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 ...... 18 2.2.5 Mobiiization ...... 19 2.2.5.1 Govement-based Watershed Initiatives ...... 19 2.2.5-2 Comrnunity-based Watershed Initiatives ...... 20 2.2.6 Social Control Agents ...... 23 2.3 Su- Analysis of Smelser's Mode1 Applied to WIs in B.C...... 25 2.4 Background on Evaluative Frameworks for Emerging WIs ...... 25 2.5 Description of the Three Evaluative Frameworks ...... 27 2.5.1 Oregon Benchmarks and Catalytic Leadership Process ...... 27 2.5.2 Participatory Action Research ...... 28 2.5 -3 Process Mechanics Framework ...... 29 3.0 CRITERIA OF THE THREE FRAMEWORKS 3.1 Catalytic Leadership Process ...... 31 3.1.1 Definition of the koblems ...... 31 3.1.2 Ce...... 32 3.2 Participatory Action Research ...... 35 3.3 Ptacess Mechanics. Framework ...... 37 3.4 Substantive Cntena ...... 40
CASE DESClUPTION-THE C0QUlTLA.MRIVER WATERSHED PUBLIC PROCESS 4.1 Introduction ...... 41 4.1. 1 Stewardship OfNahiral Areas in CRW ...... 42 4.1.1.1 Govemment Jurisdictions...... 42 4.1 .1.2 Fragmentation of Management ...... 43 4.1.1.3 Public and Grass-roots Environmentaikm ...... 43 4.2 Description of Public Process ...... -44 Ongms...... 44 Establishing. . the Goals. Objectives and Methods ...... 45 Partiapants ...... 46 4.2.3 -1 Persorne1 ...... -46 4.2.3.2 Funders and Contributors ...... 46 4.2.3.3 Participants in the Public Meetings ...... 47 Preparation for the Public Process...... 47 4.2.4.1 Research ...... 47 4.2.4.2 Product Preparation ...... 48 4.2.4.3 Event Organization ...... 49 The Pubic Process Events ...... 50 4.2.5.1 Irfomational Maps ...... 50 4.2.5.2 October 10 Forum ...... 50 4.2.5.3 November 30 Workshop ...... 51 Finai Report ...... 53 Foliow-up ...... 53 APPLICATION OF CRlTERIA. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 5.1 Application of Criteria and Results ...... 55 5.1.1 Catalytic Leadership Process...... 55 5.1.2 Participatory Action Research ...... 57 5.1.3 Process Mechanics Evaiuation ...... 58 5.2 Discussion of Evaluation Results and Frameworks...... 60 5.2.1 Cataiytic Leadership Process ...... 60 5.2.2 Participatory Action Research ...... 60 5.2.3 Process Mechanics Evaluation ...... *..,...... ,, ...... 62 5.3 Discussion of Frameworks and Criteria...... , ...... 63 5.3.1 Ushg Three Frameworks ...... 63 5.3.2 What Aspects are Mis& by the Evaluation? ...... 64 5.3 -3 Applying the Three Frameworks to the Emergence of Other Watershed Initiatives...... 66
6.1 What are Comrnunity-based Watershed Initiatives in B.C.? ...... 68 6.2 What Constitutes A Sustainable Process in the Emergence of a WI? ...... 69 6.3 Why did the CRW Public Process Corne About? ...... 70 6.4 How did the CRW Initiative Emerge and did the Process Adhere to Sustainability Principles? ...... 72 6.5 WiI1 the Results Lead to a Watershed Initiative Similar to Others in B.C.?...... ~...~...... 73 6.5.1 Analysis of WIs Using Smelser's Mode1 ...... 74 6.5.2 Characteristics of WIs in B.C. Applied to the CRW Public Process ...... 74 6.5.3 Other Factors ...... ,.,,...... 77 6.6 What Role are WI's Playing in Moving Communities and Regiow Towards Sustainabhty?...... 78 6.7 implications for Regional Development and Planning in B.C...... 78
APPENDICES
A List of Watershed Initiatives in B .C...... 81
B . List of Products and Records fiom CRW Public Process ...... ,., ... 82 C. Case Smdy Background-Bnef History of CRW Land and Water Use ...... 83 D . Details of Evaluation Results of the CRW Public Process ...... 88 E. List of Participants of the CRW Public Process by Sector ...... 102 F. Sumrnaries of the Participant Evaluations:
O October 10 Forum ...... ~~...... 103
œ Novernber 30 Workshop ...... 105
O Display Panels ...... 107 G. Mark Angelo's Speech at CRW Workshop ...... 110 H. CRW Workshop Vision ...... 113
Personal Communication ...... ,,,, ...... 126
Watershed Initiatives ...... ,.,, .. ,,., ...... 126 Coquitlam River Watershed ...... 127
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Cnteria and Indicators of Catalytic Leadership Framework ...... 32 Table 2 Criteria and Indicaton of Participatory Action Research Framework ...... 35 Table 3 Criteria and Indicators of Process Mechanics Framework ...... 38 Table 4 Results of Cataiytic Leadership Evaluation...... 55 Table 5 Results of Participatory Action Research Evaluation ...... 57 Table 6 Results of Process Mechanics Evaluation ...... 58 Table 7 Summary of Strengths and Drawbacks of Criteria ...... 66 Table 8 Projects Initiated by the Start-up Cornmittee and Action Group (Appendix D) .. 90 Table 9 Summary of Evaiuations of Disseminateci Information (Appendix D) ...... 99
viii ACRONYMS
ARMS Alouette River Management Society BCRTEE British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Econorny CL Catalytic Leader cw Catalytic Leadership Process CORE Commission on Resources and the Environment CRW Coquitlam River Watershed DFO Deparbnent of Fishenes and Oceans FBC Fraser Basin Council (fommly Fraser Basin Management Program) FBMP Fraser Basin Management Council (now Fraser Basin Council) LEPS Langley EnWonmental Partners Society MELP Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks (same as MOE) MOE Mimstry of the Environment P.C.) NRTEE National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy OB Oregon Benchmarks OCP Ofncial Community Plan PAR Participatory Action Research PHI Partners for Human Investment SEFC Report Sustainable Options for Southeast False Creek - Report SRWRT Salmon River Watershed Round Table UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development WI Watershed Initiative WSA of B.C. Watershed Stewardship Alliance of British Columbia WCED The World Co~ssionon Environment and Dwelopment INTRODUCTION
1.1 Watersheds and Watershed Initiatives
EnWonmental degradation at locai, regional, and global levels is one of the major problems of our tirne. Many sectors, including govement, nomprofit groups, and business, as weil as individuals, are grappüng with the challenges of moving towards sustainability. Essentially, this means pianning, developing, building, and living daily life in a way that does not compromise naturai systems and respects the integrity of individuals and groups. Proponents of sustainability state that the most important change we have to make in the western world is to value and respect natural systems (Sale, 1980; Wackemagel and Rees, 1996; B.C.Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 1992). ûthers acknowledge that, wMe values can be transformed, changing ingrained habits of daily activities and entrenched bureaucratic systems is the most challenging aspect of moving towards sustainability (Roseland, 1992; Haughton and Hunter, 1994).
One appmach to moving towards sustainabiity is to reorganize social systems on the basis of geographical, as opposed to political, boundaries. In B.C. and many other parts of the world, ecosystem management by watershed makes sense because of mountainous topography. Watersheds are nested basins of land that collect and fiinne1 water to the ocean. Thus, a downpour on the B.C. Coast WUfom a rivulet of water that wili flow into a srnail unnamed tributary, which will then flow into a larger stream, then into a medium-shed river such as the Coquitlam River, which wiil drain into a primary river basin, such as the Fraser River, and fidy flow into the oceanl.
What hm been hown for a long tirne, and is now being rediscovered by govemrnental % environment managers and stewardship groups, is that physiographical and many biological funaions are ünked in watersheds by flowing water. Hydrologists can predict changes in lower watersheds by human or natural events occurring in the upper watershed. Although less intuitively obvious, upper watershed dynamics are also affécted by lower watershed impacts (Newbury, 1995). Streamkeepers, @ers and biologists show that physical disturbances in streams can affect biota both up and dowiisneam of the impact. Thuq watershed proponents make the case
1 PIease note international ciiffefences in terminology. In New Zealand and Engianci, watershed = height of land, and catchment area = basin. In North America, watershed line or watershed boimdary = height of land, whereas watershed = basin, catchment area, or drainage area that watersheds are ecoqsterns unto themselves, and that land and water use should be viewed and treated holisticaliy, if the integrity of the system is to be maintained (Newbury, 1979; Crombie, 1992; Dorcey, 1991). Ifthis approach can help to move us closer to sustainability, then it has fm-reaching implications for how we organize our social and management systerns, some of which wiil be explored in this paper.
Watershed Initiatives (Wh)are now prolifierating throughout North America and beyond. A WI often emerges when it becomes apparent that the issues of a partidar river basin are too large and complex for small groups to taclle. In playing a coordinating, educathg, and advocating role, WIs take many foms. They can be loose associations of groups, round tables, societies, councils, or, ss is ofien the case, a combination of these. Their main mandates appear to be similar: to make constituents aware of the unifying elements of watersheds and the impact on them of human use,
COconvene stakeholders to solve problems of the watershed using an ecosystem-based approach, and to support citizen-based research, restoration, and social organization of the watershed.
1.2 Research Question
With the above observations serving as a broad context, the research question is:
fitrole do emerging Watershed Initiatives play in moving communities and regions towarth sustainabifity?
Lee (1992), writing about effective social organization, emphasizes that if we do not institutionalize our values then we lose them. Watershed Initiatives could be the emerging institutionalkation of susteinabiüty (Felt and Dominy, 1995; Watershed Stewardship Alliance of B.C., 1997; Fraser Basin Council, 1997b). This theory is lent some crediiility by writers on regionalism such as Boothroyd (1991) who predict that the kind of "bottom-upy' leadership taken by people in watershed initiatives is the trajectory of regional development in Canada. Smelser's Value-added Mode1 for social movements (1963) is applied to WIs in B.C. to determine if indeed WIs are leading communities and regions on this path of social change. However, social movements in themselves are not necessarily movhg society towards sustainabiiity. Therefore, aiteria refleaing procedural principles of sustainability are applied to the emergence of one WI- the Coquitlam River Watershed in B.C.-to determine the extent to which it is emerging sustaiaably. 3 Subsidiary questions that address the research question are:
What is a Watershed Initiative and what are the main characteristics of those in B.C.? What coastitutes a sustainable process in the emergence of a Watershed Initiative? Why did the CRW Public Process occur? Did the CRW Public Process adhere to criteria for sustainable emergence of a Watershed Initiative and wili it lead to a Watershed Initiative sirnilar to others found in BE.? Cmthe mode1 used to measure the CRW Public Process be used to evaluate other emerging initiatives? 1.3 Case Study-a Brief Description
The Coquitlarn River, flowing for 30 kilometres fkom the coast mountains to the Fraser River, was once famous for its Salmon and steelhead runs. Watershed ecosystems in the past decades have faced increasing compromise fiom resource extraction and urban development. Small groups of constituents have tned in the past to change the course and pattern of development in the area and address both the deteriorathg hedth of watershed ecosystems and the threats to human health. These efforts often had mllÿmal impact due to the lack ofawareness and political wiii to accomplish these goals. In the meantirne, streamkeepen and stewardship groups have focused on ducation, information gathering, sahg streamq and advocating for protection of parks and sensitive areas. Their efforts have produced tremendous gains in tenns of public awareness of these issues and the protection and rehabilitation of specific areas, as well as building partnerships and cooperation with govemment. However, they found that as individuai groups they could not adequately address the ovemding issues of the watershed, such as loss of habitat due to urbanization, non-point poliution, and seâixnentation.
The Coquitlam River Watershed (CRW)Public Process was a project that was seen as an opportunity for groups to join together to address the needs of the watershed as a whole. The process took place fiom May 1996 to January 1997. Subsequent foliow-up to the process occurred nom February to November 1997. These eighteen months formed the buis for the Coquitlam River Watershed Initiative. The Public Process accomplished its main goal of establishg the need for and interest in a watershed initiative for the CRW.It did this by helping the watershed constituents identi@ the main issues, and establish and act on solutions that were generated in the process. 1.4 Methods Having bem concemeci about our impacts on the environment and the systems and values through which we perpetrate these impacts, 1was interested in Gnding and implementing alternatives. Taking part in streamkeeping activities, environmental advocacy, and leaming about bioregionalism had focused my interests on watershed initiatives.
Prior to the CRW Public Process, 1 conducted a fiterature review on B.C.-based watershed initiatives, social movement theory, and public process evaluation frameworks. 1 interviewai proponents of WIs in B.C. regarding aspects of WIs in theù respective regions (set iist of interviewees in References). Based on these readings, conversations, and my own experience, three tiameworks were selected and criteria chosen to assess the case study. These cnteria are applied to gain insight into the process of an emerghg WI and to determine the extent to which it complied with principles of procedural sustainabüity.
The CRW Public Process made up the "field study" of the project. As a participatory researcher, 1 took part in Uiitiating and organizing the process. Specinc methods used in the case study included extensive individual consultation with all interested parties, production of educational materials that encouraged public response, and two large, interactive public meetings. Throughout the process, evaluations were fdled out and records and proceedings kept. These materials form the basis for the application of the evaluative criteria. (See lia of material in the Appendix B.) However, subjective assessments are aiso part of the evduation.
1.5 Organization of Paper The paper is divided into six cbapters describing Watershed Initiatives, their importance in moving towards sustainabiiity, and the dynamics of the emergence of WIs through the case study of the Coquitlam River Watershed.
Chapter One has outlined the main concepts and components of the paper.
Chapter Two provides the context for the evaluation of the case study. The six elements of Smelser's social movement mode1 are used as a fiamework to desnie how social change is ocamhg in cornmunities in B.C. that are organioiig WIs. In addition, short explanations are 5 provided for the complementary evaluative frameworks, cconsisting of Process Evaluation, Pamcipatory Action Research, and Catalytic Leadership.
Chapter Three describes the critena in each of the three fiameworks listed above and used to evaluate the case study.
Chapter Four describes the case study: a short description and history of the area, and a more detailed account of the CRW Public Process and foilow-up.
Chapter Five applies critena from the three fiameworks to the case study, and provides summaiy tables and explmation of the îhree sets ofresults. This chepter also analyses the evaluation of the case study and brïefiy critiques the fhneworks and criteria as they were applied to the case study.
Chapter Six discusses the results of the evaluation of the case study, and the possibility of the CRW Public Process fohgthe basis for a WI in this area. Also discussed are the implications for regional sustainabiiity and the general role of WIs in this endeavour. 2.0 BACKGROUND
Moving fiom the current unsustainab1e systems to sustainable ones requires change at many 14s:how we perceive and use land, water, other organisms; how we organke socialiy, economicaily and politically; and wbat we do in our daily lives. Social movements such as the environmentai, civil rights, or women's movements, are vehicles of social change. Gamer's definition b~gsout the essentiai dynamics of social movements (1996): A movement is really a nurnber of people engaged in specifk practices and discourses. The discourses are about changing society and/or individuais, about bringing into being a state of &airs that is in some way different from the existing one. The discourse of a movement dways says something negative about the existing situation as it is defined by the movement. . . the practices of a movement are those actions that the aaon will bring about [to efkct] the changes considered desirable (p. 12).
Not dl social movements are leading to sustainability. Therefore it is important to identify the various elements of WIs which may constitute social change towards sustainability in communities and regions. To begin with, however, this section of the paper wiil detemine the extent to which the emergence of WIs represents a social movernent. To facilitate this, the background for evaluating the emergence of WIs is examined through the fiamework of a sociai movement model.
2.1 Socid Movement Theory and the Emergence of Watershed Initiatives
Since WIs are very recent phenornena, there is ody one, briefly articulated, theory of their dynamics. Romaine and Christiansen have geaerated "Community Readiness" critena. They provide a matrix to assess the stages at which various Ws find thernselves and show how these initiatives could proceed to the next stage in th& quest for niaainability (1997). The fhmework accounts for dynamics of social change such as initiai conflict, the spread ofnew ideas and practices, and institutionalkation of ideas and practices. However, it appears to be a prescription for social change that goes weîi beyond the point ofemergence. Thus their criteria to evaluate the early stages of WIs are too general for use in assessing specinc dynamics of emerging WIs. 7 Scope is also a problem in applying the collaboration theory (Gray, 1989). The cnteria are too broad to examine the beginning of a process adequately. The theory is more applicable to or~tionsor processes that have developed beyond the initial stages of emergence and, as such, has been used to evaluate two round table bodies based on watersheds (Grant, 1997; Lotq 1995) There are several tensions at play for proponents of social movements: the awareness and communication of the "state of affairs" that is unacceptable; the confiict between social movement advocates and those who resist the proposed changes; and the challenge of setting up policies and practices that refiect the changes desired and eventualiy institutionalizing thm (Garner, 1996; Harper, 1989). Smelser's 'Value-added theory" acknowledges these dynamics between players that ofken accompany social change. It combines several theories of social movements to outhe Si elements (Smelser, 1963).
The first three elements of Smelser's mode1 structural conduciveness, structural strains, and general beliefs, are the conditions or precurson for social change. The next two elements, precipitating events and mobilization, actudy mate or stimulate the change. And the last element, response of social control agents, either hampers or stimulates the social change in a variety of ways. Each of the six elements of Smelser's theory is bnefly descnbed below and applied to the general situation in B.C.as it pertains to regional development and Watershed Initiatives.
2.2 Smelser's Model Applied
2.2.1 Structural Strains "Structural strains" are the conditions that provide the groundwork or impetus fiom which social movements emerge. They are the problems in the system that lead to dissatisfaction or discontent and an articulation of the need for change. Three problems described below are: a fhgmented approach on the part of hstitutionsy distant resource managers, and non-inclusive pldgprocesses.
Underlying the structural strains of unsustainable systems is our system of vaiues that has traditionally placed environmentai integrity close to the bottom of priorities when conducting regiod planning, development, and management. These vaiues are underpinneci by an anthropocentric world vîew (Berman, 1993; Boucher, 1995). This is reinforced by our system of economics that externalizes the costs of environmental disturbance and damage @aly and Cobb, 1989; Hawken, 1993). While change in values is fùndamental to moving towards sustainability (Warren, 198?; Alexander, 1994), it is a cornplex topic that wiil not be addressed in detail here.
The problems faced by govemments and Uieaucracies due to past and ment dysfiinction, and their atternpts to create and implement changes are well documenteci (Dorcey, 1991; Crombie, 1992; Rodriguez and Thomson, 1993; Mcnaghten and Jawbs, 1997; Moore, 1994). Three problems are summarized here to indicate the types of problems to which stewardship groups, govemments, and Wsare readng. Ahhough problems often originate in society as a whole, our social systern has traditionally designateci govenunent as the sector responsible for the health of natural systems (Boothroyd, 1991). Therefore, the problems are portrayed from the point of view of govemment. These problems are both caused by and, in themselves, create a lack of understanding of local and regional conditions, and of naturai systems and Our impacts on them.
Two interlockhg factors contribute to aiment mismanagement of natural areas and resources: multi-jurisdictiond control of regional ecosystems, and a "bewildering amiy of agencies and departments" @orcey7 199 1) responsible for dEerent aspects of regions.
The multi-jurisdictional divisions in watershed regions have been cited as one of the major factors in environmental darnage (Romaine, 1997). It is not unusual for one smaiî river watershed to be crîss-crossed by five different jurisdictional boundaries, fiom municipal to federal, with various overlapping sections coming under the respective responsïbility of nmerous departments within each jurisdiction (McPhee et al., 1996; Romaine7 1997). Fragmentation of the landscape is exacerbated when jurisdictions are competing, in confiict, or simply not comrnunicathg with each other. These are situations that, acwrding to environmemtalists and agency representatives thernselves, are more the mie than the exception (Golds, pers. comm., 1996; Langer, pers. comn~,1996; Coulter Bois-Vert, pers. comm., 1996; Palidwor, pers. comm., 1996).
Those responsible for environmental wefî-being, mostly provincial and federal departments, fd into dserent type of fiagrnented approach to ecosystem management. Government departments divide up management ofthe province by sector, &om forestry to fisheries accordhg to their respective bureaucratie needs. The sectoral divisions pose dïfEcuities for both the agencies and the 9 public tqhg to plan land and water use and resolve problems. The major sources of fiagmeatation are cited as the lack of purpose and political WU,and the lack of tirne or the means to commudcate with one another (Rodnguez and Thomson, 1993; Rueggeberg and Dorcey, 1991). Lack of communication aadfor mutual planning is so severe in some ministries that even those in the same department on the same floor have little or no idea of what the others are doing (Nome, pers. comm., 1996; Knight, pers. comm., 1996; Farreli, pers. comm., 1996).
The impact of these types of problems is at the heart of much environmental degradation and, dong with a findamental misunderstanding of the importance of natural systems, forms the source of resistance to change. In the drive to develop th& respective jdsdictions, municipalities, regional districts and the provincial govemments have largely ignored the integrity of natural systems. The specific physical impacts are innumerable: loss of habitat, ongoing disturbance and contamination of reaiaining ecosystems (Fraser River Action Plan, 1995a; Fraser River Action Plan, 1995b; Ministry of the Environment, 1993). The main social impact of fragmentation is the interruption of feedback from nature to communities. For the most part, feedback -such as eroding bridges, blown out cuhrerts, massive flooding, and landslides-has been ignored, and few opportunities have been taken for learning about the dynamics of the natural environment. Events are attributed to other causes, structures are rebuilt or shored up, and "stronger" structures are designed (Newbury,pers. comm., 1996). Another social impact is the sense of great hstration, both in piexhg together causes and in reaching solutions, when groups or individuals attempt to follow up 6tha more detailed investigation into spdcsituations or environmentai catastrophes (Litke, pers. corn, 1997; Letay, pers. comm., 1994). The result is cynicisrn within the ranks of govenunent employees and a deep-seated mistrust of governent and of govemmeat representatives on the part of the pubüc. Efforts by govemment agencies to address these problems are covered in more detail below.
The 4cdecisional"2tradition of decision makuig in govemments still presides in many departments. This rational approach, where plamers rely on their own training and judgment and that of other
2 Linder and Peters distùlguish beîween the decisional and dislogid traditions of instihitionai design. The former refas to the use of ". ..analfical tools and formal (economic) criteria to determine the best uobjdve" choice, whiie the 1- relies more on pmcess values [disntssion] and politics as iîs criterian (1995, p, 134). pertinent experts, has XE&with increasing cxiticism nom citizens and policy critics (Laird, 1993; Tawe, 1995; Bennett, 1994). In these planning processes, interested parties are not consulted, or the interests ofsome parties are favoured over others. In addition, important Uiformation held by parties lefk out of the process is not taken into account. Although wnstituents may not necesdy disagree with actual decisionq the fact that they were not consulted, means that "rationally" planned projects are increasingiy provoking sewere backlash. This has led to project alterations and project cancellations (MacKay, 1995). At various points, whole counds of elected officiais who go aga& the wishes of the electorate, such as occurred with Richmond's development of Terra Nova lands, are voted out at election time (Langer, pers. corn., 1996).
This type of planning is also seen as an inadequate method of dealing with conaicts over resource allocation and land use (CORE,1995). Those that disagree with the solution that has corne out of non-inclusive planning process offen try to ove- or undennine the solution (Amy, 1993). Thus, citizens and groups representing various constituencies are demanding early inclusion, and equal tirne and consideration in planning processes (Wilson, 1995).
2.2.1.3 Distant Resource Ma~gers
Lee (1992) outlines the details of maladaptive information flow in large agencies that hampers effective management by centralued government bodies. Two main factors are that a) managers are cut off from feedback from natural systems, and b) managers' distant relationship to the resource means they react ineffectively. Ln the fust instance, feedback rnay be obscured by a number of factors: false analogy (ushg a different system to understand the one you' re worlcing on); inadequate or inaccurate detailed observation; mistiming of management solutions because of removed and distant managers; and too many bureaucratie hurdles to implement the solutions.
In the second instance, the relationship of a distant manager in a bureaucracy to the resource is skewed because managers are detached, tend to blame someone else for a crisis, and are prevented âom seeing the situation accurately or devising creative solutions because they feel they must adhere to the ngid ideology of their agency. An example of ideologicaiiy driven management is the fie control policy in Yellowstone National Park. Fires were suppressecl in areas that nodyexperienced fkes every other year, which eveatually created conditions for a 11 very large £ire that was beyond the Limits of both the natural systems and human capacity to control (Romme and Despain, 1989).
The proximity of managers to the resources they manage and th& de- of dependence on them are key factors in adequate stewardship. This is reinforced by Pinkerton and Weinstein (l995), who descnie effective management of local fisheries over the long terrn by villages and regions. For this rmn, local control is seen as a solution to such problems.
2.2.2 Structural Conducivencss "Structural conduciveness" refers to the opportunities for change afForded by the cment political structure, atmosphere, and technological abilities of the society in which the change is takuig place. The overail education, knowledge, and skills of people in comrnunities forms one layer of stnictural conduciveness. The other layer is the ability and inclination of govenunent to respond to problems and needs. These aspects of societal and govenimental capacity are dealt with below.
One important element of structural conduciveness in comrnunities in North Amenca comprises the many citizens who know how to hold productive meetings and how to set up organizations. ûther elements are access to technology, infiormation, and skills, as weii as mass media and individual systems of communication. Also significant is the fact that North Amencans in general have a solid standard of living and, compared to many others counties, govenunents that are not oppressive.
Regional government would be a logical site to impiement a more bioregional approach in B.C. However, regionalism in this province has been a point of contention for most of its history, as is explaineci below.
Regional districts in B.C. have tned to address the issues of unsustainability in various ways with iimited success (Boothroyd, 1991; Hodge, 1994). This may be the result of a poor historicd record of governance and a weak jurisdictional basis Born which to Uistigate regionai change. There is no comprehensive theory that underpins the various types of regionai bodies seen in B.C. The development of various types of regions has been based on a combination of povtics, pragrriatism, and histoncai development @odge, 1994).
Part of that histoncal development has been the lack of politicai jurisdiction. Some regional districts in outlying areas hz.e direct control over their regiom; however, their role is Limited to se~cedelivery (Bish, 1984). Regional districts that play a coordinathg role, such as the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), ofken have a mandate to assist and coordinate municipal planning and development of the region. However, they are squeezed politically bween municipalities dernanding seMces on one side, and provinces ensuring that regional districts do not upset municipalities, or gain too much power, on the other (Morely et al., 1983). Even with intensive plamhg such as the GVRD's Livable Regions Sirategy (1995), communication and consultation between these jurisdictions is an ongoing problem and a source of hstration and penodic conflict (Milne, pers. comm., 1997; Koop, pers. comm., 1996).
2.2.2.3 Other Lewk of Governent In Our govemment and society there are many oppominities to both criticize the current situation and move towards alternatives. CoaBict over resources, awareness of the need for change, and lack of fûnds are forcing govemments to be more open to innovative management solutions. For example, one major project, recently entered hoby the B.C. Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), is the creation of a cornputer-based atlas of the province's watersheds. This is bringing together data on fish returns and stock health, as well as doaimenthg the state of fish habitat (Rob Knight, pers. comm., 1996). Besides being a useful vehicle for collating dispersed information, the project joins these two oflen-clashhg, but cornplementary, jurïsdictions for management of a common resource.
Govemments are recogaizing the conaibutions to resource management and planning by enwonmental non-govemental organizations who provide expertise, knowledge, pronmity to resources, and tirne. Almost aii WIs in B.C. have partnerships of one kind or another with govemment agencies, and they are shariag information, using technology, and obtainiDg gants. W1th this fùndimg, some, such as Langley Enviro~mentalPartnen and Salmon River Watershed Round Table, have dweloped technologicai and scientific expertise to the point where they are taking over some agency responsibilities (Scales, pers. comm., 1997; Wallis, pers. comm., 1997). Most of our governments, wMe beset by the problems described above, are attempting to meet the challenge of becoming sustainable. Wbile not necessarily addressing or solhg the source of the problem, they are providing the bais and opening for initiatives such as WIs to develop.
For instance, programs at the provincial level that promote inter-jurisdictiod communication and cooperation to adâress Eragmentation of natural areas include the following initiatives: round tables that are discussing regional issues and consemation plans; regional planning projects such as the Commission on Resources and the Environment (CORE, 1995); Land and Resource Management Plans (Muiistry of Municipal Affairs, 1997); the GwhStrategies Act '; and the new Fish Protection Act (1 997). These govemment initiatives implementing more inclusive, cooperative planning methods have had interesting ramifications throughout the province4. On the one hand, these processes have ben accused of CO-optingscarce grassroots resources that keep the government accountable (Burrows, 1996). On the other, they have spawned a great deal of awareness regarding inclusive planning methods, which in hini has intluenced planning at ali levels (Innes, pers. comm., 1996; Nihls, pers. comm., 1996). They are also creating a growhg conthgent of citizens with civic and group skills7able to confiont issues that face most comrnunities throughout the province.
