i t y got i n t o it, they really d i d benefit f r o m it. So, I think it was g o o d for the c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000). A n o t h e r benefit to the c o m m u n i t y was that the Ridge, "was saved, and there were people o n the island that devoted their efforts a n d core identity to i t " ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1, 2000)'. B o d e g a R i d g e became a cultural and ecological resource for the c o m m u n i t y a n d developed a sense o f identity for some residents. T h e m e m b e r o f G I F T and the N G C A reflected that the process, "was a constant w o r r y at the time about h o w were g o i n g to make the payments. A n d we really d i d stretch our  138  imaginations to d o it. It was k i n d o f f u n . . . T h e r e were a lot o f g o o d times" ( C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2, 2000). T h i s source's v i e w was that the process itself was often fun, despite the hard feelings between h i m s e l f and other c o m m u n i t y members. T h e G C A representative, u p o n reflection, c o m m e n t e d that, The only thing that I would add that sums up my feelings about everything is that I am philosophically and totally committed to community, and I will use the word,.control, or voice in land management. That's why I have mixed feelings about the insistence and stubbornness of the provincial government when it comes to managing these lands. I have developed a very strong bias (Galiano Conservancy Association Source, 2000). These feelings resulted f r o m the m i x o f l o b b y i n g effort necessary by the N C C and L e a p o f Faith o n behalf o f G a l i a n o and his questions about whether M E L P w o u l d truly seek c o m m u n i t y i n p u t i n the management p l a n n i n g process.  Pebble Beach T h e M E L P representative felt the process and, "the agreement.should have been between M E L P and the I T F B , w i t h the I T F B and the G C A consulting o n management o f the area. There were just too m a n y interests there at one time. It made it hard to come to consensus o n where to go w i t h tilings" (Provincial G o v e r n m e n t Source, 2000). T h i s called into question i n v o l v e m e n t i n the process, but it also reflects that the parties d i d n o t communicate their interests and expectations effectively. T h e federal government source was upset by the failure o f Pebble B e a c h , but he realised at the same time that partnerships are an essential part o f the larger conservation picture. I guess, to be really honest about it, I am disappointed with how Pebble Beach evolved, and that the impact tiiat it did have on other partnering opportunities. Because I pushed for Pebble Beach in the beginning. A n d , M i l l Farm, I pushed for that too. I think both of them were wortii doing, and they didn't cost us a lot of money. A n d it made a very small contribution to something much bigger, and i f you are going to have a lot of success in the Southern G u l f Islands, that is how it is going to have to happen. Because there is so much work to do, there is no way we can do it all ourselves. A n d we shouldn't do it all ourselves. Perhaps partnerships with local conservation groups are die way to go, like what's happening on Saltspring right now, with Texada lands, and like what South Pender is trying to do with... A l l those things, I think, we should be able to play a role in, and it doesn't have to be ours, but you can make a contribution to help the community achieve whatever it is they want to achieve. A n d a lot o f staff wouldn't happen at all unless it was communitydriven... It just couldn't happen, but we should be able to play a  139  partnership role, plus do our own thing... A n d P M H L speaks of partnerships. I f you look at the M o U for the creation o f P M H L , it is all about partnerships. A n d yet that is exacdy what we are not willing to do. A n d a lot of that is a result of what happened early in the program like with Pebble Beach. A n d I am disappointed, because there is so much more that we could have done (Federal Government Source, 2000). H a d P e b b l e B e a c h been successful, other potential partnerships w o u l d have been palatable to the P M H L . Since the Pebble B e a c h campaign was unsuccessful, the P M H L lost a valuable m e t h o d for protecting lands, because the members o f the P M H L were disinclined to experience another fadure. T h e G C A shared t w o thoughts. First, " I a m a littie weary o f it myself. I hope that they [ M E L P ] are too, but n o t enough to have it stopped [by c o m p l e t i n g the agreement]" (Galiano Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000). Simdarly, because o f all the mistrust and b a d feelings between the G C A a n d government, their "experience is not one w h i c h I w o u l d r e c o m m e n d to any other c o m m u n i t y group. I just can't understand where they're c o m i n g f r o m " (Galiano C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n Source, 2000).  Summary Because m o s t o f the contention i n the B o d e g a Ridge process was c o n f i n e d to the local c o m m u n i t y , it appeared to have been a very successful campaign to those outside the Island. In fact, the animosity that developed over time contributed to the generally recognised fadure o f the parties to protect P e b b l e B e a c h . B o t h stories have their positive points, but the negativity that surrounds them o n G a l i a n o left little hope that conservation and management o n G a l i a n o w o u l d o v e r c o m e these differences soon.  Conclusion T h e B o d e g a Ridge a n d Pebble B e a c h processes were initiated by persuasive convenors, groups w i t h i n the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y that h a d to c o n v i n c e other Islanders o f their credibility to drive the process to conserve B o d e g a Ridge a n d Pebble B e a c h . T h e B o d e g a process sought to protect the Ridge f r o m a logger, w h o s e interests i n logging were counter to the majority o f the c o m m u n i t y . P e b b l e B e a c h was an action toward realising a part o f a v i s i o n to protect parts o f the Island. B o t h processes were the result o f a n u m b e r o f forces at play during the time, i n c l u d i n g the sale o f all M B lands and a major p u s h by the federal a n d provincial governments to protect land resources. B o t h convenors felt that collaboration was the best m e t h o d to achieve their conservation ends, particularly because the groups d i d not have the resources to act singly. B o t h initiatives sought assistance f r o m groups w i t h simdar interests to the convenors. A g a i n , the  140  B o d e g a process had a sense o f i m m e d i a c y not necessarily present i n the Pebble B e a c h process. I n B o d e g a , i n a c t i o n w o u l d have resulted i n logging the Ridge, the loss o f l a n d the c o m m u n i t y regularly used for Inking, painting and other recreational activities. N e i t h e r process adopted a formal structure to the process, i n w h i c h meetings were facilitated w i t h detailed agendas, clear timelines and set meeting times. A s w i t h other C I C processes, some external forces lent structure to the process. I n B o d e g a Ridge, that structure was the regular payment o f the interest o n their debt and the i m p e n d i n g principle due after three years. T h e structure for P e b b l e B e a c h was derived f r o m the M o U , drafted by the H o n o u r a b l e M i n i s t e r Sihota. B o t h convenors i n the processes invited and i n c l u d e d other groups and individuals that w o u l d have direct bearing o n the processes' conservation goals. T h e groups d i d not include other parties that c o u l d b l o c k or otherwise disrupt their process and action. I n each case, damaged relations w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y and the groups i n general led to the divisive atmosphere that exists today. A s suggested above, the interactions between stakeholders o n the Island were contentious. T h e problems that developed i n the B o d e g a process: mistrust, m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n and misunderstanding, were exacerbated and extended to the P e b b l e B e a c h process. I n the end, the p r o v i n c i a l government and the P M H L were left w o n d e r i n g i f any level o f inclusiveness during management p l a n n i n g and other conservation processes c o u l d take all Islanders' views into account. N e i t h e r process defined participants' core value sets, w h i c h c o u l d have been used to mutually define a group interest. H o w e v e r , b o t h groups coalesced around the singular value that natural resources i n certain areas should be protected f r o m consumptive use. Despite this core value, the processes to protect the areas d i d n o t identify individual problems through dialogue. D e f i n i n g the p r o b l e m that a collaborative wishes to address allows the participants to share their interests and define terms i n their o w n way, w h i c h can lead to a group understanding o f the p r o b l e m and its definition. B o t h processes lacked this group definition and understanding, as evidenced i n the o p e n interpretation o f the B o d e g a Ridge process p r o b l e m and the lack o f a clear definition o f the level o f protection Pebble B e a c h w o u l d have received. I n addition, neither group structured its process a r o u n d agendas. T h e B o d e g a process followed the timeline o f the due dates for interest and principle o n the mortgage debt for the three D L s . Pebble B e a c h was missing such a structure, thus, the immediacy o f f o l l o w i n g an agenda or timeline was lost, allowing the p r o v i n c i a l government to set aside the protection o f Pebble B e a c h for other issues.  