COQUITLAM RIVER Watersmd- a CASE STUDY
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CATA1.YZINC; COMMUNITYIBLiSED WATERSHED STEWARDSHXP: COQUITLAM RIVER WATERSmD- A CASE STUDY by Angela Mary Srnailes B .A (Honours) (Phiiosophy), Queen's University, 1985 Diploma of Secondary Education, McGill University, 1987 RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUlREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT in the School of Resource and Enwonmental Management Report No. 162 O Angela Mary Srnailes 1998 AU rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whde or in part, by photocopying or other means, without permission ofthe author. National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliogaphiic SenAces secvkes bibbgraphiques The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence aiiowing the exclusive permettant a la National Libfary of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loaq dismbute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownershp of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright m this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ABSTRACT This paper focuses on Watershed Initiatives in British Columbia and their role in moving communities and regions towards sustainabiüty. The Coquitlam River Watershed (CRW)Public Process was evalwted to gain insight into the dynamics of emerging Watemhed Initiatives (WIs). Ws are being created throughout the province, as community-based stewardship groups, often in partnership with govemment agencies, confiont complex regional problems of ecosystem management. In their attempts to prevent Merdegradation and promote enhancement of watershed ecosystems, WIs are providing a common forum for disparate interests, using integrated approaches to coordination, problem solving, and planning. WIs are aiso providing support for action-oriented stewardship such as restoratio% mapping, monitoring, and education. Smelser's mode1 for social movements and principles of procedural sustainability were reviewed in this papa as the basis for estabiishing whether Wls constitute a social movement and are emerging accordhg to principles of sustainability. Since there is no single fiamework to examine in detail the dynamics of emerging WIs, evaluation critena from three separate frameworks were chosen: Catalytic Leadership Process to evaluate the role of catalytic leaders; Participatory Action Research (PAR), to evaluate the extent to which the process was "bottom- up"; and Process Mechanics Framework to assess whether emerging Ws use procedures that are considered sustainable. Frustration regarding govemment inaction in addressing Coquitlam River poilution was one of the motivating factors behind the CRW Public Process. Constituents recognized that th& inaction and other issues have resuited 60m a lack of integrated management and communication among govenunent departments and other orgamtations concemed with the health of the watershed. The Public Process resulted in the creation of two conmittees: one to initiate a watershed-wide organization, and the other to begin implernentation of action items discussed in the Public Process. According to the criteria, the CRW Pubiic Process was well led, but it did not strictly adhere to the principles of procedural sustainabihy. Participants were not involved in the production of materials or evaluation of the Public Process to the degree required by the PAR criteria. However, the fhct that participants generated and implemented the results indicates that the Public Process was adequate as a starting point for a Watershed Initiative. These three fiarneworks, however, did not Myexplain the complex dynasnics of an emerging W.More researth is needed to explore the relationship between the catalysts and participants. Further research is also recommended to determine whether a process that adheres to sustainable procedural principles results in substantive outcornes that are moving communities and regions towards sustainability. iii The people (ail 250 of them) who took part in the Coquitlam River Watershed Public Process are an amazuig group of people and 1 thaak îhem ail for their enthusiesm, good humour, assistaxe, and encouragement. Congratulations to those on the Advisory Committee who have founded the Coquitlarn River Watershed Society, and to the Action Group for initiating the River Watch program. 1 felt priviieged to work with the staff of the City of Coquitlam, whose professiodsm 1appreciated, and who supported the project in many ways. Particular thanks to Rosa Telegus and Dave Paiidwor, the "guiding lights." Others devoted much the and expertise to organizing the events and/or producing the display panels: Melinda Yong, Tony Arnar, Mike Esovoloff, Brenda Gillespie, and Keny Dawson. Thank you also to the ad hoc Public Process advisors: Ken Baker, Maurice Coulter Bois-Vert, Rick Daykin, Melody Farrell, Pauhe Fong, Don Gillespie, Elaine Golds, Al Gnst, Men Jensen, Otto Langer, Greg Mallette, Mike Nihls, Rick Simpson, and Gary Viiowski. Financial assistance was gratefully received &om the Fraser River Action Plan, the Real Estate Foundation of B .C., the City of Coquitlam, B. C. Hydro, and the Port Coquitlam Branches of the VanCity Credit Union. I am grateful to the proponents of other B.C. Watershed Initiatives who spoke with me at length about their processes and initiatives, and also lent me slides: Dorothy Argent, Tom Cadiew, Don Chamberlain, Geoff Clayton, Ross Davies, Chris Hiiliar, Steve Litke, and Pete Scales. 1 thank my fdyfor crucial financiai and moral support, particularly my parents, CatheMe and CohSrnailes. A big thank you to Steven Chan, Craig Henschel, Andrew Pape, Eva Riccius, and Frank Tester who listened and offered ideas and encouragement through this process. Thank you Shona Steven, Serge Benoit, Odete Pinho and Naomi Petersen for mord support and sustenance. Special thanks to Mark Roseland and Don Alexander, my supervisors, for their guidance, encouragement, patience, and quick responses to my drafts. Thanks also to Julia Gardner for her wonderfbi support during the CRW Public Process and helpful suggestions on early drafts. Many, thanks to Eiizabeth Howard for copy editing the final draft. Katherine Chofette, thank you for encouraging me to get into this program, and then providing the means to help me get out of it-we're ail grata! To aU others not mentioned who helped with the process or the paper, thank you. TABLE OF CONTENTS .. Approval ............................................................................................................................ ...u Ab&act ............................................................................................................................ lu Acknawledgments ............................................................................................................. iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................. w... List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. ix 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Watersheds and Watershed Initiatives ............................................................. 1 1.2 Research Question ........................................................................................ 2 1.3 Case Study-Brief Description... .................................................................... -3 1.4 Methods ......................................................................................................... 4 . 1.5 ûrg81112âhon. of Paper ....................................................................................4 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Social Movement Theory and the Emergence of Watershed Initiatives ............6 2.2 Smelser's Mode1 Applied ............................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Structural Strains ................................................................................ 7 2.2.1 .1 Fragmented Approach ......................................................... 8 2.2.1 .2 Exclusive Planning Process ................................................9 2.2.1.3 Distant Resource Managers ............................................. 10 2.2.2 Structural Conduciveness ................................................................... 11 2.2.2.1 Societal Capacity .............................................................. 11 2.2.2.2 Regional Govemment ....................................................... 11 2.2.2.3 Other Levels of Goverment ............................................. 12 2.2.3 System of Generalized. Seliefs ............................. ... .......*......*......*......14 2.2.3.1 Sustainability..................................................................... 14 2.2.3.2 Bioregionalism .................................................................. 16 2.2.3.3 Stewardship Movement ..................................................... 17 2.2.4 Precipitathg Events ..........................................................................