The other program that has played a large part in establishing the basis of the stewardship movement in B.C. is the Streamkeepers prognim initiated by Department of Fishenes and Oceans (DFO, 1995). Through cultivating and training groups of volunteers to rnonitor and enhance their local water courses, this program has educated and raidthe awareness of a vast number of
initiatives to integrate environmental and deveiopment cuncems are aiso eddresscd by B.C. Municipal ABairs in its Gmh Smfegies Act (1 995) which uen~utages"mimicipaüties, regions, and the province to work on plamhg for high growth areas. However, the outcomes of these attempts are often not meehexpectatim, largely due to iaertia of current government stnictures and priorities (Penrose, 19% ;Cantweir, 1995; Tamblyn, 19%; Cox, pers. wmm., 1996). niey are, however, sensitizing local governments to growth management issues and 0th- that wncem Wls. 4 The B.C. govemment has made me moves encoumghg local umîml with its latest fisheries policies, some forestry initiatives, as well as regionai conssaints with the Gruwrh Sfmtegjes Act (1995). However, it will be some time befm the rdtsin this change of management cmbe comparecl with old "centraiismn. In any case, there appears to be a lot more to this picture of local controt bides dependence on a tesource. Pinicerton and Weinstein's accounts of locally controlled resource management systems indiate that the most successfiil systems are those that are completely integrated into and supporteci by the entire culture of the area/vrllagdcommimity.Anderson (1994) states thai First Nations were aware that their spiritualizatim of nature would methat Salmon stocks wouid continue indehnitely. These practices appear to help bridge the nature/ Society discontinuity. Others have autioned thaî local control is not a panacea for environmaital problems. There are issws of accuuutability to jurisdictions beyond the local area, the exiskme of technology and arpertise tbat can supplement local observations, and the limited view of a murce sometimes fodat the hdlevel. For example, in the Lower Mainland, local governments' ever-increasing appetite for taxes is a signiti:caut fgctor fuelhg sut,ur~spniwL BioregiOnaliStS such as Aberley (1994) and Mollisoo (1988) suggest a regionai system of nested watershed jurisdictions so that derwatnsheds wofk together on a regidûasis. citizens. Although the program and lead volunteers maintain an apolitical approach to inciude as meny people as possible, when stewarded streams are threatened by pollution and development even the most diverse groups unite (Gardner, 1992). Subsequent advocacy at city hall and in the comrnunity contributes to the education and awareness of an even wider array of cïtizens.
2.2.3 System of Genedized Beliefs The "system . . . of generalizeâ beliefb" (Garaber,1996) underpins public and private discussion of the impacts of ''stmcniral strains," dissatisfaction with the status quo, and proposais for change. Widespread awareness of issues such as endangered species, loss of biodiversity, the hazards of pollution, and the benefits of recycling, are the legacy of a vibrant environmental movement (Sale, 1980; Lemer, 1992; Andruss et al., 1990). Stemming fiom these basics are more sophisticated discourses that inform the discussion of alternatives and visions. These include sustainability, bioregionalism, and the st ewardship movement .
From international to local arenas, the imperative to make changes that move us towards sustainability on a geographical, temporal, and even spintual level is accepted and lauded. Non- profit groups, governent and businesses are embracing the rhetoric of sustainability in declarations, pacts, acts, mission statements, vision statements, policies, and programs (UNCED, 1992; Government of Canada, 1995; CORE, 1994; City of Coquitlam, ad.). However, beyond the ofi-quoted Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development (1987)' there is no single accepted definition of sustainability. Proponents oaen resort to an elucidation of basic principles. For the purposes of this paper, these principles wili be divided into substantive and procedural issues.
The substantive issues focus on concrete aspects of sustainabiiity: for instance, our efforts to prosper without reducing the ability of ecosystems to sustain themselves and us. These tend to be divided into three areas and, within each broad category, are tasks to move us towards sustainability. Environrnentally we must allow ecosystems to hction witbin their canying capacity and not diniinish them with excess extraction, burden them with waste, or otherwise
* "Sustainable âevelopment is &vclopmcnt *ch mcets the acrd. of îhe present without mmpmmhkg the ability of fùture generaîions to meet their own needsn (WCED, 1987, p. 43)- tS interfere with their functioning. Economicaily we must ensure everyone's basic needs are met, promote long-term economic development that increases benefits to humans without compromising environmental systems, and aim for a fair distribution of benefits and costs in resource use and development. Our social and politicai systems must evolve pro-active, participatory structures that promote values of sustainability through information and education, and sustainable activities such as long-tenn planning (adapted fkom National Round Table on Environment and the Economy: B .C.Local Round Tables, 1994; Georgia Basin Initiative, 1993; Fraser Basin Council, 1997).
Procedural issues focus on how we go about sWgftom unsustainable to sustainable living patterns. Proponents of sustainability emphasize tbt extensive, long term, and deep-seated changes are likely to be made through democratic means (Kline, 1997). This includes evaluating planning and decision-making procedures to establish whether they have been fair, inclusive, and egalitarian. The emphasis on planning and development is to ensure that processes are "bottom- up" or at least involve a combination of grass-roots and government, as opposed to purely government-organized or "top-dom." Methods to accomplish this include round tables, consensus decision-making, and decentrabation of political and bureaumatic systems. Since there is no dtimate "goal" of sustainability?Michael(1995) States it is a matter of "learnhg how to keep on l&g since the questions keep changing." It is assumed that these methods will ensure that communities and groups will be able to continue learning in order to be able to make sustainable choices in the long terni (Holliog, 1995; Parson and Clark, 1995).
Procedural sustainability was the justification for establishing the Commission on Resources and the Environment in B.C.: "The creation of CORE is indicative of a sisnificant methodological shift in public land planning being undertaken in the province. The underlying hypothesis maintains that reforming the decision-makiag process wili subsequently improve the resulting substantive decisions" (Wilson, 1995). CORE, and those that analyzed this process, laid the bais for procedural sustainability as it is used in muiti-stakeholder processes, now copied around the world (Dorcey, 1998). Bioregionalism is an international movement that takes the principles of sustainability and envisions how they could be implemented in communities and regions. There is also a large contingent of bioregionalists attempting to put these p~ciplesinto action (Martin, 1996). From the early 19709, bioregionalism has evolved (and continues to evolve) fkom papers, newsletters, bi-yearly international congresses, and bioregional groups around the world (Aberley, n.d.). In presenting a vivid and comprehensive vision for sustairiable living, bioregionalism contrasts itself explicitly with how regional development ha9 taken place. Four threads of bioregional thought illustrate bis:
1. Instead of purely politically determineci boundaries, bioregionalists start with the deüneation of the bioregion. This is an area that has geopphical or cultural contiguity, or both, as defined by the people that live withhi it (for example, often, but not always, watersheds) (Alexander, 1990). 2. Rather than basing land use on purely economic retums, bioregionalists propose an ethic of "living-in-place" where inhabitants ofa bioregion commit to staying in a region, making their livelihood and developing their region by respecting the ecological limits and utikgthe resources of their bioregion sustainably. The economy is thus based on self-reliance, the physical canying capacity of respective bioregions, and the human value of cooperative living. This will involve "reinhabitation," a bioregional term meaning "leaniing to live-in-place in an area that has been disrupted and injured through past exploitation" (Aberley, rd., 10). 3. Bioregiomtiists claim that in order to have a sustainable region, the people of the region rnust be in direct control of aii aspects of the region. A federation of bioregions in large areas would allow issues that cross boundaries or affect other bioregions to be dealt with (Moliison, 1988). This mode1 of decentralization is contrary to our current centralized and representationd governance system where responsibilities for diffLrent aspects of regions are split up between them. The bioregional vision irnplies that constituents will have more local controi, but aiso more responsibüity in the governance of their region (Aberley, 1990). 4. Current versions of sustainabüity often separate social and environmental issues, placing much more emphasis on the latter. Science and scientific endeavours are generaliy more valued than, and often treateâ as subject areas that are completely separate fiom, the social aspects of our society. For this reason, many fuid it dficult to see the importance of social aspests of sustainability or imagine the integration of ail three aspects of sustairirihility-economic, social, and environmental. Bioregionalists, however, declare that sustainability cannot be achieved without social equity and the development of e culture that respects human difference. A society that does not implement these values whiie remainllig sensitive io and embracing environmental rhythm wiii not be sustainable. For cogent examples, bioregionalists point to locdy controlled resources whose systems are part of the culture such as those in aboiiginal societies (Aberley, n.d.).
Bioregionaüsm is sometimes seen as utopian or too idealistic because many interpret bioregionalism to mean strict regional seif-SUfEiciency (Cholette, et al., 1996). Several other cnticisms are noted such as the fiiainess of the term "bi~region'~(Alexander, 1990), and the deterministic and possibly authontarian approach needed to implement the concept of "inhabitation" (McTaggart, 1993). In spite of these criticisms, many environrnentalists and others practise bioregionai edicts, such as buy localiy, participate in iocal issues, get to know and restore natural systems in areas close to home, and use the watershed as a bioregional delineation to raise awareness and change behaviour. While proponents of WIs may not refer to bioregionalism explicitly, the bioregional principle of encouraging socidly jua systems within ecological limits at the regional level articulates much of the comrnunity-based WI agenda (Aberley, 1993).
2.2.3.3 The Steww&Ship Movement The stewardship movement is a grass roots response to environmental damage and the problems witnessed and expenenced in communities and regions. It is also the practicai and organizational basis fiom which WIs sp~g.Gardner and others have documented the types of activities and their sources, noting that irnpetus for action is ofien baseci on proximity of a problem, the ability to solve it, and the systems in place that aliow people to join the movement (1992). It is different fiom the environmentai movement because it is focused on restoration and enhancement adVities that are more "apoliticai." Stewardship organizations take the form of streamkeepers groups starteci by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They also include advocacy, restoration, and nahiralist groups that focus on environmentaliy sensitive and threatened areas and recreationally important areas. Groups will typicaily spring up when there is an overt threat such as development on, or a spili into, a Stream or other sensitive area near them Gardner notes that these groups have advanceà in sophistication both in ternis of their kuowledge of these areas and their use of tdssuch as GIS mapping and monitoring techniques that they use to represent this knowledge (1992). Many are now providing local and regional governments with accunite and important information.
"Precipitating events" are those that propel people to take action within the context of a social movement. The two types of events that have galvmized people in the environmental movement are environmental impacts such as poliution or loss of habitat, and socio-political events such as govemmental land use plans. Until recently there have been no particularly cataclysmic events that have motivated citizens to fonn or join WIs en masse, such as in the early civil rights or peace movements. The events that should be motivating this kind of action, such as holes in the ozone layer, evidence of global warming, and growing threats to naturd systems, do not afkct enough people in North Amenca directly. While knowledge of these phenornena motivate many to join groups and take action, our ability to insulate ourselves âom the degradation of natural systerns rnakes concerted social action seem remote.
However, there are "flash points" within each comrnunity and region that provide the impetus, rationale, and energy for people to conduct social change at a local level. Citizen response to these flash points has taken two different paths. The first has been confiïct, as with resource allocation and land use planning in B.C. in the 1980s and early 1%)Os. Some maintain that govemment-irnplemented multi-stakeholder processes to cope with this conflict was beneficial for all concemeci (CORE, 1995). Others maintain that the govemmental processes did not solve the problems, but only managed to divert the energies of activists who were in the process of instigathg real change in the province (Burrows, 1996).
The other approach to flash points in specific areas is to move directly into alternative strategies. This is certainiy the case with the declinhg fisheries of B.C ., where a comrnunity fishenes movement appears to be under way (Vodden, pers. comm., 1997). WIs are taking a simila. approach. Various regional problems have spawned WIs, such as: the threat of closure of the sheii fisheries in Baynes Sound (Pinho, pers. comm., 1998); a climax of dissatisfaction with management, such as when B.C. Hydro held back water in Alouetîe River (Clayton, pers. CO-, 1996); or, a planning process that brings out simmering concerns, such as the Howe Sound Round Table (Los 1995). Even in watersheds or jurisdictîons that are facing tremendous 19 degradation of natural areas due to ill-advised resource use or poliution, there is often the need for one person or small group to galvanize the local population to voice their concerns and take action to address the problems. This aspect of social movements, mobilization, is dealt with below.
"'Mobiiization" consists of leadership and comrnwücetion through which movements gain momentum. In tbis respect, mobilization th&m examine the combination of"bottom-up" dynarnics and leadership that contribute to movements (Garner, 1996). WIs serve a primary role in organizing communities who wish to address regional issues of sustainability. The foliowing section describes WIs in two sub-sections. The first provides an overview ofgovernment-based WIs and the second provides some detaii as to the common characteristics of community-based WIs in B.C.
The watershed approach is being implemented around the world. In New Zealand and California, governments have gone so far as to change administrative jurisdictions to watershed boundarïes (Gow, 1990). Throughout the United States, there are a plethora of watershed groups consisting of both govemment- and citizen-based initiatives that seem to focus closely on management of water resources (Habernian and Knishas, 1995). Large amounts of government resources are being devoted to watersheds. For example, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) in Washington is an ambitious program spearheaded by Washington State zovement to restore the water quality of Puget Sound (PSWQA, 1990, 1993).
Across Canada, there are fewer watershed initiatives but they have older roots. For example, the Conservation Authorities that began in the 1940s in Ontario were based on watersheds and played an effective role. Their mandates to manage the environment have since been reduced in the wake of goverment cutbacks and changing priorities (Alexander, pers. corn., 1998). ûther provinces are organizing WIs. Dauphin Lake Advisory Board, in Manitoba, is implementing an extensive management plan (1994), and the Atlantic Salmon Foundation is assisting comrnunities to organize on a watershed scale for inland recreationai fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador (Felt and Dominy, 1995). 20
In B.C.,govemment agencies such as B.C. Hydro, the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of the Environment have convened watershed-based groups to deal with water use and land use poblems (Ministry of the Enwonment, 1996). While these agencies try to include and work with ali stakeholder groups, including citizens and community groupq their effotts are focused on one mdti-stakeholder process to resolve specific water and land use issues. These are different fkom the cornmunity-based initiatives that are led by citizens with govemment and other secton as partners.
Community-based watershed initiatives are multiplying in B.C. (ses list of initiatives in Appendix A). The structure and fùnction of comrnunity-based watershed initiatives varies considerably depending on the area in which they are situated. However, there are many broad similarities. Initiatives tend to concentrate on environmental issues, addressing water quaiity, quantity, and watershed habitat issues. They coordinate groups, or nin their own projects of restoration, enhancement, monitoring, research, problem-solving, contlict resolution, advocacy, education, and planning. Some have a very focused mandate to preserve and &tain specific ecological features of a watershed, mch as the Alouette River Management Society (ARMS), which is concentrating on using additional river flow to enhance river habitat. Others, such as the Salmon River Watersheû Round Table (1997) and Howe Sound Round Table (Lotz, 1995), have a wide mandate to realize sustainability in di sectors of the watershed.
To fÙEll these mandates, comrnunity-based initiatives in B.C. use a range of structures. These include traditional societies and boards (Comox Vailey Project Watershed ), non-traditional round table structures (Salmon River Watershed Round Table, Nicola Watershed Community Roundtable), or a cornbition of society and council (Alouette River Management Society). Often there will be several groups within the WI carrying out Merent but complementary hnctions. For instance, in Comox Valley, there is the Watershed Assembly that is a problem- solving entity, and Project Watershed, a society that implernents stewardship projects throughout the vailey. In addition, there are also many other kinds of institutions and govemment departments that are afnliated with, and lend support to, WIs once they are under way. 21 Many WIs origjnated as round tables but it is important to make a distinction between these organizatiod fonns. Round tables, ;kitiated in B.C. in 1987, were supporteci by both national and provincial governments and designed to give locai wmmunities and the general public "increased opporiunities to participate in economic and environmenta! decision-malang processes that affect their iives" (B.C.Task Force, 1989, p. 17). As multi-stakeholder entities, round tables have a particular mandate to address land and resourcc issues and develop local conservation stretegies (NRTEE, 1994). However, they are not always based on watershed boundaries, and do not work towards creating and irnplementing watershed stewardship plans.
Both round tables and WIs are interested in ushg consensus-based decision-mahg and ensuring adequate representation. However, round tables, partly by behg govemment sponsored, have a more formai mandate to fulnll these criteria (MTEE, 1994). WIs tend to be more pragrnatic when deciding the best form of decision making to use. Whereas round tables generaily have one group that meets, WIS as noted above, are often multifaceted, comprishg different cornminees and groups serving diierent roles in the watershed.
A survey of the limited literature on specific WIs and knowledge of respective activities and efforts reveals that WIs are endeavoring to implement the following five broad p~ciples: watershed approach; ecosystem-based planning; process integritr, a practical approach and capacity building; and local control. Described in more detail below, these principles are a reaction to the structural strains describeci above, and the need to create sustainable alternatives. a) Wutershed Apprwch Watershed initiatives base ail their measuring, managing, and planning on watershed areas defïned by natural geographic boundaries. In trying to address the source of the problems arising in natural sy stems in their respective watersheds, initiatives usually start by establishing the watershed boundary and mappirig the various natwal areas, land uses, and juisdictions (SRWRT, 1996; Chamberlain, pers. corn., 1996; Litke, 1997). Such research allows constituents to see how natural system have been arrested or degraded and to establish the kinds of restoration and management required for rehabilitating them or maint aining their integrhy. b) Ecosystem-based Plmming In their attempt to understand and restore entire watersheds as fùnctioning, healthy systems, those working in WIs naturaiiy look at watersheds as a whole. Most also understand the basic ecological premise that all natural processes are linked. This cirives multi-faceted research, mapping, and education carrieci out by non-profit groups attached to watershed initiatives (Chamberlain, pers. comm., 1996; Wallis, pers. comm., 1997). In an effort to enwe that all parts of issues are aired and understood, processes in community-basecl WIs tend to include all sectors and affecteci parties. Although this relationship is in the process of being defined (CantweII, 1995), WIs are encouraging governent agencies to use WI processes as a "site" for Linking disparate but related govemment departments with each other and with key stakeholden in respective regions (Argent, pers. comm., 1996). c) Process Integngnty DWerent WIs have created various types of structures to encourage inclusion and a comprehensive approach to problem-solving. The following examples illustrate the variety of approaches being used: the ARMS society and coucil structure, where groups take th& issues to the society, who then present them to the council (ARMS Newsletter, 1996); the Watershed Assembly of the Comox Valley Watershed Initiative (Sandiford, 1998); and the Round Table format used by SRWRT for yearly strategic planning meetings (Argent, pers. comm., 1996).
WI's recognke that, apart from the moral imperative of good process, inclusion of d parties in planning instills ownership of planning resolutions and cornmitment to the effort to b~gabout the weli-behg of watershed ecosystems. These inclusive, cooperative processes also lay the groundwork for conflict remlution when interests clash (Carter, 1994). WIs are chdenged by lack of resources, particularly those needed to include harder-to-reach sectors, and by the lack of fiterature dealing with intricacies of inclusion, equity, and cooperative decisionmaking that refer to the particular situations of WIs. They also face resistance and challenges fiom interests that use the open process to their own advantage (Pînkerton and Weinstein, 1995; Be~ett,1994). d) Practiical Apprmch rmd Cqcity BuWg Many WIs take on the role of raising awareness of the moral aspects of stewardship and the necessity of people taking respoasibility for the amthey üve in. This in tum translates into more civic 0rga.gand activity, and builds up civic SUS,knowledge, and relationships between 23 previously non-communicating secton in respective watersheds. It also means that resources that the government agencies can not afEord are mustered for ongohg ecosystem observation as weU as for plhgand implementing the resulting stewardship initiatives {Scales, pers. comm., 1996). Since these are usuaüy inclusive processes, they are open to Merent kinds of knowledge possessed by watershed constituents. This contributes to a more holistic view of the watershed and its management to which govemment managers have tended to be ideologically closed (Clayoquot Sound ScientSc Panel, 1994). With this basis, WIs arrange the means by which people in local areas can organize, cornmunicate, and problem-solve, witli the expectation that the effort will pay off in healthier ecosystems. e) LocalConrrol To enhance local control, WIs eventuaily move to participatory watershed planning and put together a management plan or agreement. This allows the community to establish a proactive response to development as opposed to a reactive one. In this way, more developed WIs are also moving into comprehensive regional planning, inwrporating social and economic needs into plans for ecosystem management of comrnunities and regions (Hilliar, pers. comm., 1996).
It is important to note that WIs are bodies without legal jurisdiction and the results of planning processes are advisory, dess politicians make objectives part of their own mandate. Therefore, the abiiity of Wls to influence regional planning iies in ensuring the involvement of local politicims and bure8ucratsYbut also in involving as many watershed constituents as possible. Given this situation., education, discu-,sionand handssn action-the purview of stewardship groups-is the source of WIs' iduence at this the.
2.2.6 Socid Control Agenb The last element of Smelser's mode1 is the response of "social control agents." This consists of those in power who ostensibly have the ability to CO-optthe movement, repress it, or address the source of the issues. The efforts of the "social control agents" may have the effect of achial repression, or they may have the opposite effect of galvanizing or fomenting Weraction in the movement. Smelser assumes the social control agent is govemment, but in B.C. there are many other interests and groups that are able to exert control and infiuence, industries and large companies being generally considered the most inmiential. Govements have had various responses to WIs. The stewardship movement has received a great deal of support not only because of its accomplishments, but also because it is seen as qmlitical. WIs are also tryhg to maintain a "non-partisan" approach (MacDonald, pers. comm., 1997). Many in goverment see the usefulness of WIs and have tentatively supported them through in- kind expertise, equipment, materials, and some funding. However, long tenn buy-in is less forthcorning, as noted by Cantwell in bis analysis of government's participation in the SRWRT (1996). The reasons for this may be lack of thne to take part, lack of incentive to modify mandates, and lack of political will if particular WIs are seen as a thnat to the locai, regionai, or provincial jurisdictions (EIüiiar, pers. comm., 1996).
Businesses have also had a varied response to WIs. Some have endorsed and participated wholeheartedly, a9 with the Salmon Amfannllg community in the Salmon River Watershed. mers, who feel more threatened by activities and outcornes of WIs, have used a number of approaches: they have ignored proceedings, infiuenced elected representatives to take action against WI proponents, or used threatening tactics to intimidate WI participants (Clayton, pers. comm., 1996; Dmytronetz, pers. comm., 1997).
The approach that WI proponents tend to advocate is to work with all constituents by educating everyone with regards to the issues, and attempting to engage less enthusiastic watershed constituents in discussion. The other approach effectively used in Salmon River Watershed, Salmon Am, and hgley is to conduct successful demonstration projests and enhancement projects to win over watershed constituents (Argent, pers. comm., 1996; Scales, pers. comm., 1996). However, proponents of WIs are also not averse to using advocacy techniques to obtain goals and secure the health of watersheds (Cadieux, pers. comrn., 1996).
For water issues that create confiict in communities, Comox Vaiiey Watershed Assembly has devised a structure for attempting to resolve these issues. The assembly sets up focus groups on contentious issues compriseci of alî the stakeholderq and faciltates the focus group over a period of the until they have reached a solution or an impasse. The assembly has had success with this approach in addressing issues aich as seal predation, the proliferation of Purple Loosesaife, and a flooded fami caused by upstream development (Hiiiiar, pers. comm., 1997; Pinho, pers. corn., 1998). 25 2.3 Summary Analysis of Smelser's Model Applied to WIs in B.C. Accordnig to Smelser's Model, ernerging WIs in B.C. appear to exhibit the main feahues of a social movement. The three elements laying the groundwork for a social movement, structural strains, structural conduciveness, and general beliefs, are present. Resource extraction and urban development, historically the bais ofdevelopment in B.C, have had impacts on natural and social systems and continue to create problerns and conflict in communities and regions. The structure and values of the govemmental system in B.C. has contributeci to the problems, and the attempts to manage the problems rweal the structurai strhin the system. Recognition of these strains by the pubiic serves as the basis for criticism but also for alternative solutions. Mass media, telephone, and e-mail, as wel as networking and conferences of groups and sectors, provides the means and venues for a generai "conversation" in the province regarding the problems and their sources and solutions. This system of communication also provides, for those interested in change, access to the key ideas, such as sustainabiliîy and information about on-the-ground initiatives. It appears that although specific events are not the "galvanizing point" for WIs, the basis of stewardship groups and awareness is important. Because precipitating events are not providing the "spark" to action, WIs seem to be dependent on leaders or catalysts to bring communities together aromd contentious issues. There are some cases where social control agents actively resist changes that WIs try to implement (Clayton, pers. cornm., 1996). In general, however, "social control agents" are either supportive or inwerent. Abstaining £iom participation is often an adequate signal of resistance, since WIs are usually trying to bnng al1 parties of the watershed together.
The element of mobhtion of a social movement focuses attention on the relationship between the leaders or catalysts and the participants, and on the process in which they are engaged. The mobiiization stage of WIs in B.C. wilî be examitled in more detail to determine if WIs are emerging in a sustainable fashon.
2.4 Background on Evaluative Frameworks for Emerging WIs
The imbalance of power implicit in the relatiomhip between leaders and participants rnakes it important to evaluate whether principles of procedural sustaimbüity are being observed in public processes. Issues such as co-optation of leaders, misguideâ objectives, or over-reliance on one person or small group must be addressed. Several have recognized this danger in B.C. in instances where grassroots leaders touk part in multi-stakeholder processes (Kofinas and Griggs, 1995; Srnailes, 1995; Burrows 1996). In addition, the ongin of the leaders and their moiivation must be questioned, a need underhed by the prominent role played in some B.C. cornmunities by the Forest Alliance.
Wt-iters on social change such as Freire (1970) and Friedmann (1987) base their theories on this tension between leaders and participants. The nature of leadership and howledge is carefuily delineated in both theories. Freke's system of popular education uses a "train the trainers" mode1 to avoid the dynamic of CO-optationof the movement by leaders. The main premise of these writers is that social movements will be effective only ifthey are "bottom-up," that is, led by participants as opposed to outside leaders. With a slightly diEerent emphasis, Friedmann's typology of planners illustrates that the "radical plannef' must remain close to, but not 4 the movement of change.
There is no single fiarnework of criteria to evaluate the emergence of a WI to determine if the process followed sustainable principles, including the extent to which the process was "bottom- up," and the role that catalysts playeà. Thus, three fiameworks that address these areas in more detail have been chosen.
Two of these offer insights concerning the respective roles of leaders and participants in WI processes. Participatory Action Research, expounded by social researchers such as Ba01 (1979) and Freire will be used as a fiamework that best evaluates the extent to which a process is "bottom up" or controlkd by participants. The Catalytic Leadership fiamework used by Oregon Benchmarks provides a means of assessing to what extent the process was led by a dedicated, if loosely associated, group of people. This type of leadership is partly characterized as empowering stakeholders to take responsibiiity for their actions and to motivate them to work towards community and societd gods (PHI, p. 19).
Neither of the above two fnimeworks adequately evaluate whether the process of emergence of the WI was conducted according to procedural principles of sustainaôility. Thus, criteria are drawn f3om the literature of sustainable processes and from process evaluation to fonn a third fiamework of Process Mechanics. Processes that adhere to these criteria are considered valid in their own right. In addition, the fact that they were conducted sustainably has been used to 27 indicate that the results in the short and long term will be sustainable (BCTREE, 1994; Wilson, 1995).
These three fkameworks are considered complementary evaluations, and results should supplement rather than negate each other, to provide a more complete view of emerging Wis. Thuq the goals of applying the three âarneworks of criteria to the case study are to: a) gain hsight into the emergence of watershed initiatives and b) determine to what extent a given WI is emerging in a sustainable way. The outcornes may provide some indication as to the role of WIs in moving towards regionai and community sustalliability.
The substantive criteria are long term and measure concrete movement towards sustainability. The outcornes-such as a ~e~sustainingsalmon population in the river and integrated and participatory management of the watershed-will occur too fm in the fùture to measwe at this point. However, suggestions for categoties and criteria will be made for long tenn evaluation.
2.5 Description of the Three Evaluative Frameworks
In the foliowing section, the ongins of each fiamework are bnefly outlined. Chapter 3 describes the criteria and indicators and targets for achievement of the critena.