141  Its ultimate protection notAvithstanding, B o d e g a R i d g e was protected i n a manner that d i d not establish decision rules that encompassed the range o f views, w h i c h alienated some members o f the c o m m u n i t y i n c l u d i n g members o f the G C A . T h i s neglect led to a more divisive atmosphere w h i c h hurt the P e b b l e B e a c h process later. Stalemate resulted w h e n the participants i n Pebble B e a c h d i d n o t w o r k to define the decision rules and d i d not include key tasks w i t h i n the process. A l o n g w i t h decision rules, the participants never defined their interests, w h i c h led to m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n and misunderstandings. Shared understanding through dialogue was missing f r o m the processes and resulted i n future conflict based o n assumed rather than stated interests. T h e B o d e g a Partners and the N G C A ignored i n f o r m a t i o n external to their environment, w h e n they p r o p o s e d the development o f residential lots o n D L 73. T h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was the conflict surrounding l a n d use i n the areas o f the Island z o n e d F l (forestiand). I g n o r i n g this important i n f o r m a t i o n alienated c o m m u n i t y members and other groups from the B o d e g a process. I n P e b b l e B e a c h , the groups obtained all the biological information necessary for protection, but they struggled to obtain the i n f o r m a t i o n necessary to complete the process: l o b b y i n g and d e v e l o p i n g an acceptable process for managing the area (in the eyes o f the province). T h e participants d i d not c o m m u n i c a t e these issues clearly to one another, w h i c h drew out the process. B o t h processes started w i t h few resources, yet were successful i n achieving objectives: protecting B o d e g a R i d g e and purchasing D L 63. B o d e g a Ridge was protected using several h u n d r e d thousand dollars raised through fundraising efforts w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y and external to the c o m m u n i t y . P e b b l e B e a c h raised enough m o n e y to purchase D L 63, i n part because the G C A had m o r e time to raise the m o n e y for its purchase. E v e n though collaboration theory does not require a formal structure to achieve p r o b l e m resolution, the processes o n G a l i a n o may have benefited f r o m adopting a few elements o f m o r e formal structures. B o d e g a Ridge lacked structure i n w h i c h all parties, m c l u d i n g those opposed to protecting the R i d g e i n the manner p r o p o s e d by the B o d e g a Partners and N G C A , c o u l d communicate and b u i l d understanding. A s stated earlier, Pebble B e a c h may have benefited from a timeline and greater structure a r o u n d defining terms. G e o g r a p h y played a m i n o r part i n the processes, since b o t h were locally driven. T h e process to protect B o d e g a R i d g e was entirely local until L e a p o f F a i t h brought i n the N C C and P M H L , w h o were located off-Island. T h e protracted l o b b y i n g effort for Pebble B e a c h has been affected by geography, w i t h the parties using telephone, fax and e-mail rather than faceto-face meetings.  142  B o d e g a Ridge is n o w protected under the p r o v i n c i a l parks system, through an arrangement i n w h i c h the N C C bought D L s 70, 73 and 76, then sold the lots at a bargain sale to the P M H L / p r o v i n c i a l government. P e b b l e Beach's future is indeterminate, but was to follow a simdar arrangement, i n w h i c h B C T e l w o u l d sell D L 63 to the N C C , w h o w o u l d sell D L 63 to the G C A . T h e p r o v i n c i a l properties ( D L s 60 and part o f 66) w o u l d be transferred to the I T F B , w i t h p r o v i s i o n for the G C A to manage the Reserve. A s o f D e c e m b e r 2000, the transfer o f the p r o v i n c i a l properties has n o t occurred. Issues resulting f r o m the processes o n G a l i a n o Island remain. Questions about access to Bodega Ridge and its management are still i n question. T h e provincial government and the G C A still disagree o n use and access i n protecting P e b b l e B e a c h and p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t i n the management plan. A s a result, b o t h processes faded to yield sufficient resources to follow through o n the agreements. B o t h processes had numerous negative impacts o n the community, such as mistrust and bitter feelings. H o w e v e r , the processes d i d generate some positive impacts, w h i c h the participants were quick to p o i n t out, such as h a v i n g fun during some o f the fundraisers for Bodega and the educational components o f P e b b l e B e a c h . B o t h processes left their convenors weary o f collaborative action. I n fact, one convenor, the G C A representative, stated that he w o u l d n o t r e c o m m e n d collaboration to another community. E v e n after several years, the participants were only starting to s h o w signs o f gradually o v e r c o m i n g some o f their negative feelings, as expressed i n their consensus that they are happy b o t h areas have some level o f protection ( D L 63 only for Pebble Beach). T h e N G C A representative felt that n o w the people must get past their negative feelings and get o n w i t h life. In conclusion, protecting B o d e g a Ridge had some o f the positive impacts o n the c o m m u n i t y that one finds i n m u c h o f the C I C literature. H o w e v e r , the process was flawed. A t the onset, the c o m m u n i t y faded to define their objectives, interests and expectations for protecting B o d e g a Ridge. Furthermore, because the c o m m u n i t y d i d not communaUy define these ideas and because they d i d not backtrack and attempt to communicate their interests rather than their positions, contention and animosity budt up, not finding a release. Ultimately, B o d e g a Ridge was protected, but the cost it extracted carried over to the P e b b l e Beach campaign and continued to affect further conservation efforts o n G a l i a n o , even though m u c h o f the p o p u l a t i o n still declared support for conserving areas identified i n the C C A ' s Sensitive Areas Survey. Despite such negativity, the groups were apparendy c o m i n g to grips w i t h their differences and m i g h t be o p e n to reconciliation i n the future. T h e Island has gained protection status for areas that it considers important to the Island, culturally and ecologically. T h e areas  143  protected o n G a l i a n o have demonstrated their ecological significance, provincially and globally. T h e S I M A B plots have added to the scientific understanding o f biological diversity, and D L 63 has protected a rare example o f older second g r o w t h C D F forest.  Furthermore,  education o n G a l i a n o has played a role i n the environmental education o f y o u t h and adults alike. T h i s chapter analysed the case studies, two areas o n G a l i a n o Island, using the Analytic Framework developed f r o m the theoretical aspects and applications o f collaboration theory as applied to natural resources protection initiated by communities. T h e f o l l o w i n g chapter discusses the implications o f this analysis for C I C i n British C o l u m b i a and to the theory o n collaborative processes.  144  Chapter 7: Reflections  145  Chapter 7: Reflections T h e previous chapter analysed C o m m u n i t y - I n i t i a t e d C o n s e r v a t i o n ( C I C ) o n G a l i a n o using the Pack Checklist. T h i s chapter draws u p o n that analysis, first by offering a summary o f conclusions f r o m the analysis and second by d e v e l o p i n g a set o f recommendations that m i g h t have i m p r o v e d the process o f C I C o n G a l i a n o Island.  Summary of Conclusions T h e summary o f conclusions elaborates o n the key points o f the analysis. A n u m b e r o f themes recurred throughout the analysis can be seen as falling under three headings: The Collaboration Process, Stakeholders and Stakeholder Interactions, and The Larger Context.  The Collaborative Process B o t h processes o n G a l i a n o Island were c o n v e n e d by a persuasive convenor. T o reiterate, persuasive convenors must continually c o n v i n c e stakeholders o f their pertinent knowledge and skill as w e l l as persuade the participants that they w i l l gain m o r e than they lose by participating. T h e convenors were acknowledged to have the w i s d o m to facilitate the process and to propose the areas as significant for protection. H o w e v e r , neither c o n v e n o r w o r k e d to persuade others to remain i n the process. F o r the cases o n G a l i a n o , the participants were w i l l i n g to enter the process and c o m m i t t e d to protecting the areas; they wanted to participate. T h u s , continual m o t i v a t i o n was unnecessary. I n addition, those w h o d i d not participate were not i n c l u d e d and n o t i n need o f motivation. F o r the C I C processes o n G a l i a n o , the convenor's role as m o t i v a t o r was n o t as influential as other processes. B o t h processes were an attempt to manage conflict and achieve a small part o f a larger v i s i o n o f l a n d conservation o n Galiano. T h e larger v i s i o n was the Sensitive Areas Survey performed by Clear C u t Alternatives ( C C A ) , w h i c h laid out the lands the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y felt were important to protect. B o d e g a R i d g e was one o f those areas. T h e Bodega Partners sought to manage conflicting ideas o n land use for B o d e g a R i d g e once M a c M i l l a n B l o e d e l ( M B ) decided to divest their properties. T h e B o d e g a Partners wanted to protect the R i d g e i n perpetuity, rendering it o f f limits to development or logging, but available for residents to use for h i k i n g and for ecological protection for the M a n z a n i t a . Pebble B e a c h was originally part o f the Sensitive Areas Survey v i s i o n o f the Islanders to set aside important spaces. T h e G a l i a n o C o n s e r v a n c y A s s o c i a t i o n ( G C A ) initiated the process to follow t h r o u g h o n this v i s i o n to protect the older second g r o w t h Coastal D o u g l a s F i r ecosystem that is n o w rare for m u c h o f B . C . P r o t e c t i n g the area w o u l d also serve the c o m m u n i t y as a place for outdoor education and ecosystem study through the Smithsonian Institute M a n and the Biosphere ( S I M A B ) project. C I C o n G a l i a n o illustrates the  146  complexity o f C I C processes i n that b o t h processes d i d not w o r k exclusively toward a shared v i s i o n or managing conflict, but rather a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the two. B o t h convenors chose to collaborate to achieve their conservation ends. N o single group had the resources necessary to act autonomously i n the B o d e g a Ridge process. T h e government agencies i n v o l v e d operated under mandated constraints o f their time and finances, p r o h i b i t i n g their action. N e i t h e r the federal n o r p r o v i n c i a l governments w o u l d have been able to act to purchase the properties w h e n the M B marketed them, n o r had the P M H L been formed. I n the P e b b l e B e a c h process, the G C A chose to collaborate to create a P r o v i n c i a l P a r k or E c o l o g i c a l Reserve. Because the D i s t r i c t L o t s (60, 63 and part o f 66) were C r o w n lands, the G C A w o u l d either have to l o b b y or collaborate w i t h the p r o v i n c i a l government w h o o w n e d the properties. T h e G C A chose the latter. Regarding D L 63, B C T e l was u n w i l l i n g to just donate the l a n d so s o o n after they purchased it, necessitating the G C A ' s collaboration w i t h the N C C to raise the capital to purchase the property. T h i s lack o f resources a m o n g the participants is typical o f C I C processes, predisposing the actors somewhat to collaborate, as is illustrated by the feelings o f several o f those i n the G a l i a n o cases. T h e plans o f the Saltspring logger to l o g the Ridge caused the B o d e g a Partners to seek immediate protection for the R i d g e L o t s , l e a v i n g consideration for h o w to collaborate and h o w to obtain protection till later. H e n c e , the B o d e g a case illustrated the need w i t h w h i c h C I C s must act, a situation that caused the convenor and collaborators to put o f f p l a n n i n g for the sake o f action. A l t h o u g h action is sometimes necessary whde opportunities exist, collaboration takes time and planning. T h e absence o f sufficient time for p l a n n i n g ultimately hurt the R i d g e process. B