The Challenge of Sustainability in Canada's Coastal Regions

NEW SPACES, ANCIENT PLACES: COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN CANADA‟S COASTAL REGIONS

Kelly M. Vodden H.B.A. University of Western Ontario, 1993 M.A. Simon Fraser University, 1999

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Department of Geography

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Summer 2009

Approval

Name: Kelly Vodden

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Title of Research Project: New Spaces, Ancient Places: Collaborative Governance and Sustainable Development in Canada‘s Coastal Regions

Examining Committee:

Dr. Nicholas Blomley Chair, Examining Committee Professor, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University

Dr. John Pierce Senior Supervisor Professor, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University

Dr. Mark Roseland Supervisor Professor, Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University

Dr. Doug House Supervisor Professor, Department of Sociology, Memorial University

Dr. Michael Howlett Internal Examiner Professor, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Dr. Derek Armitage External Examiner Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University

Date Defended/Approved: December 17, 2008

ii Abstract

The concept of collaborative, multi-level governance has garnered increasing attention in academic and policy arenas as evidence of large scale governance failures in coastal regions mounts. Collaborative governance is presented as an alternative to current, status quo planning and decision-making processes appropriate for addressing sustainability issues in complex social-ecological systems. This research explores the potential and application of collaborative governance through a comparative analysis of six collaborative governance models in three Canadian coastal regions. Characteristics of each model, relationships between these characteristics, barriers, enablers and outcomes were examined within a complex, adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework. To date, the primary outcomes of these collaborative governance efforts have been building governance capacity and slowing rather than reversing social-ecological decline. Ecological outcomes have been especially difficult to achieve, particularly in more complex systems, and multiple-objective outcomes remain under-recognized and often unstated. Resistors to integrated, collaborative governance approaches include lack of support and flexibility within existing policy systems, rivalries and differing perspectives among actors, limitations in understanding, and cultures that favour exploitation over stewardship and specialization over integration. Leadership and relationships are key factors in achieving sustainable development outcomes and overcoming resistance to new approaches. Culture and commitment to place can be significant enablers, often personified in and providing inspiration to a small number of instrumental leaders who link new scales of regional and multi-level governance to local communities and their rich and varied histories. Relationships are critically influenced by willingness and capacity to share power and knowledge, through both formal mechanisms and informal interactions. Open and ongoing communication about problems and strategies, but also deeper principles and values, is needed to foster social learning and greater commitment to sustainable development principles. Increased commitment to, and capacity for, shared learning and accountability are required if existing collaborative governance models are to achieve higher order sustainable development outcomes and foster significant change within broader governing systems.

iii

Dedication

To those who dedicate themselves to their communities and leave the world a better place. Lawrence, Bert, Pat, Ron, Gilbert, Bill, Grand Keptin Denny, Herb, may we honour your memory by striving to do the same.

"We are nearing a point when the word partnership is becoming a cliché – and that worries me… Real partnerships are difficult, sometimes messy things! But real partnerships are the foundation of our survival in this province. Partnerships between towns; partnerships between towns and business; partnerships between sectors. That is our future – we will thrive in partnership or we will fail alone".

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities President Herb Brett, Partnerships in Progress Conference Marystown, NL June 1, 2005

Acknowledgements

After so many years of patience and support thank you hardly seems enough. Thanks to John, and to Doug and Mark for your guidance and confidence that I would finally reach this point. Thanks to everyone that participated in this research for your generous gift of time and knowledge and to each of the case study organizations for sharing your experiences. To everyone who provided accommodation and other logistical support, especially Mike and Maureen, Kim, Christina, Charlie, Slawa, Albert and Murdena, Cape Breton University, Winse, Tina and Barry, Bill and Mary, your kindness will not be forgotten. Thanks to Dick, John, Rosemary and the Coasts Under Stress (CUS) team for providing an avenue to explore interconnections between this research and that of others focused on the well-being of our coasts and coastal communities. This research would not have been possible without financial support from CUS, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Simon Fraser University (Dr. John Pierce), Ocean Management Research Network and Coastal Zone Canada. Thanks to Sarah Breen, Ahmed Khan, Mostaem Billah, Ange Hounsell, Cindy Wicks, Jenessa Button and Cathy King for important research assistance. Thanks always to Pat for your mentorship and for providing one opportunity after another, all of which brought me to where I am today. Finally, thanks to my family for your sacrifices of time spent together to see this document and all that it represents become a reality. I can never properly express my gratitude for your understanding and never-ending support. Shane, I have gained much from this journey, most importantly us.

v Table of Contents

Approval ...... ii Abstract ...... iii Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgements ...... v Table of Contents ...... vi List of Tables ...... x List of Figures ...... xi Glossary of Acronyms ...... xii 1 - The Challenge of Sustainability in Canada‘s Coastal Regions ...... 1 1.1. Coastal Systems at Risk ...... 1 1.2 A Question of Governance? ...... 4 1.3 Research Approach ...... 7 2 – Resilience, Adaptation and Sustainability in Complex Social-Ecological Systems .... 13 2.1 The Complex Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems (CASES) Framework ...... 13 2.1.1 Multi-layered and Multi-scale ...... 16 2.1.2 Dynamic Interactions within CASES ...... 27 2.1.3 Change, Resilience and Adaptation ...... 29 2.1.4 Initial Reflections on the CASES Framework ...... 35 2.2 Contributions from Development Geography ...... 37 2.2.1 Dependency and Uneven Development ...... 37 2.2.2 Staples Theory and Rural Canada ...... 40 2.2.3 Regulation Theory ...... 41 2.2.4 New Developments and CASES Contributions ...... 44 3 – Collaborative Governance in the Coastal Zone ...... 49 3.1 Complexity and Coastal Zone Governance ...... 49 3.2 Redefining Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships in Governance Systems ..... 54 3.2.1 Changing Role of the Nation State ...... 54 3.2.2 International Policy Actors ...... 58 3.2.3 Recognizing Aboriginal Rights and Title ...... 58 3.2.4 The Local State ...... 59 3.2.5 Civil Society ...... 63 3.2.6 The Private Sector ...... 65 3.3 Collaborative Governance...... 66 3.3.1 Power ...... 73 3.3.2 Structure and Process ...... 75 3.3.3 Territory and Function ...... 78 3.4 Learning Systems and the Adaptive Dimension of Collaborative Governance ...... 79 4 – Research Framework and Methodology ...... 87 4.1 Research Paradigm, Epistemology and Methodological Approach...... 87 4.2 Analytical Framework - Theory and Practice ...... 88 4.2.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes ...... 90 4.2.2 Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable Development ...... 93 4.2.3 Actors and their Relationships ...... 96 4.2.4 Operationalizing Mechanisms: Processes, Tools and Structures ...... 98

vi 4.2.5 Resistors and Enablers ...... 100 4.2.6 Scale Considerations ...... 102 4.2.7 Context ...... 103 4.3 Case Study and Policy Literature Review...... 103 4.4 Case Study Design, Selection and Relationship Building ...... 104 4.5 Data Collection ...... 107 4.6 Data Organization and Analysis ...... 111 4.7 Finalizing and Communicating Results ...... 112 5 – Case Study Area Descriptions and Sustainability Overview ...... 114 5.1 Introduction ...... 114 5.1.1 Island Geography ...... 114 5.1.2 Provincial Populations ...... 116 5.1.3 Original Peoples and Settlement History ...... 116 5.1.4 Social Values, Politics and the Environment ...... 118 5.1.5 Provincial Well-being Indicators ...... 121 5.2. Kittiwake Region, NL ...... 125 5.2.1 Communities and Local Government ...... 125 5.2.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being ...... 126 5.2.3 Economic Indicators ...... 130 5.2.4 Individual and Social Well-being ...... 132 5.2.5 Culture and Way of Life ...... 133 5.3 Bras d‘Or Lakes/Strait-Highlands, NS...... 135 5.3.1 Communities and Local Government ...... 135 5.3.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being ...... 137 5.3.3 Economic Indicators ...... 139 5.3.4 Social Well-being and Human Health ...... 142 5.3.5 Culture and Way of Life ...... 144 5.4 Mount Waddington/Central Coast region, BC ...... 146 5.4.1 Communities and Local Government ...... 146 5.4.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being ...... 148 5.4.3 Economic Indicators ...... 152 5.4.4 Social Well-being and Human Health ...... 155 5.4.5 Culture and Way of Life ...... 157 5.5 Summary and Case Study Region Comparison ...... 158 6 – Regional Economic Development Redefined ...... 163 6.1 Scaling Up Community Economic Development ...... 164 6.2 Regional Development in Canada...... 167 6.3 Provincial Policies and Programs ...... 171 6.3.1 British Columbia ...... 172 6.3.2 Nova Scotia ...... 174 6.3.3 Newfoundland and Labrador ...... 177 6.4 Regional Development From the Bottom-up ...... 181 6.5 Collaborative Regional Economic Development (RED): a Balanced Approach? 182 6.5.1 Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation ...... 183 6.5.2 Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency ...... 188 6.5.3 Community Futures Development Corp. Mount Waddington ...... 194 6.6 Case Study Similarities and Differences ...... 200

vii 7 – Watershed Management: Experiments in Bioregional Governance ...... 204 7.1 Watershed Management and the Watershed as a Bioregion ...... 204 7.2 Watershed Management in Canada ...... 207 7.3 Canada‘s International Commitments ...... 208 7.4 The Federal Policy Framework ...... 210 7.5 Federal-Provincial Agreements...... 212 7.6 Provincial Jurisdiction, Policies and Programs ...... 214 7.6.1 Newfoundland and Labrador ...... 214 7.6.2 Nova Scotia ...... 216 7.6.3 British Columbia ...... 217 7.7 Case Study Watershed Management Initiatives...... 219 7.7.1 Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp...... 220 7.7.2 Bras d‘Or Lakes Watershed Management ...... 227 7.7.3 Nimpkish Resource Management Board ...... 234 7.8 Summary of Model Similarities and Differences ...... 243 8 – Outcomes, Resistors and Enablers: Research Findings and Cross-case Analysis ..... 246 8.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes ...... 246 8.1.1 Enhancing Governance System Capacity ...... 248 8.1.2 Contributions to Social Well-being ...... 249 8.1.3 Enhancing Individual Well-being and Human Capital ...... 252 8.1.4 Preservation and Renewal of Coastal Cultures ...... 253 8.1.5 Economic Benefits ...... 255 8.1.6 Ecological Benefits ...... 257 8.1.7 Summary ...... 260 8.2. Enablers and Resistors ...... 262 8.2.1 The Influence of Individuals ...... 263 8.2.2 Relationships with Government ...... 267 8.2.3 Time – Balance in Temporal Scale ...... 280 8.2.4 Local Conflict and Capacity ...... 282 8.3 Summary ...... 286 9 – Reflections on Collaborative Governance and Complex Adaptive Systems ...... 289 9.1 The Multiple Scales of Collaborative Governance ...... 289 9.1.1 Nested Systems and Expanded Discretionary Reach ...... 289 9.1.2 Region as a Focal Scale ...... 291 9.2 Processes of Change, Adaptation and Resilience ...... 294 9.2.1 Destabilizing Feedback Loops ...... 294 9.2.2 Responding to Sudden or Significant Events ...... 295 9.2.3 Learning and Adaptation ...... 298 9.3 Balance and Sustainable CASES ...... 314 9.3.1 Flexibility and Stability ...... 314 9.3.2 Complexity and Governability ...... 316 9.3.3 Diversity, Autonomy, and Common Ground ...... 320 9.4 Collaborative Governance as a Complex Adaptive System: Contributions to the CASES Literature ...... 330 10 – Conclusion: the Promise and Challenge of Collaborative Governance ...... 336 10.2 Recommendations and Future Directions ...... 347 Reference List ...... 353

viii

CD-ROM Appendices ...... 409

Appendix 1 – Case Study Outcomes ...... 409 Appendix 2 - Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable Development ...... 416 Appendix 3 – Case Study Principles ...... 429 Appendix 4 – RED Case Study Actors and Relationships ...... 442 Appendix 5 – Mechanisms Used ...... 473 Appendix 6 - Factors in Collaborative Governance Success: Resistors and Enablers 483 Appendix 7 - Respondent Profile ...... 486 Appendix 8 - Interview Topics ...... 487 Appendix 9 - Regional Descriptions and Well-being/Sustainability Indicators ...... 488 Appendix 10 - Regional Economic Development Models ...... 514 Appendix 11 - RED Policies and Programs in Canada ...... 519 Appendix 12 - Watershed Management Models...... 531 Appendix 13 - Watershed Management Legislation, Policies and Programs ...... 537 Appendix 14 – Success Factors (Enablers) and Barriers (Resistors) ...... 548 Appendix 15 – Overall Case Study Comparison ...... 558

Note on CD-ROM Appendices

The CD-ROM attached forms a part of this work. All thesis appendices are included in one PDF document included on this CD-ROM. The PDF file was created with Adobe Acrobat, but may be opened in any PDF program.

NOTE from SFU Library: The above-mentioned separate appendix PDF has been included in this PDF and in the bound copies in the University Library and Archives collections.

List of Tables

Table 1 Characteristics of collaborative governance ...... 6 Table 2 Key features of CASES ...... 14 Table 3 CASES criticisms and limitations ...... 35 Table 4 Sample of coastal policy issues...... 49 Table 5 Roles in coastal governance ...... 50 Table 6 Stages of problem solving and the policy cycle ...... 51 Table 7 Definitions of collaboration ...... 67 Table 8 The coastal development policy community ...... 70 Table 9 Challenges and opportunities of collaborative governance ...... 71 Table 10 Research questions and accompanying framework components ...... 89 Table 11 Principles of collaborative, sustainable coastal governance ...... 94 Table 12 Actors and networks - characteristics examined ...... 98 Table 13 Factors in the success of collaborative coastal governance ...... 101 Table 14 Six collaborative governance sub-cases ...... 107 Table 15 Community contact ...... 108 Table 16 Case study region size ...... 115 Table 17 Settlement history and population change ...... 116 Table 18 Major primary sector-related employers ...... 141 Table 19 Regional comparison of well-being indicators ...... 160 Table 20 Sustainability gap rating ...... 161 Table 21 Similarities and differences between the case study regions ...... 162 Table 22 National approaches to RED ...... 167 Table 23 Federal agencies active in RED ...... 168 Table 24 REDB mandate changes ...... 184 Table 25 NS-E strategic directions ...... 190 Table 26 BC-E loan funds 2003/04 ...... 197 Table 27 Multi-level policy framework for watershed management ...... 208 Table 28 Indian Bay watershed user communities ...... 223 Table 29 Nimpkish watershed communities ...... 237 Table 30 Organizational models ...... 244 Table 31 Evaluation challenges ...... 246 Table 32 Industries under development ...... 255 Table 33 Outcomes of collaborative governance initiatives ...... 262 Table 34 Ranking of top ten enabling factors according to interview respondents ...... 263 Table 35 Individuals described as key actors...... 264 Table 36 Ranking of top ten resistors/barriers according to interview respondents ...... 267 Table 37 Recommended roles and responsibilities ...... 271 Table 38 Policy and legal supports ...... 279 Table 39 Case study capacity ratings ...... 284 Table 40 System disturbances and sources of resilience ...... 296 Table 41 Comparison of knowledge forms ...... 304 Table 42 Central themes ...... 340

List of Figures

Figure 1.Canada's coastlines ...... 1 Figure 2 Collaborative governance ...... 6 Figure 3 CASES framework ...... 13 Figure 4 Region as middle ground and human scale ...... 21 Figure 5 The adaptive renewal cycle ...... 31 Figure 6 Seeking a balance of power ...... 48 Figure 7 Relationship continuum ...... 68 Figure 8 Orders of outcomes evaluation framework ...... 91 Figure 9 Case study locations ...... 106 Figure 10 Kittiwake region (Zone 14) ...... 125 Figure 11 Bras d'Or Lakes and Strait-Highlands regions ...... 135 Figure 12 Mount Waddington Regional District ...... 146 Figure 13 Upper mid-coast planning region ...... 148 Figure 14 Nimpkish watershed ...... 151 Figure 15 Southern Central Coast Plan Area ...... 241 Figure 16 Collaborative governance outcomes ...... 247 Figure 17 NL case study outcomes and sustainability gaps...... 260 Figure 18 BC case study outcomes and sustainability gaps...... 261 Figure 19 NS case study outcomes and sustainability gaps ...... 261 Figure 20 Relationship factors ...... 268 Figure 21 Degree of power sharing within the collaborative governance network ...... 272 Figure 22 Comparing capacities and outcomes ...... 285 Figure 23 The adaptive renewal cycle (2005/06) ...... 297 Figure 24 Learning, adaptive governance framework ...... 299 Figure 25 Knowledge systems incorporated ...... 302 Figure 26 Nested planning processes ...... 310 Figure 27 Processes of learning and adaptation ...... 313 Figure 28 "Compliance" with collaborative governance principles ...... 323 Figure 29 Seeking common ground ...... 328 Figure 30 Comparison of case study characteristics and outcomes ...... 329

Glossary of Acronyms

Acronym Meaning ACAP Atlantic Canada Action Program ACOA Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ANT Actor-Network Theory ARDA Agricultural Rehabilitation and Rural Development Act BC British Columbia BC-E Community Futures Mount Waddington BC-W Nimpkish Watershed Management Board BDC Business Development Centres CA Census Agglomerations CASES Complex adaptive social-ecological systems CASE/C Cooperation Agreement for Salmonid Enhancement/Conservation CBDCs Independent Community Business Development Corporations CBU Cape Breton University, formerly University College of Cape Breton CCRD Central Coast Regional District CEAI Community Economic Adjustment Initiative CED Community economic development CEPI Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative CFDCs Community Futures Development Corporation CFDCMW Community Futures Development Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E) CMA Census Metropolitan Areas (statistical area designation) COST European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research CRRF Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation CSA Canadian Standards Association‗s CWT Centreville-Wareham-Trinity DEVCO Cape Breton Development Corporation DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada DITT Department of Industry, Trade and Technology DREE Department of Regional Economic Expansion ECBC Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation EDOs Economic Development Officer EFWC Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission EI Employment Insurance EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ENL Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador ERC Economic Recovery Commission FedNor Federal regional development organization in Ontario FIA Forest Investment Account FRBC Forest Renewal BC program FsRBC Fisheries Renewal BC FRCC Fisheries Resource Conservation Council GIS Geographic Information Systems GONGO Government Organized NGOs HRSD Human Resources and Social Development Canada, formerly HRDC HRDC Human Resources Development Canada IBEC Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. (NL-W)

xii ICM Integrated Coastal Management IT Information Technology IM Integrated Management KEDC Kittiwake Economic Development Corp. (NL-E) LCRMP Central Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan LEK Local Ecological Knowledge LHA Local Health Area LK Local knowledge LMDA Labour Market Development Agreement LOMA Large Ocean Management Area LSDs Local Service Districts MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MPA Marine Protected Area MPs Members of Parliament MRC Mekong River Commission MSC Marine Stewardship Council MTTC Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council MOUs Memoranda of Understanding MWRD Mount Waddington Regional District NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fishery Organization NB New Brunswick NDP New Democratic Party NDPB Non-Departmental Public Bodies NGO Non-Government Organization NL Newfoundland and Labrador NL-E Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation NLREDA Newfoundland Regional Economic Development Boards NL-W Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. NPA National Programme of Action for Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities NPM New Public Management NRMB Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) NS Nova Scotia NS – E Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E) NS–W Bras d‘Or watershed management network NSARDA Nova Scotia Association of Regional Development Authorities OAGC Office of the Auditor General of Canada OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OED Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development OKNTC Oweekeno-Kitasoo-Nuxalk Tribal Council PC Progressive Conservatives PEI Prince Edward Island PFAR Pacific Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring QUANGO QUasi or quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations RCAP Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples RDAs Regional Development Authorities RED Regional Economic Development REDBs Regional Economic Development Boards RUPRI Rural Policy Research Institute

xiii SARA Species at Risk Act SCI Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative SEP Strategic Economic Plan SES Social-Ecological Systems SFM Sustainable Forest Management SSP Strategic Social Plan SYSCO Sydney Steel Corporation TAGS The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy TEK Traditional ecological knowledge TFL Tree Farm Licence TK Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge UCCB University College of Cape Breton‗s UI Unemployment Insurance UINR Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization US United States VIHA Vancouver Island Health Authority WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WD Western Diversification (federal agency)

xiv 1 - The Challenge of Sustainability in Canada‟s Coastal Regions

1.1. Coastal Systems at Risk

Rural, resource-dependent regions around the world have faced extensive social, economic, environmental and political restructuring in recent decades. Resource dependency and core-periphery relationships have challenged rural Canada since the nation‘s inception (Innis 1933; Watkins 1982; Hayter and Barnes 1990). Modern forces of globalization, technological change, resource depletion, environmental degradation, government retrenchment, increasing influence of a widening range of social actors, and dominant market-based development approaches have exacerbated the situation. Canada‘s rural communities are in the midst of stressful transformation and, for many, a social, economic and environmental crisis (Ommer and Sinclair 1999; Reimer 2005; Ommer et al. 2007). This research focuses on the particular challenges of rural communities within Canada‘s Atlantic and Pacific coastal zones.

While coastlines globally become increasingly urbanized, Canada‘s remain

1 predominantly rural and remote (see Figure 1). Urban centres such as Vancouver, Victoria, St. John‘s and Halifax continue to expand, but the majority of our nation‘s 250,000 km coastline (the longest in the world) is home to small communities and dispersed rural populations. Rural is defined for the purposes of this study as the population living outside the labour force commuting zone of larger centres (population 10,000 or more) (Reimer 2005). The growth of Canadian cities has been fuelled in part by rural communities, as their young people migrate to larger centres in search of opportunity. Even Newfoundland and Labrador, the only province where rural and small town residents still outnumber urban, has experienced this urbanization trend (see Chapter 5). Despite significant diversity in circumstances and, often, an amazing resilience and commitment to place, in many locales community survival is a constant concern. Coastal Canada is burdened not only with problems typical of rural regions but also with those particular to its unique setting. Issues include fisheries dependency, centralized resource management decision-making, uncertainty and vulnerability associated with changing ocean conditions, and legal disputes over coastal jurisdiction. Canada‘s coasts, the peripheries of the nation, have been subject to periods of social and economic restructuring along with both gradual decline and rapid regime shifts within coastal and marine ecosystems (Ommer et al. 2007). The result has too often been population and job loss, threatened local and indigenous cultures, growing economic inequity, a sense of disempowerment and fear for the future, with consequent negative health impacts (Gislason et al. 1996; BC Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs 1991). Social and economic challenges are closely linked to declines in interconnected marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecological systems, particularly in resource-dependent coastal communities (Adger 2000). Many coastal residents are intimately connected with the oceans on their doorsteps, but also with the lower reaches and estuaries of thousands of river systems, small and large. These freshwater systems provide drinking water, recreation and other human benefits while playing a significant role in the health of the marine and coastal environment. Terrestrial environments, linked through watersheds to freshwater systems, provide further livelihood and quality-of-life services. Evidence of ecological decline can be found in each of these habitats as British Columbians struggle,

2 for example, with the depletion of old growth forests and competition among users (including species other than humans) over freshwater supplies. Moving from freshwater into the marine environment, the stories of the northern cod fishery and, more recently, British Columbia salmon are all too well known (Hamilton et al. 2004; Lackey 2008). Internationally, the majority of fish species harvested are fully or overexploited. Human- induced ecosystem change has been more rapid and extensive over the past fifty years than in any comparable period in history (MEA 2005; Vodden et al. 2006). Depletion of fish, forest and mineral stocks has led to a desire to restore and manage these resources more sustainably, and to search for new opportunities for natural resource-dependent economies. Alternatives such as ―new fisheries,‖ aquaculture and oil and gas production, however, have raised further ecological concerns, particularly when considered from a cumulative impact perspective. Ommer et al. (2007) observe that our social responses often exacerbate environmental and social degradation, further reducing resilience and ability to respond to future change. Coastal systems are suffering from a legacy of multiple policy failures, unsustainable behaviours and increasing pressures, local to global. In the midst of this restructuring, a tug-of-war is taking place between opposing trajectories of change - sustainable and unsustainable, with many variations of policies and actions in between. The odds seemingly lie in favour of the latter trend. The International Task Force on Environmental Sustainability (UN Millennium Project 2005, 12) points out that ―since the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment first focused international attention on environmental degradation, most environmental trends have worsened, despite three decades of political arrangements, high-level pronouncements, public exhortations, and over a dozen major multi-lateral environmental agreements.‖ In Canada, initiatives such as community and regional development programs, regulations to restrict pollution and the creation of protected areas have been taken in an attempt to halt degradation of rural communities and ecological systems. Yet declines continue. Why? An increasing number of authors point toward the role of governance and governing institutions.

3 1.2 A Question of Governance?

―Good governance is recognized around the world as the core of effective and sustainable coastal management … effective governance systems create the essential preconditions for achieving environmental and social benefits.‖

- Coastal Resources Centre, University of Rhode Island (2002)

Evidence is mounting that we are experiencing large-scale governance failures with respect to the sustainable development of coastal regions in Canada and across the globe. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) identified inappropriate institutional and governance arrangements as a barrier to sustainable ecosystem management. A United Kingdom Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) called for profound policy changes to reverse the priority put on commercial fishing and to recognize the wider functions and complexity of the marine environment. Two US Commissions had similar findings (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003 and US Commission on Oceans Policy, 2004). In Canada policy failures in coastal forestry and fisheries are well documented (Markey et al. 2000). Hutchings (2005) and others attribute the collapse of the northern Atlantic cod in Newfoundland and Labrador to ―a disassociation between public policy and science,‖ including fishers‘ knowledge. Ommer et al. (2007; 23) observe, ―Fisheries and Oceans managers are now facing a serious legitimacy crisis.‖ Once highly respected and still seeking a leadership role on the international stage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is being called upon both at home and abroad to live up to its sustainable development commitments (OAGC 1999a; OECD 2004). Governance innovations can lead not only to environmental stewardship but also to social and economic development (Abdellatif 2003; House 2001; UNDP 1997; RUPRI 2006). World Bank representatives argue that governance has a strong causal impact on income, poverty alleviation and competitiveness. They suggest that a broad consensus exists among academics, policymakers and the international aid community that good governance increases economic development and the effectiveness of development assistance (Kaufmann 2005). Yet a recent review of global governance trends found no evidence of notable improvement, with deterioration in several key dimensions despite significant investments in governance and anti-corruption programs (Kaufmann et al.

4 2005). In Canada, researchers suggest that institutional capacity is undermined in rural areas by low education levels, out-migration, and weak leadership (Hodge and Qadeer 1983; Briscoe and Burns 2004), while senior government effectiveness is also threatened by fiscal pressures, erosion of trust and autonomy, competition and an inability to deal with complex problems (Reimer 2005). Significant changes in policies, institutions and practices of governance are therefore a necessary, although perhaps not sufficient, condition to mitigate escalating pressures on ecosystems and rural communities (MEA 2005; Locke and Tomblin 2003). Reversing unsustainable development trends must involve new ways of governing the coastal zone in a manner that protects ecosystem, community and individual well-being. Typical of periods of political and policy failure, calls for governance reform are widespread (Hall 1993; Tomblin 2005). But what kinds of reforms are needed? An increasing number of authors in the fields of resource management and rural and regional development suggest the importance of bottom-up development and decision-making as an integral strategy for enhancing the sustainability of rural communities and regions (Pierce 1998; Gill and Reed 1997; Roseland 1998; Bryant 1995, Higgins and Savoie 1995). There is some evidence of a shift in this direction through the application of subsidiarity as a guiding principle in Europe (Backhaus 1999). The subsidiarity principle states that a central authority should perform ―only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level‖ (Buttimer 2001, xxii). In Canada, recognition of the rights of Aboriginal peoples to govern their lands, resources and communities has led to the negotiation of modern treaty and self- government arrangements. Municipalities have also taken on greater responsibilities. A growing number of international agencies, agreements, networks and corporate actors further influence new governance models. At the same time, the need for a continuing role for senior (in Canada provincial and federal) governments in the support of local actors and protection of broader societal interests is acknowledged (Savoie 2000; Buttimer 2001). Haughton and Counsell (2004) and Jessop (2000) refer to this as the ‗government of governance‘.

5 Involving multiple actors Table 1 Characteristics of Collaborative Governance at multiple scales in setting the • Multiple actors sharing power, planning and course for society(ies) has decision-making in complex structures and processes made up of formal and informal relationships become a collective effort of • Vertical, horizontal and temporal integration many rather than the sole domain • Multi-scale (nested), recognizing the importance of the ―local‖ of the state. Coined ―collaborative  Holistic vs. siloed approach (multi-objective, multi- sector) governance‖ (among other terms) • An ongoing process of dialogue, struggle, learning this approach is neither bottom-up and adaptation nor top-down, but seeks to balance both, involving vertical, temporal and horizontal integration (Table 1, Figure 2). Like co-management, its longer-standing counterpart in natural resources, collaborative governance arrangements may lie at varying locations on the top-down/bottom-up continuum. Collaborative governance responds to the suggestion

Figure 2 Collaborative governance of Armitage et al. (2007), Folke et al. (2002) and others that the notion of co-management evolve to adaptive co-management, placing emphasis on adaptation and resilience, and that its application be extended beyond natural resources. Despite enthusiasm for such new approaches, others raise concern about fragmentation, power differences and other challenges associated with collaborative or networked, multi-level governance systems (COST 2003; OAGC 1999b). Varying definitions and perspectives within the study and practice of governance are discussed further in Chapter 3 of this thesis.

6 1.3 Research Approach

Given the current state of coastal systems and governance in Canada and the broader global challenges of rural and coastal sustainability described above, the central purpose of this research is to better explain the concept of collaborative, multi-level governance and examine how it has been applied to the complex and overarching goal of sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal zones. There have been various attempts to construct new collaborative governance arrangements on Canada‘s coasts in the sustainable development era, often at the scale of the sub-provincial region. The increasing importance of the regional scale within collaborative governance networks is discussed further in Chapters 2 and 3. These experiments represent a wealth of learning potential but to date there has been only limited analysis of these experiences. Through comparative case study analysis, the research seeks to increase understanding of the processes of social and policy change in which the struggle over sustainable development takes place; the degree to which these models have been able to move the development paths of their respective regions on to more sustainable trajectories; factors that influence these outcomes; and opportunities for improvement and innovation/adaptation. This purpose was set out recognizing that more than one model of collaborative governance exists. Rather than seeking to derive one best or most appropriate model the goal was to explore the characteristics of various collaborative governance models in differing situations and circumstances and possible causal relationships between governance contexts, characteristics and outcomes. The research for this thesis was conducted and is reported on within a sustainable development paradigm1 that recognizes there are real limits to ecosystems and their uses by human beings as sinks for waste and sources of goods and services that must be

1 Within the sustainable development paradigm there are many variations. Worldviews known as ecocentric, strong or pessimistic sustainability emphasize ecological values and the need to reduce human- induced pressures on the environment while weak, shallow or optimistic/technocentric views sustainability argue that ecological resources can be expanded to meet socio-economic demands. Moderates argue for a balance of these two approaches while ‗just sustainability‘ argues for the redistribution of environmental goods and services to address disparities (Williams and Millington 2004). Despite these variations, there is a common acceptance that ecological, social and economic considerations must be integrated and future options protected. Kates et al (2005) argue that sufficient commonality and agreement on basic principles and values has been reached for sustainable development to have become a social movement. The author takes a strong to moderate view of sustainability.

7 respected if human development is to meet the needs of current and future generations, the most commonly accepted definition of sustainability (WCED 1987). Sustainable development is about creating and maintaining options for social and economic development not only today but in the future (Folke et al. 2002). Environmental protection must be an integral part of the development process, maintaining the ecological capacity to support both social and ecological systems by ensuring that economic throughput does not exceed environmental regenerative and absorptive capacity. New developments in sustainability research stress the need to move from a sole focus on maintaining current levels of natural capital to reversal and restoration of past damage as well (Gann and Lamb 2006). Sustainable development also requires attention to social equity, including equity in the distribution of the costs and benefits of natural resource use and ensuring that people with an interest in the issue(s) being addressed are involved in the decision- making process (Marshall 2005; WCED 1987). Uneven economic and power relationships are, therefore, another important sustainability issue (Leslie 2004). Recognizing that both the practices that are in need of sustaining and the threats to sustainability emerge from specific social and ecological contexts, the involvement of local, place-based actors is considered critical (Kates 2000). This study examines the claim that collaborative governance can assist in meeting these objectives. Kates et al. (2005) suggest that it is the social dimension of sustainable development that is now most debated, with three major variants emphasizing 1) social development, 2) human development or 3) social justice and poverty alleviation. Research and practice have demonstrated that without meeting basic conditions such as the elimination of extreme poverty, provision of housing and safe, clean drinking water, human nature dictates that immediate/short-term survival will remain the imperative, with heightened costs to social-ecological systems (Grainger 2004). For those families and locales already possessing the material necessities of life, demand management and forms of non-material development, such as the often ignored cultural dimension, must be considered (Roseland 1998; Williams and Millington 2004; Vodden 1999a). The ultimate challenge of sustainable development is to provide for the needs and, ideally, ‗quality of life‘ of the world‘s citizens, including those living on Canada‘s coasts, while not adding

8 further pressure to already stressed ecological systems. It is this integration of ecological, social and economic concerns that leads to the description of the study of sustainability as a holistic science, one that shares many core issues with geography and to which geographers can make a significant contribution (Williams and Millington 2004; Purvis and Grainger 2004). Recent works emphasize continual interactions between social and ecological systems, better described as interdependent social-ecological systems, as well as the evolutionary or adaptive nature of sustainability (Holling et al. 2002, Iyer-Raniga and Trelor 2000; Scoones 1999) seeking to increase resilience rather than stability, which is described as an unrealistic and even ill-advised goal (Markey et al. 2005). Processes of planning for sustainability should involve an appreciation of the unpredictable nature of complex social-ecological systems (SES) and an effort to build the capacity to adjust (adapt) to unexpected external shocks or disturbances (Holling and Gunderson 2001). A growing literature on complex adaptive systems, discussed further in Chapter 2, argues that sustainability problems are typically complex systems problems, often uncertain and ill-defined with multiple, diverse and dispersed causes (Berkes et al. 2003; Paquet 1999). Ommer et al. (2007, 6) observe that ―an inadequate understanding of the highly complex links between social and environmental restructuring, and how they interact with the health of people and places‖ is the fundamental sustainability problem. Addressing this common deficiency of research and practice, the structure and process of collaborative governance is viewed here within a holistic, complex, adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework. From this perspective, Bunnell (2002) defines sustainable development as the combined capacity to create and maintain adaptive capability (sustainability) and opportunities (development) over time. Sustainable development is itself ―an open, dynamic, and evolving idea,‖ both criticized and praised for its ambiguity. Kates et al. (2005, 19) suggest that it is ambiguity and ability to adapt to context that adds ―resonance, power and creativity‖ to the term and the dialogue it generates. Chapter 2 provides additional clarification on CASES, resilience and sustainable development. Coastal settings involving many issues, players, scales and processes of change appear appropriately conceptualized within a CASES framework. Governance systems,

9 including the resource management and economic development subsystems that are the focus of this study, operate within these interacting social-ecological systems. Collaborative governance systems and institutions offer the potential to better reflect the complexity of the social-ecological interactions they attempt to manage than centralized, linear, ―siloed‖ alternatives. Many authors have written about the problems associated with policies and practices of the past within the realms of regional economic development and resource management in Canada, a subset of the host of policy issues that impact coastal communities and ecosystems. Over the past decade, integrated marine and coastal area management has become part of both the academic literature on sustainable development and the national and international policy agendas. Success at implementation, however, remains weak. This research aims to advance conceptualizations of collaborative, integrated coastal governance and contribute knowledge that can inform its implementation in Canada. Following on this overall goal, the specific questions addressed by the research are:

1) Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable development in

Canada‘s coastal regions? If so, how?

2) What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in collaborative governance for sustainable coastal development?

 What are the characteristics of effective government-community partnerships in local sustainable development initiatives?  What are the alternative organizational forms/structures, decision-making procedures, processes and tools used in collaborative governance? Which appear to be most effective, in what circumstances?  Who are the key actors and what are the appropriate roles for each to play?  Is the sub-provincial ―region‖ an effective middle ground between local and higher levels as a focus for development decision-making? How is this type of region best defined/delineated?  How do initial contextual conditions influence the characteristics and outcomes of collaborative governance initiatives?

3) What barriers and resistors exist to collaborative governance and advancing sustainable development through this governance approach? 4) How might these barriers/resistors be overcome?

The research builds on the candidate‘s previous research on community economic development (CED), community involvement in natural resource management and Canadian resource policy (Vodden 2002; Vodden 1999a; Markey et al. 2005; Markey et al. 2000). The author‘s Master of Arts research examined local capacity for CED and fisheries co-management in a BC fishing community. It served as a springboard for this enquiry. The research findings indicated that local sustainability outcomes were dependent not only on local conditions and actions, but also on senior policy-makers and relationships between decision-makers at the local, provincial and national levels. Such relationships are examined in this study. This research has contributed directly to the Coasts Under Stress project, a five- year experiment in interdisciplinary research that aimed to achieve an integrated analysis of the long- and short-term impacts of restructuring on the health of coastal people, their communities and the environment. The project involved 70 natural and social scientists and 167 trainees together with local communities in British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador (CUS 2003). This research contributed to the overall project findings on governance in Canada‘s coastal zones (Ommer et al. 2007). The research is also linked with and supported by the Ocean Management Research Network, in particular the Linking Science and Local Knowledge Research Node and former Sustainability Node. This thesis attempts to integrate theory and practice and to make an original contribution to the literature in the fields of community and regional development, rural and resource geography and public policy. The research has been an exploratory investigation of attempts at implementing sustainable development through collaborative governance in coastal Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. The research involves an embedded, multi-case study design, including collaborative governance cases in three selected case study regions: the Indian Bay/Kittiwake region of Newfoundland, the Bras D‘Or Lakes region, Cape Breton Nova Scotia, and Northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. These applications have been analyzed using a framework developed by drawing together common threads from a range of geographical, policy and development theories related to sustainability and governance within complex social- ecological systems. These theoretical foundations are elaborated upon in Chapters 2 and 3, followed by an explanation of research methods employed in Chapter 4 and an

11 introduction to the case study regions in Chapter 5. Chapters 6 and 7 describe the evolution and current status of regional economic development (RED) and watershed management policy subsystems in Canada and the case study regions. An analysis of the findings of the comparative case studies is presented in Chapters 8 and 9. Chapter 8 focuses on interview response data and Chapter 9 on the application of the CASES framework, with a discussion of the significance of the research and possible future directions. Final conclusions are offered in Chapter 10.

12 2 – Resilience, Adaptation and Sustainability in Complex Social-Ecological Systems

This chapter reviews several related lines of academic inquiry that this study draws from and is designed to contribute to. Each is considered within an overarching complex, adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) perspective, a unifying framework within which the related arenas of regional development, watershed management, governance and sustainable development are situated (see Figure 3). Alternative theories with potential to enhance the explanatory power of the CASES framework are also presented, in particular regulation and dependency theories and the more recent variations, real regulation and post-dependency. Staples theory further contributes to an understanding of the Canadian rural context.

2.1 The Complex Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems (CASES) Framework

Two major recent developments in the evolution of what Kates et al. (2001) and others refer to as ―sustainability science‖ include the recognition that sustainable development may require not only more sustainable current and future development paths but also restoration, where possible, of linked social, cultural and ecological systems that have been damaged by past activities (Haggan 2000). The second major development is the introduction of the concepts of complexity and resiliency to sustainability research and Overarching Framework - CASES discourse. The emerging fields of complexity and sustainability share ―a RED W.M. focus on the integrated study of ecosystems and social institutions across the full range Alternative governance models of scales from local to global‖ (Warren

2005, 450). Development paths The CASES framework allows for the study of ecological, economic, and Resilience, Rigidity, social systems, how these systems are adaptation, catastrophic renewal, and collapse, interconnected and sustained, and how they sustainability unsustainable organize and change (Zimmerman et al.

Figure 3 CASES framework 1998). The CASES framework adopted and

13 applied in this research, and in the Coasts Under Stress project, is drawn from the work of Gunderson and Holling (2001). Together with Walker et al (2006) and other Resilience Alliance colleagues these authors have sought to develop an integrative theory of evolutionary change and resilience in human, natural and combined social-ecological systems. While recognition of interactions between and interdependence of social and ecological systems is key to the CASES framework (see Table 2), it draws from a broader literature on complexity theory, nonlinear dynamics, and complex system science (Morgan 2005; Protevi 2005; Thrift 1999; White 2006). While rooted in fields such as mathematics, physics and biology the exploration of complex adaptive systems has become a truly multi-disciplinary endeavour, characterized by a recognition that a variety of human and natural systems exhibit Table 2 Key features of CASES dynamic patterns of self-organization and - Coupled social and ecological systems adaptation, are linked to one another, and - Large number of interacting, semi- autonomous elements/actors, both include many-levelled networks of interdependent and pursuing their own interests elements whose interactions create - Multi-directional, multi-layered and multi- capabilities that the elements, on their scale interactions - Non-linear dynamics own, do not have. While contributing to - Emergent properties of the whole the development of the total system, - Self-organization through feedbacks, adaptation and co-evolution natural and human systems and agents - Key controlling variables and observable patterns of interaction and change with operating within them are all also multiple possible outcomes constantly acting and reacting to the - Creative tensions vs. dichotomies actions of others in pursuit of their own interests, balancing ongoing creative tensions, such as cooperation and competition, independence and interdependence (Bossel 2001; Waldrop 1992; Creech 2001). Shared patterns of behaviour within CASES ―provide insights into sustainability, viability, health, and innovation‖ (Zimmerman et al. 1998, 1). Gunderson and Holling (2001) propose that the complexity of living systems emerges not merely from a random association of a large number of interacting factors, but rather from a smaller number of controlling variables and processes that allow order and self-organization to emerge from interactions among system components, differentiating complex from chaotic systems (Gatrell 2003; Holling 2001; Walker et al.

14 2006). Bossel (2001) highlights the role of environmental properties as controlling variables, constraining development possibilities and, for human societies, management opportunity and capacity. Bossel suggests that seven fundamental system interests, or basic orientors, emerge from these constraints, including the ability to exist in the ―normal‖ environmental state with required information, energy, and material inputs available, to be effective and efficient over the long term. This involves securing required scarce resources and, when necessary, the ability of a system to exert influence on its environment. The system must also be able to cope with environmental variety, variability and change through freedom of action, security, and adaptability respectively. The system must be compatible with and able to modify its behavior to respond to the behavior of other systems in its environment (co-existence) and, finally, for sentient beings, psychological needs must be met. Glaser (2006) suggests that this latter requirement includes cultural compatibility. An often-ignored aspect of sustainability, culture is in turn linked to values, which Bossel (1999, 37) describes as ―basic system requirements emerging from a system‘s interaction with its environment.‖ To be viable, Bossel (2001) suggests, a system must devote attention to satisfying these basic orientors to at least some minimum level. Without this minimum level of satisfaction in each of the seven areas a system is not viable and must focus its attention on this deficit. Only once these levels are met can further satisfaction or ―development‖ be pursued and preference demonstrated to one or more of these orientors. He concludes that once basic orientors are satisfied to minimum requirements sustainable development is possible along many different paths. Much of the recent work of Holling (2001) and other members of the Resilience Alliance2 has focused on developing a theory of change and resilience within CASES that addresses most of Bossel‘s basic orientors, although the role of psychological needs has received little attention. The complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework may still

2 www.resalliance.org

15 lack the coherence required to be called a meta-theory (Stewart 2001; Richardson 2004)3. Its attractiveness, however, is that it provides an alternative to reductionism and binary divides. It seeks to address the complexity repeatedly observed of sustainability problems, and provides a platform for dialogue and even integration among scientific disciplines and sustainable development actors (Urry 2003; Byrne 1998). More specifically, the study of CASES informs three key aspects of the sustainable development concerns of this study, each discussed further below: 1) the multi-layered and multi-scale nature of social-ecological systems, 2) the importance of relationships (within and between systems and scales) and 3) processes of system change, with a focus on resilience and adaptation.

2.1.1 Multi-layered and Multi-scale The word ‗scale‘ has many different meanings, including technical or ecological meanings and meanings used to reflect on the human experience (Vodden et al. 2006). According to the Oxford English Dictionary it means ―relative size or extent‖ (in Lovell et al. 2002, 2). Buttimer (2001) describes interrelated spatial, temporal and functional dimensions, as well as the principle of comparative scale, which demonstrates the dynamic nature of scale across both time and space. Buttimer (1995; 2001) further argues the importance of discretionary reach -- ―the spatio-temporal and institutional realm where people have access to resources, information, decision-making and responsibility over landscape and life.‖ The concept of scale is receiving increasing attention in both social and physical/ biological science considerations of sustainability and in social-ecological analysis, which attempts to integrate the divide between micro and macro approaches and conceptually relate social, institutional and ecological processes at varying scales (Harrington 2005, Warren 2005, MEA 2005, Lovell et al. 2002). The sense of scale coined ―home place‖ or ―community,‖ to which we as humans feel a sense of belonging and relatedness, is significant in this study, in its linkages to the geographer‘s concept of genre de vie or lifeworld, and to notions of stewardship and relations between the natural environment

3 Richardson (2004, 1), drawing from Ostrom (1999) distinguishes between a framework, which identifies ―the elements and relationships among elements that should guide the analysis‖ of institutional arrangements and a theory, which ―makes assumptions and identifies the elements of the framework that have particular relevance for answering questions focused on diagnosing phenomena, explaining processes and predicting outcomes.‖

16 and human society (Rose 1993). Reimer (2005) notes that in Canada rural citizens tend to distinguish their ―home place‖ by their culture or way of life, thus linked to Bossel‘s final fundamental system requirement.

2.1.1a In Defence of Place

A recent relational turn in geography suggests that a lifeworld is both a home and a site of struggle, much more complex than a line drawn on a map indicates. While embedded in place it is ―constructed and reconstructed by forces larger than itself,‖ a complex, unstable, ideological entity (Mitchell 2001, 271; Lippard 1997; Amin and Thrift 2000). Holling (2001) observes that the scale of human influence has increased significantly over time due to technological change. While scalar reach has increased for many and connectivity is no longer as directly related to proximity as it once was, issues of spatial scale continue to impact relationships and provide both constraints and opportunities. CASES and other bodies of literature counter the suggestion that flows and function have replaced territory and place4 in importance (Webber 1964; Amin 2004; Castells 1989). Morgan (2007, 33) dismisses this ―debilitating binary division,‖ making the important point that relational and territorial interpretations of space need not be seen as mutually exclusive. While Amin (2004, 33) suggests place politics can no longer be conceptualized as a set of spatially bound processes and institutions, less than a decade earlier Amin and Thrift (1995, 33) observed that, ―space is one of the controlling factors for institutional influences.‖ Morgan and Nauwealers (1999) add that this is true for formal and informal institutions. Lebel (2005) counters Amin with current examples of spatially bound place politics, and decision-making influence, access to resources, interests, capacities, and beliefs that are scale and place-dependent. Massey (2004) suggests that places are themselves agents of change. The current European focus on territorial cohesion and the significance of territory in local development, quality of life and environmental sustainability suggests that space and, particularly, place, still matter from a policy and development perspective (Davoudi et al. 2004). RUPRI (2006) suggest similar findings in the United States. Davoudi et al. (2004,

4 A ―place‖ is a portion of space with which a person or thing has a relationship. Cattan et al (2004, 12) describe territory as a space shaped by history, institutions, collective logics, or by all of these elements together, adding that ―it implies a notion of identity, authority and, increasingly, a notion of planning.‖

17 14) argue that as capital becomes ever more stretched and mobile, place-specific qualities are becoming ―defining factors in its search for profitable production sites.‖ Territories are increasingly perceived as an environment for industry, entrepreneurialism, quality of life, relationships of complementarity and trust as well as opportunities for planning and organizing. Cattan et al. (2004) observe territories reappearing ―stronger than ever as elements resisting standardization and asserting their necessary rooting‖ rather than as a passive framework for the exploitation of their assets. The degree to which localities are impacted by and able to respond to change processes also varies significantly from place to place (Davoudi et al. 2004). Research into the ―digital divide‖ suggests that increasing connectivity through technology is unevenly distributed, leaving some communities and societal groups heavily reliant on relationships to place. Even in contexts of widely available information and technology, research has demonstrated that physical proximity, and the relationships it fosters, is of growing importance to competitive advantage innovation and economic growth (Buenza and Stark 2003; Baptista 2000; Cowan et al. 2003; Wolfe 2003). Proximity between communities can also facilitate forms of co-operation such as shared infrastructure or common development strategies (Vodden 2005). The CASES approach further considers important ecological territories, such as watershed catchments, which have a fundamental impact on ecosystem structure and function and tend to be more stable over time relative to social components of social- ecological systems. Characterizations of ecological boundaries such as watersheds or ecoregions are, however, also based on evolving, culturally influenced human understanding and are therefore subject to change (Lebel et al. 2005). Social and technological systems and system components are intimately connected to specific natural environments (Protevi 2005). Processes of self-organization are embedded in a territory and often incorporate representations of culture such as beliefs, media, art and rituals that in turn further connect people to place (Walesh and Henton 2001). Doubleday et al. (2004) observe that in sustainable development both the practices that pose threats and those that are in need of sustaining happen in particular communities and geographic contexts. Spatial scales provide a focus for integrating sustainable development imperatives. Spatial planning has traditionally provided a key tool for

18 integration of economic, social and environmental considerations in land use and development (Healy 1999). The European Spatial Development Perspective promotes ‗territory‘ as a new dimension of European policy with the intent of achieving a better integration of sectoral policies and reconciling ―the social and economic claims for spatial development with the area‘s ecological and cultural functions,‖ thus contributing to sustainable, balanced territorial development (ESDP 1999, 10). Authors such as Partridge and Rickman (2008), Andrew (2005) and Maxwell (2005) call for more place-based policy-making. While sense of place may be evolving, often threatened and increasingly made up of a multiplicity of sense of places, it remains nonetheless important for understanding and intervening in CASES (Bonta and Provetti 2004).

2.1.1b Scaling Up Community: the Sub-provincial Region

In considering the scale (or scales) at which governance and development efforts should be focused, the importance of the local and of a shift to development and policy-making at smaller scales arises in literature related to these fields of enquiry and CASES more generally (Berkes and Folke 2001). Clapp (1998), for example, suggests that industrialization needs to be scaled back for sustainability. Nozick (1999) discuss an emerging localization paradigm, or ―the lure of the local‖ (Lippard 1997; Mitchell 2001). Research on First Nations socio-economic development suggests the importance of increased local control and self-government (Anderson 1999; McBride 2001), while many public policy researchers support the concept of local development as an application of the subsidiarity principle (Backhaus 1999; Schilling 1997). Walker and Abel (2001) suggest, while not ignoring other scales, that the local and regional scales are most appropriate for consideration of resilience and human management. Yorque et al. (2001, 434) select the regional scale as the appropriate focal scale for their study of CASES, defining region as a catchment or sub-catchment ―the scale at which ecosystems and people are tightly connected.‖ A new regionalist project, with a ―(re)emphasis on the regional scale as the focus for knowledge creation, learning and innovation,‖ decision-making and policy implementation (Tomblin 2002; Welch 2002, 445; Harrison 2006), has emerged as a sort of compromise between local/community as single settlement and broader scales (Chapter 6). The concept of the ―learning region‖ (Asheim 2007; Florida 1995) and ―regional innovation systems‖

19 (Cooke 2001; Wolfe 2005), with capacity to learn, adapt and innovate, has relevance within a CASES framework. That the term ―region‖ means different things to different people and has long been considered a problem plaguing regional discourse (Allen et al. 2000; Bickerton and Gagnon 2008). Marquardt and Crumley (1987) suggest that no ―place on the face of the earth be considered to be a part of or to comprise only a single region.‖ Defining region and regionalism remains a political endeavour, each definition with its own set of assumptions and implications. Theorists argue over definitions of ―region‖ that are formal vs. relational (Brodie 1990), functional vs. territorial (Hodge and Robinson 2001), focused on economic (Porter 1990; 2003), cultural (Marquardt and Crumley 1987), political, social or ecological (Sale 2000) factors. Exercises in establishing regional boundaries often combine these criteria. Gunnarsson (2000,185) defines a region as, ―an interplay between actors and institutions within a given geographical area.‖ Regions can be constructed from above (top-down), below (bottom-up) or through dialogue and negotiation among actors at multiple scales. Holling et al. (2002) adds that scaling up, from community to region for example, is not a simple matter of aggregating scales, describing nonlinear processes involved in the shift from one scale to another. Complicating the definitional debate in the literature on regionalism is the emergent dualism between multinational and sub-provincial conceptualizations (Edgington 1995; Baldacchino and Milne 2000). In the fields of international trade and environmental affairs, continental regions are recognized as spaces of harmonization and integration (Juillet 2000; Tomblin 2000b; Cicin-Sain and Knect 1998; Haas 1958). At the same time demands for increased local responsibility, in part due to the sustainable development agenda and failures of past approaches, call for development at a smaller ―human scale‖ (Kemmis 1995; Filion 1998). Considering concepts of home place and discretionary reach, for many citizens their lifeworld or human scale does not extend beyond the sub-provincial region (see Figure 4). Sub-provincial regions are variously defined within Canada but refer to a scale that includes multiple communities but is smaller than a province. Human and nature/society interactions beyond this scale are mediated by technology and/or formal institutions. The sub-provincial region provides a spatial middle ground between community

20 and senior levels of government but also tends to reflect connections with language, culture and the land (e.g. watersheds, tribal boundaries).5 It is argued that these regional structures are more accessible and responsive to local communities than those at provincial and federal levels, yet more affordable and effective at instigating significant

Global Provincial Community Federal Regional Family/Individual

Local, ―human scale‖ Figure 4 Region as middle ground and human scale change than smaller-scale community efforts (Markey et al. 2005; RCEUN 1986). Recent literature suggests that cooperation among neighbouring communities is an important contributor to CED success (Young and Charland 1992), suggesting there is a need to add this new sub-provincial level to existing models of political economy and alternative development. Yet another imperative bringing focus to the sub-provincial region in Canada is the legal requirement for recognition of Aboriginal rights and title. First Nations territories often closely resemble watershed and other bioregional boundaries. Treaty negotiations, Aboriginal economic development and co-management arrangements tend to focus on the regional or territorial6 scale rather than a single settlement. Another of Walker et al.‘s (2006) propositions regarding social-ecological systems change is that transformation involves change in the ―state space of the system‖ and the scales of the panarchy. Renewed interest in regional scales since the 1990s reflects such a change. Examples of recent initiatives and institutions adopting a sub- provincial, multi-community regional model can be found in health, education, coastal and land use planning, resource management and economic development, not only in Canada but in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and throughout the European Union

5 See Brodie for further discussion, also Sale (2000) for a description of bioregion and Hessing and Howlett (1997) on ecologically based boundaries. 6 Territorial refers here to First Nations territories. First Nations are both local (in territory) and, politically and legally, senior levels of government in Canada because they have a nation-to-nation relationship within the federal government rather than being subordinate to the provinces.

21 (Gibbs and Jonas 2001; Alder and Ward 2001; Davoudi et al. 2004; Ward and Jonas 2004). Regional boundaries and ―sense of region,‖ may therefore shift over time, the concept of region both dynamic and disputed in what Lebel (2005) and others (Brenner 2001; Cox 1998; Swyngedouw 2000; Mitchell 2001) refer to as the politics of scale. These ―new spaces‖ of ever-shifting regions are reflected in the title of this dissertation.

2.1.1c Cross-Scale Relationships, Analysis and Decision-making

Bossel (2001) observes that the viability and performance of any system of concern depend on the viability and performance of several component systems, each of which is again dependent on the viability and performance of a number of subsystems. These cross-scale interactions are critical to CASES and a topic of particular interest to geographers preoccupied with a recent ‗relational turn‘ (Sheppard 2002; Boggs and Rantisi 2003). Cross-scale influences and interdependencies in CASES are multi-directional. Short-range or local interactions, for example, influence actors and/or processes at much larger scales due to rich interactions across networks while local circumstances are simultaneously influenced by events occurring across the globe (Gatrell 2003). As each actor or agent is both a component and a system itself, the CASES framework breaches the structure-agency dichotomy by observing that individual actions can produce changes in large-scale structure while at the same time being shaped by that structure (Warren 2005). Individual actors may also ―jump‖ between scales (Smith 1984). Holling (2001) suggests that the nested hierarchies described by Bossel along with their adaptive cycles comprise the basis of social-ecological systems. Applying the notion of hierarchies allows us to organize concepts and interpret complexity through the examination of scale, levels of organization, observation, and explanation in systems characterized by interactions across levels (Ahl and Allen 1996; Yuan 2000). Simon (1973) and Holling et al. (2002) argue that hierarchical structures are key to the sustainability of complex systems, allowing efficient and successful evolution and providing both innovation and some stability in a consistently changing world. The term hierarchy is problematic, however, even when conceptualized as nested and dynamic. A CASES is not a simple hierarchy of systems and subsystems, one

22 emerging from the other. Components at any given level may also interact horizontally or ‗transversally‘ with different systems and their components (Protevi 2005). Thrift (1999) suggests that complexity theory is therefore ‗heterarchical‘ rather than hierarchical. Eoyang and Berkas (1998) explain that systems in heterarchy are not completely contained within another and may be sub-systems of more than one larger scale system (e.g. a child within a school system but also within extended networks of family or friends, a scouting troop etc., each with its own set of scales). Network terminology is also often used to reflect the ―architecture‖ of complexity (Barabási 2002). Like Thrift‘s heterarchies, a network is typically thought of as non- hierarchical, a web of connections among equals with the understanding that more can be accomplished working together (Meadows et al. 1992). Smith (2003) explains that network analysis, popular among positivist human geographers in the 1960s and 1970s, was displaced by a dominant Marxist critique of political economy in the 1980s, but became fashionable again in the late-1990s with the rapid pace of globalization and information technology growth. Network analysts believe that an individual‘s life is tied to the linkages they have to others in a larger web of social connection and that the success or failure of societies and organizations depends on these patterns of relations (Freeman 2004). Network terminology and analysis have also been applied in political science (Howlett and Ramesh 1995), local development (Marsden 1998) and many other fields. The organizations examined in this case study can be conceptualized as nodes in their respective policy and development networks. Nodes in network theory are places where resources are concentrated and where functional units connect (Latour 1987). Examples include: a place on a plant stem where a leaf is attached, connecting these parts to others; a point of information transfer in telecommunications; or a device used to connect a computer and/or its user(s) with others in computer networking. A node combines one or more network elements, administered as a single entity, and provides network-related functions. Network analyses focus on these nodes as well as the relations, flows and connections between nodes (Smith 2003). Taylor et al. (2006) emphasize the concept of multi-nodal systems, arguing that traditional centre-periphery development characterizations are being challenged by a more complex multi-centred spatial order.

23 Nodes and concentrations of flows provide some degree of self-organized structure within networks, a role played by spatial organization in hierarchies. Networks and hierarchies are both useful as heuristic devices and reflect some important aspects of complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) while, on their own, missing others. While hierarchies imply oversimplified ―top-down‖ and concentric (one level neatly contained within the other) relationships, network theory can be criticized for lacking scalar dimensions and for ignoring important relationships that exist between spatial scales (Kim 2006). Authors such as Bryant (1999); Harrison (2006) and Protevi (2005) integrate scalar and network models to aid in understanding complexity. Protevi (2005) describes a multiplicity of overlapping agents and levels, often competing with one another, as ―meshworks of hierarchies and hierarchies of meshworks,‖ while Harrison (2006) refers to a ―complex tangled hierarchy of scales‖. Actor-Network Theory (ANT) also brings an aspect of nested structure to network theory. ANT suggests that each actor is also a network composed of actors and examines actors, organizations, institutions and networks (formal and informal) as both agents of change and components of a broader context, including social structure, which is present at various scales. Actors acquire attributes through their relations. ANT seeks to better understand these interactions between systems and how they impact structure in an ongoing evolution. ANT also includes ―complex entanglements‖ of actors, both human and non-human, sharing much in common with the CASES framework (Leslie 2004; Law 1992; Law 1999; Coe and Yeung 2001). In their attempt to address the limitations of hierarchy theory, Holling et al. (2002) coined the term ―panarchy,‖ without the ―top-down‖ implication and with added emphasis on patchiness, uncertainty, experimentation and adaptive evolution (Warren 2005; Bunnell 2002). Panarchies can be thought of as a combination of network and hierarchy organizational models, a complex web of CASES interacting within and across scales, some nested and some overlapping (Pritchard and Sanderson 2001). Structure in a panarchy both constrains and empowers actors. Lower level persistence and innovation are seen as essential to the higher levels, which in turn limit the ―behavioural flexibility‖ of lower levels through ‗freedom within constraint‘ and bring stability to the system (Warren 2005).

24 Warren‘s (2005) reference to ‗freedom with constraint‘ raises the importance of temporal scale in CASES. While much emphasis is placed on future adaptation and resilience, it is also recognized that complex systems have a history, explains Gatrell (2003), which is ‗co-responsible‘ for present activities and practices. Many authors across a range of disciplines recognize path dependency as a powerful force in change processes, the history of past decisions and experiences impacting current behaviours, values, relationships, and structures (Pierson 2000; Mahoney 2000; Krugman 1994). The importance of history is characterized by Holling et al.‘s (2002) description of the role of ―memory,‖ particularly accumulated memory of successful innovations and responses to disturbances in complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES). Constraints are introduced within CASES due to the interaction of temporal and spatial scales and varying process rates, which are said to be slower as one ascends the hierarchy, thus constraining and at the same time protecting lower levels (referred to as ―hierarchical confinement‖). While abrupt changes can and do occur at all levels, Walker et al. (2006) explain that in ecosystems the variables that control regime shifts, such as soil, sediment concentrations, or long-lived organisms tend to change slowly. Similarly, risk avoiding central, or higher level, governments are often slow to respond and change (Morgan 2007). Higher levels provide stability and a conserving function while change, creativity and innovation in faster, smaller cycles at lower (or more local) levels invigorate the system as a whole (Bunnell 2002). Small, varied populations lead to more flexible responses to environmental change and are more likely to invent, experiment and test. In social systems, however, controlling variables may change rapidly, as in fads or technology, or slowly, as in the case of culture (Ommer et al. 2007). Another important point regarding time-space interactions is that change is often staggered, occurring at different levels at different times thus preserving the system as a whole. Change can more readily move up the system, occurring at multiple levels, at times when there are weaknesses or low resilience in higher levels or when learning occurs simultaneously across scales (Holling et al. 2002). Selecting the appropriate scales for analysis or governance of CASES is an important and challenging task, exemplified by the challenges of defining ―region‖ discussed above. A scale is a unit of analysis relative to the whole, ranking things

25 progressively according to a specific criteria such as size, amount or extent (Encarta 2007). We create descriptions of scale and boundaries between scales for the sake of understanding or for decision-making and administration. Ostrom (2005) points out that we have found throughout history that the complexity of the world requires us to address big questions in small bits for the sake of comprehension. From there we build our understanding to multiple scales and increasing levels of complexity, often with the help of models. Boundaries between places, systems and scales are largely artificial divisions of the physical or institutional landscape, separating a part of the world from its context (Marquardt and Crumley 1987). Boundaries are often drawn with clarity when a more accurate reflection would be porous, shifting or ―fuzzy‖ (Barlow-Irick 1997, Epstein 1999). Davoudi (2005) describes spatial scales as an interpretation, in either maps or words, of the structure of a territory. Phenomena at one level do not necessarily occur at others. Analysis at one scale often will not yield the same results as that at another and solutions appropriate for one scale may be not be appropriate and may even have disastrous results when applied to another without attention to these distinctions (Cocklin et al. 1997). Scale mismatches may occur, therefore, in analysis, decision-making and governance. Glaser (2006) adds that mismatch in temporal scale can occur if learning and adaptation processes are slower than the pace of system change, threatening system viability. Yet CASES authors question the search for a ―right scale‖ and static assignments of responsibility given the dynamic, cross-scale nature of system interactions (Pritchard and Sanderson 2001). Issues of sustainable development are typically multi-scale. Problems occur when actions are taken or decisions/policies made at one level without considering impacts on other levels, often local, or other systems. Cross-scale policy impacts in coastal SES are of particular concern in this study. Clapp (1998) and others suggest that the link between policy and local impacts remains poorly understood, despite existing literature discussing the implications of provincial and federal resource policies in Canada on rural communities and on other policy arenas (Ommer et al. 2007). Research involving analysis at multiple scales can illuminate and help address problems associated with defining and examining any one scale. Cross-scale research has

26 the potential to address scalar binaries such as the global/local opposition in conventional geographical accounts, demonstrating that many actors are global, national and local (Gibson-Graham 2002; 2003). Kim (2006) emphasizes the dynamic interrelations between scales, an important characteristic of the CASES framework.

2.1.2 Dynamic Interactions within CASES

A focus on relationships and processes of interaction is characteristic of all systems theory (Gatrell 2003). Eoyang (1996) suggests that interaction is a key factor shaping patterns of group behaviour in a complex adaptive system. In complex adaptive social- ecological systems (CASES) interactions represent flows or transfers of information, ideas and resources such as capital, natural resources, energy or materials between large numbers of actors and systems. As discussed above, cross-scale (vertical) interactions are critical categories of dynamic interaction in CASES, combining learning and innovation with continuity. Also significant are cross-system, sector or issue (horizontal) interactions as well as internal system relationships. Flows, the nodes through which they pass and the system components that generate and receive them are ―massively entangled‖ (Kontopolous 1993), yet Castells (1989; 2000) points out that flows within a system or network tend to concentrate across space and time. While processes of self-organization in CASES produce similar overall patterns, such as those described by Holling and Gunderson (2001) as lumps or concentrations and gaps ―within a patchy landscape‖, their exact details depend on precise histories and sequences of events unique to particular systems and contexts (White 2006). Patterns in flows between elements of self-organizing systems create stability domains, otherwise referred to as basins or domains of attraction. CASES tend to organize at any one time around several possible states, rather than one equilibrium. Systems can change to one of a number of possible new regimes in what is referred to as a regime shift. Such processes occur at varying speeds and frequencies in different systems over time. Interactions within CASES tend to be non-linear, which implies for example that small causes can have large results, or vice versa, and create change within

27 the system at a range of speeds (e.g. gradual or sudden as in punctuated equilibrium models). Conscious agents (or actors) within CASES develop ―schema‖ or interpretive and action rules based on assessments of their environment and appropriate responses to current conditions. Walker et al. (2006) observe that these mental models drive change in social-ecological systems, while Westley et al. (2001) and others refer to the role of ―sense-making,‖ expressed through communication, language and symbols, in interpreting, inventing and reinventing order and action. Olsson et al. (2004) point out that values and vision, linked to Bossel‘s psychological needs, are essential components in the process of sense-making in the management of complex systems. These schema change and evolve over time, define how actors interact with others, how information and resources flow and thus determine alternative possible futures (Dooley 1997). Westley et al. (2001) point out that groups of people in social systems create shared understandings, norms, and action routines, as well as patterns of dominance and resource allocation as they interact over time. The sustainability of each component within a complex system is tied to others. The interactions, subsequent reactions and influences of one component over another are referred to as feedback. In an arrangement of networked relationships, when one element affects others this in turn can, ultimately, affect the original element (a feedback loop). Destabilizing positive feedbacks exacerbate a trend. Scheffer et al. (2001) provide the example of loss of confidence, falling currencies and rising interest rates after a stock market crash. Gatrell (2003) provides the example of vehicle exhaust emissions, which increase air pollution and in turn increase incidences of asthma. If a control mechanism (negative feedback) is put in place to reduce traffic levels exhaust emissions and asthma occurrence may be cut. Feedback loops play an essential role as stabilizing mechanisms. A regime shift occurs within a system when a threshold level of a controlling variable is passed, causing the nature and extent of feedbacks to change, in turn changing the trajectory of the system itself. The dynamics of the system shift from one state or basin of attraction to another (Walker and Meyers 2004). Crossing a threshold may bring about a sudden, dramatic or more gradual change in responding variables. Relationships

28 between system components may also change and new structures and processes emerge (Cilliers 1998). Within the CASES framework development is a co-evolutionary process involving interacting systems that follow their own path of self-organization yet affect and interact with other systems (Bossel 2001). Complex adaptive systems will adapt to changes in their environment, self-organizing into new processes and structures that allow the system to cope with and/or benefit from environmental changes. Berkes and Folke (1995) provide examples of co-evolution in traditional societies where local communities and their institutions adapt and become 'in tune' over time with the natural process of the particular ecosystem of which they are a part. In linked social-ecological systems changes in one system may feed back as drivers to alter and even cause a regime shift in the other (Walker and Meyers 2004; Bonta and Protevi 2004). How these dynamics influence the ongoing viability of CASES is a third major theme in this literature.

2.1.3 Change, Resilience and Adaptation

In ecosystems ―the essential constant is change‖ (Levin 1999, 1). Population growth and movement, new ideas and technology ensure that social systems are also never fully stable. In 1973 biologist C.S. (―Buzz‖) Holling began a discussion about the notion of ―constancy‖ in ecological systems, suggesting that what really matters in terms of system survival and viability is the persistence of internal relationships when a system is ―profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected‖ (1973, 1). Holling‘s argument began to shift from equilibrium to resilience as a feature of healthy ecosystems (Ommer et al. 2007). Increasing recognition of low predictability and high incidence of surprise has furthered the emphasis on adaptability and resilience as characteristics in ―healthy‖ systems (Glaser 2006). Folke et al. (2002, 22) define resilience as ―the capacity to buffer perturbations, self-organize, learn and adapt.‖ In contrast, vulnerability is the propensity of social and ecological systems to suffer harm from exposure to the same external stresses and shocks that resilient systems are able to withstand (Folke et al. 2002). Some describe vulnerability as the antonym of resilience while others see resilience and adaptive

29 capacity as determinants of vulnerability, along with sensitivity and, for some, exposure (Gallopin 2006). Walker et al. (2006, 13) suggest that resilient systems retain essentially the same ―function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore identity,‖ avoiding shifts to an alternate regime after a perturbation, and often not one but multiple, interacting perturbations (Holling 1973; Gallopin 2006). Other recent works on CASES explain, however, that restructuring is a natural part of a dynamic system (Perry and Ommer 2003). In resilient systems, particularly for human systems with the capability to anticipate and plan for the future, periods of change provide an opportunity for transformation into an improved or more desired state, including changes to system structure and/or function that enhance capacity for learning and adaptation, and thus resiliency (Folke et al. 2005; Resilience Alliance 2007). Easterling et al. (2004) suggest that rather than returning to the initial state, it is preferable that systems engage in ―proactive adaptation,‖ reorganizing based on their experiences to become something ‗new‘ with increased ability to accommodate present or expected change and improve their conditions. The notion of proactive adaptation addresses Gallopin‘s (2006) caution that resilience, as defined by Walker et al. (2006), can inhibit positive change, while vulnerability can lead to positive transformation. Homer-Dixon (2000) points out, for example, that system resiliency can prevent actors from recognizing long-term trends that threaten the system and thus from adapting or otherwise dealing with the problem. Gallopin (2006) suggests the term robustness may be more appropriate for structural stability rather than resilience. Gallopin adds that ‗triggers‘ for adaptation may be internal or external. Holling (2001) concurs that sustainability depends on a suite of internal and external factors, including the nature of the stresses encountered and the ability of actors within the system to open themselves to, influence and manage change and to move into more rather than less desirable states when change occurs. The appropriate terminology for these processes is the subject of continuing debate.

2.1.3a The Adaptive Renewal Cycle

Gunderson and Holling (2001) suggest that complex adaptive systems go through regular cycles of organization and collapse, referred to as the adaptive renewal cycle (Figure 5). The cycle includes four key phases:

Growth/Foreloop:

1) Rapid growth and exploitation (r):

characterized by readily available resources, entrepreneurial competition and high resilience. Structure and connections among components increase, requiring increasing resources and energy to maintain them,

leading to a longer phase of:

Figure 5 The adaptive renewal cycle 2) Accumulation and © Resilience Alliance, cited as Bunnell (2002) conservation (K): characterized by contest competition for resources and bureaucratic management, net growth slows to a plateau and the system becomes increasingly interconnected, less flexible, and more vulnerable to external disturbances.

Fore loop phases correspond to ecological succession in ecosystems and a development mode in organizations and societies. Disturbances lead to the next phase.

Backloop:

3) Rapid breakdown, ‗release‘ or ‗creative destruction‘ (): system is fragile, over- connected until sudden release of bound-up resources and structure collapse.

4) Renewal and re-organization (ά): pioneers capture new opportunity and novelty can take hold, leading to another growth phase and a new cycle which may be similar or quite different from the last.