2.5.1 Oregon Benchmarks and Cataiytic Leadership Procas
Oregon Benchmarks (OB) is a planning strategy that began in 1989, in the state of Oregon, USA. The main goal was to provide a means for citizens and govemment in the state to focus on fûture vision and goals, and to bave a concrete way of working towards these. Benchmarks are "meamrable indicators of progress." Through a large public process, "progress" was dehed as three main objectives: quality jobs for dl Oregonians; de, caring and engaged cornmunities; and heaithy, sustainable surroundings. Various community groups, departments, ad hoc groups of citizens, and corporations have entered into the next stage of the process. After they familiarize themselves with the values, vision, and objectives laid out for each goal, they undertake actions to move towards the benchmarks set for 2010 (Oregon Progress Board, 1994).
Partners for Human Investment (Pm)has published a handbook to "prepare and support Oregon's citizens in their pursuit of a more iivable Oregon" (Pm 1993, p. 7). Leadership in this context is seen not as the calhg ofa few charismatic individuals, but as a widespread social phenornenon where "ordinary people" inspire each other to achieve "extraordinary results" PHI, 1993, p. 13). This type of leadership conforms more to Osborne's ide. of reinventhg govemment by "steering" rather than driving (1993). Catalytic leadership can be taken on by one or several individuals of a business, community group, school, or department that decides to enter into the Oregon Benchmark process.
The Oregon Catalytic Leadership Process is more like a "how-to" guide than a set of criteria. However, it is an excellent fiamework for community animation that articulates steps to mobie groups to achieve the Benchrnarks. The Oregon Benchmarks is a more focused process than that of WIs. For this reason the Catalytic Leadership Process (CLP)steps have been slightly altered to provide more accurate criteria by which to evaluate the emerging WIs. The sii steps will be describeci and critiqued briefly and their application to the emerging WIs explained in Chapter 3.
2.5.2 Participatoy Action Research PAR is a research method originating from acadernics participating in development projects in southern counties (Falls-Borda and Brahman, 1991). PAR aims to protezt people fkom being exploited by academic research and from well-meanllig, but top-down, development projects. In the north it is pradsed by commUNty health researchers, and increasingiy by other social science disciphes (Ralph, 1988; Gottneâ, 1996). The developen of PAR intended it to be used as a method of social change. 'With the goal of persona1 and social transformation, PAR works towards the liberation of oppressed people. Through the development of criticai consciousness, groups collectively examine theù reality in order to change uajust social, economic, and decision- makhg structures'' (Smith, Pyrch, and Lidi1991). PAR has a strong contingent of practitioners and writers that uphold its principles, and those projects that attempt to c'co-opt'' the method without the underlying purpose are subject to criticism (Raiph, 1988).
Through its methods PAR redresses what proponents consider unfair access to means of producing and applying knowledge. The "objective" researcher coming in f?om the outside to conduct "studies" on a group of people, resulting in material for academic consumption but not necessarily benefiting the "subjects," is viewed as reinforcing the begemonic division of power in society. Thuq PAR clearly defines the role of researcher as a 4'co-researcher and leamer," seeking to even out the imbalance ofsubject-object relationships of research (Brahman, 1993). 29 PAR achieves this by stipulating that the people who are in need ofknowledge must also be in control of its production. Its main criteria are that the subjects of the research set the goals, conduct the methods, and interpret and maintain control over the results. The role of an outside researcher in this scenario is to provide access to research and interpretive methods @ailey, 1992).
There a number of variations of the strict PAR mahod. For instance, although accepted PAR projects are those that originate with subject groups, initiation of projects by outside researchers occurs and is "permitted," depending on the method and the outcome. Also, the cboppression"of the subject group is relative to the circumstances. Most of the citizens in B .C. cm in no way be considered oppressed as compared to, for instance, landless peesants in India. However, the fact that citizens in watersheds have major problems with public goods being threatened and want to address problems of their own unsustainable practices, qualifies them as appropriate nibject groups. PAR recognizes relative power dynamics particularly as they undermine healthy communities. A people-centred development mode1 "cds for active mutual sechelp among people, working together in their common stmggle to deal with comrnon problems." It seeks to broaden political participation, building fiom a base of strong people's organizations and participatory locai govenunent (Inter-Regional Consultation on People's Participation in Environmentally Sustainable Development, 1989:2 1 8, quoted in Smith and Pyrch, 1991).
Thus PAR is an excellent heworkto assess whether the emergence of a WI is tdy "bottom up." The critena offered below are arnalgamated tiom Phillips and Sewell(1979) and Bailey (1992). The former authors provide the gencral category criteria for the process. The latter author provides steps that processes should foîlow if they want to be considered PAR.
2.5.3 Process Mechanics Framework
This ffamework is adapted fkom Wdson's original formulation of evaluation criteria for CORE planning processes (1995) and other process evaluations. The CORZ process attempted to follow principles of multi-stakeholder consensus-based planning and conflict resolution. The main niteria are inclusion ofall relevant stakeholders, equal access to resources and information, and equal consideration of each party at the table. Wüson's criteria pertain to a more structureci negotiation proïsss, with designated participants that sit at a table and adhere to ternis of reference. Thedore, these criteriena have been adapted for processes that take place in a broad watershed- based context.
Additional aitena are wmpiled fiom the literature on public process evaiuation (Canadian Standards Assn., 1996; MacLaren, 1994; Environment Canada, 1994; Meeres et al., 1995; Stunlebeam, 1994; Syme and Sadler, 1994). The literature stresses that public processes must ensure that a wide range of participants take part; that they understand the scope and limits of the kind of information, opinions, and decisions they are being asked to contribute; thai they are able to address the issues adequately while feeling they have been heard; and that they are treated fairly in the process. 31 3.0 CRITERIA OF THE THREE FRAMEWORKS The fonowing chapter provides a brief explmation of the criten'a of the three evaluative fkameworks: Catalytic Leadership Process Participatory Action Rcsearch Process Mechanics Evaluation In each section, a table outlines the criteria and indicators used to establish the extent to which the criteria have been achieved, and short explanations follow each table.
3.1 Catalytic Leadership Process
The Catalytic Leadership Process (CLP)is a series of tasks that Partners for Human Investment (PHI) lays out for catalytic leaders (CLs) attempting to implement sustainable changes with groups in the community. This "how-to" Bamework is designed to increase their groups' chances of successfiilly implementhg actions to meet the targets for Oregon Benchmarks. The section below describes PHI'S suggestions for viewing and tacküng different lwels of problems, explains how the CL negotiates the problerns using the criteria and tools, and describes how the cntena are adapted to emerging WIs.
3.1.1 Definition of the Problems
PHI starts off with a simple typology of problems usually confkonted by groups. They recognize that diffèrent levels of problems, which they cail "faces," require difrent approaches. Face 1 is where there is a clear problem and an obvious solution. Motivation is all that is required to implement the solution. Face 2 is where there is a clear problem, but an unclear solution. The unclear solution is often due to stakeholders wanting to implement different solutions. In this case, the challenge of Catalytic Leaders is to achieve group alignrnent to an agreed-upon solution. Face 3 is where there is an unclear problem and unclear solutions. To agree upon the problem and then reach a solution requires that Catalytic Leaders lead groups through major problem definition, an assessrnent of values, and alignment. 3.1.2 Criteria
Table 1. Criteria and Indicaton of the Cataiytic Luderabip Framework
------Criteria hdicators a) Understand type of process being usai - researcher and advisors understand the and its various components concepts of community-based watershed initiatives, and principles of participatory public process, and have dcient background on the comrnunity b) Focus attention of participants on a clear - use of questions to focus attention on question clear goals for the process and wents - question is narrow enough to be answered, but wide enough to invite a vari- of responses c) Identify and involve the stakeholders and - ail interested parties in the watershed are knowledge-holders explicitly invited to be part of the process - a variety of people with dBerent types of knowle&e are consulted d) Elicit ownership on the part of Stakeholders understand that: stakeholders - they have an important stake in the issue at hand - they will be affected by the outcornes whether they participate or not - their contribution WUhave an influence over the outcome of the issue e) Engage stakeholders in learning, - mmestaken to achieve the criterion Uwenting, alignhg, and implementing solutions 9 Sustain stakeholders in the process and - follow-up mesures taken to achieve the manage the interconnections criterion a) Unrierstumi Oregon Benchmmks and Ctatafytic Leaalership concepts. This is the "'training and planning step to enable cornmineci leadership communities to lead" (PHI, 1993, p. 25). The leaders must become farniliar with the benchmarks, performance systems, and underlying catalytic leadership principles. The subject matter is changed in the table above to reflect the knowledge needed to conduct public processes for watershed initiatives. b) Focics attention on a clem question. PHI casthis the "ieadership prerogative" of catalytic teams and describes the implications of focushg the question namwly or widely. Their observation is that the fhming of the question determines the length of time required for the 33 cataiytic leaders to maintain involvement in the process; the wider the question, the longer the thne. This step does not address the qdtyof the question (clarity and succinctrress for example), nor does it recognize that it may be possible to pose a wide question and then set out subsidiary questions to break domthe process into smaller, more manageable steps.
This step begins to get to the heart of the leadership and public process dilemma If a process is to be community-le& how do the researchers/c~~ordllistors/leadersfocus the question without cutting off important input and perspectives? On the other hand, if the question is not posed or is posed too widely, how do CLs focus the discussion when speaking to individuals and organinng constructive public events? c) Idennfy and involve the siakehofcliersad howledge-Molrs. This step is an acknowledged irnperative for all inclusive processes (Wilson, 1995). The distinction between stakeholders and knowledge-holders is not explained by PHI, aithough one can presume that knowledge-holders are those people with information about the area or issue, who do not necessarily have a stake in the area (such as academics, experts, media representatives).
The PHI make two points with regard to this step: the stakeholder list should include all "traditional power bases" including under-represented groups in governrnental decisions; and this Lia should be a "living document" as people and groups join the process. The way in which stakeholders are involved is characterized accordmg to the "face" of the problem being tackled: Face 1 stakeholders are valued for what they can do; Face 2 for who they know; and Face 3 for what they know. This seems somewhat simplistic as it is likely that stakeholders contribute to all three faces, sometirnes simultaneously. It does, however, bring out the point that different stakeholders will ofien have difFerent roles. d) Eficit mership on the part of the sfakehofrters.This step recognizes '?he simple axiom that all solutions, regardless of who creates them, depend upon the stakeholders to irnplement and sustain hem" (PHI, p. 3 1). The description stipulates that leaders must convince stakeholders of three things: a) that they have an important stake in the issue at hand; b) that they will be afEected by the outwmes whether they participate or not; c) that their contribution will have an influence over the outcome of the issue. The intent is that stakeholders fonn a vision of the fiture together, so that they wül be weU aligned and be able to reaiize all subsequent actions effectively. Stakeholders then identify the actions for which they have energy and that move them towards the vision. Although not adaMwledged in the PHI document, ail activities that put CLs in contact with the commUIljty have the potential to elicit and bdd ownership. This implies that the entire process should be evaluated to establish how various activities promoted ownenhip. e) Engage stakeholders in Icaming, imenting aligning, and implementing so2utio11~.Accordhg to PHI, this is a matter of getting the "right" people to do the "right" work This depends on the point at which you confiont the problem: Face 1,2, or 3. The leaders' job is to help stakeholders "work towards alignment," even if the problem is compücated and solutions are not immediately apparent. PHI provides exercises to move groups forward. The key aspect of this step is to determine the fiarnework and provide motivation for the stakeholders to carry out the work. This part of stakeholder contribution is another aspect of sdglong term stakeholder ownership. What is important to note (although not mentioned by PHI) is that the leaders are no doubt leamhg as weil, as they go dong. Applyhg the hits of that leamhg requires that CLs be open and flexible enough to adapt or change strategies. f) SWnSfakehoIders in the process and manage the interconnectionsIISPHI States that the object of this step is for CLs to "keep the bail rolling," particularly ifworking groups begin to encounter difficulties. Severd strategies are offered: work on the three faces of the problem at once to ensure that some short terni results are achieved and some progress is made on long tenn goals; celebrate successes fiequently, and document progress and leanilng. Another major point of this step is to "manage interconnections." The tools that PHI offer in this regard are usefùl in that they encourage the group to assess their action plan, resolve blocks and move fonvard.
Momentum is a key aspect of this step, but it is arguably important during the entire process. Even at the early stages, processes must set out c'do-able" steps and achieve meaningfbl successes. This WUstrengthen groups and cornmunities and build their confidence and capabilities, partiailarly if they are to tackie complex and chailenging issues.
Folowiip is very important and is often Ieft out of the planning of public processes. Consolidating results and ensuring support to be able to implement actions is crucial to the success and continued resuits of the process. This point underlines the fact that CLs have to "own" the process as much as the other stakeholders. The Catalytic Leadership fiamework 35 delineates the extent of the activity needed to launch and sustain a community process, and should heip CLs define their roles in relation to the community and to the action.
3.2 Participatory Action Research This fnunework accounts for the perspective of the participants in any given process. This could be a srnall non-profit group conductùig research or a whole community taking part in a public process. The requirement of the criteria is that the participants control and contribute to the project fiom inception to completion.
Table 2. Criteria and Indicatom of the Participatory Action Research Framework
Criteria Indicators a) Entry of the researcher Occurs through one of three foilowing
i) the group or community seek assistance to generate research for social change ii) the researcher "enters" the field as a participant, one who is affected by the issue üi) a researcher finds a community that hdshe can assist in solving a problem or reaching a goal, as identined by the community b) Participation of the community in - participants are involved to a large extent setting the goals, and conducting the in al1 decisions and activities of the reseacch. arÏalvsis. and evaluation process ------c) Participants bdd capacity at a Participants build capacity by: personai and cornrnunity lwel i) gaining new lmowledge ii) leamhg new skilis of research and analy sis iii) being able to cany out fiirther research and actions as a group or community indeoendent of researcher d) The wmmunity maintains or takes - citizens initiate programs and control of the research process partnerships - there are a sigaificant number of participants and community resources devoted to ongoing researcidactivities - indications of constructive interaction between groups a) Emof the resemcher. Because many social science researchers are fiom "outside" the community, particular attention is yiàid to the "enw of the researcher into the community and Ys or her role in the research process. The literature in general stipulates that in Pmthe community or group initiates the remch, and then engages a researcher when they feel they need more expertise. Bdey (1992) breaks down the initial relationship between community and researcher more specincally, allowing for a more clear evaluation. She outlines three possible points of entry as described in the table above. Baüey characterizes initial contact between the community and the researcher as dialogue with the "goal of establishing a wliaborative relatiomhip to explore the cornmunity's issues, focusing on both assets and needs'' (p. 73). b) Participalon of community in sening the goals, rmd conrlircting the research, m&sis, and evaluation. This is the key set of criteria for PAR. A successfbl collaboration of researcher and participants provides a "more accurate and correct picaire of reality being transfonned" (Falls- Borda and Brahman, 1991). In order to quw as PAR, the research project must be initiated and delivered by the subject group or community. The indicator for this is that the members must "be able to acknowledge their ownership of this process from inception to completion" (p. 73). The measurement of control by participants is the extent to which they set the goals, decide upon the research methods, conduct the research, and analyze and act upon the results. The dilemma is who to include in this wide category. City officials and other goverment representatives are left out of this category, because they are oflen leadhg or assishg the leaders of a process. Induded as "participants" are memben of comrnunity-based groups that act as advisors for the process. c) Partciiprs build capacity by: i) gainhg access to knowledge they might not have had; ii) leamhg new skilis of research and analysis; and i) c-g out merresearch and actions independently of the researcher.
The indicators for rneasuring these criteria are the extent to which participants believe they gained new knowledge, and an accounting of the new skilis such as research and analysis that participants leam and continue to use. Evidence that participants have carried on merresearch on their own initiative shows that new knowledge and SUShave been successfully acquired.
While research tools can include the whole gamut of conventional research methods, PAR researchers favour less complicated techniques that can be used by research participants in 37 subsequent projects. These include intemiewing, mapping, simple survey~~primary and secondary document research. More important, however, are principles such as building on what people know and believe, being dynamic, non-lineaq collective, practicai, and process-oriented (Smith andPyrch, 1991).
d) nie community maintains or takes contrai of the research process. This is the ultirnate measure of PAR and is an important outcome for community-based processes. Farrell, Melin and Stacey, with their Frarnework for Evaluation (Sewell and Phillips, 1979), describe a number of evaluative indicators that show that public processes are resuiting in seKdeteRnination. Three that are used for this fiarnework are: i) types and number of programs and partnerships initiateci by citizens; ü) amout of resources accessed in the wmmunity to conduct programs; and iii) indications of constructive interaction between groups.
3.3 Process Mechanics Framework Process Mechanics are the parameters and methods used to conduct a process. The criteria below reflect the principles of procedural sustainability and of general process evaluation standards. a) inclusive process. This is one of the &a basic criteria for sustainable processes. It addresses the problem of "exclusive" decision making that has led to past confiict (Wilson, 1995). The criterion applies to most processes, whether it is a round table, problem-soiving focus group, or information-sharing public process. The main reason for including as many key stakeholders as possible is to ensure that all points of view are represented. In tum, with a wel-facilitated process, this theoreticaily leads to decisions and solutions that are condoned by ali sides (Kaner, 1996). For a general process, fiiil inclusion leads to a better representation and discussion of the issues, and understanding of the key problems (Lach and Hixson, 1995).
The indicators for this criterion are based on the extent of the convenor's effort to notify all stakeholders as to the purpose of the process and their potential role. For a broad public process this means contacthg not only key individuals and organizations in each sector but eIlSuring, by the use of mass media, that the "general public" are aware of the process as weli. Particularly for general processes, where it is important to ensure that the full range of experiences and values is representeâ, the literature stresses the importance of making an extra effort to reach stakeholders 38 and wnstituents that are not usuaily included, such as youth, people with disabilities, people in Weremt ethic groups, or the elderly (Machuen, 1996; Lach and Hùrson, 1995).
Table 3. Criteria and Indicators of Process Mechanics Framework
------Criteria hdi&tok a) Process was inclusive - extensive outreach to a variety of sectors - extensive publicity in a variety of venues - variety of representation from community in the process b) Goals and objectives of the process - assessrnent reveals goals and objectives must be clear and able to be evaluated. 1 are clear - goals and objectives were accomplished c) Quality output by researcher/organizer - information disseminated in different 1 formats and is clear - ad information in course of process is recordeci adaccessible to participants I du~gand afler the process ci) Participants able to contribute easily - choice of venues and formats for input and adequately - adequate the for input e) Process events are timely - timing of events is sensitive to 1 community activities - adequate notice is given for ali events f) Events are physidy accessible and - events are physically accessible cornfortable - dHerent formats available for communication - physical cornfort of participants is adequately attended to g) Participants are treated equaüy and - process is sensitive to participants of fair1 y various backgrounds and orientations ( - issues and cornplaints are heard and ( deait with openly and satisfactorily 1 according to al1 parties b) Clem goals and objectives. This is cited as a key critenon for the success of public processes (Meeres et al., 1995; Bennett, 1994; Cauadian Standards Association, 1996). According to Meeres et al., "rnany programs lack clearly defined and measurable program activities and objectives and logicai linkges between them" (p. 104). Therefore, goals must be measurable and the implementation must reflect the original goal so that the two can be compared. When these links are in place, then the accomplishment of the goals is an Uidicator that the goals were reaiistic and well understood. 39 c) Access to resources and injrmuiition To ensure that potential participants understand the focus and concepts of the public process, materials must be produced that are accessible. This appües to clarity and level of language, variety of formats, and p!ysical accessibility (Canadiar! Standards Asse, 1996). The notion of access is also applied to my idormation that pazuticipants feel they need in order to take part adequateiy, be that technical information, process sküls, or proceechgs acd results generated at difEerent stages of the public process (MacLaren, 1996; Wilson, 1995). d) Purticipcmts able to connibute &quate&. Given the variety of styles of understanding and expression, public processes intent on soliciting input fiom a wide range of people should ensure that there are different formats for contributhg and taking part in the process (MacLaren, 1996). Ideaily this would hclude ail modes of expression including verbai, written, and visuai, on an individual and group basis. This also irnplies that participants are given adequate tirne to understand concepts, gather information and formulate and offer their input. e) Proces ewn& me tirne&. For public processes that require input fiom a broad range of people, three aspects of timing should be considered. The first is ensuring that public process events do not clash with other important community events. The second is that events that bwld on each other and neither follow each other too closely nor are too far apart. The third is that adequate notice of events should be given (Canadian Standards Association, 1996). f) Events are physically accessible and comfortabîe. This criterion addresses the conditions necessary to ensure adequate contribution to a pubüc process. These conditions include upholding the right ofanyone in the community to take part, and providing the means for everyone to do so, thereby facilitating ease of participation and communication, and enhancing the quality of contributions. g) Equaldfair treatment ofpmficipts. The process should be set up to be sensitive to participants of various backgrounds and orientations. Issues and cornplaints should be heard and dealt with opdy and in a way that is satisfactory to ail parties. This criterion addresses issues basic to all processes where human interaction takes place. In situations where ability and power are unequal, it is important to ensure that the process compensates those less able to participate and does not, even by defdt, favour the input or opinions ofthe more able or dominant (Bennett, 1994; Wilson, 1996). 3.4 Substantive criteria
The implementaîion of a comprehensive monitoring program will be required in order to assess whether fiiture watershed initiatives wiii move regions towards sustainability (Craig, 1995; Harper, 1989; Canadian Council ofMinisters of the Environment, 1994). The kinds of aspects usuaiiy included in such programs are: health of streams by measurllig water quantity and quality health of habitat by observiag changes in terrain, vegetation, and key species of anUnals the health of the community through examinhg facets of the economy and social and political We, such as comrnunity events and the level of support for them, and the extent of participation in local and regional processes and decision making 4.0 CASE DESCRIPTION-THE COQUITLAM RIVER WATERSHED PUBLIC PROCESS 4.1 Introduction The fkst part of this section provides the context for the Coquitlam River Watershed Public Process by outlinllig the physical aspects, and historical and ment development of the watershed. The second dondescribes the preparation, implementation, and follow-up of the public process, fiom May 1996 to October 1997, held in the CRW.
Coquitlam River Watershed is a medium-sized watershed in the Fraser River Basin. The height of land around the Coquitlam River and its tributaries forms a basin of approlamately 200 square kilometres. It stretches fiom Disappointment Lake at the top, around the Greater Vancouver Water District, and through the cities of Coquitiam and Port Coquitlam to the Fraser River. It is characterized by forested wildemess in the northern two-thirds and a mk of urban and suburban areas in the lower third. The watershed is also made up of diverse communities of people with varying interests and concerns. However, the uniting force is the water that runs off and under the land and into the tributaries and river.
CRW has been altered significmtly over the past century. Like many coastal areas, the lower CRW was logged early in the century, although, Cleveland, a Commissioner at the GVWD from the 1930s to the 1950~~upheld policies that prohibited logging and other activites in the drlliking watersheds of the Lower Mainland &oop, 1988). The Canadian National Railway terminated for a tirne in Port Moody, b~gingon a mini-boom for the communities in that area. One of the most drarnatic changes to the watershed in the early century was the building of the Coquitiarn Dam that created an enormous reservou for hydro-electricity. To mate electricity, a large pipe was built under Eagle Mountain to Buntzen Reservoir. The water is piped fiom here to two generators, Buntsen 1 and 2, into Indian Arm. The impacts of the dam were to eradicate the historic sockeye salmon run, and drasticaliy reduce water levels (and habitat) in the lower river. Grave1 mining of the river started in the early mes, and continueci untii MOE passed a law in 1965 forcing the operators out of the river and onto the banks, where they continue to mine. Many feel that urban development of the iower hiîisides of the watershed has been the most recent and dramatic change (Smaües, 1997). The Coquitlam River watershed is important to many people in the Greater Vancouver Region as well as local commuaities. The river provides electricity and drinking water as weli as recreational opportunities. Increasingly, we are valuing the watershed for its ecological services such as its apply of nutrients and reproduction habitat for saimon runs and other wildlife. Concern is rising fiom the threat to the salrnon posed by habitat losq low water qualiîy and quantity. Current discussion is also focushg on patterns of land use development, and our social and economic infiastructure that does not allow us to easily care and account for the ecological systems on which we depend.
4.1.1 Stewardship of Natud Amin CRW: Current Management Responsi bilities
4.1.1. I Govemment Jurisdictiorts PhysicaUy, the watershed is divided into four main jurisdictions. The cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam are responsible for land use of the lower portions of the watershed on either side of the Coquitlam River. The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)(through the Greater Vancouver Water District) is responsible for the land use and water quaiity of the Coquitlam Conservation Area in the Upper Watershed. The province is responsible for the water of the Coquitlam River reservoir, through B.C. Hydro, and for the river and Stream beds throughout the watershed. The federal govemrnent is responsible for anadromous (oceau-going) fish and the habitat of aii provincial watercourses in the area.
There are some attempts to b~gjurisdictions to the same table to work out the best plans for the area. At the local levei, there are cornmittees that convene ali levels of governrnent to talk about specifïc issues such as fish (Caltagirone, pers. comm., 1996). These seem to have some success in fadtating daily management, but do not seem to result in any proactive movement. The proMncial govemment's Growth Strategies Act (1995) tries to take account of the vanous pressures and requirements on booming areas such as Coquitlam, and requkes some accountability for the environment in planning processes. The GVRD's LNdeRegions Sfrategy (1 995) is also trying to promote 'ccomplete commULilties," encouraging reduction in cross-region commuting, the protection of a green zone, and denser, mixed-use wighbourhoods. However, old development pattern die hard. Both of these initiatives are either being undermineci by various 43 departments (such as the Provincial Mùiistry of Transporiation) or meeting with resistance and superficial interpretation fiom municipalities throughout the region (Anslow, pers. cornrn., 1997).
An examination of government responsibility for streams, which is just one area of management, rweals the compleity of the bureaucracy. There are at least five people at each level of jurisdiction, local to federal, who are responsible for various aspects of streams and strearn life in the CRW.The resulting hstration for those working in the bureaucraties is high, but for the public, particularly those with no sense of the system, the layers of management cm be daunting, and it can sometimes feel Mie to tq to access information. Unless there are specific projects that brhg various departments together, officiais (most with huge workioads at this point as a result of cutbacks) spend most of their time scrambling to keep up with tasks in their own areas (Scott, pers. comm.,1997; Nome, pers. comm., 1996; Reid, pers. comm., 1996).
1.1.1.3 Public and Grass-mots Emtronmentc~Iism
There are over twenty active groups worhg on environmental issues in the watershed. Many, such as Hoy Creek Streamkeepers, Friends of Mundy Park, and Rivewiew Horticultural Society are focused on one area of the watershed such as a strearn or a park. They raise awareness about the environmental value of these areas as weli as conducting monitoring and enhancement projects. ûthers, such as the Burke Mountain Naturalists and the Steeihead Society are regiondy based and conduct education, preservation carnpaigns, and enhancement projects in the watershed. Members of most of these groups also sit on advisory and planning cornmittees for various projects in the area. Other types of groups are those such as the Rotary Club, Optimist Club, and Chamber of Commerce have environmental conmittees and sponsor environmental projects in the watershed.
Together with govemment-sponsored initiatives, these groups form a strong base of action and education in the community. However, they are ail focusecl on specific projects. For various reasons, much of the work oflen fds on a few people witbin any given organization, and bumout was cited as a constant danger by group members. Ail groups were clear that, aîthough they liked the idea of a coordinathg body in the watershed to tackie the larger problems, there was no one available in their orgarhtion to do it. The majority of citizens in this area appear to be in the grip of the suburôan ufestyle. Thus these ~roups(and govemment-~oi1soredenvironmental awareness campaigns and programs) are steeped in a culture where a Myscramble to eam enough income for shelter, sustenance, and seemingly indispensable necessities, such as cars and lifestyle commodities, are part of "normal" We. The media, social systems, and social relations al1 encourage and facilitate this. In Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam these values seem to be enhanced by the layout of the city, which is dominated by shopping 4sand commercial strips that can ody be accessed by cars. Both cities are working on the lack of a strong urban core: Port Coquitlam is slowly enhancing theirs, and Coquitlam is in the process of constructing a "tom centre."
Despite this rather gloomy scenario, the level of awareness regarding both general and specific environmental issues appears to be hi& judging by the kinds of articles in the local papers, and the tumout to City-sponsored environmental events. The City of Coquitlam regularly has 70û- 1000 people out to wents such as the Environmental Fair, the Salmon-Corne-Home Festival, Rivers Day and the Festival of Trees (Pregler, pers. cornrn., 1997). The groaing ethnic cornmunityYhowever, has been identified as one sector that needs special attention to raise their environmental awareness and to include in environmental grwps and adVities. Some have suggested that this project couid be part of a process of bridging ethnic gaps between people in the region (Danladi, pers. comrn., 1996).