o t h collaboratives were ad hoc. T h e lack o f formal structure was not a necessary part o f the processes, but a m o r e formal structure may have helped to deal m o r e effectively w i t h the contentions surrounding l a n d use, planning, management, and other issues that hurt the processes later. I n particular, the R i d g e process lacked formality i n meetings that w o u l d have structured action, discussion and h o w to include the wider c o m m u n i t y . T h e mortgage for the L o t , however, gave a sense o f structure for the participants. E a c h m o n t h the collaborative had to pay the interest o n the mortgage, w h i c h engendered a sense o f responsibility and action over the three years, although only for paying the mortgage. T h e structure was lost i n action pertaining to protection, l o b b y i n g or dealing w i t h stakeholders. A l t h o u g h there was n o real sense o f organisation, overall or for the meetings, the Pebble B e a c h process elicited its structure i n the guidelines for protecting areas w i t h i n the P M H L and i n the " F r a m e w o r k for C o n s e r v a t i o n . " B o t h aspects o f the process were larger i n scope and thus lent more structure to the process i n general. T h a t level o f structure  147  notwithstanding, n o participants stepped forward to suggest a style o f process, starting w i t h h o w to protect the L o t s , what level o f protection, w h o w o u l d h o l d title, administration/management o f the protected area, etc. A s i n many multistakeholder processes, C I C o n G a l i a n o wavered between a need for a m o r e structured process and one that allows for freedom and creativity. Better, m o r e defined problems stand a greater chance o f success. N e i t h e r process discussed or formally defined the p r o b l e m , but all participants were clear about protecting the areas from c o m m e r c i a l and extractive development. C I C o n G a l i a n o may not have had to discuss the p r o b l e m , conserving l a n d resources, so m u c h as what the shape the conservation process w o u l d take. Agendas may give definition to longer-term processes and assist participants i n direction and action. T h e P e b b l e B e a c h F r a m e w o r k m i g h t have helped i n this regard, even though neither side was particularly interested i n defining all the terms therein. Agendas also highlight the needs o f the group by discussing future action and defining the necessary steps to achieve objectives. B o t h processes were difficult and m i g h t have benefited f r o m m o r e time developing the p l a n n i n g steps, i n c l u d i n g defining terminology, use and access. A c h i e v i n g conservation is possible w i t h o u t defining steps, goals and objectives, but clear c o m m u n i c a t i o n about duties, objectives and timeframes may have led to shared understanding and a mutually beneficial result as w e l l as lower risk o f duplication o f effort. N o core values were expressed, although they came out over time. T h e m a i n core value was to protect the lands the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y considered special and important to the Island's heritage. D i s c u s s i o n o f values might have led to m u t u a l understanding and a clearer path to solve the p r o b l e m w i t h less enmity. B o d e g a R i d g e was successful i n its campaign, but the process left a very contentious atmosphere that partially fed the failure o f P e b b l e B e a c h . Part o f the blame for the enmity can be seen to rest w i t h the G C A ' s lack o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f their reasons for i n a c t i o n or their particular action against the development o f the D L 73 and the route to include the N C C and eventually government i n the process. D i s c u s s i o n o f values c o u l d have built trust between parties, and maintained g o o d faith w i t h the wider community. V a l u e systems seemed to have fuelled the enmity betwixt the individuals w i t h i n and outside the collaboratives. A s w i t h many C I C s , b o t h processes made d o w i t h what information was available to complete their goals. C C A ' s Sensitive Areas Survey served as a b a c k d r o p and catalyst for protection o f lands o n G a l i a n o ; it helped government and others to understand the Islanders' conservation objectives, w h i c h helped to fulfil them. B o t h processes actively used the Survey and other past i n f o r m a t i o n and they developed new i n f o r m a t i o n that helped to protect the areas. B o t h areas were required to highlight their unique and representative value  148  to the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments to enlist their help for protection. A s one source p o i n t e d out, local groups often have m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n than governments, as was the case w i t h B o d e g a Ridge a n d P e b b l e B e a c h . O n the other hand, b o t h processes lacked i n f o r m a t i o n o n other parties, w h i c h served to hurt the respective processes i n the eyes o f the wider c o m m u n i t y . U s i n g avadable i n f o r m a t i o n meant that b o t h G a l i a n o C I C projects c o u l d use resources, such as funding o r time, for other means. T h e relative geographic locations o f the participants played a lesser role i n the B o d e g a Ridge process than the Pebble B e a c h process, although the members o f L e a p o f F a i t h w o r k e d closely w i t h the N C C and the federal and p r o v i n c i a l to protect the Ridge. Discussions and l o b b y i n g w i t h the N C C a n d the governments required meetings and p h o n e calls that took time and resources. T h e P e b b l e B e a c h effort was longer a n d i n v o l v e d stakeholders that were o f f Island; therefore, geography played a larger role. C o m m u n i c a t i o n primarily consisted o f fax a n d telephone, w i t h occasional meetings arranged by the parties. T h e effects o f geography o n G a l i a n o were m i n i m a l because o f communications technology a n d the fact that the action efforts largely t o o k place w i t h Islanders o n the Island. B o d e g a Ridge was conserved a n d management was established through the P r o v i n c i a l P a r k system, as the first acquisition o f the P M H L . H o w e v e r , B C Parks has yet to create a management plan, and actual management i n the area has been rninimal. Pebble B e a c h , although undeveloped, has n o t received protection status; there has been n o agreement. T h e G C A and p r o v i n c i a l government have yet to agree o n use i n the reserve, access, First N a t i o n s consultation and p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t i n the management o f the area. T h e p r o v i n c i a l government contended that n o a m o u n t o f public i n v o l v e m e n t by the G C A c o u l d get past the contentious atmosphere o n the Island a n d c o u l d not therefore be inclusive o f all interests. P r o t e c t i n g P e b b l e B e a c h has become a more political issue than any o f the parties anticipated. I n spite o f their frustration and b a d faith w i t h the government, the G C A emphasised that help f r o m larger E N G O s and government was the only way to a c c o m p l i s h conservation goals. Because o f the contention surrounding b o t h processes, the participants agreed that government (a "neutral party") protection and management was best for the eventual conservation o f b o t h areas.  Stakeholders and Stakeholder Interactions Fadure to include stakeholders a n d their interactions during the process was the r o o t cause o f many o f the problems i n b o t h processes. M o r e specifically, neither process openly sought inclusion o f wider interests n o r those o p p o s e d to the processes. B o t h processes were surrounded by contentious feelings, resulting from the sale a n d development o f M B ' s foresdands. Finally, the processes were unable to resolve the differences w i t h i n them, w h i c h led to the ultimate demise o f the Pebble B e a c h process.  149  A c c o r d i n g to the participants o f the R i d g e process, everyone w h o wanted to be i n v o l v e d was, but those o p p o s e d were ignored. Some residents o f the c o m m u n i t y were not interested i n protecting these areas, instead believing that such decisions were the d o m a i n o f the lands' owners. Still other residents o f the N o r t h E n d o f G a l i a n o felt that the N G C A was co-opted by the South Island residents. T h e i r interests were not represented i n the process. Finally, the G C A was conspicuously absent during the first t w o and a half years d u r i n g w h i c h time they w o r k e d to entice the participation o f the N C C and government. T h e G C A ' s apparent disinterest and non-participation was due to a value conflict regarding the development wishes o f the c o m m u n i t y expressed i n Bylaws 81-85, w h i c h restricted development o f M B ' s forest lands until c o m p l e t i o n o f the Official C o m m u n i t y P l a n review. T h e G C A ' s reaction was based o n the p r o p o s e d development o f D L 73, w h i c h G I F T had initiated as their p l a n to pay for the R i d g e properties. A t one point, G I F T h i r e d a facilitator, but negotiations for t i m i n g and context for facilitated meetings p r o v e d unsuccessful. After two and a half years, some members o f the G C A joined the effort to save B o d e g a Ridge under the B C corporation, L e a p o f Faith, b r i n g i n g w i t h t h e m the N C C and P M H L to close the deal, creating a P r o v i n c i a l Park. V a l u e conflicts, non-participation and groups w o r k i n g outside o f G I F T fragmented efforts and fuelled animosity between G I F T and the community. First N a t i o n s were n o t i n c l u d e d i n any aspect o f the B o d e g a Ridge process, although G a l i a n o lies w i t h i n areas claimed by First N a t i o n s . I n this sense alone, the process c o u l d not be considered inclusive according to the Delgamuukw Decision precedent, i n w h i c h First N a t i o n s are to be consulted for any changes i n l a n d use w i t h i n L a n d Claims areas. A g a i n for P e b b l e B e a c h , only those w i t h a very direct bearing were included. T h e G C A , as convenor o f the process, felt it was acting o n the w i l l o f the c o m m u n i t y as outlined i n C C A ' s Sensitive Areas Survey. A l l the actors i n v o l v e d , m c l u d i n g government, felt this level o f inclusion was fine. T h e unhealthy atmosphere that developed d u r i n g the process lay between the G C A , P r o v i n c i a l government and the wider c o m m u n i t y . W i t h respect to the p r o v i n c i a l government relationship, the parties d i d not define terms and never f o u n d the c o m m o n g r o u n d necessary to carry out the " F r a m e w o r k for C o n s e r v a t i o n , " outlined by M i n i s t e r Sihota i n 1998. T h e p r o v i n c i a l government felt that n o a m o u n t o f p u b l i c input c o u l d resolve any o f the issues s u r r o u n d i n g the contention, and therefore, w o u l d not account for all the Islanders' feelings. T h e enmity between the G C A and some c o m m u n i t y members resulted from the l a n d use differences o f o p i n i o n d u r i n g the sale o f the M B lands and f r o m the bad feelings developed d u r i n g the B o d e g a Ridge process.  