31 The adaptive cycle model suggests that there is a relatively high degree of control by inward relations during slow periods of conservation and release, and a higher degree of control by external variables/outward relations in rapid growth and renewal phases. Complex systems are open systems. Processes within a system cannot be understood without examining outside influences, sometimes referred to as driving variables. Bossel (2001) suggests that fundamental system interests arise from environmental constraints and the dependence of all systems on the resources provided and waste-absorbing capacities of their environments. These driving forces can provide opportunities for growth and renewal, but they may also push systems over the edge from the threshold of collapse, particularly when multiple stresses converge (Homer-Dixon 2006). Protevi‘s (2005) work on complex systems suggests that in quickly recuperating systems, external events are merely corrected for. Internal system resources translate the sense of events or ‗triggers‘ into a pre-patterned feedback response. Fluctuations of a magnitude beyond the recuperative power of negative feedback loops, however, can push the system past a threshold to another pattern or even into a ‗death zone,‘ Protevi‘s version of a catastrophic collapse. Holling (2001) argues that three factors shape the adaptive cycle and responses to crisis: 1) adaptive capacity, coupled with the concepts of resilience and vulnerability; 2) the amount of potential or ―wealth‖ available to a system, referring broadly to all forms of capital; and 3) the amount of connectedness within a system. These factors influence the cycle but are also changed by it, connectedness and wealth increasing during the foreloop while adaptive capacity decreases. Holling (2001) adds that connectedness between internal variables and processes determine the degree to which a system can minimize variability, relying heavily on negative feedbacks, and increase the likelihood and speed of return to a ―normal‖ state after small disturbances. Yet, as connectedness increases through the K phase, systems ultimately become not only more efficient but also more rigid or ‗brittle‘ and vulnerable as shocks travel quickly through the system. Additional investments in the already high costs of organization and complexity, often in the form of new layers of bureaucracy and institutions, yield diminishing returns, governance structures become highly specialized, hierarchical and slow moving. Discontent increases

32 in a ―complexity averse‖ world, ultimately reaching a crisis or threshold level that leads to system breakdown (Homer-Dixon 2006; Tainter 1998; 1996). The notion of absorptive capacity suggests an important role not only for disturbance but also information in creating resilient and adaptive systems (Cohen and Levinthal 1990). The capacity to not only adapt and survive, but also to innovate and seek opportunities to thrive, is enhanced when an actor, system and/or subsystem has the ability to recognize, value, assimilate and apply new information, including information about future harm which can allow for preventative measures (Torjman 2006; Folke et al. 2002). Walker and Meyers (2004) conclude that having the wrong ―mental model‖ about thresholds (e.g. not recognizing them or ignoring them) is the most serious threat to social-ecological systems. The collapse of the Newfoundland cod fisheries is an excellent example. The ability and willingness to recognize and act on threshold information is an important resilience factor. Because these cycles are underway at each semi-autonomous level of nested systems the adaptive cycle is itself nested (see Figure 5), resulting in co-evolutionary adaptations (Gallopin et al. 2001, Holling 2001). Walker et al. (2006) explain that cross- scale interactions determine the form of subsequent adaptive cycles at any particular focal scale. Connections between levels can stabilize or destabilize (Bunnell 2002). The stabilizing memory of higher levels may be disrupted when they are themselves in a back loop or even early growth phase, allowing change originating at smaller scales to move to broader spatial or temporal scales. Small cycles of failure and recovery can help to avoid the occurrence of large-scale failures, enhancing innovation and capacity for self- organization, experimentation, and evolution. However, when lower and higher-level cycles are synchronized or when systems are tightly interconnected a back-loop at lower levels may trigger a transition that moves up the panarchy, described as a ―revolt.‖ Breakdown phases occurring across multiple scales can precipitate catastrophic collapse, particularly when the system has been degraded to the point that restructuring and renewal is either unlikely or very slow (Gunderson and Holling 2001).

2.1.3b Diversity, Redundancy and Resilience

Folke et al. (2002, 3) suggest that a variety of functional groups and keystone processes that interact in an overlapping, apparently redundant manner are important resilience

33 attributes. System diversity ―provides the basic foundation on which social and economic development depends.‖ Conserving diversity, including species performing critical functions, knowledge, institutions, human opportunities and economic supports maintains and encourages learning and adaptive capabilities. Diversity and apparent redundancy of system components or processes with overlapping functions can help absorb disturbances and provide insurance against uncertainty and surprise. With different histories and accumulated experience, various actors may respond differently to change, providing response diversity and alternatives for reorganizing and recovery following disturbance. Eoyang (2001) suggests difference is a key factor shaping group behaviour, the source of creativity and learning through interaction within a given context. Diversity at larger spatial scales ensures that appropriate key species or actors for system functioning are recruited to local systems after disturbance or changes in conditions. Diversity provides, therefore, not only insurance and flexibility but also risk spreading within and across scales. The loss of functional groups can severely affect the ability of systems to reorganize and recover, as can the number of species or actors within a functional group or the overlapping functions among them. Rigid systems focused on efficiency and specialization seek to eliminate redundancy, yet redundancy reinforces functions and provides an ability to offload responsibilities from damaged to undamaged nodes. Buenza and Stark (2003) observe that redundancy, seen not as duplication but as difference, was a contributor to resilience in the September 11th disaster, along with planning and spontaneity, self-organization, social bonds, different forms of knowledge and porous organizational boundaries. Eoyang (2001) adds that while difference is a necessary condition for self- organizing there is a maximum and a minimum threshold. If differences within the system are too great then the system will not be able to sustain connectivity among its agents and will split. Diversity, like resilience, does not come without problems and challenges. Janssen and Anderies (2007) suggest that robustness and resilience, enhanced through system features such as diversity, come with tradeoffs. Increasing robustness to one set of disturbances may reduce it in the face of another, reduce short-term system performance or increase chances of failure at other levels. Further, undesirable characteristics can also

34 be robust. Thus, resilience and a degree of robustness may be necessary but not sufficient for sustainability. Appropriate values, or mental models, compatible with the limits of the natural world and principles of sustainable development are also required (Homer-Dixon 2006). Berkes (2004) describes societal rules and norms, which are often principles or values-based, as formal and informal constraints on CASESs. Connor and Dovers (2004, 209) argue that ―sustainability can only be viable when socially held values become aligned with those implicit in a sustainability ethic.‖ Given their importance, principles of sustainability, collaboration and good governance (discussed further in Chapter Three) are incorporated into the analytical framework employed in this research, as described in Chapter Four.

2.1.4 Initial Reflections on the CASES Framework

A report of the National Science Foundation (2000, 20 in Warren 2005) predicts that ―interdisciplinary research will represent one of the frontiers of the scientific inquiry in the 21st century, as scientists elucidate the dynamics of complex and interdependent social and natural systems …‖ The CASES framework lies on this frontier. Glaser (2006) and Walker et al. (2006) provide examples of authors who have applied the adaptive renewal cycle in ecological and social systems, including studies of ecology, economic change, institutions and development and destruction in human civilizations. Systems theory frameworks such as CASES, and in particular Holling and Gunderson‘s panarchy

Table 3 CASES criticisms and limitations interpretation, allow for integration of the findings of 1. Overly focused on external change stimulus 2. Built largely from ecosystem study, missing human various disciplines (Banathy voice and understandings of social dynamics 3. Positivist aspects 1997). Complexity theory also 4. Missing gender perspective provides a way of relating 5. Uncritical, guru-like usage 6. Limited ability to predict sudden system change macro and micro, agency and 7. Not unique/new, missing links to similar approaches 8. High level meta-theory, too abstract, difficulty structure, human and natural translating into policies and plans for change systems (Gatrell 2004), 9. Premature, need for empirical evidence 10. Need for alternative meta-models, does not apply in contributing to understandings all cases, similar patterns observed in systems that and a world-view more in tune are not complex with the complex and pressing

35 challenges of sustainable development and dynamic, interconnected systems than conventional scientific approaches. Despite these strengths Gatrell (2004); Glaser (2006), Thrift (1999); Stewart (2001); Dent (1999) and others identify several concerns and limitations of complex systems approaches (see Table 3). While some of these are arguably unjustified or exaggerated, others point to the need, and opportunity, for further development or even reconsideration. Glaser (2006) suggests that the model is well suited to explaining long-term patterns of change but is limited in its ability to predict sudden system change. While a CASES framework may not be capable of predicting external influences that will push a system over a threshold, observation of increasing complexity and rigidity does suggest periods of vulnerability to sudden change. Further, complex systems thinking questions the idea of prediction and control. Instead it emphasizes explanation and understanding (Gatrell 2004). Despite the proposition that general patterns can often be observed, Holling (2001) and others acknowledge that the CASES approach applies only in some systems. Walker et al. (2006, 13) concede that ―the pathways and mechanisms that drive transformations are not well understood.‖ Clearly, the project of CASES theory-building is a work in progress. This research responds to critics who suggest that further empirical and theoretical justification of the CASES framework is required, particularly in its application of natural sciences concepts and metaphors to social systems (Stewart 2001; Sokal and Bricmont 1998). The body of work on social science applications and, more appropriately, interdisciplinary studies with a strong social science component, continues to grow (e.g. Buenza and Stark 2003, Westley et al. 2001, Rowles 2000, Wallace et al. 1999). A related criticism, particularly of those that remain closer to direct systems and earlier chaos theory concepts, is an emphasis on quantitative/mathematical methods and approaches. Qualitative methods and approaches can help uncover unexpected results and add significant depth of understanding to complex systems enquiry. Holling et al. (2002) begin to address this limitation by including both quantitative and qualitative representations of panarchies. Gattrell (2004) concludes that, while complex adaptive systems provide a refreshing and possibly fruitful line of theoretical debate in geography,

36 further empirical work is needed. For now she suggests we review the emerging literature seriously, though sceptically, also asking if other alternative approaches might provide the same tools. Research questions focused on the role of collaborative governance subsystems in enhancing the long-term sustainability of linked social and ecological coastal systems led to the selection of CASES as an overall conceptual framework for this study. The complex nature of coastal social-ecological systems, with demonstrated characteristics of the systems described in the developing CASES theory, suggests that the framework offers promise for understanding governance subsystems that exist within and seek to intervene in these systems. Perry and Ommer (2003) suggest most CAS work has been either theoretical or micro-scale to date. This study contributes to more recent regional and comparative work (Walker and Lawson 2006, Ommer et al. 2007). Gatrell‘s (2003, 21) question of how useful and necessary complexity theory is in helping us describe, understand or analyse the world‘s complexity remains the subject of debate. Reflections on the relevance of the CASES framework for the questions and systems studied as well contributions to its ongoing development will be provided in Chapter 9.

2.2 Contributions from Development Geography

CASES researchers have yet to fully explore opportunities for synergies with, and further elaboration of the CASES framework through related theories such as Actor Network Theory (ANT), but also from other theoretical frameworks employed by economic and development geographers7. Two of these - dependency and regulation theory - provide particular insight into the challenge of sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal zones and into processes of change in social-ecological systems more generally.

2.2.1 Dependency and Uneven Development

Since the times of the classical economic thinkers, theorists have postulated and later demonstrated that uneven development is a characteristic of capitalist economies. Patterns

7 As in Coe et al. (2007) the distinction between economic and development geography are seen here as blurred. Both seek to understand economic processes and their implications, development geography and recent perspectives on economic geography both concerning themselves with issues such as environmental sustainability, poverty and inequity.

37 of development and resource distribution across space and time have resulted in higher levels of economic well-being in some areas than others. The Canadian economy provides a cogent example. The Atlantic provinces, particularly Newfoundland and Labrador, have been consistently economically underprivileged (see Chapter 5), while Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia have enjoyed higher than average income levels and population growth8. Despite historically higher than average income, BC has also suffered from high unemployment and employment instability as a consequence of the province‘s boom and bust, commodity-based resource extraction economy. Savoie (1992) points out, however, that despite poorer performance on traditional economic indicators ―have not‖ provinces tend to score highest on informal economy and quality of life considerations often ignored in the literature on regional disparities, demonstrating that there are costs as well as benefits from economic growth and urbanization (Ommer and Sinclair 1999). Disparities also exist within provinces, both rich and poor, due in part to a southern concentration of population, power and economic activity in urban centres such as St. John‘s, Halifax and BC‘s Lower Mainland. Over 90% of the Canadian population lives within a 350 km strip along the US border (Jackson and Jackson 1990). Peripheral areas have suffered job losses and unemployment due to centralization of government and industrial processing activity, resource decline, and migration to urban areas. In both Newfoundland and BC, urban-rural health differentials are persistently high (Dolan et al. 2005). Urbanization has added pressures of amenity and preservation demands on rural areas, impacting rural ways of life and limiting resource access for traditional sectors, while urban areas push for an even greater share of political and financial resources under a recent cities agenda (Lefebre and Brender 2006). Brodie (1990) categorizes the causes of economic discrepancies under two opposing theoretical streams: a) self-balance and b) imbalance, described by Barnes and Hayter (1994) as optimistic and pessimistic. The former ―blame the local‖ stream identifies a market deficiency in the region of concern that can be addressed through agency and state intervention, while theories of imbalance along the Marxist vein,

8 Ontario will receive equalization payments as a ―have not province‖ for the first time in 2009 while Newfoundland and Labrador became a ―have‖ province in 2008 (Antle 2008, Howlett and Carmichael 2008).

38 including political economy, dependency and regulation theories, emphasize structural factors that create disadvantage in the process of capitalist production and exchange (Markey et al. 2005; Lawson 2007). Unequal relationships between dominant classes and capitalist powers, including the state, and those who are dominated and marginalized perpetuate capitalist tendencies (Peet 1975; Black 1999). Urban-rural divides are explained using core-periphery and heartland-hinterland versions of dependency theory. While the advent of the ―knowledge-based economy‖ presents opportunities for participation by rural communities, Panitch (1993), Petrella (2000) and others suggest the divide between locales is growing based not only on access to capital and political power but also technology and knowledge. Canadian researchers such as Polese and Shearmur (2002) describe rising levels of inequality and further economic disadvantages for rural areas. Recent research highlights the heterogeneity of rural Canada, however, cautioning against overgeneralization of rural circumstances. In particular, some communities in the rural-urban fringe, the North and elsewhere have experienced growth, benefiting from proximity to urban centres and/or natural amenities (Reimer 2005). Uneven development is expressed not only in spatial terms, but also across segments of society, such as class, occupation, education, gender, age and race (Hessing and Howlett 1997). Spatial and social divisions often overlap in pockets of poverty. The state of the majority of First Nation‘s reserve economies is a clear example, a consequence of social change and political economy and an arena where marginalization based on space, ethnicity and culture overlap (Canada 1996a). Market tendencies toward social inequalities are exacerbated during periods of economic and environmental change (Lee 2007; Brody et al. 2008). In CASES terms, some actors are better able to protect themselves in times of collapse and to capture the opportunities provided by times of renewal and re-organisation and into the growth phase. Complex systems literature refers to economic inequity as an example of the patchy and uneven nature of social-ecological landscapes. Inequity is an emergent property of wealth generation and accumulation, and of positive feedbacks that further advantage the wealthy and disadvantage the poor (Byrne 1998, Homer-Dixon 2006). The potential for societal unrest and even breakdown without measures to mitigate these inequities provided a justification for early regional development programs in Canada (Savoie 1992).

2.2.2 Staples Theory and Rural Canada

Staples theory deserves special note for its explanatory power in rural Canadian contexts. Staples theory as described by its most famous proponent, Harold Innis (1933; 1956), is grounded in Canada‘s unique history and circumstances. It reflects on how the triad of geography, institutions and technology have shaped the Canadian economy through patterns of international trade and investment, political relationships, and cycles of natural resource exploitation (Randall and Ironside 1996). Canada‘s large-scale, resource extraction economy has required huge investments, resulting high levels of outside ownership and dependence. According to early growth theories of development, Canada‘s resource-intensive, export focused economy was to be a temporary stage on the way to a more advanced and diversified economy (Rostow 1960). Industrial diversification was expected to occur through backward and forward linkages from the core staple activity. Yet, rural areas have had only limited success in secondary production and even this has been jeopardized by centralization, facilitated by technological and transportation developments (Howlett and Brownsey 2008). Markey et al. (2005), Williamson and Annamraju (1996), Barnes and Hayter (1994), Pierce and Dale (1999) and others have discussed the lack of locally controlled, diversified industries and thus vulnerability and instability in these economies. Staples theory suggests reasons for the continuing focus on export-oriented resource extraction and lack of diversification and reinvestment at community and regional levels. These include difficulties of transport over a vast geography, lack of information access and infrastructure, and dependence on fluctuating external markets, supplies and sources of capital, a situation that is difficult to reverse when the majority of the revenues from resource extraction leave rural areas for centers of ownership and control (Laxer 1991; Hayter and Barnes 1990). Markey et al. (2000) describe the attitudinal and human resource consequences of staples development, which include low levels of education and entrepreneurial abilities and resistance to change linked to the addiction to resource dependence (Freudenburg 1992), and the protective custody under which the state has held communities and regions (Markey 2003). Both recent regional economic development models (Porter 2001; Cooke

40 2001) and the CASES framework emphasize the importance of information, innovation, adaptation, and entrepreneurial capabilities, leaving rural regions at a distinct disadvantage. Watkins (1982) describes this phenomenon as the ‗staples trap‘. Finally, staples theory introduces the concept of the resource cycle all too familiar in Canadian development history. Innis (1956) and, more recently, Clapp (1998) describe a cycle of discovery, exploitation and then exhaustion of a resource, at which point a new resource is located and the cycle continues. Lack of economic diversity and reduced potential for pursuing alternatives intensifies pressure on primary production (Hayter and Barnes 1990). Each of these theories provides a useful lens through which to examine problems of unsustainable development, illustrating a societal bias toward capitalist production and resource depletion along with factors reducing resilience and adaptive capacity in rural regions. Each has some application to the Canadian situation but cannot explain it in its entirety. While staples and core-periphery dependency theories shed important light on the circumstances of Canadian rural regions, and have some utility in assessing impacts of the information age on resource communities, new drivers of change such as postproductivist values call for theories of change and development that reach beyond resource extraction and staples growth (Drache and Clement 1985).

2.2.3 Regulation Theory

Profound global changes of recent decades include increased mobility, access to information, expansion of the capitalist enterprise, deindustrialization and the rise of the service sector, new technologies, growth in newly industrializing countries, escalating costs of production and changing trading patterns (Dicken 2007). While Canada‘s rural, resource dependent communities are diverse, a number of trends can be discerned that parallel economic restructuring on broader national and global scales. Grouped under the term rural restructuring, these trends include increased reliance on the service and information economy, job insecurity, loss of resource access, continued urbanization and reductions in support from the welfare state. The cumulative ―layered effect‖ of these multiple reinforcing changes has made the problem more engrained, complex and difficult to address.

41 Theorists attempting to understand these processes of economic and societal change have explored the role of the market, state, society and ecology in restructuring, its forms and impacts. Regulation theory focuses on processes of capitalist growth, crisis, and reproduction as well as the relationships that shape these processes, describing long- term cycles of stability followed by crisis. Social and economic systems co-evolve, ensuring survival and reproduction through an ongoing process of struggle and periodic adjustment to sustain accumulation and mediate the tendency of capitalist economies toward crisis. Regulation theory is popular with geographers due to its emphasis on jurisdiction and the geographic (often macro) scale at which change occurs. The French regulation school further developed Marxist ideas by identifying three dimensions about capitalist development: the labour and production process (techno- industrial paradigm), the circulation/growth cycle of capital supported by social norms, relations and exchange (regime of accumulation) and the social and political institutional framework (mode of regulation). Modes of regulation are made up of principles, processes, norms, laws, and forms of organization, particularly of the state (Lipietz 1992; Tickell and Peck 1995). All three dimensions combine at each stage of capitalist development to produce a specific 'mode of development' (Amin 1994). Although each dimension is semi-autonomous (as in components and sub-systems within CASES models), in the long term the techno-industrial paradigm is viewed as having the most influence. Crisis occurs if one or more of these three dimensions breaks the cohesion of the production-accumulation-regulation triad, leading to a new regime (Jessop 1990; Cocklin et al. 1998). Regulation theorists suggest that the current period reflects a regime shift, often characterized as a shift from Fordism and Keynesianism to a ―flexible‖ post-Fordist, globalized economic system (Hayter 2000). Observations of such a shift began in the mid-seventies. The Fordist model of sustained growth and massive investments in mass production and the welfare state, supported by large, centralized and powerful actors in industry, labour and government and by natural resource depletion, began to break down (Markey et al. 2005). By the late 1980s a transition to a new system labelled ―post- Fordism‖ has been declared (Harvey 1989; Amin 1994). Other categorizations for this new era include globalization, flexible specialization, flexible accumulation or the

42 information and communication age (Dicken 2007; Hayter 2000). National economies became more open and vulnerable and new technologies such as computers and telecommunications revolutionized the workplace. All of these factors called for flexibility in order to adapt and survive in a changing business environment. Theories of regulation and CASES both provide a picture of the interdependence of private, public and civil society sectors, but for regulation theorists the position of the state is described as one of relative autonomy, not independent from the forces of capital accumulation but capable of autonomous decisions and actions. The degree of state autonomy remains a subject of much debate. Demand for flexibility in industrial production systems but also in regulatory processes and policy reform is associated with changes that include a shift from government to governance (Hayter 2000; Jessop 1997), discussed further in Chapter 3, and the new public management (NPM) paradigm ushered in by Margaret Thatcher (Aucoin 1995) and Osbourne and Gaebler‘s (1992) Reinventing Government. Osbourne and Gaebler (1992) argued that ―rowing‖ (service delivery and administration) should be separated from ―steering‖ (policy/decision-making). Government should retain steering control but let others do the rowing, under close regulation and supervision. New management ideas from the private sector were incorporated, including cost-cutting, a focus on results rather than process, alternative service delivery mechanisms, privatization, competitive relationships, defining citizens as public service customers, fee-for-service and strengthened central management control (Aucoin 1995; Kernaghan and Langford 1990; Graham and Phillips 1997). The intended result was increased effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. The application of NPM tools and philosophies has had notable impacts in Canada, including cutbacks in areas such as education, infrastructure, and social services in rural and small town communities. Cuts have forced a preoccupation with the bottom line and, for local governments, choices between deals made with senior levels of government for access to new dollars in exchange for service delivery responsibilities (that often cost more than increased revenues), joint agreements, amalgamations with other local governments, new fees or service cuts. Downloading has provided more administrative responsibility but, arguably, less political voice. Reductions in public participation, a central tenant of sustainable development, have led to a ―democratic

43 deficit‖, with voice and equity traded for efficiency (Jenson and Phillips 1996; Phillips and Graham 2000). Non-government organizations (NGOs) asked to take on new responsibilities under NPM have also felt the pressure of meeting both the demands of government funding agencies and those whose interests they were set up to represent or safeguard. Sabel (2004) points out that it has proven impossible to separate steering (conception) and rowing (execution). Further, the requirements of accountability and demonstrating results under NPM result in a tendency for clear but narrow, easy-to- measure goals that are ill-suited for complex sustainability problems. Massam and Dickinson (1999, 221) argue that viewed merely as consumers, ―citizens begin to lose their sense of obligation to society and community.‖

2.2.4 New Developments and CASES Contributions

Both dependency and regulation theories have been criticized for paying inadequate attention to agency and the political dimension of social and economic change, for being too generalized and focused on the macro-scale, ignoring place-specific outcomes and contributing factors (Brodie 1990). There are three key difficulties with suggesting policy changes such as NPM are a direct result of a shift to post-Fordism: 1) it assumes that the market and trends in capitalist production are the primary drivers in policy change, 2) it assumes a single predominant accumulation and regulation regime and widespread applicability of the Fordism to post-Fordism explanation, and 3) it assumes that the policy requirements of post-Fordism are clear, and for that matter the characteristics of post- Fordism itself. NPM, for example, could be described as characteristic of post-Fordism or, alternatively, as a continuation of the accumulation and conservation phase of the adaptive cycle of the Fordist age, adding further specialization and rigidity. Macro-level political economy theories that focus on large scale shifts in economic power or modes of production may fail to recognize independent processes occurring at smaller and even parallel scales that may result in different and varied patterns. Sunstein (1990) argues that restructuring is differentiated in character, complementing literature that describes various forms of organization within local

44 economies (Cameron and Gibson 2005). Neither ―the market‖ nor the public sector is homogeneous (Davidson 2001; Sniderman et al. 1998). Fragmentation of the state, civil society and even the private sector in Canada is said to weaken each of these actors, who are thus able to influence but not control one another (Pal 1992). Despite the obvious influence of the market throughout all aspects of human society and the natural world of which society is a part, the market is not all- powerful. Policy, society and ecology also constrain and shape economy. Grand theories tend to downplay the role of struggle in social change. Power struggles continue between those who still operate under and benefit from highly centralized systems such as forest and fisheries management or are negatively impacted by changes associated with flexible accumulation, and others who support a more diversified approach to development that incorporates a broader set of values. Canada‘s coastal forest and fishing economies demonstrate that the market remains a particularly powerful social force. Regulation theory suggests that society, inclusive of the state, has a pro-capitalist bias that accounts for unsustainable practices in the forest and fishing industries despite pressure from social/cultural and ecological arenas (Markey et al. 2000; Clapp 1998). Moran et al. (1996) point out that, as a result, sustainability has tended to be conceived in a manner that suits the dominant market ideology. The success of the environmental movement in breaking the long-established business-labour-government coalition in British Columbia‘s forest sector is but one illustration that both the state and civil society are capable of independent influence (Hayter 2000). Ecological dimensions of policy and the imperatives of sustainable development more broadly are increasingly recognized, albeit while privatization of natural resources and new public management strategies associated with neo-liberalism are also promoted. The crash of the northern cod stocks and the disappearance of British Columbia‘s old growth forest, creating uncertainty and change to which the market, civil society and policy-makers must adapt, illustrate environmental constraints on economic systems, as described by Bossel (2001). Ecology also creates human opportunity through its resources and amenities. Thus financial, natural, social/cultural and political capitals

45 are interrelated and each influence development decisions and outcomes within various spaces and scales (Birner and Wittmer 2001). Increasing attention to local, micro-level processes has necessitated recognition of the importance of context, and factors such as history, beliefs and experience that shape processes of change and account for variety among locales (Cocklin et al. 1998). In what Clark (1992) refers to as ‗real regulation‘ a plurality of interpretations is recognized and valued. Addressing many of the concerns raised above, real regulation interprets the process of regulation as a multiscalar social practice played out in distinct geographical and economic contexts, albeit with a capitalist bias (Clark 1992; Hudson 2005). The notion of struggle (agency) and patterns, which become institutionalized as structure, are acknowledged. ―Structure‖ is subject to change in the process of social and economic reproduction. Local actors and organizations are among those capable of exerting influence on the restructuring and policy process (Markey 2003). Real regulation is less deterministic, recognizing change as a product of debate and integrated social and economic processes that are both top-down and bottom-up, combine formal and informal actors and processes, and involve diverse stakeholders constantly negotiating subjects such as stewardship and sustainability (Blunden et al. 1995; Cocklin et al. 1998; Pierce 1998). Recent real regulation interpretations recognize the role of the state as a coordinator and mediator of a wide range of participants in a contested governance process, including divisions within levels of the state (Little 2001). Moran et al. (1996) provide the relevant example of sustainable development legislation in New Zealand, interpreted differently by various state actors. The state is made up of institutions, individuals, relationships, strategies and practices, shaped by layers of institutional, economic and social-cultural histories and played out at multiple nested scales (Clark 1992; Painter and Goodwin 1995; Tickell and Peck 1995). Moran et al. (1996) make an important distinction between ideology, rhetoric and reality in regulation. Harrison (2006) and MacLeod (2001) emphasize the potential of ‗regional regulation‘ within regulatory networks. Similarly, post-dependency theory suggests that the causes of underdevelopment are both internal and external, rooted in the marketplace and in policy communities,

46 shaped by structure, agency and history. Post-dependency permits different, co-existing modes of production while observing a tendency to promote capitalist development and resist redistribution of benefits (Hessing and Howlett 1997). Despite their apparent fit with the rural Canadian context, even real regulation and post-dependency perspectives remain subject to criticism for under-emphasizing the role of individual change agents in communities and individuals within the state bureaucracy, as well as informal, non-state bottom-up forms of organization in social relations (Blunden et al. 1995). Barnes and Hayter (1994) suggest that, in Canada, the current era is shaped by a combination of structural forces, individual agency and geographical context, each with varying degrees of influence over outcomes in different circumstances. A strengthened emphasis on the influence of ecology, more in line with a political ecology interpretation of restructuring, is also required (Armitage 2008; Zimmerer and Basset 2003, 18; Gibbs and Jonas 2001; Gale and M‘Gonigle 2000). The study of CASES involves inevitable links to other interdisciplinary fields of scientific investigation such as actor network theory (ANT) and political ecology but can also benefit from the depth of insights provided by fields focused on the study of human/social systems and new, more nuanced versions of theories of social and economic development such as real regulation and post-dependency. Common recognition of multiple, ongoing processes of change occurring over multiple time scales and shaped by a variety of actors, suggests a degree of convergence among these theoretical approaches Regulation and dependency theories enhance our understanding of the processes and, in particular, the structures that influence collaborative governance and community resilience within CASES. Current processes of governance and development are embroiled in a constant tug-of-war between alternative visions and possible future directions: between trends toward increased market dominance, bureaucratic rigidity, and community vulnerability, and an alternative more balanced approach that promises to create conditions of sustainability and resilience. While its influence is significant, extreme views that all government policy is a reflection of the capitalist enterprise are not fully supported by the Canadian experience. Vodden and Kennedy (2006), Berkes et al. (2005) and others document cases where power relationships are being altered, to varying degrees, in favour

47 of approaches that balance socio-cultural, ecological, and economic imperatives and increase the power of society and ecology relative to the state and the market. Dent (1999) suggests that growing interest in complexity science is indicative of a broad shift to a more holistic worldview. Kates et al. (2005) describe a sustainability movement; a movement, however, that is not clear or consistent. Others identify evidence of an increasingly market-based approach. Trajectories of development shift back and forth on a sustainability continuum within and between long-term cycles of change. Multiple interdependent parties, with interests as depicted in each quadrant of Figure 6, are influenced by the past and vie for power and influence over the future.

Market Civil Society Balance, resilience, sustainability

State Ecology

Figure 6 Seeking a balance of power

Resolution of these conflicts calls for the identification of varying perspectives, dialogue, learning and a search for balance, characteristics of resilient complex adaptive systems and collaborative governance models, discussed further in the next chapter.

48 3 – Collaborative Governance in the Coastal Zone

3.1 Complexity and Coastal Zone Governance

Coastal social-ecological systems are generally highly complex. Coastal development involves interconnected terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater and marine) ecosystems. Marine managers face higher levels of uncertainty and equivocality than their terrestrial counterparts due to a poor information base and lack of scientific understanding of marine environments (Wolfe 2000). Further, with its spatial development focus, coastal zone management cuts across virtually every sectoral policy arena. As the diversity of coastal and ocean uses continues to increase so does the suite of relevant policy issues (see Table 4).

Table 4 Sample of coastal policy issues Aquatic Terrestrial Social/Other Fisheries Forestry Social services Wildlife Wildlife Arts and culture Offshore oil and gas Minerals Economic development Ocean energy - other Land-based pollution Trade Marine plants Urban development Jurisdictional disputes Water Supply, quality Habitat protection Air pollution Aquaculture Erosion Climate change Marine transport Tourism and recreation Health care Habitat protection Land use planning Education/human resources Tourism and recreation Aboriginal rights Marine planning Institutional capacity building

Related to this wide range of issues is the significant and growing number of actors with a stake in the coastal policy process. Within the federal government alone over twenty departments or agencies are involved in the oceans sector (Canada 2007a). Identifying the interests of these various actors, reaching agreement on their respective roles and attempting to understand the cross-scale impacts of policymaking and implementation in this setting are a formidable challenge. Actors and institutions at all levels, from the international to the individual, have an impact on local economic development, resource management and policies that govern these activities (see Table 5).

49 Table 5 Roles in coastal governance Examples of Related Areas of Jurisdiction/Responsibility International - Trade and Environment Trade agreements Federal - Fisheries, international relations First Nations - Aboriginal rights and title Provincial - Forestry, tourism, fish processing Regional - Economic development and land use planning Local/Municipal - Waterfront development, harbours and wharves, water supply and waste water treatment Individual/Family - Voters, taxpayers, consumers, harvesters, leaders, volunteers

The concept of governance subsystems is an extension of Howlett and Ramesh‘s (1995) policy subsystems notion. Howlett (1998, 2) explains that a policy subsystem is ―a flexible concept designed to capture the complex interplay between actors and institutions, and knowledge and interests, in the policy-making process.‖ Howlett and Ramesh (1995), Bryant (1999), Sabatier (1999), Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) and others identify and attempt to explain the actors involved in policy-making and implementation, the networks that connect them and their influence on the policy process. These theories of policy systems and change fit well within a broader complexity theory framework and, like theories such as staples and real regulation discussed in Chapter 2, help enrich our understanding of social change within complex, adaptive social- ecological systems (CASES). Anderson (1984, 3) defines a policy as ―a purposive course of action followed by an actor or a set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern.‖ Typically, governments, formal, hierarchical public sector agencies with bureaucratic procedures and state authority, have been responsible for making and implementing public policy (Davoudi et al. 2004). It is argued, however, that a broader, more distributed form of policy-making has been emerging that recognizes the role of individuals and groups outside of government not only in ‗rowing‘ but also in ‗steering‘ societies as part of public policy networks (Chapter 2). Rosell (1992 in Paquet 1999, 23) defines governance as ―the process whereby an organization or society steers itself,‖ including the goals, institutional processes and structures that form the basis of planning, making decisions and carrying out those decisions (Olsen 2003). Governance is distinct from management, the more limited process of harnessing resources to achieve a known goal within a known institutional

50 structure (Coastal Resources Centre 2001). Tremblay and Rousseau (2005) describe governance as a new mode of regulation emerging from the failure of former modes and three major changes in society: increasingly complex, differentiated difficult to govern societies, the exhaustion of traditional forms of public action associated with government, and the demand for a new form of governance better suited to context and to influencing government action through coalitions, collective action, and compromise among sometimes divergent and even conflicting interests and goals (Zartman 1996). Jessop (2000, 15) describes governance as an alternative model for managing collective affairs that involves ―horizontal self-organisation among mutually interdependent actors,‖ ―achieving collective action… in conditions where it is not possible to rest on recourse to the authority of the state‖ (Stoker 2000, 93). Interactive governance theory argues that governing systems and the systems they govern (systems-to-be-governed) should be equally diverse, complex, and dynamic (Kooiman and Bavinck 2005). Policy, in this context, is a tool used by all those collectively responsible for governance to address specific problems or issues such as resource management or local and regional economic development, areas of primary focus in this study. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) introduce the policy cycle as a basic framework for policy analysis. The cycle simplifies the process of policy-making into discrete phases that parallel stages of applied problem solving (see Table 6). The function of such a model is to provide a heuristic device for dealing with the complexities of reality rather than to precisely reflect reality, which rarely follows such an orderly, linear sequence (Bendavid-Val 1991). Instead, decisions may be reactive or ad hoc, steps combined, skipped or undertaken in a different order. Weick (1995) suggests, for example, that acting should (and does) precede planning.

Table 6 Stages of problem solving and the policy cycle

Phases of Applied Problem-Solving Stages in the Policy Cycle 1. Problem Recognition 1. Agenda-Setting 2. Proposal of Solutions 2. Policy Formulation 3. Choice of Solution 3. Decision-Making 4. Putting Solution into Effect 4. Policy Implementation 5. Monitoring Results 5. Policy Evaluation Feedback – begin the cycle again Source: Howlett and Ramesh (1995); Hoberg (2001)

51 Despite their often rational/analytical and historically agency-based approach, Davoudi et al. (2004) suggest that planning approaches are extensively employed in new multi-level governance arrangements, including strategic, spatial, regional economic development (RED) and coastal land use planning. Hoberg (2001) argues that the model remains a useful analytical tool provided its limitations are understood, adding that each cycle should be understood as one of multiple cycles, placed within its historical context in an ongoing process of policy evolution. Janssen (2001) integrates the general CASES adaptive renewal cycle with the policy cycle, moving from surprise and sometimes crisis to presentation of alternatives, policy formation, implementation and, if successful, institutionalization. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) add that the policy cycle can be elaborated upon by examining the role of various actors and the institutions they are part of in the policy cycle. Various actors, structures and the legacy of past policies shape outcomes at each stage. These actors may have very different ideas about the problem being addressed and appropriate responses, the process often resembling a ―weaving‖ of various stages as they search for a mutually acceptable outcome (Colebatch 2006). Scheffer et al. (2001) describe moving through the policy or adaptive cycle as moving from scattered (few actors recognize problem), to mobilized (recognition grows), to polarization (disagreement), and institutionalized policies or management systems. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) describe actors participating directly in the policy process as members of policy networks. Policy community members share some knowledge of and interest in the issue but policy networks share a more material interest that encourages regular participation. It is through policy networks that the state and other societal actors are linked in the policy process. Policy issues are discussed and negotiated within the context of established institutional arrangements that impact actor behaviour and positions. Constitutional and legal authority, power and knowledge influence membership in a policy subsystem. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) describe ministers and bureaucrats (elected and appointed officials), interest groups, research organizations and the media as key actors in a policy subsystem, each with their own objectives. Janssen (2001) suggests that different actors are influential during certain phases of the policy or adaptive renewal cycle (e.g.

52 bureaucrats in implementation, activists in agenda setting, catalysts in identifying alternatives and decision-makers in policy). Policy scientists have advanced and integrated understandings of policy actors, networks, cycles and subsystems into concepts such as punctuated equilibrium, which explains how sudden shifts in policy can occur after long periods of ―equilibrium‖ or incremental change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). The advocacy coalition framework describes coalitions of actors attempting to influence policy and ―brokers‖ who mediate conflict between coalitions over time, all influenced by other systems that constrain or provide resources (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). Hoberg (2001) describes the policy regime approach as one that brings these various developments together, recognizing that subsystems act within and are influenced by other systems and therefore, that explanations of change are multicausal. Policy change is related to interactions of background conditions, actors, institutions and ideas (together forming a regime) as well as the outcomes these interactions produce. Like Bryant (1999), Hoberg (2001) recognizes that actors have different interests, resources, and strategies and are situated in webs or networks of typically uneven, changing relationships. Policy outcomes have feedbacks that influence subsystem components. Further, the ability of actors to interpret these outcomes and feedbacks provides the opportunity for policy learning. Howlett and Ramesh‘s conceptualization of policy subsystems and the policy cycle, Hoberg‘s policy regime approach and Bryant‘s seven-component model of the political economy of sustainable community development (described further in Chapter 4) contribute to our understanding of the governance components of broader systems and complexity theories. The notion of policy subsystems suggests that each policy issue is part of a larger more holistic policy system, each part of and connected to various CASES. Both policies and appropriate forms of governance are likely to shift over time, particularly in the breakdown and renewal phases of the adaptive cycle. CASES literature suggests major system change is possible when systems at multiple scales simultaneously experience periods of breakdown or reorganization. Similarly, political scientists observe that new governance frameworks are possible when external conditions change, policy failures occur and/or existing policy systems are weak (Hall 1989, Tomblin 2004, Hoberg 2001). The current degree of change and uncertainty and continuing redefinition of the

53 roles of various actors in policy networks at spatial scales from local9 to global, suggests we are currently in this ―backloop‖ of the adaptive cycle.

3.2 Redefining Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships in Governance Systems

The 20th century tenant of centralized decision-making has come under severe scrutiny as we begin the 21st, resulting in a debate about appropriate degrees of centralization and decentralization in virtually all policy areas (Proulx 1997). Sabel (2004) suggests that since the 1980s hierarchical, closed organizations and the breaking down of complex problems into simpler, separated parts has given way to more federated, open and holistic governance structures and processes. Debates over the dangers and opportunities of government retrenchment, driven by both government and citizens, have resulted in a number of opposing perspectives (Abrams 2003). All agree, however, that fundamental and rapid changes are occurring in relations between the market, the state and civil society, the three principal participants in and mechanisms through which processes of governance are expressed (Juda 1999; Juda and Hennessey 2001).

3.2.1 Changing Role of the Nation State

A state is defined as a geographic territory governed by an authority structure with effective control over its resident population(s) and externally recognized sovereignty over its territory (Taylor 1994; Dicken 2007). According to Dicken (2007), states have four key roles: containers of distinctive institutions and practices, regulators of economic activities, competitors and collaborators with other states. In a democracy, citizens provide the state with its power and legitimacy. In the Fordist era described in Chapter 2 the nation-state was the dominant state level (federal in Canada). A body of recent literature focuses on declining state power at this scale and reduced dominance of the state in managing social and economic relationships (Ohmae 1995; Dicken 1994; 2007; Young 1994). Government is now one of many interdependent actors with only ‗imperfect control‘ (Rhodes 1997, 8; D‘Aoust 2000). Jessop (1994) describes a ―hollowing-out‖ of the nation state due to a variety of restructuring conditions

9 Changes at the individual and household level are also occurring which are not discussed in this study but are nonetheless significant. See, for example, Jackson et al (2006) and MacDonald et al (2006).

54 that have redistributed authority to the global and local scales. Significant debate continues, however, over the degree to which the role of government, particularly the nation state, has declined and, further, whether it should decline given implications for sustainable development and the need for ―good governance‖ described in Chapter 1. A state may surrender or assign its authority to others. Those who describe the new governance regime suggest that this is increasingly common, resulting in cooperative or shared statehood. In Canada the provinces, territories and federal government have divided powers in Confederation, with neither subordinate to the other. Proponents of decentralization and reduced central government control come from at least two distinct, although not necessarily diametrically opposed, perspectives. Some, under the New Public Management (NPM) agenda, are proponents of measures such as downloading, privatization, and contracting out as a means of reducing the size and influence of government bureaucracy which, centralized and enlarged with the development of the welfare state, has gotten too big and is in danger of system overload (Jackson and Jackson 1998). ―Big government‖ is seen as inconsistent with the new flexible accumulation production regime. These authors emphasize sharing of administrative and service delivery responsibility (rowing) rather than decision-making power (steering). This model is described as deconcentration, meaning that still- centralized power is relocated or dispersed without transferring authority (Yuliani 2007). Others suggest that managing or steering complex, fragmented and often competing societal interests such as those outlined in Table 4 above is beyond the capacity of the state. From this perspective, existing provincial and federal governments are too small to address big problems such as the ability of multinational corporations to shift resources to other parts of the globe yet too big, slow and distant to respond appropriately to diverse local problems and opportunities (Dicken 2007; Plumptre and Graham 1999). Others point out that decentralizing responsibilities without power renders local institutions, whether local governments or non-government organizations, little more than local agents of higher level states and does little to address these deficiencies (Morgan 2007). A more dispersed policy process is necessary to ―democratize‖ government (Allemand 2000). Openly sharing decision-making with those who have an interest in and are directly impacted by a policy matter, they argue, will result in better decisions that are

55 more readily accepted in their implementation. Yet another argument is that opening up the process may restore lost confidence in Canadian policy makers, and thus legitimacy, a cornerstone of governance. Canadians are demanding more information on policy issues and more involvement in decisions. As a result, agencies such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) have sought to improve relationships with the public and sector stakeholders (DFO 1999; Smith 2000). More radical proponents see decentralization as a form of resistance to current urban-industrial development patterns and a tool for empowerment. Still others counter that the state has and should retain a pre-eminent and important role. Concentration on the collapse of the central state, they suggest, neglects both its continued significance and relation to both international and other sub-national (and internal) governance systems. Stone (1986, 87) suggests that, ―as complexity asserts itself government becomes … more visible as a mobilizer and co-ordinator of resources.‖ Problems of inconsistency and blurred lines of accountability are also concerns, along with questions about capacity at the local level to take on new roles. Alex Sim (1988), a proponent of bottom-up rural development, explains that sudden decentralization would lead to chaos. He suggests that a period of learning to manage one‘s own affairs is required as a first step. Opponents of decentralization point out that negotiations between a rising number of policy actors is a costly and time-consuming process (Carr et al. 1998). This is particularly problematic when coupled with the high cost of implementing programs to address regional disparities or manage resources in sectors as complex as the fishery (Savoie 1992, Shrank 1997). Centralized control, they argue, has efficiency benefits. Others have concerns about suspect motives when senior governments propose decentralization, such as to ―soften resistance‖ or co-opt opponents. They describe offloading as a product of the neoconservative agenda, resulting in an inability of society to meet people‘s basic needs – a dismantling of the welfare state (Campfens 1997). Keynesians worry about lost ability to redistribute wealth and argue that strong governments are needed to play a mediating function, offseting the process of unfettered capital accumulation and domination by the privileged (Midlarsky 1999; Sassen 1996; Pierce 1999). Strong senior governments also have a role to play in promoting the best interests of localities within their jurisdictions in the international arena. Dicken (1994)

56 argues, for example, that national are more effective than local governments in bargaining with trans-national corporations. Finally, there is ample evidence that in some cases domination of ―bottom-up‖ processes by local elites can be equally or more oppressive than top-down governing (Bryant 1995). Others express concern that local actors are self- interested and will not necessarily protect the interests of the broader society and environment. Thus, senior governments have a continuing role to play as guardian of broadly agreed upon principles and our collective futures. Even proponents of a bottom-up approach to development agree there is a role for senior governments to play in local development, albeit a supportive rather than a directive one (Savoie 2000; Vodden 1999). The ability of senior levels of governments to play a new more flexible, collaborative, facilitative role is framed by Knill (1999) as administrative reform capacity. He suggests that capacity for reform in Canada is medium-weak, a function of institutional entrenchment, influence of the bureaucracy and capacity for executive leadership. In Canada the federalist structure and the Canadian Constitution (1867) are key determinants of responsibility (Steytler 2002). The federation is multi-party and primarily competitive, particularly since the 1980s, but with a significant amount of pragmatic cooperation and compromise between levels (Asselin 2001; Hueglin and Fenna 2005). The distribution of state power looks very different in different places. Asselin (2001) observes that in Canada the federal government exercises considerable influence in public policy development, largely due to its financial resources as well as the size and expertise of the federal bureaucracy. Both federal and provincial governments in Canada retain significant influence over coastal resource management and economic development in their respective jurisdictions (Ommer et al. 2007), but the state is a changing, evolving entity (or more accurately network of embedded entities). A trend called ―glocalization‖ is observed, referring to the contested, simultaneous restructuring from the national scale upward to the global and downward to the local and to strategies of localization in key forms such as the location of industry, services, and financial capital (Swyngedouw 1997). The distribution of state power in a governance system is likely to vary in different contexts and over time. In summary, the literature suggests that the role of the state is changing, its powers and responsibilities being redistributed. ―The state‖ is increasingly complex, including

57 multiple vertical and horizontal dimensions. Finally, the state, particularly the nation- state, remains influential but is limited in its control over society and its functions due to both its internal divisions and increasing power and relevance of sub-national and international scales and actors from private and civil society spheres.

3.2.2 International Policy Actors

In the search for a new governance regime(s) numerous authors advocate an increasing role for structures and processes at the multi-national (trans-border) region and/or global scale in the governance of sustainable development (Najam et al. 2007). Nation states have limited ability, it is suggested, to manage supra and transnational flows of information, capital, pollution or natural resources (Ohmae 1995; Porter and Brown 1996). Geographers have emphasised the need for oppressed groups to forge links across borders, mobilising a global resistance to combat the forces of transnational capital. The Brundtland Commission (WCED 1987) and subsequent Rio Earth Summit (1992) drew national governments worldwide into the sustainable development agenda, albeit not moving beyond the early phases of the policy cycle (Bantjes 2004). Various justifications are made for imposing international laws or standards on lower (smaller scale) levels for the good of the global population. Knect (1994) suggests that the multinational regional scale may be the most appropriate for many ocean governance regimes. Yet the extent to which national sovereignty and self-determination should be eroded or shared through international governance arrangements is hotly contested (Hurtig 1991).

3.2.3 Recognizing Aboriginal Rights and Title

Yet another significant change in Canadian policy-making is the increasing recognition of unextinguished Aboriginal rights, including rights of self-government, and title to traditional lands that were never surrendered or lost despite the ―empty lands‖ thesis (Tennant 1989; Vodden and Kennedy 2006). After centuries of economic marginalization and denial of power (Notzke 1994) Aboriginal rights and title have been negotiated and strengthened in recent years under Canadian law and in international declarations. Resulting changes in federal Aboriginal policy and modern treaty negotiations have had

58 spill-over effects in federal and provincial policy arenas relevant to coastal planning and management, such as fisheries, forestry and economic development, and in relationships with local governments (Cashore et al. 2001). As recommended by the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples, First Nations are acknowledged as an order of government with nation-to-nation bargaining power with the Government of Canada (Canada 1996a). Despite these changes, First Nations communities and their populations are predominantly marginalized from rural Canadian economies (Reimer and Apedaile 2000). Financial dependency on the federal government and on social assistance remains a reality for many Aboriginal people (Wien 1997). Wuttenee (2006, 138-142) points out that although a new partnership with Canadians is emerging, ―in many cases, Aboriginal peoples do not hold title to their traditional lands, or do not have their rights recognized‖ and therefore have little say over development and governance. Many Aboriginal people and communities remain marginalized, struggling with significant economic, social, cultural and ecological challenges and a legacy of federal and provincial policies intended to remove Aboriginal peoples from their lands and suppress their unique governments, cultures and identities (Canada 1996a; Vodden and Kennedy 2006; Newhouse 2006). While recognizing generalizations cannot be made about any people (First Nations are themselves diverse) and that values are dynamic and complex, Wuttenee suggests that there is a set of core values that guide some First Nations people, which include honour and respect for all living things, knowledge as wisdom (with a holistic view that encompasses spirituality), caring, sharing, harmony and cooperation, honesty and humility along with the responsibility to protect the earth and the cycle of creation and the recognition that all things are interconnected, including politics, economy, land and culture. Increasing inclusion of First Nations in Canadian governance, therefore, has resulted, in some cases, in these values being brought into the governance process (Ommer et al. 2007).

3.2.4 The Local State

According to Steytler (2002) local governments are an important part of the state in most federal countries, with an increasing breadth of powers and services provided both

59 through the formal transfer of responsibilities or by default when higher orders of government fail to meet their mandates. Distinctions are often made between rural and large urban municipalities. Nearly two thirds of Canada‘s population lives in 27 municipalities, contributing to the growing ―cities agenda‖ and demands for even greater powers for city governments. Relied upon for an increasing number of service delivery functions and as engines of growth and development, local governments face considerable stress in financing increased expenditures. In Canada, despite expanded autonomy and responsibilities, the municipal percentage of total government spending remains lower than in most industrialized nations. An estimated 4000 local authorities undertake their responsibilities with the help of approximately 250,000 employees, nearly 75% of the number employed by the federal government but with only 45% of its budget (Steytler 2002). Jessop (1994) suggests that new opportunities for local level institutions are permitted or necessitated by the inability of higher levels of the state to design solutions that are diverse and contextually sensitive enough to tackle problems that are often faced at the local level, consistent with the subsidiarity principle described in Chapter 2. The suggestion that the state has been weakened or ―hollowed out‖ by processes of globalization, discussed above, has led to calls for a stronger role for the local to offset the global. Ash (2003) adds that infrastructure providers (often local governments) are key drivers of change. Rather than being rooted in a commitment to culture and place this notion focuses on the necessity for localities to actively position themselves within international trading systems and markets, suggesting that local diversity creates economic and political opportunities in an increasingly dynamic world. Taylor (1993), Massam (2000) and others argue that the power of the local state is devolved from higher levels. Local government is a responsibility of the provinces under the Constitution. Provincial governments determine the powers and functions of municipalities, which, therefore, vary considerably. Federal dealings with municipalities have been limited, although a trend to develop formal agreements among the three levels of government has been observed (Steytler 2002). British Columbia (BC) has 424 local government local authorities, including 157 incorporated municipalities, 27 regional districts and 240 improvement districts. Each

60 municipality belongs to a regional district (Brunnen 2006). British Columbia legislation provides municipalities with broad powers that include 18 spheres of regulatory authority (16 municipal two concurrent), facilitation of public-private partnerships and flexibility in revenue-generation. The move toward a more flexible approach to provincial-municipal relations took place over 15 years, culminating with the 2003 Community Charter legislation (Wall 2005). A 1996 protocol between the Province and Union of British Columbia Municipalities explicitly recognized local government as an independent and accountable order of government and began to set out principles governing the relationship between the two orders of government, including a clear division of responsibilities that leaves each level accountable for specific policies and gives them the necessary authority, independence and financial capacity to perform these roles (UBCM 1996). These principles were legislated in the 2003 Charter, which provides for public accountability and transparency through strategic municipal planning, decision-making and progress reporting. New responsibilities are not to be allocated to municipalities by the Province without discussions about required funding, and significant changes in legislation, policy or programs impacting municipalities are not to be made without consultation (Steytler 2002). Other provinces followed the BC example. In 2005 a memorandum-of- understanding was signed between the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities and the Province, which established guiding principles and a basis for the relationship between the two orders of government. Nova Scotia (NS) includes three kinds of municipalities within its 77 local authorities: three regional municipalities; 21 county or district (rural) municipalities; and 53 towns and villages (as of December 2003), which are independent of the rural municipalities except in the case of joint expenditures, governed by a village commission (the equivalent of a council) and have the same powers as municipalities to collect taxes. A few special commissions also exist for service provision such as rural fire districts (Nova Scotia 2003). Municipal government was slow to develop in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). At the time of Confederation (1949) there were an estimated 19-20 incorporated municipalities in the new province, a small portion of its approximately 1300 settlements, primarily outport fishing villages (Baker and Pitt 1988; Dunn 2003). Today, encouraged

61 by financial incentives, the number of local government authorities has grown to 466, including 283 municipalities (three cities and 280 towns) and 183 local service districts, elected committees with more limited authority and financial capacity than towns and cities (NLFM 2005). Provisions also exist for the formation of regional bodies such as Regional Councils or Services Boards under the Municipal Act, although only two such legislated bodies exist. Approximately 168 communities remain without local government and are referred to as unincorporated areas. The Newfoundland Cities Act gives the province‘s three cities broader powers to provide government and services and greater autonomy than their smaller counterparts (Steytler 2002). Local government at the level of the sub-provincial region is formalized and widespread in BC, through regional districts, and in NS through counties and regional municipalities. All areas not incorporated as towns or villages in either province are, therefore, represented by a level of local government. Formalization of a regional level of local government has been resisted to date in NL. However, the majority of local governments in the province are engaged in some form of service sharing arrangement with one or more neighbouring communities (Vodden et al. 2008). For struggling communities, service sharing arrangements can provide economic benefits, whether through reduced costs or increased revenues, new ideas, mutual support or improved environmental management (Vodden 2006). Municipalities NL (NLFM 2005) notes that regional approaches, whether through service sharing or regional government, are growing across the province, the country and internationally. Sancton (2001) discusses the trend towards amalgamations and regional local governments in Canada as largely based on arguments of economies of scale. Bish (2001) questions the benefits of amalgamation and centralization in large local (regional) government structures. Flexibility, he suggests, is the key to successful multi-community (sub-provincial) arrangements among local governments. BC‘s regional district model, for example, provides flexibility in choosing the scope and degree of services delivered and allows local governments to partner with neighbouring jurisdictions or deliver services directly, as the situation requires. Such regional administrative structures, he adds, encourage cooperation rather than competition within their boundaries. Davoudi et al. (2004, 4) suggest that local and regional governments ―are situated at the junction

62 between the traditional vertical axis of public administration, and the emerging horizontal axis of partnership between state, market and civil society,‖ and have important roles to play in promoting new forms of governance and enhanced local institutional capacities. Despite devolution measures, however, real power differences remain between sub- national and national governments (Sanford 2004). Actors at the local level are needed to implement policies devised at multiple scales, but devolution to the local level does not necessarily result in greater public engagement, nor does it eliminate oppressive or self- interested behaviour by public representatives. The result has been calls for devolution not only to the local (―town hall‖) level but also from the local to the citizen (―double devolution‖) (Miliband 2006). Canadian authors Bryant (1999), Clutterbuck and Novick (2003) and others concur that no single person, organization or perspective can be taken to represent a local area. Morgan (2007) suggests that some local government may be more responsive to senior levels of government, whose priorities and requirements they are being asked to meet, than to their citizens. Horizontal partnerships with civil society organizations can help address this concern, although the increasing role of this ―third sector‖ brings with it its own set of concerns along with opportunities.

3.2.5 Civil Society

While not a panacea or replacement for democratic institutions (Bourgon 1998), civil society in its various forms (leaders and ―ordinary citizens,‖ formal and informal organizations) can play an important role in community and regional development, and in governance generally. Dahrendorf (1995, 23) defines civil society as ―the associations in which we conduct our lives, and that owe their existence to our needs and initiatives, rather than to the state.‖ Swift (1999, 4-5) defines it as involving ―the activity of citizens in free association who lack the authority of the state‖ and are ―motivated by objectives other than profit-making.‖ Associations may be formal, non-government (NGO), non- profit, voluntary or third sector organizations (Hall and Banting 2000), or may consist of more informal networks among citizens. For some the term includes not just associations but individuals with a sense of citizenship and voluntarism or even those who engage in activities of the ―informal economy‖ (outside of the market or the state) (Abzug 1999). Gramsci (in Chandoke 1995), for example, describes civil society broadly as a space

63 ―between the economic structure and the state.‖ Common-pool-resource theory describes the ability of citizens, despite self-interest, to self-organize outside of the scope of the government and the market to manage ―the commons‖ for collective benefit (Wang 2002). The lines between government and non-government or civil society sectors are, however, blurrier than such definitions suggest. To varying extents the non-government sector is an extension of the state. Literature on the NGO sector highlights this challenge in particular for QUANGOs (quasi or quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations), GONGOs (government organized NGOs) or NDPBs (non-departmental public bodies), which are organized and/or used by central government to devolve responsibility for what have traditionally been government functions. In exchange for this role they are often provided with funding or other support and have only relative autonomy from the state (Wettenhall 1981; Flinders and Smith 1999). Wolch (1990) refers to this segment of the NGO sector as theshadow state. While NGOs may be influenced by the public sector, the reverse is true as well. New policy-making processes, sometimes referred to as 'soft law,' increasingly allow non-government actors and citizens to participate beyond voting in periodic elections. Christensen (2004) argues that formal authority is becoming decreasingly relevant as the informal sector, primarily through NGOs, gains access and power within policy networks. The concept of social capital has gained recognition over the past decade as a significant contributor to social, ecological and economic well-being (Longo 2000; Savitch and Kantor 2003; Wilson 1996). The existence of civil society networks and organizations is seen as an indicator of the presence of social capital (World Bank 2007). Amin and Thrift (1995) refer to ‗institutional thickness,‘ including a ―plethora of civic associations,‖ as a significant factor in the economic and social health of localities. Snowadsky‘s (2005) research findings illustrate the importance of institutional thickness within the context of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This social capital is undermined in many Canadian rural communities by small and declining populations and, in particular, youth out-migration (Halseth et al. 2004). The benefits and challenges of the explosion in the non-government organization (NGO) sector are multifaceted and the subject of a growing literature (Salamon 1994;

64 Brock and Banting 2001; Massam 2000). Literature on social capital credits civil society organizations for linking residents and the political system, providing access to power, voice and resources, building interpersonal bonds, mobilizing collective action, and engaging people in activities that contribute to various aspects of well-being (Putnam 1993; Roman and Moore 2004). Non-government organizations (NGOs) fill gaps in our society and act as part of a system of checks and balances within governance systems. Along with benefits, the sector also comes with problems of lack of accountability, dependency on and possible cooptation by the state or the market (described by Dekker and van den Broek 1998) and, often, exclusion of those whose voices most need an avenue to be heard (Swift 1999; Massam 2000). Lack of public support and legitimacy are also raised as concerns. However, a recent study indicates that Canadians have higher levels of confidence in voluntary organizations than government, and believe that voluntary organizations have a better understanding of the needs of average citizens (EKOS 2002). Like the market and the state the ―third sector‖ is represented at scales from the local to the global.

3.2.6 The Private Sector

The appropriate role for the private sector in governance is also a subject of current debate. Trends such as new public management support a role for the private sector in the delivery of public services (Richards 1998). Others advocate for a seat for the private sector at the planning table (Gallaugher et al. 2005) and private-public partnerships that bring private sector resources into the governance process. At the same time, concerns exist about too much private sector involvement and influence in development planning and policy-making (Vodden 1999; Markey et al. 2000) and about how to ―level the playing field‖ when some participants, particularly large externally controlled corporations, have greater access to power and resources than others. Thrift (1995) refers to the power of the phantom or nomad state of transient international money that is not tied to a particular territory, government or group of citizens, but often demands a say in decision-making in return for investment in domestic economies. Massam (2000) points out, however, that the nomad state can be, and is, ―trapped in‖ nation-states with rules about currency flow or about other aspects of the production process. Hoberg (2001)

65 suggests links between business and policy cycles. When profitability is low, for example, policy-makers become more responsive to threats of job loss and less likely to introduce new regulatory constraints. Movements such as fair trade and environmental certification suggest that, while powerful, the private sector is influenced not only by the state but also by civil society and resulting consumer movements. Like government and non-government actors, the private sector is diverse and operates at local through global scales. The sector represents not only Thrift‘s nomad dollars, but also individuals who are not only entrepreneurs but also citizens, volunteers, voters and even elected representatives. The notion of collaborative governance recognizes the interconnectedness and decision-making influence of each of these spheres. Recognizing that the causes of social disparity and resource depletion are rooted in private, public and civil society sectors, all three of these sectors must be involved in the creation of integrated, collaborative solutions. Jessop (1997, 96) suggests that governance capacity today depends on the ―effective co-ordination of interdependent forces within and beyond the state.‖

3.3 Collaborative governance

There are many terms used to describe people or organizations working together, in this case in governance. Each term means different things to different people, including the term collaboration (see Table 7). Schneider (2007) suggests that actors in collaboration are often not immediately connected (with prior relationships for example) but affect one another, their collaboration based on self-interest rather than commonality, but in the end potentially transformative. Through collaboration, often starting with activities of low risk and obvious benefit, actors start to trust each other and build relationships (Baker 1993).

66 While collaboration is often used as a synonym for cooperation (Schneider 2007), collaboration is generally longer term and reflects a greater degree of interdependency and sharing of resources, rewards, and risks (Winer and Ray 1994). Cooperation is defined by Patchell (1996, 481 in Broadbent 2006) as ―a voluntary agreement entered into for mutual benefit‖ and by Taylor-Powell et al. (1998, 4) as ―a relationship in which parties with similar interests plan together, negotiate mutual roles and share resources to achieve joint goals.‖ These joint goals may not necessarily be self-serving. Research by Silk (2006 in Schuman 2006) suggests that humans will cooperate even when they don‘t benefit themselves. Winer and Ray Table 7 Definitions of collaboration (1994) suggest that cooperation  ―a process through which parties who see different tends to be shorter term, consist of aspects of a problem can explore constructively their actors with separate goals, differences and search for (and implement) solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is resources, and structures and is possible,‖ the collaborative has authority (Taylor- Powell et al. 1998, 4) often informal, while collaboration  ―to co-labor, to cooperate to achieve common goals and partnerships tend to entail working across boundaries in multi-sector relationships‖ Henton et al (2005, 3) more formal arrangements. Partnerships are a formal  a firm commitment to reciprocal support and an agreed upon participatory, democratic approach to version of cooperation (Taylor- decision-making (Baker 1993)

Powell et al. 1998) also used in  typically involves a jointly developed structure, 10 relatively long term relationships, shared collaboration. In Canada, responsibility, authority and accountability for partnerships involving multiple success, sharing of resources, risks, and rewards (Lukas and Andrews 2007) levels of government, community groups, individuals, businesses and business groups ―are increasingly seen as the primary vehicle for bringing about community development‖ (Freshwater et al. 1993, 3). Partnerships tend to be involved in the management of change, including the formation and implementation of policy and/or development projects and programs, and involve a limited number of actors (often expanded in collaboration) working towards one or more common objectives. They often focus on only a portion of the policy cycle. Coordination implies deliberate joint relations, often formal, involving joint planning and assignment of

10 Baker (1993) suggests partnerships, as formal, often legal arrangements are further along the relationship continuum than collaboration. This is not the interpretation used here.

67 roles, some sharing of information, resources and/or risks and complementary goals. Authority and responsibilities remain, however, with the individual actors. Networking typically involves sharing of information and ideas (communication) without shared commitment, planning or common goals (Baker 1993). The level of integration and intensity associated with relationships between actors can be described on a continuum between competition and merger or full integration (see Figure 7). The involvement of a set of actors in one type of relationship does not preclude the same set of actors from involvement in another. Relationships may also evolve over time, moving along the continuum in either direction but often toward greater degrees of integration. RUPRI (2006, 10) describes collaboration as ―the highest and most difficult level of working with others.‖

Comm'n Coop- Conflict or Coord- Collab- Merger/ Networking eration/ Competition ination oration Full integration Dialogue Partnership

Figure 7 Relationship continuum Source: Modified from Taylor-Powell et al (1998)

If governance is the process of steering society and is to involve an increasingly wide variety of interdependent actors in this process, collaboration among these actors will be required in establishing the direction in which society should be steered and methods and techniques for getting there. Competition among diverse, self-interested actors is a key characteristic of a CASES and its self-organizing behaviour. While competition can generate innovation it can also stall or prevent significant reform (Homer-Dixon 2000). Waldrop (1992) points out that competition and cooperation are required to create coherency and stability (robustness) within a system. Broadbent (2006, 18) suggests that, ―in a competitive environment, cooperation is the process of mediating competition to create desirable effects for the parties involved‖ (Smith et al. 1995, 10). Many advocates of the ‗subsidiarity principle,‘ particularly in Europe, have shifted focus to the need for multi-level governance, with networks of all levels working together more effectively, and to the ‗partnership principle‘ (Schilling 1997; Leygues 2001; Ansell 2000; Working Group on Multi-level Governance 2001). Sabel (2004, 3-9) points out that advocates for either top-down or bottom-up approaches are assuming there is a particular

68 actor or group of actors at a particular level who knows best what should be done, rather than multiple actors discovering together ―what they need to do, and how to do it,‖ benefiting from both a local and ―more panoramic‖ view. Just as multi-level analysis is recommended for CASES, Levin (1999) suggests that multi-level governance is appropriate ―because a priori, ‗the‘ appropriate spatial level is not known.‖ This thesis employs the term ‗collaborative governance‘ (Armstrong and Lenihan 1999), introduced in Chapter 1. Collaborative governance is an approach within the centralization/decentralization divide that recognizes the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of policy networks and communities, and integrates actors both vertically and horizontally (horizontal referring to issues and objectives as well as actors at any given scale). Buttimer (2001) points out strengths at both local and higher levels through the concept of ―discretionary reach‖. Top-down governments have managerial abilities, access to information and influence that cannot be matched at the local level, despite expansions in local reach due to technology and changing power relationships. Local communities, by contrast, have strengths related to their way of life, familiarity with local issues and connections to livelihood, social and cultural traditions, and local ecosystems. Henton et al. (2005) observe that collaborative governance is itself a complex adaptive system that emerges to meet new requirements for solving public problems. Taylor-Powell et al. (1998, p.1) suggest that collaborative approaches respond to complex problems, resource shortages, social fragmentation, disengaged citizens and rapid, sweeping change. Collaborative governance represents a holistic approach to public engagement and participation that provides an opportunity to embed governance systems with greater transparency, accountability, and legitimacy. This holistic approach has the potential to address society‘s needs more effectively than any individual sector(s) has been able to achieve. Henton et al. (2005) suggest that collaborative governance can be both characterized and evaluated on the degree to which it is representative, deliberative, offers concrete ideas, is taken seriously by decision-makers, sustainable (vs. occasional) and tied to implementation. Other related terms include: multi-level (Armitage 2008; Environment Canada 1999), shared (Brown 1999), mixed, partnership-based, joint (Tremblay and Rousseau

69 2005), distributed (Paquet 1999) or multicentric governance (Wolfish and Smith 2000), each adding emphasis to a particular aspect or suggesting a particular governance approach. Within the coastal context, integrated coastal management (ICM) incorporates a broad range of coastal values, uses and stakeholders in a planning and management framework. Other associated terms include coastal planning, coastal zone planning, coastal zone management, and integrated coastal zone management (Meltzer 1998; Vodden et al. 2003). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (1998) suggests that the multifaceted character of coastal issues and the need for a holistic management approach is now widely recognized. Examples of actors included in the coastal management policy community are shown in Table 8 below, each category itself diverse, acting at multiple scales ranging and within multiple policy subsystems addressing multiple policy issues (shown above in Tables 4 and 5), all of which are interconnected.

Table 8 The coastal development policy community

 Governments: international, national, provincial, First Nations, regional, municipal  Business/industry interests: fishing, aquaculture, tourism, forestry, mining/petroleum, arts etc. (small and large, local and global)  Civil society: communities of interest (environmental NGOs, groups by gender, age, ethnicity, income, labour – typically grouped by industry sector in many cases, e.g. fishing unions) and of place (diverse and not fully represented by local government)  Public at large/individual citizens

Given this complexity, it is appropriate to examine the concept of coastal governance from both a complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) and a collaborative governance perspective. The literature on CASES reviewed in Chapter 2 suggests that, for significant policy shifts to occur, change must be multi-level, cascading throughout the system. Coalitions must be built, mutual dependency recognized and values aligned (Bryson and Crosby, 1992). Whatever the specific form of collective action leading to this transformation, both opportunities and challenges will surely arise. Opportunities and challenges discussed in the literature are presented in Table 9. Both opportunities and challenges are related to the recognition and management of conflict among diverse interests. Constructive conflict management is facilitated by

Table 9 Challenges and opportunities of collaborative governance Benefits/Opportunities  decision-making is better informed with more diverse information  increased regional problem-solving capacity, including the ability to solve problems in conditions of uncertainty  more options for testing policies  more flexibility to address new issues in a timely manner  programs more sensitive to local conditions and more likely to achieve their objectives  higher levels of acceptance and compliance due to stakeholder involvement in matters involving management and legislation  increased transparency in decision-making, providing checks and balances on authority and holding multiple stakeholders mutually accountable  enhanced trust and relationships between residents and government  enhanced sense of common purpose, cultural norms and values, including values of cooperation, public civicness or civic engagement  potential to re-energize and reconnect fragmented systems  empowerment of participating actors, a broadened notion of democracy  opportunities to create economies of scale, share costs, reduce duplication and access a wider range of resources Disadvantages/Challenges  confusion of institutions, an unruly process  conflict and unsuccessful collaboration can reduce social capital, disempower participants  difficulty of creating the conditions for collective action to emerge from a diverse group of interests each with its own, often divergent goals  attempts to build consensus may minimize or delegitimize conflict and difference, features that support diversity and system resilience  balancing the benefits of diversity and redundancy with practicality and limited capabilities for dealing with complexity  time and resource intensive process  little evidence that collaborative governance is better able to avoid implementation failure than traditional policy approaches  limited ability to modify behaviour or improve ecological or socio-economic conditions at national or broader scales  challenges long-cherished Canadian institutions and assumptions about effective governance, such as democratic definitions of legitimacy, public interest determined by elected officials and expressed through policy decisions and laws  lack of accountability in a system of many nested layers, including organizations whose leaders may not be elected

Sources: Gunderson and Holling (2001); Savoie (1992); Sabel (2004); Roman and Moore (2004); Scheffer et al. (2001); Coe (2006); Taylor-Powell et al. (1998); Vodden (2005); Dicken (2007); Hayter (2000); Le Gales (1998); Tremblay and Rousseau (2005); Meltzer (1998); Welch (2002); Kernaghan and Langford (1990); Poncelet (2001); Bickers and Williams (2001) trust and an ability to recognize, understand and learn from difference (Taylor-Powell 1998). Echoing Hale and Robadue‘s (2002) statement that effective and committed leadership is considered essential to sustainable coastal management, Folke et al. (2005,

71 441) suggest the importance of leaders or ―key persons‖ that ―provide leadership, trust, vision, meaning, and help transform management organizations toward a learning environment.‖ When present within a collaborative governance system these characteristics can contribute to learning and group confidence. However, when conflict management capacity is lacking, collaborative governance systems are vulnerable to breakdown. Recent research on governance and interactive governance theory has investigated the governability of various systems and impacts of governability on the ability of governance systems to address urgent concerns within these systems (Johnson and Kooiman 2008; Jentoft 2007; Galaz et al. 2007, Meydani and Doron 2007; Cárdenas 2008). These authors suggest that the ability to govern is a function of governing systems but also of the systems-to-be-governed and interactions between the two, similar to Bossel (2001)‘s notion of an "affecting" (governance) system and its contribution to and relationships with "affected" systems (systems-to-be governed). Complexity, vulnerability, conflict and dynamism are key system features that impact governability. It is has been argued above that complexity exists and must be further understood. Authors such as Homer-Dixon (2000) and Holling and Gunderson (2001) suggest that management institutions must become more complex to adjust to increasingly coupled and complex nature-society systems. However, research on governability suggests that careful consideration is needed when adding complexity to governing systems, such as adding new ―regions‖ to the multiple scales of collaborative governance. The benefits of diversity and even redundancy, described in Chapter 2, must be balanced with the practicality and limited capabilities of governance systems to deal with complexity. Jentoft (2007, 8) suggests that ―coastal systems may be too diverse, complex, dynamic and vulnerable to be fully controlled‖ by governing systems. Wescott (2002) advises that the complexity of coastal management can confuse and deter important capacity building efforts. He advocates staying ―to the simple side of complex,‖ at least until after capacity is built. Jentoft (2007) adds that governability can be enhanced through improvements in the governing system, adjustments in the systems-to-be- governed to make them easier to control, or by altering interactions between the two

72 systems so that they are more constructive and less difficult and costly. The adaptive cycle reminds us that there is a threshold of complexity that, if surpassed, can push a system into a breakdown. At the same time, degradation of coastal systems illustrates the implications of governance systems that ignore or oversimplify complex social-ecological interconnections. Finally, there is little evidence to date that collaborative governance is better able to avoid implementation failure than traditional policy approaches, in part due to the range of challenges described above. Meltzer (1998) reports that, although local impacts have been achieved, few such initiatives have become functioning management systems or changed conditions at national or broader scales. Like the notion of pluralism criticized since the 1960s, collaborative governance is accused of underestimating structural power relationships, particularly pro-capitalist bias, within social systems, and for being unrealistic about the ability of new governance configurations to mediate among competing interests given these power imbalances.

3.3.1 Power

Power relationships have a significant impact on collaborative governance processes. For many, changing power relations is a fundamental aim of collaboration. Stoker (2000 in ESPON 2005) identifies four types of power:

1. Systemic power which is ―a matter of context… or ‗logic‘ of the situation‖ (Stone 1980, 979), including the position of actors in society and socio-economic structures; 2. Power of command and control and mobilisation of resources, including information, finances, reputation, and knowledge; 3. Coalition power, providing the capacity to bargain rather than control; and 4. Pre-emptive power, which requires leadership and the bringing together of group interests to solve collective action problems, build capacity, and guide policy responses.