1.2 Description of Public Process
4.2.1 Origins The idea of a watershed initiative for the Coquitfam River Watershed bas been "in the works" for about ten years, discussed by those who have worked for a long time on the Coquitlam River and stceams issues. The impetus for moviag ahead on the idea came from my meetings with officials in the City of Coquitlam, est Rosa Telegus of the Engineering, then Dave Palidwor of Leisure and Parks, and subsequentîy many others. These officials wanted to build on and initiate several community-based prognuns. Their reasons for doing so were two-fold: first they realized that "communïty buy-in" was important ifthe programs were to have an impact in the community, and second, they did not have the resources to fund entire programs throughout the city. As a nsearcher, 1was awarded a sdcontract to do an initial consultation process with people in 45 various departments in the city and in the community. As a remit of tbis research, it was decided to conduct a more general public process.
The rationale for moving to a broader-bd process was to get a sense fiom the commUNty of the pnonties and the arnount ofenergy that would be avaiiable to conduct the types of programs that the officiais had in mind. By pulling back fiom a specific program, it was recognized that the commulljty would have a chance to offer input conceming what it thought was important and what kinds of things individu& and groups were willing to contriiute in tenns of time or resources.
4.2.2 Establisbing the Goais, Objectives and Methods
This initiai consultation process also helped to estabiish the goals and objectives of the process: "to set up the means by which the cornmunity, consisting of a broad base of individuals, organizations, departments and agencies will decide upon a vision, goals, and procedure for a cornrnunity-based initiative in the Coquitlam River Watershed (CRW)."
The three objectives also arose from discussions with people in the community. They articulated the desire to ensure that the cornmunity would lead the process as much as po~sible-~~toprovide structure, information and focus for a group of interested stakeholders of the CRW to corne together tc create a watershed initiative"; that the bits of the work to organize the public process would be used on an ongoing basis-"to provide an ongoing means for active parties in the watershed to become aware ofeach other's work and to network with each other"; and that to ensure wide participation, education would take place that woukl also contribute to the wider goals beyond the public process-90 raise awareness of the boundaries of CRW and its biophysical profile, the scope and implications ofworking for a sustainable watershed are* and main issues of wncem in CRW."
The educational methods inciuded: an eight-panel idonnation display on components of the watershed, an informational siide show, an artistic slide show, a the-dimensional colour mode1 ofthe watershed, a "backgrounder" of notes on the main issues, and a final report that Summarized the elements and results of the public process. The participation aspect included: extensive discussions and interviews with the constituency of the watershed regarding the planning and research of the educational materials and events; two display venues of the educational panels for several weeks; an evening Forum; and a day-long Workshop.
4.2.3 Participants
The "players" in the process can be divided into three categories: a) the personnel, b) bders (monetary) and contributors (m-kiad rnatdals, seMces and information), and c) the participants in the public meetings. Support for the process was virniaily unanimous, although many, particularly in governent and in the industrial sector, were carefùl to point out that their support was for an inclusive process as opposed to one that focused on one interest group (often cited as the environmental sector).
4.2.3.1 Personnel
Early on in the process, two students approached the Parks and Leisure Department and requested intemships conceming the environmental aspects of the department. These students were inviteci to become part of the team to help put together the products of the initiative. They accepted. As a resuk, the public process was aûfe to produce more materials than would otherwise have been possible. Both stated that they leamed a great deal, and one student went on to get a job in the comrnunity as a result of her experience with the project.
In addition to these -dents, the project also had ongoing advice and direction nom a number of people in the city, the two prllnary people being an Environmental Engheer and a Parks Plamer. Technical advice and assistance, information, and resources were also generously provided by vanous officiais at the City of Coquitlam.
The researcber was the primary coordinator of the process and responsible for the production of the matenals, the public meetings, the final report, and follow-up.
4.2.3.2 Funders and Contributors
Funders recognwd the need to address long tem problems in the Coquitiam River Watershed and to build a broad comrnunity-baseâ coastituency to do it. A condition of bding made by most of the fûnders was the inclusion of aii stakeholders in the process. Two levels of government, and one provincial govemment agency contriiuteâ up to 10,000 dollars each. These included the 47 Fraser River Action Plan, B.C. Hydro, and the City of Coquitlam. Also contributhg a significant amount was the Real Estate Foundation of B.C. SmaU contributions were made by the two local branches of VanCity Credit Lhim
The extent of support for this project was seen in the variety, number, and value of in-kind contributions which, as in most community-based projectq underpinneci the entire project. Many individuals in environmental community groups spent time providing information, slides, editing semices, and advice. Government departments such as B.C. Ministry of Environment and the Habitat Branch of Department of Fishenes and Oceaas provided Uiformation, documents, and in- kind materiais for the three-dimensional mode1 and the information panels. Local goverment, particularly the City of Coquitlam, contributeci a substantial amount to advertising, publishhg of documents, information, technical services, meeting space, and perhaps most importantly, shared th& expertise regarding public processes. Julia Gardner of Dovetail Consulting donated time over and above her contract to help organize and facilitate the public meetings.
4.2.3.3 Partcipts in the Public Meetings The participants came fiom many sectors, although some sectors were better represented than others (see Appendix E for list of participants). The nature of their participation, and their composition and numbers, are discussed below.
4.2.4 Prepantion for the Public Process
4.2.1.1 Research
The information-gatheriag methods included research to collect reports and verbal information on all aspects of the watershed, a public forum where broad issues were identified, and a public workshop where these issues were discussed in more detail.
We conducted about two months of research, during which we coUected about 35 documents and contacteci approximately 150 people for information. The main foci ofresearch were the ecological features of the CRW,human interventions histoncaiiy and currentiy, the impacts of these inteweutions, and stewardship initiatives in the watershed. Research was aiso conduaed regarding other watershed initiatives in B.C. A product of this research was the beginning of a substaiitial contacts database that was set up, the= dded to as people submitted their names and contacted us for information.
a) Information Panels These tools were weii received at the events and display venues. Their preparatim required an intense collective effort: mappers produced eight Merent GIS-based maps; researchers coiiected reports and hte~ewedwatershed proponents for information, gathered and took photographs, wrote the initial drafts of the text, laid out materials and liaised with the printer; and an editor went through the material very quickly but with effective results. Fiy,the published maps had to be laminateci with one set mounted on foarn core. b) SZi& Shows Research done for the panels was used in the slide shows. Intense research was conducted to gather slides fiom many collections throughout the Lower Mainland and to make copies of di of these. Some südes were taken by a professional photographer who donated her the. Several members of the naturalist community volunteered to review and edit text of the slide show.
C) Th7ee-DimemonaI Mo&[ This was a project of Ron Simpson, a retired architect in Port Moody, who did a similar model for Noon's Creek. Materials and some of the tirne were paid for by the Habitat Branch, Community Involvement Division of DFO. The result was a very appealhg and much admired model of the whole of CRW that was 30 inches wide, five feet long, and one foot high. d) Artistic SMShow Ken Baker, a professional photographer, agreed to do a seven-minute presentation, accompanied by music of his impressions of the CRW. A dissolve unit helped to accomplish the effect that participants were walking domthe river through ali the seasons experiencing exquisite sights of nature in the watershed. e) Aahinisfrative Prahcts Other products of the process are a small library and reference List, a contacts database of the 250 people who were approached for information or attended the two public meetings, a CD-ROM 49 disk with about 50 pichires of the watershed on it, and a collection of about 200 südes.
The governing rationale for the process was to listen to concems in the community and provide a structure that would allow focused "conversation" and aecision making to take place. This would entail gathe~gand disserninating enough idonnation for ail those hterested to have a common basis of knowledge. It also meant ensuring that the focusing of ideas did not exclude members of the community, nor just involve those with ready access to the meam for dissemuiating their points of view (namely goverment and larger corporations). The main principles infonning the process were: to include all interested community members, as well as those outside the watershed with shared concerns regarding the CRW; to set up the process to allow the comrnunity to "drive" the contents and procedure; to be respeaful of participants regarding information dissemination, appropriate timing, and event proceedings; and to design the process so that any results would be generated and taken over by proponents in the community.
An effort was made to ensure that notice of events was given at least three weeks in advance to the general public, and broadcast on al1 avaüable media-from local papers and cable to radio stations and leaflets posted in most public venues. Invitations to the Forum were sent out to people who had been contacted for information. Maps, agendas, and a short briefing paper were faxed out to those on the mailing list prior to the Workshop.
Venues were chosen for theu centrality and accessibility. Signs were placed to direct people to parking and the meetings rooms for both events. Refreshments and time to network were also provided. A sound system was used at the Forum, but not at the Workshop, although the venue and the number of people at the latter warranted it. No requests were made to provide translation for those of other ethnic backgrounds or for the hearing impaired, and no efforts made to provide these seMces in a proactive way.
A professional fkcilitator was used for the plenaries and for the over-all flow of both events. Small groups were assigned facilitators who had been briefed and given copies of a detailed agenda prior to the meetings. Both events also had notetakers who recorded cornments of participants during large and smd group discussions. This material formed the basis for the final report. 4.2.5 The Public Procas Events
Panels were displayed at two wmrnunity centres of each city for about three weeks between the Forum and the Workshop. Non-permanent markers were supplied for viewen to contribute on one of the maps. Evaluation foms and pencils were also supplied.
4.252 October 10 Forum
This was a significant event of the public process and was held in Coquitlam at the Dogwood Pavilion. The goals were to share information and raise awareness about the issues facing the CRW,and to plan the next steps for a Comrnunity Watershed Initiative. There was a good tum- out of 150 people, comprised of representatives fiom all sectors of the community. This included all levels of government (as well as First Nations), and people ftom key industries, such as development representatives and gravel pit owners, business, environmental and community groups, youth, and individual citizens.
Participants anived early to look at the informational panels and browse through the display tables set up by about ten environmental groups. Three slide shows were presented: Ken Baker's "Coquitlarn River Watershed," a beautiful seven-minute multi-media show of slides of nature set to music; a 25 minute informational slide show on the main components of the watershed- ecological charaçteriçtics, human %mentions, resulting impacts, and mentstewardship initiatives; and a seven-minute informationai slide show on other Watershed Initiatives in B.C.
General points were listed during a bnef large-group discussion responding to the question "What's Happening in Our Watershed?" Participants formed small groups after the second informational slide show and, with assigned facilitators and a worksheet, answered the question: 'What should we do to improve the stewardship of our watershed?' A plenary session, based on specitic topics, allowed groups to do a brief report-back.
The general categones identifid were gravel in the river, wster, education, conservation, legislation, and organization. There was a smd contingent of people who voiced concem about rapid population growth in the area. Generdy participants cded for more information to be made available to the public, more pressure to be put on govemment to address darnage or protect 51 natural areas, better orghtion of the environmental community, and more stewardship activities to take place in the comrnunity. The latter mged fiom comprehensive mapping and land owner coztact, to stom drain markhg and increased stewardship education (see Appendix F, October 10 Fonun, $5 and tfo, for a surnmary of results).
To find out the level of interest in pursuing the items brought forth at the forum, a sign-up sheet for a follow-up workshop was circulated to each table. Sixty-three people signed up, indicating substantial interest in a folow-up event. Evaluation forms were also circulated at the end of the Forum and were fiiied in by participants (see Appendix F, Summary of Participant Evaluations).
4.2.5.3 November 30 Worhhop
As a resdt of interest expresseci at the Forum, and to maintain momentum created by that event, a day-long Workshop was planned for su weeks later. The goals of the Workshop were to provide constituents of the CRW an oppominity to assess issues identified at the Forum, and to decide upon a broad action plan and next steps. Part of the day was also devoted to generating a vision for the watershed and for particular areas and conditions of the CRW.
About seventy people attended the Workshop held at the Pinetree Campus of Douglas CoUege in Coquitlarn. As with the Forum, participants came fiom ail sectors of the cornmunity (please see Appendix E for the breakdown of sectors). The day was mostly devoted to large and smd group discussions, ahhough Mark Angeio, Program Head of B.C. Institute of Technology, gave a brief and inspiring speech on the "Role of Grass Roots Advocacy in Protecting Our Watersheds." (Please see Appendix G for transaipt of speech.)
The large group was asked to generate a vision of CRW thirty years fiom now in tems of what it would look like and the activities that wouid be taking place. Participants envisioned the following: healthy ecosystems, with ali enclosed strearns "daylighted'' and robust populations of wildlife; citizen-directed management and broad participation in comrnunity-based stewardship; more compact, cleaner communities where industries might still be next to the river but would not be polluting it; and by-laws congruent with the stewardship values held by the wmmunity (spdcaliy keeping impemious dacesto a minimum and protecting sensitive areas). (Please see Appendix H for a full transcript of the vision exercise.) Participants then fonned small goups based on issues identifid at the Forum: Stream and water quality, water flow in the Coquitlarn River, stream and river habitat, environmental awareness and education, and neighbourhoods and commerce. wth the help of designated facilitators, these groups were asked to generate ideas and discuss issues using a framework with three separate components: Vision, Current Reality, and Action Plans. It was hoped that this framework would enable participants to discuss the topics in a positive rwd constructive way.
Visions for the srnall groups were similar in spirit to the broad group, but contained more detail. Current reality was generaily seen in a negative light. Suggestions for actions to address problems were practical and, in al1 groups, technically detded. Three out of five groups recornmended a watershed-wide entity.
After lunch, new groups were formed based on actions proposed in the morning. These groups consisted of education and information; habitat enhancement; restoration, monitoring, and by-law edorcement; watershed wide group structure; infiuencing government; and industry responsibility in the development process. The last group also dealt with water levels and B.C. Hydro's public process. These groups answered six questions: 1) How could a watershed-wide group or councü help this issue? 2) What else can the community do at the local level? 3) 1s there a project our group could take on right away? 4) What are the next steps? 5) Who should be involved? 6) What should happen next?
AU groups suggesteà tasks for the watershed-wide group or council, includhg: coordinate existing groups and volunteers; develop a resource office (contact list, volunteer lia, equipment); rais<: fùnds; publicize event; be a large voice for proponents of the natural systems in the watershed; and actively network with other watershed groups so as not to repeat mistakes. The sdgroups generally identified information-gathering, sethg of priorities, and advocacy tasks as items to act on in each area.
The final plenary was a sdgroup report-back and discussion of the next steps for the watershed initiative. It was decided that two cornmittees would be struck to follow up on the major results of the Workshop. The first was a Start-up Committee which would be temporary task group, to 53 put together a plan for intiating a community-based, watershed entity. The second was an Action Committee that would plan stewardship actions in the Coquitlam River Watershed, following up on some of the many suggestions generated at the Workshop. It was decided that government representatives would be able to attend the cornmittee meetings, but only in an advisory capacity. There was no discussion as to how or whether these two groups would communicate.
Fifteen people signed up for each group, and of those, only two people signed up to be in both groups. Both groups agreed to have their fht meetings in January, 1977.
4.2.6 Finai Report
A final report of twelve pages was prepared and disserninated to ail 250 people on the contact List.
The two cornmittees have been meeting once a month since January, 1997. Both have encountered difnculties. Despite some rnisgivings regarding the motives and actions of one particular member (owner of a local grave1 pit), the Start-up Committee pressed on with complethg their mandate of creating a proposal for a watershed enW. The Action Cornmittee dealt with issues of membership, direction and leadership. The development of cornfort and trust within each group and growing clarity of their respective roles and tasks have been significant outcornes of the year's meetings.
The Action Committee was a very dynamic group. Early on it consolidated, agreeing on a general mission statement and desof membersbip and conduct. At least four cornmittees, struck at the fùst and second meetings, have conducted work in the watershed: strearn survey planning and training, mapping md initial recordhg of drainage outlets in the river, research on sehent sources of the nver, forming a partnership with a local high school, mounting displays and panicipating in several educational events, as weli as building relationships with community groups and officials at all levels of government.
One meeting with Scott Coltish, the regional head of Enforcement for DFO, sparked a program that will become a focus for the group in the coming months. This is the River Watch program that will complement other clan-up and moaito~gprogram (includiig DFOyswork) on the river. The group is in the pilot stage, but anticipates that the project will serve several purposes: a steady and long term flow of information about the state of the river, a core of citizens devoted to stewarding the river, and a venue to raise awarewss about the river in CRW communities.
For the Start- up Cornminee (now the Advisory Cornmittee), the major achievement was to complete a drafk terms of reference for an umbreila group in the watershed. The terms of reference reflect the input ofother watershed initiatives in the province that were invited to share their expenences throughout the year at the group's meetings. They also reflect the needs of the community as they were perceived by members of the group. Many of these are sirnilar to those that were expressed at the Workshop. The terms of reference document was circulateci for review and input by various groups. In November 1997, the revised version was ratified by the watershed constituents, and an interim board was announced. They are in the process of s&g up a society and organitiog elections for the hst board of directors. 5.0 APPLICATION OF CRITERIA, RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION The fkst part of this chapter applies the criteria to the CRW Public Process and provides a brief summary of the results for each hework. The second pari is a discussion of the results, the fhmeworks, and the criteria.
5.1 Application of Criteria and Results The criteria are assessed using the records kept of the process, includig notes, evaluations, publicity, and documents. Detailed accounts of the extent to which the various aspects of the process fMUed the cnteria are contained in Appendix D.
5.1.1 CaWytic Leadership Procas
Table 4. Rcsulb of Catdytic Leadership EvaJiuation
Not 1 Evalua tion AccomplUhed Accomplished Accomplisheâ 1 Criteria a) Understand type of process being used and its various components b) Focus attention of participants on a clear question c) Identify and involve the stakeholders and knowledge- holders d) Elicit ownership on the part of stakeholders
Some adjustments to the criteria were required to fit a watershed initiative, such as the focus on multiple problerns, and using an open-ended type of process. Emerging watershed initiatives are confionting many problems, some of which are clear and some not, and involve many stakeholders with varying views on how to proceed. The challenge faced by the catalysts of the CRW Public Process was to assist the community to move fiom Face 3, unclear problems and unclear solutions, to Face 1, where the problems are more clear and the next steps are obvious. Catalysts fÙlfiiled most of the criteria ofthe Eramework (see Table 4 above) and successfUy enabled the community to move fiom Face 3 to Face 1. Focushg attention on a specific goal and settiag up the process so that participants could contribute in meaningful and specific ways seemed to be the key to the successfùl outcornes of the events.
For the iirst category, a) Unrdestd &pe of procss king used and its vmious components, the combineci knowledge and SUSof ail the parties involved-including the pamcipating public, advisory individuals, consultant, and researcher-meant that there was a good understanding of the conditions, stakeholders, and dynamics of the watershed. These were the elements necessary to fiame the infortnation, choose appropriate venues and timing for the process, and use the public process to advance the ideas and needs of the community.
Except for d) Elicit ownership in the stakholders, the other criteria were fiilfiiled. At each step, a clear question for participants was used to focus responses. Key stakeholders were identified, and a database for contacts was started and is still being used and added to. Stakeholders were well engaged during the two principle events and through personal contact throughout the process. This contniuted to achieving the goals and objectives of the process. The final step took place over the year following the Public Process, when the two cornmittees met monthly and were supported in facilitation and research by the City of Coquitlam and through the volunteer seMces of the researcher.
At a general level, d) EIicit ownership un the pmt of stakeholders took place through discussions in person, and at the events of the Public Process. The sentinient at the ktpublic meeting was clear when sixty- three people signed up to attend a follow-up event to "continue discussion of the issues in more detail." The criterion was not completely Med, however, because the indicators, outiined by PHI, did not adequately describe the dynamics of the CRW Public Process. The goal was not to "convince stakeholders that they have an important stake in the issue at han#' (PHI, 1993), but to ask stakeholders themselves ifthey felt there were important issues that merited attention. The onus in the case of the CRW Public Process was on the watershed constituents not only to identifl the issues, but also to decide whether they would devote energy to addressing them. 5.13 Participatoy Action Rtsurch
Table 5. Rcsults ofParticipatory Action Rcsearch Evduation
Accomplished - - I a) Entry of the researcher b) Participation of the community in setting the goals and conducting the research, analysis, and evaluation c) Participants build capacity at a personai and cornmunity level d) The community maintains or takes control of the research process
The process fûifiüed completely the cnteria of a) Enhy of the researcher and d) nie conintuniîy maintaim or t&s control of the researchprmess. With respect to the former, the researcher's participation was partly to fiilfil personal requirernents of an academic program, and partly in response to a stated need by the members of the community. W1th respect to the latter, both citizen-bas4 wmmittees that were convened at the final Workshop initiated siwcant prognuns and completed several projects over the nine-month follow-up period to the public process (see Appendk D for details). As shown in Table 8 (Appendk D), the programs and projeas of the Action Cornmittee entailed forming partnerships with and soliciting resources from various parties in the cornmunity. The most significant of these are the ones that will be ongoing: Riverside High School as a site for meetings and material storage; the local computer centre, which provides access and expertise for members to write a column for an on-line newspaper, and will be supporthg the construction of a WEI3 page; and the Department of Fishenes and Oceans, as advisors for setting up the River Watch program and recipients of the monitoring information. The Start-up Cormittee brought in proponents of other watersheds to leam about various models for watershed initiatives in the province. Through these projects and partnerships, the cornmittees will build up credibility, knowledge and skills that will supplement the cornmittee members' and constituents' strong desire to bring about a healthy river and watershed.
Several factors contributed to the evaluation of b) Pwîicipaton of the community as "partly accomplished." Although constituents were consulted extensively throughout the process, direction and prepuation of the process events were largely undertaken by the main and assistant researcher, and by the main advisor in the City of Coquitlam. In addition, the Public Process had an ad hoc group of advisors, as opposed to a formal steering cornmittee, to help make decisions for the process.
The critenon c) Parricipts build cqcity ut a personai adcommunity level, is rateci "partly accomplished" for reasons similar to those cited for b). Apart f'rom two measurable examples, my conclusions as to whether capacity was increased in individuals or the community are largely based on speculation. Of the two segments stipulated in the criterion personal and community capacity building, the personal is the most easily mea~ufedin the case study. As part of the Forum evaiuation, 75 percent of the participants stated that their knowledge of the watershed increased by an average of one or two points out of ten (see October 10 Forum, Appendk F). The two assistants who worked on the project lmed new skilla, such as GIS mapping, research, event organization, and pubîishing. Based on this acquired knowledge and skills, one of the assistants was able to obtain a position folowkg the Public Process with a stewardship project in the region.
5.1.3 Process Mechanics Evduation
Table 6. Results of Process Mechanics Evaluation
Pady Not Evaluation Accomplished Accom plish ed Criteria a) Process was inclusive b) Goals and objectives of the process clear and able to be evaluated . c) Quality output by researcherlor~anizer d) Participants able to contribute easily and adequately e) Process events are tirneiy - f) Eveats are physicdy accessible and cornfortable g) Participants are treated equdy and fairlv 59 The CRW Public Process met or partidy met the Process Mechanics criteria (See Appendk D for detailed results). According to the Process Mechanics Evaluation, the CRW Public Process was weli nui and successful. Components of the process where cnteria are rated "good" were a result of the follo~kgfactors: considerable and wide consultation with constituents involving personal contact, newspaper articles, presentations, invitations, mail-outs, aiid mass media notification for events; contracting a knowledgeable public process facilitator to assist with public events; the use of a variety of media, such as information panels consisting of written and visual information and maps, an Viformation sheet, agendas, background material, slide shows, and verbal explanations to convey concepts and solicit input; the use of editors in the production of educational material to ensure matenal was clearly conveyed; and attention to important details such as timing of events and publicity and ensuring all events were recorded. As seen ffom the list of participants in the process divided into secton (Appendix E), a wide range of participants took part. However, there were some notable absences that reduces this indicator to "partiy accomplished." These absent constituents are ones who are most often left out of processes: young people, elderly people, ethnic constituents, single mothen, people with disabilities. and those with lower incornes. Because these populations are not usually part of these kinds of processes, it is necessary to make an extra effort to include them. This also means ensuring physical accessibüity, translating materials, and providing on-site communication accessibüity for people with disabilities. Also more effort codd have been made to include more individuais and groups fiom sectors such as business7 industry, and Fust Nations.
An analysis of the goals (Appendk D) revealed that the goal-to "set up the means by which the cornmunity, consisting of a broad base of individuals, organizations, departments, and agencies will decide upon a vision, goals, and procedure for community-based initiative in the Coquitlam Riwr Watershed (CR-is not eady evaluated. The term "means" leaves the methods of process open and therefore difficult to measure. The objectives referred to concrete methods but did not include targets, so were also ditncuit to evaluate properly. Witbin the limits of these broad parameters, an examination of the results of the process shows that the goals and objectives were achieved to a large extent (see Appendm D). 5.2 Discussion of Evaluation Results and Frameworks
The second part of this chapter is divideci into two sections. The first section is a briefdisaission on the extent to which the case shidy met the critena of the three fiameworks. The second section is a discussion of several issues with respect to the use of the fiameworks. The following issues wcre addressed: advantages and drawbacks of ushg the three fiarneworks; important aspects of the process that were rnissed by the criteria; and whether these hmeworks can be used to evaluate the ernergence of other watershed initiatives.
5.2.1 Cawytic Leadership Process Based on the redts of the CL Rocess evaluation, the CRW Public Process appears to be one where catalytic leadership was the main component. The difIticuIty with applying the CLP critena arose with their interpretation. First, îhere were several significant steps included in single cnteria, such as Engage stukehoI&rs in leming afigning amd impfementingsoIutio~ts, that would need to be separated out to apply in a more exact way. Second, there were no concrete targets for the steps, so it is not clear at what point we had achieved the criterion Iden@ and involve the stakehoIders, for example. Thud, the fiamework implies that the CL takes much of the responsibilïty for organuuig and conducting the process. Although this did occur in CRW Public Process, there were some significant ciifferences. The CRW Public Process was deliberately more "open-ended" so that participants codd help deterxnine the content and the process. Therefore representation from sectors was based on interest and concem in the broad issues, and the impetus of the Public Process dependeci on feedback and direction fkom the constituents. These indeterminacies in process canaot be adequately reflected in the criteria.
Another important aspect not addressed by the CL Framework is the foliowing: At what point does the catalyst leave the situation or change roles? A tme catalyst would not stay in a leadership position, but cultivate leaders to take over. Aithough this is reflected in the PAR Framework, the community is assumed to be taking a leadership role frorn the beginning.
5.2.2 Participatoy Action Research The public process can not be considered a "pure" PAR project because it did not adhere to crucial criteria. Cnteria a) Pmtcipanpanonof the commnity in the resemch process, and c) 61 Building capacify,were ody partly fdfilled. In PAR projects, the participants help design the research project, cany out much of the research, and conduct the evaluations. While setting goals for the CRW Public Process was a collaborative task, the actual research, tiaming of the public event questions, and evaluations were conducteci by the catalytic leaders. Also, the lack of a fonnal advisory group meant that more decisionmaking weight feii on the researcher and one of the advisors. This state of affairs couid have ben a source of difficulty if ad hoc advison had differed siBnificantly with respect to the Public Process's direction and organization. Fortunately, the few Merences of opinion among advisors and proponents were easily resolved with additional communication. However, takg this approach meant there were lost opportunities for building capecity, as reflected in the results, through the organization of the process. Wethere was some leaniing on the part of participants, and two young people ernployed by the process, PAR projects demand more intense participation by the "subject" group.
The reason that fùll scale participation did not occur in the CRW Public Process is a result of timing, resources, and the nature of the process. In order for the CRW Public Process to take place, the seMces of at least one fllll-time person were required. Because of limited resources, it was decided early on that the process would be limited to six monthq and any results would have to be built upon by the community. (Processes where participants are extensively involved in the organization and preparation are usually longer term projects). The Pubüc Process was not meant to be a comprehensive research project, but an information exchange for the cornmunity to decide what it wanted to do. In fact, adhe~gstrictly to PAR aiteria might have mired the process in unnecessady detailed research, and forfeited the energies of those that just needed to connect with each other to establish direction for fùnire work,
The other side of the coin is that a slightly higher level of participation by comrnunity members in the organization of the process could have improved several elements, such as: the materials, in tenns of their relevance and accessibiiity; the public events in temof including more people; and long tem buy-in, through starting off with a more established core of people to help direct and support the results of the process. This, in turn, may have deviated some of the uncertainty and confùsion, caused by the lack of a clear mandate and temu of rdereuce, at the commencement of the two cornminees. The main question that these findings raise, however, is: Will the strong results of the public process be undermined in the long nui by the weaker participatory aspects? Unfortunately, there are many other factors involved, such as participant availability and knowledge, political events, and support of or resistance to goverment and others in the community. As a result it will be diflticult to link the effects of the public process directfy to the outcomes of a WI evaluation at a later date.