150  Similar to the Ridge process, the P e b b l e B e a c h d i d not take steps to include dissenters and First N a t i o n s . H o w e v e r , First N a t i o n s were consulted during the management plan process. W h e t h e r the narrower collaboration affected the process was not apparent f r o m the interviews or literature. I n fact, one source speculated that the process s h o u l d have been narrower still to include only the p r o v i n c i a l government ( B C L a n d and Asset Corporation) and the I T F B , leaving the G C A out u n t i l they and the I T F B c o u l d agree o n the terms o f the transfer o f title o f the C r o w n L o t s c o m p r i s i n g m o s t o f Pebble B e a c h Reserve. T h e Ridge process, lack o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n a m o n g members, ill-defined terms and lack o f full inclusion marred the P e b b l e B e a c h process.  The Larger Context E a c h process was affected by the l a n d use conflict surrounding the sale o f M B ' s forest holdings and the changing institutional structure o f the Island w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the new Islands T r u s t A c t (Islands Trust Act, 2000) and the Official C o m m u n i t y P l a n (1995) review. Furthermore, the processes were affected by the successful c o m p l e t i o n o f the protection o f M t . G a l i a n o . A f t e r M t . G a l i a n o , the B o d e g a Partners and other members o f the G a l i a n o c o m m u n i t y k n e w they c o u l d purchase the Ridge L o t s and protect them, realising also what resources were necessary. T h e Ridge process was a tremendous c o m m u n i t y effort and brought some o f the people together: people w h o devoted their effort and themselves to the process. Some considered it fun and challenging, despite their worries. T h e G C A reinforced their c o m m i t m e n t to c o m m u n i t y c o n t r o l and management o f areas they w i s h protected because o f the R i d g e process. Protecting B o d e g a R i d g e had other impacts: e c o n o m i c impacts f r o m outside visitors o n the Island's businesses. T h e Islands Trust was upset that they were not given management responsibility for the R i d g e protected area. Off-Islanders respected and supported the R i d g e process financially and i n volunteer hours. T h e animosity between c o m m u n i t y members and groups that developed hurt other conservation efforts. T h e P e b b l e B e a c h process is one example o f a b a d g o v e r n m e n t - C I C linkage. A s a result o f the P e b b l e B e a c h process, the P r o v i n c e ' s v i e w o f any planning activity o n G a l i a n o was coloured. B o t h government sources i n v o l v e d i n the P M H L expressed that the P M H L does not have the resources, particularly financial, to achieve all they personaUy desire i n terms o f protection i n the G u l f Islands. H o w e v e r , the perceived bad faith surrounding Pebble B e a c h hurt further potential collaborative efforts by the P M H L , w h i c h is n o w extremely wary despite its still constrained resources.  F r o m the G C A ' s perspective, they w o u l d not  r e c o m m e n d l i n k i n g w i t h government to other communities considering simdar projects. M o r e positively, the area is used for education, ecological restoration and l i n k i n g w i t h other  151  E N G O s for ecosystem m o n i t o r i n g a n d research. Several actors expressed h o p e for reconciliation.  Thesis Question #3: How well did the citizens of Galiano collaborate? W h e n analysed critically, the processes to protect B o d e g a Ridge and Pebble Beach did n o t follow the course o f an ideal collaborative process as outlined by the collaboration theorists a n d its applicants. T h e processes: were not fully i n c l u s i v e ; - , ^ were, ad hoc in nature, wliich in these cases^sefved to hurt the process because the actors , may have benefited from more structure; ^ were lacking discussion that defined terminology, explanation to the wider community .and core values; did not seek to understand other potential stakeholders in the community, or the - ' reasons for others'refusal to participate. This item was particularly important given the. Island's intense land use conflict; \f ,j, • , ^ did not include First Natibns; -. ..," " "" V* ,v, marred other partnerships and potential forland protection on Galiano. :  H o w e v e r , stakeholders from b o t h processes indicated that coUaboration was  |  necessary for future land p r o t e c t i o n a n d remain hopeful for reconciliation.  H a r s h feelings a n d w o r d s notwithstanding, all interviewees agreed that m o r e w o r k exists than any one c o m m u n i t y o r agency can take o n by itself. C o l l a b o r a t i o n was a n d w i l l be necessary to achieve such large ends.  Recommendations C o l l a b o r a t i o n theory speaks to the process o f coUaborating, yielding an overall perspective o f what takes place. Specifically, the theory looks at what brought the group together a n d the outcome, as w e l l as w h a t happened between the two. Gray's definition o f collaborative processes states that collaboration "occurs w h e n a group o f autonomous stakeholders o f a p r o b l e m d o m a i n engage i n a n interactive process, using shared rules, n o r m s , a n d structures, to act or decide o n issues related to that d o m a i n " ( W o o d a n d G r a y , 1991, 146). A s outlined i n the chapter, Using Trail Guides and Maps, b o t h C I C processes, B o d e g a Ridge a n d Pebble Beach, i n v o l v e d a group o f autonomous stakeholders (volunteers) to conserve lands o n G a l i a n o Island. I n this sense, each process was coUaborative. T h i s section outlines recommendations that may have helped the groups collaborate better to the e n d o f protecting land, the goal o f C I C s . T h e p r o p o s e d recommendations should be viewed i n recognition that collaborative processes are unique, a view w h i c h highlights that the recommendations are suggestions that are at times inappropriate or unnecessary for an  152  individual process. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s are addressed under the headings o f the conclusions above.  The Collaborative Process Weigh carefully the reasons for collaborating. Problem: In the processes to protect Bodega Badge and Pebble Beach, the participants did not clearly define why they were participating, which created difficulties later in the respective processes when collaboration became difficult. Sometimes collaboration is necessary to a c c o m p l i s h a certain goal, as was the case i n protecting P e b b l e B e a c h . S o m e questions the potential actors m i g h t ask are as follows. Is there a sense o f urgency? H o w m u c h c o n t r o l are we, the c o m m u n i t y , w i l l i n g to relinquish to accomplish this e n d result? W h a t is the l i k e l i h o o d o f bringing together the resources necessary to a c c o m p l i s h this objective, alone and w i t h others involved? W h y a m I d o i n g "this?" W h y d o I w a n t "this?" W h y does this other person want "that?" A s k i n g such questions leads to greater understanding o f the other parties' interests, w h i c h can lead to shared understanding, interdependence a n d mutually beneficial options. A n o t h e r potential aid is a statement o f intent by all potential legitimate stakeholders detailing the reasons for participation or non-participation. A s a legitimate stakeholder that many considered s h o u l d have been i n v o l v e d , the G C A might have written such a statement. I n it, the G C A c o u l d have explained that they were trying for a m o r e comprehensive solution to the M B forest lands p r o b l e m and that they supported the Islands T r u s t p l a n n i n g process, w h i c h precluded t h e m f r o m acting as an organisation i n the protection o f the Ridge. Finally, the G C A m i g h t have said that they were attempting to find support for protecting the Ridge, through negotiations w i t h other institutions (i.e. the N C C ) .  Individually and collectively vocalise the expectations of the process and the outcomes. Problem: None of the participants elicited detailed views of their final outcome, or how they expected they would arrive at that point. Lack of expected outcomesfragmented efforts to achieve a shared understanding, interdependence and a clear, communal direction for collaboration. N e i t h e r group o n G a l i a n o vocalised their expectations o f the processes a n d outcomes, as suggested by collaboration theory. H a d the collaborators actively defined what they expected o f the collaboration, the groups w o u l d likely have started a dialogue. F o r example, M E L P a n d the G C A s h o u l d have o u t l i n e d their interests and expectations, such as what type o f park w o u l d be created. I f that was handled earlier i n the process or even before starting the process, the parties might have c o m e to a shared understanding surrounding uses and access appropriate for the area consistent w i t h legislation.  153  Despite time pressures, seek agreement based on discussion of interests to achieve a shared understanding. Problem: Meetings and discussions were often contentious, which resulted in emotional strife thatfor each Galiano case either affected the process and outcome or the impacts of the process. T h e lack o f clear discussion s u r r o u n d i n g core values, and expectations b o t h for the process and outcomes hurt b o t h campaigns, resulting i n the stalemate o n Pebble Beach. H a d the communities c o m e together to achieve consensus through dialogue based o n their interests, such issues may have been resolved. H o w e v e r , time for b o t h cases was a factor, w h i c h m i g h t have either p r o h i b i t e d full discussion o r c o u l d have catalysed discussions t o w a r d agreement.  Prepare now for decisions that come later. Problem: Lack of direction and accountingfor how decisions affect one another within the overallprocess created inefficiencies andfurther encumbered discussions. A t the beginning o f the process to protect B o d e g a Ridge, for example, the participants should have prepared for paying o f f the principle, by outlining options and the potential interests inherent i n those options. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the participants s h o u l d have thought early i n the process about management o f the area, specifically w h o w o u l d c o n t r o l the protected area and h o w .  Define and discuss what is necessary beyond the agreement. Problem: Although some issues pertaining to post-agreement necessities were accountedfor, discussing such issues was circuitous and therefore missed relevant details that became contentious later in the process. Is a management plan necessary? W h o w i l l manage the land? A r e sufficient funds available? W h o w i l l have tide to the land? B o d e g a Ridge, at the time this thesis is written, does not have a management plan, because B C Parks does not have the resources, staff or  financial,  to maintain current management plans for all protected areas i n B . C . at once. Instead, the M i n i s t r y is w o r k i n g o n management plans as time and resources allow a n d i n a predetermined order. P e b b l e B e a c h , o n the other hand, has a management plan developed through public consultation, even though the area has not b e c o m e a p r o v i n c i a l park.  