Powerful actors can shape the rules of self-organization and suppress differences and conflict by silencing certain voices (Scheffer et al. 2001). Lebel (2005) observes relationships between scale and power. The nation-state, for example, has greater access to resources and information than local actors. Power is also unevenly distributed within a given scale. Those with systemic and command power (typically at higher levels of

73 geographic scale and authority) have an advantage in governance relations. However, this advantage can ultimately only be used if this power is turned into pre-emptive power – achieving results through collective action (ESPON 2005; Pritchard and Sanderson 2001). In ―a shared-power world,‖ Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) argue that tackling major public issues requires sharing objectives, resources and authority. Thus power does not depend wholly on material control, such as legal authority or financial resources. Stone (1986) emphasizes the role of strategic knowledge and a capacity to act on that knowledge as additional components of the ‗political capital‘ that makes an actor an attractive partner or policy network member. Abrams et al. (2003) describe six key powers of governance: 1) regulatory and planning, 2) spending, 3) revenue generation, 4) access to information, 5) ability to enter into agreements, and 6) enforcement of decisions, rules and regulations. Although policy implementation usually depends upon more powerful actors, weaker institutions can play an important role as mediators between different interests or can gain influence through their ability to communicate their goals and strategies to a wider public (Davoudi et al. 2004). Non-government actors can increase their influence by positioning themselves in strategic roles, such as that of a bridging organization, within policy networks (Stoker 1995). "Bridging organizations" can lower the costs of collaboration and conflict resolution, thus influencing decision-making processes through all but the first of Stoker‘s power types (Folke et al. 2005). Systemic power can also be gained over time. Power is contested and dynamic, changing at multiple spatial scales (Gill and Reed 1999). Many CASES literature sources pay little attention to the subject of power relations. Scheffer et al. (2001), however, discuss the superiority of certain actors, creating political bias and impacting the domains of attraction within systems. Levin (1999) suggests that shifting to multi-level assessment and decision-making can be expected to empower participants who can work effectively at multiple levels, favouring wealthy, better-educated, and more mobile participants such as international scientists and diplomats. Special assistance or channels for minorities and vulnerable people to participate are needed. Pritchard and Sanderson (2001) describe the ‗faces of power‘ in political systems, explaining that actors seeking to gain power and influence change use the notion of impending crisis in the adaptive cycle as a political tool. Power is also used

74 to question the knowledge of those who challenge the status quo, to resist change through the imposition of an excessive burden of proof and to influence the public consciousness (Pritchard and Sanderson 2001). Who has the power to determine consensus and how that consensus is achieved and presented to wider communities significantly influences policy outcomes. Moving from a traditional model of hierarchical, government-controlled power to a system where power is distributed more evenly between a variety of stakeholders and spatial scales has the potential to encourage self-organization, moving from ―power over‖ to ―power to‖ (Douglas 2006). Clearly, both forms of power exist and create tension within CASES. If power is truly to be shared, collaborative governance must move beyond the administrative devolution of new public management to democratic devolution, involving non-government actors in the steering and the rowing aspects of the policy process (Morgan 2007). The challenge of uneven distribution of power among actors is paramount in attempting to move toward a collaborative governance model. Options for power sharing through process, structure and collaborative learning are discussed in the sections to follow.

3.3.2 Structure and Process

Changes in governance require new organizational forms and processes to structure and facilitate new relationships. Shifting from government to governance disrupts established decision-making channels, networks and alliances. New arenas and forms of representation within collaborative governance arrangements are being established, but many questions remain about if, and how, a coherent, alternative approach can be formed out of the fragmentation and inconsistency of the current era of experimentation (Stoker 2000; Stoker and Young 1993). What roles and responsibilities are to be played by various actors? What specific models of decision-making should be employed? Under what circumstances? Should governance relationships be long-term (e.g. constitutional or legislated) or short-term and issue specific (e.g. polycentric, contingent)? How can open, inclusive networks be created and sustained? Partnerships operate through both structure and process (Moore and Pierre 1988). Structure is the partnership‘s organisational form, such as a committee or development

75 corporation, while process involves the development of formal and informal linkages between actors. A combination of both is required for multiple actors to collectively formulate and implement policy objectives. Both structure and process or flows and more fluid forms of organization, such as task or problem and learning-oriented networks, must be considered along with formal organizations and institutions as potential governance mechanisms. Davoudi et al. (2005) suggest that mechanisms for interdepartmental coordination are crucial for horizontal integration within government. While vertical coordination mechanisms are dominated by actors with a traditional ―top-down‖ character there is also increasing interest in the creation of partnerships and ‗bottom-up‘ initiatives that can create institutional capacity at the regional level (OECD 2006). The importance of an appropriate organizational and institutional framework to facilitate the undertaking of increased responsibilities at the local and regional level is emphasized by a number of authors (RCEU 1986; Cernea 1993; Massam 2000; Bryant 1999; Markey 2005). Bryant (1999) questions whether formal government structures are capable of handling complex, dynamic situations. Researchers such as Jessop (1995) and Stoker (1997) suggest that governance within complex systems must involve a change from hierarchical structures to more flexible, ‗flatter‘ partnership and networking forms. While a hierarchy implies more power at higher levels (larger scales), a heterarchy is a network of elements sharing power and responsibility with no one person, group or element dominating (Fairtlough 2005). While hierarchy represents a system with centralized power, a heterarchy is described as decentralized, pluralistic and flexible (Reihlin 1996). Power and responsibility are shared on an equal basis but also in a problem-specific manner, valuing different types of skills, knowledge and styles and their applicability to a given situation. Formal organizational design is minimal, relying on cultural integration more than supervision from above, competition and autonomy balanced with cooperation and collective norms. Buenza and Stark (2003) argue that heterarchical structures contribute to responsiveness and resilience. Advocates of heterarchical structures emphasize a functional approach to governance. Brunnenn (2006), for example, refers to governance as the harnessing of existing institutions and administrative units ―in new ways on a fluid, voluntary basis.‖

76 Agreements related to specific objectives and tasks are used as key tools. Governance arrangements may include, for example, higher and lower levels of government reaching agreements on specific objectives or independent administrative regions making decisions ―through multiple, overlapping webs of interlocal agreements,‖ a complex networks approach (Savitch and Kantor 2003, 1018). Coe (2006, 6) suggests that traditional territorial divisions are specialized jurisdictions, with minimal overlap of policy responsibilities, ―generally stable, rigid institutions structured in hierarchies‖ with ―a clear division between the governance network and private and not-for-profit sectors.‖ By contrast, functional governance includes narrowly focused governance arrangements which may overlap multiple territorial jurisdictions, characterized by interactions between actors that may include both the private and not-for-profit sectors in the governance framework. Coe (2006) suggests that regional cooperation is more likely when the focus is on sectors such as transportation, communication, and the environment, which cut across particular territorial regions and creates a common interest in outcomes. Brunnenn (2006) suggests that new forms of functional governance are fluid and adaptable, actors and their positions within governance systems, including the level of decentralization, determined by context (time, place and issue) (Tremblay and Rousseau 2005). Broad-based community involvement may not be effective for issues that are not considered urgent by the general public, for example. Instead, a stakeholder-based network may be most appropriate. Creech (2001) suggests that members in networks must be carefully selected with clear criteria such as shared commitment to goals, complementary mandates, expertise, access to decision-makers (‗connectors‘), communications capacity, sectoral or regional representation, collaborative work culture, size and cost considerations. Eoyang (1999) suggests that different actors and/or different levels and types of interaction between actors may be required at different times in a problem-solving or policy cycle. The needs of the network may also change as it moves through the four phases of forming, organizing, formalizing and institutionalizing (Creech 2001). Forms of structure and process in collaborative governance may also be fluid and context dependent. Scheffer et al. (2001) suggest that, without changes in structures over

77 time, rigid patterns may be established that inhibit resilience and adaptive capacity, creating a need to destroy, deinstitutionalize or open up the process (e.g. to new players or rules), thus returning to the forming phase in the case of networks. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) describe decision-making models and a network taxonomy dependent on factors such as state capacity, complexity and influence of actors. Reihlen (1996) acknowledges that heterarchies work best in certain circumstances, including where actors have high levels of education, self-esteem and autonomy.

3.3.3 Territory and Function

Bickers and Williams (2001, 93) introduce the notion of polycentrism as a nested governance structure made up of ―multiple, overlapping jurisdictions of varying geographic scope‖ that include local organizations such as neighbourhood associations right up to international bodies. Polycentric governance, they suggest, tends to be more responsive and provides the ability to size governance structures according to the scale of the problem being addressed. Zdravko (2002) cites literature dating back to the mid 1950s arguing that polycentric order increases efficiency and allows citizens to choose among different public goods at different scales of organization. Others use the term polycentric governance to refer to distributed, multi-centred control rather than focusing on service delivery. McGinnis (1999), for example, suggests that community-based natural resource management works best within a polycentric governance context with multiple overlapping centers of authority and responsibility, from local to global, formal and informal. This interpretation of polycentricity combines notions of territory and function and is compatible with the collaborative governance and complex systems approach described above. Overlapping, multi-level governance systems provide flexibility but also stability and recognition of territory. Pritchard and Sanderson (2001) suggest that determining the most appropriate scale for decision-making in a given situation depends on who has the best information, the scale of externalities and the capacity for collective action. Levin (1999) suggests that scale choices may have to be modified as understanding and perceptions change over time. While flexibility is important, Stoker (2000 in ESPON 2005) suggests that governing coalitions must also provide stability, with access to

78 institutional resources and a sustained role in decision-making. Further, forming new alliances and structures as each new problem arises is a resource and time-consuming process. Holistic approaches such as integrated coastal management recognize and account for real-world system complexity, in part by combining multiple issues and functions. Increased attention to local and place-based territorial development runs counter to the historic dominance of sector-based development strategies (Buttimer 2001; OECD 2006). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)‘s ―new rural paradigm,‖ for example, seeks to integrate sectoral policies and improve policy coherence. Particularly where local boundaries are defined in accordance with ecosystems, place-based governance is compatible with the ecosystem-based approach recommended in sustainable resource management literature (Prescott Allen 2005). Morgan (2007, 3) suggests territorial politics is becoming more rather than less important, with debates about ―how it is constituted, by whom and in whose interests.‖ In contemplating a governance approach that is both vertically and horizontally integrated, both area and issue or sector-based (territorial and functional) patterns of human activity must be taken into account, including considerations of conflicts between them. Territorial governance is not necessarily rigid or hierarchical. It was argued in Chapter 2 that local and regional territories are the ideal context for integration and offer opportunities for innovation and change. Functional approaches do not preclude territorial ones. Experiences in watershed management, which will be described in Chapter 7, for example, often start by addressing specific issues and then build to more integrated approaches. Governance approaches that propose to be either territorial or functional, hierarchical or heterarchical do not fully reflect the reality of CASES, which involve a constant negotiation of balance between such dichotomies.

3.4 Learning Systems and the Adaptive Dimension of Collaborative Governance

Complexity theory suggests that, for communities and other systems to survive, prosper, and be sustainable, they must create and maintain adaptive capability as well as resilience (Bunnell 2002). The temporal dimension of governance is critical here. Governance is a dynamic process drawing resilience from knowledge, skills and experience gained from

79 the past and from the capacity to anticipate and plan for the future (Tremblay and Rousseau 2005). In resilient systems, when a system is pushed beyond its threshold of tolerance new patterns of behaviour (‗learning‘) result. These new patterns may repeat those of other systems of its kind (‗development‘) or produce new patterns and thresholds of behaviour (‗evolution‘). Folke et al. (2005), Walker et al. (2006) and others suggests that it is through adaptive, collaborative governance that resilient systems are made possible, and through the benefit of experience that social-ecological systems are able to renew and reorganize during periods of abrupt change (crisis). Building on the learning characteristics of adaptive management (Holling 1978), collaborative governance involves a diverse set of stakeholders, often at multiple levels, self-organizing in social networks, drawing on diverse knowledge systems and experiences to develop common understandings and policies, and makes use of times of crisis to transition to a more desired state (Folke et al. 2005). Authors such as Schon (1973; 1983) have argued that ‗change‘ is a fundamental feature of modern life and that it is necessary to develop social systems that can learn and adapt through ―reflection-in-action‖. Lee (1999, 1) notes that the idea of social learning through adaptive management has been weak to date in its practical application, but ―is likely to be of strategic importance in governing ecosystems as humanity searches for a sustainable economy.‖ Adaptive management and social learning approaches to policy- making, within the broader context of complexity theory, recognize uncertainty and limitations in information and understanding. The monitoring and evaluation phase of the policy cycle provides important opportunities for learning (Hoberg 2001). In adaptive governance, management plans include experimental design and encourage learning and novelty. Through monitoring and evaluation actors ―learn about the consequences of policies as they are implemented,‖ linking these lessons to subsequent stages of the cycle (Hoberg 2001, 7). Argyris and Schon (1974) emphasize the importance of learning strategies that involve not just corrective action in a specific situation (single loop learning) but a re- evaluation of governing goals, policies, values, ‗mental maps‘ and doctrines (double loop learning). ESPON (2005) observes that the motivation for participation in partnerships

80 often changes as relationships develop, the economic and political climate changes and/or policy goals are achieved. Motivations as well as methods are reassessed and evaluated over time, with the potential to lead not only to knowledge but also to wisdom.11 Routinely questioning ends as well as means institutionalizes social learning. Authors such as Howlett and Ramesh (1995) and Paquet (1999) suggest that social learning requires collective changes in understanding related to values, moral reasoning and perceptions, theories or images of reality. This more fundamental learning, they suggest, is made possible through collective practice. Scheffer et al. (2001) suggest that the emergence of common value sets over time, facilitated by collaboration, is a prerequisite for increasing resilience and reducing uncertainty. One of these values is respect for ecological limits. Bossel (2001) suggests that a system can be viable and sustainable only if the constraints imposed by fundamental environmental properties are recognized and respected. This requires an understanding of these constraints that is in its infancy. The Resilience Alliance and Santa Fe Institute (2004), for example, have only begun to gather evidence of thresholds in ecological and linked social-ecological systems. Knowledge of appropriate values is required within governance systems for sustainable development to occur, recognizing, for example, that resilience can be degraded by subsidies that encourage unsustainable use of natural resources or policies that exacerbate inequity (Ommer et al. 2007). Sabel (2004, 4) suggests that in ―networked, experimentalist organizations‖ monitoring is more concerned with information for improvement than measuring outcomes or judging effectiveness. Improvement-based evaluation is most likely to result in single loop learning and incremental changes in strategy or technique. However, when evaluation results are used to shed light on goals, ways of thinking and worldviews underlying governance structure and processes, they also offer potential for social learning and transformative rather than incremental change (Howlett and Ramesh 1995, Argyris and Schon 1978; Holling et al. 2002). Hodge and Robinson (2001) suggest that re-evaluation of ideology over time has resulted in cyclical characteristics in regional

11 Wisdom is defined as ―the capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct‖ (Simpson and Weiner eds. 1989, Oxford Dictionary).

81 planning, moving from territorial to functional approaches, changes in ideology changing practice, in turn changing ideology and so on. Evaluation requires information12 throughout the policy cycle as a key input to the subsystem. Learning is dependent on the generation and sharing of information and, more importantly, knowledge (Lutz and Neis 2008). Acceptance of incomplete knowledge is required in CASES governance (Holling 1994). Information can, however, reduce uncertainty through assessment of the present situation, possible futures (e.g. forecasting/ scenarios) and lessons from the past (GESAMP 2001). Information used as knowledge brings information/data together with understanding based on theory and/or practical experience. Lutz and Neis (2004, 1) describe knowledge as a product of history and social processes, ―the culmination of the effort to conceptualize a problem … to some degree partial and situated…‖ Knowledge combines information with critical abilities, experiences and worldviews, all components of knowledge systems. An adaptive, collaborative governance approach acknowledges multiple forms of knowledge, from theoretical or abstract to detailed landscape knowledge from a range of sources. The ‗feedback loops‘ that operate throughout these networks of actors, described in Chapter 2, are critical (Smith 2001), allowing learning to be converted into adaptation. Feedback loops in adaptive governance occur based on inputs from the full range of available knowledge sources, including, among others: a) ―western‖ scientific knowledge (natural and social sciences), b) local knowledge (LK), c) traditional aboriginal knowledge (TK) 13 and d) experiential knowledge of policy and decision making processes (Dobell and Bunton 2001). Making room for a plurality of knowledge systems requires acknowledgement of the role of science in addressing uncertainty in complex systems, but also the role of the scientist/professional in the largely unsuccessful linear, deterministic management models of the past (Dobell and Bunton 2001). Roth (2001) suggests, ―we need to get away from seeing scientific knowledge as a sort of standard, against which all other knowledge

12 ―Data gathered from any source organized so it has some relationship to a question or problem‖ (Lutz and Neis 2004, 1). 13 TK is an extension of the more common term TEK. While TEK refers to traditional ―ecological‖ knowledge, TK is intended to recognize the broad, holistic nature of this knowledge – including ecological, but also economic, political, cultural, social aspects. LK is distinguished from TK to acknowledge the unique multi-generational nature of traditional knowledge held by First Nations peoples about their territories. LK/TK is not just ―data‖ but a set of values and a way of seeing the world.

82 systems must be judged.‖ Civil society is no longer willing to take government or corporate information at face value or as its sole information input in decision-making processes. Citizens have their own expert opinions to contribute, whether based on lived experiences, ‗scientific‘ research or their own professional advisors. As their involvement in decision-making has grown, stakeholders such as local communities and conservation groups have become more sophisticated and often more powerful, forcing conventional powerbrokers, who are often information poor, to acknowledge that other sources and forms of knowledge deserve recognition and have validity and that even the most sophisticated science can be proven wrong. Each kind of knowledge has strengths and weaknesses, similarities and differences. By triangulating among them knowledge is enhanced. Differences exist in scale and specificity, for example. Western science may look at a very specific characteristic of larger systems where local knowledge has a more holistic understanding of a smaller-scale local area. TEK is endangered as elders pass on and young people rely on and use the land less. Natural resource-related science is also be endangered by government cutbacks. All types of knowledge rely on methods of repeated observation and adaptation based on learning over time, and have values embedded in them, including the value of objectivity in western science. Identified advantages of incorporating local knowledge in land and resource use planning include: increased observation scope and depth (e.g. over long time periods), tendency to take an integrated, holistic view, cost savings by pointing researchers ―in the right direction,‖ maximizing local involvement and buy-in, and capturing vulnerable historical knowledge. In some cases the incentives are also legal, as is the case with recognizing First Nations, interests, values and traditions within their traditional territories. No one is better able to bring information about the needs of local citizens and what, for them, constitutes quality of life than residents themselves. Case studies in cooperative resource management demonstrate that community members are likely to bring quality of life objectives forward in planning processes and to represent a more complex suite of values than other interests. Sims (1988, 188-189) points out, however, that local actors can also benefit from conventional science not only in improving their

83 understanding of the specific but also from the more theoretical or abstract knowledge and perspectives often brought to the development process by actors at broader scales:

There is a system of cause and effect. If all people feel is the effect, without understanding the cause, they are powerless. It is no accident that the centralization of power is accomplished by controlling access to information, which is one of the sources of knowledge…the exercise of citizenship calls for a deeper understanding of the workings of human society.

McLaren (2008) suggests that knowledge-sharing combined with stewardship can have significant social and environmental outcomes: ―Stewardship is succinctly summarized as empowering community members to act directly on their local knowledge, values and motivations to protect the natural environment… At all levels, when stewardship is in place, knowledge quality improves over legislated sanctions, and knowledge flow is increased… we create much-needed trust and goodwill by sharing our information and knowledge in an appropriate manner.‖ Information and knowledge are clearly matters of dialogue and negotiation in the collaborative governance process. Collaborative governance involves collaborative knowledge generation and management. The degree to which knowledge is shared and integrated into decision-making will depend on capacities, values and relationships within the policy network along with network structure and history. Andersson and Hoskins (2004) suggest that ―the right information, flowing to all major actors and being used for decision making, can make a difference,‖ but that ―traditional, top-down project decision making often induces information-for-control rather than information-for-learning.‖ Further, different knowledge systems employ different languages that can be difficult to reconcile (Pritchard and Sanderson 2001) while trust issues and information ―hoarding‖ must also be addressed. Hassink (2005) in Brunenn (2006) suggests that learning regions can help alleviate ―political lock-ins‖ and destructive path dependencies. However, these same path dependencies, combined with political and economic motivations, often block the open flow of information, knowledge and learning (Gibson et al. 2008), resulting in lost opportunities for building resilience and adaptive capability. Authors such as Diamond (2005; 1997), Tainter (1988; 1996) and Wright (2004) provide historical examples of societies where the mechanisms required to generate, share

84 and apply knowledge and thus avoid destructive behaviour have failed, leading to societal collapse. Hutchings (2005) and Gallaugher (2005) provide modern examples of the Northern cod fishery in NL and salmon aquaculture in BC. Barriers or ‗resistors‘ to the integration of science and policymaking include failure to acknowledge and communicate scientific uncertainty, unwillingness to acknowledge alternative hypotheses, interference and misrepresentation in the communication of science (Hutchings 2005). Disagreement among scientists and within coastal communities, conflict of interest within the Fisheries and Oceans Canada‘s mandate, lack of transparency and open, transparent dialogue, lack of coordination at institutional and industry levels, lack of funding and science capacity are additional factors. Despite these challenges, alternative examples exist where sharing of knowledge among a range of stakeholders is integrated into decision-making and adaptive management (Gallaugher 2005; Gibson et al. 2008). Enabling factors in these cases include local leadership, supportive political leaders and policy frameworks, multi- level communications and partnerships, appropriate incentives, education, implementation and enforcement. Overall participants in a global ―Changing Currents‖ dialogue observe that widespread institutional failure to protect the future of marine ecosystems and biodiversity prevails at all levels, in part due to ineffective incorporation of knowledge into decision-making processes and in particular lack of transparency and clear communication (Gallaugher et al. 2005). Adaptive management challenges actors at all levels: the research community to experiment with management and research of whole systems rather than system components, the management community to develop policies that embrace uncertainty by being adaptive and flexible, and the policy development community to better integrate stakeholder insights and more holistic, careful analyses into policy recommendations (UW 2005). Gallaugher (2005) and Hutchings (2005) emphasize the importance of communicating broadly the results of each of these efforts to spread learning as widely as possible and avoid knowledge blockages through policy networks and communities. In summary, the need to balance top-down and bottom-up approaches to development is a challenge raised repeatedly in the literature on sustainability. Collaborative, multi-level, adaptive governance may provide a workable alternative to the

85 rigid, top down structures that have led to current unsustainable development paths, but considerably more work is required to define how this broad concept can be applied in practice. Despite the arguments presented above and in Chapter 2 that the sub-provincial region may hold particular promise in bridging the community-provincial/federal divide in Canada, this suggestion has yet to be fully evaluated. Boundaries and scale are only one aspect of the new approach to regional and local development called for by the sustainable development agenda. Equally important are the actors that play a part at each of these levels, their roles, the scope of issues to be addressed and structures and processes to be employed. Partnerships with public, private and civil society sectors in developing and implementing policy decisions are already in place worldwide, resulting in an array of new governance institutions and practices. This era of governance experimentation offers a valuable opportunity for learning that has not been taken full advantage of. Drawing from cases in coastal British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador this research helps capture this potential for social learning and adaptation.

86 4 – Research Framework and Methodology

4.1 Research Paradigm, Epistemology and Methodological Approach

As discussed in previous chapters, this research has been conducted within a sustainable development paradigm using an overarching complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) approach. Within this overall systems approach particular attention has been paid to policy systems, in particular regional economic development (RED) and watershed management sub-systems, and to the scale of the sub-provincial region, recognized as one level in a nested hierarchy of interrelated scales. The methodological approach employed is primarily exploratory and qualitative. Like the theoretical framework upon which it is based, the research methodology seeks to balance rather than position itself within dichotomies such as inductive versus deductive, or positivist versus interpretivist. While positivism emphasizes certainty, emerging complex adaptive systems theory embraces contingency, openness, and surprise. The research is designed to ensure the most accurate picture of ―reality‖ possible, seeking conclusions that may have wider application (e.g. to other regions) while at the same time recognizing limits to objectivity and certainty. Other methodological underpinnings include: awareness of my own role in the research process, reflection on the potential and probable influence of personal and respondent values, recognition of limitations in my ability to understand the case study situations and broader systems of which they are part, along with an action research orientation (seeking to explore a complex problem but also to facilitate change). A research framework based on an interdisciplinary body of literature was developed to guide the research. While the research does not ―test‖ a predetermined model of collaborative coastal governance, potential themes and outcomes of the research were anticipated based on literature review. With care not to restrict data collection and analysis, the research framework served as a guide throughout the research process. The research utilizes a comparative case study research design to understand how theoretical models are applied in practice and to draw lessons from their application for both practice and theory. Wolfe (2000) and others describe this as grounded theory building, the use of higher level theories or concepts in specific contexts to determine if

87 such general theories have empirical relevance and practical usefulness (Gephart 1999). Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that case studies are an appropriate tool for use in grounded or mid-level theory building. Yin (2002) adds that case studies are appropriate for the exploratory study of complex social phenomena and offer the advantage of a holistic perspective on real-life events. Demetrion (2004) elaborates, stating that, where we seek to understand, not just describe, the behaviour of agents and where causal attribution may be susceptible to multiple explanations, as is the case in CASESs, the ―thick‖ description of case study analysis may be required. Given the complexity of coastal governance and the relative infancy of governance studies (Paquet 2000) and the CASES approach, an exploratory case study approach was adopted for this study. Use of a comparative rather than single case study method provided an opportunity to explore multiple collaborative governance approaches and possible causes of and paths to positive, sustainable development outcomes (Ragin 2000; Eisenhardt 1989), and to contribute to the elaboration of evolving CASES theory (Aus 2005). The comparative approach addresses in part criticisms that case study methodology is limited in scope to specific unique situations. Comparative analysis between cases, coupled with findings from literature review, provided insight into the broader applicability of research findings, including potential for application in different social-ecological settings and policy fields.

4.2 Analytical Framework - Theory and Practice

The literature review in the related fields of community and regional development, rural and resource geography, sustainable development, integrated coastal zone management (ICM) and public management presented above formed the basis of the research questions, collaborative governance approach and analytical framework. The analytical framework includes the following seven components: a) sustainable development outcomes, b) principles, c) actors and their relationships, d) operationalizing mechanisms (structure and process), e) barriers/resistors and facilitators/enablers of change, f) scale and g) context. Each of the seven elements relates to one or more of the research questions described in Chapter 1 (see Table 10) and is described further below.

88 Table 10 Research questions and accompanying framework components Research Question Framework Component

1. Have collaborative governance experiments • Sustainable development outcomes advanced sustainable development14 in • Principles (defines parameters for evaluation Canada‘s coastal regions? If so, how? (What • Described further in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 below benefits have been demonstrated?)

2. What governance and contextual  Compliance with principles characteristics contribute to success in  Actors and their relationships collaborative governance for sustainable  Operationalizing mechanisms (structures, coastal development? processes, tools/procedures)  Role of the sub-provincial region/ appropriate scale  Context  Links to outcomes  See 4.2.1 to 4.2.7 below

3. What barriers and resistors exist to a shift  Barriers and resistors to change (see 4.2.5 toward collaborative governance and how below) might these be overcome?  Links to other components (e.g. outcomes, absence of principles, relationship or scale- related issues, context)

The study‘s seven-component analytical framework is informed by Bryant‘s (1999) seven-component model of community transformation, which includes actors, interests, actions, networks, organizational structures (formal and informal), orientations (latent or revealed) and context. In this research, elements related to actors, their interests and relationships are grouped together as one component, while additional elements of systems change are added. Bryant‘s structures element, for example, is broadened to consider both the structures and processes that operationalize management and/or development aims. Emphasis was also added on principles (overlapping with actor interests), outcomes and governance scale.

14 Determined by examining positive changes in condition with one or more of the four areas of community capital described below in section 3.2.1d.

89 4.2.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes

Key to progress in sustainable development and enhancing system resilience is social, organizational and policy learning, requiring evaluation of the ―success‖ of collaborative governance systems and initiatives (Paquet and Wilkins 2002; Gertler and Wolfe 2002). Well-managed organizations want to know if their efforts are making a difference. Public demands for accountability also call for monitoring and reporting of the results of public policies and programs involving investments of public dollars (Mayne 2004). Evaluating governance outcomes from a sustainable development perspective is an important but difficult task (Savoie 1992). Given varying interpretations and the complexity of sustainability problems, sustainable development goals are often ambiguous and are continuously being redefined. The first evaluation challenge, therefore, is establishing the results to be achieved and monitored. Lack of baseline data, varied contexts, and the multidimensional, non-linear nature of the problems addressed and resulting difficulty in making causal connections are additional challenges (Armstrong et al. 2002). Further, there may be significant time lags in responses to governance process and, thus, ―return on investment‖ (Jessop 1990). Olsen (2003) suggests that the process of integrated coastal management (ICM), for example, requires eight to fifteen years. Collaborative efforts add additional challenges for evaluation practices based largely on discrete programs or agencies. Like other sustainable development strategies collaborative governance efforts, Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) explain, are often long-term, evolving and dependent on many factors. Their goals are often broad, imprecise and may be politically or emotionally charged. Individual collaborators may seek to identify their contributions while the collaboration as a whole struggles to demonstrate synergies. Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) suggest that evaluation within a collaborative setting is a shared process, providing feedback and learning for continuous improvement and adaptation. This requires a new way of thinking in contrast to the traditional evaluation- programming separation. Monitoring and evaluation, particularly indicators for assessing performance, is an area of rich discussion in academia, civil society, public and private sectors. Indicators provide a simplified view of complex phenomena and insight into trends that cannot be

90 directly observed (Rickaver et al. 2004). Examples of sustainable development indicator initiatives have been developed worldwide at community, watershed, provincial/state, national and international levels. Difficulties have been encountered in both implementation and measurement. While indicators of ecological, social and economic health are essential to track trends and issues over time, their utility is limited in evaluating efforts that are difficult to link directly to these trends, particularly in the short term. Researchers have thus turned their attention to measuring the processes or projects put in place to pursue sustainability, tracking activities to outputs, immediate and where possible longer term outcomes (or impacts) in logic models such as in the World Bank‘s Input-Output-Outcome-Impact model (Segnestam 2002). Others, such as Markey et al. (2005) and the Centre for Community Enterprise (1999), have proposed frameworks for monitoring changes in community capacity and resilience. Olsen (2003) presents outcomes of ICM initiatives in an ―orders of outcomes‖ framework (see Figure 8), which

Scale National

Regional Local Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes

st nd rd th 1 ORDER: 2 ORDER: 3 ORDER: 4 ORDER: Enabling Changes in The Harvest Sustainable Conditions Behaviour Coastal Some social Development Formalized Institutions, mandate stakeholder and/or A desirable groups environment Authority qualities and dynamic Directly balance Management maintained, plan affecting restored or between resources improved social and Funding environment Infrastructure Local and Investment conditions is national achieved constituencies

Time

Figure 8 Orders of outcomes evaluation framework Source: Adapted from Olsen (2003) offers a sequence of outcomes that, if pursued successfully over long time periods, move towards increasingly sustainable development.

91 This research entails what evaluation practitioners call an academic or theory- based investigation, studying the links between objectives, values, principles activities, outcomes, and contexts of an initiative (Connell and Kubisch 1998). Connell and Kubisch (1998, 18) add that theory-based investigations can use several different methodologies - ―quantitative and qualitative, impact and process oriented, traditional and non- traditional…‖ Outcome/impact, objective and process indicators were each used in evaluating the case study governance models. Evidence of collaborative governance outcomes in five areas of community sustainability (ecological, social, economic, cultural and individual/human capital) was sought. Improvements in human and organizational capacity that enhance governance capabilities were also considered as ―governance system capacity‖ impacts. Indicators common to multiple cases were chosen where possible, such as fish population trends in watershed cases (ecological), jobs and businesses created (economic), relationships established (social) and protection of options for the practice of traditional activities and ways of life (cultural). Relevant outcome indicators were, however, dependent on contextual issues such as priority issues and available data. Observed outcomes were classified as either system capacity improvements (orders one and two in Figure 8) or third order outcomes, ―physical evidence of progress towards sustainable forms of coastal development‖ (Olsen 2003, 349). Both intended and unintended outcomes were examined by comparing outcomes with stated goals and objectives. Principles indicators, including both objectives and process measures, are described further below. Outcomes from each case study are described in Chapter 8 and Appendix 1. Because causality is often difficult to clearly establish in a CASES (Eoyang and Berkas 1998), the establishment of a counterfactual (―what would have happened in the absence of the program‖) is complex (Hollister and Hill 1995, 127). Reflexive controls (a comparison of target groups/conditions prior to and after an intervention) and shadow controls (experience or expert opinion regarding what might have occurred without the intervention) were employed (Rossi and Freeman 1993), in addition to Olsen‘s orders of outcome model, to assist in addressing this concern. Comparative analysis provided additional insight. The study is also influenced by other evaluation theories, including

92 empowerment evaluation (Fetterman et al. 1996) and needs assessment (Farrell et al. 2002). The empowerment model requires the involvement of members of the case study initiatives throughout the research process. This research is not fully participatory but does include aspects of participatory methodology (see data collection below), including consultation with key contacts in each region throughout the research. Perhaps most importantly this study is improvement and learning oriented. The research draws upon recent and parallel evaluation processes underway in each of the three regional economic development case studies, including an Organizational Capacity Assessment of the Newfoundland Regional Economic Development Boards (NLREDA 2005), a systematic impact assessment of Community Futures organizations across Western Canada (Ference Weicker & Company 2002), and the application of a logic model/performance story framework for analyzing contributions of Regional Development Authorities in Nova Scotia15 (Chayter Consulting 2004; Mayne 2004). Evaluation models used in the case studies were themselves assessed, particularly for proximity to an improvement and social learning-oriented model, as discussed in Chapter 3. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) distinguish social learning from lesson-drawing, formal and informal approaches to evaluation. They suggest that social learning is most likely when state (or governance system) capacity and expertise, along with the level of societal actor involvement in the policy subsystem, are high and that social learning takes place outside of the formal policy process. Evidence was also sought to demonstrate that evaluation results were incorporated into policy, adaptive or learning cycles, as discussed in Chapter 9.

4.2.2 Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable Development

Principles shape actor behaviour and governance processes and outcomes. Societies, organizations and individuals set forth principles as either rules or standards of appropriate behaviour or what are considered basic laws/essential qualities of a natural phenomena or process.16 The literature reviewed in Chapters Two and Three suggests that

15 Nova Scotia RDAs have since turned to a ―Performance Base‖ model with key performance indicators that influence funding levels for each RDA.

16 Derived from definitions of the terms principle listed at dictionary.com.

93 principles of three kinds are relevant to collaborative governance: principles of good governance, collaboration and sustainable development. Within each of these three categories a number of important principles have been laid out by previous research and practice. This research examines which of these principles appear to have been put into practice in the case studies and how the application of these principles has impacted governance processes and outcomes. Clearly these three categories are not mutually exclusive, with considerable overlap in the principles associated with each (as illustrated by the shading in Table 11). Collaboration is seen as essential to good governance (RUPRI 2006), for example, and enhances the likelihood that sustainable development efforts will succeed (Massam and Dickinson 1999). By considering each of the three categories, it is possible to consider whether an initiative is particularly focused on one or more of the principle sets, which in turn may contribute to operational choices and/or sustainable development outcomes. Principle-based decision-making involves trade-offs. Principles often conflict with one another in a given situation (e.g. stability/robustness vs. flexibility). Governance must involve discussion of common operating principles and a process for resolving such conflicts, variables examined within the cases studied. Seeking balance and integration between apparently conflicting principles is the essence of sustainable development.

Table 11 Principles of collaborative, sustainable coastal governance Good Governance Collaboration Sustainable Development Effectiveness Commitment to collaboration Living within ecological limits Transparency/openness Trust/honesty Stewardship Accountability Accountability mechanisms Diversity Legitimacy/authority Common objectives/purpose Qualitative development Inclusive public Mutual respect and understanding Broad-based/inclusive engagement/participation (including respect for multiple participation, collaboration sources and forms of knowledge) Conflict resolution and Mechanisms for decision-making, Value of community, role of consensus-building conflict resolution and consensus- local and global (multi-level) building Efficiency Two-way information flow, Economic viability/vitality effective listening and communication Equity/fairness Fair sharing of benefits, costs, Social justice/equity responsibilities/decision-making Integration/fullness/coherence Integration/balance Stability/robustness Time - long-term view Long-term, ongoing process Flexibility/adaptation Open to change Good governance

Principles, as rules or standards, are closely related to social values, ideals and norms (usual or expected patterns or behaviours). Various authors have commented on the significance of values and norms as behavioural influences. Mental maps, ―theories in use‖ or actor ―schemas‖, as described in Chapter 2, often determine people‘s views and action to a greater degree than theories they explicitly espouse (Argyris and Schon 1974). Bryant (1999) suggests both the explicit and implicit values that influence actor orientations should be investigated, as does Ostrom‘s (2005) institutional analysis. Taking these points into consideration the research investigated evidence of both stated or explicit and unstated or implicit principles demonstrated through the actions or behaviours of actors. Principles, values and the societal rules that develop as a result are not stagnant but evolve over time in complex learning systems (Sabel 2004). Emphasizing this temporal dimension, Matlock et al. (2005) found in an extensive study of watershed management experiences in the United States, for example, that watershed partnerships affect the belief systems of stakeholders and, in doing so, increase the likelihood of further collaborative action. Therefore data evidence of changes in principles over time was also sought. See Appendix 2 for a description of each of the principles listed in Table 11 and indicators used to assess if these principles were put into action. Each case was examined for evidence of the presence or absence of these indicators. Indicators used varied to some extent for each case depending on factors such as relevance and information availability. Based on these indicators, to the extent possible given available information, case studies were ranked in high, medium or low compliance with the principles outlined in Table 11 by assigning ―compliance‖ scores to each case using various indicators and deriving an index that illustrates overall compliance with each set of principles (sustainable development, good governance and collaboration) in each case. These indices were used to assist in comparative analysis but involve a degree of judgement and thus subjectivity in the interpretation of available data and assigning of scores for each indicator. They should therefore be considered a guide for comparative analysis rather than a set of

95 precise numerical values. Similarly indices were derived for outcomes and the presence of various types of capacity within the case studies (see Chapters 8 and 9). See Appendix 3 for data and findings outlining principles demonstrated by each case study initiative/organization. Comparative analysis is provided in Chapter 8.

4.2.3 Actors and their Relationships

Bryant (1999) points to the importance of understanding who the actors are in a collaborative governance arrangement, their interests, values and orientations as well as their linkages with others and roles within the overall governance system. Actors may be individuals and/or organizations, members of a policy network or community. All are part of the broader systems described in Chapters One and Two. Like Bryant, Howlett and Ramesh (1995), Pierce (1992), Gill and Reed (1999) and others suggest that policy analysis can be improved by identifying and describing policy actors at each level in policy subsystems. Interview questions linked to the principles described above assisted in a comparative analysis of actor orientations. Consideration was given to the degree to which there were conflicts and/or commonalities between their worldviews and motives for participation, and how these similarities and differences impact collaborative governance arrangements and outcomes. Particular attention was paid to the role of senior government actors. Much of the literature discussed in Chapters One through Three suggests that, from a collaborative governance perspective, the appropriate role for government is one of negotiating, rather than imposing, policy development and implementation with public, private and voluntary sector partners, based less on decision-making authority and more on creating conditions for partnership and effective collective action (Stoker 2000). The research investigated the degree to which this was the approach taken in each case study. Social network analysis attempts to uncover patterns in interactions among human actors. Network analysts believe that the success or failure of societies and organizations depends on these patterns of relations and that actors within social networks simultaneously shape social structure. Structure and agency are recognized as interdependent and continually reshaping one another. Howlett (1998) describes the policy subsystems approach as a form of social network analysis. Social network analysts

96 vary in their approaches, some involving large societies, whole networks and complex quantitative modelling, others using descriptive techniques and focusing on a smaller set of relationships associated with a single actor (Freeman 2004). The latter type of analysis is employed in this research. Social network data collected includes information on the backgrounds and characteristics of actors as well as on their relationships with others, particularly with the case study organizations. Attributes among actors contributing to both strong and weak relationships are examined, along with relationship types and network attributes such as diversity, density and closure. The number of links within a network and frequency of interaction are considered measures of network connectivity or density (Taylor et al. 2006). The number of actors, the variety of societal sectors they represent and the variety of relationship types between actors were used as indicators of network diversity. The presence (or absence) of key, well-connected leaders was also considered. In network analysis the connections of a particular actor, may in turn connect the individual, organization or network with other actors and networks. The nature of these links represents a possible factor in the outcomes of these interactions. Reimer (2002) and Geepu Nah Tiepoh and Reimer (2004) suggest that relationships are based on four different ―modes of relating,‖ or types of social capital: 1) market relations (exchange of goods and services), 2) bureaucratic relations (based on power and control, formal principles and rules), 3) associative relations (based on common goals and interests) and 4) communal relations (based on shared identity). Based on the most common modes of relating described by interview respondents, relationships were characterized according to the following types: information exchange, advisory and other forms of support (lending people/technical expertise or equipment for example), membership on committees or boards, financial support/transactions, project partnerships or provision of training and education. These categories encompass Reimer‘s market and bureaucratic relations while also acknowledging the role of information as a critical input to complex systems (Battram 1988). Shared identities, goals and interests were also examined. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) suggest that other important considerations in describing policy networks include: stability of membership, rules for member behaviour/interaction, member interdependence/shared interest and access to and

97 distribution of resources among members. Each of these factors (summarized in Table 12) helps determine the nature of the network overall as well as the individual relationships within it and were incorporated into all aspects of data collection and in analysis.

Table 12 Actors and networks - characteristics examined Actors - - who (identification of actors) - position/role/mandate - interests - values - power - background and experience that may contribute to the above - ways the above influence actor actions/practices and relationships

Relationships/Networks (linkages among actors) - who interacts with whom - external vs. internal to the immediate policy subsystem (links with other networks) - with how many - nature of the relationship - reasons for the relationship - avenues and frequency of interaction - stability of relationships - equality of power, resources - definable groups of relationships - rules for behaviour/interaction among network members - inclusiveness and closure of networks - key nodes/leaders within networks

Relationships of each of the regional case study initiatives with other actors in their respective policy networks are depicted as relationship maps and in table format describing key characteristics in Appendix 4.

4.2.4 Operationalizing Mechanisms: Processes, Tools and Structures

The fourth analytical framework element is mechanisms for implementing the principles of collaborative governance, including processes, structures and tools (policy instruments and procedures). Processes underway in each of the case studies were examined using Howlett and Ramesh‘s policy cycle (1995). Several questions were asked. Are all steps in the policy cycle pursued in an initiative or governance arrangement? Are the principles applied at all stages? Who is involved and how at each stage? As governance initiatives

98 move through iterations of the policy cycle, do they demonstrate characteristics of the adaptive renewal cycle described by Gunderson and Holling (2001)? Organizing structures are also examined and characterized according to their degree of formality, longevity and the range of issues addressed. Literature suggests that the level of formality has implications for effectiveness (outcomes) and barriers (e.g. funding and administrative requirements of formal structures), resulting in advantages and disadvantages associated with varying levels of formality and organizational/network forms. Changes in the degree of formality over time and throughout the policy cycle were also considered. Structure longevity was characterized according to the number of years in operation. Baker (1993) suggests other important features include: origin (may be imposed by central government or organic/voluntary), mandate, geography, funding and leadership development. Each of these aspects of each of the case study structures and their significance for sustainable development outcomes was considered. Finally, operating procedures and tools used to implement agreed-upon principles and development strategies were identified, including compulsory/regulatory, voluntary, market or mixed policy instruments (Howlett and Ramesh 1995). Howlett and Ramesh (1995) suggest that state capacity and the complexity of the actors involved impact the mechanisms chosen. Mechanisms for implementation may also reflect the degree of power sharing within collaborative governance arrangements. Measures such as legislation, regulation, some forms of planning, research and information, financing, service agreements and evaluation are considered ―top-down‖ in nature, for example, while tools such as bottom-up planning, community-driven pilot projects, coalition building, informal regulation and customary practice represent more ―bottom-up‖ approaches (Jackson and Jackson 1998). Stoker (2000, 99-104) identifies five tools used by government to both influence and support governance, along with associated tensions and contradictions: 1) Cultural persuasion: using ‗moral‘ authority to promote and persuade; 2) Communication: providing for an environment to facilitate and encourage learning 3) Finance: subsidising partnerships, providing financial incentives (competition encourages short-term self-interested behaviour which undermines cooperation) 4) Monitoring: monitoring procedures to ensure protection of broader system interests, building strategic capacity, cross-institutional learning by identifying

99 and disseminating best practice (can create over-rigid procedures, stifle innovation and undermine social capital) 5) Structural reform: appoint new agencies consisting of multiple stakeholders

Additional roles for government include mediation (e.g. when conflicts cannot be resolved at lower levels), advice and assistance, including support for capacity building through information, funding, and training (Vodden 1999). Linking this fourth framework component to those already discussed, Bryant points out that the mechanisms and strategies employed are indicative of actor orientations, interests and values. Intervention types can be, at best, mutually supportive and, at worst, contradictory – hindering or even negating the outcomes of one another. Eoyang (1999) notes that methods may change as actors and relationships change. Mix, coherence and consistency of the mechanisms were considered. Mechanisms used in each case study are compared in table format in Appendix 5.

4.2.5 Resistors and Enablers

Many of the ideas within the collaborative governance framework for sustainable development presented above are not new. Concepts such as sustainable development and advancements in sustainable development through participatory democracy have been discussed since the 1980s, with arguably little real change. Many pilot projects have been implemented without larger-scale implementation. Despite growth in collaborative approaches to ecosystem management, the ideals of public involvement have not been fully achieved (Koontz et al. 2004). Marshall (2005) adds that, despite countless local initiatives and global agreements, institutional change in support of sustainable development has been largely superficial. Why? What are the major barriers to change? There is much to be learned from the growing literature on cooperative and co- management, where collaborative governance in resource management has been discussed for more than two decades (Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995; Pinkerton 1989). Also instructive are experiences from fields such as organizational and community development and ICM, which is now underway in more than 98 coastal nations and states (Hale and Robadue 2002). Major barriers (also called obstacles or resistors, as in Gallaugher et al. 2005) raised in the literature include capacity issues at all levels, value

100 conflicts and resistance to change. Factors that facilitate cooperation or increase likelihood of success can also be examined. The absence of these same factors may also be described as a resistor. Lack of communication may be a resistor for example and regular communication an enabler of success in collaborative initiatives. Innes et al. (1994) suggest that the capacity of governance initiatives to achieve a common goal depends on three forms of capital and the ways in which they interact, including: • Intellectual capital (knowledge resources) • Social capital (trust, reciprocity and social understanding) • Political capital (the capacity to act collectively)

ESPON (2005) adds material capital (financial and other tangible resources), as a fourth category. As discussed in Chapter 3, collaborative governance arrangements can involve considerable resources. Davoudi et al. (2004) suggest that creating and enhancing new forms of governance will require progress towards all four forms of capital. Other authors add factors related to process, structure, purpose, values, willingness, capacity and understanding (Winer and Ray 1994; Vodden 1999, Gallopin 2002).

Table 13 Factors in the success of collaborative coastal governance

Intellectual/knowledge capital: information, understanding, learning, evaluation, training and education Social capital/collaborative spirit: mutual respect and trust, reciprocity and social understanding, history of cooperation or collaboration, established relationships and communication, community, shared recognized interdependence, sense of community Political capital: leadership, legitimacy, political climate, commitment Material capital/resources: money and staff/human resources, resource access, sound, diverse funding base Structure: Supportive policy and/or legislative framework, flexibility, adaptability, mechanisms for recognizing First Nations rights and title Process: communication, participation, clear roles, agreed boundaries, equity, persistence/time, external support, evidence of progress Purpose: clear, shared, attainable goals, benefits/need appreciated by all Values: adjacency, stewardship

Table 13 summarizes key factors raised in the literature (see Appendix 6 for a more detailed list of factors under each of these categories). Supporting Healey‘s (1998) observation that the conditions affecting governance capacity vary among different

101 localities and sets of relationships, case study results reveal additional resistors and enablers, indicate those that are most pressing, provide a more detailed understanding of these issues, and, in some cases, suggest how barriers and resistors might be overcome. Because each of the components of the analytical framework are interconnected many important barriers/resistors and enablers are also captured in other components of the analytical framework.

4.2.6 Scale Considerations

The question of appropriate scale(s), particularly the role of the sub-provincial region as a spatial scale for development and governance initiatives, is a theme that cuts across all other elements. Scale was added as a sixth framework component due to its importance in defining the case study structures and processes and the importance of scale-related factors and cross-scale interactions described in Chapters 2 and 3. Region is by definition an ―in between‖ scale made up of smaller units, multiple regions comprising a larger whole. A regional focus allows for an analysis of cross-scale linkages appropriate within a CASES framework. This research considers the scales involved in the case study initiatives and the willingness and capacity of actors at various scales, territorial, temporal and functional, to engage in collaborative governance systems. Following on Ostrom‘s (2005) suggestion that an attempt at understanding a focal level should also consider at least one or two levels above and below the focal scale, community, provincial and federal levels and their relationship with the sub-provincial region receive particular attention. Changes in Buttimer (2001)‘s discretionary reach, explained in Chapter 2, were considered along with resident attitudes toward ―their region.‖ The challenge of clearly defining boundaries of ―community‖ and ―region‖ in either time or space for purposes of governance was examined within this research component. Several questions pertaining to scale were addressed. How, for example, have the various case study regions been defined? How have these delineations related to and impacted actors‘ sense of place? Their orientations? Have the boundaries or conceptualization of ―region‖ changed over time? How has the definition of region impacted actor relations, interpretations of governance, collaboration and sustainable development or the outcomes of collaborative governance processes? To what degree is

102 scale an enabler or resistor in the collaborative governance process? To what extent do actors recognize scale issues?

4.2.7 Context

As in Bryant‘s (1999) model, an understanding of the social-ecological and policy context in each of the three case study regions is considered critical to the research. Context (the surrounding conditions or broader systems of which the case study subsystems are a part) was therefore added as a seventh framework element. Context considerations included the settlement, political, institutional, socio-cultural, ecological and economic histories as well as current conditions (2001-2005) in each of the case study regions. Current conditions are described in Chapter 5 according to the five categories of sustainability indicators referred to above. Sustainability indicator data were used to assign ―sustainability gap‖ values indicating the extent of sustainability concerns in each of these five categories. These values were then depicted in radial diagrams. Wall and Marzall (2006) and Robinson et al (2006) recommend radial diagrams as a useful tool for presenting the results of holistic (multiple-objective) analysis. These diagrams, presented in Chapter 8, were used as a tool to compare areas where case study outcomes were achieved with those where improvements were most needed according to the sustainability gap analysis. Like scale, context is a theme that cuts across all others. By their very nature, collaborative governance systems are interconnected with their environments and other systems and, therefore, cannot be neatly separated from their contexts. Particular attention was paid to changes over time in regional economic development and watershed and coastal management policy. Following on Taylor-Powell et al.‘s (1998) suggestion both milestones and critical events, which may identify key changes in the context and/or collaborative governance system, were also identified within both of the sub-systems studied and their contexts (as in the case of the ―revolution‖ in the IBEC Board of Directors described in Chapter 9 or the 1987 Brundtland Commission, for example).

4.3 Case Study and Policy Literature Review

In addition to a review of the literature for the purposes of research design, academic and

103 other literature sources were also reviewed for information pertinent to the selected case studies. In order to better understand the range of programs, policies and tools employed by senior levels of government in the case study regions, literature related to the historical development of resource management and RED policy in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and nationally was examined (described further in Chapters 6 and 7). Previous research by the author and colleagues provided a foundation for this piece (see, for example, Markey et al. 2000). This historical review was based primarily on a review of academic, government and community literature sources, supplemented by information gained through interviews and participation in national and international conferences. The review demonstrates links among cases (e.g. international and federal policies and programs influencing local organizations and initiatives), helps illustrate government actor orientations, and provides evidence of broader trends that influence collaborative governance arrangements. Perspectives on collaborative governance in practice gained through intensive case study research were supplemented by a review of existing case study literature. Additional examples of collaborative governance arrangements in the coastal zone reviewed are provided in table format in Chapters 6 and 7. Lessons learned from resource management and regional economic development initiatives in the case study provinces, elsewhere in Canada and internationally, were gathered through literature review, national and international conferences and dialogue with other members of Coasts Under Stress and Ocean Management Research Networks who provided access to their own related case study findings.

4.4 Case Study Design, Selection and Relationship Building

The research involves an embedded/multi-level, multi-case study design (Yin 2002). Case studies were selected within both economic development and resource and environmental management spheres of the overall policy system. These two policy sub-systems were chosen because of their significance to sustainable development, particularly on Canada‘s rural coasts. Further, the two are closely interrelated in terms of their impacts on social- ecological systems, yet are often dealt with as independent policy fields. Investigating relationships between actors in each policy sub-system provided an opportunity to

104 examine challenges of horizontal integration in coastal management and collaborative governance. The geographic focus on Canadian coastal social-ecological systems, discussed in Chapter 1, was further narrowed to three specific sub-provincial coastal regions from both east (Atlantic) and west (Pacific) coasts. The significance, and thus motivation for selection, of the regional scale as a focal point for analysis has been discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. The three selected case study regions are: the Indian Bay/Kittiwake region of Newfoundland, the Bras D‘Or Lakes region, Cape Breton Nova Scotia, and Northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. These regions were selected based on a number of criteria. First, through previous research, experience and contacts in academia, government and community each of the areas was known to be experimenting with collaborative approaches to governance in coastal development. Each was described as having a degree of success in their efforts. Additional information was gathered on these areas through literature/document review, further discussion with key informants, observation and field visits to finalize case study selection. Each region exhibited a variety of approaches and circumstances thought to be of potential significance, including the level and nature of government and community involvement, formally and informally structured relationships, issues addressed (scope), and scale. Despite differences, the case study regions exhibited sufficient similarities to allow for comparative analysis. All three regions shared watershed management as a common form of collaborative governance in resource and environmental management. Each had a regional economic development institution in place involving actors from multiple scales and backgrounds, fitting the collaborative governance criteria laid out in Chapter 1. Two regions, one from each coast, had sizable First Nations populations playing a leadership role in collaborative watershed governance, a factor expected to influence case study findings. Further, all three areas were predominantly rural and experiencing sustainable development challenges, including both resource depletion and economic decline. Practical considerations for selection included willingness of the case study populations to participate in the research, availability of travel support, and the ability to contribute to larger research programs such as Coasts Under Stress and the Ocean Management Research Network.

105 Within each case study region two governance models, one in economic development and one in resource management, were selected as sub-cases (Figure 9 and Table 14). See Chapter 5 for a description of each of the case study region and Chapters 6 and 7 for the sub-cases of collaborative governance within them.

Figure 9 Case study locations

106

Table 14 Six collaborative governance sub-cases

Regional Economic Watershed Management Development Cases Cases Northeast Newfoundland Kittiwake Economic Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. Development Corporation (NL-E) (NL-W) Cape Breton, Nova Scotia Strait-Highlands Regional Network of Bras d‘Or Development Authority (NS-E) watershed initiatives (NS-W) Northern Vancouver Community Futures Mount Nimpkish Watershed Island, British Columbia Waddington (BC-E) Management Board (BC-W)

4.5 Data Collection

The seven-part research framework outlined in section 4.2 above, guided data collection. Data were gathered relating to each component. Sufficient flexibility was provided so that additional themes could emerge. As described above, for each component of the analytical framework a list of questions and ―things to look for‖ was developed, assisting with the identification of appropriate information sources, development of interview questions and later analysis. These lists were used as a guide rather than a coherent model to be tested. A range of data sources and collection techniques was used, including observation, interviews and secondary documentation. Using a variety of methods captured the advantages and helped address the weaknesses of each individual source, enhancing research validity (Yin 2002; Tellis 1997). Triangulation also allowed the researcher to seek corroboration or inconsistencies in the data obtained through each individual source. Potential for skewed data due to respondent or researcher bias was also reduced in this manner. Secondary documentation about policy and program initiatives in the case study regions was a key information source. Sources included: web sites, organization and program literature, policy and scientific papers, workshop proceedings and newspaper articles, meeting minutes, annual reports, as well as previously published theses and other academic works relating to the case studies. Statistics and background information about the status of, and trends in, the health and resilience of social-ecological systems in the regions provided context and comparative data. Secondary data collection assisted in developing relevant questions, identifying interview respondents and avoiding duplication

107 of effort in data collection. Collection of secondary documentation was a major focus of the first field visit to each region conducted in 2003 (see Table 15). Opinions and insights of citizens, community leaders, government officials and other stakeholders regarding the development and governance processes taking place in the case study regions were documented, with a focus on state and civil society actors as principal governance participants. This was accomplished in two ways: through observation and through formal, semi-structured interviews with a cross section of participants in the collaborative governance process.

Table 15 Community contact BC Cape Breton Newfoundland Initial scoping visit N/a – resident June 2002 December 2000 Meetings with representatives 2002-2003 2003 (by phone and 2000-2003 to discuss the proposed mail/email project, seek permission and communication) input Field data collection phase I Oct.-Nov. 2003 July 2003 August 2003 Field data collection phase II September 2004 August 2004 Feb-March 2004 Observer as resident 2000-2004 - 2004-present Presentation of interim 2007 2008 2006 findings

Observation was conducted as a partial participant (observer-as-participant) (Babbie 1986) and included informal interviews and communications as well as participation in events and activities related to the case study organizations. In each case the researcher engaged in some way in the development process, ensuring the research had applied benefits for communities as well as meeting academic and knowledge generation objectives. Ensuring mutual benefit is a requirement of responsible, community-based research (Vodden and Bannister 2008). It is also a local requirement in two of the three regions. Guidelines for Visiting Researchers have been developed by the ‗Namgis First Nation and Research Principles and Protocols by the Mi‘kmaq of Unama‘ki/Cape Breton. These Guidelines and Protocols must be followed if research is to be conducted within their traditional territories. The researcher sought and received formal approval from these Nations. In accordance with protocols and best practices for community-based research, each case study organization was consulted prior to and during the field work and was included in discussions on research results and progress

108 throughout the study. Contributions of the researcher to case study organizations included providing background materials on other communities, regions and issues of concern, advice where requested, opportunities to ―tell their story‖ and network with others at national conferences and workshops. The researcher also participated as a volunteer in meetings and activities during fieldwork periods. Involvement was more extensive in the BC case in the early years of the research (2000-2004) and in Newfoundland after June 2004. The researcher resided in the regions during these periods. Contact and involvement with the Unama‘ki case study region was limited to four field visits, which ranged from two days to three weeks. The implications of this difference have been considered in the analysis, but it should be noted that reduced familiarity with the Nova Scotia case studies may have masked underlying challenges. In all cases, relationship-building was a critical stage early in the research, accomplished through field visits and subsequent communications with key contacts prior to field data collection. Observations were not limited to the case study organizations and their activities but rather extended to general observations about the regions‘ social-ecological systems, shedding light on the governance arrangements studied. According to Babbie‘s (1986) suggestions for "ruling out the observer effects," the researcher adopted an overt (but not obtrusive) observer role, addressing potential ethical concerns such as deception, making efforts to be aware of and minimize the effects of personal biases and preconceptions, and revealing these efforts when reporting research findings. The researcher was conscious of the consequences of her role in the processes observed and recorded observations with frequent field notes as well as photographs. Two types of interviews were conducted: formal, semi-structured and informal (part of the observation process). Between 30 and 55 formal, semi-structured interviews were conducted in each of the three case study regions, totalling 141 interviews overall: 55 in Newfoundland, 52 in Nova Scotia, and 34 in British Columbia (BC). Fewer interviews were conducted in BC due to the significantly lower number of actors involved in the BC governance networks examined, coupled with the researcher`s already extensive research background in the case study region (Northern Vancouver Island).

109 Interview respondents were selected based on a key informant approach, rather than a representative sample of relevant policy networks in each region and province. Potential interviewees were sought who had the knowledge and ability to represent the views of key interests and, to a lesser extent, the perspectives of a wide range of participating organizations. This sampling methodology is consistent with the exploratory, grounded theory building approach taken in this thesis, which does not attempt to prove a hypothesis or claim results that can be widely generalized. Respondents included: organizational representatives from local sustainable development initiatives (staff and Board level); all levels of government; including First Nations representatives; environmental, economic development, social and cultural organizations; and industry and university partners (see Appendix 7 for respondent profiles). Respondents from provincial and federal levels of government (44%) included junior and senior level officials and politicians familiar and/or involved in some way in the case study regional initiatives. Interviewees were selected based on secondary documentation, key contact recommendations and other interview respondents (snowball technique). An interview schedule was prepared based on the analytical framework components. After testing the schedule in question format it was determined that, given the unique nature of each case and the respondent‘s involvement in it, set questions were ineffective. A topic list format was employed instead (see Appendix 8). Opportunities were provided throughout the interview for respondents to discuss additional topics they considered relevant and/or important. While topics were kept consistent, specific questions were tailored to each case study and the respondent‘s position/background. Test interviews were conducted to seek feedback on appropriate language, nature of the questions and interview length, and changes were made accordingly. Interviews were tape-recorded wherever possible and permitted by respondents, and lasted approximately one hour on average. Backup notes were taken during the interview and field notes were taken immediately after the interview to record interviewer thoughts such as respondent comfort, frankness, and issues raised to look into further. Ethics requirements for adequate information, consent, and confidentiality were followed during the process of contacting interview respondents and during the interview process itself.

110 Formal interviews provided an ―expert‖ perspective on the initiatives examined. The majority of individuals interviewed were directly involved in the initiatives, and may therefore have represented a positively biased perspective on the accomplishments of the organization or process. Formal interviews were, therefore, supplemented by informal interviews/discussions with individuals in the community. Recognizing the important perspective of ―uninvolved‖ community members, informal interview respondents in each region helped balance the perspectives gained through formal interviews by ensuring broader representation. These discussions were more general in nature although probing questions were asked related to each of the seven components. Respondents tended to raise potentially controversial issues such as illegal fish and wildlife harvesting or cross- cultural relations not discussed in formal interviews. Informal interviews were not tape- recorded but relied instead on field notes prepared immediately upon interview completion. Informal and formal interviews were also conducted with identified academic/practitioner experts familiar with the case study region (e.g. academics that had previously completed research in the regions, consultants or retired government officials).

4.6 Data Organization and Analysis

Upon completion of each field visit phase, data were assembled and organized by region and sub-case. Field notes were typed (converted to electronic format), then assigned a respondent code and grouped by sub-case for review. Interviews were also transcribed, assigned a respondent code and grouped by sub-case. Data were organized and analyzed independently by sub-case, followed by comparative analysis between regions and policy fields. Similarities and differences in the application of collaborative governance models in watershed management and regional economic development in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland contexts were considered, along with possible explanations. Comparative analysis among each of these six sub-cases and three case study regions was aided by the use of a common analytical framework and approach to data collection and analysis. Content analysis of sub-case data was conducted based on each of the seven research framework components. Materials were reviewed subsequent to each field season and again after all the data had been gathered and interviews transcribed. Data were organized

111 in separate files according to theme and then again by sub-themes based on patterns in the data and pattern-matching. Pattern-matching compares an empirical pattern with a predicted one and enhances internal validity when the patterns coincide (Tellis 1997). In this instance patterns in the data were compared to the checklists presented in Tables 11 to 13 above (Chapters 2 and 3). Relationships between themes were examined, along with inconsistencies in the data. A qualitative form of social network analysis was used to describe relationships and networks among actors. Relationship maps were constructed to create a visual picture, aiding in the analysis of each case and in comparisons between them (see Appendix 4) and, as discussed above, in the case of outcomes, principles and forms of capacity (as a barrier and/or enabler) indices were derived based on outlined indicators to assist in comparative analysis. Every attempt was made to follow Yin‘s (2002) four principles for high quality analysis: 1) ensure analysis relies on all the relevant evidence; 2) consider all major rival interpretations; 3) address the most significant aspect of the case study; and 4) use the researcher's prior, expert knowledge to further the analysis.

4.7 Finalizing and Communicating Results

Research methods and findings have been refined based on feedback from research participants and academic peers, particularly the supervisory committee. To date, seventeen presentations have been made on interim findings at various stages, including six in the case study regions, three to international conferences of researchers and policy- makers, five to Canadian academic and practitioner groups and three provincial public sessions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Each of these venues has provided an opportunity for feedback from various audience types. Draft presentations and book chapters have been distributed to key community contacts for their review and comment throughout the analysis and writing process (member checking). Final field visits were also made to each case study region to present results prior to the thesis defence. After defence both the thesis and a practitioner-oriented summary document will be made available on-line. All interview participants and participating organizations will be informed of their availability. Further presentations will be made upon request, particularly in the case study regions, to relevant government agencies and academic

112 conferences. Several peer reviewed book chapters have been published, including contributions to three separate volumes associated with the Coasts Under Stress research project and a fourth international edited volume (Vodden, in press; Gibson et al. 2008; Vodden and Bannister 2008; Ommer et al. 2007; Vodden and Kennedy 2006; Vodden et al. 2006). Academic journal articles are also planned.

113 5 – Case Study Area Descriptions and Sustainability Overview

5.1 Introduction

Understanding the factors that influence the characteristics and outcomes of collaborative governance efforts requires an understanding of the particular combinations of geographical and historical, ecological, economic, cultural, and social forces that have shaped each of the case study regions and, for the purposes of comparative analysis, of the similarities and differences in the contexts within which the analysis take place. This chapter introduces characteristics of the case study regions using a framework of ecological, economic, social, individual (health and education) and cultural sustainability indicators. The institutional and governance dimensions of sustainability are the subject of Chapters 6 through 8.

5.1.1 Island Geography

All three case study regions involve primarily island populations living on Canada‘s coastal periphery, including the island of Newfoundland; Cape Breton (Unama‘ki) island in Nova Scotia (NS); and northern Vancouver Island and an archipelago of smaller adjacent islands in British Columbia (BC). These islands are each divided into a number of ecological and economic development regions for governance purposes, described further below. Unlike the other two regions, the Mount Waddington/Central Coast regional economic development (RED) case study (BC-E) also includes a large area of the BC mainland coast. Though they share an island geography and consequently an ecological, economic and cultural connection to the marine and coastal environment, each region is distinct in many ways, including its history, culture, ecology, size (see Tables 16 and 17) and remoteness from decision-making centres. All three regions are primarily rural and small town by various definitions (du Plessis et al. 2002)17, with the exception of the southeastern portion of the Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed that includes Cape Breton Regional Municipality (pop. 105,928). The Regional Municipality, including Sydney and surrounding area, is Nova Scotia‘s second

17 “Rural and small town” is the population living in towns and municipalities outside the commuting zone of larger urban centres (i.e. outside the commuting zone of centres with population of 10,000 or more)‖.

114 largest municipality. The Strait Highlands RED region is less than 150 km from the Regional Municipality and 275 km from Nova Scotia`s capital city of Halifax. Next to Cape Breton Regional Municipality the largest case study communities are Gander, NL (9,951), Port Hardy, BC (4,574) and Port Hawkesbury, NS (3,517). The Newfoundland case study region is located approximately 300 km north of the provincial capital city of St. John‘s. Northern Vancouver Island, BC, 500 km from the provincial capital of Victoria, is the most remote of the case study regions from provincial population centres. Several communities in this region can be accessed only by boat or plane. The Bras d‘Or watershed case (NS-W) is distinct in that it includes more than one economic region. Communities within the western portion of the watershed participate in the Strait-Highlands Regional Development Authority (NS-E), while the Cape Breton County Economic Development Authority serves those in the southeast. The Bras d‘Or watershed and Strait Highlands regions are similar in size (see Table 16), unlike the BC and NL case study regions where case study watersheds lie within significantly larger economic regions. Each of the case study regions is also part of a unique ecosystem, described further below. They include three of Canada‘s fifteen terrestrial ecozones: the boreal shield (NL), Atlantic Maritime (Cape Breton) and Pacific Maritime (BC) and three of five marine ecozones: Pacific (BC), Northwest Atlantic and Atlantic Marine (Cape Breton and NL18) (Canada 2007c).

Table 16 Case study region size

Province Size of province Island size (sqr. km) RED region Watershed region (sqr. km) (sqr. km) size (sqr. km19) NL 405,212 111,390 (island of 13,167 1,000 Newfoundland) NS 55,284 10,311 (Unama‘ki/ 5,082 3,600 Cape Breton Island) BC 944,735 31,285 (Vancouver 40,231 2,226 Island)

18 The case study area of NL includes only the Atlantic Marine marine ecozone. Cape Breton‘s shores lie on the edge of both Atlantic marine ecozones. 19 Land and freshwater/inland sea areas included.

115 5.1.2 Provincial Populations

The total population of the three provinces the case study regions are located within vary considerably, as do the populations of the regions themselves, with implications for their political power and governance relationships. As illustrated in Table 17, NL has the smallest total population followed by NS and BC. NL has experienced continual population decline since the early 1990s while NS has seen slow and BC more rapid population growth.

Table 17 Settlement history and population change Province 2006 2001-2006 % of pop in % of pop in Earliest Year entered Population (% change) CMA20 or CMA or CA European Confederation CA (2001) (2006) settlement NL 505,469 - 1.5 43.5 45.9 1000 AD 1949 NS 913,462 + 0.6 63.3 64.2 1604 1867 BC 4,113,487 + 5.3 86.6 87.2 1849 1871 Source: Statistics Canada 2007; Smithsonian 2007; CCFS 2005; Johnston 1996

All three provinces have experienced an aging trend, NS having the oldest population in Canada. The populations of all three provinces are primarily coastal and increasingly urbanized, BC having a significantly higher proportion of its population concentrated in metropolitan areas. While still the most rural province, urbanization occurred at the highest rate in NL from 2001-2006.

5.1.3 Original Peoples and Settlement History

While the spaces of governance continue to change within the case study regions the roots of place extend back centuries and even millennia in the case of Aboriginal peoples. NL has the longest history of European settlement but the shortest as a member of the Canadian federation (see Table 17). Archaeological evidence suggests that Norse Vikings first settled in the northwestern portion of the island in approximately 1000 AD, the earliest European settlement known in North America (Smithsonian 2007). Permanent European settlement, primarily by the English and Irish, began in the early 1600s,

20 Statistics Canada classifies metropolitan areas as census metropolitan areas (CMA) or census agglomerations (CA), formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred on an urban core. The population count of the urban core of a CA is at least 10,000 and a CMA at least 100,000. To be included in the CMA or CA, neighbouring municipalities must be highly integrated with the urban core, determined by commuting flows and census place of work data (Statistics Canada 2007b).

116 although not widespread until the early 1800s. With subsequent low levels of immigration, NL has the most homogeneous population in Canada (NL 2005c). The history and current legal and political circumstance of First Nations on the island of Newfoundland are significantly different than those of BC and NS. The Aboriginal population of what is now NL includes the Inuit, Innu and Metis of Labrador. The Beothuk people of the island portion of the province were killed, lost to disease and starvation, integrated with Mi‘kmaw21 communities and/or displaced from their territories during the first two hundred years of permanent European settlement (Pastore 1997; Baker 2003; Marshall 2004). The Mi'kmaq also occupied southern and central areas of the island, acting as middlemen in the fur trade and allies to the French in the 17th and 18th centuries. No treaties were signed with Aboriginal peoples of NL. Even after the province joined Confederation responsibility for Aboriginal peoples remained unclear, left out of the 1949 Terms of the Union with Canada (Vodden and Kennedy 2006). Conne River (Miawpukek) on the island's south coast is the only reserve on the island with recognized federal Aboriginal status. Approximately 4,500 other Mi‘kmaq in central and western Newfoundland are represented by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. An Agreement-In-Principle signed by the Government of Canada in 2007 will see Newfoundland Mi‘kmaq receive Aboriginal status as a ―landless band‖ and designated health, post-secondary education, economic development and administration funding (FNI 2007). The territory of the Mi‘kmaq (Mi‘kma‘ki) stretches across parts of New Brunswick, Maine and the Gaspé, as well as Newfoundland. Cape Breton (Unama‘kik) is one of seven Mi‘kmaw districts (Johnson 1996; Christmas 1977). Dissimilar to NL is NS‘s diversity of ethnic backgrounds, including residents of Aboriginal, Acadian, African, and Scottish descent. Many Island residents are descended from Highlands and Islands Scots that arrived in the 1800s (CCFS 2005). Following Portuguese fishermen in the early 1500s, French merchant Nicolas Denys established Cape Breton‘s first permanent European settlement in the mid-1600s. The English gained control of the island in 1758, having signed the first of a series of ―Peace and Friendship‖ treaties with

21 According to Native Council of Nova Scotia (2007) ―Mi‘kmaw‖ is the singular of Mi‘kmaq and an adjective when it precedes a noun (e.g. Mi‘kmaw people or Mi‘kmaw treaties).

117 the Mi‘kmaq. The Acadians were expelled and did not return until hostilities between England and France ended. While early treaties are still recognized, in 2002 Nova Scotia's thirteen Mi'kmaq chiefs, provincial and federal governments signed an agreement to engage in tripartite discussions on outstanding issues (Tota 2002). In 2007 the three parties put in place a five-stage process to resolve issues pertaining to Mi'kmaq treaties, rights and title (NS 2007). Trade began in the 1700s but it has been less than 200 years since European fur traders permanently occupied the lands that are now BC. The British established the colony of Vancouver Island in 1849, handing property rights to Hudson‘s Bay Company. As in other provinces Aboriginal peoples played a critical role in trade, despite populations decimated by conflict and disease associated with European contact. Unlike the east coast many unique tribes existed. Today BC remains home to 198 distinct First Nations (ATBC 2008). Settlement exploded with the late 1850s gold rush, coupled with growth in fishing and logging. The rush brought with it people of many ethnicities (Johnston 1996). With continued immigration, BC has the country‘s highest proportion of visible minorities and the highest percentage of its population reporting Aboriginal identity among the case study provinces (Statistics Canada 2001). As in NL, treaties were not established in most of what is now the province of BC during the colonial era. A modern day treaty process was launched in 1993 after the BC Court of Appeal recognized the Gitxan and Wet‘suwet‘en peoples‘ unextinguished Aboriginal rights and strongly recommended that these rights be defined through negotiation rather than litigation. The Province of BC agreed to participate in land claims negotiation (BC 1998) and, as of 2007, there were 58 First Nations participating in the BC treaty process (BC Treaty Commission 2007).