It is Iürely that ail parties involved in the CRW Public Process iearned valuable knowledge and skills in the Public Process. For instance, City of Coquitlarn staEwho took part leztrned more about community-dnven public processes and the extent to which the municipality needs to be involved to aid these (Palidwor, pers. corn.., 1996). They, and other sectors such as business end industry, also likely gaineci Merunderstanding as to the views and sentiments of constituents on the state of the watershed and need for stewardship. The environmental community in the watershed seemed heartened by the number of people that came to the public events and by the end result. Without detailed sweys, however, these assurnptions cannot be confirmed and definitive conc~usionscm not be made.
5.2.3 Process Mechaaics The CRW Public Process appears to meet most of the criteria of the Process Mechanics Framework. As noted in the results, the elements that facilitated this were as foliows: extensive consultation at each stage of the process, although most intensively at the very beginning; an open-ended format that solicited and used input to determine the content and procedure for the process; and events that were focused, ran smoothly, and had concrete results.
The critena b) Gdsand objectives of the process clew and able to be evaluated and a) Process war hclusiw were rated "parily accomplished" in the evaluation. In order to be measurable, the goals and objectives needed to contain concrete targets by which to compare the outcomes of the process. For example, it was noted that the clause "means to decide a vision" was too vague to be properly evaluated. This is partly due to the fact that the goals were formed before daails of the public process were estabiished and watershed constituents had yet to contribute such input. This point highlights the dilemma of open-ended public processes where the question must be focused but not too narrow, so as to bring out the range of views and promote discussion.
As for inclusion, the reasons for not conducting the outreach to include a wider range of constituents are the usual ones cited by processes: not enough time to conduct outreach nor 63 resources to provide altemative fomiat materiais, translation, or daycare for single parents. Whiie these reasons may be valid for srnail processes, iarge ones should make the effort to ensure as wide a participation as possible. Proponents of social sustainability provide additionai reasons for malMg the effort to include "harder to involve" populations. Not ody are perspectives missed, diminishing the abüity of the process and community to fully assess al1 the issues, but there are also missed opportunities for stewardship action at the local level and for promoting more tolerance, understanding, and connections acxoss the community. These are di important factors in the social sustainability of the community. The rectification of such oversights WUhopefidly be made by the cornmunity as they continue with the initiative.
5.3 Discussion of Frameworks and Criteria
5.3.1 Using Tbree Fmmeworb
The use of three frameworks was admittedly sornewhat cumbersome. There was repetition of some critena and their dEerent origins meant that some adaptation and interpretation was needed for each to apply to the emergence of WIs. However, it appears that in order to assess the mobilization stage of emerging WIs, all three were needed. Mobilitation consists of leaders focusing the energy of a wider group of people intent on social change. The principles of procedural sustainability indicate that this relationship between the leaders and participants must have integrity. Participants must be "partners" in the process in terms of directhg and organizing activities and results, and the group or community, as individuals and as a whole, must build capacity whiie rraliang their goals.
Thus, three aspects of the process needed addressing in order to meet the goals of the evaluation, first, to gain iasight into the emergence ofwatershed initiatives, and second, to determine to what extent a given WI is emerging in a sustainable way. These aspects were: the process used by catalytic leaders of the "interest community," the activities and participation of those in the interest community, and the process that was implemented by the participants and the leaders. As noted, there is no single bework that deals with aU these elements in the bci of detail required to adequately evaluate them. The three fiameworks selected to achieve this-CLP, PAR, and Process Mechanics respectively-are strong evaluation tools in themselves. When appiied togethar to a public process, they can provide a more rounded view and a more complete assessrnent of the process. There is some confusion in attempting to determine whether or not the process was conducted accordhg to principles of procedurai sustainability. Whereas the Process Mechanics and PAR f-eworks are directiy linked to sustainsrh'ility principles, the CLP has only some criteria that reflect these principles. Each fiamework starts fiom different assumptions. Process Mechanics assumes that whoever the organizers are (whether from the community or not), they are interested in setting up the means for a larger group in the community to interact. The CLP assumes that there is not a ready community to work with and that the individuals who would take part in the process need convening as weh as directing. PAR assumes that there is a comrnunity of interest that just needs some assistance in determining and reakg their goals. As such, CLP appears more directive (iess "bottom-up") and therefore less "sustainable" than PAR The steps for each are very sirnilar, the main dserence behg the final criterion: in PAR it is d) The community muintains or takes controî of the resemch process, and in CLP it is fl Sustain the stukehofdersin the process and nra~gethe interconnections. From the point of view of sustainability, PAR coafirms this bottom-up direction. On the other hand, the reality is that the catalyst leaders often must stay involved for an extended period of tirne untii other leaders emerge. In the final analysiq more work needs to be done to determine adequately the nature of a "sustainable process" and the timeline for such an endeavour.
5.3.2 What Aspects Are Missed by the Evduation? There were five main aspects that are not accounted for in the three frameworks.
The kkst is the importance of conduchg an initial assessrnent of a community or watershed to detedeif the community is ready to embark on such a process. Romaine (1997) provides a "cornmunity readiness" fiamework, but the categories are unforhinately too broad for this type of assessment. The general areas suggested for evaluation are: broad-based awareness and knowledge of the issue; interest of the community or a segment of it in the issues at stake, including the existence of potentid leaders; a culture or conditions that provide the basis for action; and support for the process including moral, ia-kind, and monetary.
This pre-assessrnent could use simple methods such as interviews, small focus groups, and discussions with constituents in the area. Since it would be very hard to set up objective criteria, 65 these would be evaluated using a compilati~riof results from discussion and judgments of those involved in convening the process, based on experience and cornrnon sense.
A pre-assessrnent was carrieci out for the CRW Public Process, but in an ad hoc fashion. The major area that was Ieft out was determinhg whether or not there would be leaders to take over the results of the process. Since leaders often emerge through the process this aspect should probably be assessed at the beginning and during the process.
The second rnissed aspect was the galvanizing effect of the two watershed events on active individuals in the environmental community, many of whom, as previously noted, were experiencing Werent levels of bum-out. The process brought people together, demonstrated that the community was concemed, and provided a reason for action-oriented people to push fonvard to strike and join the two committees. Although not as many new people got involved as had been anticipated, the energinng force of "new blood" was a motivating factor that environmentalists ideatified as a need in the research stage.
The inmience of other watershed initiatives is the third factor in the CRW public process that is not taken into account by the fiameworks. The participation of members of the Alouette River Management Society (ARMS) played an important role in educating coostituents in the CRW about watershed initiatives and provided a concrete example of how and why a neighbouring community had set one up. In addition, information provided by proponents of other watershed initiativesysuch as those in Langiey and Courtenay, helped the Start-up Cornmittee decide how to proceed wah a structure for CRW.Finally, the information (and slides) generously provided to the researcher by watershed proponents around the province meant that the researcher's explanations for how Ws could operate' and for what purpose, was made more clearly to CRW constituentS.
Fourth, there is the issue of parties in watersheds who are not interested in a change in status quo and have the ability to affect the outcorne. These parties can be vimiaily any group, including a governmental jurisdiction or department, a residents' group, or a business. Anticipating that their interests will be affecteci, they either do not participate in or try to position themselves to control or subvert the process. In the CRW these dynamics were a factor in the foliow-up stage. Some members of committees perceived that industrial interests of the watershed were attempting to subvert the mandates of the cormittees. While this did affect committee members' and constihients' organlling activities, it has not dampened, and has perhaps even fùeled, the detennination of CRW condtuents to address the issues. This is consistent with Smelser' s observation that even the response of social control agents is repression of a new social movement, thus it may actually serve to stimulate the movement.
The presence of these dynamics does, however, mean that constituents have to be clear about what they want. One point of learning for the foiiow-up stage to the CRW Public Process is the need to establish the tems of reference for new cornmittees as soon as possible der theu inauguration.
Finally, none of the fiameworks deternilned whether or not early and ongoing evaluation mechanisms were in place. Inclusion of this step would be most appropriate in the Process Mechanics Framework, but ail three frameworks should have some level of evaluation as part of the criteria.
5.3.3 Applying The Three Frameworks to the Emergeoce of Other Watenhd Initiatives
Tabk 7. Summary of Strengths and Drawbackr of Criteria
1 Strenntbs 1 Drawbacks 1 ------kessMechanics: - hetps determine if specinc aspects of - needs concrete targets to verify results process are accounted for - should be conducted by someone other - helps detennine the extent to which the than convenor of process process used sustainable critena - need to use evahiative instruments for ail _ aspects 1 Pwticipatom A&*on Resemb: - determines the roles that participants - evaluation should be conducted by ! played in the process at the key steps participants - excelient for evaluating the extent to - doesn't provide detail on the role of the which processes are "bottom-up" researcher Catafvn'c Learlerskb: - assists with descxibing the steps that - too many aspects of process rolled into CL'S need to take to implement a one criterion process - does not determine whether or not process was "sustainable" 67 The use of these three heworkstogether assumes that there are at least two groups entering into a process: cataiyst leaders and participants. AU the criteria of the frameworks need to be broken domioto smaller increments and have concrete targets attached to them to be fully effective evaluation tools. After these adaptations, the use of PAR and the CLP will provide results of the process corn two points of view, the participants and the leaders. The Process Mechanics Evaluation will provide more detailed results on how the process was conducted and could be incorporated into either PAR or CLP ifa more streamiined evaluation is desired. Some of the missiag elements cited above should be incorporated as well, such as a pre-assessrnent and an evaluation strategy. 6.0 CONCLUSION The conclusion will brhg together the research, case study findings, and analysis to provide s response to the research question: What role do WIs play in moving cornmunities and regions towards sustainability?
6.1 What Are Community-baseà Watershed Initiatives in B.C.? While citizen-based watershed initiatives in B.C. often consist of governent and non-govemment proponents, they originate and are based on citizen action. Some argue that they are the most vibrant and durable types of environmental initiatives in the province (Angelo, 1996; Gardner, 1992). men originating with streamkeepers and ecology groups, these initiatives are generally focused on stopping Merdegradation of watershed ecosysterns and initiating enhancement, restoration, rnapping, monitoring, and education programs that contribute to the heahh of naairai systems in their watersheds. In conducting this work, WIs are providing a platforni for various governrnent agencies, departments and non-profit groups to coordinate, problem solve, and plan in a more integrated way for their watersheds. Some Wis are going beyond a strict environmentai focus and are conducting watershed planning that also addresses social and economic systems on a watershed basis (Stavinga, 1997). Many have originated fiom local or regional round tables, and as a reailt are dedicated to rigorously democratic methods of meeting and decision making, such as: including all sectors, conducting consensus-based decision-making, forming partnerships among diverse parties and sectors, and using many forrns of cooperative organization ('SAof B.C., 1997; Lotz, 1996).
The mandates of WIs are closely associated with a broad definition of sustainability, and their proponents work hard to integrate its substantive and procedwal imperatives. A review of activities and mission statements of Watershed Initiatives reinforces this findimg. Five common characteristics have been described: a watershed approach-using watershed boundaries and concepts as the basis for planning and management; an ecosystem-based approach-a hoiistic and integrated approach to planning and management; process integrity-inclusion, equity and cooperative decision-making; a practical approacbintent on achieving on-the-ground results and building persona1 and cornmunity capacity; and local control-stressing the importaace of local input into the management of resources and natural systems. The extent to which these principles 69 are being realued in WIs, and the extent to which their efforts will result in substantive sustainable outcornes and enduring social change are yet to be determinecl.
6.2 MatConstitutes a Sustainable Process in the Emergence of a WI? Two complementary models were reviewed in this paper to lay the basis for the establishing whether processes such as WIs are emerging sustainably. The fit, Smelser's model, describes elements of social movements that lead to social change. Social change is generaily seen in broad thematic areas such as civil rights or environmental justice, rather than in focused projects. Smelser describes six elements leading to social change: structural strains-tensions or conflict in the current situation; structural conducivenss-opportunities for change in the current societal structure; general beliefs-a general agreement in the broad population about the reasons for the tensions or confîict; precipitating events-those that begin to move people to action; mobüization-the emergence of leaders that mobüize and focus the action; and the reaction of the social control agents-those whose interests appear threatened by social change. In this paper, Smelser's Model was applied generally to Watershed Initiatives to assess the extent to which they constitute a social movement. The analysis revealed that W17sexhibited all aspects of a social movement except for 'precipitating events." There are no major events that have convinced citizens throughout B.C. that they need to organize on a watershed basis. Rather, there are smaller "flash-points" that occur in each watershed that rnotivate people to take action. Without major events to galvanize people, more emphasis is placed on the catalysts or leaders to encourage and focus action to bring about social change. In taking more responsibility for education, convening and assisting a community to undertake social change, leaders and catalysts are more susceptible to misrepresenting information, proceeding without adequately codting or includhg participants in the process, and being coopted by those fearful of social change.
Therefore, the second mode4 procedural sustainab'ility, addresses elements that evaluate the imegrity of processes such as: ensuring that processes are at least partly dnven by 'cbottom-up" dynamics, but are not purely "topdown"; ensuring that al1 interested parties are included in a process; ushg meeting and process methods to facilitate the fidl participation of all parties; using altemative dispute resolution for resolving conflicts; and incorporating an evaluation and monitoring procedures. These two models point to the examination of three main parameters-process, participants, and leade-first, to gain insight into the dyaamics of an emerging Wi, and second, to determine ifit is emerging using p~ciplesof sustainab'ility. There was no single Eamework to evaluate these dynamics. Many fiarneworks were too broad (such as Srnelser's model) or too narrowly focused on multi-stakeholder decision-making processîs, to properly evaluate emerging Wis. Therefore, three separate tarneworks were chosen: Catalytic Leadership Framework to evaluate the role of catalysts; Participatory Action Research to evaluate the extent to which constituents were driving the process; and Process Mechanics Framework to evaluate whether WIs were using sustainable process. These beworks were meant to be complementary, in order to reveal different insights on the emergence of wat ershed initiatives.
6.3 Why Did the CRW Public Process Corne About?
A combination of factors led to the conception, implementation, and results of the CRW Public Process. Its origins cm be seen in citirens' and govenunents' hstration in addressing the degraded state of the local watershed emsystems, and the lack of integrated approach to resolving problems. One source of fiutration was the lack of communication between the main juisdictions, who most directly affect the physical and social and environmental management of the river and watershed. In the CRW these include the cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, B.C. Hydro, Departinent of Fisheries and Oceans, Ministry of the Environment, and Ministry of Mines. Another source of fnistration was the fiagmented management approach of the agencies responsible for the region. A third concem was the lack of coordination amongst community members and groups interested and active in preserving the health of the watershed. A fourth was a lack of communication between concerned citizens in the neighbourhoods of the two cities in CRW-
The environmental ramifications of these structural strains have had four major results for the Coquitlam River Watershed. These are: a) sedimentation fiom urban development and grave1 extraction operations that have compromised ali streams of the lower watershed and seriously degraded the Coquitlam River to the point where healthy steelhead and salmon ruas are a phenornenon ofthe past; b) extensive loss of important habitat in the lower watershed fiom rapidly expanding han development, and in the upper watershed fiom logghg operations; c) contamination of soil and water from a myriad ofsources, including industrial effluents and residential non-point source pollution; and ci) bisection of the Coquitlam River Watershed by a dam, and subsequent low flows to the lower river. Mmy citizens have channeled their fhstration (aud interest) into a great number of environmentai groups, most of which are "hands on"-conducting enhancement and restoration activities in the waiershed. ûthers who are not so involved are aware of the broad environmental issues as a result of coverage in the regional and local media and their own experience of the ana, often based on recreational activities. Many interviewed in the research stage of the process recognized that the environmental cornmunity was fiagmented and needed to come together and join with other sectors in the community to solve the persistent and compiicated problems of the CRW.
While there does not appear to be enough political will in this area to address major problems, there is a sensitivity on the part ofcity councüs regartkg environmental issues, and an awareness that much of public has some knowledge of these issues. Thus, the approach of city councils seems to be to keep in step with the majonty of population, without raising the ire of the major election contibuton (Golds, pers. comm., 1996). The City of Coquitlam appears to be the most committed, having conducted a number of initiatives: a City Vision (1 995) that inciudes environmentai aspects; environmentaliy oriented events such as the Environmental Fair and the "Salmon-Corne-Home"festival; a sediment control by-law to prevent developers fiom silting up streams; and at least one and a half staff people dedicated to environmental matters. The City of Port Coquitlam has an environrnental protection committee which includes citizen representatives, and one staff person dedicated to environmental education and stewardship. Willing as staff of both cities were to be involved, they were also aware of their Wted abilities to instigate and maintain a major regional initiative. These litnits included a lack of resources and a lack of trust by citizens of goverment-led initiatives.
In the City of Coquitlam, a supportive atmosphere amongst statf: who were quite aware of tbe issues, sympathetic to the cause, and knowfedgeable in public process, created a positive environment in which to conduct a public pro~ess.~The entrance of the researcher was a serendipitous event that coincided witb the creation and passing of the sediment control by-law. The researcher was viewed by al&nom govemment officiais to enviromenta1 groups and
6 This was combineci with support fbm timding Mes,which included the Real Estate Foundation, the Fraser River Action Ph(federal agency), B.C. Hydro, DeparÉmeat of Fisheriesand Oceans, and VanCity Credit Union citizens, as a resource to be taken advantage of and supported. In particular, those who had been worMng on relaied issues for a long time saw the presence of the researcher as an opportunity to try to address the seemingiy intractable problems facing the watershed. Happüy the needs of both the researcher and community coincided very weii, and small compromises were easily made where they did not.
6.4 How Did the WI Emerge and Did the Process Adhere to Sustainability Prhciples?
In the CRW case study, catalytic leaders built on the base of awareness and frustration, previously noted, to bring interested constituents in the cornmunity together to discuss the possibility of resolving problems in the watershed. The cataiyst leaders-consisting of the consultant, the researcher, and ad hoc advisors from the City of Coquitlarn and the commmity-conducted research and education and held two events to provide venues for community discussion and action.
The process was conducted weil according to Process Mechanics critena. Wntten material was clear, and constituents were given adequate notice of events. Participants understood the purpose and goals of events so that they were able to contnbute effectively. The fact that two cornmittees fodat the Workshop and have been meeting for over a year, demonstrates that the Public Process events were used by the comrnunity to move foward in addressing issues in the CRW.
Several objectives of the process also were intended to address some underlying gaps identified by community memben in the research phase of the Public Process. These were a lack of communication between proponents working on environmental issues, and the need for these groups to network and build up a stronger environmental "sectof' in the community. This was cited as one of the likely reasom that an initiative had not occmed in the CRW to date. Measures taken to address these issues in the CRW Public Process inciuded a phone and address database, display tables at the Forum, and a Stewardship Chart detailuig d the groups and departments working in the watershed and their respective aaMties.
The Catalytic Leadership Process evaluation showed that catalytic leaders understood key concepts, fiamed relevant questiom7and identifiecl and involved stakeholders in leamiog, hventing, alignhg, and implementing solutions. The public process went slightly beyond a strict 73 CL Process, as described by Partners for Human Investment, by consulting widely on the formation of the goals, and setting up the process to be dnven by the needs of the participants.
The case study analysis suggests that this was more of a catalyst-driven than a grassroots-driven process. The Participatory Action Researcb fiamework, onginating in the ideology of empowement and transformation of communities and society, assesseci the extent to whkh the community itseîftook part in directing, participahg and benefiting from the results of the process. The evaluation reveafed that this process was not completely bbparticipatory."This was because participants were not as involved in the production of materials or evaluation of the whole process as is requind by the fhmework. What ensured that the process did adhere partly to PAR criteria, was that the comrnunity generated and took responsibility for implementing the results of the public process.
In summary, according to the cnteria, the CRW Public Process was not conducted in strict adherence to principles of procedural sustainability. However, the fact that the participants were not as involved in the organization ofthe process appears to have been compensated for by the fact that the participants took responsibility for the results at the end of the process. There is a fine line between comrnunity animation, and the support and fostering of leaders and systems to maintain community-based processes. In this respect, none of the three fhmeworks adequately deah with the relationship between catalysts and "grass roots" rnovement. This could be the subject of Merremch.
6.5 WU the Results Lead to a Watershed Initiative Similar to Others in B.C.?
Although the CRW Public Process did adhere to many of the principles of sustainabüity, it is difEcult to predict Erom the results if the Public Process will form the basis for an enduring W. There are positive and negative indications, and it is not clear how much weight to attribute to each. The following is a brief sunmary and disaission of the process results with respai to this question. 6.5.1 Analysis of WIs Using Smclser's Mode1
As noted in the discussion, the CRW had all of the Smelser's "precu~sors"for a social movement: . "Stnictural str;lins" redting in environmental degradation and leading to discontent with the way govenunent has handled regional development and management, and with the way they are attempting to rectify past rnistakes; A "system ofgeneralized beiiefs" in the fom of broad awareness of environmental concepts and practice; "Structural conduciveness" in the form of: - Broad awareness of how meetings are run, and how to organize at a social level, - Grass-roots movement addressing most inmediate, concrete problems, building knowledge, cornmunity, merawareness, and fiirther understanding of the wider issues, - Government programs fostering gras-roots prognuns, ,and, - Existence of and oppominities for inaividuals to guide regional-level watershed initiatives.
The "precipitating event" occurred with the organization of the CRW Public Process. The mobiiizing element was a loose group of individuals in the comrnunity, assisted by a researcher fiom outside the comrnunity. The response of the "social control agents" (identifiecl as govement and industry in this case) was varied. AU were supportive and attended the events of the public process. There was some dissension duMg the first year of the follow-up to the Public Process with regards to what types of bodies and individuals should be permitted to sit as voting members on the cornmittees. The two committees conf?onted the issues, focused on their goals, and persevered. Thus, the redts of Smelser's mode1 indicates that CRW Public Process is moving inexorably towards a watershed initiative.
6.5.2 Characteristics of WL( in B.C. Applid to the CRW Public Process An examination of whether the CRW Public Process is displayhg the cornmon characteristics of WIs confims that it is moving in this direction. However, it aiso reveals that there are sorne issues that may yet hinder its development. a) WafershedApprwch This was one of the initial criteria for the process. It was the defïning factor both in temof how the process was conducted and how it was understood. As memioned in the CLP results, people 75 who were not initially fdarwith the idea of watershed boundaries and dynamics tended to embrace it once they understood why the process was using watersheds as a regional deheation. b) Ecosystem-bd Apprwch The need to address the problems of the watershed in a comprehensive fashion was identifieci as a key elemenî by almost everyone consulted in the research stage. Participants brought up and disnissed many of the negative aspects of environmental degradation in their area and the challenges involved in addressing them. These are typical of those seen across the province: fhgmented, centralizeâ management of naturai areas and resources; inability of govemment to stop or repair impacts of pollution; and lack of meanlligful participation in decisions by local constituents. These sentiments were reiiiforced both at the Forwn and the Workshop, with many suggestions for a watershed body and calls for sectors to work together to solve problems (see Appendix F). c) Process Integriîy The aspects of inclusion and equity were established by finding partners as mandatory parts of the public process and were reinforced by participants in the cornmunity. Cooperative decision- making was not seen as a pnority at this stage, and there were mixed reactions regarding adoption of the "round table approach" at this stage to address the watershed's problems.
This discussion of "inclusion" was the result of encounters with "resistant" stakeholders. It brought into focus the steps required by the community to deal with the current problems and highlighted the tension brought about by the principle of inclusion. This is the conundnun of; on the one hand, needing to indude everyone in order to approach the watershed as a whole and secure "ownership" in the process and, on the other, making sure that the first steps of an initiative are not squashed by nervous stakeholders. Given past expenences in the CRW and current power dynamics it was not clear that inclusion of everyoae was the best policy. The experience of the Start-up Cornmittee hammered home the need to strengthen "weak" sectors, or buüd up skiils and knowledge of individuals, before engaghg in inclusive multi-stakeholder processes. d) Practicai Approach and C@ty Building Widespread participation in irnplementing a practical approach to reversing degradation of the environment underpimed the public process. People who are very active in all aspects of stewardship were some of the main participants. The participants continued this approach by forming an action cornmittee to carry out stewardship projects in the watershed.
Capacity building, aithough not a significant element in the Public Process (see PAR results above), was a contributing factor in the groundwork of the process. OflEicials fiom both dies are mently helping the comrnunity develop streamkeepers groups for the main tributaries in the lower watershed. The initiation and development of these groups has contributed to citizens' awareness and knowledge of watershed ecosystems. The Public Process has Merbuilt on these activities and awareness. It also increased capacity through the Workshop and through subsequent committee participation.
More than lack of sWs or capacity, a greater threat to such processes is the lack of time on the part of constituents to take part in process preparation and in subsequent cornmittee work. Although there was much enthusiasm and detemination to carry out the mandates of the CRW cornmittees, reaching these goals has been attenuated due to lack of time and energy on the part of members. This seems to be characteristic of this comrnunity, consisting mainly of families, where living expenses are high and Wtuaiiy ail addts mua work firll-tirne. In addition, other obligations such as families, other volunteer work and leisure pursuits compete with "new initiativesy'such as the CRW Public Process. e) LocalConiroi This principle was not brought out directly at the CRW Public Process. However, the topics addresseci at the Workshop included not only ecosystem heaith, but also economic development and regional issues such as water supply and power. The discussion of these issues, and the need to address persistent problems in the watersheû, provokeâ some discussions regarding the need for local constituents to have more input into regional issues (Srneiles, 1996).
In spite of the CRW Public Process exhibiting many of the principles of sustainabifityythere is some question as to whether this process wili lead to a watershed initiative in the CRW.The process was adequately nui by process mechanics waluatioa standards, and the catalyst leaders were effective in fiaming and implementing the process. However, the PAR criteria indicate that the participants were not included enough in the Stid planning and organizing of the process. 77 Although the results and follow-up are prcmising (two citizen-nui committees that have mafor a year and devised action plans), it is likely they could have been better used to cultivate leaders of the nasceat watershed initiative. This could have been achieved by conducting wikoutreach for additional committee members, and holding group-building and facilitation workshops.
Part of this dynamic has perhaps resulted in too much reliance on catalyst leaders-specificaliy, the administrative support of the City of Coquitleto organize meetings and print materials for the Start-up Cornmittee. This support continued until the new CRW Society interim board was formed in November of 1997. Until that point, city-based administration meant that members of the environmental community did not cornmunicate with each other as often as they could have, and that opportunities for vital connections, possible alliances, and just plain "community- building" may have been rnissed.
6.5.3 Other Factors Other factors may affect the outcome apart from what was learned through the three evaluative frameworks. These include: the need for a systernatic "pre-assessment" of the community and pertinent issues before proceeding with a public process; the power dynamics of various players in the watershed; the role of other watershed initiatives in providing examples and support; and the lack of tirne and energy of watershed constituents to take part in such initiatives.
Whether the public process dlcontribute to the fostering of a watershed initiative ultimately hinges on the dynamic between catalysts and participants. As has happeneâ in so many communities, if the dependence on the catalysts continues and movement leaders do not emerge, the impetus to form a watershed initiative wiii likely fade. This is a dynamic that requires more research in tems of the role and limits of catalytîc leaders and the expectations that communities place on them.
In the bal enalysis, given the multitude of fictors and dynamics involved, it is very difI3cult to specificaiiy pinpoint aspects of the CRW Public Process and follow-up that will lead to or hhder the formation of an ongoing WI. 6.6 What Role Are WIs Plsying in Moving Communities and Regions Towa rds Sustainability ? With limited resources and iabouring in circumstances where the dominant "paradigm" is antithetical to their principles, WIs are playing a sigoificant role in movhg cornmunities and regions towards sustainab'rlity in the short term At this point, they are focushg on the natural environment, although most aie aware of the importance of social sustainability. From the point of view of action, they are physically improving the environment. Through these activities they are raising awareness. At an organizational level they are confionthg the fiagmented management of unsustainable regional development, and addressing it by convening round tables, initiating watershed planning processes, and conducthg conflict resolution and multi-stakeholder prograrns that include al relevant parties. Successes have served to propel some govemment departments to use a watershed approach to manage natual systems and resources and to recognize the value of multi-stakeholder and public processes.
It is too early in their development to say whaher WIs will eventually become more permanent institutions. This would be the next step in a successful social movement (Garner, 1997). At present, however, their value as flexible entities that can experiment with various structures and fhctions and leam from their mistakes, seems crucial. The self-reflective aspects of these initiatives are an important part of their bid not to repeat the mistakes of current institutions. ui summary, the role of WTs in moving commmities and regions towards sustainabiiity is to do the foiîowing: help constituents and govemments corne to terms with past mistakes and their consequences for naturai systems; envision improved systems of management and governance, and the kind of environment and society that would be desirable to work towards; set up structures and systems that attempt to work towards and reflect principles of sustainability; and evaiuate and rework structures and systems as Merlearning occurs.