Develop a timeline or structure the process. Problem: Both CIC processes on Galiano lacked sufficient structure to drive group action and discussions to facilitate effective and efficient use of resources. D e f i n i n g what tasks are necessary provides clarity. E v e n i f target dates and objectives are purely arbitrary, they serve to drive the process. A n agenda defines the tasks that need to be accomplished over time, and it provides an order to those tasks. A n agenda also stimulates  154  thinking i n terms o f a timeframe for c o m p l e t i o n . I f interests are continually discussed i n meetings, people develop a shared value set. A s demonstrated by collaboration theorists, dialogue builds a shared understanding, w h i c h facilitates mutually beneficial solutions. T h i s p o i n t is raised again because the process for protecting B o d e g a Ridge d i d not i n v o l v e m u c h dialogue b e y o n d those w h o had similar interests. T h e lack o f dialogue w i t h opponents to the process fuelled the animosity that has made other conservation efforts o n the Island more difficult. O f t e n the advantages and disadvantages are dependent u p o n the personalities o f those i n v o l v e d . Some persons prefer m o r e formal structures than others do. H o w e v e r , formal structures can help parties to pace through the stages o f collaboration. U s i n g regular meetings o f a certain structure, for instance can aid dialogue. A m o r e formal structure c o u l d also be i n the f o r m o f a M e m o r a n d u m o f Understanding, w h i c h w o u l d require agreement o n terminology and action. S u c h an agreement w o u l d structure debate and discussion s u r r o u n d i n g these issues leading to mutual understanding.  Set basic ground rules and decision rules, and communicate them. Problem: The processesfailed to set ground rules that would handle problems such as dissension, lack of participation, orpublic involvement in decisions. Procedural rules serve to provide equal protection and v o i c e for all persons i n v o l v e d i n collaborating. A p p a r e n t i n the B o d e g a Ridge process was an atmosphere o f contention. O n e g r o u n d rule often used i n L R M P s is that each participant must allow others time and space i n w h i c h to speak and must respect differences o f o p i n i o n , while attempting to understand the reasons b e h i n d views that clash w i t h their o w n . T h i s type o f g r o u n d rule, i f used early i n the process, m i g h t have resolved the conflicts o f the t w o G a l i a n o cases early i n their respective process before the parties' positions became entrenched.  Stakeholders and Stakeholder Interactions Seek to include the interests of those not participating. Problem: Because of the land use conflict on Galiano, the people that chose not to participate in the processes were often vocally opposed to the community initiatives, which increased animosity and eventually disrupted the Pebble Beach process and cemented the provincial government's view that meaningfulpublic participation was notpossible. F i n d out w h y persons or groups are not participating. A s k questions. A l t h o u g h someone appears disinterested i n the collaboration or the intended outcome, the participants should seek to understand and include their interests. I f not included, those o p p o s i n g views may hurt the process direcdy or indirectly. F o r example, the o p p o s i n g persons may attempt to b l o c k the C I C s action through the legal process, w h i c h affect the financial p o s i t i o n and  155  image o f the C I C . I n the B o d e g a Ridge process, G I F T d i d include one o f the Trustees, w h o opposed G I F T ' s ideas for development; however, the Trustee's inclusion d i d not appear to foster dialogue and understanding, because o f their value conflict. I n c l u d i n g the Trustee brought a different perspective that G I F T c o u l d have capitalised o n to create alternatives w i t h w h i c h all parties o n the Island c o u l d agree. A c t o r s i n the collaborative must seek to understand others' interests and be o p e n to others' ideas.  Seek to understand the diversity of opinion within the community. Problem: Galiano Island is a complex community. Islanders rarely hold the same views on any issue, and in particular, land use. Misunderstanding can and didfuel animosity, because they did not communicate their diversity. D o not assume; communicate. T h o s e persons w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y w h o d i d not participate i n the process to protect the respective areas hurt B o d e g a Ridge and Pebble Beach. Collaborators s h o u l d respectfully ask w h y others are not i n v o l v e d and seek the values o f those persons not participating. IdeaUy, the collaborative group should actively seek to i n v o l v e the outside, marginalised groups w i t h i n the process, so dissenting opinions are always present. U n d e r s t a n d i n g the diversity o f voices w i t h i n the c o m m u n i t y aids the c o n v e n o r and the collaborators i n deciding w h o m to include and what opinions other persons or groups h o l d .  Continue to seek to include 'outside' interests over time. Problem: Both processes appeared closed to the interests of the wider community, which fedfrustration and opposition to the process. W h d e continually seeking outside interests m a y be time c o n s u m i n g , collaborators s h o u l d b u d d trust or respect w i t h those persons or organisations. O u t s i d e interests do not disappear; over time, they may b e c o m e m o r e v o c a l i n their o p p o s i t i o n or support. Alternatively, the outside interests may agree to enter a process i f the collaborators communicate the process, their ideas and objectives clearly over time. A n "outsider" may agree to enter the collaborative, because their interests and perspectives may change about the process, or simply because o f the o p e n invitation and c o m m u n i c a t i o n . C h a n g i n g perspectives may spark interest i n non-participants.  Build relationships over time. Problem: Relationships surrounding the processes were rooted in conflict; thus, there was little basisfor moving beyond emotion and rhetoric to achieve mutual understanding and interdependence. Relationships, w h i c h b u d d trust and understanding w i t h persons inside and outside a collaborative process, take time. T i m e is a factor that C I C s sometimes lack, as i n the case o f  156  B o d e g a Ridge. T h o u g h time is a factor, C I C s s h o u l d seek to b u i l d relationships founded i n openness, trust and dialogue and find ways that c o u l d foster better relations faster.  CICs  s h o u l d recognise the importance o f relationships to achieving their goals and dedicate valuable time to g r o w i n g relationships i n the c o m m u n i t y and w i t h i n the C I C .  Communicate your core values. Problem: Core values are those values, which a party will refuse to negotiate. Neither process sought its members' or the community's core values, even though transparency of values was all the more important given the hostility within the community surrounding land use planning decisions. I f one communicates one's core values, the other participants k n o w the reasons for o p p o s i t i o n or support o f a part o f the process, rather than resorting to guesswork. A g a i n , this level o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n leads to a shared understanding o f the p r o b l e m a n d fosters m o r e creative solutions based o n interests a n d n o t positions.  Seek to get beyond rhetoric and emotion. Problem: The foundation for successful collaborative processes is shared understanding and trust built over time through discussion. Neither process sought the interests of otherparties, which created more bitterness. M e m b e r s o f the c o m m u n i t y may understandably become upset or e m o t i o n a l about certain topics, such as the "debate" between logging jobs a n d nature preservation. Sometimes collaboratives appear dispassionate about others i n the c o m m u n i t y , because they react differendy to e m o t i o n , as they seek to discover a person's o r group's interests and values, rather than emoting, themselves. H o w e v e r , understanding the interests and motivations o f others necessitates fmding what lies b e h i n d e m o t i o n . W h i l e the collaborative may become emotional as well, they must also realise the benefit a n d potential h a r m o f their passions. Seeking the interests b e h i n d the emotions is important, because interests lead the collaborative to better, m o r e inclusive a n d innovative alternatives. O n the other hand, a person o r group's interests c o u l d also damage the collaborative, i f not included o r clearly c o m m u n i c a t e d between the parties, as happened i n the B o d e g a Ridge process. O n e imperative to seeking the interests is to b u i l d a shared understanding is that they C I C be as inclusive as possible. F o r example, i f a logging c o m p a n y or u n i o n is not part o f a C I C process attempting to preserve forest lands that c o u l d be logged, the company's or union's exclusion w o u l d damage the process. T h e groups left out o f the process c o u l d stall the actions o f the group, create b a d press, etc.  157  The Larger Context Understand how the forces leading to collaboration affect the community and areas outside the community. Problem: CIC processes, like the ones on Galiano, take place in local communities and often do not account for the web of complex linkages of socio-political and ecological systems outside the community engaged in a CIC process. Forces leading to collaboration n o t only affect l o c a l communities, but they also affect the regions and nations outside them. F o r example, large-scale e c o n o m i c structural changes affect markets locally a n d internationally, w h i c h i n turn affect local economies. Before the G a l i a n o cases, M B was under increasing market a n d international political pressure to modify its logging practices. A t the same time, the c o m p a n y had to w o r k w i t h i n the legislated framework p r o v i d e d by the Forest Practices Code. A l s o , the real estate markets o n the G u l f Islands changed as a result o f e c o n o m i c prosperity i n the U S and Canada and increased d e m a n d for vacation homes, w h i c h raised land prices. A U three pressures, i n conjunction w i t h the actions o n G a l i a n o , made logging o n the Island a less desirable alternative than selling the lands, w h i c h M B ultimately d i d . T h e above forces set the scene for C I C processes o n G a l i a n o Island, starting w i t h the protection o f M o u n t G a l i a n o . T h e n , new property owners wanted to subdivide their lands to pay o f f their mortgage debt. T h e B o d e g a Partners a n d the N o r t h G a l i a n o C o m m u n i t y A s s o c i a t i o n , i n n o c e n d y , sought to develop four residential lots o n D i s t r i c t L o t 73 to pay for the purchase o f the three D L s that encompassed the Ridge (73, 75 and 76). T h e i r actions d i d not appear to take into account the forces at play o n G a l i a n o at that time. T h e y sought this solution i n the m i d s t o f a very contentious "batde" over land use. W h d e development was a possible solution, used by other groups a n d developers, this was not the best time to suggest it as the only o p t i o n for protecting the Ridge. A better way to handle this situation w o u l d have been to put this o p t i o n before the c o m m u n i t y along w i t h others and seek solutions based o n the interests o f the c o m m u n i t y , whether they were for or against development o f the lands z o n e d F l (forestiand). T h e B o d e g a Partners' solution alienated those wanting to develop their lots (and c o u l d not by force o f law: Bylaws 81-85) a n d those w h o desired to maintain the Island's l o w e r level o f development.  