5.1.4 Social Values, Politics and the Environment

Interview respondents describe significant differences in social values, political culture and environmental ethics among the three provinces and their residents. One NL government official observes, ―There are massive cultural differences between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada.‖ A Cape Breton respondent added ―the only commonality is we‘re Canadian and on the ocean.‖ Social ethic was among the

118 differences noted. Newfoundlanders feel their willingness to ―look after one another and outsiders‖ is unique. Social capital indicators discussed below, including engagement in child and elder care, sense of community and social support networks, support the reputation and claims by interviewees that being helpful to others is part of east coast culture. Respondents describe an associated expectation that governments will consider social responsibility along with economic objectives. NL is described as having a very political culture (―more political than anywhere else‖), with a conflicted relationship with authority. Residents are often dependent on and have respect for the institutions of the church and the state yet ―despise‖ outside interference in their lives, particularly in areas remote from population centres. Because of dependency on government funds, respondents report a capacity to employ a discourse of need and a tendency for groups to shape projects to suit government funding requirements. Because of the province‘s small population, residents are closely connected with their politicians. One respondent explains, ―everyone is related to a politician in some way,‖ adding that in NL politics ―how much fish you can catch and wood you can cut is key.‖ The result has been a long history of political favours and vote-buying through project funding, natural resource allocations and granting of fish plant licenses, contributing to today‘s social-ecological circumstances. Both NL and NS are considered politically conservative, typically with several consecutive election periods under either Progressive Conservative or Liberal party leadership. In contrast, BC has seen more radical shifts between, until the recent election of a Liberal party premier, the New Democratic Party (NDP) and BC Social Credit Party (Socred) rule. Distrust of expert-led centralized planning combined with a relatively strong economy and political representation has bolstered demands for devolution of government authority in BC (Ommer et al. 2007). With 36 of 308 seats in the House of Commons, in contrast to seven in NL and 11 in NS, BC has considerably more bargaining power with which to make such demands. Both Cape Breton and NL have a history, however, of independence movements, with portions of their populations advocating separation: Cape Breton from NS22 and NL from Canada (Locke and Tomblin 2003).

22 In a survey completed by Locke and Tomblin (2003), only 17% of respondents from Cape Breton mostly or completely supported the concept of independent provincial status for Cape Breton.

119 Also contrasted are the strength and history of the environmental movements in the three provinces. The impact of BC environmentalists on the logging sector over the past two decades provides a vivid example. Their reaction to policies and practices deemed destructive to BC‘s wilderness areas has played out in the policy arena and in the marketplace, significantly impacting the industry and forest policy (Hayter 2000; Cashore et al. 2001; Markey et al. 2000). One Cape Bretoner, ignoring a history of Mi‘kmaw environmental protests and court cases (Hipwell 2001), suggests that the ―enviros here are from away,‖ including remnants of a Vietnam era movement into the Cape Breton highlands. A NL provincial employee suggested ―the environmental movement is juvenile here, unfocused, uncoordinated and foreign to the NL system.‖ The NL folk song ‗Ten little turrs in the freezer is better than a hundred in the bay‘ expresses the sentiment (Bishop 1994). Opposition to offshore oil and gas in both BC and NS can also be contrasted to NL, where there has been little opposition to offshore development except on the grounds that local economic benefits would be insufficient. Others caution against overgeneralization, however, speaking of the conservation ethic of an older, pre- industrialized generation of NL residents who lived off the resources of the land and sea with a conservation ethic very different from the world of protests and legal battles. The environmental sentiments and generally more radical political context of BC are linked by some to the relatively recent development of the Pacific coast, compared to the more conservative, long established Atlantic. A strong private sector along with well-organized environmental and Aboriginal interests in BC, rather than being a collaborative environment ―leads to very polarized views and ultimately a great deal of insensitivity to rural lifestyles and dependencies whether it‘s on lumbering, fish harvesting or seal hunting.‖ Finally, respondents note that the province of NL is in the midst of a ―massive social transition.‖ Although the degree of change at the provincial scale may arguably be greater in NL, analysis at the regional scale suggests that significant changes are occurring within each of these Canadian coastal regions.

120 5.1.5 Provincial Well-being Indicators

Diversity and population trends discussed above indicate BC has the highest level of ―demographic well-being‖, followed by NS and NL. Economic, health and education indicators suggest similar results (see Appendix 9). As of 2005, for example, NL continues to have the lowest after tax family income in Canada, BC the third highest after Alberta and Ontario. Incidence of low-income23 in 2001 was highest in NL, followed by BC and NS (Sorenson et al. 2005). In both BC and NS incidence of low income is higher in urban areas while in NL a higher percentage of rural and small town than urban residents live below the low-income cut-off line. The percentage of total income from social transfers24 in 2001 was lowest in BC and highest in NL, higher in all cases in rural and small town areas (Sorenson et al. 2005a, b and c). Over one-third (37%) of transfer income dependency in NL is derived from Employment Insurance (vs. 14% in Canada, 19% in NS, and 13% in BC) and dependence on social assistance is nearly twice the Canadian average (Statistics Canada 2004). Unemployment rates also demonstrate disparities, with a recent rate of 13% in NL, 8% in NS, 4% in BC (Statistics Canada 2007b). In all three provinces, including rural and urban areas, service sectors are the primary employment generators and self-employment is more prevalent in rural and small town than urban areas (Sorenson et al. 2005 a, b and c). Dependency on natural resource industries is highest in NL, followed by NS and BC, although equal in rural and small town BC and NL (13%) and only slightly lower in rural and small town NS (12%). In NL the majority of primary sector employment is in the fishery, in BC forestry. In NS, employment levels are similar in fishing and forestry sectors. In all three provinces, employment benefits per cubic metre of timber harvested are declining (Wilson et al. 2001), with forestry employment also declining overall in NL and BC (Canada 2008b). NL is the most dependent on mining, oil and gas (2% of employment), the benefits of oil

23 Measured by the percentage of earners below the low income cut-off, a statistical measure of the income thresholds below which Canadians are likely devote a larger than average share of income to necessities (food, shelter and clothing). 24 ‗Social transfer income refers to all government transfer payments to individuals including Old Age Security, Canadian/Quebec Pension Plans, Unemployment Insurance and Child Tax Credits and is expressed as a ratio of the amount of government transfer payments to the total average income among the population 15 years and older‖ (Sorenson et al 2005a, 51).

121 development concentrated in St. John‘s and surrounding area (House 2006). BC, however, employs more total individuals in the mining, oil and gas sector and tops NL production in absolute terms (Statistics Canada 2006). NS seafood exports exceed both NL and BC in value while the volume is the highest in NL (NS 2007). Approximately one-third of Canadian fish harvesters reside in NL, a similar number in NS and only 5% in BC.25 Throughout the late 1990s fisheries diversification occurred within all three provinces, with an expansion in the high value shellfish segment in the east coast, groundfish, shellfish and aquaculture in BC. By 2005, salmon made up just 10% of the total catch value in BC (compared to 55% in 1990), cod 4% in NL in 2003 (vs. 63% in 1989) (O‘Reilly 2004). In NL and NS this has meant a shift into a much less labour intensive industry. The 1992 Northern Cod moratorium and subsequent closures has been called ―the largest single layoff in Canadian history‖ (Dunne 2003, 20). The fisheries sector has also suffered in BC, as changes in the salmon fishery devastating many traditionally fishing-based coastal communities (Vodden 1999, Gislason et al. 1996). Cutbacks in the federal government‘s UI (now EI) program and in government services have been ―a double hit to the rural economy‖ (House 2006). The importance of the third sector economy is also worthy of note, raising over $1 billion annually in each of NS and NL (an amount equivalent to seafood exports) and almost 11 billion in BC (Statistics Canada 2004). Cash incomes in rural areas are also supplemented with the harvest of local products such as berries, seafood, wild game and firewood and through people building and maintaining their own houses. Studies suggest that household provision activities and unrecorded cash exchanges comprise as much as 42% of part-time fishermen‘s incomes in rural Newfoundland (Hamilton and Butler 2001). Turning to health indicators, BC fares better than the Atlantic provinces and NS better than NL, with higher life expectancies and better rankings on risk factors associated with chronic illness (NL 2002). Self-rated health, however, is highest in NL, followed by NS and BC (Statistics Canada 2002)26. Suicide rates and self-reported stress levels are

25 Fishing employment is estimated at close to 15,000 in NL by O‘Reilly (2004), 14,500 core and non-core in NS by Gardner Pinfold (2005) and 2100 in BC (BC 2005). 26 For a more detailed comparison of health indicators within Atlantic Canada and in comparison to national levels see May (2005).

122 also low in NL (May 2005). Educational attainment measures paint, once again, a picture of decreasing well-being moving west to east. Results differ, however, when assessing social capital (Armstrong 2002). The findings on political culture discussed above suggest there are greater social divisions in BC than in NS and in turn NL. NL also has the lowest homicides and overall crime rates in Canada, followed by NS and BC among the three provinces (NL 2002), although one survey suggests violent crime rates are higher in NS than BC (Statistics Canada 2005). The number of voluntary organizations per capita and ―volunteer rate‖ (% of residents who volunteer) is highest in NS, followed by BC and NL (Statistics Canada 2004). NL residents are the most likely to donate to a charitable cause and help others (e.g. child or elder care), followed by NS and BC (Statistics Canada 2001). Steeped in the history described above, NS, and in particular Cape Breton, has a rich culture and unique mix of language and tradition. The Gaelic, Acadian and Mi‘kmaw cultures of Cape Breton are a source of provincial pride, despite difficult periods in the province‘s history when their practice was discouraged, even forbidden by authorities. An estimated one-third of Mi‘kmaw people are able to speak and/or write in Mi‘kmaq. While still threatened, there is a sharp contrast with BC‘s many small, diverse and endangered Aboriginal languages (Norris and Jantzen 2002). BC is rich in ethnic diversity, however, and many of its Aboriginal peoples are experiencing a cultural revival. While less diverse, NL is also known for its diversity of dialects, unique folk entertainments and material culture. This ―traditional‖ NL culture is increasingly mixed with external influences and ―older and suppressed ethnic and cultural realities of the French and Aboriginal peoples‖ (MUN 1997). All three provinces, therefore, have strong cultures linked to their history and way of life to draw from that are both threatened and increasingly commoditized, largely due to growing tourism industries. Resident satisfaction measures suggest that important quality of life factors are masked by commonly used indicators. Rural and small town coastal residents on both coasts express a high level of satisfaction with their community despite the population loss and economic stress, valuing characteristics such as quietness, the people, small town living and proximity to nature (Ommer et al. 2007; Barrington 2005). The majority of rural youth desire to leave their communities despite this attachment to place, often for

123 work or education (Ommer et al. 2007; Palmer and Sinclair 2000), their ability to return impaired by lack of economic opportunity. Ecosystem well-being has a significant influence on economic, social and cultural activity and quality of life in the rural regions of all three provinces. Literature review findings suggest forest ecosystems are particularly stressed in NS but poorly protected in NL compared to NS and, especially, BC. Biodiversity is highest in BC, followed by NS and NL. The health of fish stocks and populations is mixed in all cases. Sources suggest a higher percentage of species are below average levels in BC than NL. Cod and capelin abundance remain low (DFO 2007b), however, and catch levels the NL lobster fishery are described as unsustainable (Ennis 2006). Charles et al. (2001) suggest that, like NL, in NS many species, especially groundfish and other finfish, declined through the 1990s while shellfish biomass either increased (shrimp) or remained stable (lobster). ―We‘ve blown it on the fish, no question‖ says one federal official. Concerns are expressed about the impacts of fishing gear on marine habitats, bycatch and discards, along with other threats such as invasive species, oil and gas discharges and disturbance from seismic activity (DFO 2001b). Three other provincial indicators of ecosystem well-being: waste disposal per capita, drinking water quality and municipal sewage treatment, suggest NL performs poorly in all three areas within the ecological dimension of well-being. Overall, of 12 ecological indicators reviewed BC rates ―most sustainable‖ on eight, NL lowest on seven (see Appendix 9). Yet, it is difficult to draw a simple conclusion about the current state of ecological sustainability in these three provinces. This is particularly true given their complexity for the state of fisheries and marine environments (Charles et al. 2001), but also of other areas. One province, such as NS, may score highest in some indicators (such as waste generation) but lowest in others (such as old growth forest protection). For some indicators there is no clear trend, insufficient information or mixed results (as in the case of drinking water quality). Charles et al. (2001, 10) suggests that this ―reinforces the need to use multiple indicators and to look at each indicator individually, to understand its particular nuances, rather than merely adding up the results.‖

124 5.2. Kittiwake Region, NL

5.2.1 Communities and Local Government

Kittiwake zone is the area of the island of Newfoundland‘s northeast coast defined as an economic zone for planning purposes (Economic Zone 14, Fig. 10). The Kittiwake Zone had a 2006 population of an estimated 46,431 people living in approximately27 120 communities (Bennett 2006). The Kittiwake zone has experienced population decline over the past three census periods, peaking at 10% decline from 1996 to 2001 and slowing to an estimated 3% decline from 2001 to 2006. One community leader explains ―The population is moving more towards St. John‘s``.28 Adding to declines from outmigration, rural NL has gone from having one of the highest birth rates in the western world to the lowest, deaths now surpassing births. Given relatively low immigrant attraction and retention rates, low fertility rates, and out-migration, population decline is expected to continue (NL 2007a). Six communities

of greater than 2000 residents make-up “Road to the Shore” nearly 50% of the region‘s population, Indian Bay Watershed including the service centre of Gander. The zone includes three communities accessible only by boat. The Kittiwake economic zone is sub-divided into seven sub-regions for purposes of economic

Figure 10 Kittiwake region (Zone 14)

27 Unincorporated communities and community mergers make it difficult to identify a specific number. KEDC official estimates vary from 102 (KEDC 1997) to 120 (Bennett 2006). 28 ―For the first time ever, the majority of the population in Newfoundland and Labrador is urban, if you take urban to be 5000 or more‖ (NL 2001 from Dunn 2003).

125 planning/representation and four tourism areas. The Indian Bay watershed lies within the Bonavista North (Gambo to Gander Bay) sub-zone and tourism area, also known as the ―Road to the Shore.‖ There are approximately 20 communities in this sub-zone. Community governance in the Kittiwake region is largely through 39 municipalities and, in smaller settlements, 31 local service districts (LSDs). The only Regional Council in the province is also present, on Fogo Island. Two of nine Newfoundland Mi‘kmaw bands are located within the Kittiwake zone (Gander Bay and Glenwood). Both have their own councils and continue to fight for official recognition as status Indians and band councils. There are an estimated 575 Aboriginal residents in the region (1% of the total population). Only the communities of Indian Bay and Centreville-Wareham-Trinity (CWT, an amalgamated municipality of three former towns) are located directly within the Indian Bay watershed, Indian Bay lat the River mouth and CWT on the marine/estuarine component. However, residents throughout Bonavista North have a tradition of recreational fishing in the Indian Bay system, along with visitors from Gander, the Avalon Peninsula (St. John‘s) and out-of-province. Indian Bay‘s population remained relatively stable from 1991-2001 but declined by 8% over the last census period (pop 196). CWT declined by 14% from 1996 to 2001, slowing to a 2% decline in the last census period (pop 1122). At 3%, watershed population decline was, therefore, on par with the remainder of the KEDC region (Statistics Canada 2006).

5.2.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being

Crossing Cabot Strait from Cape Breton to Newfoundland one enters the eastern boreal shield ecozone, with its long cold winters and short warm summers modified by maritime conditions, a land of spruce, balsam fir, and tamarack, wetlands, lakes, bedrock scoured by glaciation, shallow, acidic, poorly-drained soils and slow rates of nutrient cycling (NL 2003). The Kittiwake economic zone includes three distinct eco-regions: the interior central Newfoundland forest (north-central subregion), coastal north shore forests and eastern hyper-oceanic barrens (NL 2006b). The central forest ecoregion is dominated by relatively dense balsam fir and black spruce forests on a landscape of rolling hills interspersed with bogs. Rugged, rocky higher elevations are also found. Birch and aspen

126 are common, particularly on disturbed sites. Exposure to wind and poor soil conditions inhibits forest growth in some areas but much of the region is forest-covered. Common wildlife include black bear, caribou, moose, lynx, and red fox (Bell 2002). Summers are the warmest and winters the coldest on the island with less rain than other coastal areas of the province (PAA 2000b; Bell 2002; PAA2000c). Bordering the north shore forest and Northwest Atlantic marine ecozone is the eastern hyper-oceanic barrens, where several types of berries, stunted conifers, low shrubs and mosses are common. Summers are cool on this exposed shore but winters are the mildest in the province (PAA 2000). The region‘s steep, rocky cliffs and islands provide habitats for some of the largest seabird colonies in the world. Much of the coastline is characterized by fjords, cliffs, and rock created by glacier movements about 10,000 years ago. Like the Pacific Marine ecozone of BC, the Northwest Atlantic forms a transition between cold northern waters and more temperate southern waters. The Labrador current brings less saline arctic waters, which freeze more easily in the winter, along with pack- ice and icebergs in the spring. Waters over the continental shelf are known for their prolific marine life, including the once abundant Northern Cod. Twenty-two whale and six seal species occur in the ecozone (Canada 2007c). Productive coastal intertidal zones also support a diverse community of marine life including mussels, lobsters and crabs. The Indian Bay watershed drains an area of 700-750 square kilometres29 and covers approximately 1000 km2 including waterbodies. Indian Bay is a small river compared to others in the province, but with a watershed system that includes 16 major lakes (locally referred to as ponds), several relatively deep and accessible by interconnected former logging roads, along with smaller feeder ponds and gullies, 15 main tributaries and a large number of sub-tributaries (Norris 1997). The watershed is well-known for producing some of the largest brook trout on the island of Newfoundland and is highly productive both in terms of fisheries species diversity and growth rates (Gibson 2004). At least eight species: three-spine stickleback, land locked salmon (ounaniche), Atlantic salmon, banded killfish, Eastern brook trout (including a sea run component), American eel, rainbow smelt and Arctic charr in one deep lake, a glacial

29 Norris (1997) Stream Survey Report reports a drainage area of 700 square km while Wells (2002) cites Damman (1983) and suggests 750 square km.

127 relic, are present as well as freshwater molluscs. Non-native freshwater species have been avoided (unlike in the terrestrial component of the system where moose, red squirrel, coyote and other species have been introduced). The watershed is also home to many other species including furbearers such as lynx, otter and beaver, loons, grouse and other birds. The Eastern brook trout is the primary recreational fishing species in the Indian Bay system (followed by Atlantic salmon). A survey of local residents suggests fishing is the most common use of the watershed, followed by snowmobiling, visiting a friend‘s cabin, hunting, camping and other recreational activities (Buffinga 2001). Many local families have cabins in the watershed, now numbering approximately 350. The watershed is also used for cutting firewood, berry picking and trapping, commercial forestry and blueberry farming. Indicators on the status of ecosystem well-being in the region are limited and relevant information scattered. Although State of the Environment reporting began in the Atlantic region in the 1970s, NL has no state of the environment or environmental indicators program (Bond et al. 2005)30. Forest District 5, covering much of the Kittiwake zone and Indian Bay watershed, has extensive bogs, barrens and freshwater systems, including only 37% productive forest land. Forest management plans refer to a high level of recent (2001-05) forest harvest (NL 2006b). Only 10% of District 5 productive forest is 81 or more years of age, lower than the provincial target of 15% or greater. Other concerns include the need for greater buffer zones to protect water quality and fish habitat (#1 forestry-related concern cited by interview respondents), increased road access to remote areas (#2), reduced forest diversity and impacts on species dependent on old and diverse forest types, increased run-off and water temperatures, decreased water levels, spraying/pesticides, compaction, erosion, siltation, and limited forest regeneration. Forest habitat change is linked to declines in species of concern such as pine marten and the red crossbill. Recent forest management plans include measures to provide appropriate habitats for these species and for species popular for hunting and trapping. Recreational development is thought to have played a role in the demise of the piping plover, which appears to be extirpated from the region, while hunting pressure,

30 A 2007 Sustainable Development Act requires that natural resources indicators and sustainability reporting be developed (NL 2007f).

128 including illegal harvesting, has contributed to declines in populations of common eider and other wildlife. Species such as the great auk and NL wolf are now extinct, while others such as bear, loon, beaver, and lynx populations are considered healthy or increasing (see also Appendix 9). Overall the region‘s terrestrial and freshwater systems remain largely undeveloped with the exception of logging, some mining activity and scattered, relatively low density cottage areas. An estimated 5% of the Kittiwake region is designated as protected (including two marine areas). There are no protected areas in the Indian Bay watershed. Despite some recent improvements, evidence suggests that Atlantic salmon returns remain low relative to historic levels and trout populations have declined in the Kittiwake region overall, although stabilized with evidence of recovery in the Indian Bay watershed. Offshore cod stocks have not recovered while inshore stocks are thought to be slowly improving but still vulnerable due to renewed harvest pressure. Concerns also exist about the status of capelin, crab and lobster stocks, now critical to fishing incomes. Fishing pressure and overharvesting (marine freshwater) was the number one ecological concern noted by NL respondents. Respondents also describe lack of financial resources for stewardship and management of resource use as a significant barrier to sustainability in the Indian Bay watershed, along with a resident attitude/ethic that favours resource exploitation over conservation. Respondents suggest this attitude is changing, albeit slowly. A study by Buffinga (2001, 112) concludes that ―the cultural context of the Indian Bay area could be characterized as being supportive of controls, concerned about industrial development,‖ in contrast to the traditional open access attitude. Harvest pressure, industrial development, including forestry and the threat of gold mining activity, illegal harvesting, cabin development and associated water quality, habitat and aesthetic/experiential impacts followed in a list of ecological concerns related to the watershed. Water quality is rated good for protection of aquatic life and drinking water in both Gander and Indian Bay watersheds, although eleven municipalities or LSDs elsewhere in the Kittiwake region (16%) were on boil water advisory in June 2007, and 24 communities (34%) experience high incidence of Trihalomethane levels in drinking water supplies (NL 2007b; c).

129 5.2.3 Economic Indicators

As in many primarily rural regions in NL, the Kittiwake Zone has lower than average income compared to the rest of the province, as well as higher rates of unemployment (29% in May 2001) and dependency on government transfers (see Appendix 9). Fishing was the largest single occupation in 2000, followed by childcare and home support workers. By industry, education, health care and social assistance lead employment in the Zone, followed by manufacturing, retail, fishing, forestry and agriculture, construction and public administration (Community Accounts 2001). While retail operators such as small grocers and gas stations are spread throughout the region, large retail outlets are concentrated in the service centres of Lewisporte and Gander (Rural Secretariat 2005). Gander (pop. 10,364) is within a one hour commute of most towns in the region and provides a regional hospital, government services and an international airport. The primary sector employed 11% of the Kittiwake region labour force in 2000. Together fishing and fish processing comprised 16% of total employment. There are 18 fish plants in the region, a decline from 30 in 1990 (KEDC 2002). Beothic Fisheries, the region‘s largest employer, is located in Valleyfield (now part of New-Wes-Valley) and employed 1200 plant workers and 1000 fishermen during the peak season in 1999. ―Anyone in this area who wants to work has a job,‖ remarked a company representative at this time. Other seafood-related enterprises in the area include Wood-Pick Industries and Crimson Tide in Dover, the latter employing approximately 200 workers and 200 fishermen seasonally. Area fish plants have survived the cod moratoria through adaptation, innovation and diversification, with assistance from both provincial and federal governments. Beothic processes 21 different species, including snow crab, turbot (Greenland Halibut), lump roe, capelin, rock crab, toad crab, shrimp, squid, and grenadier. Wood-Pick has concentrated on the developing sea urchin fishery and on smoked Atlantic salmon, with the benefit of a steady and reliable supply of farmed salmon product. Interview respondents expressed concerns, however, about the current reliance of the fishing fleet and processors on snow crab, the impacts of crab quota cuts, price wars, income inequities and technological change. ―They‘re the largest employer in the whole zone. Without it we would be in trouble,‖ says one federal official of Beothic Fisheries. By 2005 the number of plant workers at Beothic had fallen from 1200 to 500,

130 working an average of 14-16 weeks per year (Parsons 2005). In 2001 processing workers in the region relied on EI for 41% of their average $16,400 annual income (Dunne 2003). The lobster fishery remains important to the region‘s small boat fishermen despite a 35% decline in lobster licenses within the region (management areas 4 and 5) from 1995 to 2005 (DFO 2006b; c). Only 510 of 905 current licenses are considered active. Despite significant reliance on the fishery, Zone 14 is well diversified in the manufacturing sector (ACOA 1999). A NL-E representative reports that the zone has the second highest number of manufacturers in the province, found in both larger and smaller centers. The Town of CWT on Indian Bay, for example, is home to seven manufacturing firms, including Wood-Pick, a processor of wild berries, a fibreglass boat manufacturer, a wood products company and others. The region also has a well-developed business services sector (ACOA 1999) and is a test area for blueberry and cranberry farming. Lynch and Locke (2005) observe that the Kittiwake region was the third highest producer of new economy firms from 1997 to 2001 in NL. Many residents also travel seasonally to other provinces for work. Four census subdivisions in the zone are deemed forestry- dependent. While it began as the home of salmon harvesting operations in the 1700s, forestry was the most significant economic activity (logging) within the Indian Bay watershed from 1921 until the 1961 forest fire, now replaced by recreation (fishing and cabin development), blueberry farming and manufacturing within CWT. Economic well-being varies considerably within the zone. While the Town of Gander has one of the highest average incomes in the province, for example, the Town of Horwood has some of the lowest. With Beothic and CWT, known according to one local respondent as ―the entrepreneurial capital of Newfoundland‖, the Bonavista North sub- zone is relatively prosperous. Given its reliance on the fishery, however, the area has a high rate of seasonal unemployment, reliance on EI, and a declining population. Unemployment is high and wages significantly lower within pockets of the sub-zone. Many workers from the southern portion of the sub-zone commute to Gander for minimum wage positions. Lack of economic opportunity, job loss due to technology change and the need for job creation were identified by respondents as important sustainability issues in the region along with the need for greater value-added and full utilization of natural resources.

131 Governments services (including education and health care), the region‘s top employer, has suffered from cutbacks and, like the fishery, is vulnerable to future declines. As of 2005 the Province had identified: manufacturing, forestry, agrifoods and fishery, aerospace, mining, tourism and ecosystem management as priority sectors for development in the region. Peat development, an antimony deposit, high-school and university preparation for international students, experience-based tourism, aircraft repair and the use of the Gander international airport for shipping safe, ethical, fresh, specialty products were identified as specific economic opportunities (Meisen 2005; ACOA 1999).

5.2.4 Individual and Social Well-being

Kittiwake respondents refer to increasing inequity in the forest and fishing sectors and thus in their communities. Small logging and sawmilling operations have lost access to forest resources, as have communities with encroachment in the former three-mile coastal domestic harvesting area. Forest lands throughout the province are controlled by two large pulp and paper companies. While attempts have been made to increase public involvement in forest planning, cynicism exists about the opportunity for meaningful input and participation has been limited. Changes in the fishery creating inequity are described, with stories of fishermen ―with the quarter of a million dollar house‖ who ―want the quality of life, but they‘re not willing to support it‖ and ―don‘t mix in the community the same way.‖ More money is being generated but being put in the hands of fewer people. Fish harvesters who were not allocated crab or shrimp licenses and plant workers are not sharing in the gains of increased value in the fishery. One respondent gave the example of the sea urchin fishery, where traditional fishermen were given licenses to the new fishery, hiring divers to do the work for a fraction of the profit. Resulting resentment, divisions, and charges of individualism and greed challenge community cohesion. Across the region, with changes in fishing and the EI program, there are pockets of communities within the region that are doing very well and others that are not. The Canadian Community Health Survey (2001) indicates a higher level of social support in the region than provincial or national averages, based on indicators such as the percentage of residents who feel that there is someone they can count on to listen to them

132 and to provide advice, love and affection. The Health Survey also suggests that a large, and increasing, percentage of Kittiwake residents have a very strong sense of belonging to their community (41% in 2005). One respondent explains, ―you ask someone what they like about their community, we have one young girl that said you can go next door for a cup of sugar. If you lived in Toronto you wouldn‘t do that.‖ The percentage of residents who volunteer and number of non-profit organizations is not available at the regional scale. However, the Community Services Council (2004) reports that the Central portion of the province (which includes Kittiwake), along with Labrador, has higher numbers of volunteer organizations per capita than other regions. Research by Municipalities NL (2003) demonstrates that Central region municipalities are also more likely than others in the province to share services with a neighbouring community. Overall, indicators show high levels of social capital in the region. Kittiwake education indicators remain below provincial and national averages, with lower rates of highschool and post-secondary completion, rates that increased only slightly from 1996 to 2001. There is one public and one private college, four hospitals and a number of community health clinics operating within the region. Life expectancy is on par with NL but below the national average. Self-rated health lies above both the provincial and national average (NL 2005a). Despite economic conditions, the percentage of residents who feel ―quite a bit‖ or ―extremely‖ stressed in their lives is lower than for either NL or Canada, the percentage of residents who felt ―happy and interested in life‖ higher (82% vs. 81% in NL and 76% in Canada). One respondent explained the apparent discrepancy between self-described happiness and economic well-being: ―wealth is not what is important.... There is a major lesson to be learned in rural Newfoundland, where you can live on $10,000 if you have to.‖

5.2.5 Culture and Way of Life

Cultural diversity is limited in the Kittiwake region. There has been some renewed interest in and recognition of Mi‘kmaw culture, along with heritage sites and interpretation centres dedicated to the Beothuk, but most organized cultural activities centre on the built and artistic heritage and way of life of European settler communities. Towns throughout the region are working to restore and maintain stages, stores, merchant

133 houses and other buildings that reflect their fishing heritage. Buoyed by the tourist industry, theatre troupes have sprung up offering traditional meals and performances filled with Newfoundland humour and history, building on a still-alive tradition of skits performed at community events. Newfoundland and Irish folk songs remain an important part of many social gatherings and mummering, an outport tradition, is still practiced at Christmas. Artists, writers and musicians celebrate their homeland with word, brush and instrument; quilters and knitters still practice their traditional craft. Beings outdoors, hunting, fishing and spending time at the cabin with family and friends are all important aspects of local culture, identity and way of life in the region (Sutton 1997). Respondents state that, while the spoils of a fishing or hunting trip are usually kept for food, the experience is increasingly valued primarily for recreational and cultural purposes. Outdoor recreational activities are very important to residents and contribute to a high reported quality of life. A seasonal pattern is described that includes activities such as moose hunting in the fall; wood cutting in the fall and winter; snowmobiling, ice fishing and seabird hunting in the winter; trout, salmon and cod fishing in the spring and summer; and berry picking in the summer and fall. Several respondents described a change from an emphasis on hunting and fishing to non-extractive outdoor recreation:

―You go out to Glovertown or any small community last Friday night and where were all the young people? They were on their skidoos in the woods going through trails… I mean gosh, we‘ve got to go to the cabin, it‘s like my peace to go to the cabin and be outdoors and we‘re on the salt water and I mean I just love it… But you won‘t catch me out there in the boat catching fish or shooting moose…‖

―The way I look at it is that if I‘m going in there, I don‘t really care if I get a fish or not. Summertime I goes in the cabin, and to be honest with you, I know for sure the last five years I haven‘t brought out hardly nothing… I eat and sleep there winter time, but sometimes I barely sleep there because we go over to some of the other boys and we‘re back up to the cabins just visiting friends...‖

Sutton (1997) found that the first and second most important reason for fishing in a Bonavista North pond was ―to be outdoors‖ and ―to enjoy or observe nature.‖ Despite this shift, Newfoundlander‘s remain protective of their open access rights to resources and wilderness areas and are concerned that commercial development not impose on their way of life. One respondent expresses concern, for example, about foreign interests

134 buying recreational property in traditional cabin areas and berry farms proposed on local berry picking grounds. To date residents of the region have largely been able to protect their way of life but changes such as encroachment on the traditional three-mile coastal domestic wood cutting ribbon and, until 2006, closure of the recreational/food fishery for cod have limited access, giving priority to conservation and commercial over sustenance, recreational and cultural uses. When coupled with broader societal changes the culture of this ―outdoor people‖ is vulnerable.

5.3 Bras d‘Or Lakes/Strait-Highlands, NS

5.3.1 Communities and Local Government

The Strait-Highlands economic development region includes two counties in western Cape Breton: Richmond and Inverness (see Figure 11). With a population of 28,776, the region is part of the traditional territory of the Mi‘kmaw First Nations and is composed of an estimated 300 small settlements, 104 in Richmond County and 196 in Inverness (NS Community Counts 2007). These include two reserve communities: Chapel Island/Potlotek (pop. 444-48131) and Waycobah (or We'koqma'q, pop. 623), and the Town of Port Hawkesbury (3,517), a regional service centre (Statistics Canada

2006). Figure 11 Bras d'Or Lakes and Strait-Highlands regions

31 Statistics Canada (2006) provides the lower population figures. Higher estimates are from First Nations. Paul (2006) cites the Chapel Island population as 481, Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife Commission cites Eskasoni‘s as 3500, for example.

135 The region has experienced a steady population decline of 5% over each of the last two census periods, up from a 3% loss from 1991-1996. Richmond County has seen a more severe decrease than Inverness, although this gap was largely closed in the last census period. While the proportion of youth in the Strait-Highlands region is on par with the Canadian average, youth employment and out-migration remains a concern in some areas. Varying considerably, the median age ranges from 20 in Potlotek to 42 in Richmond County (Statistics Canada 2001). Over 20032 communities occupy the Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed (―the Bras d‘Or``), which includes parts of all four Cape Breton counties and the territories of five Mi‘kmaw First Nations to whom the watershed is central to their livelihood and culture33. An estimated 22,000 residents live in the Bras d‘Or, approximately 25% of whom are Mi‘kmaq (vs. 3% in Strait-Highlands). The largest community in the watershed is Eskasoni (pop. 3,000-3,500). Baddeck and St. Peter‘s are service centres in the north and the west, Baddeck a tourist destination and St. Peter‘s the location of one of three passages from the Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean, a man-made canal constructed in the mid- 1800s. ―They‘re spread out,‖ says one respondent of the population, ―it‘s very sparse but we do have some out migration from the cities.‖ The eastern portion of the watershed is the most populated, 50% living within Cape Breton Regional Municipality. RED and watershed management institutions within the region are discussed further in subsequent chapters. The foundation of these collaborative initiatives is the governments of the five First Nations and five municipalities (four counties and the Town of Port Hawkesbury) of Cape Breton and the partnerships they have formed. Unama‘ki First Nations are guided by the Mi‘kmaq Grand Council, the Mi‘kmaw traditional government, and the Unama‘ki Council of Elders. Unama‘kik is considered the ―head district‖ of the Mi‘kmaq and is typically home of the Grand Chief of the Mi‘kmaq Grand Council (Berneshawi 1993).

32 87 communities are included in the Bras d‘Or Lakes Scenic Drive. This does not include all of the upland communities (Bruleigh and MacKinnin 1994). This estimate includes 59 in Victoria County (listed in Community Accounts in the Baddeck and Little Narrows areas), 16 in the St. Peter‘s area, 16 in Dundee and 34 in the L‘Ardoise areas of Richmond County, Glendale (53), Whycocomagh area (18), East Bay (18) CBRM, Bouladerie Isl. (22), Florence (6), Mi‘kmaq (5) = 247 communities. . 33 The community of Membertou is not situated on Bras d‘Or shoreline but has a significant connection with the Lake. Malagawatach, for example, is an area set aside in 1958 for joint use by each of the five Nations.

136 5.3.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being

Cape Breton lies within the Atlantic Maritime ecozone, characterized by a cool, moist maritime climate, rolling hills and fertile lowland soils. Except for the fir-dominated boreal-like Cape Breton highland plateau the island is primarily within the Acadian Forest region (Eaton et al 1994). Cape Breton is known as Unama‘kik or ‗land of fog‘ by the Mi‘kmaq and is one of seven districts or ecological zones of the Mi‘kmaq territory (Mi‘kmaki), each with unique ecological characteristics (NS-W respondent). Within Cape Breton, the Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed includes three different provincial ecoregions: the Strait-Highlands and two others.34 Forest products company Store Enso (2005) identifies three ecological planning units on the island: Cape Breton Highlands, Lowlands and Atlantic Shore. The forests of Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed are traditionally mixed hardwood and coniferous stands, all of which had already been ―severely culled‖ by the early 1900s (Fernow 1912). Red spruce is the characteristic tree of the forest region along with balsam fir. The Acadian forest is also characterized by a variety of spring wildflowers, blueberry, speckled alder and ostrich fern and is physically and biologically diverse despite its relatively small area (Environment Canada 2005). A growing number of scientific studies and overview documents (Barrington 2005; Kenchington 1998; Westhead and Parker 2005) along with traditional ecological knowledge documentation (CEPI 2006) have been undertaken. Forests cover an estimated 80% of the watershed (excluding the Lakes, which comprise approximately 30% of the total watershed area). Westhead and Parker (2005, iii) refer to the Lakes as ―a series of estuarine bodies,‖ actually one large body of connected bays and channels that were freshwater until about 4-5,000 years ago when they were connected to the Atlantic Ocean by rising sea levels. Today the Bras d‘Or, referred to as the heart of Cape Breton, is a semi-enclosed saltwater system, open to the ocean through two small channels (St. Andrews and Great Bras d‘Or/Seal Island) and St. Peter‘s Canal, which are too narrow to allow full flushing and mixing. These conditions limit tidal range, intertidal habitat, nutrients and phytoplankton production as well as the influence of marine water temperature. This makes the Lakes warmer than other NS coastal waters. Mixed with

34 Northumberland Bras d‘Or, Cape Breton Highlands and NS Lowlands in Bras d‘Or, along with Atlantic Coastal and Cape Breton Taiga.

137 freshwater flows from rivers and streams, they also have lower salinity than the surrounding Atlantic. Low salinity limits the distribution of lobster, crab, oyster, scallops and other invertebrates. Ten distinct bays/basins with varied temperatures, salinities, physical habitats and other characteristics support species diversity (Parker et al. 2007). With a 1,000 km shoreline the Bras d‘Or is the largest inland sea in North America (Westhead and Parker 2005), and is considered ―a huge fish hatchery‖ as a spawning ground and nursery for a range of species. The literature and interview results suggest that the status of Bras d‘Or fisheries is mixed. Overview studies describe an overall increase in abundance, conflicting with public and respondent concern about fisheries declines. Of 23 species for which information is available, 70% are at low or declining levels. Overfishing, pollution, predation, habitat loss and degradation through dragging and siltation, introduced parasites and disease along with changing environmental conditions are factors in fisheries declines. TEK and other studies show mixed trends in the region‘s bird and wildlife populations, some increasing (17 referenced in literature reviewed), others rare and/or declining (10), and 15 rare and/or listed species. Hunting was a significant contributor in the extirpation of caribou, wolves and possibly the eastern cougar,35 along with climate change and predation. Deer populations have suffered from harsh winters while threats to listed species include forestry-related habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, urban and beachfront development, atmospheric pollutants and acid precipitation, unregulated trapping, competition from introduced and native species, and disease. Forestry is a significant activity in the Strait-Highlands region and Bras d‘Or watershed. Forestry-related concerns include loss of forest diversity (replacement with monoculture and mixed woods with softwood), unsustainable cutting rates, impacts of clearcutting and intensive harvesting, including loss of culturally significant trees such as black ash and maple, berries and medicinal plants. Disease and insect infestation are also significant factors in forest health. Denys Basin residents believe the main cause of sedimentation in the Lakes is clearcutting near streams and on steep hillsides, coupled with the removal of riparian vegetation on private properties. While supportive of the forest industry, most feel that responsible practices, including selective cutting, should be

35 The continued presence of the cougar is suggested but unconfirmed (Glavin 2006).

138 used (Barrington 2005). StoraEnso is responsible for the management and harvesting of 30% of forest lands and holds several certifications for sustainable forestry with policies and targets in place relating to protected areas, old forest, diversity, clearcutting and wildlife habitat protection. Concerns remain, however, and private lands, representing 62% of the watershed, are considered poorly monitored and protected. Ecological priorities vary at the local scale but sewage-related contamination of the Lakes, leading to shellfish closures and human health concerns was the number one ecological concern of respondents in both Strait-Highlands (NS-E) and the Bras d‘Or (NS-W). In the Denys Basin high levels of aluminum and bacteria and the limited supply of drinking water is a top concern (Barrington 2005). Some respondents, although significantly fewer than in Kittiwake, also raised the issue of attitudes and greed: ―People are still trying to take the last oyster.‖

5.3.3 Economic Indicators

The unemployment rate in Cape Breton is significantly higher than in any other NS region, nearly triple the rate in Halifax in 2000 (Statistics Canada 2000). After a century of coal mining and steel making, which made it an economic centre in Atlantic Canada, more than 20,000 jobs (24% of the workforce) were lost when foreign-owned coal mines began closing in the 1960s due to the high costs of extraction. The Sydney coke ovens stopped firing in 1998 and Cape Breton‘s last coal mine shut down in 2001. Bras d‘Or watershed communities also saw the loss of the Marble Mountain limestone quarry in 1991, which had operated since 1869 and once employed over 700 (Westhead and Parker 2005). Despite these economic shocks, after bottoming-out in 1993 Cape Breton‘s economy has been diversifying, creating ―hundreds of small businesses‖ and significant increases in services, tourism and information technology (IT). Its unemployment rate fell from 17.5% in 2000 to 14.5% in Dec. 2005 (CBCEDA 2008; Locke and Tomblin 2003). While deemed an ―economic miracle‖ significant problems remain (Byrne 2002). Labour force participation rates are low and therefore the unofficial unemployment rate is significantly higher than the official one, with 25% of island residents below the low income cut-off (Gurnstein 1998; MacIntyre 2004). Victoria County (2000) describes

139 changes to social assistance (1990s) and EI policies (1980s) that have encouraged dependency and poverty. Economic well-being on the island is unevenly distributed. The Strait-Highlands region performs worse on virtually all economic indicators than the island average. Inverness, which includes Port Hawkesbury, traditionally outperforms Richmond County. Port Hawkesbury, on the eastern shore of the Strait of Canso, and the adjacent ―Straits region‖ is a commercial centre located adjacent to the causeway connecting Cape Breton to mainland NS. The Strait has a deepwater, ice-free port (Strait of Canso Superport) and Bear Head Point Tupper industrial complex, making it a growth centre on the island and distinguishing it from the more rural areas of the region such as the Denys Basin, where outmigration of youth, unemployment and limited economic opportunities are identified as key socio-economic weaknesses (Barrington 2005). Mi‘kmaw communities also suffer from higher than average unemployment and dependency, although Membertou First Nation is noted for its economic success. The majority (74%) of business enterprises in Strait-Highlands are located in Inverness County. Retail and fishing and trapping operations are most common, followed by accommodation, food and beverage (SHRDA 2006). Natural resource industries have been weakened by a high Canadian dollar, remain critical (see Table 18). Primary sector employment represents 12% of the labour force (14% in Inverness County), rising significantly when processing of minerals, pulp and paper and seafood is considered. Manufacturing and construction constitute 22% of employment, followed by ―other service,‖ health and education, wholesale and retail and the primary sectors. Sales and service is the number one occupation in the region, followed by trades, transport and equipment operation, while fish and fish products, forest products and natural gas are leading exports (SHRDA 2007). StoraEnso pulp and paper mill alone accounts for 7-8% of direct total employment. Employment security is uncertain after a ten-month shutdown in 2005/2006. Citing ―profitability challenges,‖ the mill re-opened after receiving a wage rollback, voluntary retirement, and a new utility and municipal tax structure (Stora Enso 2006b). In September 2008 the company announced the sale of its North American paper mills

140 (King 2008). Other forestry-related businesses include sawmills and value-added enterprises such as a flooring company, Christmas trees and maple syrup. The region is relatively diversified in its primary industries. Although significantly impacted by the cod closure, the fishery remains an important part of the Strait-Highlands economy (providing a comparable level of employment to the forestry sector). Most fishing activity takes place beyond the shores of Cape Breton. Commercial fishing activity in the Lakes has been reduced from an estimated 169 fishermen in 1990 to less than 30 (Westhead 2006). Aquaculture is a growing industry in the region, including Atlantic salmon, steelhead, mussels, scallops, rainbow trout and oysters, although only 77 hectares (19%) of shellfish aquaculture lease area in the Lakes reported any activity from 2000 to 2004 (oysters). Mussel farms began in the Lakes in 1988 but were no longer active as of 2002.

Table 18 Major primary sector-related employers Sector Company Estimated number of employees Fishing and fish products Approx. 200 fishing enterprises, 780 harvesters and 350+ in seafood processing = Est. 1100+ Ocean Nutrition Canada 137 Premium Seafoods 120 Forestry and forestry products 1100+ Stora Enso (now 55036+ 300-400 contractors NewPage Holding Co.) Mining and mineral products 500 Little Narrows Gypsum 102 G-P Gypsum 131 Martin Marietta 100 (construction aggregates) NS Power (coal-based) 68 Sable Offshore Energy 20 natural gas processing Agriculture 250 TOTAL 3000+

Rich in minerals, mining is also a significant contributor to the regional economy. Both located within the Bras d‘Or watershed, gypsum from Little Narrows Gypsum is shipped via the Lakes while G-P Gypsum crushes on site and ships from Point Tupper

36 Stora Enso announced in September 2008 that it was selling its North American paper mills to Ohio-based NewPage Holding Company (King 2008).

141 industrial area. A small mine in the Denys Basin produces rare and valuable marble. Petroleum exploration activity has taken place on land, in the Lakes and offshore but has been inactive for several years. Sable Offshore Energy processes natural gas liquids at Point Tupper into butane and propane. Finally, extensive coal remains, which could be exploited if clean burning technology is developed. Providing an estimated 250 jobs agriculture also remains significant in some rural areas. Strait-Highlands products include beef, dairy, poultry, blueberries and strawberries. Agriculture accounts for approximately 2% of total income in the region, mining for 4% and fishing 10%. Approximately one million tourist trips are made annually to Cape Breton (including trips by island residents), many visiting Bras d‘Or Lakes. One politician expressed a belief that while coal was the major ―mover and shaker‖ for the island in the 1900s, the Bras d‘Or Lakes would be for this century, not just for tourism but also for aquaculture and ecological protection. Others point out that tourism may be jeopardized by pollution in the Lakes, which are ―perceived as a pristine environment, and relative to some areas it probably is.‖ Tourism generates an estimated $75 million annually in the Strait-Highlands region, providing seasonal employment for 800-1,000 individuals (S- HRDA 2007). Impacted by a weak US economy, strong Canadian dollar and high fuel costs, the industry has seen reductions of 5-7% in recent years (S-HRDA 2006). Finally, over 3000 individuals are employed in call centres in Cape Breton, including centres in Cheticamp and Port Hawkesbury (NS 2005).

5.3.4 Social Well-being and Human Health

As in NL, issues of inequity in the fishery were raised in the Strait-Highlands and Bras d‘Or region(s), particularly with respect to it being hard to enter the fishery. Due to their high cost, many licenses are now purchased by investors rather than those seeking to fish as an occupation. One fisherman reports that a lobster license worth as little as 25 cents in the 1960s is now worth $250,000. Some attempts have been made to address equity issues in the region‘s fishery, including increased access for First Nations and a 1996 co- management agreement for snow crab in Area 19 to facilitate resource sharing and ―even out the income gap between fishers.‖ Local residents also refer to the rising cost of properties, particularly summer residences, and competition from off-island buyers.

142 One respondent suggested that a loyal workforce with a low turnover rate is a selling feature and social characteristic of the region, citing call centres with less than 2% turnover (vs. 80+% in the U.S.) and a lower than average number of strike days. Sense of community belonging and unpaid time spent looking after seniors are also significantly stronger than provincial and national averages. Barrington (2005) describes how residents frequently visit neighbours and attend community events. Facilities such as the River Denys Friendship Hall provide venues for summer fairs, dances, card games and other events. Speaking of the Hall (Farrell 1993, 396) says ―its importance in our community cannot be overstated.‖ Lower than the provincial average, 85-88% of residents report high levels of social support. Despite strong community bonds significant divisions between communities were also described and observed. Cooperative efforts take place within a historical context of minimal interaction, racism and mistrust, particularly between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal communities. As industrial Cape Breton was developed ―no one even knew First Nations existed,‖ recounts one respondent, adding that the Membertou Nation used to be located on Sydney Harbour but was moved from this prime real estate to make way for a castle belonging to the steel plant builder. Although recent examples of racism and displacement exist, there is now increased interaction and respect at official levels. Malcolm (2003) explains that a climate of suspicion between Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal communities was an initial barrier when establishing a collaborative process to address sewage in the Lakes, but over time ―a deep basis of co-operation and support has been built between these two cultures and attendance from both has been strong at the monthly meetings.‖ The name Pitu‘paq was chosen for the new cooperative venture, a Mi‘kmaw word for the Bras d‘Or meaning ‗flowing into oneness.‘ Cross-cultural efforts are described further in Chapters 7 and 8. A 2006 protest over the food fishery by St. Peter‘s lobster fishermen demonstrates there is still much work to be done (Denny 2006). However, the level of cooperation between First Nations, and between First Nations and neighbouring communities, on Unama‘ki is considered unique in NS, where ―collaborative arrangements between First Nation bands and local municipalities are rare‖ (Tota 2002, 26). Tensions also exist between organizations, rural, urban and semi-urban communities, and according to traditional religious and cultural separations. Distrust of

143 and frustration with top-down approaches of senior levels of government ―from away‖ is also prevalent. Finally, crime is seen to be increasing in areas with summer residences (Barrington 2005). Life expectancy in Strait-Highlands is on par with the average for NS and just below the national average. Self-rated health in the region, however, is below the NS average. Self-reported life stress is similar to provincial levels. Deaths due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, suicides and self-inflicted injuries, unintentional injuries, and HIV/AIDS, as well as exposure to second hand smoke, are higher within the health district than elsewhere in the province (GASHA 2005). Concerns also exist about human health risks associated with sewage-based bacteria, viruses and pathogens in the Bras d‘Or Lakes. First Nations representatives draw attention to the four dimensions of health: emotional, spiritual, mental and physical (Paul 2006; Marshall

2006). There is one hospital in the region. Highschool and university completion rates in the region are lower than the provincial average, but other post-secondary education is higher. Limited educational opportunities are described as a barrier to community sustainability in one rural subregion (Barrington 2005), while the Straits area boasts three school boards and several news schools with programs in both French and English, specialized courses in Mi‘kmaw and Gaelic languages, Nova Scotia Community College, Strait Area Campus, Université Sainte Anne, Campus Petit de Grat, and a Nautical Institute. Two universities (St. Francis Xavier University and Cape Breton University) are within a one and a half hour drive from Port Hawkesbury (S-HRDA 2007). Bras d‘Or First Nations are actively involved in curriculum design at the secondary and post-secondary levels in an effort to increase Mi‘kmaw education levels. Educational attainment remains below provincial levels on- reserve, but above average among Aboriginal Canadians.

5.3.5 Culture and Way of Life

Unama‘ki is home to vibrant Acadian, Mi‘kmaw and Gaelic cultures. The Port Hawkesbury Area Profile (2007) refers to the region‘s diverse and distinct ―cultural resources,‖ including its immigrant population (3% of total). One respondent explains how the coal and steel industry brought ―25 different ethnic groups, scores of language

144 and hard-working immigrants‖ along with their unique cultural backgrounds to the island. The Acadian communities of Isle Madame and Cheticamp areas, known for their rug hooking, Acadian dance and song, make up 23% of the Strait-Highlands population. A resurgence of cultural identity and pride has been observed of the Mi‘kmaw Nations. The Eskasoni powwow is the largest event of its kind in the Atlantic provinces, with storytelling, drumming and dancing, talking circles, competitions and traditional Mi‘kmaw games. Wagmatcook Culture and Heritage Centre, opened in 2001, is dedicated to the revival of Mi‘kmaw culture. Annual gatherings have taken place at Chapel Island (Potlotek) since the 1700s and continue today (St. Ann‘s Mission Retreat) and Malagawatch, a sacred burial ground, traditional trading, gathering and annual ceremonial mass site is visited in August by each of the five Unama‘ki First Nations (CEPI 2006). The Unama‘ki Council of Elders ensures that knowledge about the culture is appropriately relayed. The Mi‘kmaw language is also strong, spoken by about 3,400 people in the Bras d‘Or Lakes area (70% of the aboriginal population) (Malcolm 2003). According to Statistics Canada (2001), 58% of Aboriginal people in the Strait-Highlands region report using a language other than French or English at work, rising to 79% in the Bras d‘Or watershed. Loss of plants and traditional knowledge about their use has negatively impacted cultural practices. Changes of activity due to loss of ice and birch trees large enough to make canoes and basket making species, along with lack of recognition and understanding of Aboriginal rights and title are also among the threats to Mi‘kmaw culture described. Mi‘kmaw respondents suggest that access to resources is limited by small reserve sizes and restrictions to access Crown lands and those controlled by forest companies. The 1800s immigration of the Scots to NS saw whole communities replant their roots along the shores of Bras d‘Or Lakes. With them they brought their language, songs, stories and religious practices and the ancestors of today‘s famous Cape Breton entertainers. In the early 1900s there were 100,000 Gaelic-speakers in Cape Breton. Church services were conducted in Gaelic, members of parliament were Gaelic-speaking and Sydney boasted the world‘s only Gaelic newspaper. Today, only an estimated 500- 1,000 Gaelic-speakers remain in NS. There has been a resurgence of interest in preserving

145 Gaelic language and culture and a series of initiatives, programs and policies launched to protect it, including the Highland Village Living History Museum overlooking Bras d‘Or Lakes. As in NL, rural residents value their rural landscape, open spaces and quiet rural lifestyle very highly. Activities such as walking outdoors, berry picking, swimming and bird /wildlife watching were the most common outdoor recreation activities and an important part of the way of life in the River Denys area (Barrington 2005).

5.4 Mount Waddington/Central Coast region, BC

5.4.1 Communities and Local Government

In addition to federal, provincial and First Nations governments, there are three main forms of local government in BC: municipalities, Regional Districts and improvement districts (legislated special purpose arrangements). Regional Districts are governed by a board of directors composed of representatives from both municipalities and electoral (non-municipal) areas. Original Community Futures (BC-E) boundaries generally followed those of the Mount Waddington Regional District (MWRD), which includes the northern third of Vancouver Island, the adjacent mainland and islands between. There are approximately 23 Figure 12 Mount Waddington Regional District settlements within © 2001, BC Stats, by permission

146 this landscape, including five municipalities,37 eight Kwakwaka‘wakw communities38 and a number of unincorporated areas39 (see Figure 12 and Appendix 9). Seven of these communities are within the Nimpkish watershed (including the estuary), with a population totalling 5,061 in 2006. Since 2001 the CFDC‘s service area has expanded to include the communities of Bella Bella/Waglisla, Rivers Inlet/Oweekano, Klemtu and Ocean Falls, all but the Bella Coola and area portion of the Central Coast Regional District (CCRD).40 The change virtually doubled the organization‘s service area and added 1,396 people, primarily First Nations, to its service population. Despite growth in several First Nations communities, the area‘s population fell by 10% from 1996 to 2001. Linked to resource sector declines, this trend continued from to 2006, MWRD losing 11% of its population in the most recent census period and CCRD 16% (Statistics Canada 2001; 2006; Wilson 2004). First Nations within the majority of the case study region are Kwakwaka‘wakw, or Kwak‘wala speaking peoples. Fourteen Kwakwaka‘wakw tribes are registered under the federal Indian Act. Others have amalgamated with neighbouring nations, are not registered or have been lost due to factors such as disease or warfare during European settlement. Eleven of these tribes are within the region.41 Seven are engaged in treaty negotiations and six are in Stage Four (Negotiation of an Agreement In Principle). Two of the three Central Coast First Nations, Heiltsuk and Wuikinuxv (Oweekeno), are also in Stage Four. The total self-reported Aboriginal population in the Mount Waddington Regional District was 2,570 in 2001 (20% of the total population), 1,722 living on- reserve. In the Central Coast portion of the Community Futures service area 1,450 residents report Aboriginal identity, bringing the total estimated Aboriginal population to 4,020 (27% of the total population) (Statistics Canada 2001). Three North Island Kwakwaka‘wakw Nations are affiliated with the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal

37 Alert Bay, Port Alice, Port Hardy, Port McNeill and Woss 38 Fort Rupert, Tsulquate, and Quatsino, Kingcome/Quaee, Gilford/Gwa‘yasdams, Hopetown, Hope Island and ‗Namgis/Alert Bay. 39 Including Coal Harbour, Quatsino, Winter Harbour, Holberg, Hyde Creek, Beaver Cove/Alder Bay, Telegraph Cove, Sointula and Echo Bay 40 Area A, Bella Bella and Kitasoo Census statistical areas, electoral area A and B. 41 Including the Da'naxda'xw/Awaetlala, Gwa‘Sala-Nakwaxda‘xw, Gwawaenuk, Kwakiutl, Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwaw-ahmish, Mamalilikulla-Qwe‘Qwa‘Sot‘Em, Namgis, Quatsino, Tlatsikwala, Tlowitsis and Tswataineuk

147 Council (MTTC).42 Offices of the MTTC, Da'naxda'xw/Awaetlala First Nation and U‘Mista Cultural Centre, serving all Kwakwaka‘wakw peoples, are located in Alert Bay. Six Nations belong to the Kwakiutl District Council, based in the Port Hardy/Fort Rupert area. The majority of Central Coast area residents belong to the Heiltsuk Nation and reside in the growing community of Waglisla or Bella Bella (pop. 1,253). Wuikinuxv and Kitasoo Nations belong to the Oweekeno-Kitasoo-Nuxalk Tribal Council (OKNTC). The majority of non-Aboriginal services and retail shopping enterprises are located in either the District of Port Hardy or Town of Port McNeill.

5.4.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being

The Pacific maritime ecozone is known for warm, wet climatic conditions, lush temperate coastal rainforests and mountainous topography. Organic matter and soils accumulate quickly, making BC‘s

rainforests one of world‘s

most productive ecosystems (Gilkeson et al. 2006). The ecozone is home to abundant plant and wildlife and rapidly growing human populations. Its narrow continental shelf and slope are the leading edge of the westward-shifting North American tectonic plate, folding under the

Pacific tectonic plate Figure 13 Upper mid-coast planning region and causing undersea 2005, R. Prescott Allen, by permission

42 Rohner (1967) refers to the Musgamagw as the cluster of four neighbouring tribes (Gwawaenuk/Gwawa'enux, Hahuamis, Kwikwasutinux and Dzawada'enux/Tsawataineuk, from the Broughton/Mainland Inlets villages of Kingcome, Gilford and Hopetown. Today MTTC members include the ‗Namgis, Tsawataineuk and Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish (incorporating the Hahuamis and Kwikwasutinux of Gilford/Gwa‘yasdams).

148 volcanoes and earthquakes as they meet. Sea ice is generally absent and the Alaskan peninsula largely prevents cold water currents and exchange between the Arctic and Pacific ecozones, creating relatively stable ocean temperatures and a transition zone between Arctic and temperate Pacific waters. Under the recent north and central coast planning process the majority of the BC- E region is classified as the Upper Mid-Coast (see Figure 13). A large portion of the Upper Mid-Coast is further classified as the Queen Charlotte Strait Ecosection. The majority of the region‘s population lives on the shores of this shallow marine area, which is interspersed with many islands and reefs. Strong currents mix oceanic and freshwaters to create highly productive marine environments. The region is home to highly diverse habitats and significant aquatic and terrestrial resources, including ancient forests, fjords/inlets and rivers fed by rainfall and mountain glaciers supporting all six species of Pacific salmon. The land base is approximately 50% mountain, lakes and glaciers and 50% forest, less than 1% urban. Within the Nimpkish watershed forest cover rises to 78%. Most of the region‘s forested lands lie within the Coastal Western Hemlock biogeoclimatic zone, considered the most productive forest ecosystem in Canada. The Upper Mid-Coast contains some of the world‘s largest tracts of intact temperate rain forest, much of the world‘s yellow-cedar and Sitka spruce, and significant amounts of the valuable and culturally significant western red cedar (Prescott Allen 2005). Rivers, lakes and streams support both resident and ocean-run trout. Nutrient-rich estuaries and sheltered waters provide rearing grounds for salmon and over-wintering habitat for waterfowl, gulls, pelagic species, loons, grebes and other bird species (Walden 1999). Raptors feed in near-shore wetlands and rivers while a variety of marine and terrestrial mammal populations occupy their respective habitats. Queen Charlotte Strait marine ecosection attributes include: winter winds and swells, with turbulent mixing of water masses resulting in significant upwelling of nutrients and increased phytoplankton productivity; high concentrations of bald eagles and waterbirds; important breeding grounds and colonies of several birds species; high capability for orcas, porpoises and dolphins; herring spawning areas, and salmon bearing rivers. Habitat diversity of the ocean shelf and slope is enhanced by large corals, benthic complexity (changes in slope

149 on the sea bottom), channels and passages with fast currents that sustain distinctive assemblages of species (Prescott Allen 2005). Despite these still relatively high levels of natural capital, ecosystems in the region are degraded and threatened. DFO (2005) and Gilkeson et al. (2006) describe BC‘s central and northern ecosystems as intact relative to the southern portions. However, salmon species in the central coast are considered to be in the worst condition of the central and north coast planning area (Rumsey et al. 2003). A review of the Upper Mid- Coast‘s ecological integrity suggests an overall poor Ecological Integrity Index, considering ecosystem diversity (rated poor), species and genetic diversity (bad), land, water and air quality (good), and provisioning and cultural services (bad). The proportions of land and coast converted to structures and cultivation are relatively small, old growth presence high (50% of the forested area) and 11% of the total area protected. Ecosystem diversity is poorly maintained and protected, however, damaged or reduced by logging and fishing in the most productive and diverse ecosystems. Many of the region‘s species are under threat and habitat protection for focal and at-risk species is either lacking or inadequate. Freshwater ecosystems are moderately underrepresented in protected areas, land ecosystems extremely underrepresented, and protection virtually absent for marine ecosystems. In 2006, land area protected rose to 20% of the Central Coast, addressing to some degree major concerns about habitat alteration and loss. Sharp declines in fish and timber populations have reduced sources of provisioning and cultural services. Of the fish populations examined by the Coast Information Team in the Upper Mid-Coast, 71% are declining. High-grading of old-growth red cedar remains a significant concern, although 50% of the region‘s forests remain old-growth. While the region may be regarded as pristine on a national or global scale, relative to historic levels and considering vulnerability to a combination of intensive logging, fishing, salmon farming and other resource developments, there are significant conservation concerns in the region (Prescott Allen 2005). The health of the Nimpkish watershed (Fig. 14), the largest on Vancouver Island, reflects these broader regional concerns, with a higher level of past forest harvest than other more remote central coast areas. The watershed has historically been rich in natural abundance, supporting salmon and other fisheries, giant Douglas fir and red cedar, ferns,

150 mosses, devil‘s club, salal and other plants along with wild game. Nimpkish forests were logged throughout the 1900s, moving from the coast, lakes and riverbanks to increasing

Nimpkish watershed

Figure 14 Nimpkish watershed © 2005, Canfor Corporation elevations. Most of the area‘s old growth has been harvested. Tree diversity has been reduced through replanting and the presence of old-growth-dependent threatened and endangered species suggests resulting ecosystem decline, despite the major tenure-holder (Canfor, now Western Forest Products) being considered a leader in wildlife research and habitat management within the forest sector. The story of Nimpkish River, once one of BC‘s top four sockeye producers and lifeblood of the Nimpkish people is one of continuing decline in salmon returns since 1948. Once numbering as many as one million sockeye, the run diminished to an estimated 5,800 returning sockeye in 2000 (with periods of relative strength in between). A highly valued early run is thought to be virtually extinct. Chinook, coho, steelhead and pink salmon runs are also endangered despite significant investments in enhancement, restoration and conservation since the 1970s (see Chapter 7). Habitat damage from

151 logging practices and ocean survival are thought to be significant contributors to salmon population declines. Other factors may include harvest (directed or as bycatch) in commercial, sport and illegal fisheries, lack of freshwater nutrients, stocking, pollution, disease, ecosystem effects of fishing disrupting the food chain, predation and climate change. The impacts of pesticides used in forestry are unknown, although DDT spraying by BC Hydro in the late 1950‘s is known to have killed thousands of juvenile salmon (McCorquodale 2006; Eklund 2004). Although only 6% of the watershed is protected (in nine parks and ecological reserves), and old growth and low elevation forests have been heavily logged, given its size and low level of urban and other industrial development the watershed is still considered relatively healthy overall, with significant potential for recovery.

5.4.3 Economic Indicators

Much of rural BC experienced economic declines in the late 1990s due to poor market conditions and trade disputes in the logging and wood processing industries, coupled with depleted stocks and policy changes in the fisheries. Mount Waddington Regional District experienced an 8% decline in employment from 1996 to 2001: 89% decline in the mining sector with the closure of the Island Copper Mine in 1995/1996, 44% in fishing employment, 15% in forestry, 42% in construction, and 15% in education. Despite increases in transportation and communication (42%), health and social services (39%) and accommodation, food and beverage (8%), new industries such as tourism and aquaculture were unable to fully compensate for declines in traditional sectors, contributing to population losses (Synergy Group 2003; Ommer et al. 2007). World commodity prices have risen and unemployment rates declined since 2003 (BCBC 2007), but Young and Matthews (2005; 2007), Markey et al. (2005) and others suggest that the problems evident during the late 1990s remain, including resource dependency and resulting vulnerability. In response to concerns about sustainable forest management practices, annual allowable cuts have been reduced and labour continues to be replaced with technology in an effort to increase productivity and international competitiveness. Prescott Allen (2005) reports that logging and wood production, fisheries and food production, and tourism combined provide 56% of income in the Upper

152 Mid Coast region. An estimated 23% of the Mount Waddington/Central Coast labour force works in the primary resource sectors. The region has the lowest economic diversity index and highest level of forestry vulnerability/dependency of all regions in the province (Synergy Group 2003). Forestry is also the main employment generator within the Nimpkish watershed (Canfor 2005). Overall forestry-related income dependency in 2000 was 45% in Mount Waddington (13% in the Central Coast), dependence on fishing and trapping 5% (11% Central), mining and agriculture 3%, and tourism 8%. Both fisheries and tourism dependence has remained stable in Mount Waddington since 1996, while public sector dependence rose to 21% from 16%. In the Central Coast, this has risen to 35% (BC Stats 2007; Synergy Group 2003; Wilson 2004). Demand for wilderness and cultural experiences are among the highest growth segments in BC tourism,43 but to date the region attracts only 2% of total visitors to Vancouver Island. The vulnerability of the tourism economy is highlighted by events such as the increasing value of the Canadian Dollar, 9/11 and the sinking of the BC Ferries vessel Queen of the North, which disrupted ferry service on the Inside Passage route, a major tourist draw in this region (UBC 2006; Salter et al. 2004). Falling prices and revenues in the BC salmon fishery, mid-1990s policy changes, particularly the Pacific Salmon Revitalization Strategy or ―Mifflin Plan‖ to reduce the size of the salmon fleet, coupled with depleted resources and conservation measures, downsizing in the processing sector that began before the Second World War, other policies favouring centralization, intense competition and fishing pressure have combined to reduce fishing opportunities and encourage operators to sell their licenses in a late 1990s buy-back program. The number of commercial and recreational salmon industry jobs has declined from approximately 26,000 to 13,000 along the BC coast. Several communities within the case study region are among the most severely impacted (Gislason and Lam 2000). Ecotrust (2004) report that the number of fishing licenses (excluding clam and herring gillnet) in five of the region‘s largest fishing communities fell by 40% (to 277 in 2002). Yet fishing still plays a key role in some community economies, both commercial and subsistence (Prescott Allen 2005). In the Central Coast

43 Saturation in other areas is also expected to be a factor in future tourism growth for northern areas.

153 region fishing and fish processing provide 19% of employment (vs. 15% in forestry) and 11% of income (vs. 13%). Over 50 salmon farms operate in the southern central coast region (Wilson 2004). Coastal planning efforts have identified areas for potential expansion of the salmon aquaculture industry, but opposition due to concerns about impacts on human health, ecological integrity and infringement on Aboriginal rights and title creates considerable uncertainty. Opportunities in shellfish aquaculture have also been identified but development has been slow, hindered by unresolved negotiations over First Nations treaties and protocols for development within traditional territories and harvest areas. Quatsino First Nation is working to establish shellfish aquaculture facilities along with Band-run local processing facilities for salmon and shellfish products and to balance aquaculture with shellfish subsistence activities (UBC 2006). With relatively high forestry wages, median incomes in the region are similar to the provincial average. Participation rates are high. Rates of both employment and unemployment are therefore higher than elsewhere in the province (although, like incomes, lower in the Central Coast). Significant discrepancies exist within the region. For example, unemployment was only 11% in 2001 in Mount Waddington (employment 67%), compared to 23% in the Central Coast Regional District. Dependence on transfer payments (the majority received by First Nations communities) rose from 1996 to 2001, but was still below the provincial average in Mount Waddington at 10%, rising to 18% in the Central Coast. Overall, economic opportunities are hampered by ―remoteness, limited infrastructure, lack of capacity, and inadequate access to capital and markets‖ (Prescott Allen 2005). Changes in government policy in areas such as employment insurance and social assistance have made economic circumstances worse for the region‘s poor, reducing benefits and making it more difficult to qualify (Ommer et al. 2007). Penfold et al. (2004) identify several areas of need for infrastructure development to maintain and support businesses in the region, including harbour and port development, roads, broadband connectivity and airport improvements. Some of these gaps have been filled or plans are underway to do so, including harbour development plans in Alert Bay and improvements to Port Hardy airport. Orca Sand and Gravel Ltd. was launched in 2006 to export construction aggregates to coastal California, generating up to 100 new

154 jobs. Small-scale run-of-the-river hydroelectric and wind energy projects are proposed. Oil and gas opportunities have been identified but are constrained by regulatory barriers, price fluctuations and concern over associated risks, which has led to opposition. Significant mineral potential has been identified and opportunities are being investigated in community forestry, underutilized species, cedar salvage, value-added production and botanical forest products (Penfold et al. 2004).

5.4.4 Social Well-being and Human Health

Social capital varies throughout the Mount Waddington/Central Coast region. Interview respondents and other researchers refer to significant inter-community competition and conflict. Bass (2007) describes, for example, conflict around the construction of a tourist development based on the historical site of ‗Fort Rupert‘, built by the Hudson's Bay Company in the 1800's and located within the reserve community of the Kwakiutl First Nation. Yet on Cormorant Island, Vodden et al. (2006) describe the precedent-setting Alert Bay Accord, signed by the ‗Namgis First Nation and Village of Alert Bay in recognition that the two governments ―have historically worked together to promote a better standard of living for all the residents of Cormorant Island.‖ Even here a degree of underlying tension exists, but the community is seen as a model of cooperation between Native and non-Native communities. Communities in the region share a commitment to the land base and natural resources of the area and thus a sense of common identity and connectedness with their environment. Inequity in access to natural resources and related decision-making and economic benefits is, however, a concern. A relatively small proportion of natural resource benefits flow to First Nations and local communities, although fair and sustainable allocation and management of resources and treaties with First Nations are considered key to regional well-being (CIT 2004). Rights to forest harvesting in the Mount Waddington region are held primarily by two major companies, along with a number of smaller licenses, private holdings and timber sales. Some areas have been hit harder than others by difficult economic circumstances. First Nations coastal communities, already experiencing lower levels of economic well-being, were disproportionately impacted by 1990s fisheries declines (Vodden 1999). After a

155 provincial government ―clawback‖ of 20% of major licensed tenures in 2004/2005, however, new annual allowable cut allocations were made to First Nations. Some measures have also been taken to increase First Nations access to the commercial fishery. Geographic isolation from the rest of the province and kinship ties contribute to a sense of interdependence among communities in the region. Sense of community belonging and time spent on child care are strong compared to the remainder of BC (corresponding with a higher proportion of youth population). BC Stats (2007) indicates high rates of serious and juvenile crime relative to the BC average and the second highest rate of spousal assault in the province in Mount Waddington. An Upper Mid Coast Well-being Assessment indicates a poor population and health index for the region. Statistics are not available for the Central Coast Local Health Area (LHA) due its small population, therefore health indicators are reflective of only the Vancouver Island North LHA and Mount Waddington Region. The region performs poorly relative to the rest of BC on numerous health indicators, including the lowest life expectancy (2002-2006 average) and highest rates of teen pregnancy, suicide/homicide and years of life lost to natural causes in BC. Rates of infant mortality are more than four times the provincial average and life expectancy in the region fell from 1997 to 2005 (BC Stats 2007). The Health Area‘s Aboriginal population experiences higher mortality rates than the population as a whole, although decreasing significantly over the past decade. Despite these indicators 61% of the populations rate their general health as excellent or very good (vs. 60% in BC). Social services such as Child and Family Services and Women‘s Centres designed to support families are being cut back on Northern Vancouver Island despite economic pressures and associated needs (Ommer et al. 2007). ‗Namgis First Nation in Alert Bay has taken a community-wide approach to health service delivery and provides a range of services to all Island residents. There are four hospitals within the Mount Waddington region, as well as addiction and mental health services and two senior care facilities. Concerns are expressed about the need to travel for specialized health care services. In the Central Coast, there is a Health Centre in Bella Bella and nursing/health stations in Klemtu and River‘s Inlet. As is the case with health indicators, the region underperforms compared to the

156 remainder of the province in highschool and post-secondary completion. Mount Waddington rates 23rd of 26 of Regional Districts in BC on education indices. With all socio-economic indices considered, the region is ranked 21st of 26 in well-being (BC Stats 2005).