6.7 Impkations for Regional Development and Planning in B.C.
It is too early in the development of WIs to preâict if they wili be part of solving regional development and planning problems in the long term. There have been some indications of early successes in terms of social and ecosystem changes: the addition of 100 cubic feet per second of 79 water hto the Alouette River (Clayton, pers. comm., 1996), initial identincation and clean-up of poilution in Baynes Sound (Pinho, pers. comm., 19971, and increased salmon retums as a result of intense rebabilitation of riverside habitat on Salmon River in Salmon Arm (SRWRT,n.d.). The creation and attempts to adhere to watershed principles indicates that 'A.? proponents are determined to bring about changes for the long term. However, it seems clear that these principles and activities will have to go beyond ecosystem management to social and econornic solutions if WIs are to be the sites of imtitutionalized sustainable renewal. While this broadening-of-mandate is happening in some watersheds as they enter into fÙU-sale watershed planning there is still no coherent phiiosophy to underpin it (Grant, 1997). Boothroyd suggests that when this occurs, it wilî signify the next stage in the movement (1991). It is possible that a version of bioregionalism will be the answer, but this is an ara that requires more research.
It seems as ifwatenhed initiatives are a true grass roots social movement in B.C.,because, despite the lack of an underlying philosophy or coherent govemment policies or programs, there are stories of cornmunities starting up watershed initiatives every other month (Grave], pers. comm., 1997; Palidwor, pers. comm., 1997). The Coquitlam River Watershed, as a potential initiative among many, demonstrates that a broad range of people quickly grasp the physical and administrative concepts of watersheds and the possibilities of planning at a watershed scale. Ethe CRW is any indication, there is no lack of knowledge and skills in communities to realize watershed initiatives. However, because initiatives are entities outside of existing institutions, the and money appear to be the limiting factors. As a result, the tole played by stewardship groups and supportive governrnents in bringing these about is crucial. In areas such as Coquitlam, Port Moody, and Port Coquitlam, the adverse combination of luke-warm support fiom local government, a demographic emphasis on young fàmilies, and very high living expenses may be enough to stymie such initiatives.
If WIs are the merto ou.problems, it seems logical that they be supported by governments at aU levels. In fact, ail levels of government do support various initiatives to one degree or another, but none in a compreheasive way (CantweU, 1995). There are several problems with fidl scale support: a @cal public limits the ability of government representatives and burea~matsto lead initiatives; diminishing resources mean that representatives can not aord to devote theto initiatives until it is part of the mandate oftheir positions; and many governments, particularly local jwisdictions, feei threatened by the change in status quo that WIs could bnng about (Wix, pers. comm., 1996). In spite of t hese tensions, sorne local government s are irnplementing environmental by-laws (District of North Vancouver, 1 996; City of Coquitlam, 19%). There are even municipalities such as Courtenay on Vancouver Island that are looking at including watershed planning guidelines in Ofncial Comrnunity Plans and development by-laws (Porter, pers. wmm., 1997). Some watershed proponents anticipate that WIs will fonn the basis of a new govemmental structure. merswill be happy XWIs can lave us with a legacy of changes in existing government practices and legislation that reflect ecosystem health prionties. Lht of Comrnunity-based Watershed Initiatives in B.C. (WSA of B.C.,1997)
Allied Rivers Commission, hceGeorge Alouette River Management Society, Maple Ridge Baker Cnxk Enhancement Society, @esne1 Chase Creek Watershed Comunity Association, Chase Chilliwack Community Watershed Snapshot, Chilliwack Coastal Comrnunities Network, Ucluelet Community Group of McComii Creek, Mission Comox Valley Project Watershed Society, Courtenay Cowichan Watershed Council, Duncan Eagie River Watefshed Initiative, Sicarnous East Kooteaay Environmentai Society, Kimberly Friends of Boundary Bay/Fraser For Life, Delta Gambier Island Conservancy Grand Forks Watershed Coalition, Grand Forks Hagan CreeWKennes Project, Sidney Harrop-Proctor Watershed Protection Committee, Nelson Hatak Valley Community, Mission Howe Sound Watershed Environmental Netwok, Squamish Islands Alliance, Gabriola Island Island Watch Society, Saltspring Island Kispiox Watershed Protection Coalition, Hazelton Langley Environmental Partners Society, Salmon River Watershed, Langley Lillooet District Community Resource Board, Lillooet Lockhart Creek Heritage Commiaee, Crawford Bay Lower Bridge Creek Watershed Society, 108 Mile Ranch Mercantile Creek Watershed/Ucluek Comrnunity Vision Group, Ucluelet Merry Creek-Robson Ridge Water Users, Castlegar MiUarcüPiercy Waîershed Stewards, Courtenay Mission Creek Watershed Initiative, Kelowna Nelson and Area Watersbed Conunittee, Nelson Nicola Watershed Community Roundtable, Me* Peace Valley Enviromentai Association, Fort St. John Prospect Lake Comrnuoity Watershed Association, Victoria Quesnel River Watenhed Alliance, Horsefly Rivers Inlet Restoration Society, Richmond Save Georgia Strait Alliance, Nanaimo Salmon River Watersheû Roundtable, Salmon Arm Shushwap Environmental Action Society3 Salmon Ami Skeena Watershed Cornmittee, Prince Rupert South ThompsodShuswap kgional Roundtable Mative, Kamloops Stein Action Committee, Lytton Stoney Creek Environmental Cornmittee, Burnaby Sunshine Coast Natutal Resources, Gisons Thompson Watershed Coalition, Kamloops Tsolum River Watershed Protection Society3 Courtenay Upper Bridges Creek Watershed Protection, Lone Butte West Ami Watershed AUiance, Nelson APPENDIX B List of Products and Records fmm CRW Public Process
two sets ofeight 30" X 30" information pmcls on natershed-aii laminated: one set on foam core and the other with velcro backing 3-dimensional colour mode1 of watershed, 24" X 60" (hoiiow so cm be carried by one person) SLide Shows: - Muiti-media show of Unages of watershed to music by Ken Baker (seven minutes) - Description of upper and lower watenhed and impacts and stewardship efforts- narrated (25 minutes) - Description of several watershed stewardship initiatives in B.C.-narrated (ten minutes) - Library of about 150 siides of the natural and human-built aspects of the watershed and some examples of stewardsbip projects and events Dr& of Stewardship Chart Informational Documents: - Swnmary of Issues - Final Report sdlibrary of reports and studies on the Coquitfarn River Watershed (please note: not di titles on the reference üst are part of the collection)
Oct. 10 Forum - plenary session proceedings ofNov. 30 Workshop: - Mark Angelo's speech - vision - moming small groups - afternoon smd groups - plenary session
Database of over 250 contacts on ACCESS - backed up City of Coquitlam hard drive Hard copy files contained in Oxford Füing Box: - Watershed Contacts - Slide Show Text - Publicity - Finances - Overview Matetials - Funding Proposais - Display Panels - Presentations and Reports - Forum - Finai Report and Appendices
Cornputer Files on disk (in box) and backed up on City of Coquitiam hard drive (Dave Palidwor's files)-same as above categorîes 83 APPENDIX C Case Study Backgroun&Hlstoy of CRW Land and Water Use
Landseripe and Ecologiul Processes
Situated about seven kilometres east of New Westminster, CRW is a long and relatively narrow valley of about four hundred square kilometreq onginally carved out by glaciers. In its pristhe state, up dlthe mid 18007s, the Coquitlam River mbled down the mountains fiom the headwaters at Disappointment Lake, fed by innumefable alpine streams, into Coquitlam Lake. It then emptied out into a canyon, passed through the foothills and plateau area, and braided out through the lower flatlands before flowing, 30 kiiometres later, into the Fraser River.
The moutains in the upper watershed and lower plateau aras were covered with Coastal Western Hemlock forests and supported diverse and abundant plant and animal He, including rare animais, such as rnarbled murrelets and spotted owls, and large rnamrnals such as grizzly bears and cougar. These populations of large and srnall mammals and birds were supporfed by healthy mns of all native salmonids found in the region. Of particular note were the sock-eye salmon runs that made Coquitlam River famous. The First Nations Coquitlam band recount stories passed down f?om their ancestors of large groups gatherlng on the banks of the Coquitlam for celebratory feasts at the time of the sock-eye salmon remup Coquitlam River to the lake (Manin Joe, pers. comm., 1996). This particular breed of sock-eye was apparently smder than others stocks in the area. Underlining this bistory is the name "Coquitlamt' or "Kwakwitlarn"as it was pronounceci, which means "little red fish" (Boyle, 1994).
In the Lower Watershed, wetlands covered the flood plains of the watershed, and provided abundant habitat for large populations of ducks, herons, raptors and other birds, the fidi range of mammais in the area, and protection for young salmonids.
The Coquitiarn Band, some of whom currently üve on a reserve at the mouth of the river, are investigating their history for the land claims process. Archeological evidence shows that this group has lived in the area for thousands of years. The natural abundance of the area supported populations of first nations whose culture was infuseci with, and revolved around, the naturai systems of the area (MaMn Joe, pers. comm., 1996).
Electricity generation &*:er!s most of the water that wouid aodyfiow down the Coquitlam River to Indian Am. The smaii hydro dam put up in 1904 was replaced in 1914 by a large earthen dam that complae!y blocked Coquitlam River just above Or Creek creating a long, deep, reservoir. A tunnel (an engineering achievement at the the)was built fiom the reservoir to Buntzen Lake. Water from Coquitlam Reservoir flows nom here down through two hydro generators, Buntzen 1 and 2, into Indian Arm. At that theit created enough electricity for the Lower Mainland. Stili operating today, it supplies ody 0.04%of the province's elecûicity needs. About 13% of the water is used by GVRD for The dam had imrnediate and long terni effects. One of the most dramatic impacts was the extinction of the famous sock-eye run in the Coquitlam River. It has signficantly reduced the water-levels in the lower third of the river which has had negative impacts on aquatic habitat and recreational use of the river. Other species such as pinks and chinook have also been affected. Impacts of lower water levels have combuied with poliution fiom gravel mining to exacerbate trauma to the river's qstem (Grist, pers. comm., 1996). In 1993, three agencies signed a Memorandum of Understandhg where Hydro agreed to release 18 cubic feet per second per year for fish habitat. This has been enough to provide for a salmon enhancement project, but many maintain it is not enough to restore self- sustainhg populations to the river, or for reweation needs (Smaileq 1997). The glacial retreat left large deposits of gravel interspersed with wide layers of clay. The gravel mining operators aarted out in the l9SO's by mining the river bed. This, according to Ministry of Environment, "dmost totaîly destroyed" the pink and chum spawning grounds in the lower river. In-strearn minhg was ended by the provincial government in 1965 and the companies simply moved operations to the west bank of the river (B.C. Ministry of the Environment, 1978: 130). Mhing continues today, and air photos show extensive pits dong a one to two kilometre stretch of the river bank under Westwood Plateau. The gravel minhg operators maintain that the ünk of gravel mîning to the loss of the pink salmon run has not been confirmed (Ailard, 1996). Wliile operators blame the slufEng of cWs up meam, most in the community are certain that sediment ftom these operations and fiom hill-side development have severely curtaiied salmon production and aquatic life in this system. To date, gravel pit owners have wt proved that runoff fiom their operations does not affect witdlife of the river. Significant amounts of suspend4 sediment enter the river fiom the grave1 pits, runoff moving through the sites, and fiom the gravel-washing operation effluent (Coulter Bois- Vert, pers. comm., 1996; Langer, pers. comm., 1996). Suspended particles damage the gills of fish causing them to suffocate, or to stawe if they are unable to see their food. The sediment that has settied out coats the river bed dom its length with a thick aixnost cernent- üke cover, suffocating aquatic insects and salmon eggs. Silt that is deposited at the mouth of the river has extended the mud-flats there by about 100 feet (Palidwor, pers. corn., 1996). Technid measures to improve water quality have been implemented by both gravel pits. However, many in the community believe that "dumphg" of dirty water still occurs and that the very muddy appearance of the Coquitlam River downstream of the operations on rainy days is the result of runoff âom the hiils through the pits. This issue is probably one of the most emotionai for the community, and has contributed to increasing conflict between the Uidustry, govemment, individuai residentq and environmental groups. Agric~~kurai,Urbun, and Suburbu~Devclopment The first dikes were built at the turn of the century to protect the new settlement Born floods and to create fdand. Colony Fann was one of the most famous fams in the Lower Mainland fiom 1904 to 1983. It provided ali sustenance for the provincial psychiatic hospitai, (previously Essondale, now Rive~ewHospital), whose population was approxhately 15,000 patients at its peak. Vast areas of wetlands were lost to these farms. Other large areas of wetlands were lost right up to the late 1980'9 as slag fiom the gravel pits was used to fill them in and mate land for residential and industrial development (Aüard, pers. comm., 1996). This has contnbuted to substantial loss of productive habitat and reduced the resiliency of the watershed system. Fortunately some of the now msed fm land has reverted to old field habitats, dowing many species to flourish and greatly contriiuting to biodivcrsity of the area. Colony Fmwas recently bought by the GVRD who is converthg it into a park and will be maintaining much of the area as a nature reseme (Colony Farm Land Use Study Steering Cornmittee, 1995). Intensive urban development did not omrin this area until the late 194C's and 1950's. An airphoto taken in the mid 1960's shows that urban sprawl was weil underway. The triangular Westwood Raceway was at it's hey-day and the broad parking lots and buildings of Coquitlam Centre are also evident. The next big boom began in the 1990's and saw the creation of notorious housing developments such as Mary W and Westwood Plateau. This area is etill boomin& although single-fdy-dwelling style developments are gradually giving way to less sprawling designs such as townhouses and apartment buildings. There is dso an increased awareness of the need for mixeci use development and transportation control by both Coquitlarn and Port Coquitlarn City Councils. Urbanization has had and continues to have devastating effects on natural systems. Habitat loss, and reduction in biodiversity are the major, immediate effects. Other effects are geomorphological and hydrological changes to the river and streams with straightenhg, the installation of culverts, and other alterations to dow for the constniction of roads, parhg lots and buildings. Construction is also seen as a major contributor of silt to streams of the area and the Coquitlarn River. The City of Coquitlarn passed a Sedirnent Control By-law in 1996 in an attempt to ducethe amount of sediment entering these water courses. The increased impermeable surface area has akered the hydrological patterns of the streams. This is lowering the water table, and in tum reducing water levels that supply the strearns through the sumrner. Lowered water levels contribute to Uicreased water temperature and decreased aquatic habitat (Lee, pers. corn., 1996). The activities of urban life literally spill out and drain over paved surfaces into streams and rivers. They cause large decont~ation nom hydrocarbons, toxic cleaning substances, and other substances fkom domestîc, commercial and industrial sites. Depending on the concentration, be t fiom tmck spiils, deliberate dumping of oii changes, or rain-water mn- off after a dry spell, aquatic insect Me is severely effected by this toxic soup, and fish kills are not uncomrnon (Nipers. corn., 1996) APPENDN D Detaih of Evaiuation Results of the CRW Public Process 1. Participato y Action Research Resul& ofPmtr'c@atotyAction Reseatch Evalu&n . Partiy Not Evahation Accomplished Accomplished Accompüshed Criteria . a) Entry of the researcher x b) Participation of the community in setting the goals, and conducting the research, x analysis, and waluation c) Participants build capacity at a personal x and community level d) The community maintains or takes X control of the research process a) En@y of mearcher The researcher entered as part of i) "the group or community seek assistance to generate research for social change" and iii) "the researcher finds a community they can assist in solhg a cornmunity-identifid problem" of the options offered by Bailey (see Table 2, p.33). For i), the researcher was invited by an officiai of the City of Coquitlam to do research regardhg environmental projects for the city. For iii), the researcher was loobg for a cornrnunity in which to conduct a field project. The multi-faceted outcome for the entry is kely typical of most collaborations. The scenario is also similar to many PAR projects (Smith et al., 1991). However, within the framework of PAR, the imperative to ensure that the research sprang âom community- identifid issues and needs, was more weighty (Ralph, 1988) since the researcher came from an acadernic institution and from outside the community . b) Pa&@atr0on of communit~& seüing the gwLP and conhcting the resemch, ana&& and evaliralr'on i) Setring the gwls The sethg of goals was a joint effort that consisteci of codtation of a core group of advisors, and research of the wider group of individuals in the community. Codtation was done as much as possible in person, over the phone, and several times for each advisor throughout the process. ü) Conducting resemch, m&.s, and mdevtion Aithou@ mypeople f?om the community contnbuted in a myriad of ways, the main portion of these tasks was carrieci out by the stafFof the project. R-esearch was conducted by the principle researc'nrr and assis=: researcher; analysis was c-ed out by a combination of researchers and participants, as were evaluations. c) P&*cipunts build ccipm*ilg at opersonal and community level i) Gaining access to knwiedge Many participants were not aware that the majority of water in the CRW reservoir is docated to B.C. Hydro for power generation and that the water is diverted to another watershed in the process. These and other facts were made available to participants through the information panels, public event slide shows and through discussion with participants. As part of the Forum evaluation, 75% of participants said that their knowledge of the watershed went up by an average of 1-2 points (See Appendix F, Summaries of the Participant Evaluations). The City of Coquitlam is engaged in severai other community-based planning projects and the CRW process added to the^ experîence and confirmed that this approach is a productive one in terms of meeting citizen and city needs @ay, pers. corn., 1996). ü) Lemning new skilis The two assistants that worked on the project both leamed new skills. One of the assistants was able to use this expenence to secure another job in the community after her contract with the process finished. The City of Coquidam was able to dwelop the5 map making and prinbg skills Merr. iii) Use remifsfor the bene@ of the community This criterion has been fùlfilled through the following activities: the educational materiais have been used in several public venues since the CRW public events and continue to be used for production of new materials such as pamphlets, brochures, and reports the contact list has been used in on an ongoing basis and will be used for subsequent watershed events specifïc contacts made during the process are available for ongoing consultation by the comrnunity the outcornes are community generated and controîied by the community (see below in Table 8, Appendix D). 90 d) Mdntru0nOP take control of thepmess Although community members were not intensely involved in the preparation of the public process, they established control at the final pblic event and continue t~ work towards consolidation of that control. Two committees were stnick at the fiaal Workshcp, the members of which were primarily private citizens. The cornmittees have met for over a yeor since their uiception They have gone through some changes, but have been very productive. The researcher and the City of Coquitlam provideci faciritation and organizational support for the first year of meetings but have pulled back as both committees have estabüshed themselves as independent entities. SeweU and Phillips (1979) stipulate several aiteria to establish extent of community control: i) number of programs initiated by the public ü) use of comrnunity resources üi) indication of constructive interaction between groups in the community (please see table below) Table 8 Projects of Coquitlam River Watenbed Committ= Coquitlam River Watersheà Projects A - Projects B - Resources and 1 C - Description I Resourcc People Accessed Riverside High School Faciiities - Action Group needed a place to and Equipment: 1 meet and store materials - Riverside fiigh Schoot - three members met with Nom - Environmentai Science teacher Stelfox, the science teacher at and dents Riverside Secondary and he offered his clasmom as a "basen for the group ' - ôoth partics hoped that this patbnership wouid redt in the participation of more students in Action Group activities May Day Parade - a 20 R canvas bermade by - one of Action Group. members the students at Riverside Hgh spoke to Nom Stelfox about School student participation in the parade - Riverside High School students - students decided to make a - general public banner that they and the group could march behind and that the group could use again (it's a great bannet) B - Rcsources and Resource C - Description People Accessed Booth at Coquitlam Environmental - City of Coquitlam Fair Personnel - group members put together a Fair - rnembers of the public display of photos, gathered CRW educational panels and the 3-6 mpof the watershed and staffed a booth for the one* fkir - about 1500 people attendeci the fair Web-site, Intemet Newspaper Local cornputer centre that - two of the Action Group Column provides public with cornputers members made contact $th an on- and help with projects: iine newspaper editor, who offered - newspaper cditor the gmup monthly column space - Matcornputer centre for a very gooâ price - commuaity contacts for - one of the members has taken up iaformation for stories tbiis challenge and is writing ber third column - she is leanhg about cornputers, her local environment and journalkm through this project - the group also has the beginning of a web-site set up Pamphiet for the group - AdMsor and firnds fiom Friends - one memüer decided to put of Environment Founâation together an informationaÏ - map hmDFO Habitat pamphlet about the watershed and Restoration Official the group which is almost complete Storm Drain Mapping and - maps fÎom City of Coquitiam and - one action group member has Recordhg for Coquitlarn River Port Caquitlam given a slide show of ail outlets, - Cities of Coquitlam and Port naturai and otherwise into the river Coquitlarn - streams and drallis are also in the process of king mapped - these visual proâucts contribute CO ongoing group education ~gardingwater quality in the watershed and will no do& form the basis for wider education of the comuaity Crcdc Sweyof~tr&ms off ~urke - Stream keeper's Manuai - pristine stteams on the east side Mouniain - DFO Fiheries Technician for of the river are king mapped and Mapping Workshop ~eYd - Stream Keeper's training - members are being tiraineci in program at Port Moody Ecological stream keepers techniques to Society complete the work Grave1 Pit Investigation - Tour of CEWE grave1 pit - ongoing investigation by - Gravei pit operaiors members of Action Group River Waîch program - DFO Enforcement ûf6ce - this is an ambitious project to set - DFO Eaforcement SupeMsor up an ongoing monitoring program - City of Coquitlam and Port of the Coquitlam River Coquitlam mcials - DFO is condoning the program - other streamkeeping groups if and wül cantniute technical program expands to watershed expertise once the group has streams decided the main parameters 1 B - Resources and Rcsource C - Description People Accessed - Representatives of four WIs in - this ammittee held presentations for other WIs to leam about Vafiousstnictures - a proposed terms of reference for a watershed umbreüa gmup was written for consideration and endorsement of CRW Public Processparticipants SummaQv i) There were ten projects or programs that were initiated and in some cases completed by citueas on the two cornmittees stnick at the Workshop. ii) At least ten different organizatioos in the commwiity, including âom businesses, goverment departments and a high school science class, have contributed in some way to projects initiated by the Action Cornmittee (see Column B, Table 8). The Start-up Cornmittee invited four representatives fiom other watersheds to speak to the comm*ttee about their respective initiatives. üi) Most of the above interactions with organizations have resulted in concrete outcomes and products (see Colurnn C, Table 8). 2. CaWytic Leadership Procas Evaluation Partly I Not Accomplished Accomplished - -- - - I being a) Understand type of process used X and its various components b) attention Focus of participants on a X clear question and c) Identify involve the stakeholders X and knowledsze-holders d) Elicit ownership in the stakeholders e) Engage stakeholders in learning, X inventing, aligniag, and implementing solutions Sustain f) stakeholders in the process and X manage the interconnections a) UnrCersfanclijng the type of procas bbdg used d ils V(U~*OUS co-nendb Thne basic areas of idonnation were important for ad hoc advisors, the researcher, and puzcipating public to understaad in order for the process to îake place. Various parties in the process had complementary information that otns shed and acted upon. The explanation below ulustrates the anûibution of each party regardhg idionnation on the community, public processes, and watershed initiatives. i) Adhoc Advisors Advison provided information about the history and issues of the subject comrnunity. They also provided many important contact names and documents for the research portion of the process. Advisors had a good understanding and experience with public process. Those in community groups provided crucial information on approach and timing that the process should take. The ~nviro&ntal Engineer, several officiais in the Leisure and Parks Department, and the public process consultant provided expertise and resources to plan and conduct the scale of public process that occurred. Most advisors had a good understanding of watershed concepts and the fiinction and potentid benefits of watershed initiatives. This understanding was crucial to support and speedy implementation of the process. ii) Resemcher 1had very iittle knowledge of the area when 1 made first contact with the Rosa Telegus, the Environmental Engineer in the City of Coquitlam. However, having grown up in a near-by suburban area, 1did have a sense of the dynamics of communities in the area. In some ways lack ofknowledge was a benefit that provided the basis for extensive questionhg of constituents in the communities regarding their knowledge and opinions of the watershed. As a graduate student, 1had done extensive research on watershed initiatives in B.C.and some studies on biophysical dynamics of watersheds and ecosystems prior to the public process. 1had c~nvenedand lun rnany events in the past, as wefl as produced educational material. This combined experience with naturd enthusiasm for people and the subject, provided a good bais for ninning a public process. Üi) me partcipafingpublic Participants were very generous with theu theand comments. Aimost evevone that was spoken to provided information and opinion about their "neck of the woods" and beyond, and conveyed a passion for the wel-being of the area and its residents. This provided a solid basis for focusing the discussion of the two events. Many participants were aware of the deterioration of water courses in the region and some of the underlying cmses. But not all were aware of the concept and dynaiics of watersheds. With barest of explanations, however, people picked up the concept very quickly, and lwded and challenged various aspects of it. Participants did not seem to have specific requirements regarding the first Forum. However, they were quite direzt about what they wanted to do and hear at the event followîng the Forum. These cornments were foiiowed up (âom the Forum evaiuation and pstFonun consultation) as closely as possible in the Workshop. b) Focvs attention on a clcar question This did not occur in the CRW Pubiic Process as the PHI stipulate as several questions were posed during the process. These were wider at the start to ensure inclusion, and then successively narrower as the process continued. Thus, each stage built on and informed the focus for the next stage. Clear questions and statements underphed three stages: initial research and consultation, the Forum, and the Workshop. For the research, watershed stakeholders and constituents were asked: What are your concerns (if any) about the health of CRW watershed? (At this point, a definition of the watershed was often required). What have you been doing to date to address your concerns? What do you believe is necessary to address them adequately? What other information and resource people can you recommend to us to leam more about these issues? There were two questions that were asked at the Forum. The first was: What is happening in our watershed? This helped fiame the first goal of the Fonun which was to provide ioformation about issues that people had raised in the research stage, and allowed Fonun participants to add infionnation. The general comment came back that we as a community were not doing enough, proMded the basis for the second question: What shouid we do to improve stewardship of the CRW? This provided focus for the sdgroup discussions. For the Workshop the main question was: What are the details of stewardship priorities, and what are watershed-level action plans and next steps? Different questions fiameci the various activities throughout the day. The question that kicked off the generation of the vision was: It's the year 2030 and the CRW is now carefidîy steward& What activities are taking place and what are the most significant results'? The first round of smd groups focused on topics that had been identified at the Forum by the participants. The question that guided the smail group discussions was: what is the vision and ment reality of this issue and what are the actions that wül move the commJMty from the current reality to the vision? The aftemoon small groups focused on one action plan each generated from the moming's groups. Their question was: What Long, medium and short term needs to cany out this action plan? What are the next steps and who will do what? These questions seemed adequately clear to focus discussion, and the result was bat much usehl information was exchangeci, and several actions taken. c) Identifi and inwbe the sfakeholdh und knowldge kolh In the case of the CRW Public Process, the stakeholders and knowledge holders were the same people. Many stakeholders' involvement was secuted through the contribution of knowledge. Other individuals and groups contributed hds, publishing assistance, and materials. Everyone in the watershed (through personal calis, the local press and other advertising) was imited to view the educationai panels, and participate in the Forum and Workshop. As noted above, each stage built on the prevbus one, so the process was dependent on the involvement of many stakeholders. As PHI recommends, the contact list was, and still is, a growing and evolving document. d) Elkit ownemhip on the part of stakeholders With respect to the first two steps of this criterion, the mandate of the researcher was not to "convince stakeholders that they have an important stake in the issue at hand, or that "they would be affected by outcomes whether they participated or not" (PZ9 1993, p. 15). It was to fiame the "~~nversation~~broacüy enough that stakeholders decided themselves whether there were any Uaponam issues at stake, how important they were, and the extent to which they themselves would be affected. The third step is more applicable, in that the researcher did assure stakeholders, at the three stages in the CRW Public Process, that the agenda was not pre- determined and that their input determined the direction and form of the process. Ownership was secured through participation in all parts of the process. Forming a vision to facilitate aügnment for subsequent actions was one of the prinmy goals of the workshop that will be discussed in the next criterion. e) Engage the stakeholrlers in learning, invenh'ng, aligning and implementing solutions The principle vehicle for îhis step were the two public events. The Forum contniuted to estabtishing a comrnon base of knowledge regarding the watershed and the beginning of alignment of constituents in idernifying key areas of concem. Part of the evening was also devoted to coming up with solutions to problems that had been identified. The workshop went further in all areas, particularly in generariag more solutions. Taking the tirne to outline the vision, watershed heahh problems and sokitions, was an important step in understanding the scope of the project and establishing mer"ownership." Although there were disagreements as to specific ways to deal with specific problems, the major theme of the need to work towards watershed heaith was agreed to by ail. Furrhemioie, at the end of the process, the concrete solutions (two committees) proposed by participants were taken up by thirty people, solidifjing community involvement and control. f) Sustain stakeholders in the pmess and manage the interconnections This stage was not fomialized in the overail plan. However, this criterion was Wled since the researcher volunteered to facilitate the two committees until such time that they had consolidated. 