Understand the legal system and its structure. Problem: Policy andprotection of land are legalprocesses when communities such as Galiano link with government, making an understanding of the legal system essential. Neitherprocess understood some key legal information a deficiency that delayed action andfuelled discord. G a l i a n o was undergoing a review o f its O C P , after passing Bylaws 81-85. M a n y individuals i n the c o m m u n i t y d i d not understand this process. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the members o f G I F T were  158  attempting to circumvent this process by developing the four lots o n D L 73, albeit w i t h the m o t i v e o f protecting B o d e g a Ridge. T h e i r attempt essentially precluded existing organisations o n the Island (e.g. the Islands T r u s t and the G C A ) f r o m supporting the process. G o v e r n m e n t s have clear mandates for what is required for consultation w i t h First N a t i o n s , resultant f r o m court decisions, legislation and practise. T h e question o f consultation still shrouds M E L P ' s view o f the p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t process for P e b b l e B e a c h . T h e participants c o u l d have avoided this situation by d o c u m e n t i n g h o w the group sought interests that are contrary, even i f only to keep the lines o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n o p e n for the future. C I C groups s h o u l d seek to understand the legal structures and practices o f those persons or groups w i t h w h o m they w o r k . M E L P s h o u l d have researched the types o f p r o t e c t i o n applicable i n the G u l f Islands. I f M E L P had researched protection options specific to G a l i a n o , they might have asked i f the G C A was seeking protection consistent w i t h the provisions i n the G a l i a n o Island O C P , w h i c h requires that the Island's parks be equivalent to ecological reserves, a standard stricter than p r o v i n c i a l park status.  Government should communicate and explain what is required of CIC groups and why. Problem: The provincial government did not clearly and explicitly discuss with the GCA what was necessary for the District Cots to obtain protected area designation. C I C s w i l l n o t always k n o w the right questions to ask. G o v e r n m e n t s h o u l d p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n o n what data is required, h o w to gather the data, levels o f protection and the types o f use and access that is appropriate for each level o f protection. G o v e r n m e n t s s h o u l d consider creating a ready-made structure for dealing w i t h C I C s , because government, like some E N G O s (e.g. N C C ) , gets requests to protect areas regularly. H a v i n g the structure i n place w i l l p r o v i d e consistency to C I C s and a useful basic structure for negotiating. H o w e v e r , too m u c h structure may not take into account the unique characteristics o f each C I C .  Perform outreach to the community, including communication of issues important to the CIC in protecting the area. Problem: A sensitive and rare ecosystem was damaged on Bodega Ridge. T h e B C Parks w o r k team, a group o f students that w o r k e d o n the trail up B o d e g a Ridge, cut some o f the M a n z a n i t a shrubs. H a d they k n o w n the biological significance o f the shrub, they c o u l d have w o r k e d a r o u n d damaging these rare plants.  159  Be aware of the impacts of decisions, as a CIC, on the wider community and other conservation efforts now and in the future. Problem: Not considering impacts of the collaboratives resulted in a difficult and strident atmosphere for conservation. O t h e r groups may follow, and i f one group creates animosity, that animosity may continue. D e c i s i o n s made by the B o d e g a Partners and members o f the G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n and m i s c o m m u n i c a t i o n between the two during the B o d e g a R i d g e Process fuelled animosity between the t w o organisations and their constituencies. T a k i n g a longerterm perspective o n a c c o m p l i s h i n g a conservation project n o w s h o u l d include an eye toward future projects.  Thesis Question #4: Mow can collaboration theory strengthen CIC? This.thesis makes the following recommendations to strengthen C I C i n B C , as outlined above: ^ "^  Weigh carefully the reasons for collaborating. Individually and collectively vocalise the expectations of,the process and the outcomes. Despite time pressures, seek to use interest-based negotiation practices. r- Prepare now for decisions tiiat come later. "> Define and discuss what is necessary beyond the agreement. ., y Develop a timeline or structure the'process. •P Set basic ground rules and decision rules, and communicate them. ; ; Seek to include the interests of those not participating. >^ Seek to understand the diversity o f opinion within the community. ] , > Continue to' seek to include 'outside' interests over time. ' ^ Build relationships over time. '-'^ Communicate your values. "> '? y Seek to get beyond rhetoric^and emotion. " . ^ Understandhow the forces leading to collaboration affect the community and are: outside the community-. . '* r- Understand the legal system and its structure. . > Government should c o n ^ u m c a t e a n d e x p l a i n w h a t i s required/of C I C groups and why. > Educate and communicate issues important to the C I C in protecting the area. . «>» Be aware of the impacts o f decisions, as»a,CIC,,omuie wider, community conservation efforts now and i n the future. ; " :  Recommendationsfor Further Study A s w i t h any academic or other research, this thesis raises m o r e questions than it can answer. B e l o w are listed a few that struck the author as relevant and w o r t h pursuing either at the surface level or in-depth. ^  What other methods might be used to evaluate C I C processes, and what are the strengths and weaknesses of each method?  160  y ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^  Could other CICs gain from a more detailed microsociological study of CIC, such as that offered by Critical Theory? What happens when groups that are assumed to have a key interest in the problem domain are disinterested in participating? H o w have groups managed to get around that issue? When must stakeholders become involved and what constitutes active and relevant participation? W h o should really be involved in CICs and how? H o w should CICs incorporate the wider public interest? W h o should be included i f a C I C is acting on past planning processes? Can CICs add to a larger conservation biology perspective? Are the spaces conserved biologically meaningful, or are they "islands in a sea o f development?" What do CICs contribute to communities in terms of sustainability? What is the relationship between a good collaborative C I C process and the level of protection? What is the relationship between C I C processes and social and natural capital? H o w durable are C I C conserved lands? D o CICs foster environmental justice?  Concluding Remarks T h e t w o cases o f C I C o n G a l i a n o Island were used to address the research questions: (1) Is collaboration theory a relevant t o o l for evaluating C I C s , particularly i f C I C s are not "as collaborative" as other processes?  (2) C a n C I C s be considered coUaborative? I f they are  coUaborative, to what extent were they collaborative i n a multistakeholder sense? (3) T o what extent was C I C o n G a l i a n o Island coUaborative, and h o w w e l l d i d the groups o n G a l i a n o coUaborate? (4) H o w can collaboration theory strengthen C I C processes? A s illustrated i n the chapter, The Compleat Hiker, C I C processes can be considered collaborative, because they often i n v o l v e a n u m b e r o f autonomous stakeholders using basic g r o u n d rules to achieve a conservation end. Because C I C s sometimes act using authority f r o m past p l a n n i n g processes (as was the case w i t h the G C A for Pebble Beach) or use legal pressure, C I C s w i l l forego wider p u b l i c participation to achieve their aims. Some C I C s may think that less p u b l i c participation w i l l use fewer precious resources, particularly mcludtng time, money and volunteer effort.' T h a t said, C I C s regularly use some level o f collaboration, i n v o l v i n g people and groups to p e r f o r m a task or set objectives. In the chapter, Using Trail Guides and Maps, the cases o n G a l i a n o illustrated that the theory o n collaborative processes is relevant for evaluating planning processes that are not fully collaborative, i n the traditional large multistakeholder process sense. C I C o n G a l i a n o Island was collaborative, though it d i d fall short o f other processes i n terms o f the amount o f discussion and level o f p u b l i c involvement, answering the third thesis question i n this chapter. T h i s chapter also outlined a n u m b e r o f recommendations for B C C I C s , thus responding to the final thesis question. A l t h o u g h the protection o f B o d e g a Ridge was successful, the contention surrounding the process had significant ramifications for l a n d use p l a n n i n g and conservation processes since its conclusion. W h i l e theoretical research suggests ways past barriers i n planning processes,  161  actual practice sometimes presents problems that the r e c o m m e n d e d solution can not cure. T h e contention between the members o f the B o d e g a Partners and the G C A s h o u l d have been resolved through dialogue that w o u l d lead to shared understanding. T h e facilitator was unable to b r i n g the parties to the table. I f n o dialogue occurs, as was the case, the theory falters and the groups were left to devise alternative strategies o n their o w n . S u c h methods are risky, i n that the p r o p o s e d alternative may be unpalatable to other parties. I n the case o f Bodega, the p r o p o s e d solution o f a purchase by the N C C , then the P M H L w o r k e d . T h e p r o p o s e d solution brought the parties together a n d ultimately l e d to the successful end, protection o f B o d e g a Ridge. T h e practice o f C I C , where communities c o n t r o l the process o f conservation, mirrors the devolution o f p o w e r