5.4.5 Culture and Way of Life

―The culture of the Kwakwaka‘wakw has survived for thousands of years, but now is in jeopardy…‖ U‘mista Cultural Society 1997, 19-20

―To the Kwakwaka‘wakw First Nations, language and history are one. As fewer and fewer Elders speak Kwak‘wala, history and its oral traditions are lost.‖ U‘mista Cultural Society 2005, 7

While the Mount Waddington population includes a higher proportion of immigrants and visible minorities than other case study regions, celebration of cultural diversity is limited primarily to Aboriginal cultures and the Finish settlement of Sointula. Strength and pride in culture are important factors in health and well-being in the community of Alert Bay, contributing to self-esteem and mental health, a spirit of helping one another and, increasingly, to economic activities such as Aboriginal tourism and artworks (Vodden 1999). Language is critical to the survival of Aboriginal cultures, yet a study done by U‘mista Cultural Society demonstrated that less than 9% of Kwakwaka‘wakw speak their language fluently (Vodden 2006). Only 30 individuals in the region report using a language other than French or English at work. Assuming all 30 reside within Aboriginal communities, less than 1% of Aboriginal people in the region use a language other than French or English at work. Kwak‘waka‘wakw language and culture remains threatened despite strong leadership over many generations and the efforts of organizations such as U‘mista Cultural Society, elders and other committed individuals who have helped sustain and nourish this important aspect of community pride and well-being. Indicators related to culture (activities, practices and places secured) are poor in the mid-Coast region, in large part due to ecosystem decline and vulnerability, with resulting threats to culture and way of life (CIT 2004).

157

5.5 Summary and Case Study Region Comparison

All three case study areas are experiencing sustainability challenges, including the loss of their populations at varying rates. Populations are declining to a significantly greater extent in the BC case study region, followed by Strait Highlands. The Mount Waddington/Central Coast region exhibits very different demographic trend than the province of BC. Population decline is increasing in this region while slowing or steadying in the Atlantic regions. With a high proportion of Aboriginal residents and young working families, the BC region has the highest number of youth and lowest number of seniors. Kittiwake zone has the lowest percentage of youth and Strait-Highlands the highest proportion of retirees. Two of the three areas have significant Aboriginal populations (BC and NS). Similar to provincial trends, resident diversity is greatest in Mount Waddington/Central Coast, followed by Strait-Highlands and Kittiwake. Mount Waddington/Central Coast economic indicators generally mirror the findings of the provincial comparative analyses, faring better on all economic indicators than the Atlantic case study regions with the exception of primary sector dependence. Dependence on export-led primary resource sectors is highest in BC, followed by NS (with the most diversified primary sector) and then NL cases.44 Primary sector dependence has been declining in all three regions in recent decades, the decline most pronounced in BC-E. Kittiwake zone‘s (NL) dependence on government transfers is nearly triple that of Mount Waddington/Central Coast (BC), unemployment nearly 2.5 times higher. Mount Waddington/Central Coast also has a higher number of businesses relative to its population than the other regions, followed by Kittiwake and Strait- Highlands.45 There is considerable variation in economic well-being both within and between the case study regions. While overall incomes are highest in the BC case, for

44 Both BC and NS regions meet Clemenson‘s (1992) definition of economic reliance as a state when 30% or more of the local labour force is employed in the industry or sector in question, including indirect and processing employment. Kittiwake region‘s level of dependency is 27% of employment if a multiplier of one is used for the fishery (as per Mandale et al 2000) but exceeds 30% if a multiplier for fish harvesting of 1.3 or greater is used (as in BC 2007). The latter approach is taken in assuming all three are resource- dependent regions. 45 602 businesses in Strait-Highlands (2002, one business per 48 people), 1,628 in Kittiwake (2004, one business per 29 people), 576 in Mount Waddington and 97 in Central Coast (2005, one business per 25 residents in MW/CC).

158 example, at $13,072 in 2001, median Central Coast individual incomes are lower than in either east coast region. While rating positively on most economic well-being indicators, Mount Waddington/Central Coast rates poorly within BC on education and health indicators and thus on socio-economic indices overall. The region rates lower than Kittiwake (NL-E) but higher than Strait-Highlands (NS-E) on self-rated health and mental health indicators such as stress and suicide rates, equal to Strait-Highlands in life expectancy (both higher than Kittiwake, NL). Mount Waddington/ Central Coast and Kittiwake regions have a comparable number of medical facilities, Strait-Highlands fewer. Reflecting on the link between health and governance one elder explains, ―we need to be healthy to have the governance we once had.‖ High school and university completion rates are significantly lower in all three regions than provincial averages, lowest in Kittiwake, followed by Mount Waddington/ Central Coast. Rates of participation in other post-secondary education is, however, higher in Strait Highlands and Mount Waddington/Central Coast regions than provincial averages. Overall, Strait Highlands residents are most educated, Kittiwake the least. All three regions have access to a community college, Strait Highlands the closest to university facilities. Social and cultural capital are more difficult to measure and compare than the other dimensions of well-being discussed above. According to interview respondents, all three cases are among the most difficult regions in their provinces for regional development and collaboration. Competition between communities was the most commonly noted barrier in both Mount Waddington (81%) and Strait Highlands cases (67%). Yet all three regions are considered leaders in their respective provinces in watershed management, Bras d‘Or and Indian Bay particularly. The collaborative governance initiatives described in the chapters to follow have been undertaken despite varying degrees of conflict and mistrust among communities and between local actors and external agencies (Ommer et al. 2007; Hipwell 2001). Overall, indicators suggest social capital is strongest in Kittiwake, followed by Strait-Highlands. While cultural well-being is difficult to measure and apparently strong but threatened in all regions, results suggest that Aboriginal languages are significantly stronger in NS than in the BC case study region.

159 As with cultural capital, ecosystem indicators are not readily available in each of the case study regions, particularly within NL, where state-of-the-environment reporting is weak. Sustainability concerns raised in each region, many of them ecological, are discussed further in Appendix 9. Mount Waddington/Central Coast is rich in ecological diversity and natural resources relative to Strait Highlands/Bras d‘Or, which is in turn more diverse than Kittiwake/Indian Bay. Significant concerns related to the overharvesting and habitat impacts of forestry and fishing are common to all three regions, as well as issues related to tourism and recreational property development. With the exception of the terrestrial areas of the Central Coast and Cape Breton Highlands, ecosystem types and regions are underrepresented in protected area networks in all three areas. The majority of fish species are in decline or at low population levels, forest diversity has declined and old-growth dependent species are threatened. Forestry concerns were greatest in BC, fisheries in NL and water quality/pollution in the Bras d‘Or watershed region. Ecological pressures are connected to the high level of dependence on forestry and fishing industries as well as more recent tourism and urban development, particularly in the Bras d‘Or. Drinking water quality concerns exist in both the Kittiwake and Bras d‘Or regions, while changing climate and ecological conditions are noted as a concern in all cases. Introduced species are a particular concern in the Bras d‘Or but also noted in the Kittiwake zone.

Table 19 Regional comparison of well-being indicators Indicator Category Regional Comparison (relative ranking on indicators) Human/individual Demographic mixed - BC-E younger age composition but greatest rate of population loss; Education - NS-E highest, NL-E lowest; Health indicators mixed but also lower overall in NL-E, higher in BC Economic BC-E highest on all indicators except degree of primary sector (forest) dependency, Kittiwake (NL-E) lowest Social Highest in NL, lowest in BC Cultural Vibrant but threatened cultures in all three regions, most diverse in NS-E and BC-E, least in Kittiwake (NL-E), language strongest in NS Ecological Threatened in all three cases, BC-E highest overall (in five of nine quantified indicators, but also lowest in three) Overall Mixed results, all face significant challenges but also exhibit strengths in various forms of community capital

It is evident from this comparative analysis that disparities in well-being exist at multiple spatial scales. Notions such as well-being and sustainability are multi-faceted, all

160 regions demonstrating both strengths and challenges that impact community resilience and collaborative governance capacity. Areas where indicators suggest levels of well- being below provincial and national averages and below that of other rural regions can also be considered ―sustainability gaps,‖ suggesting sustainable development efforts are needed where these gaps exist. In order to assess the extent to which case study outcomes have helped to address these gaps (Chapter 8), using the indicator information provided above, a sustainability gap rating was assigned to each region for each of the five categories of well-being discussed (see Table 20). For example, with low performance on employment and income indicators Kittiwake region (NL-E) was assigned a 3/4 in the area of economic sustainability, recognizing some areas of strength, such as the informal economy and relative economic diversity. By contrast, indicators suggest that, while not without room for improvement, social capital is strong in NL relative to the BC case study region and to national averages. The region was therefore assigned a sustainability gap rating of 1/4 (low priority concern) in the social well-being category. Watershed management and RED regions were combined in this analysis due to a lack of separate indicator data for the current state of watershed and economic regions. With the exception of ecological indicators, data is more readily available for economic regions.

Table 20 Sustainability gap rating

NL-E NS-E BC-E Human/individual 3 2 3 Economic 3 3 2 Social 1 2 3 Cultural 2 1 2 Ecological 3 3 2

Finally, key similarities and differences in the biophysical and socio-economic characteristics of these regions are summarized in Table 20. One notable similarity is the economic contributions these regions make to their provinces and to the country. Respondents express frustration that Central Canada points to government dependency in these regions without sufficient analysis of what their regions in turn contribute to the federation, ecologically, culturally and socially, but also economically. A Mount Waddington Net Wealth Balance sheet study demonstrated, for example, that the region was an income generator for the Province of BC, outflows to government exceeding

161 inflows by over $100 million annually (Synergy 2003). Tomblin and Locke (2003) similarly find that Cape Breton contributes over $12 million more to the provincial coffers each year than it receives. Also similar is that each of these are regions ―on the edge,‖ far from the Nation‘s capital and subject to largely absentee management. All also have a long history intertwined with the ecosystems of which they are part, a history that is continually being rewritten as these socio-ecological systems change and adapt.

Table 21 Similarities and differences between the case study regions Similarities Differences • Islands/coastal (connection to and • Island and region size (spatial) dependence on land and sea) • Settlement history (timeline, settler diversity • Settlement history (colonization and and origin) resource exploitation) • Population size (provincial vs. region) • Remote from national capital • Degree of population decline • Under-recognized economic contributions • Proximity to urban centres • Population aging and declining • Ecosystem characteristics, diversity and • Threats to fisheries (ecological + labour complexity force, licensing/access) • Degree of ecosystem pressure/use • Rich but threatened cultures based on • Population and cultural diversity ecosystems and way of life • Political influence within the province • Large-scale forestry, increasing tourism/ • Provincial political characteristics seasonal/absentee residents • Regional government structures • Satisfaction with lifestyle/communities • Recognition of Aboriginal rights and • Lower than average performance on title/stage of treaty negotiations education and health indicators • Levels of wealth and employment • Loss of government services, pressures on • Levels of social capital local governments • Desire for local involvement in governance, collaborative governance initiatives • Diversity of local circumstances within regions

The complexities of the local and regional contexts described above highlight the value and necessity of a holistic, integrated approach to regional analysis and development. Despite significant differences, patterns of past decision-making, which have often favoured the economic imperative, have degraded coastal ecosystems and the cultures and ways of life that are intimately connected to them. The chapters that follow trace the development of RED and watershed management policies nationally, provincially and within the case study regions, where multiple actors are attempting to work together to capitalize on the strengths and address the challenges to sustainability raised above.

162

6 – Regional Economic Development Redefined

This chapter introduces the three regional economic development (RED) case studies, including a brief history, introduction to their mandates, activities, organizational structure, resources, major actors and their relationships (see also Appendix 10). To begin, an overview is provided of the theoretical and policy traditions that have lead up to and accompany the current, renewed interest in regions as a focal scale for development in Canada and, particularly, in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. Despite the developments in the new regionalism introduced in Chapter 2 and a history dating back to the 1920s (Friedmann and Weaver 1979), regional development theory remains a project in progress. Savoie (1992) points out that there is no single theory to explain or aid in the analysis of regional disparity and competitiveness. Kitson et al. (2004) contend that regional development policy has jumped ahead of understanding and empirical analysis. As described in Chapter 2, Brodie (1990) presents two fundamental perspectives on the factors that lead to development, or underdevelopment: one that focuses on internal factors (self-balance) and the other on external and structural constraints to local development (imbalance). Aligned with the structural or imbalance perspective, alternative development is a mid-level theory that provides principles, values, strategies and tools that: recognize and have faith in people as actors; value community; focus on assets rather than deficiencies; are holistic and prioritize basic needs. Alternative development calls for a redistribution of power through decentralization and genuine, bottom-up participation in development approaches that are rooted in culture and territory (Friedmann and Weaver 1979; Todaro 1997; Anderson 1999; Brohman 1996; Black 1999). Within the family of alternative development approaches, sustainable community economic development (CED) aims to promote ecosystem and community health and incorporates ecological along with human-centered values such as social justice, self- reliance and the elimination of poverty (Vodden 1997; Bryant 1999). Community involvement in natural resource management, often through co-management

163 arrangements, is a key strategy for sustainable CED in resource-dependent regions (Vodden 1999; Malenfant 1997; Pinkerton 1989). Within the realm of alternative development is an emerging literature on integrated, balanced development, a holistic yet goal-oriented approach that calls for integration of all aspects of development, spatial (vertical), temporal and sectoral (horizontal). Integrated development is presented as an alternative to dualist debates over centralization and decentralization, top-down vs. bottom-up, environment vs. economy, large vs. small scale enterprise, formal vs. informal economies, rural vs. urban, traditional vs. ―new economy‖ sectors, structure vs. agency and so on (RCEU 1986). It addresses multiple issues and objectives, including economic, ecological, and socio-cultural imperatives and utilizes multiple strategies and tools. The evolving concept (Nozick 1999; Brown 1999; House 2001) draws from a growing and now extensive literature on integrated resource and environmental management, including integrated coastal zone management (Margerum 1999; Meltzer 1998; Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998). Due to its multi-stakeholder/multi-scale approach integrated development is complementary to emerging multi-level forms of governance and with complexity theory, which advocates a ―both/and‖ rather than ―either/or‖ view of the world.

6.1 Scaling Up Community Economic Development

While alternative development theory offers solutions that recognize the importance of empowerment, sustainability, context and diversity, an evolving body of regional development literature discusses how to accommodate these principles at scales beyond a single settlement. This new regional development takes place within a sub-provincial geographic area composed of a number of communities with a boundary defined by ecological, political, cultural and/or socio-economic criteria (Chapters 2 and 3). Baker (1993) refers to these multi-community clusters as a micro-region. Arguments for the local sub-provincial as a focal scale include observations that economic issues and assets overflow community boundaries, and that there are economies of scale in regional learning systems and regional provision of infrastructure and services. Recognizing that local development efforts must be examined within larger global, national and provincial

164 contexts, it is further suggested that combining community resources increases discretionary reach and political power beyond the local scale (RUPRI 2006). Early theories of regional development focused on growth poles or centres (Chapman 2005; Perroux 1969). Associated policies and programs focused on developing regional centres, with the belief that spread effects would distribute benefits throughout the rest of the region (Hodge and Robinson, 2001). This approach favoured urban settlements. The anticipated spread effects often did not materialize, instead furthering tendencies toward agglomeration. Chapman (2005) and others argue that regional development policies have shifted from growth centres to clusters that build on local strengths, including local skills, knowledge, technology and sectors (Porter 2001). By building on areas of local strength, clusters of interconnected businesses and support organizations develop. New regionalist literature emphasizes the role of social capital and ‗relational assets‘ (MacLeod 2001; Scott 1998; Cook and Morgan 1998; Storper 1997; 1999), knowledge and innovation. Coffey and Bailly (1996) introduce the concept of ‗innovative milieu‘, as a ‗created space‘ that is both a result of and a precondition for learning and innovation (Malmberg and Maskell 1997). A ‗milieu‘ is described as a coherent territorial production system and set of linked actors, firms and institutions. Ideally, cultural norms and relationships within these networks, or innovation systems, are characterized by high levels of trust, reciprocity and institutions that nurture creativity and innovation (Goldstein 2005). Regions with an innovative milieu develop learning capacity and resilience. Once again spread effects are promised as innovation occurs and clusters develop and expand into new areas, creating region-wide competitive advantage. In many cases, however, cluster development has led instead to increased specialization and rigidity (Chapman 2005). Markey et al. (2006) suggest that the application of the cluster concept in the rural context is poorly reflected in the literature, although offering potential to motivate cooperation and provide a compromise between sector-based and more territorial approaches. Similarities are drawn between new regionalism and earlier centralization and growth pole theories, particularly given the emphasis placed on city regions as clusters of growth and innovation (Baptista 2000; Cowan et al. 2003; Wolfe 2003; Tremblay and Rousseau 2005). Rural communities are often disadvantaged in the

165 knowledge economy and unconvinced of the notion that knowledge will replace natural resources and labour as critical sources of economic growth (Tremblay 2005; Gertler et al. 2002). Savitch and Kantor (2003, 1012-1014) advocate for continued emphasis on development at the community scale. Economic performance, they suggest, depends on strong social capital, to which community ties and local business ownership are important contributors. Community development can be facilitated by rescaling downward to the community organization level and rescaling the influence of community organizations upward to broader levels. A regional organization can assist in this process as a linking organization that ―represents the collective interests of community organizations‖ and can ―build civic cooperation around broad issues…balancing local interests with those of the broader region.‖ Regional development is often more widely accepted than CED among governments as a policy approach. Dealing with single communities is seen as too time- and resource-intensive. Individual municipalities are often viewed as financially and politically ill-equipped to deal with today‘s complex problems (Diamant 1997). Regional structures that encourage cooperation can help minimize damages to regional development potential caused by competitive behaviour between communities within a region (Brunnen 2006). Further, Greenwood (2005) points out that while market forces may be largely sufficient for large urban centres to provide the infrastructure needed to support development, this is often not true for smaller, more remote communities. These communities can benefit from regional support. In a recent review of rural and regional development policies and programs, Goldenburg (2008) concludes that traditional approaches are insufficient for meeting today‘s challenges. Programs to support economic development, job creation and business development, he suggests, must be combined with more holistic community- and place-based approaches that involve local actors creating and building on local assets in partnership with other levels that provide support, including strategic investments. While a range of policy instruments is needed, effective partnerships, participatory strategic planning, and effective governance, including multi-sector consultation, planning, monitoring and evaluation are considered critical.

166

6.2 Regional Development in Canada

Economic disparities exist both across and within Canadian provinces. Responses to these disparities have occurred at multiple levels, but are often focused on interprovincial inequities. The traditional connotation of the Canadian region has been multi-provincial, including: Western Canada (or British Columbia and the Prairies, consisting of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba), Central Canada (or Ontario and Quebec), Atlantic region (Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick) and the North (Hodge and Robinson 2001; Ali et al. 2007). A brief overview of efforts to address regional disparity and support economic development in regions with low income and employment levels is provided in Table 22 below, many of them drawing on theories of self-balance such as modernization and growth poles rather than alternative, integrated perspectives. Additional details, including a summary of these past approaches and what Desjardins et al. (2004) refer to as the ―alphabet soup‖ of federal programs in Canada, are provided in Appendix 11.

Table 22 National approaches to RED Regional development Dominant approach policy era 1940s and early 1950 Passive (focus on revenue transfers to the provinces) and initiatives to address sector-specific problems Late 1950s – 1960s Capital investment in rural areas and support for migration of displaced workers Late 1960s – 1970s Training, building social and economic infrastructure, growth poles, federal-provincial agreements 1980s Mega-projects, free trade and competitive federalism but with a constitutional commitment to reduce disparity – leads to federally controlled but regionally located development agencies 1990s – 2000s Move to a wider variety of approaches, including support for innovation and commercialization, CED, the social economy, and community capacity building, adjustment programs. infrastructure and strategic support to sub-provincial regions Sources: RCEUN (1986); Savoie (1992); Roy and Wong (1998); Baker (2003); Desjardins et al. (2004); Goldenburg (2008) Past policies and programs have left a legacy that significantly influences RED today. Development agencies established in the mid 1980s in the Atlantic (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency – ACOA, with ACOA programs delivered by Enterprise Cape Breton - ECBC on Cape Breton Island and the neighbouring portion of mainland

167 Nova Scotia), Northern Ontario (FedNor) and Western Canada (Western Diversification - WD), for example, remain active and instrumental in their regions after more than 20 years. They are criticized for lack of clear results and allocating dollars in exchange for votes, but these agencies became a voice for their regions in the federal system, and delivered both national and tailor-made programs and services targeted to their regions. While federally funded and controlled the agencies work with local and provincial levels as development partners, as illustrated by the case studies described below and by interview responses indicating that these agencies (ACOA, ECBC and WD) are among the most influential actors in RED within the case study regions. The approaches taken by each of the agencies differs significantly despite common federal priorities and a consistent role as important sources of financial support for both business and community economic development initiatives. Both local and federal respondents explain the WD has taken a hands-off role in BC-E and in the region, for example; to the point where both feel more direct involvement and non-financial support is needed. In NL-E, however, one federal respondent explains: ―There‘s very few economic development meetings that will actually happen in the region unless there‘s an ACOA official in the room.‖ Headquartered in Cape Breton, ECBC representatives suggest ―a lot of our work is in hand holding.‖ As a Table 23 Federal agencies active in RED

Crown corporation the Federal Agency # of respondents that refer to the agency has a agency as an RED actor BC-E NS-E NL-E All considerable degree of N = 23 n =27 n = 34 n = 84 WD/ECBC/ACOA 10 15 20 45 independence from HRSDC/Service 14 10 13 37 Ottawa relative to Canada Fisheries and 4 4 4 12 ACOA and WD. Oceans Notably, this Indian and Northern 6 2 8 Affairs autonomy and relative Rural Secretariat/ 2 5 7 Partnership proximity does not Industry Canada 1 1 2 appear to have Canadian. Tourism 1 1 Commission translated into stronger relationships with other actors in the NS-E network than in the BC case, in part because of a perception that the Corporation‘s ―focus has been mostly on Cape Breton County,‖

168 and to a lesser extent Port Hawkesbury, and on support for private sector and larger projects rather than small-scale community development initiatives. One representative suggests alternatively that, in BC, WD is moving increasingly into rural and community development. Although support for this direction is mixed within the agency, supportive leadership is deemed instrumental in positive WD relationships within the BC case:

There are people here who still honestly believe that rural communities should be left up to the whims of the market, whether we do anything with them or not if they can‘t survive on their own they shouldn‘t be there. There‘s one guy. For him these programs for rural communities are just meaningless. For him what is meaningful are biomedical research, fuel cells and the big stuff. So we have dissention within our own office.

BC-E federal respondent

There‘s also a very positive guy at the helm of the initiative at WD … he‘s an exceptional guy...the epitome of what‘s best of bureaucracy, right. He‘s sensitive, he‘s got experience working in the field, he‘s intelligent, he‘s got a good sense of humour, you know he‘s just a super guy… if you‘ve got somebody in that position that has all the right skills, then it works better than other places.

BC-E CFDC respondent

The significant role of individual leaders within government is discussed further in Chapters 8 through 10. Other federal agencies considered to be important actors in RED policy networks include HRSDC/Service Canada (also a major partner of all three case study organizations), Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs (see Table 2346). Through the initiation of the Community Futures Program in 1986, Employment and Immigration Canada (now Service Canada) became a ―pioneer‖ in Canadian CED. But by the early 1990s its approach had changed to what is described as the Employment Insurance Regime, focused on individual workers, their return to work and savings to the Employment Insurance (EI) account (Roy and Wong 1998). As a result, cuts were made

46 Relationships maps provided in Appendix 5 provide additional detail on the federal role in case study networks. Federal agencies noted in Appendix 5 include those referred to by respondents and in documents reviewed. Table 22 reflects interview results only.

169 to longer term CED programs and the agency ―pulled out of economic development.‖ Responsibility for the Community Futures program was transferred to the federal regional development agencies. WD and FedNor continued to operate the program while ACOA chose a different approach, separating development and small business lending components. As a result regional economic development boards (REDBs) were formed in NL and Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) in NS (described below). The new organizations were to act as planners and development facilitators while independent Community Business Development Corporations (CBDCs) continued to offer technical and financial services for small businesses; roles that had been combined under Community Futures. Regulations and procedures associated with Service Canada funding became significantly more rigid after a 1999 internal audit and October 2000 Report of the Office of the Auditor General found ―serious and widespread problems in HRDC's systems and practices for managing grants and contributions.‖ Many interview respondents consider these changes a barrier to program effectiveness and to partnerships with the agency. ―HRDC is so frightened now,‖ says one community leader, ―it‘s hard to get support.‖ An employee of the agency adds, ―Our Department has made a decision to be safe at all costs… but I think the ways we‘re getting accountability is at the cost of programming and the needs of the community and the clientele… what we used to be able to do in maybe a couple days turn around now takes us at least a month… as a department we‘ve stopped listening…‖ Despite these concerns the department has played a significant role in transition programs, including fisheries restructuring, programs to help unemployed workers become self-employed and projects in new and growing sectors such as tourism. In the Kittiwake region, rural development associations have been contracted to provide employment assistance services, working with clients to develop back-to-work action plans, and with non-profit groups or employers to create employment opportunities. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has contributed to fisheries adjustment programs and incorporated economic considerations in coastal planning, involving RED actors in related projects and planning processes (see also Chapter 7). While not widely discussed, Industry Canada has provided important communications infrastructure support to rural and northern regions, including all three case study areas, through its

170 Broadband for Rural and Northern Development and Community Access Programs. The efforts of both departments are consistent with the Federal Framework for Action in Rural Canada and Canadian Rural Partnership. The Framework, launched in 1998, provides an overall federal approach to supporting rural development. Annual reports to Parliament on progress in meeting rural and remote Canadians‘ needs and priorities are required and Rural Teams have been established, an example of horizontal governance. In BC, one member explains, the Team includes an array of provincial ministries, is Co-Chaired by provincial and WD representatives and has a staff member funded half time by Agriculture Canada and half time by Service Canada. The Team has sponsored rural dialogues throughout the province, with various departments contributing. Baker (2003) and others are sceptical however, that these initiatives will lead to significant change. Baker‘s concerns are enforced by the limited recognition of the Rural Teams or related structures and programs by interviewees. Five of six respondents that referred to the Teams were federal, one suggesting the Teams are ―strong on research‖ but ―the link is not very strong to existing organizations.‖ A provincial representative adds, ―Ottawa has very tight grip on Rural Partnership.‖

6.3 Provincial Policies and Programs

Canada‘s provincial governments have also grown and developed programs to address intra-provincial inequity, including rural poverty and job loss. They have demanded a greater say in regional development despite greater federal financial power. Relationships between the two levels of government are often characterized, at best, by lack of coordination and, at worst, outright conflict. Greenwood (2005) observes that only Saskatchewan has a dedicated rural development department, while other provincial governments have branches within agriculture (Alberta, Manitoba), municipal affairs (Ontario, Quebec), economic development (NS, NB, NL), or community development (BC, PEI) departments. Alberta, Saskatchewan and NL also have provincially-sponsored Regional Councils, task forces or action committees with appointed members devoted to rural and/or regional development. Most provinces have rural strategies or economic development strategies with rural components. Many also have specific strategies for northern or peripheral regions and

171 have created lending agencies, business and investment attraction programs and supported the establishment of RED bodies (see Appendix 11). A brief overview of policies and programs in BC, NS and NL is provided below.

6.3.1 British Columbia

BC experienced a period of economic prosperity from the 1950s to the 1970s referred to as the long boom (Markey et al. 2005), supported by resource extraction and provincial infrastructure investment. Regional Districts were put in place in 1965 but otherwise there was little focus on regional development before an early 1980s recession (Hayter and Barnes 1997; Markey et al. 2005) and the placement of provincially funded Regional Development Officers in eight regional offices, including Northern Vancouver Island, in the late 1980s. The early 1990s saw the election of a New Democratic Party (NDP) government and a shift towards a more community-based approach. One provincial representative describes programs that included community visioning and charettes, business programs and funding for economic development commissions. The number of regions was reduced from eight to five, but with sub-regions identified in each. The Vancouver Island-Coast region, for example, had seven sub-regions, each with economic development specialists ―working closely with the federal government and CED organizations‖ with the mandate ―to do all elements of the economic development work: strategic planning, business development planning, trouble shooting.‖ The Crown corporation Forest Renewal BC (FRBC) was formed in 1994 to reinvest forest stumpage revenues into forests, forest industry and forest-dependent communities, followed by Fisheries Renewal BC in 1997. After a change in leadership and subsequent budget cuts, the RED Officer program was cancelled, leaving FRBC to fill the vacuum ―because the demand was still there at the community level and there was no vehicle within government to address to the need.‖ Provincial CED programs were disbanded with the election of Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell in 2001. The new government turned its attention to increasing provincial competitiveness by ―cleaning up the regulatory side and getting… the industrial and business taxes more in line with competitive jurisdictions.‖ The economic development ministry was reduced from 220 to 90 employees, with minimal field staff in

172 each development region and no formal RED programs (BC-E provincial representative). ―We really don‘t get anything from the province‖ one BC-E representative suggests, another adding that ―they‘re not involved in much at all to do with non-profit, and they‘re basically cutting their ties to us.‖ The new government introduced their Heartlands Strategy to ―open up new opportunities‖ outside Vancouver and Victoria, facilitating resource-based development by providing ―flexibility in meeting environmental standards‖ and ―results-based‖ policies (Young and Matthews 2005). One community leader remarks: ―I don‘t see them here, it‘s heartless not heartland.‖ One aspect of the Strategy that had significant benefits for some BC communities however, including some in the North Island region, was a requirement for forest license holders to return 20% of tenure to the Crown. Consistent with a provincial commitment to forming a new relationship with First Nations to reduce uncertainty, litigation and conflict, tenures were redistributed to First Nations, Community Forests and private woodlots. As of 2004 one representative remarked ―three years into the government‘s mandate… the communities in the rural part of the province have been suffering through government cutbacks and rationalization of services... I think they are gradually coming around to the view that they need to do more.‖ Since the field research period a number of policy measures have been taken, including a move toward a model of regional trusts to focus investment on specific regional economies (Coe 2006). The Ministry of Economic Development also established three new regional integrated economic development partnerships or alliances under a Regional Economic Alliance pilot program (East Kootenay, Vancouver Island/Coast and the South Peace River) with involvement from local governments, economic development practitioners, educational institutions, First Nations, health and social services and the private sector (Coe 2006). These initiatives are meant to be consistent with ―natural regional economies,‖ delineated by trade linkages and/or other flows of commodities and people rather than administrative boundaries (TFOCO 2006, 26; Brunnen 2006). Vancouver Island-wide connections in North Island RED initiatives are, however, limited. Only two government respondents referred to North Island participation in a Vancouver Island-wide initiative (Vancouver Island Economic Developers Association) within the interviews conducted for this study.

173 Further, the new trust initiative for North Island-Coast (established 2005) includes south- central Vancouver Island and Sunshine coast communities with whom the region has not had a history of working and excludes the central coast, where connections have been built, continuing to redefine the term ―region,‖ as well as the planning boundaries and funding opportunities within the development landscape.

6.3.2 Nova Scotia

Several interview respondents suggest that the Province of Nova Scotia (NS) has not had a strong track record of rural and regional development, suggesting a gap between policy intentions and problems of successful implementation. Some argue that the Province has focused its efforts primarily on the capital region as a growth pole (Johnson 1998). One regional representative explains ―They‘ve had a long history of pretending to dabble in economic development but when the feds formed ECBC the province figured they didn‘t have to think about development in Cape Breton. Halifax as a growth centre was the provincial strategy, which was very successful, but what about us?‖ Blake (2003) recounts, however, efforts to address inequities within the province dating back to the late 1950s and early 1960s, including the establishment of a lending program for entrepreneurs in resource-dependent rural communities and a provincial crown corporation (Industrial Estates Limited), which helped to establish industrial parks. Small textile, hardboard, and fish-processing plants were launched and millions spent trying to lure companies to the province, ―with mixed success.‖ Cape Breton was an area of both provincial and federal concern as it struggled with coal mine and steel industry closures. When Sydney‘s Dominion Steel Corporation announced that its steel plant would close in 1967, the Province opted to take it over, renaming the corporation Sydney Steel Corporation (SYSCO). Two decades of major industrial operations operated as crown corporations would follow in Cape Breton. Despite provincial ownership and subsidies the facility, once employing 4000 residents, closed in 2001 and left behind the the hazardous waste site known as the Sydney Tar Ponds. Support was provided from the 1960s through to the early 1980s for local groups to form Industrial Commissions, encouraging local responsibility for economic development. Voluntary Planning, a provincially funded non-government organization,

174 produced Creating Our Own Future, a Nova Scotia economic strategy in 1991. In response, the provincial Economic Development Department issued a discussion paper suggesting four principles for CED policy: a flexible approach; local leadership; a supportive but non-directive role for the Province and results-oriented. The paper identified 14 specific proposals, including ―a network of 10-15 local economic development authorities to stimulate and coordinate CED efforts in sub-areas of the province‖ (Bryant 1997).With the election of a new Liberal administration in 1993, community development became a feature of planning across departments. Key responsibility for CED was placed with the Economic Renewal Agency, later the Office of Economic Development (OED) and now Nova Scotia Economic Development. Newly elected Premier John Savage, himself ―very deeply committed to community development models,‖ became the Minister of Economic Development. One senior provincial official recalls ―when that government came in, not only did we have the ground prepared, but... the political interest was there.‖ The new government put in place a CED support system that included: planning support; funding for CED coordination, waterfront development and community projects; small business loans program and community based business financing; one-stop information and service centres; and community-level training opportunities (Bryant 1997). Community Futures Committees and Community Business Development Centres had been established in many areas of the province, two of them forming regional development agencies (Colchester Regional Development Agency and Cumberland Development Agency). Building on this approach, the province unveiled a 1994 plan to create 12 new Economic Renewal Areas, each with a Regional Development Authority charged with advancing CED activities in their regions. The Authorities were to encourage communities, all three levels of government and CED groups to come together to make the best use of government resources in a coordinated fashion (see NS-E below). Since 2000 the Province of Nova Scotia has worked toward an overarching goal of ―sustainable competitiveness‖, recognizing five ―building blocks of productive capacity:‖ financial, natural, built, human and social capital. Nova Scotia Business Inc. was established as a business-development agency and lending arm in 2001, working to attract new businesses to the province and help existing businesses expand through trade

175 development, business advisory services, financing, and investment attraction. Nova Scotia Economic Development has collaborated with the agency on initiatives such as a business, retention and expansion program. The department also has its own financing vehicle that provides loan guarantees, loans, incentives and share purchases in areas of strategic investment. Incorporating economic but also other quality of life objectives, the Province developed a sustainability-based Nova Scotia Community Development Policy, endorsed in December 2004, as ―a framework for building stronger, healthier, more prosperous communities in Nova Scotia…to guide us in our efforts to promote and support community development projects province wide.‖ The policy sets out roles for community and government and promotes increased ―collaboration, capacity building and accountability at every level.‖ As a companion to the Policy the Community Development Lens is to be applied to departmental business plans, raising awareness and consideration of the possible impacts of decisions on communities (NS 2005). Policy consultations in NS have revealed that ―communities want more local control... And they want more resources...‖ One provincial representative responds ―if we could get more resources and have one CED worker in some of the major communities that have a board structure and could really prepare to go to work and roll up their sleeves, and use the RDA as a way of coordinating the activities...‖ Another explains that there is a willingness to support CED, ―We‘ve had 15-18 years of CED. Politicians like it.‖ Lack of coordination is, however, considered a challenge, with ―self-interested divisions‖ at both the provincial and federal-provincial levels (Johnson 1998). Overlap between the Sustainable Communities Initiative (Chapter 7) and Community Development Policy is provided by ―probably half a dozen members‖ that sit on coordinating committees for both initiatives. Federal-provincial coordination has suffered since the end of federal-provincial economic development agreements. Respondents in both NS and NL comment on political tensions over perceived lack of recognition for federal ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) for federal spending in projects funded under federal-provincial agreements. This led to the loss of the federal/provincial agreements, which respondents argue has reduced provincial development capacity in both Atlantic provinces.

176 6.3.3 Newfoundland and Labrador

The 1950s brought confederation to Newfoundland (1949), the end of WWII and the birth of the Keynesian era. Federal funding built new infrastructure, such as roads, schools and electricity generation and transmission, and provided personal transfer and equalization payments that brought new wealth to the province and its rural outports. As in BC, government agencies focused on supporting large-scale resource and industrial developments, including foreign-owned and export-oriented forestry, mining and the Churchill Falls hydroelectric development project. Rapid expansion in the industrialized offshore fishery was encouraged through subsidies while the small-scale fishery and dual economy that had long supported outport economies were ignored. Attempts were also made to establish small-scale manufacturing facilities and to relocate outport residents to growth centres through controversial resettlement programs that provided incentives for relocation to urban growth centers (Copes 1972; RCUE 1986). In response to resettlement, some remaining outport communities began to develop a system of local governance that would form a foundation for bottom-up development in the province (Greenwood 1991). Committees formed to address basic infrastructure such as roads and water, by the 1960s evolving into Rural Development Associations and municipalities. With the election of Frank Moores‘ PC government in 1972 the ―Smallwood era47‖ ended. Responding to the political failure of the resettlement program, the Province established a Department of Rural Development. Core funding was given to development associations to hire development coordinators and the number of associations rose from 15 in 1974 to 59 in 1994 (Connections Research 1993, 3). Native political organizations and Band Councils were also formed (Vodden and Kennedy 2006). Although the Province‘s approach conflicted with DREE‘s emphasis on urbanization and centralization, the two governments formed a crown corporation (Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation) to support economic development through debt and equity investments, information and advisory services to business. As cod stocks declined, the1980s recession hit and the province‘s economic picture deteriorated, the need for a new approach became apparent. The NL rural economy had become based, in part, on make-work projects and the ―ten week

47 Coined after the province‘s first Premier, Joey Smallwood (1949-1972).

177 syndrome‖ (working to reach the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits). Oil and gas had been discovered but it was questionable if the twin pillars of resource industries and government spending would suffice. Small-scale rural development had received limited encouragement, but lacked the financial and human resources, expertise and political clout. Development associations had been undermined by their use as a delivery mechanism for short-term job creation programs, inhibiting long-term planning and objectives, while not being consulted on the design of such programs (RCEU 1986). Frustration resulted from ―a plethora of non-integrated, largely uncoordinated programs and projects‖ (Monitoring and Evaluation Subcommittee 1997, 5) and lack of success at all levels (Greenwood 1997; Task Force on CED 1995). A 1986 Royal Commission suggested a new regional approach to development, with regions that ―form fairly distinct social and cultural entities, and which would benefit from being considered as a unit for development and employment purposes‖ (RCEU 1986, 364). A stronger institutional framework would include the proposed creation of (tentatively five) Regional Development Boards with a highly qualified Executive Director and broad-based board. The Boards would foster cooperation among sectors and identify and pursue long-term employment options. Strengthening of the provincial rural development department was also suggested, along with increased funding to RDAs, the creation of a Rural and Regional Development Act to affirm the responsibilities and mandates of various players, and more government services delivered in regional service centres. The Commission Report had support from labour, industry, RDAs (with the exception of the Regional Development Boards recommendation) and, despite poor federal-provincial relations, from the federal government. However, it met resistance from provincial officials who appeared to be concerned about implications for power, control and job maintenance (House 1999; 2003). Only some recommendations were implemented. Those not acted upon included the recommendation to establish Regional Development Boards. With the 1989 election of Liberal Clyde Wells, the Economic Recovery Commission (ERC) was established to support the development of small and medium sized businesses, develop an economic strategy for the province and assist with implementing the Royal Commission recommendations. Enterprise Newfoundland and

178 Labrador (ENL) was formed as the province‘s business and economic development arm. A 1992 Strategic Economic Plan for the Province outlined a direction for the province that included diversification through a number of growth industries. The Plan once again referred to a regional approach and called for the creation of locally-driven plans for each of 17 proposed economic zones within the province‘s five administrative regions (NL 1992). The Plan also referred to the importance of sustainable development and monitoring and evaluation of implementation. Despite consultation with over 300 individuals and organizations (Aradottir 2003), according to one provincial representative the Plan did not have strong involvement or buy-in from non-governmental, business and labour interests. Again only some recommendations were implemented but the Plan resulted in added pressure for a more coordinated approach to regional development (Dunn 2003; Greenwood 2006). The need for action became more urgent with the closure of the groundfish fishery. The Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) Task Force on CED, including both federal and provincial government and non-government organizations, was struck in 1994. Again a key recommendation was the establishment of 18 RED Boards (REDBs) across the province (reshaped over a period of discussion into 20), linking top-down government support with bottom-up community planning and decision-making. Their establishment was to be guided by a set of key principles ranging from valuing the role of volunteers to stewardship, entrepreneurialism, global outlook, partnerships and a new supportive role for government (Task Force on CED 1995). Following on earlier documents, the Task Force called for a balanced, integrated approach. A provincial- federal Economic Zone Unit was established to support the setting up of the new Boards, funded through a 70/30 federal-provincial cost sharing agreement (Canada/Newfoundland Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement). Three successive five year federal- provincial agreements had been in place from 1978 to 1993, often with 70-30 project cost-sharing, which had a significant influence on provincial programs and financial capacity. REDB architects argued that community and regional organizations should complement one another, distinguishing between the role of development associations and community-level organizations as project implementers, and the REDBs as planners.

179 According to one former ERC employee smaller-scale associations were intended to have a role but with their funding flowing through the REDBs. Jealousy and lack of political will, they suggest, prevented this from happening. The subsequent elimination of development association funding created tensions in the new system (discussed further below). In 15 of the 17 NL Community Futures committee regions in operation at the time, federally funded Business Development Centres had already been established to provide business and lending services (Greenwood 2005). The Task Force recommended that these be reconfigured as the funding arm of the REDBs but, provincially, ―the people at Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation wanted to maintain their programs and support for small business.‖ Thus, the suggestion that REDBs should have a business financing arm was dismissed. A 1996 election, held shortly after the REDBs were formed, resulted in the ERC, ENL and the Economic Zone Unit being disbanded and the loss of key REDB advocates within the provincial system. In 1998 a Strategic Social Plan (SSP) for NL was developed under a Premier‘s Council on Social Development and through Steering Committees in six regions across the province (Randall 2002). The mandate of the committees included a coordinated approach to social and economic development in each region. The committees included representation from existing Boards, including REDBs, and regional government staff. Many REDB representatives saw the setting up of these committees as a message from the provincial government that they should focus more on economic objectives, despite an early mandate and workplans that included social initiatives in support of economic development. Also significant during this time was a 2000 amendment to the Municipalities Act that would allow municipalities to become actively involved in economic development, along with new programs to increase municipal CED capacity. In June 2003 a Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada called for the Province to develop a rural strategy based on dialogue with the people of the province (Young et al. 2003). October 2003 brought a change of government under new Premier Danny Williams. Williams committed to ―chart a new course to prosperity and self reliance,‖ including measures such as retaining 100 percent of oil revenues and investing in economic development, diversification and job creation,

180 particularly in small and medium size businesses (Williams 2004). While the new government committed to continued financial support for the REDBs, it also opted to review the RED process. The Williams government also formed a new Rural Secretariat in place of the Strategic Social Plan (SSP) and its coordinating committees. The Rural Secretariat was tasked with working towards an integrated approach to social, economic, cultural and ecological well-being, providing a focal point for government to work with local and regional partners, conducting research and analysis, and building on the work of the SSP. Nine new Rural Secretariat regions were established, each with a staff member and Council of government-appointed volunteers. The nine regions were also used in the creation of a new Regional Diversification Strategy. Economic strategies were developed for each region by the Province and a Committee of Cabinet in consultation with REDBs and other stakeholders (a top-down approach relative to the REDB planning process). Without a designated seat at the Rural Secretariat table, REDBs were left uncertain about their relationship with this latest form of regionalization and about their futures.

6.4 Regional Development From the Bottom-up

Although a myriad of rural and regional development programs have been implemented in Canada in the past, they have generally been designed and delivered in a top-down fashion, particularly in BC and in recent years in NL (Savoie 1992; Barnes and Hayter 1994). Savoie (1992) and others suggest that the federal and provincial government track record in RED is poor. Difficulties coordinating efforts across departments and provincial and federal levels, financial failures of publicly funded enterprises, scandals, political favours, resistance to change and lack of coherent planning are among the reasons cited. In need of solutions, communities and regions have pursued their own responses to economic disparity. Their efforts are varied and range from traditional economic boosterism to radical alternative approaches, from small business development and industrial attraction under the oversight of local business and political elites to broad- based community and cooperative initiatives (Galaway and Hudson 1994). First Nations have pursued avenues as diverse as legal challenge, protest, business and community development to regain some measure of control over Aboriginal economies, governments and territories. Municipalities have also increased their efforts in economic and

181 community development. With the scaling back of the welfare state, recession, the threat of free trade, and resource depletion, CED efforts in Canada stepped up to a new level in the 1980s and 90s. A growing community economic development (CED) movement has developed in the country, sharing stories of successes that are small and dispersed but locally significant and seeking strategies for ―scaling up‖ the impact of this alternative approach. One such strategy has been to form a national network of community groups and CED practitioners. The Canadian CED Network was formed in 1999, growing from 16 to more than 750 members across the country (CEDNet 2008). Within the case study regions alone approximately 193 local and regional non-government community-based organizations involved in RED have been identified (123+ in Cape Breton), in addition to 82 local government bodies active in RED to varying degrees (see Appendix 4). As a result of these local efforts, provincial and federal governments have been forced to recognize that commitment to land and communities is a barrier to market-based strategies of mobility and exploitation in the name of short-term growth. Coupled with the desire to download costs and responsibilities and a frustration with failed past attempts, this realization has contributed to increased interest in bottom-up and place-based development approaches at senior levels. Development agencies at the sub-provincial scale offer an attractive compromise between traditional top-down approaches and the ―unruliness‖ but potential of community-based development (Markey et al. 2005).

6.5 Collaborative Regional Economic Development (RED): a Balanced Approach?

As a compromise solution multi-level, collaborative governance can result in a significant shift toward increased control at local and regional levels while also recognizing a role for senior levels of government. Collaborative governance requires that senior governments take on a supportive and developmental role, distinct from offloading responsibility without associated power or capacity. It often requires a period of transition and a willingness to ―let go‖ in areas best addressed within, but in genuine partnership with, localities (Greenwood 2005). While this enabling role is a new one for governments in Canada (House 1999), regional development began to experience a resurgence during the 1990s as existing institutions came into question and alternatives such as Community

182 Futures organizations demonstrated their promise. New institutions often involve increasing attention to horizontality and a focus on the sub-provincial region. This thesis examines examples of three of these new collaborative models for RED.

6.5.1 Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation

Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E) is one of twenty REDBs formed in NL in 1995/96. The organization began as an interim provisional board to establish what stakeholders were present in the region, determine appropriate representation, develop bylaws and initiate the process, with guidance and support from the federal- provincial Economic Zone Unit, a provincial Cabinet Directive on RED and federal- provincial Management Committee (Greenwood 2005). Respondents explain that NL-E is a potential partner in initiatives, a lobbyist for the region, an advisory and informational resource, a capacity builder and a link between local initiatives and local and external resources. All REDBs, including NL-E, were given five core functions when they were established. In recent years this mandate has been revised to reflect the results of 2003-2006 evaluation processes, which included stakeholders from the Boards and municipalities as well as federal and provincial governments, and changes in funding agency priorities. Significant recent changes include the removal of coordination of social initiatives and business development support from the five-part REDB mandate, along with greater emphasis on forming partnerships with other actors, particularly with municipalities (see Table 24). Among the range of activities undertaken by NL-E, planning is emphasized most by respondents, followed by capacity building. In addition to their own planning efforts NL- E assists municipalities and community groups and provides input into provincial planning processes. NL-E‘s capacity building efforts include delivery of CED workshops for municipalities and community groups on topics such as meeting management, board governance, communications, strategic planning, leadership and motivation. Sessions targeted to meet the needs of specific industries are also offered.

183 Table 24 REDB mandate changes 1995-2006 2007 1. Develop and implement the strategic 1. Develop and coordinate the implementation of economic plan (SEP) for the region; strategic economic plans (SEPs), supported by 2. Coordinate business development an integrated business plan support in each region; 2. Develop a strong partnership with 3. Provide support to organizations and municipalities that incorporates the strategies communities within the region for and priorities of municipalities in the economic specific development activities planning process consistent with the region‘s strategic 3. Develop partnerships in planning and economic plan; implementation with Chambers of Commerce, 4. Coordinate social and economic Industry Associations, labour organizations, initiatives relating to regional post secondary institutions, Canadian Business economic development in each region; Development Corporations (CBDCs), and and other zones that advance and support the 5. Promote public participation and economic and entrepreneurial environment of a community education related to RED zone 4. Undertake capacity building and provide support to stakeholders to strengthen the economic environment of the zone 5. Coordinate and facilitate linkages with federal /provincial/municipal government departments and agencies in support of the SEP

Source: KEDC 2003; 2007

In NL-E‘s early years, in accordance with their broader mandate, initiatives addressed social and ecological as well as economic objectives. Examples include adult education programs, eider duck habitat restoration and the establishment of marine protected areas. NL-E‘s recent workplans have concentrated on initiatives in business development and manufacturing, tourism, and natural resources. Ensuring the region has adequate infrastructure to support economic development has been a major focus. The organization has played a lead role in expanding broadband access in the region, working with local partners on the establishment of the Lewisporte Port Authority, pursuing fresh seafood exporting opportunities associated with Gander International Airport, maintaining and improving ferry services and lobbying for road improvements, particularly in areas of high tourism traffic. NL-E has also worked to foster the birch sap, blueberry and other agriculture industries Debate continues about whether REDBs should also be funding or lending agencies. Proponents argue this would give the Boards more power to influence

184 development and reduce inefficiencies in senior staffing of REDBs and CBDCs. Integration of the two agencies now ―in separate worlds‖ is seen as the ―logical next step‖ by some, but others disagree. Some REDBs feel the influence they currently have over funding decisions, through letters of support and funding agency requirements that projects align with REDB strategic plans, is sufficient. By staying out of direct funding decisions REDBs are ―always the nice guy,‖ reducing competition among Board members and their communities. Others suggest that REDBs are afraid of the political pressure that would result and don‘t want to make ―tough choices‖ over funding. Finally, there is the reality that ―CBDCs don‘t want to give it up.‖ Any change in lending responsibilities would, therefore, be controversial. While not governed by specific RED legislation, NL-E and other REDBs are incorporated as non-profit corporations under the Corporations Act. A system of performance contracts with both governments was put in place, along with Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and a monitoring and evaluation framework (M&E Subcommittee 1997). Three year Strategic Economic Plans are prepared by REDBs in consultation with federal, provincial and local stakeholders, focusing on key strategic sectors. The plans are then further broken down into annual workplans. The plans are the basis of performance contracts, with MOUs developed with government partners to implement sectoral strategies (Greenwood 2005). Plans and annual reports are reviewed by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development (INTRD) and then by the provincial House of Assembly and by senior ACOA officials. NL-E representatives describe the plans as the way the organization generates its own mandate, sets out activities and provides leadership for the region. The plans have been criticized, however, for being strong on long-term vision but weak on prioritization and implementation strategies. This may be because REDBs have neither the mandate nor the resources for project implementation. Additional concerns relate to a lack of realistic targets and measureable outcomes and a need for greater influence on provincial-level economic and social planning. NL-E‘s Board of Directors plays a critical role in organizational governance and as a vehicle for public participation. When the Boards were established funding agencies suggested that business, labour, municipalities, community development groups, and

185 education and training sectors be represented. NL-E‘s 14-member volunteer board includes representatives of each of seven sub-zones, existing development groups, Gander Area Development Corporation (the region‘s Community Business Development Corp.), education (vacant), large municipalities, small municipalities, labour, youth (vacant), disabilities, and tourism (KEDC 2006). Representatives are elected at an open annual general meeting. The Kittiwake region is broken down into seven sub-zones. A Board representative of each is elected by constituents from their respective sub-zones. Challenges associated with the Board, according to some interviewees, include over- representation by retired teachers and cases where the Boards are ―too political‖ and looking out for their own interests rather than the needs of the whole. NL-E participates in the provincial REDB association (NL Regional Economic Development Association). The Association represents the REDBs on policy issues and provides opportunities for networking, information sharing and professional development. Within the association four regional groupings have been formed. NL-E belongs to the Central Caucus. Several models for monitoring and evaluation of REDBs have been proposed and implemented to varying degrees. An Evaluation Framework drafted shortly after the Boards were established was never fully implemented. A process of annual performance contract renewal became more regulatory than developmental, as originally intended (Baird Planning 2001). Monitoring and evaluation received limited attention until 2003 when a Board-led Monitoring and Evaluation program was launched under the leadership of the provincial association. ACOA undertook a review of the REDBs in 2004/2005. The Province led another in 2005 through a multi-stakeholder Ministerial Committee on Regional Renewal. A series of recommendations for the Boards were made in 2006, leading to changes both within the NL-E and in the broader REDB system. The Boards are now working to make improvements in areas such as stakeholder relations and communications, human resources, initiative and research quality, strategic economic and integrated work planning. NL-E went through ―radical change,‖ including a complete turnover in staff in 2006 (KEDC 2006b). As of 2006 the organization had five employees: three core staff members and two short-term project employees (a decline from seven employees in 2003). Reflecting reduced funding from Service Canada, revenues fell from $500,000 in

186 2002/03 to $300,000 by 2004/05 (Appendix 10). In 2002/03, 60% of NL-E‘s budget came from federal project contracts and 27% from ACOA core funding, totalling 87% federal contributions. Provincial core funding accounted for 11% of revenues (2% other). Core funding is relatively consistent for all REDBs regardless of factors such as strategic plans, performance or region size. Three-year performance contracts for core funding were signed until 2004. One year agreements were signed at that time, with longer term support pending the evaluations described above. In total, an estimated 148 different organizations and agencies as well as 1628 businesses in the region interact within NL-E‘s collaborative governance network (see Appendix 4 for additional details). Federal and provincial economic development agencies are considered the most influential actors in this network by interview respondents, followed by the Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E). Provincial respondents feel they have little influence relative to ACOA, explaining: ―we don‘t have any programs anymore, we don‘t have any money.‖ A community representative adds ―they‘re going to have a lesser role than, say ACOA, because ACOA has all this money.‖ Since this time, the Province has established two funds to support economic development in the regions and is once again ―at the table,‖ although still a smaller financial contributor than ACOA. These results suggest that financial resources and relationships lead to greater influence within the RED network. Relationship maps presented in Appendix 4 illustrate that information sharing is the most common type of relationship in NL-E‘s RED network, followed by project partnerships. Among NL-E‘s relationships financial interactions are the least common, involving only federal and provincial actors along with the NL-E. NL-E‘s relationships with other network actors are considered mixed at best. Federal and provincial partners have provided ongoing funding, along with an initial operating framework and assistance with capacity building in the Board‘s early years. Yet, provincial support for the REDBs has declined since their inception and varies among departments and individuals within government. More stringent Service Canada guidelines and a more directive approach from ACOA are sources of federal-regional tensions. Many (38%) NL-E respondents suggest that the tightened, inflexible rules and

187 procedures are the number one resistor to collaborative governance in their RED network, followed by lack of financial resources and local capacity (each noted by 36% of interviewees). Greenwood (2005) suggests that the Boards have not been given the control they need to achieve their objectives and that the vision of a shared development process based on shared priorities has not materialized. Instead, the process is more top- down than originally envisioned. Government representatives contend that NL-E and other Boards have not fulfilled their responsibilities for strategic planning or been as effective as they had hoped. Acknowledging their role in REDB outcomes, based on their 2004/05 review, ACOA has promised a closer relationship, more honest feedback, consideration of regional plans in ACOA‘s funding decisions, and partnerships with the Province in their relationship with the Boards (NLREDA 2005b). Poor communications is a criticism made of the NL-E and other REDBs that weakens their relationships, particularly with other local actors. Recognizing this issue, ―the KEDC (ed. NL-E) acknowledges it has to work harder and in synergy with the key stakeholders in the Kittiwake Region‖ (KEDC 2001). Many community representatives feel there is little connection between the REDB and their efforts. Reporting that the Board‘s community presence had declined in the early 2000s, they question NL-E‘s effectiveness and continue to point to its role in weakening the region‘s rural development associations. Public awareness is generally poor (Smith 2003), although higher among business and community leaders.

6.5.2 Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency

As in the formation of REDBs in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), the Province of Nova Scotia played a lead role in founding Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) to facilitate and lead CED across the province, in partnership with federal and local actors. In many cases the RDAs, initially formed in 1994, replaced or merged with their predecessors, including industrial commissions and the planning and community development arm of CFDC committees. One of the founding principles of the RDAs was that municipal governments would be engaged in the process as funding partners with federal and provincial governments. As in NL, Community Business Development

188 Centres (CBDCs) continue to operate as independent lending and business development organizations. One RDA representative explains that the Authorities were created ―for the purpose of best utilization of government resources, federally, provincially and municipally‖ and that their ―mandate is facilitators and coordinators of community and economic development in the province.‖ A federal respondent adds that ―RDAs really were a provincial response to trying to deal with a gazillion development agencies… folded into one organization taking on the whole social and economic development of an area… a collective supporting mechanism. That‘s been the strength of RDAs...‖ Another adds that ―every little place wants a development association or strategy,‖ describing the RDA as a hub to provide support and coordination for the region‘s many communities and community organizations. ―Every wheel needs a hub, including the development wheel.‖ S-HRDA (2008) described itself as the ―coordinating organization charged with leading economic development at the regional level.‖ According to Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E)‘s 2004/05 Business Plan, ―as the integrating force in developing sustainable regional economies and communities‖ the organization takes a lead role on research, analysis and reporting for municipalities; economic development planning and coordination of planning efforts, including inter-RDA collaboration where appropriate; local engagement of citizens and community groups; and economic related lobbying and advocacy (S-HRDA 2004). As a voice for the region the RDA will ―promote and defend the rural interests of the other counties (about 30,000 people), as well as the industrial/political interests of Port Hawkesbury‖ (Locke and Tomblin 2003, 23). The RDA also plays a role in mentoring and building community capacity and collaborates on a range of activities with partner organizations. RDA representatives suggest that other levels of government ―have pulled back from their direct relationship with community organizations and are expecting us to play that role.‖ NS-E activities fall within nine identified strategic directions (see Table 2548). Of these, planning was the one most commonly referred to by respondents, followed by communication and partnerships, particularly dialogue and information sharing. The

48 As of 2008 these had evolved into eight Service Areas.

189 organization prepared its first formal strategic plan in 1994 and is beginning the process of creating a second. NS-E has also assisted community groups in conducting asset mapping, strategic planning and project planning and management (S-HRDA 2006). While they are not Table 25 NS-E strategic directions a funding agency, 1. Business development; respondents suggest 2. Sector initiatives (actions to develop and diversify the resource based, tourism and information technology); that agencies such as 3. Community development and strengthening CED capacity; Service Canada look 4. Communication and marketing; 5. Infrastructure; for the RDA‘s ―stamp 6. Partnerships; of approval‖ from 7. Special initiatives (responding to special conditions, new opportunities, facilitating large community projects); project proponents. 8. Strategic planning; and 9. Human resource development Assistance with Source: S-HRDA 2007, 11-12 funding proposals, business plans and the formation of new community organizations have also been important activities. One example is the Strait of Canso Superport Corporation, set up in response to federal port divestiture with leadership from NS-E. ―We will take on that role,‖ one representative explains, ―until other community champions take it on.‖ Interview respondents report that the Agency has assisted community associations that are considering coming together in sub-regional organizations to increase their effectiveness and has played an important role, working with the private sector and senior levels of government, in developing the region‘s energy, call centre/information technology and mineral sectors. The Agency recently launched a Green Action Planning Project and sustainable energy framework and has worked to increase and retain immigration in the region as one response to anticipated labour shortages. Another response has to address housing needs (S-HRDA 2006). Unlike the REDBs of NL, the 13 Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) were formed under enabling legislation. Provincial and federal governments agreed to support the Authorities through the Canada/Nova Scotia Cooperation Agreement on Economic Diversification, and through the provincial "Act to Encourage and Facilitate Community- based Planning for Economic, Social and Institutional Change‖ (Bill 10) or ―Regional Community Development Act‖, which came into effect in 1997 (Nova Scotia 1996).

190 Under the Act municipal partners were invited to approach the Province with a request to be recognized as the RDA for their area. RDAs were then established by ministerial order. The Act outlines the powers and structures of RDAS, enabling the RDAs to undertake a wide range of development activities. It also outlines the requirement for RDAs to annually submit a report detailing their progress in achieving regional work plan strategy objectives. Reports must be submitted to the Council of each participating Municipality and to the provincial Minister of Economic Development. According to NS-E bylaws, each municipality approves three Board representatives, one of whom must be a sitting member of Council and the others non- elected representatives of business and community interests within their municipality. At the discretion of the Board three additional voting members may be approved to represent interests such as gender, sector or minority groups (S-HRDA 2003). The Authority has not taken advantage of this option, its Board consisting of nine representatives appointed by the three participating municipalities: Municipality of Inverness County, Town of Port Hawkesbury and the Municipality of Richmond County. Enterprise Cape Breton Corp (ECBC), Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development, Service Canada, and three post- secondary institutions (Nova Scotia Community College, Conseil de développement économique de la Nouvelle-Écosse and Universite Sainte Anne) may approve one non- voting ex-officio member. The ex-officio role has proven to be an important mechanism for information sharing and collaboration, as explained by one federal representative:

we sit ex-officio and really for informational purposes for both sides... for us to get a sense of what‘s going on and what‘s the development pace in the area and make sure, or get a sense of what the RDA is working on, what seems to be appropriate to support community wise and the work they‘ve already done. We can pick up on that in our assessments and recommendations because they‘ve already done a lot of good base work and we can hear that, and as well to provide information on the possibilities around some of the programming and how we might be able to fit it into not just their specific RDA work, but the work of organizations that they‘re dealing with..

Finally, committees of the Board include an Executive, Human Resources, and Policy and Procedures. Staff and Board members also contribute to project and sector advisory committees.

191 In recent years the boards have sought to balance consistency and application of ―best practices‖ with the autonomy and flexibility needed to account for local conditions. The dynamic of the boards, including their by-laws, differ for each RDA. Some have mayors and wardens as board members, others appoint senior municipal staff as more stable representatives. Levels of funding and records of success also vary. On Cape Breton Island the NS-E model, addressing the needs of a larger, more rural region, is described ―dramatically different‖ than that of the neighbouring Cape Breton Community Development Authority. NS-E representatives acknowledge that as circumstances evolve, ―the S-HRDA (ed. NS-E)‘s role will have to adapt to ever changing circumstances‖ (S- HRDA 2007, 5). The Nova Scotia Association of Regional Development Authorities (NSARDA) has worked to strengthen the linkages among the province‘s 13 RDAs. One of its recent initiatives has been to assist the RDAs in securing International Standards Organization (ISO) 9001:2000 certification, implementing organizational management standards in areas such as efficiency, operating, accounting and service quality. Other initiatives of the provincial association include support for training and certification of RDA members and staff, inter-organizational information sharing and the development of a common evaluation framework. With assistance from NSARDA, Strait-Highlands RDA (NS-E) and their counterparts have been working to link short-term activities and outputs to longer term outcomes and agreed upon objectives through the use of a logic model and other evaluation tools such as a client feedback surveys and contribution analysis. Government partners have been involved in developing the evaluation framework, with plans to utilize it themselves to report on outcomes, creating some consistency across the RED policy sub-system. Nova Scotia RDAs are funded by a unique three level partnership among federal, provincial and municipal governments. NS-E‘s core funding rose from approximately $300,000 in 2002/03 to $396,000 in 2004/05, with further increases expected. Each level of government makes a contribution of approximately one-third. The provincial portion is shared by Economic Development and Community Services departments. Federal funds flow through Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC). Initial provincial and federal core funding came from the Canada/Nova Scotia Cooperation Agreement, now provided

192 through separate contracts. An additional $175,000 in project funding brought the RDA‘s total budget to $570,800 in 2004/05. While numbers of core staff have remained at three to five despite funding increases, project staff increased the RDA‘s total number of employees to 22 plus one summer student in 2006/07, from an average of nine employees from 2002/03 to 2005/06. The region served by NS-E includes the greatest number of communities and development organizations within the cases studied. The Strait-Highlands region is described as a ―‘hodge podge‘ of county-level initiatives, municipal EDOs, community development associations and other NGOs, including Chambers of Commerce and other business organizations, Lions Clubs… colleges and First Nations business support centres, development corporations, ECBC and UCCB.‖ The regional development network includes 174 organizations and government agencies and 1,315 firms (Appendix 4). The majority of respondents suggest NS-E has a significant influence on economic development in the region, followed by communities (municipalities, First Nations and community organizations), provincial and federal agencies and private enterprise. One federal representative explains of the Agency, ―that‘s the one that we deal with most and that‘s the one that seems to have penetrated most of the community.‖ Public recognition of the impact of RDAs is limited, however, compared to that of financial contributors such as ECBC. Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency‘s (NS-E) municipal partners are key players in the organization and its activities, providing funding support, direction and a connection to the region‘s hundreds of small settlements, CED associations and community organizations (S-HRDA 2006; 2007). The Agency has struggled to maintain strong municipal relations. Both Victoria and Richmond Counties have pulled out as members in the past, Richmond County deciding to rejoin in 2003/04. One respondent suggests that in some instances the agenda of municipal and other levels of government conflict, causing difficulties for the RDA. Local capacity and competitive, territorial behaviour of some municipalities and CED groups are also considered barriers to productive relationships, along with differences in perspective. Improving communications and understanding of municipal priorities has been a major focus for the RDA since 2004. S-HRDA‘s assistance with Port Hawkesbury‘s new Civic Centre and

193 Richmond County‘s energy initiatives have also contributed to strengthened relationships. An RDA representative explains ―this RDA is getting itself refocused, back on its feet.‖ As in NL there are also concerns about the need for RDAs and CBDCs to collaborate more49. Giving preference to viable projects of strategic importance to the region is one example of the potential for increased cooperation. Respondents suggest that with greater collaboration ―separation makes a lot of sense‖ because people are comfortable going to the RDA for assistance and advice before ―the people with the money.‖ Representatives report strong working relationships with provincial and federal governments, particularly with their regional staff members. Despite these relationships and a relatively flexible mandate, the majority (52%) of respondents cite a top-down senior government approach as a barrier to increased NS-E outcomes. Service Canada‘s rigid guidelines and difficult application process is an important example. One NS-E respondent explains, ―our relationship with this office was very good. The problem is that they don‘t make the decisions anymore.‖ A benefit of the three-way cost-sharing formula is that it limits the ability of any one level to impose its priorities on the others. ACOA representatives explain, for example, that community and provincial Community Services representatives bring social sustainability issues into the process despite ACOA‘s economic focus. Overall, NS-E‘s relationships are strongest with business and business organizations and the provincial government and weakest with First Nations. Information exchange and project partnerships are the common form of relationships, training and financing the least common (Appendix 4). While the organization is not a funding agency it has provided limited financial support to special projects as well as in-kind contributions (S-HRDA 2006).

6.5.3 Community Futures Development Corp. Mount Waddington

When the Community Futures Program was established, representatives from a community or set of communities within a labour market area were encouraged to establish Community Futures Committees and apply for funding to undertake activities

49 As of October 2008 S-HRDA had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ―InRich‖, a CBDC, for ―joint collaboration, communication and support‖ (S-HRDA 2008).

194 such as strategic planning, identification of opportunities, establishing business development centres, and providing self-employment assistance. In BC, CFDC Committees generally formed within Regional Districts or Canadian Employment Centre service area boundaries. In the case study region of northern Vancouver Island the committee corresponded with the Mount Waddington Regional District. To participate, communities had to have high levels of unemployment and dependence upon social assistance and/or low workforce participation and educational levels relative to national or regional averages. The ability to organize and carry out the program was also considered. One respondent recalls that Community Futures Development Corporation of Mount Waddington (BC-E) was among the country‘s earliest CFDCs: ―they signed an agreement in late ‘86 and then they spent 1987 putting the initial group together.‖ The initial Mount Waddington Community Futures Committee had six members, a three-person office above a local restaurant and a limited number of programs during its first three years. The self-employment program began at this time and is still offered today. In most participating communities, funding was provided for the establishment of Business Development Centres (BDCs), which would provide capital, usually in the form of loans, and counseling advice to new and existing small businesses. Each BDC operated under the direction of its own Board of Directors, some of whom were also members of the Community Futures Committee (Ference Weicker & Co. 2002). One original Mount Waddington committee member recalls that the Committee incorporated as Mount Waddington Community Futures Society and formed a BDC in 1991. The two components were joined together as Community Futures Development Corporations (CDFCs) in 1995. As of 2002 there were 34 active CFDCs in BC, 90 in Western Canada (Ference Weicker & Co. 2002). The broad objectives of the CFDC program are to create diversified, competitive and sustainable rural economies and to empower community members and build local capacity to deal with economic change. According to terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board of Canada the objectives of the program are to assist communities to develop and diversify in three key ways: 1) strategic community planning; 2) business services; 3) access to capital (Ference Weicker & Co. 2002). CFDC

195 Mount Waddington (BC-E)‘s mission is to foster responsible economic growth in the North Island region. The organization‘s mandate includes leadership in: community- based strategic planning; small enterprise training, development, and financial support; coordinating, targeting and designing employment training; and partnerships for creative economic diversification solutions. Within this mandate, strategic priorities (with italics added by the author for emphasis) include:

1. Economic development guided by a plan that is created and updated through citizen participation, supported by the majority of residents, and reflects their ecological and social values and concerns; 2. Healthy, growing business ventures that sustain and increase employment and diversify the economy; 3. Educational and social development programs to eliminate barriers; and 4. All North Island economic development organizations working in partnership to use resources effectively (CFDCMW 2004).