3. Process Mecbanics Evaluation Results of Process Mecbanics Evaluation Evaluation Partiy Not Accom~lishd Aceomplish& Accomplished Criteria ------a) Process was inclusive x b) Goals and objectives of the process clear Y and able to be evaluated, I ,l c) Quality output by researcherforganizer .. x d) Participants able to contribute easily and X adequately e) Process events are timely x f) Events are physicdy accessible and cornfortable X [ g) Participants are treated equaliy and fairy 1 x 1 Outreach for the process included members of almost all sectors, although sorne were given more attention than others. A number of different formats of outreach were implemented. These included phoning and fdgindividuals, and conducting severai information sessions at community organization meetings during the research stage. Publicity for the events included: sending out invitations to all on the mailing list; ninning advertisements, cornmunity notices, and haviiig several newspaper articles appear in the local newspapers; runaing public service announcements on radio and cable television; and putting up of posters throughout the community. The sectors that were apyroached and the numbers of people fiom those sectors that participated in some way, are noted below. individual citizens local community group members regiody-based environmental group members community group members outside of CRW local government (CRW and neighbouring cities) provinciai govemment and agencies federai govemment and agencies regional government Fust Nations local industry local development industry individuals fkom schools, colleges and universities business people and organizations media foundations 3 Total (as of January, 1997) 255 The "hard to reach" sectors such as people with disabilities, people in the community of other ethnic backgrounds, and the elderly were not specifically approached. Young people were approached through high schools, youth environment clubs and through the local community coliege, Douglas Coliege. About 10 students fkom upper hi& school and college did contribute and participate in various ways during the process and theu contributions were vaiued by other participants. b) Goah and objectives of the pmess nrvst be clear and able to be evaluated The main goal for the project was to: set up the meam by which the community, consisfing of ri brdbuse of indivialluais, organizatiom, akpcrrtments, agencies wiil &ci& upon Q vision, gacrls andprocehure for community-hed initiative in tk Coquitlinn River Waersiwd (CRW. The objectives were to: 1. provide structure, information and focus for a group of interested stakeholders of the CRW to corne together to create a watershed initiative; 2. provide an ongoing means for active parties in the watershed to becorne aware of each other's work and to network with each other; 3. raise awareness of the boundaries of CRW and its biophysical profile, the scope and implications ofworkiug for a sustainable watershed area, and main issues of concem in CRW. i) Evaiucrtrng the Gwls and Objectives In terms of the cnteria set out by Meeres et al. (1995), this is not a partidarly evaluable goal. It does not specify what "means" are. Also, it assumes the public wants to decide upon the vision, goals and procedure for a community-based initiative. It is not clear to what extent the vision should be worked out, the goals set, and the procedure established in order to say the process has met its goals. The fht two objectives are more concrete and therefore easier to evaluate. The methods needed to realize them are more obvious, such as comniunity meetings and databases. However, there are no quantitative levels associated with the objective, which would help with a more rounded evaluation. The last, although seemingly adequate, technicaiiy relies on a pre and post education survey to evduate the "increase in awareness" component adequately. ii) Gdand Objectives Accontplished As mentioned above, it is hard to assess whether the goal was met or not. Certainly, the groundwork for an initiative was laid and some parts of di the components of the goal were achieved. The goals and procedure for an initiative were very roughiy estabüshed with the formation of two cornmittees to carry on the work started by the Workshop. Objective #1 was accompiished in so far as information was provided through publicity, information panels, information packages, slide shows, and report back fiom small groups. Structure was provided through the two public meetings, and focus was provided by large group and srnall group facilitators. Objective #2 was accomplished in part by the hosting of display tables at the Fonun, the compilation and production of a contact Est, and the production of a ciraft Stewardship Chart. This chart identifies all groups conducting stewardship aaivities in the watershed and lists by category the types of activities in which they engage. Although the contact list and the stewardship chait are available for use, they have not been published and distriiuted to the community and therefore have lirnited impact in terms of facilitating networking. As mentioned above, it is veq- diflicult to definitively measure the extent to which the process raiseci general awareness of watershed boundaries, ecological features and issues of the CRW. In the evaluation of the Forum, people were asked the number of degrees of leamhg they thought they made as result of Forum. Most people said they increased their knowledge of the watershed by a factor of 1 or 2 (Appendk F). As for the "scope and implications of working for a sustainable watershed area," this was not broached in any detail in the process. iii) Goals and Objectiws Nd AccompMed An interpretation of the goal where the community of sectors corne to an agreement about the vision, goals, and procedure for establishing an initiative was not realized. The procedure for establishing the initiative deserved more attention during the process, as coatiision regarding the mandate of the Start-up cornmittee resulted and led to some tension. It is the researcher's opinion that this could have been addressed and the conflict avoided in the early stages of the coumittee meetings. Others state that the conmittees had to go through the process that they have in order to arrive at theù current conciusions. Only one of the means for ongoing networking, the compilation of a contacts database, was carried out. However, this was not disseminated, as intended. In addition, the Stewardship Chart, a lia ofcategorized stewardship groups, was drafted and circuiated, but was not published. These items were not canied out due to kck of theand resources. It is anticipated that this will be addressed in the future by the resulting Watersheù Group. Table 9 Summary of Evduatioos of Diueminateâ Information Information Rating Source L Information Panels , . Excellent Evaluation Summary Slide Shows Good CC CL Pre-Workshop bnef (8 pager) Good CC CC Final Report Good - ad hoc reaâers' cornments to author The first three items were evduated ushg formal evaluation forms. Evaluation of the Final Report was based on comments to the researcher by about ten readers. As seen in the table, the quality of the idormation was rated good to excellent, indicating is was clear and accurate. d) Pdk@antsare able to contdbnte easily and adequdely Almost ali aspects of the process, both formai and informal were recorded in writing and are available to the public. At the moment, materials and files are not kept in one place, as the groups that fomed do not yet have their own space. It is anticipated that once the groups become more established the information will be more accessible, Indexes have been made of files of material contained on the City of Coquitlam Parks and Leisure Department cornputer hard drive. i) ûueral Timeliness The timing for the project was appropriate for di stages. About four months were docated for research, production of materials and organization of the fïrst event. This proved adequate time for the organization of the event, but not for the information panels. These were completed satisfactorily, but ideally were me- to be on display at least two weeks before the first event. As it was, their debut was the evehg of the nrst event. The most interested people in the process had been contacted much earlier regarding research needs. The Forum was set for the fall, to avoid tirnes when many people are on holidays. It was held in the evening to dow as many people as possible fiom the community to corne as possible. The Workshop was held six weeks later to build on the momentwn started at the Forum, and was just inside the "Christmas holiday window." It was held on a Saturday, once agah to ensure that as many people hmthe community could attend. ii) Notice for Events Most of the publicity was conducted du~gthe three week penod before the Forum. Invitations went out about two weeks in advance, and ali publicity was in place by the last week. Local newspaper articles, in as far as organizers had control, were set for the week before the Forum and a phone around was conducted during the week before as weli (see Appendix D). The timeline for the Workshop was siightiy tighter, but all materials were disseminated and publicity in place one to two weeks before the event. f) Events mr physàculiy accessible and cornfortable i) Physicut Accessibility and Cornfort AU venues and washroom facilities were accessible by wheelchair. Directional sigm on the Street and in the building were provided for both events. A map was provided with mailed out materials for the Wrkshop. Alternative formats for understanding proceedings, such as signers for people with hearing diilicuity and simultaneous translation into dinerent languages was not provided. Child care was not provided. Merphysical aspects of the events such as refieshments and received good ratings on the evaluation foms by the participants, although several had difficuity hea~gin both venues. The small groups were conducted nexî to each other in a large room at the Forum and there were several cornplaints regarding ability to hear other participants. The refngerators at the Workshop in the Caféteria hindered the hearhg for some participants at the back ofthe room. g) P&*cipcuits ore buated equdy u~dfm'rly The structure was set up to provide different formats for input. This included large group discussion, small group discussion, and Wntten input at the Workshop. In general, al1 these components were given "Good" ratings by participants. There were very few negative comments regardhg meeting formats. Large and srnail group facilitation was rated very favorably by participants at both events. There were no comments reguding unequal treatment of any sort during the process. APPENDlX E List of Participants in CRW PubMc Process by Sector The numbers below wlicate the individuais on the contact list divideci by sector, according to how they represented themselves to CRW Community Initiative researchers. Most people contributed to the public process in the form of idonnation for materials produced andor attendance at the Forum or Workshop. individual citizens 82 local commwiity group members 3 1 regionally-based environmental group members community group members outside of CRW local govemment (CRW and neighbouring cities) provincial govemment and agencies federal governrnent and agencies regionai govemment fht nations local industry local development industry individuais fiom schools, colleges and univershies 14 business people and organizations media foundations 3 Total (as of January, 1997) 255 103 APPENDIX F Summaries of P~ticipantEvaiuations ctober 10 Forum CoquitJam River Watenhed (CRW) Forum October 10,19967 - 9:M PM - Mike Butler Room, Dogwood Pavilion, Coquitlam About 145 people who attended the Forum. Forty-nine people handed in evaluation fom Overaii Rating: Rating: ExceUent 1 2 3 4 5 Poor Responses 18 19 10 Assessment: the Fonun received overall good or excellent rating from 75% of respondents. New information leamed about CRW: Number of demees of leaminn O 1 2 3 4 5 6 Respondents 10 9 15 6 4 1 1 Assessment: the majority (75%) of respondents learned something about the CRW at the Forum. Some (25%) did not lem anything new at the Forurn, but of these, one quarter recordecl a "10" for rathg of knowledge of CRW.Many respondents (48%) felt their knowledge of the watershed had increased by a factor of 1 or 2. Ratings for components of the Forum: excellent aood fair DOO~ Ken's Slide Show 26 19 2 1 First Slide Show 10 35 2 Second Siide Show 6 34 4 1 Srnall Groups 6 30 9 Large Group 4 27 4 Assessmeat: Ken Baker's süde show was very popular with the majority of the respondents rating it as excellent (53%) and good (39%). The first and second slide shows received sotid "good" ratings (70% and 69%). The sdgroups and pleoary were also rated "good" by the majority of respondents, 6 1% and 55% percent respectively, although many did not fiii in the category "plenary." Facilitation rating: Excellent - 24; ûood - 19; Fair - 4; Poor - 1. Assessment: respondents were very happy with facilitation of the Forum with 49% giving it a rating of "excellent" and 3% rating it as "good." 5. Suggestions regarding chsuiging format of Forum included: - more dgroup discussion 6 - more discussion in generai 6 - shorter introduction 2 - better use of microphone 2 - more public input 1 - more statistics, better information 1 Assessment: those few that suggested changes generally wanted more tirne for discussion, either in smaü groups or to lengthen the whole event. Some specific suggestions were made regarding the slide shows. 6. Follow-up Workshop: the majonty of the respondents, (82%) were in favour of having a follow-up Workshop. Suggestions for process and discussion were wide-ranging and are listed below. Process suggestions included: - advisory or council 9 - action plans 9 - have another 1 day forum 4 - networking 3 - set up action groups 3 - establish pnorities 3 - watershed management 2 - have a series of wkshops 1 Topics to discuss included: - river flow 3 - Stream clean-up 1 - education 1 - flood control 1 - legislation and enforcement 1 - salmon issues 1 7. Only one person offered exmi comments on the back of the page. These were about the importance of preserving natural areas in the watershed. 105 Novembtr 30 worksho~ Coquitlam River Watershed Workshop Sat., Nov. 30M - Douglm CoUege, David Lam Campus 1. Overail Rating: Ratin~: ExceUent 1 2 3 4 5 Poor Responses: 21 18 5 The rnajority of respondents (89%) gave the Workshop an overall rating of excellent or good. 2. Effêctiveness in Meeting Goals: Ratina: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Responses: 10 6 5 13 3 1 3 On the defiom 1 to 10, 1 was "fully meeting goals" and 10 was the opposite. The majority of respondents (54%) thought that the Workshop had met or samewhat met its goals. 3. Rating of Components: Ratings: exceNent 1 2 Vision Exercise 10 25 Smd &OUP - MoMng 18 19 Overview of Actions 9 24 Srnail Group - Mernoon 11 21 Next Steps - Large Group 10 17 Lunch 18 17 Responâing participants gave high ratings (1 or 2) for the Vision Exercise (go%), Small Group - Morning (95%), Ove~ewof Actions (89%), and Lunch (97%). Fewer respondents gave a I or 2 rating for Small Group - Mernoon (84%) and Next Steps - Large Group (71%). excellent 1 2 3 4 5 Door 4a. Small Group Faciiitation: 20 14 3 1 4b. Large Group Facilitation: 18 16 4 The majority of respondents (89%) Uidicated that both the small group fàcilitators and the large group facilitation was either excellent (1) or good (2). 5. Usefùiness of Pre-Workshop Materials: Ratinas: excdent 1 2 3 4 5 DOO~ Respoases: 8 14 10 Seventy percent of respondents rated the usefiilness of conference materials as excellent or good. 6. Changes for content or process of Workshop: seva respondents indicated they would not change anything to improve the Workshop. Sorne of theu wmments were: - moderator Julia did a most commendable job - 1tW it went well - broad agreement was reached with a âürly large group - it's dynamic, it's original it produced the desired results two participants mentioned diffidty hearing over the cafeteria refngerators suggestions for improvement include: - have a bit more time to discuss in large group &er srnail group - be able to provide maay sdgroup decisions to be more broad and work on one abject at a time - It was good in that much information was brought forward but too slow in implementing action 7. Recommended follow-up activities: two people want progress reports eleven people suggested the formation of a society, as mon as possible, that would help to catalyse stewardslip action in the watershed. There were some specific suggestions as to the form/process this would take: - gather to assign tasks after steering cornmittee has established society - contact local govemment for support and commitment to get imrolved on an equal basis - form society with board members fiom each small group - educate in a road sense the key members of the society - do not want special interest agenda to dominate - meetings to form council - include groups were possible and don? create new ones e.g.. Pon Coquitlam Fish and Game - Concepts of society vs. roundtable vs. council vs. steering cornmittee etc. cm all be the same or very dEerent things. One does not necessarily need a society vs. a roundtable. One cmbe the other! One can have a council based on a roundtable concept and out of that you select a board. Keep it simple and not hierarchical. other suggestions for foliow-up aaivities: - a large venue süde presentation in Coquitlam launchhg the new group and infomiing the public about the watershed - Stream keepers activities and more idonnation and specific activities - some information on available training fkom 0thorganizatiom - i.e. workshops on public processes etc. fiom UB.C. - more meetings - action - Excellent that we have moved on to action. Important to look for hding hire one or more coordinators - volunteers can not do al1 - this workshop was mucb better than the &st one - a semi-annual forum or the watershed - public - compilation mail-out of Workshop proceedings - iden@ action group leaders 107 Dis~lavPanels Coquitlun Display Panels vote: the 3-tümellSiOnal mode1 of the Cuquithm Aber Wcdershed wu Twenty-two people fled out evduation forms for the panels. Were the display panels easy to understand? Ratina Easv 1 2 3 4 5 Diflucult Responses 8 1 4 3 5 Did you find the display Uiteresting? Ratina inter est in^ 1 2 3 4 5 Uninterestins Responses 9 5 4 5 Did you find the display informative? Rathg Informative 1 2 3 4 5 Not informative Responses 7 7 4 2 Ma! did you like most about the diploys? - 1 liked it because it had a lot of facts - It gave me clear idea of the watershed. "1 liked the waterstreams" (son 5 years old) - Mode1 contour map - extremely impressive in profile and in reality - Good legends; clear presentation; sîreet grids included - the colours (x2) - very informative - 1 liked the map because it was very detailed. And you had lots ofidionnation. - the model! - rnap presentation for each topic - use of colour and photos mat ddyou like the least? - The map was difficult to understand - Accordion display boards - the small print - not that interesthg - It was a bit hard to understand the map and 1 didn't even know what a watershed was und 1 asked my mom, then 1 understood - srna11 printing beside the maps - generalized information rather than specific problem areas Hmcodd the &play be impmved? - It wuld be improved by make it more able to rad with aii age levels - Perhaps you could indicate what kind of trees are growing where and how old they are - bigger pht - make it easier to understand - explain the rnap better and what's a watershed? - can not be improved - addition of curent impact problems - more specifics about logging and industrial encroachment mat other information would be useful and intdngto include on the panelr? - I believe you said it al! (x2) - Wgtrails ifthere are any - fish counts - people usage ofrecreation sites 0thcomments: - It was very factud and interesting - it really caught the eye - ûver ali it is a beautifid piece of work. It is quite informative. 1 knew nothing about the Coquitlam River Watershed before viewing - It was well done Port Coquitlam Display Panels Twenty-two people fiiied out evaluation forms. Were the display panels easy to understand? Rab Eam 1 2 3 4 5 Difficult Responses 11 4 2 3 2 Did you find the display interesting? Rati. htere~tin~ 1 2 3 4 5 Uninterestinq Responses 13 3 3 1 O Did you hdthe display informative? Ratinn Informative 1 2 3 4 5 Not idormative Responses 10 5 3 3 O mat didyou like mosf dout the displays? - That it exists at aii &es some hope that people wili become more educated and respomible - land use lower watershed - the pictures and maps (x4) - easy to understand - informative (x2) - they're on stands - the colours - gave me an enormous amount of information in an interesthg preseotation, which was easy to undersiand - the way it was set up mat cad you likp the least? - Too muiy words - lots oftiny printing - hard to take it all in at one pass. Gray background does not help. - too rnany rnaps (x2) and too much infornation (x2) - the long Wflting - too boring - pictures are too srna11 - they need more pictures - no opportunity to directiy refer to legislature re: logging and loss of species Hm conld the Casplay be impmved? - More panels each less information presented clearly. Larger p~ting. - more wildiife - put more 6n stuff in it, üke a cartoon etc. - more information. pamphlets, hand-outs, information phone numbers - put "you are here" on the maps - more pictures (x2) - more photos Wkor other infornt~li'onwould be usefrrl and interestrhg tu include on the panels? - How to contact various groups listed. Include Naturescape B.C. - the "great waiî" of Coquitlam - graphics and tables - more pictures - some definitions for interested persons with a keen interest in geography and planning - some things with a children's focus - what can individuals do to help preserve watershed, that is, without joining a group - give more information - continueci evolution of project - the poîluting of streams, river etc. that affect our health ûtket commenîs: - fùn to look at - very usehl and informative - Excellent work. Information reduces fa/angerlûustration APPENDIX G Mark Aiigelo's speech to the Coquitlam River Watershed Workshop Nov. 30,1996 at the David Lmn Campus of Dmgl(as College MdAngdo: Progrmn Head of BCIT Fish, WiIdIîf?eand Recreation; Chair of B. C. Rivers Baud thai oversees the Heritage Riwrs Program; Past Chair and Vice Chair of Outdoor RecreafiafionCarncil; long time riwr enthusiast d advocate; Fdr- B.C. Riwr's Day It's good to be here. 1appreciate the opportunity to talk about grassroots advocacy and stewardship. This is an important topic and a timely issue. Your interest in the Coquitlam River is appreciated and 1think fundamental to the friture health of this watenvay. 1 have to say in general ternis that I1m certainly encouraged by the growing interest in river and fish-related issues. Although it hasn't ahvays been this way, the evidence of this growing interest was seen in the 30,000 people who took part in River's Day activities last September. 1think that sends a strong message as to how much British Columbians value their nvers and streams. But it also says a lot about the extent of the public's concem of the fùture of our waterways. Simply said, the public wants some assurance that our rivers wiil be better cared for. And while we have made some recent progress in this regard, (such as the Forest Practices Code and the Hentage Rivers program), the fact remains that there is stili much to do. Now, some of you are aware of the annual top ten endangered rivers list, coordinated by the Outdoor Recreation Councii (ORC). Itfsinteresting to note that in the past several years, a number of urban rivers have found their way ont0 this üst, including the Coquitlam, Alouette, and Lower Fraser. As weii, urban streams as a collective appeared at the number two spot. Well, 1 think thatls a reflection of the fact that many of our urban waterways are troubled. They face an array of threats, as a result ofurbanization: loss of riparian habitat, channeting, culverting, pollution, sewage, illegai dumping, urban moffetc. Wemany of these apply to some of your own local waterways, I do think you're also lucky to ïive in a city keCoquitlam where at least a number of streams remain open and free fiowing. So, in spite of the rnany problems these waterways face, at least the potential for rehabilitation stili exists. This is a positive situation compared to Vancouver where in 1900, over 50 salmon bea~gstreams were fiowing, now only two remain. The remaining 48 have been culverted and paved over, and the dernise of these streams is graphicaüy iilustrated in Department of Fisheries and Oceanls "Los Streams" map. So, it must be asked, how can we best leam fiom Vancouver's experience to ensure that the same scenario doesn't unfold as development and growth move up the Fraser Valley? In an attempt to answer that, ORC and others have proposed a number of key actions that, in my view, must be implemented ifwe are to protect our rivers. These include a mix of regdatory and non-regdatory approaches. Ilil mention these points quickly before 1 get into the grassroots part of the equation. They include: 1. The need for a watershed approach to planning, with a focus on the river and the land it drains. (This is particularly relevant to the Coquitlam River). 2. Education and awareness - which could be wnsidered the most important part of the equation. A good example is the Burnaby Lake System Program that used posters, brochures, video and media to get the message across very effeaively. When speaking about education, 1must also acknowledge my niend Fin Domelly for his work in raishg awareness of the Fraser River and tri'butaries with his swim dom the length of the Fraser River in September of 1996. 3. We must see the improved enforcement of existing laws such as the Federal Fishenes Act. 4. But we must also pursue new regulatory and legislative initiatives, particdarly at a provincial level. These should include a new Fish Protection Act, an updated Water Act, to ensure minimum flows, and a revision of the Municipal Act to protect urban strearns. And in ternis of regufations, local govemments rnust do more as weil. 5. Last but not least, the fishery must be better manageci using a cautious, nsk averse approach. We must focus more on protecthg the diversity of stocks that exist in our province, and devote particuiar attention to those weaker stocks (such as the Chinook and pink sahon) that are beginnllig to make a comeback in places such as the Coquitlam River. Now while all of these ideas are valid, it is also important to emphasize that not al1 river-related problerns wiil be solved through legislation, regdation and poücy. Solutions to river degradation, Neproblems themselves, cm often be found localiy, in Our cornmunities and neighbourhoods. So in addition to a top-down approach, we also need a bottom-up approach. And as part of that, nvers need a greater constituency at the grassroots level and that 's why we're here today. One of the goals of both ORC and the River's Board is to build a network of local citizen groups to speak for rivws and strearns throughout B.C. We're promotin3 that in the belief that local populations usually are in the best position to care for and protect the nvers. Consequently, llm excited by what's happening in your comunity. This event is great step forward. Now, in terms of grassroots advocacy, there are two major types of initiatives that are unfolding. The est of these takes a broader view and deah with the establishment of volunteer, citizen-led watershed councils. Goals of such groups are to 1) promote a watershed approach to planning and management, 2) to raise and profile key issues, and 3) to seek solutions. There are some great models emerging, that focus on enhancement and rehabilitation, such as: - Bumaby Lake System Program - Cowichan Watershed Council - Quesnel-Horsefiy Watershed Aiiiance These kinds of groups can be structured in dEerent ways - some more fonnal than others. But in any event, these groups should try to work consauaively with al stakeholders, if possible, and must focus on treating the entire drainage as a unit. Now, in addition to emphasiig the management of watersheds, there is also great potential for a second grassroots initiative aimed at protecting and caring for specific nvers and streams. This may take the form of Streamkeepers or adopt-a-stream programs. Interest in these types of programs is also hcreasing dramaticdy. Once again there are a number of good specific models such as: Byme Creek (Ken Glover and others); Brunette Cree4 -Sapperton Fish and Game Club; Noons Creek - Port Moody Ecological Society; Coquitlam River - Port Coquitlam Hunting and Fishing Club. In addition, it's dso interesthg to note that the city of B&y, while embracing the watershed approach through the BLSP, has also launched a formai, ci& streamkeeper's initiative. This is one of the fxst city- sponsored programs of it's kind and has proved to be a great way of involving neîghbourhoods and senice groups with a specinc interest in one particular waterway. It is important that both of these types of initiatives are complementary, in that one fits in with another. In your deliberations today, youll decide on an approach that is best for your cornmunity. But whatever the naal fom and stmcture ofyour group, I'd suggest that it try to adhere to several fùndamental principles. Yovr group must have: a grassroots focus and be citizen led try to work and communkate with ail stakeholders provide input to various levels of government but not become part of the bureaucracy (retain arms length relations with govemment) think in tenns of watersheds work at identifjring and profilhg issues of concern to the river establish a "bold and fwsighted vision" for the watershed - and work towards it in a deliberate and consistent way If this occurs, 1think you'll have great success - not ody in improving tbgs for the river, but ah,your interest wil help to raise river issues high on the agenda for cornmunity residents, local media, and local politicians. At this point, I want to put in a plug for the Urban Salmon Habitat Program. From my perspective, 1 think it's a great program in terms of encouraging local river-related partnerships as well as fbnding restoration projeds that have been initiated by grass-roots organization. It has great potential in terms of promoting local stewardship and it's a program that 1 hope the provincial govemment continues to fund. In closing, grassroots advocacy is essential ifwe are to have healthy nvers and strearns. This will be even more the case, in future, as governments continue to scale back. There is no question that the lack of a distinct local constituency has, in fact, hurt many rivers in the past. So 1hoping wel see a number of groups develop in the Lower Mainland over the next few years. 