a n d p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t i n p l a n n i n g processes. CoUaboration a m o n g stakeholders has virtually b e c o m e a n o r m for some types o f planning. Better collaboration often results i n m o r e b u y - i n a m o n g stakeholders and c o m m u n i t y members and can lead to other successful processes. F o r C I C , a m o r e successful collaborative process may aid conservation to protect m o r e spaces and foster a wider acceptance o f the concepts o f stewardship a n d c o n n e c t i o n to the ecosphere. C I C , o n the g r o u n d , partially brings to this bigger picture a sense o f responsibility for the ecosphere, taking action to protect land and water resources n o w rather than later, i n the community's back yard, w i t h o r w i t h o u t government assistance. T h i s active, grounded w o r k may help to clarify our c o n n e c t i o n to the land, b r i n g i n g understanding o f years o f environmental action a n d education to bear. I n the o p i n i o n o f the author, m o r e protected areas are g o o d , whether protected by communities o r through the legal/political process. A t the same time, C I C represents an opportunity to further realise A l d o L e o p o l d ' s land ethic. C I C , i n this light, draws u p o n the ideas o f W i l l i a m C r o n o n i n his influential b o o k , Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. H e states, If wilderness can stop being (just) out there and start being (also) in here, i f it can start being as humane as it is natural, then perhaps we can get on with die unending task o f struggling to live rightiy in the world — not just in the garden, not just in the wilderness, but in the home that encompasses them both (Cronon, 1996, 90). Indeed, i f we are to change, that change must c o m e f r o m w i t h i n , w i t h i n each person i n his or her h o m e c o m m u n i t y . C I C is one way to a c c o m p l i s h such change, to b r i n g about flunking and living i n a m o r e sustainable fashion. C I C accomplishes changes i n d i m k i n g through collaboratively restoring and protecting the nature that is i n our h o m e communities. B y creating better collaborative processes, C I C stands a greater chance o f succeeding more often than failing.  162  Plate 22. Emily Carr: Masset Bears  Bibliography Appendix 10 Natural History of the Study Area [website]. Ministry o f E n v i r o n m e n t L a n d and Parks, M o n d a y , O c t o b e r 30, 2000 9:34:58 P M G M T [cited February 17, 2001]. A v a d a b l e from http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/rib/wis/sei/vancouverisland/publications/technical/app 10.htm. A r n s t e i n , Sherry R. " A L a d d e r o f C i t i z e n Participation." AIP Journal (1969): 216-24. Breathed, Berke. Bloom County "Loose Tails". Washington, D . C . : T h e W a s h i n g t o n Post C o m p a n y , 1983. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a Assets and L a n d C o r p o r a t i o n . About Crown Land [website]. B . C . Assets and L a n d C o r p o r a t i o n , 2001 [cited 5 A p r d 2001]. Avadable f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . b c - l a n d assets.com/about_crown_land/. B.C. Conservation Data Centre: B.C. Register of Big Trees [website]. M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t L a n d and Parks, Wednesday, January 10, 2001 10:34:18 P M G M T [cited February 17, 2001]. Avadable f r o m  http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/rib/cbs/bigtrees/register.htm.  B e n t z , Valerie M a h o t r a , and Jeremy J Shapiro. Mindful Inquiry in Social Research. T h o u s a n d Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998. B o d e g a Partners. "The Fdes o f the B o d e g a Partners." G a l i a n o Island, B . C . : T h e Bodega Partners, 1998. B r i c k , P h d . " O f Imposters, O p t i m i s t s , and K i n g s : F i n d i n g a Political N i c h e for Collaborative Conservation." The Chronicle of Community, W i n t e r 1998. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d s and Parks. Ecological Reserves [website]. B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d s and Parks, N o v e m b e r 23, 1999 1  [cited 25 September 2000]. A v a d a b l e f r o m http://www.elp.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/explore/ecoresrv/ecoresrv.htm.  B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d s and Parks Legacy Panel. "Sustaining O u r Protected Areas System: F i n a l R e p o r t o f the Legacy Panel." 118. V i c t o r i a , B . C . : M i n i s t r y o f E n v i r o n m e n t , L a n d s and Parks, 1999. Canadian Parks A n d Wdderness Society O t t a w a Valley Chapter. " A b o u t the A l g o n q u i n to A d i r o n d a c k s Conservation Initiative." Wild Earth, Summer 2000, 79. Carr, E m d y . "Arbutus Tree." [website]. Schoolnet D i g i t a l Collections T e a m , [cited 5 M a y 2001]. Avadable f r o m http: / /  www.tbc.gov.bc.ca/culture/schoolnet/carr/gallery/9402ar.htm.  164  Carr, E m i l y . " U n t i t l e d . " Schoolnet D i g i t a l Collections T e a m , [website]. Schoolnet D i g i t a l Collections T e a m , [cited 5 M a y 2001]. A v a d a b l e from http://www.tbc.gov.bc.ca/culture/schoolnet/carr/gallery/gallvag/42387a.htm. Carr, E m d y . " P o d a t c h W e l c o m e . " Schoolnet D i g i t a l Collections T e a m [website]. Schoolnet D i g i t a l Collections T e a m , [cited 5 M a y 2001]. Avadable f r o m http://www.tbc.gov.bc.ca/culture/schoolnet/carr/gallery/8321po.htm. Carr, E m d y . "Masset Bears." Schoonet D i g i t a l Collections T e a m [website]. Schoolnet D i g i t a l Collections T e a m , [cited 5 M a y 2001]. A v a d a b l e from http://www.tbc.gov.bc.ca/culture/schoolnet/carr/gallery/gallvag/42345a.htm. " C i v i c E n v i r o n m e n t a U s m by A n y O t h e r N a m e . " Environment 41, n o . 10 (1999): 31. Coggins, G e o r g e C a m e r o n . " O f Californicators, Quislings, and Crazies: S o m e Perds o f D e v o l v e d C o l l a b o r a t i o n . " The Chronicle of Community, W i n t e r 1998. C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t . A Protected Areas Strategy for B.C. [website]. L a n d U s e C o o r d i n a t i o n Office ( L U C O ) , 2000 [cited N o v e m b e r 5 2000]. Avadable from  http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca/pas/pasforbc/home.htm.  C o m m i s s i o n o n Resources and the E n v i r o n m e n t . The Provincial Ljind Use Strategy: Planning for Sustainability, Volume 2 [website]. L a n d U s e C o o r d i n a t i o n Office, N o v e m b e r 4 1994 [cited N o v e m b e r 5 2000]. A v a d a b l e f r o m http: / / w w w . l u c o . g o v . b c . c a / k m p / p l u s / v o l 2 / index.htm. C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 1. Interview, N o v e m b e r 18, 2000. C o m m u n i t y Source N u m b e r 2. Interview, N o v e m b e r 28, 2000. ConneUy, M i k e . "Parochial and P r o u d o f It: G e t t i n g Things D o n e i n the L o s t R i v e r Watershed." Orion Afield, S u m m e r 2000, 23-6. C r o n o n , W i l k a m , ed. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. N e w Y o r k : W . W . N o r t o n & C o m p a n y , 1996. D e n z i n , N o r m a n K . , and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n . "Introduction." I n Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N o r m a n K . D e n z i n and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n , 1-30. T h o u s a n d Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000. D e n z i n , N o r m a n K . , and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n . "Strategies o f Inquiry." I n Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N o r m a n K . D e n z i n and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n , 367-78. T h o u s a n d Oaks: Sage Pubkcations, 2000. D o b s o n , Brenda. " D e v e l o p m e n t o f Ecologically-Based P l a n n i n g T o o l s for M a n a g i n g Cumulative Effects i n Jasper N a t i o n a l P a r k [Microform]: T h e E c o s i t e Representation  165  and B r e e d i n g B i r d Habitat Effectiveness M o d e l s . " Master's, University o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 2000. Ecological Reserve Act. 96103_01. 1996. E r i c k s o n , K e i t h . "Pebble B e a c h Reserve Management P l a n . " G a l i a n o Island, B C : G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n , 1998. Feagin, Joe R . , A n t h o n y M O r u m , and G i d e o n Sjoberg, eds. A Case for the Case Study. C h a p e l H i l l : T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f N o r t h C a r o l i n a Press, 1991. Federal G o v e r n m e n t Source. Interview, N o v e m b e r 17, 2000. Ferris, T i m o t h y . The Whole Shebang: A State of the Universe(S) Report. N e w Y o r k : S i m o n & Schuster, 1997. Fontana, A n d r e a , and James H . Frey. " T h e Interview: F r o m Structured Questions to Negotiated Text." I n Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N o r m a n K . D e n z i n and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n , 645-71. T h o u s a n d Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000. Forester, J o h n . Planningin the Face of Power. Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1989. Friedrich, Caspar D a v i d . "Riesenbirge." [website]. T h e A r t o f Caspar D a v i d F r i e d r i c h [cited M a y 5, 2001]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m http: / / w w w . g e o c i t i e s . c o m / p a r i s / m e t r o / 6 4 9 8 / b i l d 9 . h t m l . Friedrich, Caspar D a v i d . " E i s e n b a u m . " [website]. T h e A r t o f Caspar D a v i d F r i e d r i c h [cited M a y 5, 2001]. A v a i l a b l e from: http://www.geocities.com/paris/metro/6498/bildl9.html. G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source. Interview, N o v e m b e r 28, 2000. G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n Source. Interview, N o v e m b e r 28, 2000. Galiano Island [website]. W i n d m e r e Really, N o v e m b e r 26, 2000 [cited February 17, 2001 2001]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m  http://www.gauano-realty.com/gaHano.html.  Galiano Island - Galiano Information [website]. G a l i a n o Island C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e , 2001 [cited 17 February 2001]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . g a l i a n o i s l a n d . c o m / i n f o . h t m . George, Karstin. " L o c a l and Grassroots: A Success Story f r o m a M a i n e L a n d Trust." Wild Earth, S u m m e r 2000, 89-92. G h i m i r e , K r i s h n a B . , and M i c h e l P . Pimbert. "Social Change and Conservation: A n O v e r v i e w o f Issues and Concepts." I n Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Policies and Impacts of National Parks and Protected Areas, edited by K r i s h n a B . G h i m i r e and M i c h e l P . Pimbert, 334. L o n d o n : Earthscan Publications L i m i t e d , 1997.  166  G o r d o n , G r e g . " N e i g h b o r h o o d Struggles: T h e Story o f the N o r t h e r n Plains Resource C o u n c d . " Orion Afield, S u m m e r 2000, 14-7. G r a n t , K a t h y L y n n . " E v a l u a t i n g the CoUaboration T o w a r d s a Future V i s i o n and E c o s y s t e m Objectives for the S a l m o n R i v e r Watershed." Master o f Science, University o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1996. G r a y , Barbara, and D o n n a J . W o o d . "Collaborative Alliances: M o v i n g f r o m Practice to T h e o r y . " Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27, no. 1 (1991): 3-22. The Gulf Islands Guide [website]. 