With a broad mandate and stakeholder base, the activities of CFDCs vary considerably over time, in different communities, and according to board membership (Ference Weicker 2002). BC-E (2008) offers three distinct programs: small business lending, the North Island self-employment program and CED. CED projects, events and services have received increasing emphasis by many CFDCS. One BC-E representative suggests that their focus in 2003/04 was 70% on CED (including delivery of the softwood lumber adjustment program) and 30% lending, compared to ―probably 90% lending and 10% economic development‖ in southern Vancouver Island (Nanaimo), and on average 70% spending on lending and 30% on CED across Western Canada (Ference Weicker 2002). Within the category of CED, strategic planning has not received the same emphasis by BC-E as in other cases. The organization conducts annual work planning and has participated in planning exercises conducted by the Regional District (e.g. Penfold et al. 2004), but has not taken a leadership role in strategic regional planning. One exception is a one-time 2003 planning exercise undertaken to prioritize projects for softwood lumber funding. Respondents identify a need for further RED planning. CED activities have included: assistance with launching new NGOs, such as the North Island Skills Centre and Women‘s Employment and Training Coalition; funding contributions to non- profit organizations and priority community projects; assistance with developing funding proposals and the development of new and growing industries; providing information

196 sharing and networking opportunities for local development practitioners; providing internet access and information on the regional economy to the public; and building bridges between communities. On the business services side Table 26 BC-E loan funds 2003/04 BC-E helps Employment Insurance 1. Investment ($150,000) 2. Disabled ($200,000) (and, formerly, Social Assistance) 3. Youth Fund ($200,000) recipients work towards establishing a 4. Forestry ($500,000) 5. FRBC Community Business Program business through the North Island self- ($500,000 – no longer listed in 2004) 6. Fishing Legacy Fund ($420,000) employment program. Investment funds 7. Recreational salmon fishing ($575,000) assist entrepreneurs and social 8. Growth Start ($100,000) 9. CEAI loans ($1,100,000) enterprises through repayable financial assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, or equity. As of 2004 the organization had seven operating loan funds along with five repayable projects under the Community Economic Adjustment Initiative (CEAI) Program, established to assist with restructuring in the BC salmon fishery and, as of 2002, the forest sector (see Table 26). Provincial CFDC representatives and evaluations suggest that combining lending and CED functions within CFDCs has been an effective model. The joined structure has helped bring two perspectives together ―your conservative business types, your more socially oriented culturally minded project people... to sit at the table, talk to each other, understand each others‘ perspectives and work together, ‗cause that‘s what Community Economic Development is about.‖ However, opinions from North Island representatives on this issue are mixed. Some suggest that negativity surrounding lending decisions is a barrier to CED work, others that the CFDC Board wants to have too much involvement in lending decisions - poor lending decisions have been made in the past. These results suggest that barriers such as local conflict and lack of capacity in this particular region have made combining these two functions more difficult than in other areas of the province and Western Canada. CFDCs are incorporated, locally-based non-profit organizations. Initial Community Futures Committees ranged in size from eight to 15 volunteers (six in Mount Waddington) and consisted of representatives from various business, labour, community development organizations, educational institutions, social agencies, municipalities and

197 First Nations band councils. Current Boards range from seven to 20 members (Ference & Weicker 2002). BC-E‘s Board size has declined in recent years from 12 in 2003 to seven in 2007. There are no formal requirements related to Board make-up. However, one of BC- E‘s strategic priorities is to have a broad-based Board, including a balance in gender, labour, small and large business and First Nations representation. A BC-E representative explains that finding this balance has not been easy: ―We try hard to represent communities and sectors with our Board members. But it‘s been harder and harder … I don‘t want to lose my volunteers. They‘re very, very valuable and I‘m feeling like I am because of the time, the commitment, and the distance. In the last meeting I used speaker phone for the first time…‖ Volunteer Board members bring expertise in business, finance, education, and social policy to the organization (CFDCMW 2008a; b). Members may be nominated and elected from the general assembly of the annual general meeting but ―generally they come with a letter as a government representative… There is a spot on the Board for each municipality...‖ Travel funding is provided for board participation in all three cases. BC-E has two ongoing committees (self-employment and loan review) along with special purpose committees as required. Committees include Board members as well as other appointed representatives. The primary document that establishes CFDC goals, objectives and priorities and leads to core funding from WD is the contribution agreement (Grant Thornton 2003). Five year core funding commitments are contingent on the submission of annual operating plans and performance reports with specific one-year targets-based annual plans. However, respondents suggest that there is a need for more tangible goals and targets along with refined, standardized reporting procedures. Quarterly statistical reports and independent annual audits are the basis for ensuring compliance with funding agreements. Service Canada also conducts quarterly financial audits on the self- employment program. WD commissioned an evaluation in 2002 (Ference & Weicker 2002) and an audit of the CFDC program in 2003 (Grant Thornton 2003). However, these procedures do not result in regular, improvement-oriented feedback. Respondents report that evaluation and reporting ―was one of the things that got neglected at the start.‖ BC-E revenues reached $3.4 million in 2001/2002, falling to $1.1-1.2 million in

198 2002/03 and 2003/04. Excluding investment funds and Self Employment Assistance Program participant wages, revenues were $680,275; 34% from WD core funding and the remainder from softwood lumber adjustment program administration and other WD- funded projects (Appendix 10). Ference & Weicker (2002) report that the average CFDC investment fund in BC is worth $1.9 million. BC-E‘s investment funds totaled over $3.7 million in 2003, including fishing and forestry-related lending programs (see Table 26). Significant project and investment funds were available to the CFDC and North Island communities from 1997 to 2005 through fisheries and forestry adjustment initiatives. Becoming self-sustaining by generating income from capital pool investments and service provision is a strategic priority for the organization, although as of 2002/03 the organization received over $475,000 in government grants in addition to project and investment revenues. BC-E operates with six core staff members, along with summer students and occasional project employees. CFDC Mount Waddington (BC-E) serves approximately 27 communities, including ten First Nations settlements and six municipalities. The Mount Waddington RED network includes at least 80 organizations and agencies and 641 firms (Appendix 4). Interview respondents consider BC-E an influential actor within this network, along with the region‘s two Regional Districts and their leaders, First Nations, municipal, provincial and federal governments, particularly WD and Service Canada. Overall, relationships between BC-E and other actors are mixed; strong with other regional development NGOs but weak with the Province and much of the general public, although recovering in the latter case (Appendix 4). As a lending and granting agency, financial relationships are more common in this case than in the others, second only to information exchange. WD serves as one example of mixed relations with the federal government. The agency offers strong financial and policy support to CFDCs, but limited advisory and non-financial support. WD‘s ―hands-off‖ approach to CFDC program management provides regional organizations with flexibility but has also led to calls for a closer partnership, with more feedback and dialogue. By contrast, respondents express concern about Service Canada‘s increasing rigidity as well as distance as an arm‘s length purchaser of CFDCs services as SEP contractors. CFDC respondents describe little interaction with the provincial government after cuts to support for self-employment

199 assistance for social assistance recipients. While the Province has collaborated with CFDCs on fisheries programs, regional resource planning and development consultations have taken place largely through Regional Districts. More problematic for BC-E than its relationships with senior levels of government are its relationships with local actors. Conflict within and between North Island communities is the primary challenge faced by CFDCMW according to 81% of interview respondents, followed by the organization‘s own poor but recovering local reputation and, therefore, low levels of community support (cited as a barrier by 67% of respondents, as compared to 10% in NL-E and 38% in NS-E cases). The period of this study is described as ―a recognizable low point‖ for the organization. Public awareness of the CFDC is high relative to the other cases, but a lawsuit (unsuccessful) and associated bad press due to a disgruntled loan applicant, in addition to lack of support from some local political leaders, have caused significant public relations damage and diverted attention from CED activities. Achievements are difficult, one CFDC representative explains, ―when you go to a three hour meeting and two and a half hours is damage control.‖ A federal official adds, ―It‘s rancorous… The current manager and last two to three managers have spent I would think 60% of their time putting out fires.‖ Some suggest the organization did not respond adequately to the criticisms: ―there was steady negative publicity and we did not respond in any significant way to it… You can‘t have the constant finger pointing and people complaining about what we do and most people not hearing the other side of it... we‘ve got a lot of room to improve in the communications area.‖ However, the organization also has strong relationships with many local development groups and with elements of the private and municipal sectors that recognize CFDC‘s important role as a source of project and business financing in the region. The organization has also had recent success in strengthening its relationships with, and the involvement of, First Nations.

6.6 Case Study Similarities and Differences

In summary, there are a number of similarities and differences in these three models. They share a history based on the mid-1980s creation of Community Futures Committees in rural areas across Canada, support from federal regional development agencies and

200 declining relationships with Service Canada. Yet they have also evolved differently in each region. Provincial governments have played an important role in the Atlantic but not in BC, where CFDCs also differ substantially due to their combination of CED and lending functions. NS-E benefits from hands-on yet not directive involvement of government representatives as ex-officio Board members. All three models were government-organized, although with stakeholder input and community-initiative required to initiate CFDCs. NL-E is the most dependent on federal funds and least autonomous of the three RED case study organizations. All three cases involve municipal representation but municipal partnerships are strongest in NS (NS-E). Members of the Board are elected by the membership in NL-E, through a mix of general membership election and municipal appointment in BC-E, and are appointed by municipalities in NS-E. There is no apparent impact of this difference on community relationships, except that appointments by all municipalities in NS-E and BC- E provide stronger connections with constituent municipalities than in the NL-E case, where only a small number of municipalities are directly involved. Only BC-E includes First Nations representatives on its Board. Connections with First Nations are considered to be weak in the other two regions. CFDCs (BC-E) and RDAs (NS-E) have broader, more flexible mandates than the REDBs (NL-E) of Newfoundland and Labrador, which are now akin to what are referred to in the literature as quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations. The result has been a move away from a more holistic development approach in the NL-E case, while the other two cases have moved towards a more integrated development approach. With greater autonomy and federal support, CFDC Mount Waddington (BC-E) has had limited experience with formal evaluation compared to the other two cases. Increasing emphasis is being placed on evaluation and developing effective, realistic evaluation methods in all cases, with a common need to ensure that evaluation processes are collaborative and improvement-oriented. The case studies have been slow to develop agreed upon monitoring and evaluation procedures and reporting guidelines, a resistor to current relationships in all cases that is currently being addressed. Although this study has focused on the role of CFDC Mount Waddington (BC-E) in the North Island, RED in this region represents a multi-centred regional network

201 model, with regional levels of government (Regional Districts and First Nations) also engaged independently in economic planning and development. The Atlantic cases (NS-E and NL-E) represent more centralized hub models, where case study organizations have played a key role in regional coordination and RED planning. All cases experience significant challenges in fostering support at the local level, developing communications programs and working more closely with local partners in an attempt to strengthen and fix the ―broken spokes‖ of relationships between regional organizations, communities and other partners in what has been conceptualized, particularly in the Atlantic, as a hub and spoke development wheel model. Even in the BC case, for WD, BC-E is ―the conduit. They are the way to network and form partnerships and flow funds out‖ in a region covering more than 40,000 square km (three times the NL-E and 15 times NS-E region size). While region size is larger in the BC case, NS-E is charged with reaching nearly three times the number of communities as in the Kittiwake region and 11 times the number of communities served by BC-E. NL-E‘s area has more than triple Mount Waddington‘s population. Each organization, therefore, faces unique challenges in communications and building local relationships. NL-E has a larger Board of Directors and fewer, more unstable financial resources than the other two cases. NS-E‘s budget stabilized after a period of restructuring and then increased to $571,000 in 2004/05 while NL-E‘s declined to $300,000. With a dual CED/lending mandate, BC-E has access to the most significant resources at $680,000 excluding investment funds and self-employment program participant wages. Both NL-E and BC-E are primarily federally funded while NS-E benefits from a more diversified funding mix. According to 37% of RED interview respondents lack of financial resources remains a resistor to collaboration and enhanced governance outcomes, although the presence of core funding is also cited as an enabler (by 13%). Whether or not the resources provided are adequate to fulfill the varying mandates that have been set out for these organizations, a willingness by senior levels of government to provide core operating funding and planning responsibilities illustrates a shift in the policy environment since the mid-1980s. While notions of the multi-province region have far from disappeared, emphasis on, and involvement of, the sub-provincial region in economic development has clearly increased in the case study areas since the

202 creation of Community Futures organizations in 1986. The varied structures, relationships, and activities that have resulted from this change and implications for rural livelihoods and regional disparities are explored further in Chapters 8 through 10.

203 7 – Watershed Management: Experiments in Bioregional Governance

Natural resources represent fundamental components of coastal ecosystems, economies and ways of life. They remain critical to many rural economies, including both productivist and post-productivist sectors (Gill and Reed 1999). Sustainable development, therefore, requires appropriate and sustainable governance of natural resources. In searching for examples of integrated, collaborative governance in natural resources management at the sub-provincial scale, one form was common within each of the three case study provinces: watershed management. This chapter introduces the three watershed management case studies examined, including their history, mandate, activities, organizational structures, resources, major actors and their relationships (see also Appendix 12). To begin, a brief overview of watershed management policy and practice, particularly in Canada and in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and British Columbia is provided.

7.1 Watershed Management and the Watershed as a Bioregion

Watersheds, also referred to as catchments or river basins, are an example of a bioregion. Sale (1985, 43) defines a bioregion as ―a place defined by its life forms, its topography and its biota, rather than by human dictates; a region governed by nature, not legislature.‖ Bioregions, shaped but not wholly defined by nature, also incorporate local and regional cultures and relationships between people and place. Complementary to actor network approaches, bioregionalists include all life, land and water forms within the citizenry of a bioregion (Alexander 1990). Watersheds are commonly described as bioregions, reflecting natural land divisions that have been used in traditional First Nations land and resource rights and management systems (Thayer 2003). A watershed is ―a geographic area consisting of all land that water flows across, under and through on its way to a particular body of water‖ (www.riversmart.org). Watersheds are bounded by topographic and height of land features. Water from a watershed drains into a system of streams, lakes and other water bodies and then into a common stream, river, lake, or, as in each of these cases, a coastal estuary. Watershed

204 scales are nested and varied. For example, the River Denys sub-watershed is only 300 square km but is part of the 3600 square km Bras d‘Or watershed system. Watershed management is one of the oldest and most widespread forms of resource co-management and collaborative governance in North America. While the most time-tested lessons for collaborative watershed management lie within the realm of traditional Aboriginal knowledge and First Nations‘ traditional territories, organizations such as The Miami Conservancy District in the United States have been established for nearly a century. By 2002, at least 958 watershed partnerships existed in the lower 48 states; 91% of these formed in the 1980s and 90s (Lubell et al. 2002). International examples are also abundant. The International Network of Basin Organizations, created in 1994, has member organizations from 51 countries, including Canada. Watershed management, therefore, represents an important arena for the study of alternative forms of planning and decision–making with historic and current relevance and opportunities for exploring the potential of ecosystem-based boundaries as spaces of social interaction and social-ecological governance. Recent research on watershed management points to several key themes, including the complexity and power sharing, temporal and capacity challenges of relating nested scales; themes that arise again in this research as well. Sneddon (2002) points out that while boundaries that respect biophysical realities help ―put a cap on dreams of ever- expanding supplies‖ of water and other ecosystem services, deciding on the appropriate levels or sub-systems in basin-based management can be difficult given the complexity of human interventions in watershed systems. Wittayapak and Dearden‘s (1999) findings on community-based watershed management suggest that management of small-scale watersheds with fewer users and clearer boundaries is most effective. Shrubsole (2004, 5) suggests that watershed planning ―pursues multiple goals through multiple means, and relies on effective participation of all stakeholders‖ yet Watershed planning in North America has been largely top-down; informing, involving and then ignoring the public (Shindler 1999), and often technically-oriented, seeking engineering-based solutions to watershed concerns. Lovell et al. (2002) suggest that watershed scale influences management structure and approach and that top-down management is more common in systems exceeding 5000 square km, while community-

205 driven initiatives prevail in micro-catchments up to 50 square km. Each of the three case studies examined in this research fall between these categories of micro- and large-scale systems. Lovell et al. (2002, 2) describe a ―disjunction between current top-down (primarily technical) national programs and bottom-up (predominantly social/ institutional) community-level projects‖ in the US. Similar challenges in linking large and smaller-scale watershed initiatives also exist in Canada (Vodden and Panek 1998). Matlock et al. (2005) suggest that formalized organizational structures typically result in the formation of a ―hub‖ or node for linking watershed activities. They identify long-term partnership processes dealing with multiple issues, and ―super-agencies‖ as two common ways of organizing collaboration. Another scale-related challenge has been a lack of understanding of and attempting to account for interactions among watershed, coastal and marine ecosystems and moving coastal governance upstream through watershed approaches (Scavia 1994). Recent research and practice suggest the importance of acknowledging the influences of watershed management on coastal regions. Australia provides a cogent example, where catchment (watershed) basins discharge affects significant coastal resources such as the Great Barrier Reef and resource management planning has been devolved to the catchment level, led by community and user groups but endorsed by senior governments (Turner 2005). Decisions regarding watershed management scale are inherently political. They may arise, at least in part, because of the failure of state-based arrangements (Dore 2003). Singh (1972, 263) observes that, with information required on physical, biological, economic and social aspects of a region, ―planning and implementation of a watershed management program is complex‖ and that social and cultural factors are often underestimated. Interrelationships between the components of watershed systems are often poorly understood (Matlock et al. 2005) and watershed management cases exhibit varying degree of integration in their activities and objectives. Initiatives often broaden their focus over time, as in the Columbia Basin (Cohen et al. 2002), but others such as the Tennessee Valley Watershed Authority become narrower. The Authority was launched in 1933 with an integrated management vision but later focused on hydro power provision. Leuven et al. (2000) observe that watershed management institutions and processes often

206 espouse sustainable development, but pursue ecological objectives that are weak relative to economic ones. Research and experience indicate that watershed management requires a long- term view. Slaney and Martin (1994) suggest that it may require more than ten years for the benefits of watershed restoration to be detectable in fisheries returns, pointing out, for example, that it requires from 100 to 200 years before large woody debris will be naturally recovered as mature windfalls in BC watersheds. O‘Grady (2004) concurs from his experience with Ontario Conservation Authorities that watershed management success must be measured in decades not years.

7.2 Watershed Management in Canada

In Canada, as in the United States, collaborative approaches to watershed management have mushroomed since the late-80s/early 90s. Although no comprehensive inventory exists in Canada, Canadian watershed partnerships number in the hundreds. There are two basic types of watershed management initiatives in Canada: large scale efforts to manage large scale systems and smaller, more community-based initiatives. Examples of large scale initiatives include the Fraser Basin Council and Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiatives (now Georgia Basin Action Plan), St. Lawrence Action Plan, Great Lakes Program, Hudson Bay Ocean Working Group, Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy program and Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative. The case study watersheds are significantly smaller than these major ecosystems. In addition, many of these larger-scale initiatives deal with systems on Canada‘s southern boundary, where issues of urban and industrial concentration are major threats. The Fraser Basin, for example, is 240,000 square km, with a population of 2.4 million people. The five Great Lakes represent the world's largest freshwater system and have a population of over 35 million. By contrast, the Nimpkish case study watershed is 2,226 square km, with only 5,100 human residents. While scale differences must be considered when applying lessons learned in different social-ecological systems, Bras d‘Or watershed informants say that Great Lakes management actors have provided information on their scientific work and governance systems that have been useful in Bras d‘Or efforts. Within each of these watershed types there are smaller sub-basins with individual

207 research and planning initiatives underway, although the scale and jurisdictional complexity of large, cross-border watersheds such as the Great Lakes makes community- based coordination is exceedingly difficult. Because watersheds span many jurisdictional boundaries, a National Watershed Stewardship Report argues that coordinated governance that involves collaboration among communities, all levels of government and watershed organizations at all scales is required (LEPS et al. 2003). Developed Table 27 Multi-level policy framework for watershed management by a National Municipal/ Municipal, zoning, economic and zoning/land use Watershed Regional plans, local government legislation Stewardship Provincial Community Watershed Management (NL) Watershed Restoration/Recovery, WUPs (BC) Coalition launched Forestry and protected areas policies First Nations Resource co-management and treaty agreements in 2002, the National Stewardship and Community Involvement Program, National Watershed Green Plan, Atlantic Canada Action Program, NPA, Oceans Strategy Stewardship Report Provincial- Canada Water Act agreements, CASE/C, C-/NL outlined several Federal Water Quality Monitoring, Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning (BC), benefits of Sustainable Communities Initiative (NS) International U.S. Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, Agenda 21, community-based GPA, Commission for Environmental Co-operation, watershed Ramsar Convention stewardship in Canada, including: effective monitoring of ecological integrity; greater financial efficiency than direct government delivery; a long-term, proactive approach focused on conservation rather than restoration; improved ability to address complex social-ecological problems through collaborative governance; and enhanced commitment to and compliance with international conventions and agreements (LEPS et al. 2003). While there is no specific policy for watershed management in Canada, watershed stewardship contributes to the implementation of numerous national, provincial and territorial policies. Thus, the policy framework is diverse and multi-level (Table 27).

7.3 Canada‘s International Commitments

Canada is a party to numerous international agreements and conventions, many linked to the concept of sustainable development, to which watershed initiatives contribute and which in turn support watershed management efforts (see Appendix 13). For example,

208 Canada established its Green Plan in response to the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development. Green Plan dollars were instrumental in the establishment of the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W), the Skeena Watershed Committee in BC and others across the country. The Species at Risk Act (SARA), proclaimed in 2003, fulfills a key national commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity and makes Environment Canada and DFO responsible for protection and recovery of species and distinct populations of species at risk and their habitats. Both Indian Bay and Bras d‘Or watershed initiatives have assisted in this task, contributing to Species At Risk initiatives. The UINR Forestry division has been involved in monitoring lynx movements and habitat requirements, and developing a protection plan for the endangered predator. Research in Indian Bay has contributed significantly to understanding the status of the banded killifish populations in Newfoundland and Labrador, which are considered to be biogeographically isolated from mainland populations and a Species of Special Concern under the Species at Risk Act. Agenda 21, Chapter 17 commits coastal nations to ―integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas and the marine environment under their national jurisdiction‖ (UN 1992). The United Nations (UN) Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA), signed by 108 governments including Canada, further requires the development of a National Programme of Action with targets, timelines and political commitment to implementation (Osbourne 2004). Canada‘s National Programme of Action (NPA) is to involve ―a basin or watershed ICZM approach‖ and ―harmonization of integrated coastal management, river basin management and land-use planning‖ (Canada 2000). While the NPA has had little impact to date on local watershed management efforts to date, the two may intersect in the future as Canada realizes the potential of watershed groups to help meet NPA objectives. High priority areas for NPA in the Pacific, for example, include sewage, agricultural inputs, habitat losses from shoreline construction and watershed alteration; all issues that have been addressed by watershed management initiatives (BC 2006b). Gautier (2004) explains that implementation of the NPA provides a window to integrated

209 coastal management if the ―structural divide between oceans and freshwater institutions‖ can broken down. Fisheries agreements such as the Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Salmon Agreement also impact migratory fish species of concern in watershed management. Local efforts such as those of the Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) can in turn contribute to international fisheries objectives. Sharing of the responsibility for meeting the requirements of a Canada-U.S. shellfish monitoring protocol by Environment Canada and UINR in the Bras d‘Or watershed is yet another example of contributions by case study watershed management institutions to meeting Canada‘s international commitments.

7.4 The Federal Policy Framework

Overlapping jurisdiction is a dominant feature of water and watershed management within the Canadian federalist model (Fenety 1981). Under the Canadian Constitution relevant federal responsibilities include water surveys, navigation, fisheries, and international affairs (Parkes and Bruce 1977). In the absence of a national policy framework for watershed management, a suite of related policies and programs exist (see Appendix 13). A total of 18 different federal agencies are noted as playing a role in the three case study watershed management networks (see Appendix 4). All of these 18 agencies are active in Bras d‘Or watershed efforts, falling to nine in the NL case (NL-W) and only two in BC-W. The most commonly noted federal actor is Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for protecting fish habitat under the Fisheries Act. However, a 1986 policy states that development must not result in net loss of fisheries habitat (No Net Loss Policy) has a poor track record of implementation in freshwater systems (Quadra Planning Consultants 1997, Peterson et al. 2005). Forest industry-related habitat damage implies both federal and provincial responsibility (Harper and Quigley 2000). Among the problems noted is the need for: consistency of regulatory approach; watershed level planning that addresses cumulative impacts; and improved information and coordination with provincial and local authorities;

210 (Quadra Planning Consultants 1997; Werring and Chapman 2002; Office of the Auditor- General 2004, ii). Recent fisheries frameworks call for increased Aboriginal, resource user and public participation in fisheries management (Canada 2004a; 2005b and c). Recognition of Aboriginal rights and title in the courts and by both levels of government in the 1990s (as discussed in Chapter 3) has led to increased First Nations involvement in resource decision-making and modern-day treaty negotiations. Canada‘s Policy for Conservation of Wild Salmon (Canada 2005c) calls for a linked, collaborative system to increase access to information on fish habitat status that describes watersheds and habitat conditions. In NL, DFO has joined forces with community watershed groups to protect and rebuild Atlantic salmon populations in several regions. Relationships between DFO and community-based watershed actors are relatively strong in the Atlantic, although not without disagreements and differing points of view, and mixed in the BC case. One federal official describes the relationship between DFO officials and other BC-W actors, particularly First Nations representatives, as ―extremely variable,‖ although another suggests that the relationship are ―has improved over the years.‖ For one ‗Namgis First Nation representative, ―it‘s been a little bit bumpy for me, watching, listening to other people talk about what are their concerns for the Nimpkish…What‘s happened over the years is we‘ve had different people move in… Eventually we‘ll get some kind of understanding.‖ Canada‘s Oceans Act (1996), subsequent Oceans Strategy (2002) and Ocean Action Plan (2005) promise governance reform in three areas: 1) the establishment of governance mechanisms to enhance coordinated, collaborative oceans management, 2) integrated management planning, and 3) promotion of oceans stewardship and public awareness. Integrated Management plans are to be established for all of Canada‘s oceans, starting with priority large ocean management areas and local coastal management areas within them. Plans are to be guided by the principles of sustainable development, integrated management and an ecosystem perspective. Integrated management is a collaborative approach to decision-making that aims to balance the various interests in marine and coastal environments, including conservation requirements. The Strategy ―encourages the direct involvement of resource users and coastal communities ... through

211 integrated management planning‖ (Canada 2005b, 18), with particular attention to developing ―proactive means for First Nations involvement‖ (Canada 2002). Two of three case study watersheds lie within large ocean management areas where IM planning is underway: Bras d‘Or watershed is a coastal management area within the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management area, and the Nimpkish watershed within the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area. The role of watershed planning in IM is very different in the two cases; central in the Bras d‘Or and with only limited connection in the BC case. One BC-W federal representative explains:

the longer term objective I think is to make sure that our watershed planning and our coastal planning link. One of the places where they‘re not necessarily matched right now is because the province kind of took on coastal planning and I would say it probably was driven by areas where there were either current or potential issues, so a lot of the places where they chose to do coastal planning, they picked geographically the boundaries which wouldn‘t be the same sort of boundaries that would be existing because of a watershed planning process… We have some provincial work that‘s been done, we have some federal work that‘s been done, but we can‘t really go yet to established groups like the NRMB and say. . . Here‘s even what we see coastal planning being - how do you want to fit in? In the meantime they are expanding, they‘re acknowledging that our fish are impacted by a lot of things other than what‘s in our watershed, so they‘re doing things like studies on ocean survival.

7.5 Federal-Provincial Agreements

Due to the multi-jurisdictional nature of watersheds and the desire to access expertise and funding from both levels of government, provincial-federal agreements have been common in watershed programs in Canada. Since 1970 the Canada Water Act, for example, has resulted in federal-provincial agreements and committees to collect data, cost-share studies and develop plans for major river basins. In NL, with the closure of the commercial salmon fishery in 1992, federal and provincial governments signed the Cooperation Agreement for Salmonid Enhancement/Conservation (CASE/C). The Salmonid Agreement, along with federal-provincial economic diversification agreements, provided support for several fledging community-based watershed management organizations such as the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W). Although federal-

212 provincial agreements have been discontinued, the two levels of government continue to cooperate in areas such as inland fisheries enforcement. In most provinces, provincial governments have taken on responsibility for ensuring that inland recreational anglers comply with conservation and management measures, while in NL these responsibilities are shared. The Province has legislative authority over access, including licence sales, tagging and guiding requirements, while the federal government has authority over management measures such as gear type, bag limits and openings. Since the mid-1990s provincial conservation officers have been designated as fishery officers, while DFO fishery officers and guardians are designated as provincial wildlife officers, facilitating collaborative enforcement of regulations. Federal and provincial governments in BC have also entered into agreements for coordination and shared responsibility for fisheries habitat protection. For example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and two BC ministries, in collaboration with non- government organizations, developed a watershed-based fish sustainability planning framework under a 1997 Agreement on the Management of Pacific Salmon Fishery Issues. Several projects were initiated under the framework, one in the Nimpkish watershed. While fisheries-focused, the framework recommended some level of integration with other watershed uses and values later in the process (Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning Steering Committee 2000). Other federal-provincial actors noted by BC-W interview respondents include the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and the Pacific and Canadian Councils of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers. Finally, Water Quality Monitoring Agreements in NL and BC provide a cooperative framework and formal, joint commitment to long-term monitoring of water quality and aquatic ecosystem health. In Nova Scotia, the most prevalent example of federal-provincial cooperation in Bras d‘Or watershed stewardship is the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI), described further below. Three other intergovernmental actors noted by respondents are the Federal Council‘s Federal Economic Development Committee - Provincial Deputy Ministers (FEDC–DM), a forum of senior provincial and federal officials that has supported and sponsored SCI, the Nova Scotia Rural Team and the Mi'kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Tripartite Forum. The Forum was formed in 1997 as a partnership between

213 the Province, Government of Canada and Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq, to address issues of mutual concern that affect Mi'kmaw communities.

7.6 Provincial Jurisdiction, Policies and Programs

Watersheds have received considerably more attention at the provincial than the national scale in Canada, with the development of several watershed management policies and programs. This is in large part due to the provinces‘ constitutional responsibility for issues such as forestry, land use, freshwater fisheries (in most provinces) and water supply (Canada 2003a; Parkes and Bruce 1977). Each of these key issues of provincial jurisdiction is addressed in both Atlantic watershed management initiatives, while the Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) has a narrower fishery focus. Approximately 25 provincial departments are directly responsible for managing fresh water in their respective provinces, in partnership with municipalities and First Nations (Canada 2003a). With both provincial and municipal governments deemed responsible for the May 2000 EColi outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario that killed seven residents, water management has become a high priority across the country (O'Connor 2004).

7.6.1 Newfoundland and Labrador

In addition to joint federal-provincial water quality monitoring efforts, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) manages a separate program aimed at protecting drinking water sources. The NL Department of Environment and Conservation manages surface water and groundwater under the NL Water Resources Act, which provides regulations for private well construction, the installation of sewage works, and protection of public water supplies. The Department uses environmental impact assessments to help ensure that new developments do not harm water systems, and has developed a framework for drinking water safety involving monitoring, written approval for any activity in a source water area, public availability of data, infrastructure upgrades and training for treatment plant operators. Cameron (2006) reports that despite its relatively small population, NL has ―very broad and sweeping protection measures‖ for water supply areas and a strong regulatory role.

214 The Economic Recovery Commission (ERC), formed in 1989, saw the rivers in Newfoundland and Labrador as an undeveloped resource and the recreational fishery as an area of economic opportunity. The Commission released a paper in 1991 suggesting that some areas (pools) of salmon rivers be leased to outfitters. The ERC also advocated for community watershed management pilot projects and provided support for several fledging community-based watershed management organizations, beginning with Indian Bay and Bay St. George in 1994. Sandwich Bay in Labrador, Humber, Exploits and Gander systems were later added with the goal of facilitating recreational fisheries development. The ERC chaired an interdepartmental provincial working group mandated to negotiate an MOU with the federal government that would create a framework for community watershed management and delegate management responsibilities. The result was support within government (largely among politicians rather than the bureaucracy) for an expanded recreational fishery and community watershed management. But backlash also resulted from residents who feared that community watershed management would lead to privatization of freshwater fisheries resources. A 1996 election resulted in the closure of the ERC and reduced political support for the community-based watershed management. Limited funding for fisheries-oriented watershed management activities, and a requirement for community involvement in forestry planning, through a 1990 revision to the Forestry Act and 2003 Sustainable Forest Management Strategy, continues to provide some support for remaining watershed management groups. Including special areas, the development of five-year forestry plans and municipal plans in some communities, land use planning policy and programs in the Province of NL are ―a piecemeal attempt by various departments to stake out their own turf‖ (NL 1999). The need for integrated land use planning has been acknowledged in numerous documents (NL 1994; 1999; NL Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 1995; Sierra Club 2003; NL 2003) yet never addressed. A Sustainable Development Act and Strategic Environmental Management Plan process proposed by the current government do not make reference to land use planning (NL 2006d; 2007f). Provincial agencies noted as actors within the Indian Bay (NL-W) watershed management network include Department of Innovation, Trade and

215 Rural Development, Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

7.6.2 Nova Scotia

Timmer (2002) explains that in Nova Scotia the Department of Environment and Labour has the authority to manage watercourses, and is the agency with the lead responsibility for water management under the Environment Act. Municipal governments also have land use jurisdiction, authority to protect surface waters through zoning bylaws and responsibility for water supply. As in NL, the Province may designate an area surrounding a municipal water supply as a protected watershed area, adding a higher level of protection and management requirements. An area may also be designated a Wastewater Management District, giving the municipality the authority to monitor and manage sewage systems within the District, and to repair or replace malfunctioning septic systems using funds collected from area property owners. The Bras d‘Or watershed has been identified as a potential area for this program (Barrington 2005; CBRM 2004). A 1991 Minister‘s Task Force on Clean Water called for a watershed-based approach to water management in Nova Scotia. This approach has not been widely adopted, although two watershed planners have been hired and the commitment to watershed management was restated in a Drinking Water Strategy for Nova Scotia (NS 2002). Nova Scotia Environment and Labour is currently developing a comprehensive provincial water resources management strategy. The Province of Nova Scotia, in cooperation with federal and local partners, has taken a pilot project approach to watershed management, implementing Sustainable Communities Initiatives in two major watersheds, the Annapolis Valley (also an ACAP site) and the Bras d‘Or Lakes. The initiatives bring together both a local and a senior- level governmental working team, consisting of multiple agencies with relevant jurisdictions ranging from justice to pollution, to address priority sustainable development issues in these systems. The Bras d‘Or initiative is discussed further below. Tota (2002) reports that there is a growing interest in land use planning in Nova Scotia. To date integrated land use planning has consisted of municipal level zoning plans (in less than 50% of municipalities), First Nations community planning and planning for

216 the establishment of a protected areas network. The Department of Natural Resources began an Integrated Resource Management Plan process in 2000 to determine long-term objectives for a portion of Nova Scotia‘s publicly owned Crown lands. After a 2002 consultation process, the Province created three planning regions (Western, Central and Eastern) and appointed a staff team to produce a land use plan for each. The high level of private land ownership in the province is a constraint for land protection, but measures on private lands have also been taken, including acquisitions, donations for tax relief and voluntary stewardship agreements. Through the ―New Nova Scotia: A Path to 2020‖ and an Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act (2007), Nova Scotia is committed ―to have one of the cleanest and most sustainable environments in the world by 2020‖ (NS 2008). To help reach that goal, new strategies are being developed for water, natural resources, energy, climate change and coastal management. An Adopt-A-Stream program provides community groups with funding to improve inland fisheries habitats, and a new Framework for the Implementation of Sustainable Forest Management is under development. As of the period of this study Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour (DoEL) was described as the most instrumental provincial agency in the Bras d‘Or watershed management network. Ten others are also noted, including the Department of Natural Resources (see Appendix 4). Once again results point to the importance of local staff. One former DoEL regional employee devoted to Bras d‘Or initiatives is described as ―the glue that holds us all together.‖ Institutional attitudes towards Aboriginal rights and title, on the other hand, have been a source of tension between Mi‘kmaw and provincial partners: ―Natural Resources gets really upset over First Nations issues, because they‘ve got a whole history of litigation‖ and debate over who owns the resource.‖

7.6.3 British Columbia

The Province of British Columbia (BC) has engaged in planning along watershed boundaries since the 1970s, when planning units according to river basin boundaries or combinations of smaller watersheds were established with the intent of developing sub- unit plans and resource management actions for each (O‘Riordon 1983). It was not until

217 the 1990s, however, that the role of other stakeholders in watershed management gained recognition, beginning with systems of particular interest such as the Georgia Basin and Skeena River. Collaborative watershed management processes were put in place in both regions in 1992-1993. BC water management policy is guided by a Drinking Water Protection Act and an MOU signed by seven provincial ministries. The MOU establishes a protocol for integrated water management. There has been some success in BC with stakeholder involvement in watershed planning processes, including improved information on which to base water management decisions. In 1998, the Province ordered a major watershed user, BC Hydro, to come up with plans for operating its hydro-electric facilities in a manner that better balanced competing water uses and includes consultation with a wide range of stakeholders (BC Hydro 2004; Watershed Watch 2004). Provincial representative Valerie Cameron (2006) also describes some problems that have been encountered. In at least one case, after considerable study and investment, process leaders could not get community support and the plan was not implemented. Cameron further questions the appropriateness of processes focused on surface watersheds as a basis for source water protection in regions where aquifers are the principal water source. The forests of BC have been ―a battleground over sustainable resource development‖ (Hoberg 2001, 3; Young and Mathews 2005b). Profound changes in land use practices took place across B.C. in the 1990s, including changes in forest management under a new Forest Practices Code, implementation of a Protected Areas Strategy (1993) and a series of comprehensive land use planning processes. Watershed- level planning for forestry and land use is applied increasingly in these processes, led by a Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in the Clayoquot Sound that recommended ―the watershed as the basic unit for planning and management‖ (Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound 1994). Considered a model for sustainable forest practices provincially and globally, watershed plans in the Clayoquot region are developed by a Board of First Nations and community representatives and reviewed in public fora. In 1996 the Province announced the beginning of the Central Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan (CCLCRMP) process, covering the remaining archipelago

218 and mainland portions of the Mount Waddington and Central Coast Regional District areas. The process was intended to allow provincial and First Nations governments, and a variety of stakeholders to reach agreement on protection and development of lands and resources within the 4.6 million hectare region. Ten years later the central coast land use decision was announced, designating areas for protection and establishing Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) as a framework for future management. EBM is described as ―a new adaptive approach to managing human activities that ensures the coexistence of healthy ecosystems and communities‖ (BC 2006). Additional planning processes within the case study region are discussed further below. Planning related to salmon in BC occurs at various scales. By the early 1990s, recognition that industrialized forest practices had played a key role in habitat losses for fisheries (and other species) led the BC government to create the Forest Practices Code and Watershed Restoration Program. The Program, funded through logging stumpage fees, focused on restoring and protecting fisheries, aquatic and forest resources adversely impacted by past practices, as well as providing community employment and stewardship opportunities (Slaney and Zaldokas 1997). Complaints about the administrative costs and rigidity of the Code led to a new results-based management approach and Forest and Range Practices Act (2004) after the election of a Liberal government in 2001. A 2004 provincial Auditor-General report pointed to concerns that the new regime may increase the risk to fish and fish habitat by eliminating previous planning and due diligence requirements (BC 2004; Peterson et al. 2005). Mike Romaine (2004) of the BC Watershed Stewardship Alliance argues that enough has been learned about the do‘s and don‘ts of watershed management in BC and that what is now missing is the necessary supporting policies and delivery systems to make integrated watershed management through community-government partnerships a reality. He adds that genuine commitment and community-driven initiatives that take into account concerns beyond the local scale are also required.

7.7 Case Study Watershed Management Initiatives

There is significant variation in how watershed management is being practiced across the country, in part due to the policy and legal context described above and in part due to

219 varied local characteristics such as watershed and population size, sense of urgency, culture, values, history of cooperation, and levels of development. Major characteristics of the three case study watershed management models are outlined in Appendix 12 and in a brief description of each provided below. Outcomes related to these initiatives are described in Chapter 8.

7.7.1 Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp.

Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W) began when community members became concerned about pollution, habitat degradation and the depletion of socially, culturally and economically valuable recreational fisheries in the Indian Bay watershed. After years of decline in the watershed‘s renowned trout populations, locals decided to take matters into their own hands and launched the Corporation in 1988 to conserve and protect the ecosystem. Gambo-Indian Bay and Cape Freels Development Associations were founding organizations (Chapter 6). An original member described the history ―Everyone, from here and elsewhere in Canada, knew Indian Bay‘s famous trout. The place was getting destroyed and the fish were so scarce they were hardly worth it. The pollution was terrible. Bowaters pulled out after the fire and left dams, camps and old roads. Everything was a mess. Those of us who lived here felt something should be done about it. There were about 12 people involved. We had a meeting at Indian Bay town hall in 1988 that brought in different ministries and developers to make them aware of what was being done. It was a full day session and there was so much interest shown that it gave us the encouragement to carry on. Then there was so much expected of us, we couldn‘t give up. The pressure was put on us. Then more people got involved. The cod decreased and local people didn‘t want that to happen to the trout, and they didn‘t want the government to do it. They wanted it to be locally driven.‖ Community-based resource management and attempts by community groups to assume this kind of control over lands and natural resources were uncommon in Newfoundland and Labrador. Trout presented a particular opportunity because neither federal nor provincial governments were devoting significant resources or attention to trout management. A provincial official explains, ―trout are in a never-never land. They

220 were last researched by DFO in the 70‘s. The federal government has a constitutional obligation, but the reality is they don‘t and can‘t manage trout… they don‘t have any stock assessment. It‘s a matter of allocating resources. They stopped that probably 20 years ago.‖ The group met with DFO and other government agencies seeking support. A DFO representative explains, ―I remember Winston and other board members that came in here and sat down with DFO and said ‗Something‘s got to be done. This resource is being fished down, there‘s apparently no respect for regulations‘‖. A federal employee and fishing enthusiast attended these early meetings, and those of other community groups in the region concerned about their area‘s fish stocks. He became aware of a program for environmental clean up through Environment Canada‘s Green Plan and helped the organization launch a clean-up of the watershed. Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. supporters successfully advocated for the inclusion of Indian Bay under the provincial watershed management pilot program and for trout as well as salmon projects to be eligible for funding under the Cooperation Agreement for Salmonid Enhancement/Conservation (Power 1997). Despite the 1996 election and closure of the Economic Recovery Commission described above, a five year MOU that took over three years to negotiate ―with two Prime Ministers, two DFO Ministers, and teams of lawyers‖ was signed later that year. The three-party MOU stated that ―the Parties wish to provide long term economic, educational and recreational benefits to the public from sport fisheries and to maintain and enhance self-sustaining populations of native fish species.‖ But it made no commitment of resources. The stated mission of the Corporation (NL-W) is: "We believe that all of us together have a shared responsibility to conserve and enhance our wilderness heritage, that our forests, rivers and streams form the life blood of our cultural and economic identity, and that this priceless gift must be preserved, protected and passed on as our own legacy to generations yet unborn." In practice the organization has focused its mandate on freshwater fisheries, in particular brook trout and to a lesser extent salmon, ounaniche and other species as a key component of this ―wilderness heritage.‖ A 1996 Business Plan states that the goal is ―sustainable economic development from a revitalized recreational fishery,‖ its guiding principles including conservation and equality of access, along with user management and self-financing (Wicks 1996; Norris 1997). It soon became apparent

221 that, of greater importance locally than economic development in the watershed, was an unstated community objective to protect trout fishing opportunities as an important part of local culture and way-of-life. One former provincial official explains, ―in the middle of this they found gold. It was amazing. They said this was a nuisance, the gold had gone and messed up their plan, the troutin‘. It shows their priorities.‖ One concern about watershed management in NL is that ―watershed management right now is counting fish,‖ although ―Indian Bay does a little more than that.‖ NL-W‘s main priorities have shifted over time from habitat clean-up and enhancement, restocking and tourism development to a current focus on post-secondary research and education, followed by fisheries management and regulation. Clean-up and anti-litter campaigns were viewed as a safe place to start in the 1980s. ―Nobody could argue with removing garbage from the woods.‖ Realizing that trout management measures required additional knowledge, the Corporation partnered with researchers from Memorial University and with provincial and federal governments to launch a science and stock assessment program, contributing in turn to the development and implementation of management measures such as reduced bag limits, shorter fishing seasons and pond closures, instituted cooperatively by DFO and NL-W. New bridges have been constructed to reduce the impact of vehicle traffic on streams, erosion control structures built and NL-W land use planning efforts have restricted sensitive habitat areas from cabin and forestry development. At the request of community representatives, NL-W has periodically extended its work outside the watershed into neighbouring systems within the Bonavista North region. Building on a long history of cooperation between NL-W and Memorial University, as well as other universities, the organization has been working for nearly a decade to establish the Indian Bay Biological Centre. NL-W has hosted undergraduate and graduate students conducting field research on topics as diverse as ecological and social modelling, salmonid population genetics, threatened and endangered species, amphibians, aquatic vegetation, forestry and governance. Local students have gone on to careers in provincial resource management agencies since completing their degrees. Looking to build on these successes, funding was acquired for a feasibility analysis and business plan and subsequently for building the facilities required for a field research and

222 education centre. A diverse range of services is envisioned, including field courses, research projects, training programs, kids‘ camps, school programs, educational adventure tourism and consulting. The Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation began as the Indian Bay Ecosystem Committee, with representatives from each of two participating Rural Development Associations. The group incorporated as an independent non-profit society in 1995, a requirement to take advantage of Table 28 Indian Bay watershed user communities CASE/C funds (Power 1997). Anyone Community Population Legal Status with an interest in the watershed can (2001) become a member and attend an annual Gambo 2084 Municipality Hare Bay 1065 Municipality general meeting to vote or run for the Dover 730 Municipality Centreville- 1146 Municipality (3 Board of Directors of the society. The Wareham- former Towns) Indian Bay watershed spans the area Trinity Indian Bay 215 Municipality covered by Gambo-Indian Bay and Cape Greenspond 383 Municipality Freels Development Associations. New-Wes- 2832 Municipality (5 Valley former Towns) Winter 2004 creel survey results suggest Lumsden 653 Municipality Musgrave 1294 Municipality that 34% of individuals fishing in the Harbour watershed lived in the communities of Cape Freels 161 LSD Deadman‘s Bay 220 LSD Indian Bay and Centreville-Wareham- Total pop. 10783 Trinity and 32% were from the Gander 9651 Municipality Source: Statistics Canada Community Profiles remaining area communities listed in (2001) Table 28. An additional 21% travel from the Avalon Peninsula and 6% from Gander. A report from summer 1992 shows similar results but also reports 10% of users from out-of- province. The nine member Board includes: three representatives from each of the founding development association areas, three from the communities within the watershed (Indian Bay and Centreville-Wareham-Trinity) and three members-at-large. Government representatives do not sit on the Board, nor do major industrial users (primarily logging and blueberry farming), although they are involved to varying degrees as partners and advisors. Sub-committees of the Board include members of the Board as well as outside experts where needed. Recent committees include forestry, research and education centre development, and human resources. NL-W is a concentrated model with

223 one incorporated body and membership-elected board of directors through which most decisions related to development in the watershed pass, albeit as advisors to senior levels of government. Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. (NL-W) conducted several planning exercises during the early to mid-1990s, including a business plan for the organization, an Economic Development Plan for the Indian Bay Watershed (Wicks 1996) and a land use plan (1995). Since this time the organization has engaged primarily in project or issue-based rather than strategic, long-term planning. NL-W has, however, had significant input into five year forestry management plans, arranging specific regulations and restrictions related to the watershed. The organization also successfully lobbied for the formation of a DFO-led Trout Working Group and has been instrumental in developing five year trout management plans in the province. Finally, a business plan for the new Centre for Biological Studies, a division of NL-W, has been developed. Early fisheries management efforts exhibited a higher degree of evaluation and active adaptive management than current practices. Evaluation of results in recent years has been primarily informal and through the collection of creel survey data, periodic habitat assessments and informal evaluation of an enforcement pilot project. Evaluation methods are neither consistent nor clearly documented. Discussion of evaluation results with community stakeholders is limited and there is significant debate among stakeholders regarding reported fish stock improvements. Despite these limitations recent attempts to generate revenue through a research and education centre suggest that messages from government funding agencies and lessons from past successes attracting students to conduct research within the ecosystem have been incorporated into the current research and education centre focus. Thus, informal evaluation has led to organizational adaptation. The group has been recognized for its efforts provincially, nationally and even internationally, winning the 1997 Canada Recreational Fisheries Award. Initial financing for the Indian Bay Ecosystem Committee came from the partnering development associations. Gambo-Indian Bay Development Association made the committee a loan, ―until they got on their own.‖ Early 1990s clean-up work was funded by Environment Canada, followed by CASE/C support until 1996.50 The group‘s

50 One respondent suggests 1998.

224 mid-1990s vision for financial sustainability included revenue generation through fundraising and users fees. Possible revenue sources included a toll booth on the road into the watershed and special licenses or outfitting operations, with a 3% royalty on private ventures once the stocks recovered. Facilities for nature lovers, memberships, donations, special events and merchandise sales were also suggested (Paddock 1996; Wicks 1996). Cabinet submissions emphasized there would be no new financial costs to the Province associated with participating in watershed management pilot projects. ―Anglers would be required to contribute to the costs,‖ and the organizations would become self-sustaining. However, questions such as how anglers would contribute and how much were never answered and subsequent attempts to pursue revenue-generating options such as special fishing licenses or allocations of cabin license fees have met with resistance from senior levels of government. The Indian Bay Biological Station, in addition to its research and education benefits, is NL-W‘s most recent attempt to develop a revenue source. Since the end of CASE/C the Corporation has relied on applications to ACOA, Service Canada and provincial economic development departments for project funds. Staff spend a considerable amount of their time applying for funding and reporting to funding agencies, detracting from their focus on community development and conservation priorities. IBEC‘s budget has ranged from $300,000 in 2001 to $437,000 in 2005, approximately $200,000-$225,000 per year for operating costs and the remainder for research centre construction. ACOA, with its economic development mandate, has provided most of the organization‘s funding, contributing over $2 million to the organization since 1997. Without additional economic outcomes, the feasibility of continued ACOA funding is questionable. DFO contributes $10,000 annually for transportation costs associated with NL-W‘s enforcement program (2% of their total budget). Service Canada and the Province each contributed an additional $23-45,000 per year in 2005 and 2006. NL-W staff members include a General Manager, Officer Manager, two seasonal creel survey technicians and two seasonal compliance monitors, as well as part-time students, research associates and construction employees. On average, approximately 20 people are employed per year with the organization. While run by a grassroots community Board, the organization has limited formal interaction with local municipal councils and mixed relationships with local groups and

225 citizens, many of whom suggest they are unaware of the full range of NL-W‘s activities. During the study period relationships between NL-W and provincial and federal governments, as well as academic institutions, were considered stronger than with the communities that initiated and, through the Board of Directors, still govern the organization (see Appendix 4). These external (to the region) relationships are ongoing and diverse, including all types of relationships examined except Board membership and, for post-secondary institutions, financial support. Relationships with senior levels of government have not always been strong, however, and are not consistent across, or even within, departments and agencies. Relationships with senior levels of government are described as the most significant barrier, or resistor, to NL-W efforts, noted by 63% of interview respondents. As with other cases, strong government relationships were typically associated with particular individuals within government, at both political and staff levels, and their personal relationships with NL-W representatives and Indian Bay watershed efforts. Since it began, NL-W has faced ―the resistance of authorities to hand out any power, whether over land, forestry, tourism, wildlife, or fish,‖ particularly within the bureaucracy. One respondent claims that in the early years ―Premier Wells got involved and said ‗Let‘s do it‘ through a Cabinet directive… despite bureaucratic resistance.‖ A 1994 proposal to Cabinet argued that provincial acts and regulations did not allow for local management or delegation of Ministerial authority without legislative approval, but after advice from the Department of Justice a 1996 memo stated that community watershed pilots could be implemented without legislative or regulatory changes. The legal barriers may have been removed, but the political ones had not. After a 1996 election, a Committee on Use of Outdoor Resources was struck. The Committee‘s 1999 report stated that the provincial government would consult but not delegate decision-making power, including decisions related to licenses and fees, to stakeholder groups and that outdoor resources exist for the use and enjoyment of all citizens and would not be privatized (NL 1999). With responsibility for freshwater fisheries and habitat conservation, but few resources to devote to this mandate, DFO has provided largely advisory and policy support to the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W). The Department has provided the flexibility required to implement special management regulations, subject to public

226 consultation, and in 2003 partnered with the Corporation to increase monitoring and surveillance activities. A Joint Project Agreement allows two local compliance monitors to undertake ―routine patrols and low-risk monitoring and surveillance duties.‖ This program is ongoing. Combined with significant financial support from ACOA and Service Canada, relationships between the federal government and NL-W are therefore considered strong overall (Appendix 4). Other major NL-W actors include universities, which have provided significant scientific support, and two forest companies operating within the watershed. Both companies have been influential in recent years as forests have re-grown and logging operations been re-established. Differences in corporate culture are apparent, with one firm (Corner Book Pulp and Paper) adopting a more collaborative approach. The power of forestry interests has created challenges for NL-W and those that have supported a research, education and conservation agenda in the watershed and seek to restrict some areas of the watershed from logging activity. Improvements to forestry practices such as increased buffer zones have, however, been achieved through collaborative planning.

7.7.2 Bras d‘Or Lakes Watershed Management

In the Bras D‘Or Lakes region of Nova Scotia, through a suite of related initiatives, several organizations and committees are working together in pursuit of sustainability in response to threats such as sewage contamination, fish stock declines, invasive species and high rural unemployment (Chapter 5). Residents have seen the quality of the lakes continually decline, and with them the quality of life in communities that rely on them. These concerns have lead to five key collaborative initiatives:

 Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR), representing five First Nations Communities in Cape Breton/Unama‘ki;  Pitu‘paq Committee, composed of the Mayors and Wardens of Unama‘ki/Cape Breton‘s five municipalities and five Mi‘kmaw First Nations Chiefs;  Bras d‘Or Partnership Committee, including First Nations, federal and provincial governments, industry and some community groups;  Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) Bras d‘Or Lakes field team, composed of First Nations, federal, provincial and municipal government representatives; and  Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative, multi-stakeholder initiative with leadership from UINR as secretariat and DFO under the Oceans Act.

227

Together these initiatives form what one federal official refers to as a ―collaboratory,‖ offering significant potential to monitor and learn about collaboration in integrated watershed management. While still developing and not without challenges, relationships within the Bras d‘Or system are strong and diverse compared to the other cases studied (see Appendix 4). The Mik‘maq Nation‘s history of resource stewardship dates back millennia, families arranged according to bays and river systems (Hoffman 1955). Collaborative initiatives involving settler and First Nations governments and communities in Cape Breton are reported to have begun with 1970s aquaculture initiatives, which involved federal, provincial and Mi‘kmaw governments, along with a conference and early integrated coastal management proposals led by University College of Cape Breton‘s (UCCB) Bras d‘Or Institute (Arseneau 1975, Bras d‘Or Institute 1975). In 1985 the Grand Narrows and District Board of Trade made a presentation to the federal Crown agency Cape Breton Development Corporation (DEVCo) and provincial fisheries department, urging for a five year plan to measure and control activities around the Lakes. Studies on integrated management planning were conducted (UMA Group 1989; Cressman 1987) and conferences on the state and the future of the Bras d‘Or Lakes were held in 1986 and 1991. Mi‘kmaw leaders advocated for changes throughout this period, including a successful lobby to ban fishing draggers in the Lakes. Following the 1991 conference, a Bras d‘Or Lakes Working Group was formed with leadership from the Bras d‘Or Institute, funding from Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC) and strong involvement from First Nations. A 1995 report by the 15 member Working Group, ―Taking Care of the Bras d‘Or,‖ proposed-wide ranging governance changes: ―they basically proposed a new governance model as a structure for the Bras d‘Or with certain representation… so they could dictate the management on the regulation of the lake and from my understanding what had happened was, the province was asked first to do that, and they said they couldn‘t.‖ The breakdown in this 1995 process caused a considerable rift between local and senior, particularly provincial, government actors. Both Mik‘maq and non-First Nations residents were left to pursue new strategies for governance reform. While preferring the partnership route, a federal court order was requested by the Union of Nova Scotia

228 Indians to halt a channel dredging project (DFO 1997). The Mi‘kmaw communities of Unama‘kik formed the Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR) to take a lead role in environmental planning and stewardship, building on the success of the Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife Commission established by Eskasoni First Nation in 1991. UINR concentrated on partnerships with the federal government, particularly with Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and created the Bras d‘Or Partnership (2002) and education and awareness program. Other concerned citizens launched the Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society and Bras d‘Or Preservation Foundation, raising public awareness and securing lands for conservation largely without government collaboration. In 1999, the Province of Nova Scotia launched the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) and set out to rebuild collaborative relationships in the Bras d‘Or Lakes, selecting the region as one of two pilot project areas. A Bras d‘Or SCI field team was formed in 2000, involving federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations organizations. SCI was followed by the formation of the Pitu‘paq Committee in 2001 and the Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (CEPI) in 2003. A multi-stakeholder Committee has since been struck to explore and promote the idea of UN Biosphere designating the Bras d‘Or, or a portion of the Bras d‘Or system, as a UN Biosphere Reserve. While the overall goal of the network of Bras d‘Or actors is to restore the health of the Bras d‘Or Lakes and the communities that depend on them, each group has its own set of goals and responsibilities. The mandate of Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR), for example, is to: promote and contribute to the understanding and protection of the Bras d‘Or Lakes marine system and its watershed; assist in the development of monitoring programs, data collection, analysis and other matters essential to the protection of the natural resources; and to enter into arrangements with others that will aid in achieving these objectives. The Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (CEPI) was initiated by UINR, its member First Nations, and DFO to bring all partners together to work collaboratively on solving environmental challenges and to develop a management plan for Bras d'Or Lakes within the framework of the Oceans Act and Oceans Strategy introduced above (UINR 2008).

229 Pollution from sewage has been identified as the number one issue of concern. Therefore, Pitu‘paq and to a lesser extent the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) have concentrated their efforts on addressing this problem. The Pitu‘paq Committee has made ten commitments to address the sewage issue and secured ten reciprocal commitments from provincial and federal government departments. The long-term vision of this collaboration of neighbouring First Nations and non-First Nations communities is to restore the Bras d‘Or Lakes to their former pristine state and manage the watershed so it will support aquaculture, wild fisheries and tourism (Pitu‘paq 2008). SCI‘s broad mandate is to coordinate and improve citizen-centred programs and service-delivery across all governments, to forge new partnerships and collaborate with local citizens in their efforts to build strong, sustainable communities, supporting communities through a collaborative approach which integrates social, cultural, economic and environmental policies and programs. SCI offers single window access to government for community groups wishing to obtain support or information about programs and services. One community representative describes it as ―pathfinding,‖ explaining in the case of the designation of Bras d‘Or as a non-discharge zone, for example, that ―it‘s a very demanding process. I don‘t know how a community that didn‘t have SCI would ever move it.‖ SCI also presents an opportunity for a more holistic understanding of community issues within government. Since the formation of CEPI in 2003, SCI and CEPI actors have discussed their respective roles, determining that CEPI will focus primarily on environmental issues and SCI on a broader sustainability approach within an expanded region (all of Cape Breton). SCI has also differentiated itself as being ―more about coordination and dialogue than planning.‖ Activities in the watershed to date have focused on planning, training and education, communications and partnership building, research and monitoring, and, in recent years, reducing sewage pollution. Ecosystem studies in the Bras d‘Or Lakes include studies of water quality, sediment dynamics, sensitive habitat areas, benthic habitat classification, water flow, population studies for multiple species, distribution of invasive species and more. Science for the Integrated Management of the Bras d‘Or Lakes is a joint research effort between scientists at UINR and DFO initiated in 1999, supported by Memoranda of Understanding committing both parties to conduct and foster

230 collaborative research on the ecology of the Lakes and to exchange information and expertise. UINR has also been involved in the collection and mapping of traditional ecological knowledge on coastal and plant resources. Considerable emphasis has been placed on identification and remediation of pollution sources. Pitu‘paq and SCI successfully pursued the designation of the Lakes as a No Discharge Zone for boaters under the Canada Shipping Act. The Bras d‘Or Youth Internship /Bras d‘Or Lake Cleanup Project, with one youth intern from each municipality and First Nation, mapped discharge sources and developed a proposal to the Canada-Nova Scotia Municipal Infrastructure Program for financial support to address on-site sewage issues. A new sewage treatment facility has been built in Baddeck, one of the largest communities in the watershed, and numerous private systems have been upgraded. Training and capacity building has also been an area of focus. Through the Cape Breton University (CBU, formerly University College of Cape Breton) Mi‘kmaq College Institute and Resource Centre, the University has worked with the Mi‘kmaq to develop programs that meet the needs of their communities and students (CBU 2008). One such development is a new science program that brings together Western and Aboriginal knowledge and worldviews. The MSIT ("everything together" in Mi'kmaw language) program is housed within CBU‘s Bachelor of Science Community Studies degree program. It is the only ‗Integrative Science‘/Toqwa‘tu‘kl Kjijitaqnn program in the country, blending 21st Century science, Aboriginal knowledge, cultural, social and environmental issues into a course of study (CBU 2006). CBU also participates in the Mi‘kmaq Science Advantage Program, providing post-secondary science courses to Mi‘kmaw students as preparation for science degree programs (CBU 2008). Other issues being addressed include establishing a sound governance process, increasing communications, education and awareness, integrating traditional ecological knowledge in planning and decision-making, and ensuring broad participation from a diversity of stakeholders. Local groups have collaborated on habitat restoration and entered into agreements with government to provide job opportunities and scholarship funds for students in the fields of science, environment and technology. Management recommendations related to fisheries and wildlife have also been made. These activities

231 have expanded and evolved over time as challenges and circumstances change (see Appendix 12 for a chronology of Bras d‘Or activities). Speaking of the range of groups discussed above, Naug (2003b) points out that ―Together they form a loose network with similar objectives and many overlaps, including participants‖ (Naug 2003b). Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR) acts as a central node for many but not all initiatives and is a First Nations-led, rather than fully collaborative structure. Thus the network is polycentric. Workshops, joint projects, overlapping memberships and informal communications represent key strategies for connecting and coordinating these various initiatives and structures. The unique and complex structure allows for integration across and within all levels of government and for addressing a greater range of issues than in either of the other two cases. However, there is now a desire to develop a more formal governance structure to increase coordination and facilitate integrated planning. No decision-making model has been decided upon to date. Respondents stress the need for flexibility, with the possibility of expanding initiative boundaries to all of Cape Breton and beyond when dealing with such issues as migratory fish stocks and climate change. Kenchington (1997, 2) points to the example of Bras d‘Or mackerel. Access can be managed locally, he suggests, but conservation ―must be addressed on a much wider basis.‖ The vision is that ―collaborative planning will become the norm in the Bras d‘Or‖ in the future. Despite the presence of a Cape Breton Rural District Planning Commission and involvement of community and Mi‘kmaw representatives in forestry planning, respondents suggest there is little by way of rural land use planning on the island. An important development has been the designation of the Bras d‘Or Lakes and surrounding watershed as a Coastal Management Area as part of the Eastern Scotian Shelf ocean management area, one of the five priority areas for Integrated Oceans Management described in Canada‘s Oceans Action Plan (2005). Integrated management is envisioned as a multistep process that will build on existing activities and initiatives. One of the first steps in the process has been the development of an Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report summarizing existing environmental and socio-economic information, evaluating key interactions and issues, and identifying Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas. Sub-watershed planning has been undertaken in the River Denys basin. A series of

232 workshops has been held to discuss how the many groups involved can best work together, beginning with an all-government session followed by others that have brought in community groups, industry and the broader public. Outside of stock assessment, evaluation activities in the Bras d‘Or have been largely informal. Individual SCI members report to their respective agencies, for example, ―on what‘s happening at meetings... what the teams are involved with and how their departments can play a role or how they‘re involved.‖ An internal, provincial evaluation has also been undertaken. Representatives report that the Initiative is in the process of clarifying its objectives and expectations and developing sustainability-based performance indicators. Community feedback and commitment have been used as informal measures of success. CEPI, Pitu‘paq and SCI are cost-shared by federal and provincial governments, contributions totalling approximately $600,000 per year. This excludes provincial and federal funding to Mi‘kmaw resource management organizations. First Nations resource royalties and harvesting activities, including forestry, mining and fisheries, contribute over 50% of an estimated $3 million in total annual spending. Municipal governments contribute financially to the Pitu‘paq initiative and private sector actors sponsor three annual scholarships awarded to Unamaki science, technology and natural resources students (see Appendix 12). Cape Breton Island‘s five First Nations communities (Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Membertou, Wagmatcook and Waycobah) have been instrumental in the collaborative planning process and are recognized as the most influential actor (collectively, including the Chiefs and UINR) in Bras d‘Or watershed management and stewardship activities. The Mi‘kmaq of Unama‘ki have developed innovative ways of building community capacity, recognizing traditional knowledge and working cooperatively for watershed protection. Through UINR they have worked with non-government organizations, federal, provincial and municipal governments, and industry, all of which have also made important contributions, to expand system knowledge, manage human activities and pursue common objectives. Ongoing work will be needed to create and maintain links between these various partners and activities underway in the Bras d‘Or ―collaboratory‖.

233 7.7.3 Nimpkish Resource Management Board

The Nimpkish Watershed has a drainage area of 1780km2 and is divided into 65 sub- watersheds that include the important fish-bearing tributaries to the Nimpkish River (ICNRC 2002). Within the Nimpkish watershed ―the NRMB and its associated public, corporate and government representatives, comprises a rather complex web of stakeholder inter-relationships …. at the centre of the web is the NRMB‖ (see Appendix 4). Nimpkish Resource Management Board (NRMB or BC-W)‘s efforts are rooted in the commitment of the ‗Namgis First Nation to their territory and 1970s efforts to halt the alarming decline in Nimpkish River salmon stocks. Nimpkish Band Council (later changed to ‗Namgis First Nation) formed a Land Claims Committee and declared sovereignty over the Nimpkish Valley as the ―rightful owner and custodian of the watershed and its resources‖ (Weinstein 1991,10). The Council called for a freeze on all development until land claims were settled, not only because of their rightful ownership, but also in recognition that the waters of the Nimpkish River, Lake and estuaries are "essential to the survival of the Nimpkish people" (Speck 1987, 92). The Band lobbied for the closure of seine fisheries targeted at Nimpkish stocks and, in 1979, voluntarily terminated all food fishing on the River. In 1987 ‗Namgis First Nation, with encouragement from DFO, initiated a Nimpkish Technical Working Group and a Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC- W). The Technical Working Group addressed ―non-political fisheries concerns‖ related to the management of Nimpkish stocks. The Working Group met two to three times a year to discuss return expectations, fishing plans, enumeration, lake fertilization and enhancement plans but the two related groups also discussed wildlife, forestry (e.g. pesticide use, five-year plan reviews) and other issues. The mandate of the Board was to coordinate all the various resource use initiatives (including but not exclusively fishery resource values) through a central ‗clearing house‘. Representation included Band Councilors, a salmon enhancement program representative and support biologist from ‗Namgis First Nation, along with Kwakuitl Territorial Fisheries Commission, Musgamaw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council, the forest tenure holder (Canfor), provincial Ministries of Environment and Forestry, and DFO.

234 One participant recalls that ―unfortunately, both the NRMB and Nimpkish Technical Working Group were virtually inactive from ‘93 to ‘97.‖ ‗Namgis First Nation and Canfor continued to partner on enhancement (Cheslakee hatchery site) and forestry operational planning but relationships between ‗Namgis First Nation and DFO had broken down. While the Technical Working Group had been co-chaired with government ‗Namgis representatives lacked experience and felt the process had become heavily weighted towards federal priorities, with reduced attention to sockeye enhancement and discontinuation of lake fertilization.‘ One ‗Namgis representative explains, ―There was no autonomy. They dictated what species you did and for what reasons.‖ A government representative concurs ―It was Co-Chaired with government but the ‗Namgis had no power.‖ Some respondents feel ―It‘s sort of went back that way again.‖ With numerous fish and watershed restoration activities underway, renewed interest in lake fertilization, the creation of Forest Renewal BC and funding for the Watershed Restoration program in 1994, the need for communication, coordination and awareness of all fish-related activities again became apparent. To coordinate proposals for funding and avoid duplication and possible conflict, ‗Namgis First Nation proposed the re-establishment of the Board. A meeting of the ‗new‘ Board was held in April 1997, sixteen participants describing projects proposed, funding commitments and requirements. Membership, a prioritized list of projects and lines of responsibility and communication were devised. All Board members are focused on the re-establishment and rebuilding of the watershed‘s six species of Pacific salmon and rehabilitation of habitats impacted by forest harvesting activities, with varying local, corporate and funding agency priorities. Nimpkish River salmon recovery efforts led by BC-W and its partners have included: the Gwa‘ni Hatchery operation, out-planting sockeye and lake fertilization, and restoration of logging habitat damages (Weinstein 2007). Habitat restoration and monitoring efforts are often carried out by the Gwa‘ni Hatchery crew, together with contractors and government agencies.

235 Respondents emphasize the importance of monitoring and stock assessment activities, along with habitat restoration, research and planning, enhancement and public education and outreach. BC-W stock assessment activities include both juvenile and adult assessment, upstream, in-lake and downstream monitoring, tagging, assessments of different species in different seasons and experimentation with techniques such as genetic fingerprinting, acoustic methods and thermal marking in partnership with DFO (Pacific Biological Station) and university researchers. In 2003, a team of outside experts in salmonid enumeration techniques was struck to review the past program and make recommendations on the development of a standard enumeration program for the future to monitor recovery efforts (PSF 2004). Tagging data help answer questions such as what percentage of the returning stock is hatchery production. This information contributes to valuable dialogue about enhancement strategies and their respective merits. Over 45 million salmon have been released by the ‗Namgis enhancement program since 1979, 5.5 million smolts released in 2002/2003 alone (Berry 2002). There is little evidence that these investments enhancement increase production and concerns that hatchery fish may even have negative impacts on wild salmon returns (Wood 2002). According to one DFO representative, hatcheries are now being looked at as tools for gathering information and for sustaining populations that are at critical levels, as in the Nimpkish. Gw‘ani staff and BC-W partners now outplant eggs to cassettes and place them in the environments where adults were caught, working to preserve stock diversity. Since the Board was re-instated in 1997, habitat restoration has been conducted in 55 impacted sections of 13 drainages within the watershed, with over 800 individual instream treatments completed (NRMB 2003). The potential of stream and lake fertilization has been a recent focus, considered a promising strategy for replacing marine-derived nutrients historically provided by spawning salmon (Larkin and Slaney 1996). Gresh et al. (2000) suggest that only 6-7% of historic levels of marine-derived nutrients are now available in Pacific Northwest streams. A chronology of BC-W activities is provided in Appendix 12. The Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) is an informal, unincorporated committee with representation from all groups deemed to have an interest

236 in Nimpkish fish stocks and a willingness to participate. BC-W representatives suggest that an incorporated body is ―a bureaucracy that nobody‘s felt we‘ve needed to go to yet‖. However, the structure has recently become more formalized with the creation of a four tier committee structure (general Board, Technical Working Group, Expert Advisory Group and Management Committee). The Board has no formal terms of reference, bylaws or protocols for working together, but is guided by several planning processes, discussed further below. ‗Namgis First Nation (legal signatory and financial manager) and, when funding is available, contracted Coordinators, act as a Secretariat to the Board. Project Table 29 Nimpkish watershed staff and contractors are hired according to need. communities Community Population There is a tri-partite voting (or consensus) (2001) arrangement, with votes held by the ‗Namgis First Alert Bay 1275 Port McNeill51 2821 Nation, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Hyde Creek 564 the TFL 37 forest tenure holder (formerly Canfor, now Alder Bay, Beaver 401 Cove/Telegraph (Area D) Western Forest Products). Each of these core partners Cove, Nimpkish Woss appoints representatives to a Management Committee. TOTAL 5,061 When originally reformed the Management Committee included just ‗Namgis and Canfor representatives, but with Pacific salmon restructuring and associated federal funding, including financial support for Stewardship Coordinators, DFO was invited to join the Management Committee. Technical representatives of the ‗Namgis staff and the Gwa‘ni hatchery, federal and provincial agencies, and some public fisheries organizations sit on a Technical Advisory Committee. The Committee brings recommendations about detailed operations forward to the broader Board, which includes enhancement groups and other interests, annually. Overall, the arrangement allows for strategic thinking about how to use available resources for the common goal of local salmon stock rehabilitation (Weinstein 2007). Municipal and Regional District participation has been minimal, the Towns of Port McNeill and Alert Bay located on the boundaries of the watershed. The others listed in Table 29 are located within the system. Enhancement groups from Port McNeill, Beaver Cove and Woss participate on the Board.

51 Berry (2007) advises that the Orca Sand and Gravel project, north of Port McNeill, is geologically part of the Nimpkish system. The Nimpkish watershed can therefore be considered bounded in the north by the Cluxewe system.

237 Government policies and programs are seen as ―windows of opportunity‖ by BC-W representatives. Forest Renewal BC Watershed Restoration funding was a key motivation for the Board‘s renewal, but also an opportunity to act on long-term community goals. The Nimpkish Watershed Restoration Project, sponsored by Canadian Forest Products (Canfor) in partnership with the ‗Namgis First Nation and the IWA, began in 1995 with survey and assessment activities. Four sub-basins were chosen as priority watersheds for restoration activities. Additional funding was provided through Fisheries Renewal BC and Pacific salmon restructuring programs. By 2002 over $2.7 million had been spent on Nimpkish habitat restoration. Berry (2002, 27) adds ―We could probably spend that much a year for the next 20 years and still barely scratch the surface of some of the things that need to be done.‖ Forest Renewal BC (FRBC) provided funding from 1995 until 2001. The Nimpkish watershed was selected in July 2001 as a pilot under the joint federal/provincial Watershed Fish Sustainability Plan initiative, developing a plan based on a guidebook jointly published by DFO and provincial Environment and Fisheries ministries (2000). However, the process did not provide the funding required to reach the Plan‘s goals. Replacement of FRBC with a new Forest Investment Account (FIA) resulted in significant reduction in BC-W funding. A 2002-2006 restoration plan budgeted $2 million for projects in 11 sub-basins. BC-W‘s budget, including the enhancement activities of Gwa‘ni hatchery (operated separately by ‗Namgis First Nation but contributing to BC-W objectives), fell from over $1 million in 2001 to $925,500 in 2003 and less than $600,000 in 2004 due to DFO cutbacks and forest policy changes. The DFO-funded Gwa‘ni Hatchery budget fell to $322,000 in 2004/05 from $950,000 in the early 1980s, ‗Namgis First Nation contributing an increasing portion of the enhancement program budget. Respondents report that the future of FIA funding for instream works is uncertain and ―political,‖ negotiated with major forest companies on a year-to-year and project-by- project basis. FRBC/FIA funding fell from $840,000 in 1997 to approximately $150,000 in 2004. In 2003 FIA funding had fallen to 25% of the BC-W/Gwa‘ni Hatchery watershed management budget. Federal (primarily federal ‘Namgis enhancement program) funds provided 41%, foundations 28% and Canfor 3% (Appendix 12).

238 Contractors spent an increasing amount of time searching for funds to fulfill restoration plans, approaching new sources such as the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund and the Canada-US Pacific Salmon Commission, with a small grant received from the Commission for tagging of Chinook salmon smolts. As fisheries funding dried up the Board has been left expending increasing amounts of energy searching for financial resources and a ―very limited focus deciding on the best use of progressively declining dollars‖ (Weinstein 2007, 9). One proposal for generating revenue for reinvestment in enhancement is an ocean ranching/surplus harvest concept. Federal resistance and then low market value for chum salmon have prevented pursuit of this option. The Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) has developed a series of plans to guide its activities since 2000, each modified to suite particular funding requirements while addressing gaps identified in earlier plans. These include: Nimpkish Watershed Recovery Plan (2000-2001), Nimpkish Restoration plan (2002-2006), joint federal/provincial Watershed Fish Sustainability Plan (2002) and a Nimpkish Watershed Salmon Recovery Plan (2003). The 2002 Fish Sustainability Plan included both the Nimpkish and neighbouring Kokish systems and is described as ―an adaptively managed strategic framework for the protection and enhancement of the endemic fish stocks in the Nimpkish Watershed,‖ drawing upon existing projects and activities, input from experts and stakeholder groups (NRMB 2002, 2). Receipt of Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund support was dependent on the creation of a Watershed Salmon Recovery Plan. The earlier Fish Sustainability Plan, it was suggested, lacked explicit analyses of habitat capacity and associated species-specific goals and targets. The 2003 Nimpkish Watershed Salmon Recovery Plan began with a watershed profile and then developed objectives, targets and strategies to guide recovery as well as a monitoring and assessment framework to provide an evaluation mechanism with assistance from a Salmon Endowment Fund Technical Committee. The process was also to identify and implement a suite of strategic actions required to reach recovery goals. The Recovery Plan called for $4.9 million in investment over five years (excludes hatcheries). While important, funding in 2003/04 was below what had been expected ($603,500 vs. $1.03 million in the plan, reduced further to approx. $300,000 in 2004/05, and reduced again in 2005/06).