1rnight also add that there will be National Rivers Conference, in Vancouver, Spring of 1998, thit will brhg together community stewards from across the country. I believe that communities fiom across Canada will thea benefit f5om what will have unfoldeci by that point in Coquitlarn. So with that, thank you for coming and taking the time to express your interest in our rivers and streams. 1 hope you enjoy the Workshop. Coquitlam River Watenhed Workshop Vision, Nov. 30/96 II's the year 2030 a~dCRWis now cmrfitlfv stewarded W&lr dos the wdersked lmk &Y& ntmt Mat Itctjyjn.es are taking phe in the watmhed now in 2030f nte following is a trmcript of points ma& in res,poItSe by WorRFhp purticipcmts to the question above. nie comnients have been arranged in brdcategoris. In 1997, the community unifjeci, positive actions were taken, and major improvements have been made in the areas of: - the nebds of the river are taken into account planning for water flow -- GVRD has authority for managing flow level - there's a manager of the Coquitlam River Watershed Society coordinating citizen's groups activities in the watershed - this manager is in a partnership with all levels of goverment with respect to planning and managing the watershed - there is stiii some industry dong the river and 1 don't know how they did it but somehow industry is now being managed in such a way that impacts are rninimized and industry has become a major player in protecting the river - the river is carefbiiy managed for fish and wildlife - natural processes are taking care of themselves on the river - the Or Creek section of the watershed is open for recreation - the Coquitlam dam is rebuilt to deal with 100 year flood protection and it has fish ladders incorporated - nuclear fusion or alternative energy sources have replaced the need for hydro dams and the dams have been deaaivated in the watershed so the river can be better managed for fish and wildlife - grave1 pit activities have ceased and channels in the area have been restored for salrnon habitat - aU the Iogging roads have been deactivated and planted over - the Coquidarn River is clear fiom top to bonom - forested embankments dong the entire length of the river and Stream -- so you feel like you are in a wiM river settîng - there are so many fish in the river that we are famous for it and people come to see it - we are a mode1 - al1 five species of salmon and steelhead are back in the river in large number - there are sustainable populations of all these species - urban streams are daylighted and fieely ninning through communities - the technology of storm water management dows nia-off to be used in a positive way - there is an unbroken preservatioa comdor fiom Pitt River to Bumard Met - aîi local schools have educational programs to teach kids about the riven and to get classes involved in protection and restoration and care - legislation bas protected riparian zones - there are regular delegations to councils about the bylaw regarding the entry of wastewater from cars etc. entering the stom sewer system - there's an impervious surface bylaw in place to reduce the area of parking lots, etc. to try and achieve more naturai levels of intiltration Commnity: - communities are more compact - people don't have to drive as far in their daily lives - the comrnwities have been reorganized politicaîiy by major watenheds - the river has been divided an adopted by neighbourhoods and citizens to monitor water quality, remove litter and ensure surveillance - municipal councils are pro environment - most people use garbage bins so the shores of the river are garbage fiee - ali residents and elected officiais are proud to say our river is our namesake - urban dwelopment in the watershed is sustainaôle with more green space - tie in to idea of neediig our cars less - grave1 pit operators are out of business 115 REFERENCES Aberley, D. 1990. Building a bioregional, sustainable aitemative. In Home! A Bioregional Redr, eds. V. Andruss, C. Plant, J. Plant, and E. Wright, 159-160. Gabriola, B.C.: New Society Publishers. ,d. 1993. BmmWes of Home: Mqpingfor Local Enpawennent. Gabriola Island, B.C. : New Society Publishers. ,ed. 1994. Futures by Design: The Practice of &ologicaI Planning. Gabriola Island, B .C. :New Society Publishers. . n.d. Interpreting Bioregionalisni: A Storyfiom Mmy Yoices.@raft). Vancouver, B.C.: Author. Ames International Lirnited. 1996. Or Creek-Coquitiam River Watershed Restoration Progrmn Reporr. Surrey, B.C.: Ministry of Environment. Alexander, D. 1990. Bioregionalism: Science or sensibility? Emromentai Ethics, 12 (2): 161-173. . 1994. Pimning as Leaming: me Echrcation of Citizen Activists. Ph.D. diss., University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario. Alouette River Watershed Society. 1997. Up in Ams. (Newsletter). Maple Ridge, B.C Amy, D. J. 1987. The Politics of Emronmental Mediution. New York: Columbia University Press. Anderson, E. N. 1994. Fish as gods and kin In Folk Management in the Wodd's Fiskies: Lessonsfor MdmFishedes Mmgement, eds. C. L. Dyer, and J. R McGoodwh, 139-160. Niwot, Colarado: Univeristy Press of Colorado. Andruss, V., C. Plant, J. Plant, and E. Wright, eds. 1990. Hme! A Bioregioml Reader. Gabriola, B .C. : New Society Publishers. Angelo, M. 1996. The role of grassroots advocacy in protecting our watersheds. Speech presented at CRW Workshop, 30 November, Douglas Colege, Coquitlam. Baüey, S. K. 1990. Creating sustuimble communities. Master's thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Barr, A. 1995. Empowering communities-beyond f~hionablerhetoric? Some reflections on Scottish experience. Commtmity Development JimmaI, 30 (2): 12 1-132. Bennett, D. 1994. Environmental policy and the faüure of the consultation process. Alternatives, 20 (2): 17,4&49. Berman, T. S. F. 1995. Standing for mr Iives: A feniinist joumey to Clayoquot Sound Master's thesis, York University, North York, Ontario. Bish, R L. 1984. Local Govemment in BrifishColumbia. Victoria: Centre for Public Sector Studies. Bo& A 1979. Theaier of the Oppressed. New York: UrUen Books. Boothroyd, P. 199 1. Loolring up at the region: Regional issues from a community development perspective. CdianPlmming hes#29. Vancouver, B.C. : School of Community and Regional Planning. Born, S. M. and Sonzogni, W. C. 1995. Integrated environmental management: strengthening the conceptuabation. Em'romnentui Magement, 19 (2): 167-1 8 1. Boucher, P. 1995. Women in the shadows of the industrial forest: Silences, tensions and contradictions. In Women and the CdmEtmironment, eds. M. MacDonald, M. Hessing and R. Radon. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. British Columbia. B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1992. Towmds a Shategy for Suslaimbiliw. .1993. Georgia Basin Initiative: Creating a Suskzinable Future. (Includes Addendum). Victoria, B.C. British Columbia. Clayoquot Scientinc Panel. 1994. Re* of the Scienrific Pmel for SuslanaMe Forest Practices in Ciiyoquot Sound: Progress Report. British Columbia. Commission on Resources and the Environment. 1994. A Sustaimbzlity Act for British CoIumbia. Victoria, £3 .C. : Queen' s Printer. . 1995. British Colunrba's Stmtegyfor Sustcrinabiiity: Report h the Legii3Iiztive Assembly, 1994-95. Victoria, B.C.:Queen's P~ter. British Columbia. Minisüy of the Environment, Investigations Branch. 1978. CmpitI~lllt Riwr Waier Managrnent S@. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1993. Slate of the Ernronrnent Report for B. C. . 1996. Province annotmces review of &&O developments: Ten facilities i&nt@ed as top pnwites. (News Release) . . 1 997. Bill 25-Fish Protection Act. British Columbia. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 1995. Growth Straegies AmehentAct. . 1997. LRMPs provide communities with keys to the fùture. TakingAction, (Oct.): 1, 11-12. Burrows, M. 1996. Negotiation, conjlict resohrlion or containment: Vmcotrver Island CORE, a mestue. Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C. Caiifomia. The Resources Agmcy. 1991. '%ioregionaJ"S~raegy Adopfed for Resources Comervation. (Press package). Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1995. The Stremkeeeprs HQndbook:A Pructical Guide to Stream d WetldCare. Vancouver, B.C. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1994. A Frumework for Developzng Goals, ûbjectiws and lndcatrors of Ecosystem Health: Tmlsfm Ecosysîem-based Management. (Draft). ûttawa: Environment Canada, Evaluation and Interpretation Branch. Canadian Standards Association. 1996. A Guide to Public Idvement. Etobicoke, Ontario. Cantweil, M. 1996. Toward sustai~bleresource management ut the lowrl wutershed level: A case study of govemment support for the Salnon Riwr Waiershed RdTable. Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, Bumaby, B.C. Carter, L. 1994. EIjective WafershedPlanning for the Comox Valley: A Report on the Princeles ofEffeciive Community-bmed Processes. Courtenay, B. C. : Comox Vdey Environmental Council; Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. City of Coquîtlam. n.d. City Won:A Strategic Plan for Coquitlmn. Coquitlam, B .C. City of Coquitlam Planning Department. n.d. Consider CoquitZrmt . . . an environmental sm.Coquitlam, B.C. City of Coquitlam. 1996. Sediment Con~oJBylm. pylaw 2929,19951- Coquitlam, B.C. Colebatch, H. K. 19%. Organizatiod mermings of program evaIuution. Policy Sciences, 28, 149-164. Colony Fann Land Use Sîudy Steering Commiîtee. 1955. Colony FmLand Use Shrdy: Land Use Plan Coquitlam, B.C. : B.C. Building Corporation. Cowichan River Sustainability Initiative Project Team. 1995. Cowichmr Rnter SustaiimbiIity Initiative: Ine Process an the Issues: Communiîy Iitand Research Summary. Cowichaii, B .C. : Cowichan River Sustainabilîty Initiative Steering Cornmittee, Craig., D. 1996. State of the Community: Smth Puget Sound Seattle, WA: Sustainable Community Round Table. Crombie, D. 1992. Regeneration: Toronto 's Wdeeont d the Sustdlt4bIe City: Fiml Report. Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfiont. Ottawa, Ont. : Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Daley, J. M. and Anguio. J. 1990. People-centered community planning. Jmmi of the Commniiy Development Society, 21 (2): 88-1 03. Daly, H. E. and Cobb, C. W. 1989. For th,. Common Gd:Redirecting the Economy towmd Commmity, the Em'ronment, und a Sustainable Future. Boston: Beacon Press. Dauphin Lake Basin Advisory Board. 1994. Stream Rehrrbilifatron in the Dauphin Lake BaPn. Dauphin, Manitoba. District of North Vancouver. 1996. Enviroimentai Protection and Preservution &lm. [B ylaw 65 151. Dorcey, A. H. 1. 1998. Cumlative EMcts: Issues, CornpIememtyand Approaches in Ecosystem Health. (Abstracts of Workshop). Vancouver, B.C.: Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia. Dorcey, A .H.J., ed. 199 1. Perspectives on Suslcinuble Development in Watershed Mmgement: Towmds Agreement in the Fraser River BmOSIn.Research Program on Water in Sustainable Development, Volume 1. Vancouver, B .C. : Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia. Dorcey, A H. J. and J. R Griggs, eds. 1991. Waer in SustaideDevelopment: mioring our Common Future in the Fraser &ver bu si^ Research Program on Water in Sustainable Development, Volume II. Vancouver, B. C. : Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia. Doyle, A, B. Elliot, and D. Tindall, 1992. Framing the forests: Corporations, the B.C. Forest Aliiance, and the media. In Organin'ng Dissent: Contemporary Movements in Theory d Practice, ed. Waam K. Carroll. Toronto: Garamond Press. Ellis, D., G. Reid, and J. Barnsley. 1990. Keeping on Track: An Evalwtion Guide for Community Gr-. Vancouver, B .C. :The Women's Research Centre. Environment Canada and British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1992. State of the Environmentfor the Lower Fraser River Barin: A Stute of the Emtironment Re*. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Senices. Felt, L. F. and C. L. Dominy, eds. 1995. The Challenge of CommitjJ Watershed Mimagementfor Recreationai Fisheris: Proceedings of Symposium. St. Andrews, N.B .: Atlantic Salmon Federation, Fishman, D. B. 1995. Book Review: Postmodeniisrn cornes to program evaluation II: A review of Denzin and LincaLn's HQndbook of QwIitative Research. EvaIuation md Program Phning, 18 (3): 3 O 1-3 10. Fraser Basin Council. 1997a. Backgrounaler. Vancouver, B.C. . 199%. Chmterfor SustairaabiIi&. Vancouver, B.C. Fraser Basin Management Board. 1996. Bain PIÙn Worktboo: A Cail to Action for Smtainabiiiîy of the Fraser Basin. Vancouver, B.C. Fraser Basin Management Program. 1995. State of the Fraser Bosin: Assessing Progress Towards Sustainability. Vancouver, B.C. Fraser River Action Plan. 1995a. Lost Strems of the Luwer Fraser River. (Map and Text). Vancouver, B.C.: Department of Fisheries and Ocms, Canada. . 1995b. Fraser River Action Plm: 19941995 Progress Report. Vancouver, B.C: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Freire, P. 1970. Peahgogy of the Oppressed New York: The Seabury Press. Friedmann, J. 1987. Plmning in the Public Romain: From Knowedge to Action. Princeton: P~cetonUniversity Press. Gardner, J. E. 1992. Environmental Non-Government Organizations (ENGOs) and sustainable development. In Environmental Stewardshship: Siudies in Active Ewthkeeping, ed. S. Lemer. Waterloo, ON: Department of Geography, University of Waterloo. Garner, R 1996. ContemporuryMovements andI&oiogies. New York: McGraw W. Garner, R. and Tenuto, 1. 1997. Socid Movement Theory d Research: An Annotated Bibliogrqhicai Guide. London: The Scarecrow Press; Pasadena, CA: Salem Press. Gottfied. H., ed. 1996. Feniinism and Social Chge: Bridging ïheory and Practice- Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. GQW, L. 1. 1990. New Zealand's Resource Mmiagernent îutàLocal Govemment Refoms. Paper for Globe '90 Conference, Vancouver, B.C. Grant, C. 1997. An Evuluation of the Collaboration Tawcuds Ecosystem Objectives and a Wrrtershed Vision: neSohnon River Watershed: Smmary Report Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser River Action Plan, Department of Environment, Canada. Gray, B. 1989. Conditions facilitahg hterorganizational coilaboration. Humm Relatr'ons, 38 (10): 91 1-936. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1995. LNuble Regions Stratem. Bumaby, B.C. . 1997. Waershed Ecolog'cal Imentory Program Methodology Rem. Bmaby, B.C. Haberman R and Knishas, K. 1995. River Voices, 6 (3). Published by River Network, Portland, Oregon. Habitat Protection Directorate, Fishenes and Marine Se~ce,-partment of Fishenes and Oceans. 1990. CcquitIam River Fishenes Reswce Mainenance Flows: Tmk 15 of the Cqitiiun River WderMmgement Srudjr. New Westminster, B .C. Harper, C. L. 1989. Exploring Social Change. Englewood Cm,New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Haughton G. and C. Hunter, 1994. Sustuinable Cities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Hawken, P. 1994. The Ecology of Commerce: A Decimattbn of Sustainabifity. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Healey, M. C. 1997. Proqects for Suslambifity: Integrutive Apprwches to Sustanhg the Ecosysiem Function of the Lower Fraser Basin: Final Report. Vancouver, B.C.: Institute for Resources and Environment, University of British Columbia. Hodge, G. 1994. Regional planning: The Cinderelia discipline. PfmCd (July): 35-49. Holling, C. S. 1995. What baniers? What bridges? In Bmriers mrd Bridges to the Rend of Ecosystem and lnstiom, eds L. H. Gunderson, D. S. Holhg, and S. S. Light . New York: Columbia University Press. International Development Resource Centre. 1994. Crmadm Response to Agenda 21: An Assesment. UNCED Collection. Ottawa. Kaner, S. 1996. Facilitator 's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers. Kline, E. 1997. Sustainable community ïndicators: How to measure progress. In Eco-City Dimemom: Heaftky Communities, HeaMy Plmet, ed. M. Roseland. Gabnola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers. Kofk, G. P. and Griggs, L R 1995. CoJJaboration and the B.C. RdTable on the Environment m the Econonty: An Analysis of a "Bener Way " of Deciding. Vancouver, B.C.: Authors. Koop, W. M3.Wake Up Vmcouyer: An Historicd ûutline of the Policies and Aahinistrcrtr'on, IncIuding Sonte of rhe Debates, Circlmrstances, und Coniroversies, of the Greater VÙncmver Wdershedic. Vancouver, B .C. :Author. 121 . 1994. A Presentation on the History of the Coquith Watetshed and River From 1898-1914, for the Port Mmdy Ecologicai Society, on the Evening of Apnl6, 1994. Vancouver7 B.C.: Author. Lach, D. and Hixson, P. 1995. Developing indicators to measure values and costs of public involvement adVities. Interact. 2 (1): 5067. Laird, F. N. 1993. Participatory analysis, dernocracy, and technological decision-making. Science, Technology, and Humrm Values, 18 (3),34 1-3 6 1. Lanarc Consultants Ltd. 1994. Streum [email protected] Gui& for Phersd Developers. Vancouver7 B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Environment; Wstry of Municipal Affairs; and Department of Fishenes and Oceans, Canada. Lee, R G. 1992. Ecologically effective social organization as a requirement for sustainhg watershed ecosystems. In W~ershedMimagement: Bafmciing Sustainabiiiity md Environmental Change, ed. R. J. Naimau 73-90. New York: Springer-Verlag. Lemer, S, ed. 1992. Emronmentuf StewarciIsh@: Siudies in Active Earthkepiing. Waterloo, ON: Department of ûeography, University of Waterloo. Linder, S. H. and Peters, B. G. 1995. The two traditions of institutional designing: Dialogue versus decision? In Insttutio~IDesign, ed. D. L. Weimer 13 3-1 60. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Litke, S. 1996. Community-based assesment: A guiabce tiwl for mstainabili~.Master' s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Bumaby, B .C. Lotz, S .J. 1995. Using the Stage Mdof Colhborati'on Theory to Guide the EktabIishment d Operutions of Community Round Tables: A Case Stur3, of the Howe Sound Round Table. Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser River Action Plan, Department of Fishet-ies and Oceans, Canada. MacLaren, V. 1996. Assessing public participation in waste management plhgin Toronto. Environments, 23 (1): 52-58. Macnaghten, P. and Jacobs, M. 1997. Public identification with sustainable development: Investigating cultural barriers to participafion. GIobrrl Em'ronmentat Chge, 7 (1): 5-24. Martin, 1. 1996. Proceeding of the FdngMeeting for the Bioregional Association of the Northern Amencas @ANA). San Francisco, CA: BANA McPhee, M., M. Gebauer, G. Holman, G. Runlra, and M. Wallis. 1996. The Salmon Riwr Waershed: An Owrview of Coraditions, lire& and Imes: Technical Report. Salmon River, B.C.: Salmon River Watershed Roundtable. McTaggart, W. D. 1993. Bioregionalism and regional geography: Place, people, and networks. The CdianGeogrqher, 37 (4):307-3 19. Meeres, S. L., Fisher, R, and Gerrard, N. 1995. Evaluability assessrnent of a community- based program. The CdmJoumaI ofProgrm Evaluation, 10 (1): 103-1 2 1. Mier, R 1989. Neighborhood and Region: An expenential basis for understandimg. Economic Beveloprnent Qumterly, 3 (2): 169-1 74. Memoranhm Of Understanding. Fe: Coquitlam River Flow Agreement]. 1993. Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parka, British Columbia Hydro Power Authority. Micliael, D. N. 1995. Barriers and bridges to leamhg a turûulent hurnan ecology. In Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems und lnstitun'o)ts,eds. L. H. Ciunderson, D.S. HoIiiig, and S. S. Li& New York: Columbia University Press. Moore, J. L. 1994. Whai 's siopping sustainability? EMninining the barriers to implementution of Clm& of Clumge. Master's thesis, University of B .C. , Vancouver, B.C. Morley, J. T., Rd,N. J., Swainson, N. A., Wilson, R J., and Young, W. D. 1983. The Reins of Powec Goveming British Columbia. Vancouver, B .C.: Douglas and Mchtryre. Newbury, R W. 1979. Return to the rivers of discovery of Western Canada. Lamiscape Phnning, 6': 23 7-248. . 1995. Rivers and the art of strearn restoration. Nofurai d Anrhropogenic Influences in Fluval Geomorphology. ûeophysical Monograph 89. American Geophysical Union. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 1994. Lod Round Tables: Realizing Their Full Potenfial. Ottawa: NRTEE, BCRTEE, COU, FBMP. Nicola Watershed Cornmunity Round Table. 1995. Nicola Watershed Demonsîration Project: Nicola Waershed Commniîy Round Table: Evaluation Report. Nicola, B .C. Oregon Progress Board. 1994. Oregon Benchmmh. Salem, OR Paish, H. 1997. Urban streams: Where have we corne from and do we know where we're going? pinner presentation at Urban Streams Workshop, Mar. 10-121. In Quadra Planning Consuftants Ltd. (Ed.), Urban Stream Protection, Resfomtion and StewardsFhip in the Pacifc Northwesi: Are We Achîeving Desired Redts? Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser River Action Plan; Fisheries and Oceans Canada- Pmn, E. A and Clark, W. C. 1995. Sustainable development as social learning: Theoreticai perspectives and practical challenges for the design of a research program. In Barriers and Bridges to the Renewalof Ecosystems dImtitations, eds. L. H. Gunderson, D. S. HoUing, aad S. S. Light New York: Columbia University Press. Partners for Human Investment (PHI). 1993. Catafvtic Leadership Hmidbook Portland, OR: Portland State University.. Penrose, R 1996. Skd&cision muking inpublic landplmY>mg: An nuluahon of the CmanbmChilcorin COREprocess. Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University Bumby, B.C. Pinkerton, E. and Weinstein, M. 1995. Fisheries that Work: Sustaimbili 171rmgh Community-BasedMmtrrgemenr. Vancouver, B.C.: The David SdFoundation. Puget Sound Water Qualiiy Authority. 1990. Public Invohetnent and andEducation Mhl Projects Fd:47 Success Storiesfom Puget Sd.Oiympia, WA:Author. . 1993. Mm@ng Nonpoint PoIhtion: An Action Pkm Hdookfor Puget Sd Watersheb. Olympia, WA:Author. Raiph, D. 1988. Researching from the bottom: Lessons participatory research has for feminists. C'ianReview of Social Policy, 22 2: 3MO. Rifkis 1. 1995. The End of Work: me Decline of the Global Labor Force and the DaMl of the Post-Market Era, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Ralph, D. 1988. Researcbg fiom the bottom: Lessons Participatory Research has for feminists. Cmadim Review of Social Policy, 22: 36-40. Rodrigueq J. and A Thomson 1993. A Frameworkfor the Development of Wmershed Planning on un Ecdogicaf Bass. Vctoria, B.C.: Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Romaine, M. J. 1997. ûverhead notes for Communify Developrnent Imtute Workshop, Sechelt, B.C. Romaine, M. J. and ChMansen, N. 1997. States of Readinessfor Sustainabale Community Development: A Discussion Papfor the Wdershed Stewwdship Alliance Fonrm. Vancouver, B .C. : Fraser River Action Plau, Environment Canada. Romme, W.H. and Despain, D .G. 1989. The Yellow Stone fies. Scientipc Antericm, 261 (5): 3746. Roseland, M. 1992. Towmd Sustainable Communities: A Resmce Bwkfor Municipal andLucul Goverrijnenîs. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Roseland, M. Ed. 1997. Eco-City Dimensions: Healthy Counnmities, Heult& Plimet. Gabnola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers. Rueggeberg, H. 1. and Dorcey, A EL J. 1991. Gov-ce of quatic resources in the Fraser Basin. In Water in Sustainable Development: E;s,lonng na Cornon Futare in the Fraser River Basin. Resemch Progranr on Water in SustuinabIe Developmnt, Vohune a eds. A H.J. Dorcey and J. Griggs, 201-240. Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Centre, University of British Columbia Sale, K. 1985. DweIIers in the La&: me Bioregioml fision. San Francisco: Sierra Club aooks* Salmon River Watershed Roundtable. n.d. Retum of the River: A Commnity 's Partr*ci$wti'onin Strembank Restomtion. (Video produced by Fred Bird and Associates Ltd.). Salmon River, B .C. . 1994. The Salnon River Wdershed Planning Guide. Saimon Arm, B.C. Seh, S. and Chavez, D. 1995. Developing a collaborative mode1 for environmental planning and management. Emitonmentd Mmgement, 19 (2): 189-1 95. Sewell, W. R D. and Phillips, S. D. 1979. Models for the evaluation of public participation programmes. Nirai Resources Joumi, 19,33 7-3 5 8. Srnailes, A. M. 1994. Alteniarive Diqpute Resolution in B.C.: Case Stt@ of the Nahalatch htegrded Resource Mmgernenl Plm. (Uapublished paper). North Vancouver, B.C.: Author. . 1997. Coquitiam Riwr Watershed Public Process: Final Report. Coquitlam, B .C.: City of Coquitlam. Smelser, N. 1963. Xbeory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Smith, S. E.,T. Pyrch, and A. O. Lizardi, 1991. Pmticipatory Action-Resemch: Understanding the Appruach. Calgary, Alta: Author. StaWiga, J. M. 1997. Creating and Celebrutîng Our Wutershed's Fuîure: Selecting Indicatorsfur a Sustainable WatershedFuture: WorkFhop Report. Vancouver, B.C.: Environment Canada; Salmon Ann, B.C.: Salmon River Watershed Roundtable. Stevens, V. Backhouse, P., and Eriksson, A. 1995. Riparian Mmgement in British Columbia: An Important Step in Mah>raining Biodiversiry. Victoria, B.C.: B.C. Ministry of Forests Research Program. Stufnebeam, D. L. 1994. Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the ftture ofevaluation should not go and where it needs to go. Evaiuation Practice, 15 (3): 3 2 1-3 3 8. 125 SustarstarnabIeûptiom for the he~arrhemtFalse Creek Sire. Volume 1. 1996. (Prepared for Mark Roseland, Asst. Professor, Geography 449). Bundq;, B.C.: Simon Fraser University. Syme, G. J, and Sadler, B. S. 1994. Evaluation of public involvement in water resources planning: A researcher-practitioner dialogue. Evalwtim Review, 18 (5): 523-542. Tarnblyn, G. C. 1996. Shed decision making in land use planning: An evahation of the Kamloops Land d Resource Mmgement phingprocess. Mast er3s thesis, Simon Fraser University, Bumaby, B .C. Tauxe, C. S. 1995. Marginalking public participation in local planning: An ethnographie account .Jmml of the Americm Plmming Association, 661 (4):47 1-48 1. United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development. 1992. Rio Declwation on Environment ami Development. Rio de Janeiro. Wackemagel M. and Rees, W. 1995. Our EcoIogicuf Fooprint: Reducing Humm Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers. Ward-Whate, L. and Mills, J. 1994. Discovering Ymr Communiîy: A Cooperaîive Process of Piming Sustuinabiliry. Victoria, B.C.:Harmony Foundation of Canada. Warren, K. J. 1987. Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Ellvli.onrneniut Ethics, 9, (Spring). Watershed Stewardship Alliance of B.C. 1997. Drafl Tenns of Reference for Discussion at Forum. Presented at the Watershed Stewardship AUiance Forum, May 8-10, Salmon Arm, B.C. Water investigations Branch, British Columbia Muiistry of the Environment. 1978. Ccquitî" River Waier Management Shr@. Victoria, B.C.: Author. Weimer, D. L, ed. 1995. ImtitutionaI Design. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishen. Whyte, W. F. Ed. 1991. Pmficipatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Wdson, A. 1995. Shmed decision making in public landplanning: An evaIuution of the Vmcower IsIdRegionai COREpr0ce.w. Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University Bdy,B.C. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Comnon Future. New York: Oxford University Press. Yakima River Waershed Cmcif. 1996. (Information Package). Yakima, Washington. Personal Communication nie foiiowing personai communications are conversatiom by phone or in person. Watersheà Initiatives Argent, Dorothy. 1995. Director of Salmon River Watershed Round Table, Salmon Arm, B.C. . Cadieux, Tom. 1996. Founding Director of Alouette River Management Society, Maple Ridge, B.C. Chamberlain, Don. 1995. Past Director of Project Watershed, Comox Valley, Courtenay. Clayton, GeoE 1996. Member of the Alouette River Management Society, Maple Ridge. Gravel, Anne-France. 1997. Environment Canada. Davies, Ross. 1996. Fishenes Technician, Department of Fisheries and Oceanq Canada. Dmytronetz, Jeannie. 1997. Coquitlam River Watershed Resident, Coquitlam. Wiar, Chris. 19%. Watershed Planning. Department of Fishenes and Oceans, Comox, B.C. Letay, Sylvia. 1994. Habitat Officer. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Litke, Steve. 1996. Former Coordinator of Chiiiiwack Snapshots, Fraser Basin Management Program. MacDonald, Rob. 1996. Member of Surrey Environmental Protection Cornmittee, and Coordinator of the Nicomekl Watershed, Surrey. McKay, Hugh. 1995. Assistant City Engineer, City of North Vancouver. Milne, Karen. 1997. Streamkeeper, North Vancouver.. Pinho, Odete. 1996. Coordinator of the Hotspots Water Quality Monitoring Project, Comox Vdey Project Watershed Society, Courtenay Porter, Richard. 1997. Coordinator, Millard Piercy Watershed Stewards, Courtenay. Sandiford, Jackie. 1995. Secretary Treasurer, Comox Vailey Watershed Assembly, Courtenay. Scales, Pete. 19%. Environmental Manager, District of Langley. 127 Vodden, Kelly. 1996. Graduate Student of Geography, Simon Fraser University. Wallis, Mike. 1997. Coordinator, Salmon River Watershed Round Table, Salmon Arm. Coquithm River Watershed Ailard, James. 1996. Owner of Mard Contractors, Ltd., Coquitlam. Anslow, Martha. 1996. Policy Analyst, Muiistry of Municipal Mairs, Victoria. B.C. Hydro. 1996. Caltagirone, Anna. 1996. Engineering Technician, City of Coquitlam. Coulter Bois-Vert. 1996. Comrnunity Involvement Officer, Department of Fishenes and Oceans, Canada. Danladi, Linda. 1997. Member of the CRW Action Group. Day, Debra. 1996. Head of Planning Department, City of Coquitlam. Farrell, Melody. 1996. Fraser River Action Plan, Department of Fishenes and Oceans, Canada. Golds, Elaine. 1996. President of the Burke Mountain Naturalists. Gnst, Al. 1996. Vice President of the Port Coquitiam Hunting and Fishing Club. Coordinator of the Coquitlam River Hatchery. hes, Rob. 1996. Plamer, City of Coquitlarn, Knight, Nancy. 1996. Plaaner, Greater Vancouver Regional District. Knight, Rob. 1996. Urban Salmon Habitat Program, Ministxy of Environment, B.C. Koop, Wd. 1996. Researcher and Writer, Vancouver. Langer, Otto. 1996. Fraser River Action Plan, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada. Lee, Robert. 1996. Past Engineer, City of Coquitlam, Lorimer, Diane. 1997. Coordinator for the RACE, the Coquitlarn River Action Group. Newbury. Robert. 1996. Limited Term Professor at Simon Fraser University and Principle of Newbury Hydraulics. 128 Nihs, me.1996.3eputy Head of Parks and Leisure, City of Coquitlam. Norrie, Jack. 1996. Former Habitat Ofticer, Ministry of the Environment, B.C. Palidwor, Dave. 1996. Parks Planner, City of Coquitlam. Phülips, Bonaie. 1996. Resident of CRW,Coquitlam. Pregler, Kurt. 1997. Parks Operation Control Technician, City of Coquitlam. Reid, Bruce. 1996. Sediment Control, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Telegus, Rosa. 1996. Former Environmental Engineer, City of Coquitlam. IMAGE LY'?\LVr\TIG:Y TEST TARGET (QA-3) APPLIED IMAGE, lnc E 1653 East Main Svwt m.- Rochester, NY 14609 USA -0- --= --= Phone: 7161402-0300 ------Fax 71612ûû-5989