2001 [cited 16 February 2001]. Avadable f r o m http://www.gulfislandsguide.com/mstory/gaHanoldstory.html. H a n s o n , Regan, p h o n e call, A u g u s t 15, 2000. Healey, Patsy. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. V a n c o u v e r : U B C ' Press, 1997. H u f f m a n , Pltil. "Caretakers o f the L a n d : A n Interview w i t h Rancher L y n n Sherrod." Orion Afield 2000, 18-21. Innes, J u d i t h E . "Information i n C o m m u n i c a t i v e Planning." Journal of the American Planning Association, no. W i n t e r (1998): 52-63. Institute o f D e v e l o p m e n t Studies, University o f Sussex. Resources: Conferences and Meetings: Concept Paper [website]. Istitute o f D e v e l o p m e n t Studies, O c t o b e r 10, 1998 [cited N o v e m b e r 5 2000]. A v a d a b l e f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . i d s . a c . u k / i d s / c i v s o c / c o n c e p t . h t m l . Islands Trust Act. [ R S B C 1996]. updated O c t o b e r 1, 1998. Kittredge, W i l l i a m . " H o w to T a k e Care? Conservation and C o o p e r a t i o n o n Sycan M a r s h . " Orion Afield, S u m m e r 2000, 10-2. K n o p m a n , D e b r a S., M e g a n M . Susman, and M a r c L . L a n d y . " C i v i c E n v i r o n m e n t a l i s m : T a c k l i n g T o u g h L a n d - U s e P r o b l e m s w i t h Innovative Governance." Environment 41, no. 10 (1999): 26-32. K o f i n a s , G a r y P . , and J u l i a n R . Griggs. "CoUaboration and the B . C . R o u n d Table o n the E n v i r o n m e n t and the E c o n o m y : A n Analysis o f a "Better W a y " o f D e c i d i n g . " Environments 23, no. 2 (1996): 17-40. K y l e , K e n d a U . " C o m m u n i t y Interest...Corporate Interest." Archipelago 1998, 5-6. L a n d U s e C o o r d i n a t i o n Office. E - m a d , after telephone conversation, 11 January 2001.  167  L i n c o l n , Y v o n n a S., and E g o n G . G u b a . "Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and E m e r g i n g Influences." I n Handbook for Qualitative Research, edited by N o r m a n K . D e n z i n and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n , 163-88. T h o u s a n d Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000. M a n n , Charles C , a n d M a r k L . P l u m m e r . " T h e H i g h C o s t o f Biodiversity." Science, June 25, 1993, 1868-71. Maser, Chris. Ecological Diversity in Sustainable Development: The Vital and Forgotten Dimension. B o c a R a t o n : L e w i s Publishers, 1999. M c N a l l y , M a r c i a . " A R e g i o n a l Blueprint for Sustainability." Places 12, no. 2 (1999): 26-9. M c N a m e e , K e v i n . " A H i s t o r y o f Parks Canada." Nature Canada, A u t u m n 1996, 39-41. Medberry, M i k e . " G o o d D e e d s L e f t U n d o n e . " Wilderness, W i n t e r 1998, 32-6. N o s s , R e e d F . Advances in Ecoregional Conservation [website]. University o f Idaho, A p r i l 3, 2001 1998 [cited A p r i l 3, 2001]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m http://egj.Hb.uidaho.edu/egj09/nossl  .html.  Octeau, Claudia. " L o c a l C o m m u n i t y Participation i n the Establishment o f N a t i o n a l Parks: P l a n n i n g for Cooperation." Master's, University o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1999. O k e , K e v i n . " T h e Spectacular V i e w f r o m B o d e g a Ridge." G a l i a n o Island, B . C . , 2000. Parks Canada. Parks Canada Backgrounder [website]. Parks Canada, U n k n o w n [cited 17 O c t o b e r 2000]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m http://www.parkscanada.gc.ca/library/background/148%5Fe.htm. Patton, M i c h a e l Q u i n n . How to XJse Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Second ed. N e w b u r y Park: Sage Publications, 1987. P o o l e , L i n d a . " B r i n g i n g Conservationists and Ranchers to the Table." Orion Afield,  Summer  2000, 12. Porter, D o u g l a s R . , and D a v i d A . Salvesen, eds. Collaborative Planningfior Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and Examples. Washington, D C : Island Press, 1995. P r o v i n c i a l G o v e r n m e n t Source. Interview, N o v e m b e r , 16 2000. P u t n a m , Robert. Bowling Alone: America s Declining Social Capital [Online Journal]. Johns H o p k i n s University Press, 1998 [cited O c t o b e r 11, 1998]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m file:///Power%20HD/Desktop%20Folder/PubUc%20Involvement/Robert%20Put nam%20.  168  Reilly, T h o r n . ' ' C o m m u n i t i e s i n Conflict: R e s o l v i n g Differences through Collaborative Efforts i n E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g and H u m a n Service Delivery." Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare X X V , no. 3 (1998): 115-42. R i d i n g t o n , Jillian. " L . I . F . E . C o m e s to the P e b b l e B e a c h Reserve." Archipelago 1998, 1,3-4. RusseU, Charles M . "Lewis and C l a r k o n the L o w e r C o l u m b i a . " [website] A U P o s t e r s . c o m [cited M a y 5, 2001]. A v a d a b l e from: http://www.aUposters.com/GaUery.asp?aid=20439&parentaid=0&search=1621&c= Category&cat=958100471454. Scheberle, Denise. " M o v i n g t o w a r d C o m m u n i t y - B a s e d E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection." American Behavioral Scientist 44, no. 4 (2000): 565-79. Schwandt, T h o m a s A . "Three E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l Stances for Quaktative T h e o r y : Interpretivism, Hermeneutics and Social C o n s t r u c t i v i s m . " I n Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N o r m a n K . D e n z i n and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n , 189-213. T h o u s a n d O a k s : Sage Publications, 2000. Selin, Steve, and D e b o r a h C h a v e z . " D e v e l o p i n g a CoUaborative M o d e l for E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g and Management." Environmental Management 19, no. 2 (1995): 189-95. Sessions, George. " E c o c e n t r i s m , Wilderness and G l o b a l Protection." I n The Wilderness Condition: Essays on Environment and Civilisation, edited by M a x Oelschlaeger, 90-130. San Francisco: Sierra C l u b B o o k s , 1992. Shutkin, W i l l i a m . The Eand That Could Be. B o s t o n , Massachusetts: M I T Press, 2000. S m i t h , George. P h o n e conversation, June 15, 2000. Sojourner, M a r y . " D i a b l o Trust: C o m m u n i t y , Culture, and C o w s . " Orion Afield, S u m m e r 2000, 13. Stake, R o b e r t E . "Case Studies." I n Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N o r m a n K . D e n z i n and Y v o n n a S. L i n c o l n , 435-55. T h o u s a n d Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000. Statistics on Galiano Island, B.C. [websites]. B . C . Stats, M o n d a y , A p r d 21, 1997 6:57:54 P M G M T 2001 [cited February 17, 2001]. A v a d a b l e f r o m http: / / www.bcstats .gov.bc. ca / data / cen9 6 / i s t 9 6. h t m . T h e F o r d F o u n d a t i o n . Exploring Conservation-Based Development [website]. T h e F o r d F o u n d a t i o n , 7 January 2000 [cited 17 O c t o b e r 2000]. A v a d a b l e f r o m http://www.explorecbd.org/. T h e G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n . " T h e Fdes o f the G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n . " G a l i a n o Island, B . C . , 2000.  169  T h e G a l i a n o Conservancy A s s o c i a t i o n . "Letter D e t a i l i n g a F r a m e w o r k for Conservation by M i n i s t e r M o e Sihota." I n The Files of the Galiano Conservancy Association. G a l i a n o Island, B . C . , 2000. T h e L a n d T r u s t A l l i a n c e . What Is a Land Trust [website]. T h e L a n d Trust A l l i a n c e , M a y 24, 2000 [cited 20 O c t o b e r 2000]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . l t a . o r g / w h a t i t . h t m l . T h e N o r t h e r n Lights Research and E d u c a t i o n Institute. Chronicle of Community [website]. T h e N o r t h e r n Lights Research and E d u c a t i o n Institute, 2 June 1999 [cited 17 O c t o b e r 2000]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . b a t e s m f o . c o m / c l u o m c l e . h t m l . T h e O r i o n Society. The Orion Society [website]. T h e O r i o n Society, U n k n o w n 2000 [cited O c t o b e r 17 2000]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m h t t p : / / w w w . o r i o n s o c i e t y . o r g . The Municipal Act. 1996. T h e Stewardship Centre. Qualicum Beach Greenways Plan [website]. T h e Stewardship Centre, u n k n o w n 2001 [cited A p r i l 10, 2001]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m http://www.stewardshipcentre.org/code/main/cs_frset.htm. T h e W i l d l a n d s Project. About Us [website]. T h e W i l d l a n d s Project, 2001 [cited A p r i l 3, 2001]. Available from  http://www.twp.org/aboutus/aboutus.html.  T h o m a s , J o h n C l a y t o n . Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategiesfor Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1995. Turtle Island E a r t h Stewards. Land Stewardship Registry [website]. Turtle Island E a r t h Stewards, u n k n o w n 2001 [cited A p r i l 10, 2001]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m http://www.ties.bc.ca/registry.htm. V i c t o r i a T o u r i s m M a l l . Gulf Island Map-Overview [website]. V i c t o r i a T o u r i s m M a l l , 2001 [cited July 25, 2001]. A v a i l a b l e f r o m h t t ^ : / / w w w . t o u r i s m m a U . v i c t o r i a . b c . c a / g u l f m a p . G I F . Walls, T i m . "Untitled Photographs of Galiano Island." Galiano Island, B.C.: T i m Walls, 2000. Watterson, B i l l . The Authoritative Calvin andUobbes. Kansas City: U n i v e r s a l Press Syndicate, 1990. W e s t C o a s t E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w . Here Today, Here Tomorrow — Chapter 15 [website]. W e s t Coast E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w , A p r i l 7, 2000 [cited O c t o b e r 20 2000]. A v a i l a b l e from h t t p : / / w w w . w c e l . o r g / w c e l p u b / 5 1 1 0 / 5 1 1 Ocl 5.html. Western, D a v i d . In the Dust of Kilimanjaro. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : Island Press, 1997. W o o d , D o n n a J . , and Barbara G r a y . " T o w a r d a C o m p r e h e n s i v e T h e o r y o f C o l l a b o r a t i o n . " Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27, n o . 2 (1991): 139-62.  170  W o r l d W d d l i f e F u n d . Wwfs Global Conservation Programme 1999/2000  [website]. W o r l d  W d d l i f e F u n d , 2001 [cited 3 A p r i l 2001]. A v a d a b l e f r o m http: / / w w w . p a n d a . o r g / r e s o u r c e s / p u b l i c a t i o n s / s u s t a i n a b i l i t y / g l o b a l / ecobased.html. Y i n , R o b e r t K . Case Study Research: Design and Methods. E d i t e d by L e o n a r d B i c k m a n . 6 vols. V o l . 5, Applied Social Research Methods Series. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications, 1984. Y o u n g , Ray. T e l e p h o n e conversation, February 13, 2001.  171  Appendix 1. Maps  172  

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.831.1-0090124/manifest

Comment

Related Items