239 Watershed management in this region takes place within a context of a highly complex land and coastal planning environment compared to the other cases. Two major land use planning processes were launched in the case study area in the 1990s. The first was the Vancouver Island Commission on Resources and Environment, which included the terrestrial and freshwater portions of the Nimpkish watershed. The Provincial Cabinet endorsed the Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan in February 2000, establishing Resource Management Zones, objectives and Landscape Unit Plans for designated units such as the Lower and Upper Nimpkish. The second was the Central Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan (CCLCRMP) process, described above. As the Central Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan (CCLCRMP) process was being negotiated, Fisheries and Oceans Canada selected the Central Coast as a pilot for Integrated Management under the Oceans Act, building on these ear;ier planning efforts . The pilot area was later extended to what is now called the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area, an 88,000 square km large ocean management area extending north to the Canada-Alaska border. In collaboration with other parties, Fisheries and Oceans and other federal organizations have begun ―gathering the information needed for integrated management,‖ including sorting out the jurisdictions, roles and responsibilities of a myriad of agencies with involvement in the region. The watershed scale is significant in plans created under the Central Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan. The Plan recommends watersheds as an appropriate scale for a number of resource management objectives and activities. During a completion phase that began in 2001, provincial and federal governments along with the Joint Solutions Project, a joint effort of forestry companies and environmental organizations, funded a $3.3 million Coast Information Team to provide ecological, socio-economic, technical, traditional and local information that would assist in developing practical recommendations to resolve land use and natural resource management issues and move the Plans toward completion. The Team‘s 2005 (p.24) report recommended four sub-regional bodies be formed to ensure implementation within marine as well as terrestrial ecosystems. The bodies would involve at least equal decision- making authority between the Crown (reflecting the diversity of the non-aboriginal community) and First Nations. They further suggested that ecosystem-based management

240 objectives and targets be legally binding, although treated as regulations subject to change as knowledge improves. The Team recommended five nested planning scales, including the 1,000-50,000 ha watershed scale for ―tactical planning‖ and producing outputs such as watershed reserves, resource development and business or project plans. After ten years of negotiation, the CCLRMP land use planning decision was Table 7.4 Coast Information Team Planning Scales announced in February 2006. It proclaimed an ―historic step towards a new level of cooperation in British Columbia‘s forests‖ (Bell 2006). Agreements with First Nations include a Land Use Planning Agreement-In-Principle for the southern portion of the plan area (largely within the Mount Waddington region, see Figure 15). The agreement was signed between the Province and a group referred to as the KNT First Nations (Kwakiutl District Council-‗Namgis-Tlowitsis). Seven companies comprising the Coast Forest Conservation Initiative agreed to commit themselves to a new level of forest management planning and practice. The Southern area agreement includes a series of watershed level objectives, indicators and targets intended to sustain freshwater ecosystems and habitats as well as landscape and watershed level biodiversity. There is no direct link between these central coast planning efforts Figure 15 CCLCRMP Southern Plan Area and those of BC-W, although the southern plan area does include the estuarine portion of the Nimpkish system as well as other portions of ‗Namgis First Nation territory. The Nimpkish estuary was included in

the 2001 North Island Straits CCLCRMP sub-area plan but a Figure 15 Southern Central Coast Plan Area DFO representative explains ―there Source: KNT March 2006 AIP hasn‘t been, to this point, a real effort to mesh the two....‖

241 The Nimpkish watershed is an integral part of the ‗Namgis First Nation‘s long-term planning, although also undertaken independently of BC-W. The ‗Namgis First Nation treaty team has been engaged in several new initiatives related to land use planning, including a bioregional atlas describing the physical, biological and cultural identity of ‗Namgis traditional territory in a series of more than 60 large-format digital maps. Land use plans are being developed at multiple scales (territorial, watershed, community, and special areas) with goals, objectives and action plans linked to land use zones (NFN 2006). The draft ‗Namgis Agreement In Principle includes a Land and Resource Planning chapter that defines ‗Namgis‘ role in future uses of the ‗Namgis Settlement Area (NFN 2005). Extensive forestry planning is also underway within the watershed. Canfor is certified for ISO140001 and Canadian Standards Association‘s (CSA) Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) programs, for example (Canfor 2005). The firm has developed Sustainable Forest Management plans but also plans related to species of special concern, establishing Old Growth Management Areas and Biodiversity Conservation Planning. New forest license holder Western Forest Products is also CSA certified, with a Sustainable Forest Management Plan. Ensuring that these various planning initiatives are linked and ensuring sufficient resources for implementation and monitoring and evaluation are continuing challenges. One respondent explains, ―We recognize that there is little point in doing in-stream restorations that are expensive if we can‘t prove that they really work.‖ BC-W uses formal evaluation procedures and incorporates evaluation results into future strategies. Two-way exchanges on evaluation processes and results occur principally in the form of reports given at annual meetings as well as written reports to funding agencies and resulting dialogue. Monitoring and stock assessment are considered essential to evaluation and adaptive management. However, core activities such as Nimpkish stock assessment are not funded or conducted by DFO and it is difficult to raise funds from outside sources that are reluctant to finance DFO‘s retreat from their responsibilities. Provincial relationships have been strained by lack of participation and resources in recent years as well as a focus on recreational species such as steelhead and Chinook, while ‗Namgis representatives advocate for increased spending on sockeye and chum. A

242 government representative explains ―Canfor and ‗Namgis were looking probably for a little bit different objectives than the Department (DFO) at that time, but they had...I guess the reason for the Board‘s formation was to ensure some sort of equitable split of jobs or opportunities for First Nations as well as IWA (ed. Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, now United Steelworkers) employees.‖

7.8 Summary of Model Similarities and Differences

A comparison of these watershed management models demonstrates considerable diversity in approaches, actors and actor relationships, while at the same time exhibiting common characteristics and challenges. In two of the three cases, for example, First Nations have played a leadership role in the pursuit of watershed sustainability. In the third (NL-W), settler communities have led the way, although notably with support from a neighbouring Mi‘kmaw community. Municipal actors are formally involved in the Bras d‘Or case but not in others. While often conflicted and varying by federal agency and issue, all three cases have strong relationships with the federal government while the strength of network ties with provincial governments and international actors ranges from weak to medium. The nature and diversity of these relationships also vary (see Appendix 4). Although there a significantly greater number of communities, residents and other actors in the Bras d‘Or watershed, in all cases ongoing tensions in community- government and watershed institution-public relations require significant skill and investment in the development of collaborative governance structures and processes. Each of these initiatives was motivated by natural resource decline and associated social, cultural, economic and human health implications. Fisheries were the primary initial concern in all cases. Degradation of overall ecosystem health appears to have been a secondary consideration, although now the primary emphasis in the Bras d‘Or Lakes case. Considering Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife Commission as a precursor of Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources, with the exception of Sustainable Communities and Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiatives in Cape Breton, the case study organizations all began in the late 1980s. This timeframe reflects links to a broader global sustainability agenda and resulting provincial and federal policy frameworks and support programs of the late 1980s and 1990s. Today, in the absence of strong policy support or

243 funding mechanisms all three case studies experience funding challenges. Leaders spend significant amounts of time (human resources) seeking financing for future projects and priorities. Particularly in NL-W and BC-W cases the struggle for financial survival diverts limited resources from the pursuit of watershed management goals. In two of three cases (NL-W and NS-W) the range of issues addressed has increased over time. Strategies employed differ, but all three cases have engaged in research, monitoring, and habitat restoration, including repair of damage caused by logging practices. Organizational structures, financial and human resources and processes of planning and evaluation differ in each case (Table 30). All three case studies have engaged in planning processes, NL-W the least involved in strategic and coastal planning. Nova Scotia (NS-W) and British Columbia (BC-W) cases illustrate the complexity and challenges of collaboration within nested and overlapping planning scales.

Table 30 Organizational models

Governance Model NL-W Concentrated/community-based non-profit (Indian Bay) - one incorporated non-profit society recognized by senior government and the community - other associated local interests loosely associated with watershed activities and decisions - grassroots voting model NS-W Network model (Bras d‘Or) - many groups with responsibilities for watershed stewardship and sustainable community development, network of various organizations and committees - several nodes, UINR as secretariat for CEPI, Pitu‘paq but also BSS, SCI etc. - connected through committees, projects and loose networks - seeking new more structured mechanism BC-W Semi-concentrated/triad collaborative (Nimpkish) - one key group led by three major actors that also act independently, as do other associated actors - connected through committee membership (e.g. Board, management committee and technical working group) and communication - unincorporated

Organizational structure represents perhaps the greatest difference among these three networks. The models range from a single non-government organization in NL with Board membership elected by local members, without official representation from First Nations or municipal government to a loose, multi-centred network of agencies in the Bras d‘Or and, third, a semi-concentrated network of organizations and their appointed

244 representatives, connected through a committee structure and industry-federal-First Nation management triad, in BC. Overall, watershed governance organization is more informal than in regional economic development cases, although both BC-W and NS-W cases have moved toward more formal structures over time. The degree to which diverse actors are involved also varies, as does the nature of their involvement, the extent to which power is shared, collaborative governance principles followed, and the mix of objectives and issues addressed. Each of these topics and their role in collaborative governance outcomes are discussed further in the following chapters.

245 8 – Outcomes, Resistors and Enablers: Research Findings and Cross-case Analysis

This chapter presents the findings of a comparative analysis of the six case studies described in Chapters 6 and 7. Research findings related to each of the three major questions posed in Chapter 1 are summarized:

1. Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal regions? If so, how? 2. What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in collaborative governance for sustainable coastal development? 3. What barriers and resistors exist to collaborative governance and advancing sustainable development through this governance approach? 4. How might these barriers/resistors be overcome?

8.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes

The case studies examined were chosen in part because they were recommended as model initiatives involving collaboration among a range of actors, including communities and senior levels of government, in the pursuit of sustainable development objectives. Yet respondents are cautious about considering their initiatives in this way. Despite provincial, national and even international recognition they emphasize that sustainable development, including related Table 31 Evaluation challenges policy-making, regional economic - financial and human resource costs of evaluation - development (RED) and ecosystem difficulty tracking results - demonstrating cause and effect when many recovery efforts, is a long, slow factors, often beyond the control of any one actor or group of actors, impact sustainability process. In each case there is much - lack of early attention to monitoring and work still to be done. evaluation, resulting in inadequate baseline data and difficulty demonstrating results to date In addition to long time scales - difficulty measuring the impact of activities such as planning, coordination, and facilitation and of before results can be seen, other accounting for social capital and capacity reported challenges associated with building outcomes - lack of capacity and resources devoted to evaluating collaborative governance evaluation (organizations often sidelined by ―fighting fires‖) outcomes are presented in Table 31. - resentment of inappropriate evaluation methods Concerns related to communication developed without stakeholder involvement - unrealistic expectations given limited resources of evaluation results were also and challenging mandates

246 raised, including pressure to communicate results too early and take credit for shared outcomes, thus conflicting with empowerment objectives and/or alienating project partners. Partly due to these concerns, the task of communicating results has received inadequate attention despite its importance to long-term organizational and network viability, and to principles of public participation and transparency. Monitoring and evaluation processes in the case study initiatives, discussed further in Chapter 9, remain under development, but have received increased attention in recent years in all cases but Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W). Despite the challenges outlined above, data related to collaborative governance outcomes were collected using a combination of existing documentation and primary data, which were particularly important for largely undocumented capacity and social outcomes. Outcomes, achieved at multiple scales, were categorized according to the six sustainable development imperatives outlined in Figure 16 and are summarized below.

Social learning Skills Relationships Skills Knowledge Informationsystems Social- & other resources ecological system Ecological

Economic Social Governance capacity

Individual Cultural

Figure 16 Collaborative governance outcomes

247 While evidence suggests that reported outcomes are linked to collaborative governance efforts, it must be acknowledged that, in some cases, similar outcomes may have been achieved under alternative governance models.

8.1.1 Enhancing Governance System Capacity

In both RED and watershed management cases, with the exception of Community Futures Development Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E), the primary outcomes observed have been contributions to enhanced governance system capacity (Olsen‘s first order outcomes). Increases in individual, organizational and/or public skills and knowledge were referred to as benefits of case study initiatives by 57 respondents (44% of those who discussed outcomes) and were the most frequently observed outcome of Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W), Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W), Strait Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E) and, in general, in the watershed management cases. Understanding of the physical, biological and archaeological characteristics of watershed ecosystems as well as human values, livelihoods and relationships has been enhanced. Improved fish stock assessment abilities are reported in all three watersheds due to increased scientific understanding, skills development and increased management attention. Participants have benefited from increased technical and management skills and, through the participation of First Nations and other local actors, local and traditional knowledge have been added to governance knowledge systems (discussed further in Chapter 9). Local actors have demonstrated a commitment to long-term monitoring and evaluation that is not typical of government programs, but necessary for observation of long-term trends and processes such as population recruitment rates or human relationship development. One scientist claims that NL-W and its partners have developed ―the best long-term database on trout anywhere in Canada or even the world,‖ with Indian Bay‘s model for brook trout management and recovery has also been applied elsewhere in Canada and internationally. In all the watershed management cases, respondents report that public awareness about environmental trends, issues and impacts of their behaviour has increased, although changing attitudes is described as a ―long, slow, difficult process.‖ Respondents also report greater awareness and knowledge related

248 to the following topics: community and regional economic development in their regions; partnerships; each other; interconnections among economic, social and cultural development; and integrated management and horizontal policy development. Respondents claim that case study networks have improved governance through enhanced communication, information sharing and coordination. Improvements in legislation, policies and management practices have also been observed, such as no harvest zones, reduced catch limits and the Bras d‘Or Lakes Designation as a no- discharge zone for boating sewage under the Canada Shipping Act. Increased monitoring and enforcement of harvesting activities and infrastructure development such as research, laboratory and business service centre facilities are additional outcomes. Regional economic development (RED) groups have contributed to strategic planning at community and regional scales, and to enhanced capabilities for local development and for addressing issues broader than one community can tackle on its own. NS-E facilitators describe helping communities start small, with something ―everybody would think would be a good thing,‖ often with tourism-related projects, building the skills and confidence needed for larger projects. In the RED cases, and in the Bras d‘Or, support has been provided for new and existing community and regional organizations. Given the many challenges discussed below, respondents note that the development and survival of the case study organizations is itself a notable outcome. Speaking of the NL-W case, for example, one provincial representative states, ―it‘s a powerful statement in an economically challenged area … the longevity alone attests to a certain level of capacity and commitment and courage…‖

8.1.2 Contributions to Social Well-being

In NS-W, BC-W52 and Kittiwake Economic Development Corp. (NL-E) cases, relationship building was the top reported outcome (second for Community Futures Mount Waddington - BC-E), creating governance capacity and social capital. New and enhanced relationships were noted as an outcome of collaborative governance efforts by 78% of NS-W, 54% of BC-W, 55% of BC-E and 22% of NL-E respondents (see Appendix 1). With an estimated 228 organizations within their respective governance

52 In the BC-W case, relationships and learning/capacity building were noted as outcomes by an equal # of respondents (54%).

249 networks, watershed management actors have developed relationships that range from sharing information to collaborative decision-making. In RED cases the number of identified network actors rises to nearly 400 (see appendix 4). Case study organizations have formed key nodes within these policy networks and worked at ―building bridges,‖ connecting local actors to one another and to external resources. Through the BC and Bras d‘Or (NS) watershed management cases, for example, trust has been increased in the often rocky relationship between First Nations and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). In Bras d‘Or, Mi‘kmaw First Nations interact regularly with DFO staff from the local to the Regional Director General level. These institutional relationships are central to Bras d‘Or watershed management efforts and rely on working relationships among individuals that have been fostered, in some cases, over a period of up to thirty years.

It‘s about creating a culture of awareness of what‘s going on in the Bras d‘Or Lakes, so rather than having each silo of government out there doing its thing, we‘ve broken that down.

NS-W provincial respondent

The trust with DFO, we have the trust because we‘ve worked with them for the last 10 years. I personally, longer, I‘ve been around DFO people for the last 30 years. So I know when a person is lying to me. I know how to read the report… but most communities don‘t have the capacity to ask their technicians, is it true what DFO is telling me? Plus there‘s no trust.

NS-W Mi‘kmaw representative

In the Nimpkish watershed, trust has been built primarily at the local level, although weakened by DFO staff turnover:

Let‘s face it, DFO and First Nations don‘t have a great relationship sometimes but if you go to the NRMB meeting, you wouldn‘t see that part of it, right, because you‘ve got technical people who are trying to do something about it. It‘s not necessarily the decision maker that comes down, no, we‘re not doing this…. There‘s an awful lot more exchange on that one-on-one level than there was before, and that‘s a good thing that has come out of the NRMB process. Unfortunately we have to rebuild them all again because half the players have up and disappeared. BC-W local representative

250

I think the collegial approach that the board takes to problems generally, is probably the biggest success, bringing the previous adversaries together as a working group who are all kind of pursuing the same objective. If you flip it back ten or fifteen years ago you‘d never have Canfor sitting down with ‗Namgis, talking about mutual interests. BC-W provincial representative

In both of these cases, First Nations have also strengthened their relationships with neighbouring non-Aboriginal communities through watershed management. One BC-W Board member explains, ―It was one of the first times loggers and fishermen, native and non-native have worked together,‖ allowing them to develop a better understanding of one another (Vodden and Gunter 2000). In Cape Breton:

The wardens came onside. If they couldn‘t come they‘d send others, but most of the time we had all five municipalities represented and maybe two First Nations bands, then three, sometimes five… they all came onside, and it was great. Then we decided instead of always meeting in Victoria County, the different mayors and the different chiefs would host. So we started crowding around to each other‘s areas, and that was breaking down barriers also. NS-W municipal respondent

A federal official explains of the Pitu‘paq initiative that it is ―a collaboration of mayors and wardens and chiefs around the lakes… There‘s social harmony and racial relations that we don‘t have too many good examples of in Canada… that‘s social development.‖ Non-Aboriginal Bras d‘Or respondents describe a greater understanding of Mi‘kmaw culture, spirituality, ways of decision-making, traditional knowledge, environmental values and management capacity as a result of working together. Given growth in First Nations populations on Canada‘s coasts and tensions associated with resource declines and increasing recognition of Aboriginal rights, improved cross-cultural relationships are a significant outcome. Recognition of Aboriginal rights and title, access to resources, decision-making and employment for First Nations in these cases also provides an important measure of equity and fairness given a history of disenfranchisement.

251 Respondents in all three regions also refer to the role of RED organizations in giving youth a voice through avenues such as youth councils. Seeing the link between social and economic development, both NL-E and BC-E have provided assistance to organizations and projects with a largely social mandate. Through the self-employment assistance program, BC-E helped social assistance recipients start business ventures, until provincial funding for this activity was cut. The results of this program, as well as lending programs for marginalized groups including the disabled, women, youth and displaced workers, support social aims such as empowerment and self-reliance.

8.1.3 Enhancing Individual Well-being and Human Capital

Individual well-being in all six case study regions has been enhanced by training, education and mentorship. The Bras d‘Or Lakes case (NS-W) is particularly illustrative, with a focus on both formal post-secondary and experiential learning. NL-E Adult Basic Education, Strategic Lifelong Learning Plan and capacity-building workshops, student research and work experience with NL-W, and on-the-job training for members of ‗Namgis First Nation in BC-W are further examples. One respondent observes that in general Nova Scotia‘s community development approach has helped create capacity across Cape Breton Island: ―with all of this activity going on for 15-20 years, you get an awful lot of pretty vocal and articulate community people.‖ The Bras d‘Or approach, using the medicine wheel as a framework for Integrated Management, considers four dimensions of human health and learning: mental, physical, emotional and spiritual. Attempts to address each of these through this planning framework are, however, in their early stages. In the Nimpkish watershed, ‗Namgis members have benefited from hope that something can be done to recover salmon runs essential to their cultural heritage, providing a sense of security. Nimpkish salmon is a traditional food source for the ‗Namgis. Local health practitioners describe negative health impacts of reduced salmon consumption and other dietary changes. As one response, Gwa‘ni hatchery brood stock are provided to local elders as a food source. Forestry employees also describe pride in their efforts. One BC-W representative states, ―I think having the company involved has a lot of health benefits, mental health benefits

252 for their employees...‖ Individual well-being is enhanced by interconnected social, ecological, cultural and economic outcomes.

8.1.4 Preservation and Renewal of Coastal Cultures

According to one respondent, in rural Canada ―culture and history connect you to the land. That is your community.‖ Cultural53 outcomes were discussed primarily by First Nations and Newfoundland watershed management participants, and are therefore not reflected highly in overall response numbers. They are significant, however, for these specific groups. One ‗Namgis First Nation key informant explains: ―Other people move on… We will always be here, or we will cease to exist.‖ For the ‗Namgis and Mi‘kmaq of Unama‘ki (Cape Breton), cultural well-being is tied to the health of the Nimpkish and Bras d‘Or watersheds. Watershed management is an important part of the cultural revival process. While limited improvements in salmon returns have been observed, ‗Namgis representatives explain that management and restoration activities allow the Nation to continue its long history of involvement in and connection to the Nimpkish Valley, and to exercise their right to be actively involved in the management of their traditional territory. Bras d‘Or Mi‘kmaw respondents incorporate Mi‘kmaw culture explicitly into all aspects of watershed management. Through Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR), the Unama‘ki Council of Elders was formed to ensure that knowledge about Mi‘kmaw culture is appropriately relayed. Traditional knowledge has been documented and mapped, helping to preserve this valued resource. Mi‘kmaw language is spoken by approximately 50% of UINR staff members and used within the office environment. Further, the medicine wheel has been selected as a framework for integrated management planning. Spirituality is an integral part of Mi'kmaw cultural beliefs. One non-Aboriginal community participant explains, ―the whole spirituality thing is not something that I come to easily, so it‘s interesting. It means a whole new thing,‖ an illustration of increasing cross-cultural awareness. Representatives suggest, however, that there is much more to be done in creating respect and appreciation for cultural diversity. One BC-W participant explains that cultural issues ―go right over the heads of most of our DFO partners,‖ and

53 Culture is considered here to include socially patterned or learned human norms, values, standards and behaviours, often passed down through generations within a given society (Bodley 1994, Murphy 1986).

253 that it is difficult for forest companies to accept the idea of not logging an area because of its cultural significance. ‗Namgis representatives believe that more discussion is needed on these issues. More than in any other case, Indian Bay respondents link their culture and way of life to the lands and waters that surround them. Protecting a rural way of life that involves going to the cabin, trout fishing and other outdoor recreational activities is an important objective for 39% of NL-W case study respondents. A 2001 study of recreational Indian Bay watershed users concluded that local values were ―consistent with the Newfoundlander‘s historical reliance on the land for subsistence and the attitude of a traditional right of access to Crown land and resources for personal use‖ (Buffinga 2001, ii). Power (1997) states that trout fishing ―is a deep-rooted part of our heritage.‖ NL-W efforts have contributed to the protection of this way of life through restoration and management of trout stocks, land use planning (attempting to protect wilderness recreation areas) and through information and parking areas for watershed visitors. An early objective to develop sport fishing enterprises has been abandoned due to concerns about fishing pressure and priority placed on local access, putting social, cultural and conservation before economic objectives. Representatives of RED organizations also refer to cultural outcomes, including financial and advisory/facilitation support for culture and heritage initiatives. While often tied to the tourism industry, these projects help to preserve the built and artistic heritage of all three regions. Some respondents suggest that watershed management and RED efforts have contributed to a culture change within federal and provincial government institutions that supports more holistic, collaborative community-based development approaches, particularly within the Province of Nova Scotia. Others are skeptical. Participation in collaborative processes is limited to certain individuals and departments and does not necessarily translate into organizational learning and a change of institutional perspective. One BC-W representative remarks of DFO, ―They may be totally willing to go and sit at a community‘s table, but whether or not that‘s going to influence a change in the way that they‘re making their decisions, that‘s what I‘m not sure about, the cultural shift.‖ Organizational culture shifts vary by department and province, and are influenced significantly by leadership, which is discussed further below.

254 8.1.5 Economic Benefits

Only Community Futures Development Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E) respondents report economic benefits as the number one outcome of their activities, with 70% of respondents referring to business development outcomes, 45% to funding brought into the region, and 25% to economic diversification through support of new and/or growing industries (see Table 32). A 2002 evaluation of Community Futures organizations across western Canada demonstrated their financial effectiveness, with interest on investment funds offsetting bad debt and loan administration costs. The average loan client generates $1.2 million in revenue and ten person years of employment over five years. Clients attribute 59% of their business revenues to Community Futures services. Case studies show that each Community Futures organization dollar leverages an additional $84 (Ference Weiker 2002). Table 32 Industries under development Community Futures Development

Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E) reports that, Kittiwake: blueberry farming, as of 2004, they had assisted 240 businesses with a cod grow-out, birch sap products, call centres, 33% success rate, contributed to the creation of 238 manufacturing, tourism, aerospace jobs, provided local entrepreneurs with access to $3.6 million in loan funds and assisted in bringing over $6 Strait-Highlands: minerals, shipping, call centres, million in federal project investments to the region alternative/sustainable energy, information technology, (CFDC 2004). These investments have helped tourism finance infrastructure such as tourism Mount Waddington: shellfish accommodations, an industrial site, harbour facilities, aquaculture, non-timber forest trails, an arena, waterfront improvements, and a First products, tourism Nations Big House. One local business person comments that BC-E staff members are proficient at seeking funding, and that he ―would hate to see Community Futures ever leave, because here we are on the west coast of British Columbia and we‘re as far away from Ottawa as you can get... it‘s one of our few sources of federal government funding.‖ A provincial official adds, ―I think they‘re, particularly in the more rural areas, a critical element of the business development piece because for the most part the major lending institutions won‘t provide capital funds for businesses north of Campbell River and other

255 coastal communities. It‘s viewed as high risk and limited opportunity so corporations like CF are really the first and only resort for many of the smaller businesses…‖ Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E) and, to a lesser extent, Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E) respondents report access to funds, business support/development services, improved infrastructure, and industry development as economic outcomes. Although these groups do not provide loan funds, in 2003/04 alone NS-E played an important role in projects that brought approximately $30 million in investment into the region. Since 2000, they have played an acknowledged role in the creation of over 700 jobs (including 500-600 in a local call centre) and in new infrastructure such as broadband access, Port Hawkesbury Civic Centre, downtown revitalization, arts and cultural centre upgrades, marine terminal reconstruction and supply base expansion. The organization helped launch Strait of Canso Superport Corporation Limited, a port corporation that now operates the area‘s main economic engine, and assisted with Cape Breton Island‘s first windmill project. Statistical indicators of NL-E‘s economic outcomes are scarce. Over 100 businesses were served in 2003, a successful Ekubator project provided local businesses with an internet presence and the organization has assisted with the development of several new and growing industries. Investment and job creation results of these activities are not provided in annual reports. Significant economic outcomes have also been observed from watershed management. BC-W respondents (54%) suggest that employment is one of the most significant benefits achieved (NL-W 29%, Bras d‘Or 22%). From 1979-2001 Gwa‘ni hatchery provided training and over 150 person-years of employment to ‗Namgis First Nation members. An agreement regarding in-stream restoration works between ‗Namgis, Canfor and the International Wood and Allied Workers Union ensured 50% of restoration work went to ‗Namgis crew members. Recent machine-intensive work and funding cutbacks have resulted in a decline from a crew of 15 in 1997 for 4.5 months to three employees for two weeks in 2003. It was hoped that this work would get ‗Namgis employees‘ ―foot in the door,‖ however employment within forestry operations does not appear to have increased as a result. NL-W has provided summer employment and research experience for an estimated

256 150 youth. Many of these students have gone on to complete undergraduate and graduate degrees in natural resource-related fields and secure employment with resource management and academic institutions. NL-W provides employment for approximately 20 local people each year (six regular plus project staff, including Gwa‘ni Hatchery), has invested over $3 million in the local economy, which helps support outdoor recreation activity and in turn local businesses (Adams and Norris 2008). Because of outcomes such as these, ecosystem management has been identified in the provincial regional diversification strategy as an area of economic opportunity for the Kittiwake zone (NL 2005b). Economic benefits from Bras d‘Or watershed management activities include employment for over 200 Mi‘kmaq, including the Eskasoni commercial fishery and employment with Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission (EFWC) and Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resource (UINR). Revenues and royalties from resource development provide a degree of financial self-sufficiency for watershed management. Additional benefits noted include access to funding and efficient use of public resources. While funding is often tenuous, collectively these watershed management initiatives bring over three million dollars into their rural regions annually.

8.1.6 Ecological Benefits

According to documents such as business plans, recovery plans and official charters, ecological outcomes are the primary aim of watershed management initiatives. RED cases also acknowledge the importance of restoring and maintaining natural capital and of balancing social, economic and ecological objectives. Ecological outcomes have been the most difficult to achieve, most frequently reported by NL-W respondents (36%), followed by Bras d‘Or (34%) and BC-W (15%). RED representatives also provide examples of projects they have assisted with environmental benefits, including coastal resources mapping, eider duck and wetland habitat conservation and creating marine protected areas (NL-E), alternative energy projects (NS-E) and support for fisheries enhancement and restoration activities (BC-E). Launched to clean up litter and restore local trout populations, NL-W has had success in meeting both of these objectives. A late 1980s/early 1990s clean-up and public awareness campaign removed 5000 bags of garbage and 40-50 tonnes of large debris (oil

257 tanks, fridges, stoves etc.) from the ecosystem and reduced littering by watershed users. While some local observers question trout stock improvements, stock assessment data suggest that Indian Bay trout populations have stabilized since their 1970s/80s decline. Trout size and numbers remain below historic levels, but creel survey results suggest significant increases in brook trout size since the early 1990s (Adams and Norris 2008). Five lakes (―ponds‖ in the vernacular) are still considered overexploited (Van Zyll de Jong et al. 2002) but local anglers are aware that stocks are vulnerable to overfishing (Buffinga 2001). While only government representatives used the term ―stewardship,‖ approximately 20% of respondents suggest there is now a higher level of community care, ownership and responsibility for protecting ecological assets, including discouraging poaching and habitat destruction. One local suggested ―we‘re all wardens now,‖ although illegal harvesting of fish, waterfowl, seabirds, moose and timber remains an issue according to enforcement officials and 24% of NL-W respondents. While stocks have only partially recovered, these efforts have helped protect one of only four or five systems on the island with trophy-sized brook trout (Slade 2004) and ―one of the top brook trout fisheries in the world‖ (de Jong 2004). Habitat restoration and land use planning efforts have provided increased protection for stream-side habitats, but have failed to protect other ecological assets, such as old forest habitats, in the face of powerful timber interests. In the Bras d‘Or, ecological threats remain significant. Scientific studies suggest that winter flounder, winter skate and cod are rebounding since the efforts of Mi‘kmaw organizations and scientists led to the exclusion of draggers from the Lakes in 1992 (Lambert 2002). Traditional and local ecological knowledge suggest, however, further declines in these species (CEPI 2006; Barrington 2005). The herring fishery was closed in 1999 as the population reached the point of collapse, but stocks have not recovered since the closure (Westhead and Parker 2005). Despite efforts to better understand and manage shellfish disease, outbreaks in several sites have decimated shellfish populations and threaten biodiversity (Yang et al. 2008). Forest diversity remains compromised, although UINR and Mi‘kmaw community partners have engaged in replanting efforts. Streambanks in the River Denys basin have been stabilized and, tackling what is considered the most pressing ecological issue faced by the Lakes,

258 centralized sewage systems have been upgraded. A new sewage treatment plant was installed in Baddeck in 2002. Pumping stations have been added to marinas, and private landowners have also invested over $2 million in new and upgraded on-site systems. Evidence on the early results of these measures is mixed. Malcolm (2003) reports less than a 1% increase in the classified area approved for shellfish harvest from 1994 to 2003, while Canada (2002c) reports that a partnership agreement between Environment Canada and UINR/EFWC had resulted in a 12% increase of approved shellfish growing areas. Respondents suggest there were close to 50 sites closed in 2003 but ―we can‘t point to reduced fecal coliform yet.‖ By 2007, Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society reported that the number of reported shellfish closures had been reduced to 29 (BSS 2007), while Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (CEPI) representatives continued to lobby for tightened ballast water discharge regulations. Of the three watershed cases, BC-W has struggled most with achieving its ecological objectives. It is anticipated that BC-W‘s restoration work will have resulted in improved freshwater conditions that will be beneficial if and/or when marine survival (now considered to be the major limiting factor) improves. Hoped-for stock increases have not yet materialized. One respondent suggests that what is really needed is a better understanding of the system as a whole and how it can be restored. Another adds that activities such as hatchery production and habitat enhancement have not resulted in more fish, ―We‘re cranking out five or six million chums a year and we had a return of less than a hundred last fall.‖ Overall, there was an increasing trend in 1980s and 90s chum returns, attributed in part to habitat restoration work, but there has also been significant variability and recent years of extremely low numbers. Evidence exists of increased juvenile production but this has not resulted in increased adult returns, with the exception of some coho improvements. PSF (2004) reports some Chinook increases but numbers have not risen above 300-400/year (compared to a 1950s average of 10,000 fish). Entire sockeye stocks, including a culturally significant early run, have been lost. Total sockeye escapement from 2003-2005 ranged from 18,500 to 32,150, well under the target of 100,000. Nimpkish lake fertilization in the early 1980s may have been associated with annual average escapements reaching approximately 100,000 by the early 1990‘s, but the fertilization program was cancelled and sockeye returns subsequently

259 declined. BC-W representatives are hopeful that a new lake fertilization program and food web study, launched in 2000 and demonstrating ―significantly increased fry growth rates,‖ will have a positive impact. Wood (2002) asks the important question – ―where would we be without enhancement?‖ suggesting that the answer includes lower awareness of and priority given to salmon in enhanced systems, fewer viable populations and less information to recognize and protect endangered stocks. Rather than recovery, for now the role of BC-W and Gwa‘ni Hatchery is, according to one local scientist, to serve as ―the life support of the Nimpkish salmon.‖

8.1.7 Summary

Figures 18-20 compare the range of benefits achieved in each region with the areas where ―sustainability gaps‖ were identified in Chapter 5. In NL cases, for example (Fig. 18) ecological and economic outcomes have been achieved but not to the extent needed to address the gaps identified in these areas. At the same time, these initiatives have continued to enhance social capital, already an area of relative strength in the region according to indicators such as social support and charitable giving. Differences between priority sustainability issues (gaps) and areas where governance outcomes have been achieved are most significant in the area of ecological sustainability in all three case study regions, along with economic development in the NL-E case. While the most noted and evident Ecological outcomes of collaborative governance fall under Cultural Economic the category of ―governance capacity,‖ characterized by Olsen

Social Individual as first order outcomes, Figures 17-19 Gaps IBEC Outcomes KEDC Outcomes demonstrates that case

Figure 17 NL case study outcomes and sustainability gaps 260 study initiatives are also moving toward higher Ecological order, interconnected Cultural Economic social, cultural, economic and ecological

Social Individual outcomes. Collectively, next to enhanced Gaps NRMB Outcomes MWCFDC Outcomes governance

capacity, the most

Figure 18 BC case study outcomes and sustainability gaps significant achievements have been in the categories of Ecological individual and social well-being, Cultural Economic followed by cultural, economic, and ecological

Social Individual well-being respectively, with improved Gaps Bras d'Or Outcomes SHRDA Outcomes outcomes needed in the latter two Figure 19 NS case study outcomes and sustainability gaps areas. Comparing demonstrated outcomes with stated objectives, the latter being primarily economic for RED organizations and ecological for watershed management, it is evident that the largely unmonitored and either unintended or unofficially sought

261 outcomes from these initiatives are considerable. If a sustainable development approach is to be meaningfully applied by collaborative governance structures, monitoring programs that take into account a range of outcomes are required. The absence of multiple-objective monitoring and evaluation illustrates that an explicitly integrated, multi-objective development approach is not yet being implemented. Resistors to such an approach, including lack of commitment and capacity are discussed further below.

Table 33 Outcomes of collaborative governance initiatives NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W a) Evidence of meeting stated 3 3 2 2 2 1 objectives (/4) b) Improvement in priority regional 254 3 2 2 2 2 sustainable development issues (/4) c) Comparative ranking on priority 0 2 1 2 1 0 (economic/ecological) outcomes (/2) Overall outcomes rating (/10) 5 8 5 6 5 3

Explanation of values: a) 0 = No evidence of outcomes, 1 = limited outcomes or conflicting data, 2 = To some degree, 3 = To some degree/Yes, 4 = Yes (strong evidence of significant outcomes); b) 2 = 70-84%, 3 = 85%+ total contribution to sustainability gaps/total sustainability gap value (see Appendix 1); c) 0 = lowest comparative rank, 1 = middle, 2 = highest comparative rank

Table 33 compares the observed outcomes from each case to a) the organization/ network‘s stated objectives, b) improvements in priority regional sustainability issues (areas where sustainability gaps exist) and c) performance in the primary area of emphasis relative to other cases (economic outcomes for RED cases and ecological outcomes for watershed management). Numerical values are assigned to allow for ranking each case relative to the others. The results of this analysis indicate higher outcomes for NS-E, followed by BC-E and NL-E among the RED cases and for NL-W in watershed management, followed by Bras d‘Or and BC-W. The following section discusses factors contributing to these varied outcomes.

8.2 Enablers and Resistors

The ability of the case study organizations to achieve the outcomes described above is impacted by both enabling factors and factors that act as resistors, even barriers to

54 The discrepancy between NL-E‘s success in meeting organizational objectives and in addressing economic sustainability gaps is accounted for by the nature of NL-E‘s objectives, which are focused on building capacity and collaboration rather than direct, ―higher order‖ outcomes.

262 collaborative governance efforts. Table 34 identifies the most significant enabling factors according to interview respondents. Results are based on the percentage of respondents referring to each factor, calculated for each case study, for RED cases (weighted equally for each case), watershed management cases and overall (all six cases). Results for individual case studies are provided in Appendix 14. Leaders, or key actors, were considered the number one enabling factor in both RED and watershed management, in three out of six cases (NL-W, Bras d‘Or and NS-E) and overall. Other factors differ considerably from case-to-case and across policy arenas. Long-term commitment and community support have been critical in watershed management efforts, while RED models have relied more upon relationships with senior levels of government.

Table 34 Ranking of top ten enabling factors according to interview respondents RED WM Overall Individuals/leaders 1 1 1 Time/persistence 7 2 2 Government support/relationships with 2 10 3 government Communication, cooperation 3 5 4 Community support and involvement 9 3 4 Common ground – shared goals, interests, 4 6 6 understanding Community capacity/capacity building 7 8 7 Financial resources 5 - 8 Regional thinking/approach 14 7 9 Commitment/interest - 4 10 Board of Directors/structure 5 - 11

8.2.1 The influence of individuals

Respondents from all case studies describe groups of key individuals that ―make the structure work‖ (Table 35). In all cases these key actors include both federal employees and community and regional-level actors. In the four Atlantic cases provincial staff and politicians are also included. Two kinds of key individuals were identified: primary actors (drivers) and enablers. In all watershed management cases and, to a lesser extent, NS-E, specific local- level leaders with day-to-day leadership responsibilities were identified as primary actors, or ―conductors of the orchestra.‖ In all cases these actors are senior organizational staff

263 (Managers or Chief Executive Officers). Commonly noted primary actor characteristics include: strong, respected, committed, hard working, persistent, effective, wise, pragmatic, problem solvers, diplomatic and well connected, with an ability to build partnerships and resolve conflicts, skills conducive to collaboration. Fundraising and lobbying abilities were also noted. One of these leaders is described as a visionary, another as dynamic, high energy and proactive, creating opportunities rather than waiting for opportunities to come to them. Another successful primary actor is described as ―low key‖ but with ―a unique ability to bring out the positive and get people to work together.‖ One BC respondent remarks:

I think it is a question of talent. If an Table 35 Individuals described as key actors individual has the ability to bring community together and manage a NL-E (16) : 4 federal (1 political, 2 senior staff, 1 CF operation at the same time then regional), 6 provincial (2 political, 1 senior staff, 2 they tend to be more effective… mid-level, 3 regional), 2 staff, 2 community reps you‘re asking them to be able to - 8 still involved (2005) manage an office and staff, you‘re NS-E (7): 2 federal (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2 asking them to be good marketers, provincial (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2 former you‘re asking them to be good Board members, 1 staff member partnership developers, you‘re - 2 still involved (2005) asking them to be good communicators to the public. BC-E (12): 4 federal (1 mid-level manager, 2 senior, 1 regional staff), 3 staff members, 2 Board members, 1 local politician, 1 town staff member Both Kittiwake (NL-E) and BC-E - 10 still involved (2005) cases lacked a clearly identified

NL-W (13): 5 federal (2 political, 1 regional staff, 2 primary actor. Funding uncertainty mid-level manager), 6 provincial (2 political, 2 senior staff, 1 mid-level, 1 regional), 1 staff, 1 and declining government support community rep. discouraged two NL-E key staff - 6 still involved (2005) members who later left the NS-W (23): 3 federal (senior staff), 7 provincial (4 senior, 1 mid-level, 2 regional), 7 First Nations, 3 organization. municipal (1 politician, 2 staff), 1 municipal/ Enabling individuals share provincial politician, 2 NGO/community - 22 still involved (2005) leadership responsibility with

BC-W (10): 2 federal (1 regional staff, 1 scientist), 3 primary actors but play a different First Nations, 1 consultant/community rep, 2 type of role in their respective community/NGO, 1 academic, 1 industry - 8 still involved (2005) policy networks, participating in

264 and promoting case study initiatives within their own organizations. Regional employees of provincial and federal agencies are identified as key actors in six of seven cases. Their role includes providing ―hands-on‖ operational advice and support as well as building support at higher levels by reporting on activities, plans and achievements. In the Bras d‘Or watershed, one regional-level provincial employee was described as ―the glue that holds us all together.‖ Mid and/or senior-level government managers55 are also identified as key enabling actors in all cases, as are politicians in the four Atlantic cases. Politicians are considered particularly influential in NL cases. These senior officials and politicians act as advocates for collaborative governance within their respective governments, often facilitating access to funding or policy change. Senior-level support provides confidence for junior level staff that their involvement is accepted and valued. ―It takes that combination of those really strong people, both on the ground and above… someone has to be looking out for you when you‘re out there doing what you‘re doing‖ observes one regional-level government employee. Commitment and sincerity are considered key characteristics of enabling actors. Effective enablers must understand and believe in network goals and objectives. These ―team players‖ may also bring specific skills, knowledge or expertise to the table. One federal official is described as ―the epitome of what‘s best of bureaucracy,‖ sensitive, intelligent, with experience working in the field and a good sense of humor: ―if you‘ve got somebody in that position that has all the right skills, then it works better than other places.‖ Having enabling individuals at senior levels in both provincial and federal governments is particularly beneficial. NL-E respondents recall, for example, the early 1990s federal-provincial relations that facilitated the creation of REDBs. ―Doug House was basically the provincial chair and Gord Slade was the federal chair, they had a great working relationship. Unfortunately I don‘t think that that relationship has been duplicated… that was sort of the marriage made in heaven, and we‘ve been struggling to find that since.‖ Respondents described waning support for REDBs since this ―marriage‖

55 Includes Assistant Deputy Ministers and Deputy Ministers, federal Director Generals, CEOs of Crown Corps. Department/Division Heads or Managers, Regional Managers (federal).

265 ended due to political change just after they were created. In the Bras d‘Or, senior level support from both governments is facilitated through Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) ―champions‖ and regular reports to weekly provincial Deputy Ministers‘ meetings and a Federal Director General - Deputy Ministers Committee. All but BC-W and BC-E characterize individuals from both federal and provincial levels as key actors. The absence of provincial actors in both cases reflects limited provincial presence in the Mount Waddington region, linked to government cutbacks and the region‘s relative remoteness. Board members were also typically described as enabling rather than primary actors. Their most frequently mentioned role is connecting regional organizations with other local and regional stakeholders. One First Nations BC-E board member, for example, makes a valuable contribution by being ―able to navigate both worlds‖ (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal). Another provides a link between the Community Futures Board and the land use planning efforts of the Central Coast Land and Resource Team. Despite the reported presence of strong primary actors, leadership capacity is also considered a barrier for NS-E and Bras d‘Or cases by one-third and 22% of respondents respectively. In the case of NS-E, the majority of key individual actors mentioned are no longer involved in the network. As illustrated by Table 35, turnover in key individuals has been particularly high (50% or greater) in NL-W, NL-E and NS-E cases. While some community leaders refer to frustration, burnout and health reasons for leaving the network, career changes also result in the loss of staff members or supporters. Frequent turnover is a barrier to collaboration and highlights the vulnerability of a system reliant on a few key individuals and their relationships. ―There‘s a lot of trust, it doesn‘t take too many speed bumps to get you off track sometimes,‖ explains one respondent. ―The right people building it over time make it work and if your right people move on regularly and there‘s no continuity then it‘s a more difficult thing.‖ Respondents describe difficulties recruiting new leaders, particularly young people. The most significant resistors faced by collaborative governance initiatives are presented in Table 36. Although there is more consistency across cases than with enabling factors, the relative importance of key resistors also varies according to policy area.

266 Conflict and differing perspectives among actors was the most commonly referred to resistor across all cases (mentioned by 53% of respondents), but is a greater challenge for RED groups. For RED groups, key sources of difference and conflict occur within the region, while watershed management organizations report conflict and differing perspectives between local and external partners. Significant differences also occur between cases. Conflict and differing perspectives, for example, was identified as a barrier by only 9% of Indian Bay and 29% of Kittiwake respondents, compared to 81% in Mount Waddington and 69% of Nimpkish respondents. Individual case study results are provided in Appendix 14.

Table 36 Ranking of top ten resistors/barriers according to interview respondents

RED WM Overall Conflict, different agendas and perspectives 1 3 1 Lack of government support/relationships with 2 1 2 government Inadequate financial resources 5 2 3 Limited knowledge/capacity 3 3 4 Lack of/difficulties with integration 6 6 5 Time/timing 9 5 6 Silos/lack of intergovernmental cooperation 10 7 7 Lack of community support and involvement 4 10 8 Politics 6 10 9 Communication 14 9 10

Government56 support is an important enabler for regional economic development (RED) groups, but lack of government support is also a major barrier. For watershed management groups, however, relationships with government are the number one barrier. Community support, by contrast, is considered a strength of watershed management initiatives, but a significant barrier for RED organizations. Differences in these relationships are explored further below.

8.2.2 Relationships with government

Government support, financial and non-financial, and working relationships between government and non-government actors are considered critical success factors.

56 Respondents typically refer to provincial and federal levels as ―government,‖ while municipal and First Nations governments are often described as an element of ―community.‖

267 Relationships between community and regional level actors and various individuals, departments and layers within government vary. Watershed management organizations are supported by strong community commitment more than by senior governments. Initiated largely by government, and provided with core financial support, the opposite is true of RED organizations. Figure 20 illustrates factors that have helped facilitate positive, productive relationships between government and other network actors and those that have hindered or been resistors to these relations, and ultimately to sustainability outcomes. The two most important resistors in these relationships are unwillingness to share power and control and the related issue of lack of financial resources. Both factors are described as significant in each of the six case studies.

Relationship Enablers Relationship Resistors/Barriers

In five cases: In six cases:  Personal relationships  Unwillingness to share power/control  Time  Limited financial resources

In four cases: In five cases:  Communication  Rigid/inflexible/red tape  Common ground, understanding  Time: slow rate of change/response but  Financial contribution also impatience and short-term thinking  Formal legislative or policy mandate  Lack of understanding/capacity  Willingness to share  Lack of coordination within power/responsibility government  Hands-on involvement In four cases: Other (3): trust, multi-level commitment/  Changes in government policies and involvement (including senior level, political programs that occur too quickly and staff) Other (3): need to play a more active role, dependency, distrust, turnover

Figure 20 Relationship factors

268 8.2.2.i Sharing power A majority of respondents (57%), including both government and community representatives, felt that local communities should have a greater role in planning and decision-making related to RED and watershed management. While some respondents (17%) feel that government has begun to make a shift in this direction, in some cases as a collaboration. They all involve multiple actors, responsible for all phases of the policy cycle in relatively long-term arrangements with at least some degree of formality. While varied, their responsibilities include aspects of each of Abrams et al.‘s (2003) key powers of governance (Chapter 3). Respondents suggest that the debate in these policy areas is no longer whether governance should be top-down or bottom-up, but rather the extent of local involvement and the nature of the collaboration between various actors in different times and contexts. In general, many respondents concur with an official who argues that ―government needs to be seen as much more open and willing to involve the community in the development of policy and procedures‖ - in the steering as well as the rowing in New Public Management (NPM) terminology. Several examples exist within the case studies of relationship breakdowns that occur when power is not shared, including the DFO-dominated early BC-W, 1995 Bras d‘Or Task Force and University College of Cape Breton report and, in 2003-2004, a constrained and disempowered NL-E. Unwillingness to share power is identified as the most significant resistor to improved government- community/regional relationships within collaborative governance efforts. In regional economic development (RED), respondents indicate that case study organizations, mandated by government to coordinate and deliver RED services, are the actors with the greatest influence over RED in their areas, along with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency in the Kittiwake case. Yet, even for RED agencies, ―commitment to collaborative governance is not easy for senior agencies accustomed to control. It involves sharing power and learning to trust.‖ Respondents identify a conflict between collaborative governance and government‘s desire for administrative ease, the push for accountability and the current political culture, particularly in NL. Securing support from middle management, responsible for spending and ensuring and reporting on outcomes, is noted as particularly difficult. Respondents observe that hiring trends have impacted

269 organizational culture and approach, and therefore the success or failure of collaboration. Poor relationships with Service Canada, for example, are linked to a trend of hiring ―bean counters‖ in response to accountability and results-focused management demands. While governments ―need to learn to let go,‖ accountability is seen as ―the other side of the coin‖ and a responsibility that must be shared by local partners and collaborative entities. Gaps in local capacity can reduce confidence in governance models that involve increased community control. Government respondents from agencies such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources emphasize their systemic and command powers and associated limits to local involvement. Community control in natural resource management, they suggest, is not feasible under the existing legal and jurisdictional framework. Respondents suggest varying roles for senior government and local/regional level actors. Areas of commonality are summarized in Table 37. The research findings indicate that coordinated, multi-level enforcement in watershed management and sufficiently flexible funding guidelines with appropriate evaluation and reporting procedures are examples of systems of ―checks and balances‖ that can be put in place. Struggles over power occur throughout the policy process but are most evident in conflicts over agenda setting. Restricted to a more narrow focus than their original vision, NL-E has limited agenda setting capability and therefore reduced power relative to the other RED cases. Some respondents are worried that current integrated management planning and endangered species-related activities in the Bras d‘Or are following a federal policy agenda. However, restoration of the Bras d‘Or and, in particular, an initial focus on fisheries and later sewage pollution are local priorities. While the findings suggest resistance to power sharing within some Province of Nova Scotia departments, particularly the Department of Natural Resources, several examples were given of government policies and programs supporting a bottom-up development approach, including the Atlantic Canada Action Program and Nova Scotia Community Development Policy. Although it is perceived locally as a government-driven initiative, participants suggest that the Sustainable Communities Initiative is also directed by local priorities. Agenda setting is therefore shared in the Bras d‘Or case. By acting collectively,

270 Bras d‘Or actors hold all four types of power referred to by Stoker (Chapter 3), thus strengthening their position.

Table 37 Recommended roles and responsibilities Watershed Management Regional Economic Development (RED) Government Agencies  setting regulations, guidelines  provider of guidance, and standards affecting scales resources, and a supportive, beyond the local conducive environment  enforcing natural resources-  funding, with guidelines that related regulations allow for flexibility and  providing tools, resources and accountability. improvement- facilitation support oriented evaluation Community/Regional  recommendations related to  champions, leaders, Organization(s) regulations, guidelines and coordinators standards affecting scales  capacity building, facilitation beyond the local  ensuring accountability, local  regulations, guidelines and knowledge flow and support standards on local issues  enforcement within multi-level enforcement teams  local and traditional knowledge

Financial contributions increase actor power and can influence agenda setting. As one BC respondent explains, ―it‘s difficult to have say without dollars.‖ In the case of Nova Scotia RDAs, a federal representative explains, ―we‘re one-third funder so we can‘t direct it. We relinquish our control a little bit. We can‘t really flex our muscles,‖ but because the organization is contributing financially ―we also have to lay out our expectations, objectives, reporting requirements.‖ Primarily federally funded and, increasingly directed according to the research findings, NL-E has considerably less autonomy. NL-W has been unable to make inroads with wildlife research and broadening its scope to ecosystem management, in large part due to dependence on government funding and provincial priorities for wildlife spending in other regions. NL-W‘s influence in trout management, despite limited resources, illustrates Howlett and Ramesh‘s (1995) contention that the power of communities and collaborative entities is increased when state capacity is low, as in the case of freshwater fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador. The British Columbia case studies illustrate that senior levels of government are not the only sources of resistance to power sharing. While BC-E has struggled with

271 federal and provincial human resources departments over program priorities, there has been little ―direct stepping in‖ by WD in BC-E operations. Some community partners suggest, however, that BC-E exhibits a lack of willingness to share agenda-setting with community-based organizations and that resistance to inclusive, collaborative planning exists within both the Community Futures organization and local governments. Power sharing barriers are, therefore, internal and external to the region. The private sector also has considerable agenda-setting influence, particularly large forest enterprises in all three provinces. Forestry companies have significant influence over land use in all regions. In Indian Bay, NL-W has been forced to make concessions in its land use plans to accommodate forestry interests. In the Nimpkish system, forestry companies have allowed some decisions related to spending of habitat restoration funds to be made by BC-W, but neither ‗Namgis nor forestry partners are willing to bring discussions of forestry plans and practices into the process. Thus, significant power is ―held back‖ from the collaborative governance process. BC-W actors also struggle over issues such as which salmon species will be enhanced, decisions dominated by DFO and to a lesser extent the Province in the past, with increasing ‗Namgis influence. Ongoing power struggles between the lead partners decreases the BC- W‘s resilience. With particular attention to agenda setting, Figure 21 demonstrates the degree of power sharing among these case studies relative to one another suggested by these research findings. Notably, with the exception of NL-W, cases on the lower end of the power sharing spectrum have lower outcomes ratings (see Table 8.3).

Figure 21 Degree of power sharing within the collaborative governance network

NL-E – BC-W/ NL-W/BC-E - NS-W/NS-E

Lower Higher

Degree of power sharing

Genuine power sharing necessitates flexibility, an ability to accommodate new ideas and perspectives. Consistent with low levels of power sharing, the rigidity of government partners, particularly Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and

272 Service Canada, and their rules and regulations, is considered the primary barrier to collaboration in the NL-E case. By contrast, Western Diversification (WD)‘s flexible programming is described as an enabling factor. BC-E enjoys considerable flexibility to set its own agenda within the broad guidelines of WD funding, agency representatives recognizing that problems and appropriate solutions vary according to context. Flexibility in all RED cases has been limited significantly, however, by programming changes at Service Canada and by provincial funding cuts (with some recent improvements). Case study representatives expressed widespread frustration with Service Canada changes that make RED organizations contractors rather than partners, increase paperwork and wait times, and restrict community development investments. However, the ability of some Service Canada staff members to continue to find ways to fund priority RED projects, and varying approaches being taken to integrated management and Oceans Act implementation by DFO across the country, demonstrate that flexibility and power- sharing are determined by individuals and cultures in regional offices as well as by national policy. Actors within each of these case studies hold different amounts and types of power. The individuals and the organizations they represent chose to share this power with collective efforts (or not), although structural conditions influence and constrain these decisions. The result is considerable variation in power sharing across cases. Respondents contend that both ―top-down‖ and ―bottom-up‖ approaches are needed. Despite suggestions to the contrary, examples from the case studies suggest that even structural power is dynamic and can be ―shared,‖ used as a tool for achieving collective aims through negotiation, formal agreements and, where needed, regulatory and legislative reform (as in non discharge zone designations under the Canada Shipping Act, Fisheries Act partnering provisions, or the Oceans Act). While systemic and command and control power often dominate, when one type of power is absent or weak actors often turn to another. In each case, leadership skills and approach are critical to collaboration in an environment of uneven power relationships.

273 8.2.2.ii Sharing costs

Shared power comes with shared responsibilities and costs, whether financial, human resources or other contributions. Shared costs imply more dispersed power and greater opportunities for acquiring necessary resources. Without sufficient resources collaborative governance is itself unsustainable. Scarce financial resources are noted as a significant challenge in BC-W, NL-W and NL-E cases and to a lesser extent for BC-E, NS-E and NS-W. Budgets vary considerably, from $276,000 (NL-W 2002) to approximately $3 million (Bras d‘Or). Trends in revenues and diversity of sources also differ significantly (see Appendices 10 and 12). Both BC-W and NL-E, cases with the lowest overall outcomes ratings, have been faced with major cutbacks and financial uncertainty in recent years. With 87% federal support, NL-E is the most reliant of the RED cases on a single funding source. However, with a relatively high outcomes rating, NL-W is also heavily reliant on tenuous federal support (94% of total revenue). Uncertainty has not yet translated into reduced funding, however, due to organizational innovation and strong relationships. Cases with the highest levels of funding (BC-E and Bras d‘Or) do not have the highest corresponding outcomes ratings, demonstrating, as with power sharing, that outcomes cannot be attributed to financial resources alone. Funding is a central aspect of the relationship between provincial and federal government partners and collaborative governance bodies. Lack of provincial contributions was identified as a constraint in five of six cases and requirements associated with funding a particular concern in BC-W and NL-E cases (cases with the low levels of power sharing) but also in others, particularly with respect to Service Canada. Resource shortages constrain communications and outreach activities for RED organizations. Respondents report that budgets do not adequately account for communications and outreach needs, or for business development assistance and after- care. Financial shortages but, even more importantly in the case of NL-E, uncertainty, also limit the organization‘s ability to attract and retain quality staff or ―primary actors‖ in two of three RED cases. RED case studies demonstrate the importance of multi-year funding agreements in providing a degree of organizational stability and certainty.

274 Insufficient private sector/investment capital for small business is yet another financial constraint within the RED system. In Bras d‘Or and Nimpkish watersheds federal and provincial governments account for less than 50% of spending on their watershed management activities. In the Bras d‘Or watershed the remaining revenue is derived primarily from First Nations resource harvesting and royalties. Despite some internal political vulnerability within Mi‘kmaw communities, due to Aboriginal rights and Mi‘kmaw commitment watershed management efforts are well-financed and in a secure financial position compared to other watershed management cases. Resource royalties, private industry and foundations all contribute to BC-W revenues. Representatives report, however, that important activities such as stock assessment, restoration and research related to marine survival are costly and that the group‘s diversified funding mix is short-term, ―political,‖ declining and a result of significant effort. Both BC-W and Bras d‘Or cases demonstrate increasing financial commitments from First Nations through reinvestment of resource revenues, while lack of provincial and federal investment in salmon conservation and restoration in the region is seen to reflect a low level of political commitment (Weinstein 2007). Respondents in both Indian Bay and Mount Waddington regions stress the need for greater reinvestment of resource revenues into rural, coastal regions. With no mechanism to benefit from resource royalties, pursuing project funds consumes a significant portion of NL-W senior staff time. Further, reliance on federal funding leaves the organization vulnerable to changing personnel and/or priorities. The findings of this research demonstrate the importance of diverse funding sources, local and external, and support Abram et al.‘s (2003) suggestion that the ability to generate revenue is a key power of governance. Respondents on both coasts, including agency representatives, report that coping with cutbacks is one of DFO‘s primary motivations for partnering with stakeholder groups. Yet government agencies are reluctant to allow organizations to engage in cost-recovery, revenue-generating activities that would allow them to partner more effectively. Facilities ownership by REDBs, returns surplus to spawning requirements fisheries on the Nimpkish, and collection of fishing or cabin license fees in the Indian Bay watershed are all examples of revenue- generating proposals resisted or blocked by senior governments. Cutbacks and expecting

275 more for less with limited revenue-generating alternatives jeopardize collaborative governance initiatives. Stumpage fees from local forest resources, mining royalties, community-owned oyster leases, commercial fishing profits, municipal tax dollars and interest on investment funds are examples of revenue sources used. Such options require local access to resources and, where governments collect resource fees, a willingness to have these dollars reinvested in the regions and ecosystems from which they were generated. Respondents report that collaboration leads to reduced duplication, increased efficiency and value from dollars spent.

8.2.2.iii Communication and personal relationships

Strong working relationships are fostered through personal relationships between individuals. One respondent explained, ―good working relationships are strongly founded on personalities.‖ Another suggests, ―generally communities don‘t trust government, but they will trust people.‖ Respondents from all cases stress that both formal and informal relationships are important but RED respondents argue that informal, personal relationships ―on that one-on-one level‖ are the foundation and ―most common basis for interaction.‖ RED and BC-W respondents point out that, because of proximity, these personal relationships are more easily developed between communities and regional staff of government agencies. Local representatives express appreciation, however, for senior officials who take the time to meet with them in their area. In both Bras d‘Or and NL-W, primary actors have been able to establish personal relationships with senior government staff based in the capital cities of Halifax and St. John‘s respectively, expanding their discretionary reach beyond their regions. Effective personal relationships are dependent on personality, leadership style, nature and frequency of interaction and levels of trust. People that are ―easy to work with,‖ with whom one is ―able to pick up the phone and discuss things,‖ who are helpful and trustworthy are among the personality characteristics of individuals that facilitate positive relationships. Respondents in BC-E, NS-E and Bras d‘Or stress the importance of communication and dialogue to their achievements. Respondents from five of six cases also identify lack of communication as a barrier, including more than one-third of BC-W

276 and BC-E respondents. Regional organizations must communicate, facilitate dialogue, and ultimately build relationships, at multiple scales, from community to national and even global. This represents a significant challenge, leaving the case study organizations open to criticisms that they have lost touch with the communities, families and individuals they serve. NS-E results suggest that inadequate early attention to communications may have been a factor in the withdrawal of community partners. A new model of communicating with municipal funding units through joint meetings to discuss progress and changes in priorities is now being used to encourage better working relationships (NS-E 2004). NS RDA representatives question, however, the need for reaching out to the public in their communications, a position likely to account in part for ―lack of community support‖ as a barrier cited in this case. Low public awareness and support threatens the legitimacy of the NL-E and similar regional organizations (Smith 2003b). Individual residents have important contributions to make in fulfilling the mandates of each of the case study organizations. A BC logger who stopped operations because he came across a fish- bearing stream and a Chapel Island entrepreneur who created a new business and local employment are just two examples. Board members represent one avenue for community outreach, although one member explains that ―most of us are so busy that we can‘t get out into the community.‖ Without effective community outreach these opportunities for change may be lost. While websites, newspaper articles, inserts, and newsletters are useful vehicles for disseminating information, respondents stress the importance of face- to-face interaction through avenues such as monthly luncheons, regularly scheduled meetings, workshops, conferences and forums that ―allow people to get together and focus on issues and establish contact and common interests, common understandings,‖ making connections that may lead to further collaboration. Building relationships external to the region also requires concerted effort. A provincial representative advises of potential funding partners ―if you‘re going to actually work with nonprofits and individual corporate entities that are potentially going to support the kinds of things we want to do in watersheds, you actually have to get to know them on a first-name basis… invite them out, show them what you‘re doing, get them in the drysuits, swim them down the river, take them fly fishing … that‘s how business is

277 done...‖ Using a similar strategy, NL-W brings government and academic partners into the watershed for an annual retreat with NL-W staff and board members. One senior federal staff member acknowledges ―the value of getting out of the office and looking at these things, not making assumptions while you‘re sitting in Ottawa or Vancouver….‖ Respondents point out that, while financial contributions are needed, sending money and a contract for signature is not collaboration. One NL-E respondent describes an example: ―ACOA was like the father and the provincial government was like the mother. They were the nurturers, they went out, they sort of talked and listened and worked with the boards, and we gave them the money.‖ When provincial support for the REDBs waned the organizations lost their ―mother‖ and the absence of dialogue and working relationships with ACOA threatened the REDB model. Respondents stress the need for working together rather than a ―hands-off‖ approach, facilitated in NS-E and NL-E cases by co-location of offices with government partners. The need for investment in communications and relationship-building is often underestimated and even ignored. Costs of these activities rise in areas with high numbers of communities such as Strait Highlands or Kittiwake regions, and in large remote geographies such as Mount Waddington. Incorporating communications costs into collaborative governance budgets could, in some cases, challenge the economies of scale assumptions that are often used to justify regionalization as a cost-cutting strategy.

8.2.2.iv Formal relationship mechanisms

While unstructured informal relationships provide the ―people element‖ that ultimately makes collaborative models work, formal mechanisms such as well-managed organizational structures can provide accountability, stability and clarity. Senior levels of government established all three RED models as formal, incorporated organizational structures. REDBs were given a recommended set of bylaws, constitution and board membership. RDAs had more flexibility in their boards, bylaws and incorporation but have since implemented efficiency, operating, accounting and service quality standards. Board size, diversity, committees and reporting and evaluation mechanisms vary among the three RED models. Perhaps the most significant difference impacting community- government relationships is the participation of provincial and federal government

278 representatives as ex-officio NS-E board members, providing an opportunity for regular interaction and information flow. Unlike the RED cases, all three watershed management groups began without formal structures. Today, watershed management respondents stress the importance of having both formal and informal, but particularly formalized relationships. Only 18% of watershed management respondents suggest that informal relationships are most important (vs. 76% in RED cases). Grassroots initiated, each of the three watershed management models is very different and continues to develop over time. NL-W incorporated after seven years of operation as an unincorporated committee while both the BC-W and Bras d‘Or cases relationships and organizational structures remain largely informal, as described in Chapter 7. This organic development was considered an initial strength but more formal arrangements are now required. An NL-W representative suggests that while friendships have developed through working together, formal channels are needed ―so as not to take advantage of these friendships.‖ There is consensus in Bras d‘Or that a more formal structure is needed and in BC-W that work in developing formalized procedures should continue but, with more complex ecosystems and heterogeneous communities, it is unlikely that the NL-W model would be appropriate for either of these situations. Important aspects of formal organizational structures include: terms of reference, budgets and timelines, identified roles and responsibilities, decision-making, reporting and communication procedures and dispute resolution mechanisms. Written agreements and MOUs have been important tools used in all cases to clarify expectations and responsibilities between partner Table 38 Policy and legal supports groups. Lack of communication and coordination within government - Oceans Act, Oceans Strategy and Action Plan - Court rulings on Aboriginal rights and title (within and between departments - Canadian Rural Partnership and between federal and provincial - Nova Scotia‘s Act to Encourage and Facilitate Community-based Planning for Economic, levels) is a barrier in all cases. Social, and Institutional Change - Nova Scotia Community Development Policy Federal-provincial agreements such - Environmental Assessment Acts as the Labour Market Development - Sustainable development reporting and audit requirements under the Auditor General Act Agreement (LMDA) have assisted

279 in bridging these divides. Government representatives are much better positioned to participate in collaborative governance when they are supported by an appropriate legal and/or policy framework, which may include legislation, enforcement, policy statements, funding, technical support programs, strategic plans, monitoring and/or accountability mechanisms. Cape Breton‘s Teresa MacNeil (2003) refers to the need for both magnets and glue in community development. Strong Acts, legal rulings and policy statements are magnets that will bring government actors to the table. Strong relationships and meaningful results, once they get there, are the glue. However, all branches of government do not apply legislative requirements equally. Interview results indicate that the 1995 federal requirement for departmental Sustainable Development Strategies under the Auditor General Act has not been taken seriously by ACOA, relative to Environment Canada, Department of Justice or Western Diversification, supporting the findings of a 2000-2001 review that suggested sustainable development requires higher profile and level of commitment within the agency (ACOA 2001). Respondents cite an increasing interest, in principle at least, in horizontal policy approaches within the Treasury Board of Canada and Privy Council.

8.2.3 Time – Balance in Temporal Scale

Following relationships with senior levels of government, issues related to time and appropriate temporal scale were the second most frequently noted set of enabling factors in watershed management cases and overall. Judgements of temporal scale are also significant sources of tension in the case studies. Respondents stress that collaborative governance and sustainable development require long-term commitment, including the patience to allow relationships to develop, for learning and adaptation and for results. The BC-W case, where there is little evidence of improvement in salmon populations after more than three decades of recovery efforts, is particularly illustrative. One government representative suggests, ―you can‘t measure success in the short-term... fish populations take a long time to react... Especially in periods of very low ocean survival...‖ Encouraging results of recent lake fertilization, the latest in a series of restoration strategies attempted, offer hope that BC-W‘s long-term adaptive management approach

280 may ultimately yield sought-after improvements in salmon populations. NL-E and other RED experiences demonstrate that industry development requires two ore more years of background work as well as investment by the private sector and supporting agencies, after which only some efforts will be successful. Respondents from NL and NS indicate that REDBs and other development groups often need ten to twenty years to work effectively, finding success ―after years of soil tilling and failures.‖ The Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed management network structure (NS- W) has evolved over 20 years, becoming increasingly inclusive and only recently able to build bridges between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities and all levels of government. Expanding temporal scale within development processes includes not only looking to the future but also the past. A focus on the past is a significant element of all three watershed management cases, including efforts to protect and restore ecosystems and cultures, and to incorporate local and traditional knowledge into management systems. In RED as well, the commitment of many individual actors is rooted in a passion for place often linked to their own personal histories and those of their communities. The need for balance and judgement regarding appropriate temporal scale is also clear. While short-term thinking is a barrier to strong working relationships, so are slow rates of response and adaptation. Being prepared to act quickly allows communities and organizations to capture new funding opportunities when they become available. Governments and citizens alike are impatient for results, often seeing the need for long- term thinking, but demanding short-term responsiveness, flexibility and results. Government policy change and program responses are notoriously slow, yet at times programs and policies appear to change overnight with little analysis or consultation (often but not always related to political change). Judgement is needed to determine the appropriate rate of change, taking factors such as need, urgency, importance and readiness for change into account when determining if ―the time is right.‖ In the case of the 1995 report on watershed management in the Bras d‘Or: ―it was just as good as anything that‘s happened, and maybe better … but it was the wrong time,‖ causing mistrust that must be overcome by actors in today‘s initiatives.

281 To provide balance in temporal scales, actions with short-term results are needed within long-term planning efforts. The Strait-Highlands (NS-E) 2004/2005 work plan, seeking to balance short, medium and long-term initiatives, all with a long-term view of development, is one such example (NS-E 2004). Management plans can be developed as a work in progress, evolving and changing with priorities. Protocols and processes for working together can be created over time, acknowledging the impatience of many actors for too much process discussion up-front. Actors must also recognize that new policies, programs and initiatives are overlaid on previous ones, considering how old and new may interact given inherited path dependencies and resistance to change (see also Chapter 9).

8.2.4 Local Conflict and Capacity

Community divisions and conflict are described as the number one barrier to collaborative governance in RED, particularly in Mount Waddington and Strait Highlands cases, followed by lack of local capacity (including capacity to deal with conflict and difference). One respondent explains, ―if communities are fighting locally the easiest thing for government to do is nothing.‖ One senior official describes the North Island as ―rancorous‖. Within Cape Breton, Victoria County actors are faced with ―lack of trust and parochial rivalry … based on traditional religious and cultural separations‖ (Victoria County 2000). Conflict within and between communities occurs due to competition over decision-making influence and benefits, particularly economic benefits, of development. Lack of understanding, particularly between rural and urban, Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal neighbours, and lack of identified common objectives and shared values further contribute to local divides. Aboriginal-non-Aboriginal relations are the most significant source of community difference and conflict. Strait-Highlands respondents describe a history of infrequent interaction (unlike the Mount Waddington region), racism and mistrust. One local official describes that in eastern Cape Breton, Victoria County and its representatives ―got invited to everything‖ with a budget of $4 million dollars while ―Membertou Reserve spends in the vicinity of $27 million a year in the city of Sydney and they get invited to nothing.‖ Another reflects the shift that is occurring and collaborative approach of the Mi‘kmaq Nations, ―I see them as a major stakeholder here... They are not coming forward saying

282 well we have claim to all of this. They know it‘s a major problem or a major challenge and that every community has to be involved... I think it‘s really shown leadership for the rest of the country, how a community can really take the lead and be a major player in the resources.‖ Increased interaction and mutual respect at official levels of Mik‘maw and municipal government are noted as outcomes of collaborative governance in Cape Breton, particularly in watershed management. In Mount Waddington, BC-W has taken steps in recent years to involve and increase services to Aboriginal communities. Similar efforts were not observed, however, in NS-E, a significant gap in the organization‘s inclusiveness. Respondents from both Strait Highlands and Kittiwake suggest there is a growing appreciation for the common interests between regional centres such as Gander and the Straits region and surrounding areas, although there is a need to demonstrate that ―what is good for Port Hawkesbury is good for all‖ and that a balance of urban, semi-urban and rural development is needed. Understanding but also respect and appreciation for difference is required, recognizing the value different cultures and lifestyle options bring to a region. Communications and dialogue are tools for increasing this understanding, which can in turn increase government confidence and willingness to engage in collaborative governance initiatives. Local interest, commitment and leadership are assets within the case study regions that have contributed to positive outcomes. Yet respondents suggest that local capacity (the knowledge, skills and resources needed to participate in development and decision- making) has also been a significant resistor to positive change. In the Bras d‘Or, despite the important role Mi‘kmaw individuals and governments have played in watershed management, respondents describe leadership and capacity gaps in some First Nations communities and in specific areas of activity such as forestry planning and economic development. Limited capacity, particularly staff resources, for economic development at the local level were noted in BC-E and NL-E cases. NS-E respondents also suggest that the ability at local and regional levels to plan and implement economic development projects is limited. Difficulty getting volunteers, lack of entrepreneurial skills and spirit, limited ability to adapt to change, low education levels and social dysfunction are specific local capacity concerns. The BC-W case emphasizes lack of knowledge and

283 understanding of complex ecosystems as a significant barrier, suggesting that governance capacity requirements increase along with the complexity of the systems-to-be-governed. The importance of system complexity and of learning and capacity-building are discussed further in Chapter 9. To assist in determining the extent to which types of ―capacity‖ have impacted the achievements of the collaborative governance case studies, characteristics of each model were grouped within four capacity categories: organizational resources and management, relational, leadership, and learning and adaptation. These categories reflect a set of traditional organizational capacity measures, as well as leadership and relationship management abilities highlighted by the research findings described above and, finally, learning and adaptation, emphasized by the CASES framework. The organizational capacity index was derived based on the following factors: budget size, number of staff, number of volunteers, existence of a formal governance structure, website and other public communications tools, range of services/activity areas, number of ―clients‖ served per year, longevity, strategic planning, evaluation and annual reporting. A relational capacity index was derived based on the indicated status of relationships with a range of stakeholders and network participants. The leadership capacity rating considers: identification of primary actors, % of total respondents referring to individuals or ―key actors‖ as an enabling factor, number of individuals within this set of key actors, diversity of leadership (key actors), continuity, expertise and recruitment (see Appendix 14). Indicators of learning and adaptation capacity are described further in Chapter 9. Together these indices comprise an overall capacity index (Table 39).

Table 39 Case study capacity ratings Max. score = 20 NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W Organizational capacity 14 17 15 12.5 16 12 Relational capacity 10.5 15 10.5 13 17.5 10 Leadership capacity 11 10 10 10 17 13 Learning and adaptation 10.5 15.5 12 12 18 13 Combined /overall avg. 11.5 14.5 12 12 17 12 Note: Organizational and Relational index calculations can be found in Appendices 10 and 12, Leadership in Appendix 14, Learning and adaptation in Chapter 957.

57 Learning and adaptation values are drawn from Figure 28, Chapter 9 (converted from a score out of 9, considering 9 variables, to 20 to provide consistency with other capacity ratings).

284 Several limitations of this approach should be noted. Each indicator and the resulting indices are dynamic, yet these results represent only a single period. Further, indices do not reflect all possible factors but rather those that have been determined as significant by the literature review and interview respondents. In addition, all indicators and indices are weighted equally in importance. This is due to the qualitative nature of the research design. Evidence that the importance of various factors differs in unique contexts and case studies indicates that a uniform weighting system would be problematic. Despite these acknowledged limitations, patterns of interest can be observed from the simple indices depicted in Table 36. Results demonstrate, for example, higher overall capacity in watershed management than in RED and in Cape Breton, followed by Nimpkish, Indian Bay, Mount Waddington and Kittiwake cases. Comparing these results to outcomes in Figure 22 suggests a potential relationship between overall capacity and outcomes in RED cases. In particular there appears to be a general relationship between

Learning and Adaptation

Leadership Capacity NRMB Relational Capacity Bras d'Or IBEC Organizational Capacity MWCFDC SHRDA Overall Capacity Figure 8.6 Comparing capacities and outcomes KEDC Outcomes Rating

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 22 Comparing capacities and outcomes both relational and organizational capacity and positive outcomes, corresponding with interview results. However, there are also exceptions. The relationship between outcomes and capacity is not clear or consistent, particularly in watershed management. Bras d‘Or watershed in particular exhibits high capacity ratings in all categories relative to outcomes achieved to date.

285 In addition, no clear relationship between leadership capacity index and outcomes ratings is evident from Figure 22. Relatively low leadership ratings for NS-E, for example, appear to be compensated for by other forms of capacity. NL-E‘s relatively high leadership rating suggests a possible over-emphasis on enabling versus primary actors within the index. Primary actor capacity is emphasized most in Bras d‘Or (NS-W) and BC-W cases (by 35 and 33% of respondents respectively), followed by NS-E (21%) and NL-W (20%). Primary actor capacity does not necessarily correspond with outcomes in NS-W and BC-W cases. Although a general link between relational, organizational, and learning and adaptation (RED organizations only) capacity and governance outcomes is suggested by the above analysis, it is clear that no one set of these factors or governance capacity overall is the prime determinant of outcomes in each of these cases. The early development stage of the Bras d‘Or case, combined with findings that suggest long time frames are required for results, raises once again the question of temporal scale and whether current capacity will translate into future rather than present outcomes in the Bras d‘Or watershed and other cases. This may be especially true of learning and adaptation capacity, discussed further in Chapter 9. The specific combination of important capacity factors may also differ from case to case, depending in part on the sustainability issues faced within and the complexity of the systems within which governing systems operate. System complexity is considered in Chapter 9.

8.3 Summary

Have the collaborative governance experiments examined advanced sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal regions? The answer to this question is a qualified ―yes.‖ Together case study actors have restored habitats and improved industrial practices, reduced targeted pollution sources and illegal harvesting, established and/or helped operate programs for monitoring water quality and fish populations. They have provided a measure of social equity through the empowerment and economic participation of First Nations and enhanced social capital by building new relationships and partnerships, reducing conflict and creating shared understanding. They have worked to protect a way of life that is connected to place. Jobs, businesses and new industries

286 have been created and expanded. While some of these outcomes may have been achieved without collaborative governance, others can be traced directly to the case study efforts, whether as lead agencies or significant contributors. Despite this range of achievements, overall the social-ecological systems these initiatives seek to govern are more vulnerable and degraded than before the case study efforts began. Improvements have not kept pace with the pressures of economic growth and concentration of wealth. Yet without these organizations, the viability of these social- ecological systems would be at even greater risk. They have helped stem the decline, restoring past damage and attempting to better manage current and future uses of natural resources and ecosystems, building capacity and exploring opportunities for rural development and diversification. Some of these effects have already translated into employment and incomes. Despite their constraints and limitations these six case studied have provided hope, resilience and space for adaptation. What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in collaborative governance for sustainable coastal development? The research findings presented in this chapter suggest that a variety of factors influence success. Respondents suggest that the most critical enablers of sustainable development outcomes are individual leaders at multiple levels within the system who are respected, informed, committed and collaborative, together with strong government support and community-government relationships. Shared power, diverse yet secure revenue sources, good personal relationships and effective formal structures aid these relationships. Appropriate judgments of temporal scale and community support, involvement and commitment and conflict resolution have also been important. What barriers exist to a shift toward collaborative governance for sustainable development and how might these barriers be overcome? A key barrier is lack of provincial and federal government support and positive working relationships between communities and senior governments, with particular concerns related to an unwillingness to share power and resources. Struggles over power in cases such as NL-E and BC-W have diverted attention from the creation of much needed outcomes, as has the ongoing quest for funding, particularly in watershed cases. Inadequate financial

287 resources, rigidity, lack of understanding and appreciation for difference and associated conflicts, and limitations in local capacity are related challenges. Overall watershed management organizations exhibit higher levels of governance capacity than regional economic development (RED) case study initiatives; yet, particularly in Bras d‘Or and BC-W cases, outcomes ratings are low relative to their capacity. While lower overall, RED organizations demonstrate higher outcomes ratings and higher organizational capacity, linked to their formal organizational structures, policy and core funding support. The ―package‖ of governance capacity factors that is present and has had the most significant influence on outcomes differs not only between policy arenas but also from place to place, between and within regions. Cross-case analysis shows that governance system capacity by itself does not fully account for variations in outcomes. The next chapter discusses the role of scale, adaptation, complexity and values in the case study results, and relates the research findings presented above to three central themes within the complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework: scale and cross-scale interactions, learning and adaption, and the need for balance in CASES – between stability and flexibility; complexity and governability; and autonomy, diversity, common goals and values.

288 9 – Reflections on Collaborative Governance and Complex Adaptive Systems

This chapter explores insights into the research findings presented in Chapter 8 offered by the literature on collaborative governance and complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) reviewed in Chapters 2 and 3, particularly Walker et al.´s (2006) propositions on CASES, Bossel´s (1999, 2001) identification of fundamental system interests and Gunderson and Holling´s (2001) adaptive renewal cycle. In turn, ways that research findings inform these emerging fields of inquiry are also examined. Three central themes are discussed: 1) spatial scale and cross-scale interactions; 2) learning and adaptation; and 3) the ongoing search for balance and appropriate mix - of stability and flexibility; complexity and governance capacity; diversity and common goals, principles and values – in governance systems.

9.1 The Multiple Scales of Collaborative Governance

9.1.1 Nested Systems and Expanded Discretionary Reach

Recent work on resilience suggests that many of the observed shifts or crises observed in ecological systems occur due to processes and structures interacting across scales (Gunderson and Holling 2001, Walker and Meyers 2004). The same can be said of integrally connected social systems. Sewage pollution within the Bras d‘Or and trout fishing in Indian Bay watershed are examples of issues primarily within local and provincial control addressed in the case studies. But decisions and changes occurring at broader scales also have significant impacts on these watersheds. Examples include domestic resource and land use policies and, globally, ocean conditions and shipping practices. The influence of the World Commission on Environment and Development and subsequent sustainable development commitments on federal and provincial policies and programs, and in turn on funding and support for the case study initiatives, is another example. Case study actors are more than passive recipients of this externally generated change. Seeking to extend their influence, regional economic development (RED) groups participate in provincial associations that promote their interests and inform RED policy. Actors involved in all three watershed cases also participate in federal fisheries advisory committees and processes and individual members connect case study organizations with

289 their own provincial and federal advocacy networks. Attempts to exert global influence include lobbying for changes in ballast water disposal practices and pursuit of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) biosphere designation in the Bras d‘Or watershed and the Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W)‘s request to include Nimpkish sockeye genetic information in national and international fisheries management databases. Community-based conservation programs contribute to provincial, Atlantic, Pacific and global salmon conservation efforts and to fulfilling commitments related to threatened and endangered species. Social innovations in collaboration and linking western science and traditional knowledge in the Bras d‘Or, and Indian Bay trout management techniques are models with provincial, federal and even international relevance. Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E) and Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E) have engaged in some international marketing and investment prospecting, but efforts to pursue international market opportunities have been limited, particularly in Mount Waddington region. Young and Matthews (2005, 10), in a recent study of the Community Futures Development Corporation of Mount Waddington (BC-E) and its role in connecting local and global economies, concur that there is only ―modest evidence of the spatial extension of community economies.‖ Within RED networks, some individual businesses, particularly externally controlled commodity producers, and some community and First Nation organizations have been successful at fostering international alliances. But overall, Young and Matthews‘ observation of limited spatial extension applies to all of the cases. Case study participants recognize that forces largely beyond their control influence the outcomes of their efforts, but also that they can capture opportunities and exert influence at these larger scales. The likelihood of their initiatives effecting change within their regions is dependent in part on their ability to monitor, respond to and shape these cross-scale relationships. Nevertheless, regional linkages to the national and international scales remain relatively weak, more one way (top-down) than bi-directional. Collaborative governance initiatives have had some impact in expanding local influence to broader scales, but they struggle to enlarge their discretionary reach. Particularly in Mount Waddington, remoteness, exacerbated by service withdrawal, has weakened

290 connections with provincial and federal officials. Without strong advocates in higher levels of government, the onus is on local and regional actors in peripheral regions to expand their sphere of influence to decision-making centres.

9.1.2 Region as a Focal Scale

While recognizing multi-scale interconnections, respondents emphasize the importance of the scale to which people are connected and relate in their daily lives. The local scale is the foundation of each of the case study initiatives, ―where sustainable development issues come together.‖ Passion and commitment to place has fostered leadership, voluntarism and local knowledge. Consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, it is also considered more efficient and effective to resolve issues ―at the local working level,‖ where relationships can more easily be formed and maintained. The majority of case study respondents suggest that the sub-provincial region is an important scale for analysis and planning. Effectiveness in tourism and investment attraction, and the reality that ―government is not going to pay for CED (community economic development) in every little place,‖ are arguments for the sub-provincial region as a focal scale for economic development. In the case of watershed management, there is an understanding that activities in any particular part of a watershed system can have system-wide impacts and that there is a need to coordinate efforts at the watershed scale. The watershed is a relevant scale for stewardship and collaborative governance in areas such as fisheries, water quality and land use planning, including forestry, recreational property development, tourism and outdoor recreation use. Watershed-based planning is a particularly strong fit for First Nations with continuing traditions of watershed governance. A challenge for watershed management is that many people don‘t fully understand or relate to the concept of a watershed. Yet residents are directly connected with their watersheds, whether as a source of drinking water, recreation, subsistence and/or culture. The results of this research show that an understanding of these connections can be fostered through public education and participation in watershed governance activities. RED case study participants also contend that a sense of regional identity as ―a community of communities‖ is being developed over time. Multiple and overlapping layers occur within what are often conceptualized as

291 single scales. With the exception of the Bras d‘Or, watershed regions are nested within socio-economic planning regions, addressing issues that ―don‘t stop at a watershed boundary.‖ These regions are then broken down into sub-regional groupings consisting of a number of communities within relatively close proximity. Sub-regions often have a history of interaction and allow regional organizations to connect more effectively with communities. Sub-watersheds are also used for planning and management, a scale at which residents and/or resource managers can connect directly with other users and feel they have more knowledge about and influence upon than the watershed as a whole. Both RED and watershed organizations also increasingly recognize the need to work in regions larger than their own for certain purposes, working within new and existing regions and conceptualizations of place. Thus, regions are both nested and dynamic. Overall region size is not considered a key factor in collaborative governance success. Although smaller region size may contribute to higher outcomes rankings in NS- E and Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. (NL-W) cases (both small regions relative to other cases in their respective policy areas) region size was not considered to be a strength by respondents in either case. Issues of remoteness and spatial scale were considered a barrier by 24% of NS-E and BC-E respondents. Including both the smallest and largest of the RED regions studied, this suggests that distance can be considered a challenge in any regional endeavor. The BC-E case is particularly telling. The majority of respondents in this case indicated that a service area more than 40,000 square kilometers in size is manageable if the necessary resources are budgeted for travel and community outreach. Yet in the Strait Highlands region, the decision of Victoria County to pull out of NS-E is believed to have left the region ―a more manageable size.‖ Serving a region one-eighth the geographic size, NS-E respondents describe a weaker sense of regional identity than those within the BC-E service area. These cases indicate that a sense of common identity and interaction among residents is more important than spatial scale in regional relationships. This is illustrated by the relatively successful increase in BC-E service area size, contrasted against the attempt to create a Nova Scotia-wide Mi‘kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission. Central coast residents are accustomed to travelling long distances to the north island region for services and visits with friends and family, sharing a sense of identity linked to kinship

292 and way of life. By contrast, differences in religion, organizational affiliations, ecosystems and thus traditional knowledge, between Unama‘ki and mainland Mi‘kmaq, as well as a lack of history of working together are offered as reasons for the Commission‘s collapse. Island geography, in the case of Unama‘ki Mi‘kmaw Nations, and remoteness of the north island/central coast region are described as contributors in cooperative relations, helping to enhance regional identity although also posing a challenge for developing communications and transportation infrastructure and external relationships. Appropriate regional boundaries are determined by history, culture, awareness and patterns of interactions more than by geographic size or distance. Nevertheless, the resource requirements of increased regional size remain an important consideration (Chapter 8). Collaborative governance does not work effectively if regional organizations are perceived as too far removed, whether by distance, difference or lack of communication to understand and address local realities. When this occurs regional organizations suffer from lack of legitimacy. Weak connections between community and regional scales leave the entire collaborative governance network vulnerable to collapse. The need for recognition of interconnections and overlap across policy subsystems are demonstrated in many ways, including the need for economic development within the Indian Bay watershed to ensure continuing governance system viability, and the economic and social impacts of the collapse of the cod fishery in the Kittiwake region. The forces of social-ecological change on Canada‘s coasts are both cross-scale and multi- scale. So must be the adaptations to change. As Walker et al. (2006) suggest, understanding and managing cross-scale interactions appears to increase the likelihood of achieving sustainability objectives. Discretionary reach must extend up the panarchy but also down to community and individual levels, and across systems and temporal scales. Case study experiences illustrate that improved understanding and re-shaping of roles and relationships within interconnected social-ecological processes is possible through collaborative governance, but there are many sources of resistance to be overcome in creating and maintaining positive, productive cross-scale relationships.

293 9.2 Processes of Change, Adaptation and Resilience

A second key feature of CASES is that they exhibit dynamic, multi-level patterns of self- organization and adaptation that allow them to cope with, and even thrive from, change. The CASES framework suggests that sustainable systems must create and maintain adaptive capabilities, including the ability to learn from the past and apply these lessons in current and future circumstances (Bunnell 2002). While resilience has been eroded in recent decades by trends such as resource depletion and centralization, and each case is unique, Chapter 5 portrays a history of adaptation and resilience in each of the case study regions. A North Island resident proclaims, ―We made it through the dirty thirties. We‘ll make it through this.‖ First Nations communities remain committed to their cultures and territories after centuries of assimilation pressures. Processes contributing to resilience and adaptation in collaborative governance systems and the broader social-ecological systems of which they are a part are considered below.

9.2.1 Destabilizing Feedback Loops

Feedback loops are essential to self-organization in CASES. Examples of both positive and negative feedback loops exist within each of the case studies, although response to feedback varies considerably among the cases and over time. While negative (corrective) feedbacks involve stabilizing adaptations, positive feedbacks are reinforcing, often emergent and destabilizing system properties. In an example from Bras d‘Or Lakes, ―peer pressure‖ within and between levels of government and a ―contagious‖ desire to support watershed initiatives is described, fuelled by visionary local leadership and commitment. This has created support and enthusiasm within all levels of government but has not yet built sufficient momentum to have the destabilizing impact predicted of positive, reinforcing feedbacks. Established systems of government provide negative feedbacks and top-down constraint to movements toward widespread governance change. As provincial and federal support and confidence in the regional economic development board (REDB) model in Newfoundland and Labrador waned, a re-enforcing feedback loop was created that sent NL-E into a downward spiral by 2003/04. Weak leadership was both a contributor to and a result of this downward trend. Valued staff

294 members left the organization and NL-E lacked the capacity to implement actions to slow or reverse organizational decline. While all REDBs suffered from a provincial scale decline in support, some were impacted more than others. NL-E experienced a complete staff turnover and local credibility loss. These examples emphasize once again the important role of provincial and federal actors, as supporters and resistors, and of regional-level leadership.

9.2.2 Responding to Sudden or Significant Events

According to Resilience Alliance researchers, a system‘s resilience is defined by its ability to avoid a regime shift after experiencing a shock (Walker et al. 2006). Responses to system shocks in each collaborative governance case study were examined, providing evidence of their resilience and insights into sources of both stability and adaptation (see Table 40). Each of the six case studies has lost key actors over time (see Table 35). Given the importance of primary actors described above and in Chapter 8, the sudden loss of one of these individuals can constitute a major shock in a collaborative governance system. One BC-W respondent explains ―it‘s strong enough to survive but it needs somebody really, from the ‗Namgis for instance, as strong as Lawrence, as sharp as him, to hold it together.‖ Sadly, BC-W Co-Chair and ‗Namgis Band Manager Lawrence Ambers passed away suddenly in 2005, followed by ‗Namgis representative and long-time watershed steward Bertram Svanvik in 2006. Western Forest Products purchased Canfor‘s Nimpkish Valley operations during the same period, further severing personal and institutional relationships. However, Svanvik and Gw‘ani Hatchery Manager Hank Nelson had mentored numerous ‗Namgis youth. Nelson, Chief Bill Cranmer, a collaborative leader and key actor, long-time BC-W technical advisors and others continue to participate. Despite their sudden and significant losses, the ‗Namgis First Nation‘s commitment to their territory, diverse leadership and growing capacity make continuing watershed management efforts possible. Given the multi-scale, multi-jurisdictional nature of the issues faced, watershed governance will continue to involve collaboration, although very likely with increased ‗Namgis control as power relations continue to shift. These changes,

295

Table 40 System disturbances and sources of resilience

Event – Breakdown or Sources of Stability Sources of Renewal potential breakdown point NL-E Late 90s political change, Senior government support Provincial/federal loss of government (mixed), Board continuity initiation, new leadership support, staff and (staff), evaluation process confidence (2000-2005) NS-E Withdrawal of member Remaining support at all New leadership (staff) counties (1999-2004), levels, structure (policy, Municipal partners/new loss of key actors legislated) communication process BC-E Lawsuit, public Federal support/structure, Response primarily after defamation by former Board structure and study period loan applicant (2003- supportive groups within 2005) the community NL-W Concern about research Primary actor skills, Election process, Board practices leading to Board continuity/ commitment, learning, local leadership ―takeover‖ (1998-2001) personal and institutional (primary actor) relationships NS-W UCCB report (1995), Culture, ongoing Local leadership, Eskasoni political change commitment of key court cases, policy change, (2004) individuals, Mi‘kmaq + election process ongoing relationships BC-W DFO/‘Namgis power Culture, ongoing Funding opportunity/ struggle and breakdown commitment, leadership provincial and federal (1992), loss of key actors diversity and continuity, policy, local leadership (2005/06) legal rights and title combined with reduced federal and provincial commitment and funding, leave the existing BC-W structure vulnerable to breakdown but, ultimately, renewal.

NL-W and NL-E also faced the loss of powerful provincial political supporters after a 1996 election and the resulting demise of a key supporting agency to both organizations, the Economic Recovery Commission. While NL-W was able to create new relationships with subsequent political leaders, NL-E entered the downward spiral described above. As in the BC-W case, NL-W‘s resilience is attributed to strong leadership at the local level, linked to commitment to place, as well as greater levels of federal support and power sharing. In both NS-E and NL-E cases the hiring of a new senior staff member has facilitated renewal while the continuing presence of senior provincial and/or federal supporters at the management levels offers a degree of stability and resilience while regional reorganization occurs.

296 Several other system shocks or significant disturbances were observed and/or described that culminated in a shift comparable to the breakdown/release phase of the adaptive renewal cycle (see Figure 23). The adaptive cycle is used as a heuristic device for examining the circumstances leading up to the events referred to in Table 40, as well as subsequent responses. The results of this analysis illustrate significant variety in the way change occurs. Decline, for example, occurs at varying speeds.NL-E‘s decline occurred over nearly a decade, with signs of breakdown present throughout this period that provided opportunities for corrective measures. Changes due to the Eskasoni First Nation election in 2004 occurred rapidly, as did the collapse of an early attempt at collaborative watershed governance in the Bras d‘Or watershed after provincial refusal to accept the recommendations of a 1995 report. Due to resulting mistrust, relationships, particularly between the Mi‘kmaq and Province of Nova Scotia, have taken over a decade to begin to rebuild. Collaborative governance in the Bras d‘Or system has experienced a long period of re-organization and slow growth since that time. This pattern is very different from the RED cases, where organizational models were put in place and moved relatively quickly into the conservation or K phase, within three years in the NL-E case. Actors at various scales, ranging from a vocal individual at the local level to coalitions of officials within provincial or federal agencies or political leaders, have been responsible for instigating system change. In several cases breakdown has been linked to the political process. Primary actors such as senior staff members play a key role in reorganization. Case study responses to times of stress or CFDC NRMB breakdown range from changing KEDC IBEC Board or key staff members to SHRDA modification of operating procedures and even changing organizational goals and values. Bras d‘Or As Walker et al. (2006) suggest multiple forms of re-organization

are possible. In the growth phase, Figure 23 The adaptive renewal cycle (2005/06) Source: Modified from Bunnell (2002) support from political and senior-

297 level government officials has been important for securing legitimacy and resources. Extending the conservation phase and avoiding collapse require that primary actors be responsive to signs of relationship fractures and potential causes of system breakdown. While surprise events also occur, lack of sensitivity to system weaknesses can be seen in most cases prior to breakdown events. All six case studies have demonstrated a degree of resilience through periods of disturbance and reorganization. They have also shown vulnerability during times of political change, heightened power struggles or when differing perspectives among key partners cannot be reconciled. In all cases, however, after breakdowns actors have reorganized and returned to the collaborative governance table. The following section explores whether the potential for learning from these experiences has been captured which can be applied in current and future iterations of the adaptive renewal cycle.

9.2.3 Learning and Adaptation

Walker et al. (2006, 8) maintain that “learning is a key component of adaptability,‖ emphasizing along with Folke et al. (2005) and others that an active adaptive governance approach includes conscious efforts to create constructive feedback loops. The following section considers the extent to which examples of adaptation in the case studies exhibit an active learning approach; that is the degree to which changes that have been made in case study governance processes or structures have been made on the basis of purposeful prior learning. The findings of this study suggest that there are multiple paths to learning and capacity-building, many informal and experiential. Together, the varied approaches described suggest a learning, adaptive governance framework with four key components, illustrated in Figure 24. Both formal and informal evaluation processes are considered along with the sources of knowledge that are drawn upon for system learning, the ways information and knowledge are managed within the governance network as well as the training, education and other efforts to build learning capacity.

298 •Multiple inputs •Lesson drawing •Two-way communication •Formal and informal • Identfication of knowledge methods needs and potential • Improvement knowledge partnerships orientation • Systems for information •Includes assessment of •management values, principles , goals Information and Monitoring knowledge and evaluation management

Individual Proactive, learning and ongoing capacity planning and building implementation •Learning by doing •Assessment of human •Dynamic, nested resources and requirements • Long-term perspective •Mentorship with short-term actions •Formal training and • Addresses connections education across scales, issues and actors

Figure 24 Learning, adaptive governance framework

9.2.3.i Training, education and capacity building

Considering the importance of individuals discussed above and in Chapter 8, an important approach in creating and enhancing learning systems is building the skills and knowledge of individuals within the governance system. Learning organizations rely on learning individuals. Capacity building was the most commonly cited outcome and the second most commonly cited governance mechanism employed within the case study organizations. Enhanced governance capacity has been achieved in part through the training, education, mentoring and experiential learning of individuals. Education and skills development efforts within the case studies are targeted at: key actors within the case study organizations, specific ―client groups,‖ and the public. Training opportunities for board members has been provided in all three RED cases, and staff training in all six cases. Both RED and watershed management require diverse knowledge and skills that must be updated on a continual basis due to turnover in staff and volunteers, new lessons learned, changing legislation and other circumstances. Among the watershed organizations, those in the Bras d‘Or watershed have placed the greatest emphasis on formal training and education, including scholarships and

299 curriculum development for post-secondary education in a range of related fields. Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR/NS-W) and its partners have mentored the next generation of leaders, particularly in First Nations communities. To a lesser extent this is also true of BC-W. NL-W staff members have had specific skills training and BC-W staff participate in periodic workshops, but actors from these groups and others emphasize the importance of ―learning by doing.‖ Results suggest that through practice collaborative governance skills can be developed. Gaps in knowledge and skills required for collaborative governance within government agencies have also been identified. In general, respondents feel that government representatives have a poor understanding of community realities, including local priorities and decision-making processes. Programs such as cross-cultural training for scientists, courses in organizational behaviour for DFO staff, and in community development for economic development agencies are examples of initiatives that have been taken to address these gaps within provincial and federal systems. At the local level, RED organizations have targeted businesses and community groups for specific training and education programs. NL-E initiated programs in adult literacy, for example, in response to low levels of education in the region (Chapter 5). All six cases include youth mentoring and/or education and public education efforts. Through initiatives such as workshops, articles in local newspapers, and newsletters RED organizations have sought to build awareness of economic development programs and alternatives and watershed management groups to increase awareness of human- ecosystem interactions and stewardship opportunities. Watershed management groups have also used school programs as a vehicle for public education but argue that resources to support education initiatives are lacking. Opportunities exist for greater collaboration with local schools and community colleges, thus incorporating these actors into the collaborative governance system.

9.2.3.ii Managing information and knowledge as a resource The information demands of adaptive, collaborative governance are extensive, requiring ongoing information inputs and an ability to filter an increasing volume of information for its relevance, reliability and importance, then to adjust understanding, plans and

300 behaviours accordingly. Information becomes particularly useful and is transformed into knowledge when it is combined with the critical abilities, experiences and worldviews of those who use information (Chapter 3, section 3.4), reinforcing the importance of individual capacity building efforts. Two important aspects of information management are: 1) identifying gaps in information that hinder planning and decision-making and, 2) developing systems for collecting, storing, inventorying and making relevant information available to network actors. Each case provides examples where information needs were identified and partnerships formed to fill these gaps. With an extensive research agenda, the Bras D‘Or watershed is most advanced in this regard, supported by an inventory of information related to past and current watershed conditions. BC-W has also created a ―watershed profile,‖ focused on ecosystem conditions, while NL-E and NS-E have completed economic profiles of their regions. NS-E updates its ―regional business case‖ regularly as a tool for business and investment attraction. As a central repository for regional information these case study organizations compile information in multiple formats. Local and traditional knowledge narratives are increasingly coupled with information technology such as satellite imagery, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and database programs. Both NS-W and BC-W cases have employed GIS to capture information while all three watershed management organizations and BC-E have compiled physical libraries. Computerized mapping and databases are not referred to by RED organizations or NL-W as information management tools, indicating potential for development in this area. Respondents stress the importance of information dissemination in knowledge management, explaining for example that mapping products will ―sit on a shelf unless the community knows the information is available.‖ Word-of-mouth and network contacts are important communications avenues. All cases but BC-W provide information to their respective policy communities through websites and newsletters, RED organizations through annual reports. Creating time and space for dialogue is essential for collaborative knowledge sharing and generation. Community meetings (often annual), workshops, and conferences also provide important avenues for two-way communications.

301 Extending organizational to societal learning requires a widening of the actor network to include the general public. Bras D‘Or actors have devoted the greatest attention to communicating with the public. Both NS-E and NS-W (UINR) have communications plans and/or dedicated communications staff. BC-E has experimented with a range of methods for reaching widely dispersed residents, including economic development lunches, local media, satellite offices and open houses. In NL, lack of information going to the public has been a fundamental weakness in the REDB process, resulting in low public awareness, misperceptions and negative public opinion (Baird 2001). Budgets, bylaws and evaluation criteria related to communications can help ensure adequate attention to this important but often neglected function of the governance process.

9.2.3.iii Incorporating multiple sources and types of knowledge Collaborative learning and maximum access to relevant information in CASES requires contributions of knowledge from multiple sources and scales (Walker et al. 2006). The Bras d‘Or watershed management case has drawn from the most diverse range of knowledge sources and forms in their governance efforts. All six case studies involve government and community partners that bring knowledge of government policies and administrative processes as well as local knowledge into the process. Greater variation exists, however, in the integration of scientific and traditional Aboriginal knowledge (see Figure 25).

―Western‖ Local Traditional Policy science58 knowledge knowledge practitioner NL-E

NS-E

BC-E

NL-W

NS-W

BC-W

= clear evidence of ongoing incorporation in governance processes = some evidence/use of this knowledge system

Figure 25 Knowledge systems incorporated

58 Including natural, social sciences and humanities.

302

All three watershed cases have engaged in natural sciences research, NS-W and NL- W cases also hosting social science studies related to coastal planning (NS-W), resident attitudes and value systems (NL-W). Economic development agencies have worked with academic, government and private sector partners on industry research and development initiatives. In all cases, post-secondary institutions play important roles in knowledge and learning systems not only as educators but also as research partners. Integrating traditional with conventional scientific knowledge has been a major focus in the Bras d‘Or watershed, including mapping programs, cross-cultural workshops, talking circles, involvement of the Unama‘ki Council of Elders, the adoption of a ―two- eyed seeing‖ approach and medicine wheel planning framework. The availability and willingness to share traditional Aboriginal knowledge varies from Nation to Nation. One Mi‘kmaw respondent explains, ―each Band has their own mandate of incorporation of traditional knowledge…‖ The case studies illustrate that each knowledge system contributes unique strengths and helps to offset the weaknesses of others. Examples drawn from case studies experiences are provided in Table 41. Consistent with collaborative governance more generally, many challenges exist to incorporating multiple forms of knowledge into governance processes. The most significant of these is garnering mutual respect and recognition of the contributions each can make, whether among local residents unconvinced of the need for scientific knowledge and ―all this technical stuff coming from outside,‖ or among scientists thinking they are ―a little too educated for us (local actors) to be involved‖ and who ―only believe in their science.‖ The potential for reduced knowledge quality and flow due to self-interest is a concern raised about local interests, such as resource harvesters, scientific researchers and policy practitioners. The reliability and motives behind all knowledge sources warrant open, respectful discussion in collaborative inquiry. Despite the challenges outlined above, respondents report that willingness to recognize and share different forms of knowledge is increasing. One federal scientist

303 Table 41 Comparison of knowledge forms59 Benefits/Strengths Challenges/Limitations Local knowledge - results in plans that reflect views, - lacks acceptance, credibility values and aspirations of the with external actors (―anecdotal‖) regional population - systems of peer review/ - can identify the need for further differentiating between sources monitoring and study poorly understood - tends to be more holistic - tends to decrease for species - often able to provide information less commonly encountered/ used quickly when time sensitive issues - desire for administrative ease arise and cost efficiency often takes - can provide information on local precedence over effective systems where science is not consultation and gathering local available (e.g. pollution sources) knowledge - lack of public interest/ participation Traditional - provides benefit of multi- - vulnerable to loss of elders, knowledge generational memory changing lifestyles, decline or - based on ―learning by doing‖ loss of access to traditional accumulated over long time scales territories and resources in specific systems - provides a benchmark for restoration - incorporates values, respect and spirituality, transmitted though culture and nature Policy practitioner - provides information on programs - cutbacks and efficiency focus and resources, what policy changes have hindered knowledge flow are feasible, how best to advocate - lost knowledge due to staff for change turnover ―Western‖ science - depth of specialized expertise - narrow/specialized - credibility with policy-makers, - long time periods required for supported by peer review system study/research of immediate problems explains, ―government agencies are more open to the value of traditional knowledge now.‖ BC-W representatives explain that the knowledge and commitment of Gwa‘ni staff and management are respected more now than in the past, in part due to increased First Nations structural power. Each of the case studies illustrates mechanisms for creating knowledge flows across sectors and scales, including scholarships, exchanges, collaborative science and coastal mapping projects. One senior DFO official recalls ―there were meetings in the evening, in the homes of people.... getting their knowledge onto these maps, which are wonderful tools,‖ one of many options for creating collective

59 See page 82 for definitions.

304 opportunities to better understand CASES. Actors representing each case study initiative also participate in larger-scale knowledge networks such as provincial associations and national conferences. Overall, however, knowledge sharing beyond the provincial scale and federal participants is limited.

9.2.3.iv Improvement oriented and social learning evaluation approaches All cases employ more than one form of evaluation, including judgement and improvement-oriented, formal and informal, single and double loop learning. In most cases social learning related to goals, values and ‗mental maps‘ has not been a major focus of evaluation and has taken place through dialogue outside of formal evaluation processes. Feedback regarding local values is most frequently shared through annual public meetings, Board member elections and informal discussion between residents and organizational representatives. Bras D‘Or watershed actors have tackled questions of goals and values most directly, in consultation meetings and internal reviews. Both NS-E and BC-E respondents report increasing recognition of ―the importance of holistic development,‖ indicating consideration of goals and values. However, NL-W, BC-W and NL-E cases demonstrate resistance to open discussion of, and thus learning about, underlying goals, values and assumptions in formal evaluation and planning processes. While case study results support Howlett and Ramesh‘s (1995) suggestion that social learning is most likely in situations with high levels of organizational capacity and societal actor influence, they differ from their suggestion that reliance on formal evaluation reflects low levels of capacity and expertise. With the exception of NL-W and BC-E, considerable and often increasing emphasis has been placed on formal evaluation. Substantial organizational capacity has been required to develop and undertake formal monitoring and evaluation programs. Evaluations in NL-E and NS-E cases are seen as primarily judgement oriented. ―It‘s all to do with results and the accountability framework,‖ explains one respondent. In an era of results-based management, agencies must link spending, activities and outputs with outcomes (Canada 2005a). ―At the end of the day you‘ve got to be able to see some impact,‖ explains one official. Actors at all levels want to see progress, variously defined, from their investments of time and resources. Results suggest inconsistent approaches at

305 the federal level, with less reliance on formal, judgment-oriented evaluation in the CFDC Mount Waddington case (consistent with greater levels of autonomy and federal support). In part due to lack of secure government funding commitments, watershed management organizations have also avoided the level of scrutiny experienced by NL-E and NS-E, although British Columbia‘s funding agencies increasingly demand monitoring and evaluation programs. Monitoring fish populations is a critical step in gauging the effectiveness of watershed management efforts. BC-W actors view formal monitoring and evaluation as integral components of their adaptive management approach. A perceived focus on judgement has limited the willingness of some actors to participate fully in evaluation processes and in implementing recommendations. While judgements regarding the use of limited resources are needed, emphasis on judgment without collaboration, including discussion of methods and results, creates mistrust, fear and lost improvement and social learning potential. Despite this judgement-oriented focus, for NS-E, NL-E, NS-W and BC-W, formal evaluation has provided an opportunity for a range of actors to discuss their expectations, assess the effectiveness of strategies employed, express concerns and make suggestions for improvement. Indications that funding partners are turning their emphasis to more improvement-oriented approaches in NL-E and NS-E cases offer promise for improved relationships and evaluation results. One federal respondent acknowledges, ―we‘re not too good ourselves at measuring our own success.‖ Current evaluation methods focus primarily on a single level, agency or initiative rather than interactions and collective lessons and outcomes. Results suggest that multilevel and cross-scale assessment efforts better reflect the realities of CASES and collaborative governance. As one respondent explains ―your own progress is determined not only by your own efforts...‖ Monitoring and evaluation must include assessment of multiple levels or sub-systems of governance, as well as changes in the system(s)-to-be- governed and interactions among these systems. RED outcomes are, for example, not only a function of NL-E efforts but also those of other actors in the RED governance system as well other interacting systems (as in the economic impact of ecosystem changes such as reduced cod stocks or changes in other Canadian economies that draw young, skilled workers from the Kittiwake region). Examples of steps taken toward multi-level

306 assessment include efforts to monitor species, community and regional/watershed-level impacts of governance initiatives, recognition by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) of their role in REDB evaluation results and BC-W‘s efforts to better understand international factors in Nimpkish fish stock declines. With the exception of nascent approaches in Bras D‘Or (NS-W), monitoring and evaluation frameworks include a narrow range of sustainability outcomes, indicating a lack of commitment to a truly integrated, multi-objective approach. Bras d‘Or monitoring programs include a more extensive suite of ecological indicators than in the BC-W and NL-W cases. Monitoring and evaluation are made more challenging in the Bras d‘Or due to the network‘s holistic, sustainable development mandate. Watershed efforts in the Bras d‘Or are looked upon as a model for relationship building and the pursuit of community sustainability. Evaluation methods in these areas are, however, poorly developed. Network members are working to clarify their objectives and expectations and develop appropriate sustainability-based performance indicators, asking questions such as how do you measure goodwill or take into account the time that policy or relationship development takes? Indicators related to communications, relationship and capacity building are needed; along with attempts to track relationships between first order and higher order sustainable development outcomes. Evaluation is undertaken both independently by individual actors and collaboratively, resulting in multiple evaluations in most cases. The benefits from these multiple perspectives are maximized when results are shared, discussed and translated into learning and adaptation. Collaborative evaluation, as in the Strait Highlands model, allows for greater consensus and clarity on desired outcomes and spreads learning throughout the governance network. For evaluation to be truly collaborative requires increased transparency, making the process open to review by peers, clients and the public (the full policy community). This provides checks and balances on authority and holds participants mutually accountable. In all cases, room remains for ―opening up‖ the monitoring and evaluation process. Timely feedback on progress is needed. Waiting nearly ten years to engage in meaningful evaluation increased the vulnerability of the REDB model to collapse, a risk faced in the Bras d‘Or as NS-W participants work towards establishing a comprehensive set of progress indicators.

307

9.2.3.v Lesson drawing: learning from cycles of disturbance and reorganization

Lesson drawing implies organizational learning from practice and ―reflection-in-action,‖ typically through informal processes of review and evaluation. Bras d‘Or, Strait Highlands and, by 2006, Kittiwake cases each suggest evidence of lesson drawing from the adaptive cycles discussed above. NS-E and NL-E have implemented communications changes to improve stakeholder relations (Chapter 8). In the Bras d‘Or (NS-W), Mi‘kmaw strategies of asserting leadership and Aboriginal rights, focusing on strengthened federal relations, citizen efforts such as the Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society, and gradual development of new partnership arrangements, are purposeful strategies for avoiding a repeat of mid-1990s difficulties. The Indian Bay watershed (NL-W) case shows that lesson drawing is inconsistent without a concerted effort to recognize and analyze sources of breakdown such as conflict. After learning that local residents prioritize social/recreational over economic values and were resistant to commercial recreational fishing development, NL-W actors turned to research and education as a revenue generation strategy. However, when local dissatisfaction related to the impacts of fyke netting (a fisheries inventory and research method) led to the election of a new NL-W board of directors, there is little evidence that research partners or NL-W management learned from the experience. The event caused a partial breakdown in community-university partnerships. Research efforts were renewed due to the education and involvement of new board members, but without changes to communications strategies the organization remains vulnerable to similar conflicts in the future. Without an active approach to learning and a willingness to look critically at current ideas and practices, opportunities for improvement are lost. Overall, monitoring and evaluation are limited in scope and scale, whether formal or informal, but improving. RDAs in Nova Scotia are refining techniques to track the outcomes of common but difficult-to-measure activities such as planning, training and facilitation. Thermal marking offers promise for monitoring migratory Nimpkish salmon stocks. Bras d‘Or actors are pioneering methods for incorporating learning regarding goals and values into planning processes. The potential for monitoring and evaluation to contribute to adaptation and, ultimately, the survival of collaborative governance systems

308 calls for continued investment in this important aspect of the governance process. Monitoring, evaluation and lesson-drawing will only enhance system resilience and sustainability if new knowledge leads to improved goals and behaviours, often facilitated through planning processes.

9.2.3.vi Planning for sustainable futures

Planning is the most commonly cited governance mechanism used in the case studies. It is described as a critical tool for establishing goals, priorities and guidelines for future action. Ideally plans are informed by the best available knowledge of lessons from the past, current conditions and anticipated futures. Ideally they are inclusive, effectively communicated and broadly supported. Each of the case studies models varies considerably when compared to this ideal. Each of the case study initiatives is involved in multiple planning processes (see Appendix 5). Five of the six case study organizations (all but NL-W) develop annual work plans. SCI (Bras d‘Or), NL-W, BC-W and NL-E have also developed longer-term business or activity plans. First Nations-led planning processes in the Bras D‘Or and Nimpkish watersheds are looking generations ahead, and drawing from traditional knowledge of the past. Respondents in all cases emphasize that effective plans are ―living documents‖ that must be revisited and incorporate new information and learning on an ongoing basis. Annual work planning processes provide an important opportunity for regular reflection and review, and for translating long-term objectives into short-term, strategic actions. In evaluating the various case study plans through a sustainable development paradigm, it is evident that most are limited in scope. Case study actors acknowledge the value of incorporating multiple issues, objectives, actors and scales in planning, but suggest this is difficult to accomplish in practice. In particular, they describe the integration of sustainability imperatives as a ―difficult but necessary‖ goal. Determining the appropriate level of integration is a significant planning challenge, raising related questions of purpose, values and capacity. Four of the six case studies (NL-E, NL-W, NS- E and NS-W) explicitly include sustainable development imperatives within their mandate and goal statements, although NL-E respondents point out that they have since

309 been advised, primarily by government funding agencies, to focus on economic outcomes (Chapter 6). All case studies are involved in some form of land use and/or coastal planning. While forest harvest planning focuses on industry objectives, land use planning in BC and in Indian Bay has allowed for discussion of a broader range of values. Territorial planning has provided the most effective avenue to date for balancing a broad suite of sustainability objectives. The absence of integrated land use plans is a barrier to sustainable development in Bras d‘Or watershed and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador (NL 1994; 1999; Newfoundland and Labrador Round Table on the Environment and the Economy 1995). The developing planning model in the Bras d‘Or watershed (NS- W), Central Coast Land and Resource Use and ‗Namgis territorial planning are the best examples of integrating multiple objectives and scales in planning within the case study regions (Figure 26).

NL-W, NS-W (NS-E, BC-W, NL-E, BC-E) Planning beyond the regional scale

- BC- Land and Resource Use planning, ‗Namgis territorial Integrated regional planning sustainability plans - NS-W - future? Issue/sector specific NL-E, NS-E, BC-E, regional plans NL-W, NS-W, BC-W

Business or NL-E, NS-E, BC-E, NS-W work plans

NL-E, NS-E, BC-E, NL-W, Project, community or sub-watershed plans NS-W, BC-W

Figure 26 Nested planning processes Note: Cases in italics are planning at this level to a limited extent only

310 As examples of expanding discretionary reach, Indian Bay and Bras d‘Or watershed organizations have participated in planning processes at scales beyond their regions that have local impacts, NL-W in provincial trout and salmon management planning for example. The nested approach to Bras d‘Or Integrated Management (IM) planning envisioned includes a series of connected sub-watershed and issue-specific plans as well as participation in broader processes such as Eastern Scotian Shelf IM and national ballast water policy development. Despite the promise of this approach, other elements of a comprehensive sustainability plan have yet to be connected to the Bras d‘Or process, including forestry, residential and economic development planning. NS-W actors are working toward comprehensive sustainability planning, however the process is in its early stages and the scope of issues to be addressed still being discussed. Limited capacity (skills and resources) is a resistor to the ideal of integrated planning. Integration has increased over time, as learning occurs and capacity is built, in NS-W, NS-E and NL-W cases, demonstrated by an increasing range and scope of activities. NL-E and BC-W cases, however, have reduced integration and become more specialized over time. While recognizing the interconnections within complex social- ecological systems, case study respondents suggest that it is often necessary to focus on one or a few priority issues. One respondent explains, ―there‘s so many issues in the Bras d‘Or… I think it‘s only logical that you start to break them down, either on a watershed or an issue-based basis.‖ Respondents suggest that many plans are wish lists rather than strategic plans and do not adequately prioritize objectives and targets. Taking into account their goals and capacities, case study initiatives have struggled to define their niche within the governance system, whether functional, geographic or both. Examples include BC-W‘s decision to focus on fisheries restoration, Pitu‘paq‘s (NS-W) initial focus on addressing sewage pollution and NL-E‘s focus on economic outcomes, addressing a major sustainability gap in their region. The nature of collaborative governance can facilitate the inclusion of multiple sustainability imperatives in planning and decision-making. An integrated yet strategic approach is possible when multiple dimensions of a specific focus area are considered.

311 Directed effort is required to monitor related planning processes at other scales or within other functional areas, seeking opportunities for synergies. For example, connections between watershed management and economic development case studies are weak. Overlapping interests and opportunities to assist one another have not been fully explored. BC-W and BC-E planning processes remain disconnected from forestry and land use planning, with the exception of linking actors common to multiple planning networks. Collaborative governance systems must fulfill specialist as well as connecting or bridging functions, individual actors defining their niche but aware of the interconnected, overlapping functions of others. Finally, respondents suggest that participation in planning is key. Bras d‘Or watershed and RED organizations place increasing emphasis on public participation in planning.

9.2.3.vii Summary The extent to which each of the four identified key components of a learning, adaptive governance approach are present within the case studies is illustrated in Figure 27. Learning and adaptive governance characteristics are present to some degree in all cases, most evident in Bras d‘Or watershed (NS-W), least in the Kittiwake (NL-E) case within the period of this study. Learning has taken place on an individual, organizational and, less frequently, a system wide basis. Informal ―learning by doing‖ rather than formal, deliberate approaches are more commonly employed. An analysis of case study responses to periods of breakdown or potential breakdown suggests that adaptation also occurs due to individual leadership and other aspects of governance structure, such as changes imposed by powerful federal actors in BC-E60 and NL-E cases. However, many of the adaptations made by case study actors have been in response to learning, enhancing governance system resilience. While the links between capacity building and longer-term outcomes are not well documented or understood, changes in behaviour and initial outcomes suggest that social learning, particularly when it is related to goals and values rather than simply specific knowledge or techniques of governance, may also translate into greater

60 While after the case study period and therefore excluded from the discussion on learning and adaption above, follow-up evidence suggests that by 2007 organizational change was underway in Mount Waddington under new leadership that may be linked to lesson-drawing from the 2003-2005 period.

312 resilience in broader social-ecological systems.

NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W 1. Individual learning Formal training and education

Learning by doing/experiential

2.Information and knowledge management systems Diversity of knowledge forms/sources Information management

Communications

3. Evaluation and reflection in action Lesson drawing (informal)

Improvement-oriented evaluation Double-loop social learning

(goals/values reconsidered) 4. Planning for sustainable futures Learning and adaptation

Rating system: = no evidence of this characteristic, limited/mixed evidence, significant evidence/agreement.

Figure 27 Processes of learning and adaptation

Capacity-building has been a primary case study outcome. Yet many skills, education and learning capability gaps remain. Strategies for formal and informal learning are required, along with managing information and using evaluation more effectively. A review of evaluation approaches employed suggests that monitoring and evaluation in collaborative governance should be ongoing, collaborative, multi-level, improvement- oriented and include monitoring of first order outcomes such as learning, capacity and relationship-building. Despite being an important aspect of RED organization mandates, this is a weak, and in some cases absent, component of current evaluation programs. Integrated planning also has an important role to play. Many of the components of such a learning system are already in place, but a more deliberate, consistent approach to learning and adaptation would likely enhance system resilience and capacity.

313 9.3 Balance and Sustainable CASES

Balance is a defining feature of resilient, sustainable complex adaptive systems. Rather than either/or dichotomies, complex systems involve a mix of extremes. The balance in this mix is dynamic and a source of creative tensions. The results of this research highlight the importance of a continual search for balance in three particular areas: flexibility, complexity and diversity.

9.3.1 Flexibility and stability

Temporal scale is a critical variable in the case studies examined (see Chapter 8). Both change and stability play important functions. Actors must attempt to judge the appropriate mix at any given time of short-term outcomes and flexibility to adapt to new information and circumstances, and longer-term dimensions of governance systems, such as memory, persistence, security, relationship-building, values and vision. Efficiency and responsiveness must be balanced with other aspects of good governance such as effectiveness and inclusiveness. Table 40 shows that each of the case studies has characteristics that contribute to stability and others that facilitate change. Both sets of characteristics have enhanced governance system resilience. Elections represent a period of vulnerability, but also opportunity for renewal and reorganization (beyond program name changes). The NL-W board change came after a long period of stable leadership that did not adequately recognize community dissatisfaction, for example. An open, democratic election process allowed reorganization to occur. Monitoring and evaluation have also provided an opportunity for change, generating improvements that have helped sustain these initiatives. Stability is provided by formal structures such as laws and written policies, culture, individual commitment, personal relationships and the multi-level nature of collaborative governance networks. The resilience of Unama‘ki Institute (NS-W) during a period of political change within Eskasoni First Nation, a key UINR partner, illustrates the stabilizing nature of multi-level governance. Holling and Gunderson (2001) observe that, in a resilient system, breakdown at lower scales is inhibited by stability at other, often higher levels, in this case within UINR and the remainder of the governance system.

314 UINR‘s strong leadership, central position within the governance system, extensive networks and personal relationships enhance its resilience and allowed the organization to draw from outside resources during a time of change. In each case, diverse leadership and relationships have enhanced stability. Persistence and long-term commitment are critical enabling factors, particularly in watershed management. In RED formal, in some cases legislated, policy support has provided stability in times of vulnerability. Rigidity and lack of flexibility, however, also inhibit governance processes. Increasingly, stringent rules and procedures imposed on the regional scale from higher levels is considered the most significant barrier faced by NL-E. Where flexibility exists in relationships with agencies considered to be rigid, particularly Service Canada, it often comes from individual agents willing to interpret higher-level edicts in creative ways. Balance between stability and flexibility thus also implies a balance of institutionalized and more informal forms of regulation that rely on individuals and their relationships. Collaborative governance boundaries provide an example of the need for both flexibility and stability. In all cases, regional boundaries have changed over time, supporting Walker et al.‘s (2006) proposition that transformation, such as the transformation to new forms of governance, requires changes in scales of the panarchy. Examples include integrating new or removing previously included communities as in the BC-E and NS-E cases, partnerships between neighbouring regions, expanding watershed activities to include marine as well as freshwater components, or a shifting focus from watershed to island-wide regional boundaries in Cape Breton´s Sustainable Communities Initiative. Nevertheless, case study experiences caution against a tendency for boundary change without dialogue, justification and planning. It is perceived as easier and less expensive for senior governments to deal with fewer, larger regional groupings of communities, a trend illustrated in BC coastal planning, NL forestry and in the shift in NL from the use of twenty RED regions to nine Rural Secretariat regions, with different but overlapping mandates. Grant Thornton (2003) warns of the dangers of expanded CFDC areas, stating ―if an attempt were made to reduce the number of CFDCs in Western Canada, the Program and WD would suffer from a lack of knowledge and capability to

315 meet ‗local needs‘.‖ Increases in scale jeopardize collaborative governance when they are based on untested assumptions about economies of scale rather than learning, dialogue and careful consideration of human relationships to place and to one another, including how old boundaries and structures may interact with new ones. The concept of region has both flexibility and stability in practice. As new layers of region are added they create increased rather than reduced complexity. Policy-makers who assume the opposite effect ignore path dependency and the robustness of pre-existing relationships. These findings support Walker et al.‘s (2006) contention that managing cross-scale linkages can increase chances of positive outcomes during re-organization, and indicate that ignoring or underestimating these linkages jeopardizes new forms of regional organization. The challenge, then, is to seek forms of stability without rigidity, long-term vision, commitment and recognition of the past but also openness to change - nested temporal as well as spatial scales. Implementation and evaluation of short-term strategies, election cycles and unexpected events such as the loss of a primary actor are examples of opportunities for change within a longer-term agenda. If long-term goals and the higher- level structures that support them are resilient, they will be capable of not only sustaining changes but also of capturing new opportunities, including opportunities for learning and adaptation.

9.3.2 Complexity and Governability

The discrepancies between governance capacity and outcomes described in Chapter 8, particularly low outcomes in the NS-W and BC-W cases relative to their capabilities, suggest that the complexity of the issues and systems being addressed is significant for collaborative governance results. The focus of the above analysis has been on the six collaborative governance case studies as governing systems. Coastal zone and collaborative governance systems are inherently complex (Chapter 3, Jentoft 2007), but both the governing systems and systems-to-be-governed in these cases have varying levels of complexity. A detailed comparison of social-ecological system complexity within the case study regions is beyond the scope of this study. However, an initial assessment considering social, ecological and social-ecological complexities indicates that the Bras d‘Or watershed is the most complex, Indian Bay watershed the least.

316 Considering factors such as the number of actors in the policy community, and economic and cultural diversity, social system complexity is greatest in Cape Breton cases, followed by the Kittiwake and Mount Waddington regions, Nimpkish, and Indian Bay watersheds. Indicators such as species and habitat diversity (Chapter 5), suggest that Indian Bay is the least ecologically diverse and complex of the three watershed regions. Further analysis is required to adequately compare ecological complexity, but species diversity indicates greater complexity in the Nimpkish than the Bras d‘Or watershed. The complexity of the Nimpkish watershed increases significantly when factors influencing marine survival of salmon are considered. In all three provinces economic regions are more ecologically complex than the watersheds contained within them. However, RED case study organizations do not attempt to govern ecosystems. Watershed management organizations intervene in social and ecological systems and in their interactions. Given the diverse range of human actors and uses within the Bras d‘Or, interactions between social and ecological systems are most complex in this system, least diverse and complex in Indian Bay. Considering each of these dimensions, both Nimpkish and Bras d‘Or systems can be considered highly complex. This likely accounts, in part, for low outcomes ratings compared to Indian Bay. Higher Bras d‘Or watershed management (NS-W) outcomes compared to BC-W, despite its earlier stage of development, appear to be linked to higher levels of governance capacity as well as the governability challenges of marine ecosystems and their role in Nimpkish salmon recovery. Higher outcomes ratings in NL- W relative to the NL-E case, despite similar levels of overall capacity and initial sustainability conditions, further suggest that a relatively low level of complexity has contributed to favourable outcomes and system governability in Indian Bay. High outcomes ratings, combined with a high level of social complexity in the Strait- Highlands region, indicate that complexity is not as significant a barrier in social as in the ecological or social-ecological systems governed in these cases. The positive results in Cape Breton suggest that social diversity and complexity can be an enabler when combined with high levels of capacity, supporting Amin and Thrift‘s (1995) notion of the value of institutional thickness or Putnam‘s (1995, 67) ―dense networks of social interaction.‖ While cross-cultural relationships represent an important strength in the Bras

317 d‘Or system, they are also a challenge (Chapter 8). Governance systems that include diverse actors require leadership capabilities that include cultural awareness and the ability to foster cohesion. Authors such as Holling and Gunderson (2001) argue that management institutions must become more complex to adjust to increasingly coupled and complex nature-society systems. Collaborative governance networks are considered an appropriate model for addressing complex issues and systems. However, BC-W and NS-W cases show that these governance networks also struggle with, and even add to, high levels of social- ecological complexity. Considering the number of actors involved, the diversity of their interactions (Appendix 4), and the range of scales, objectives and issues being addressed the Bras d‘Or watershed governing system is considerably more complex than others. NS-E, NL-W, NL-E, BC-E and BC-W have similar levels of complexity when each of these aspects are considered equally, NS-E slightly higher due to a larger number of actors and NL-W due to its wider range of objectives. BC-W‘s governance system is considerably less complex than the system it attempts to govern. In part this is because of the Board‘s decision to focus on fisheries restoration, itself a challenging goal. Further, as of yet, it has not incorporated international actors that influence a large part of salmon life cycles. Weinstein (2007, p. 9) claims that a narrow focus on fisheries restoration, particularly activities for which funding is available, has left BC-W with a ―limited focus deciding on the best use of progressively declining dollars.‖ Lack of mandate diversity has increased BC-W‘s vulnerability to collapse. While an increase in governance complexity may be needed in some cases, both governance and CASES literature caution that there are limits to how much complexity systems, including governing systems, can sustain. Capacity demands increase along with the complexity. Increased governance complexity implies more time, data, participation, and hence cost, as well as potential fragmentation of limited resources and rigidity due to increasing formality, specialization and actor connectedness. At a certain point, increasing complexity can result in decreasing gains for added cost or even catastrophic collapse (Homer-Dixon 2006; Tainter 1988; Jentoft 2007). There is no evidence to suggest that Bras d‘Or watershed management, the most complex of the governance

318 systems, is on the verge of collapse, but costs are significantly higher than for the other models. Another consideration is the capacity and willingness of individuals to engage with complexity. Collaborative governance systems comprise actors with an adversity to complexity and systems thinking that has led to a long history of reductionist approaches in science and government (Morgan 2005). A shift to more holistic approaches requires new capabilities, learning and even cultural change. Balance is needed, therefore, between complexity and governability, considering both governance capacity and the complexity of the system(s) to be governed. Ecosystem and social-ecological complexity has challenged governing systems more than social complexity within these Canadian coastal regions. The BC-W case raises the question of whether any amount of investment in governance will restore the Nimpkish salmon, whether the system is governable or not. Surely the answer is not to throw up our hands and give up on governing within highly complex systems, but rather to increase our ability and willingness to engage with complexity. This includes tackling priority issues while also recognizing the many interconnections associated with these priorities. Bras d‘Or (NS-W) actors have been more effective in recognizing and managing cross-scale relationships and expanding their discretionary reach than in the Nimpkish system (BC- W). This does not imply that the Bras d‘Or polycentric network model should be applied in the Nimpkish, but rather that opportunities for increasing governance complexity and capabilities in a context-appropriate way should be explored. Holling (2001) discusses the need to keep things ―as simple as possible but no simpler.‖ Similarly, the findings of this study suggest that governance systems in highly complex systems should be as complex as is feasible given existing resources and capabilities, but no more complex. Governability has been increased (and complexity reduced) by removing parts of the systems-to-be governed from governance activities. Mi‘kmaw organizations have been excluded from Strait-Highlands economic development initiatives; wildlife management from watershed management in Indian Bay and Nimpkish watersheds; ecological issues from RED cases. Where these specialization strategies are employed, people and processes are required that recognize cross-scale connections within coastal social-ecological systems, and link interrelated and overlapping policy and governance systems. Although ecosystem management is not part

319 of its mandate, for example, the success of NL-E‘s development efforts is linked to the management and health of the region‘s fish and forest resources. In 2004/2005 the province‘s Rural Secretariat was charged with addressing these interconnections, linking RED with other governance systems that influence sustainability at community and regional scales. Setting specific objectives and using indicators to track progress and monitor system conditions have also assisted in managing system complexity. Sub-regional meetings and representation, local media and conferences or workshops are used as methods to facilitate efficient interaction with diverse actors. A common strategy has been to create centrality within policy networks by creating an organizational structure at the regional scale that serves as a hub or central node. RED case study organizations are envisioned as a ―first-stop-shop‖ within their regions and respective policy arenas, facilitating coordination and order. This hub model has helped secure support from complexity-averse provincial and federal officials. However, without efforts to recognize, represent and conserve local diversity, legitimacy and support for these organizations at individual and local scales is jeopardized. Regional organizations play a critical and challenging role in seeking complexity-governability balance.

9.3.3 Diversity, Autonomy, and Common Ground

The challenge of balancing complexity and governability is, in part, one of balancing actor diversity with the common ground needed for collective action. Competition among diverse, semi-autonomous actors is a key characteristic of a CASES and its self- organizing behaviour. Walker et al. (2006, 13) suggest that both functional and response diversity are important. The more different types of actors there are, the more functions are likely to be performed, as with the wide range of activities within the NS-W case study, and the presence of local and regional development agencies within RED cases. The resilience of many Rural Development Associations in NL despite funding cuts, for example, illustrates that there is an important functional, although overlapping role for community and sub-regional development actors within the RED system. As complex systems literature suggests, diverse actors and relationships have provided response

320 alternatives during times of breakdown and renewal, and, thereby, overall system resilience. Diversity also creates tension and even conflict. Each actor has her/his/its own interests. Although they are interdependent and have interests in common that are being pursued, individuals seek to further their own interests. They are often wary that collaboration will mean lost autonomy to pursue these interests. First Nations are careful, for example, to ensure that collaborative planning processes are without prejudice to Aboriginal rights and title and ongoing treaty negotiations. Federal officials also emphasize that their participation does not imply either the delegation of their authority or their willingness to share resources allocated to them for fulfilling their responsibilities. Some critics argue that organizations have traded their autonomy and ability to serve local interests for funding and stability. Respondents contend that participants must be honest and transparent about their interests and motivations, turning Bryant‘s latent into stated orientations. Considering and seeking synergies between individual as well as collective roles and interests can help support both independence and interdependence. Diversity implies difference, including differences in power and perspective. Despite the ideal of collaborative governance, involving more heterarchical relationships and degrees of ―power sharing,‖ considerable variation remains in the types and amounts of power held by individuals and organizations within the case study networks. Actor diversity comes with debate, competition and power struggles. While these struggles force continual change, and often improvement, beyond a certain threshold they can undermine trust and confidence and even cause breakdown, as demonstrated by the collapse of early collaborative governance attempts in both Nimpkish and Bras d‘Or watersheds. Walker et al. (2006) similarly observe that partially overlapping mental models enhance adaptability, but if competing mental models and the actions they suggest are very different, cooperation or adaptation could be stifled. RED organizations are continually challenged with reconciling the differing values and needs of urban and rural, industrial, fishing, forestry, and service-sector based communities, while promoting regional cooperation. Community divisions are considered the greatest barrier to collaborative governance in both Strait Highlands (NS-E) and Mount Waddington (BC-E) regions (Chapter 8). Respondents in both cases emphasize the

321 divisions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities, a social capital deficit BC-E has recently sought to address. In contrast, with relatively low levels of social diversity, conflict and difference are not cited as a significant barrier in the NL cases. Divisions also exist within government agencies. These divisions have helped to protect the case studies from collapse despite opposition (enhancing resilience) in some cases, while also hindering expanded support for collaborative governance (inhibiting adaptation) in others. The case study results suggest that ―common ground‖ is important to healthy, productive relationships. Recognition that actors have a mutual interest that may be best addressed by working in collaboration is a first step in bringing people into the process. Grant Thornton (2003) explains how CFDCs have benefited from an alignment of the strategic directions and intended outcomes of the CFDC program with those of WD and a number of federal government priorities. Ambers (2000) explains of the BC-W that ―relationships have been strained… but that is put aside when it comes to talking about how we can fix some of the damage that has occurred‖ to Nimpkish salmon stocks and their habitats, a common goal of all parties. Shared goals, understanding, principles and, ultimately, values build a foundation for collaboration and a reason for being as a collaborative network or structure. As Walker et al. (2006) suggest, differences in mental models can enhance adaptation but common elements or areas of overlap are needed that allow for a convergence of viewpoints and purpose despite competing desires. Efforts to better understand each other‘s perspectives and seek these areas of overlap have been required in each case. Within the broader policy community, respondents suggest that citizens have a poor understanding of how governments operate and the constraints they face. Likewise, government representatives often have a poor understanding of community problems, processes and values. These gaps in understanding create challenges in communication and collaboration within governance networks. NS-W and BC-W respondents also emphasize the need for greater cross-cultural understanding, including respect and appreciation for difference. Respondents highlight the important role of communication and, in particular, dialogue and relationship-building over time for increasing mutual understanding. Tota

322 (2002) notes that because dialogue is relatively risk-free, it is a good starting point for interaction and building trust: ―The more you understand the other world, the challenges, the difficulties, the world that person has to deal with...At the end of those discussions you come out of it having built the kind of trust that you need to move forward.‖ Such discussions often include agreement on appropriate terminology. In the Bras d‘Or, for example, the term governance has negative connotations for provincial, federal and First Nations participants, variously implying top-down or bottom-up approaches. For some the term is associated with an unpopular and prescriptive proposed (now failed) First Nations Governance Act (Bill C-7). For others, particularly provincial and federal government respondents, it is a reminder of failed past attempts by local actors to establish watershed co-management and associated ill-will. As a result terms such as collaborative planning collaborative planning, collective, integrative or integrated management are used instead. While language is important, finding common ground also required discussion of similarities and differences in principles, goals and values. Mixed evidence, including opinions and awareness among interview respondents, related to principles of sustainable development, collaboration and good governance suggest that greater attention is need to developing and shared principles and putting these principles into action within case study networks. Although respondents at all levels report an increasing interest in collaborative, integrated approaches, agreement and ―compliance‖ with generally accepted principles of collaboration, sustainable development and good Principles - Overall governance is mixed and Sustainability Principles BC-W relatively low NS-W Collaboration Principles NL-W overall (see BC-E Figure 29). Governance Principles NS-E Refer to NL-E Appendix 3 for Outcomes Rating supporting data 0 5 10 15 20 and details on Figure 28 "Compliance" with collaborative governance principles

323 how the indices reflected in Figure 28 were derived. Of these three sets of principles those linked to sustainability are most prominent in case study results. Four of the six case studies explicitly include sustainable development imperatives within their stated mandate and goals. All six cases incorporate sustainable development in aspects of their work. NRMB respondents value the employment and cultural outcomes of their work, for example, but have not explicitly incorporated these objectives in planning. Although their priorities and values may differ, many actors at the local and regional scale have an intrinsic understanding of the connections among social, cultural, economic and ecological well-being. While they may be incorporated in practice, sustainable development objectives and targets are often unwritten and unmonitored, particularly where support for a holistic approach falls outside of government and other funding partner guidelines. Sustainability outcomes, therefore, are largely inconsistent and poorly documented, despite a federal policy that both intended and unintended impacts should be assessed (Canada 2008a). NS and BC regional economic development cases (NE-E and BC-E) exhibit the highest degree of compliance with the principles of good governance outlined in Chapter 4, followed by NS-W, BC-W, NL-W and NL-E respectively. With respect to governance principles, respondents vary in their emphasis on some principles but share a common concern for inclusion and stakeholder participation (to a lesser extent among BC-W respondents). Respondents in all cases except NL-E place greater emphasis on flexibility and adaptation than accountability, while credibility and legitimacy are stressed by a higher percentage (22%) of NL-W respondents than other cases. Recognition of Aboriginal rights and title was discussed by more than 10% of respondents in only NS-W (41%) and BC-W (50%) cases. Discussion and observance of principles of collaboration is lower overall than other principle sets. Official goals, mandates and statements of operating principles rarely move beyond a general commitment to involvement, partnership and/or collaboration only in NS-W, BC-E and NL-E cases. Collaboration principles most frequently cited by respondents include: mutual interests and understanding, trust and respect, long term commitment, mutual benefits, and power sharing. Recognition of principles for effective collaboration has not necessarily translated into strong network relationships.

324 Considering evidence of collaboration principles in action, recognition by respondents and in official mission, mandate and planning documents BC-E and NS-W cases demonstrate the highest levels of apparent commitment to collaboration. While this corresponds with high relational capacity and relatively strong relationship in the NS-W case this is not the case for BC-E. Other factors such as relatively low leadership capacity and remoteness inhibit relationship development despite apparent commitment to collaboration. Conflicts at the deeper level of values also inhibit collaboration. Values are a lens through which we interpret knowledge, prioritize issues and establish goals and guiding principles (McLaren et al. 2008). Bossel‘s final basic orientor for systems that include ―sentient beings‖ is psychological needs, linked to mental maps, or sense-making, values and cultural norms. Bosel maintains that values are ―basic system requirements emerging from a system‘s interaction with its environment‖ (Bossel 1999, 37). Values may be adapted over time based on learning and interactions with other actors, including the environment. Meaningful, long-term relationships and social learning require understanding of values and why other actors in a governance network make the judgments and pursue the goals they do, and ultimately changes in values that are not aligned with long-term system interests. Without commonality and room for learning and adaptation at this level, trust is limited and collaborative governance relationships vulnerable. BC-W has experienced ongoing tensions, for example, because, while the actors involved share the goal of restoration, their underlying motives differ. BC-E respondents and official documentation make clear commitments to open participation and collaboration but respondents report that differing values within the region (including varying levels of commitment to environmental conservation) continue to weaken relationships and relational capacity. Attachment to place and importance of community are values that drive many local-level actors and can lead to conflicts with higher-level officials that emphasize principles such as economic viability, accountability and efficiency. One senior provincial employee in NL predicts, for example, that less than one-third of current communities will be capable of offering employment for their residents in the future. Greater agreement exists when it comes to the goal of sustaining the ―regional community,‖ but

325 even at this scale conflicts remain related to principles of adjacency, rights to resources and reinvestment of resource wealth in rural regions. Further, this research suggests that sustainable regions depend upon and contribute to (rather than replace) diverse, sustainable communities. For a deeper level of social learning and a significant shift towards more sustainable development to occur, dialogue about these sometimes conflicting values must become part of the process of seeking common ground among network actors. This has proven difficult in all the cases examined. In some, powerful actors impose their values in exchange for satisfying other system requirements, particularly financial resources. Less powerful actors may then pursue their own values, or psychological needs, in more covert ways. Many find it difficult or uncomfortable to articulate what is important to them. Others may be wary about highlighting significant values differences. The case studies suggest that a period of building relationships, trust, and conflict resolution capabilities is often required before open discussion can fruitfully occur. One senior provincial official observes that ―the more you find a way to… to go beyond consultation, toward collaboration… the more it‘s going to be deeply rooted in community, and home.‖ Mi‘kmaw respondents explain that values such as respect for ecosystems and all living things, sharing and interconnectedness are part of a traditional knowledge system developed through millennia of relations between people and place. Mik‘maq participants bring such values explicitly to Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed management, facilitating social learning within the network. As a planning framework for the Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative, the medicine wheel symbolizes spirituality, cyclical patterns, temporal scale, balance and interconnections between people and the environment they are part of (Paul 2004). The high level of collaboration and attention to ecological protection and restoration in the Bras d‘Or watershed is credited, in part, to Unama‘ki Mi‘kmaw culture and its emphasis on principles of holism, conservation and cooperation. MacNeil (2003) describes the Bras d‘Or process as ―building a culture of collaboration‖. Respondents contrast government agencies, major businesses and communities according to their predominant principles and values, creating distinct cultures that influence their participation and relationships in collaborative governance. The need for

326 autonomy implies that not all values will be held in common, but for a shift to collaborative, sustainable development to occur a set of collective values will have to recognize the importance of sustainability, adaptation, diversity and collaboration. Theories of dependency, staples development and real regulation emphasize the challenge of growing support for this set of values in a system long dominated by patterns of relationships that foster inequity and exploitation. Regulation and complexity theories emphasize the role of crisis in significant system change. Walker et al. (2006) point out that changes to prevailing mental models are unlikely until large-scale changes are perceived as crises. For many, particularly coastal residents dependent on now depleted natural resources, a crisis point has been reached. One federal official argues that the 1992 closure of commercial cod and salmon fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) ―was a major turnaround in conservationism.‖ A NL-E representative explains of the formation of the regional economic development boards (REDBs): ―I think the government recognized that something had to be done or rural Newfoundland was certainly going to die...‖ NL respondents describe a ―culture of exploitation‖ in the province and in their regions, but believe that this culture is slowly changing to one more conscious of ecological limits and the need for conservation. A similar change is described on northern Vancouver Island, collaborative governance case studies being credited for contributing to this shift in both cases. Despite the stated recognition of the need for change by the majority of respondents, others in each case study network believe that old ideals can be sustained. While changing, economic imperatives remain dominant and ―economic development and conservation are still seen as mutually exclusive.‖ Case study evidence suggests a lack of provincial and federal support for integrated development approaches in British Columbia (BC) and NL. Provincial commitment to sustainable development is weak in BC, mixed in NL and strongest in NS, despite forest management concerns. Federally, Western Diversification is increasingly supportive of sustainable development approaches, but NL and NS representatives suggest that this is not the case within the equivalent agency in the Atlantic (ACOA). Measures such as amendments to Canada‘s Auditor General Act (1995) that require sustainable development reporting and the Oceans Act (1997) support

327 sustainable development within the federal system, but commitment and linkages across policy sub-systems remain mixed in all cases and weak overall. A more significant, although still uneven shift can be seen in the trend toward multi-level collaboration in governance (Chapter 8). Overall, respondents feel that a culture shift is slowly taking place in parts of government and in their regions. This values adaptation is a response to current realities such as limited resources, recognition of Aboriginal rights and title and increasing complexity, but also learning and adjustments made in response to past experiences of resource depletion and dependency and the inability of current systems to avoid this resource exploitation cycle. Not fully accepted, these evolving orientations often remain latent rather than explicit. As a result they are not always shared (or tested to see if they are shared) across collaborative governance networks and the opportunities for learning are not maximized. Strategic planning exercises and other collaborative governance processes provide an opportunity to identify, explore and even learn shared goals and values, particularly when they are explicitly addressed. In some cases, particularly the Bras d‘Or (NS-W), leaders with strong values and vision have instigated this process. In others, debates about values arise because of characteristics of system structure such as actor diversity or learning and self- organization processes. Struggles over power are, in part, struggles of competing values and ideology. While the findings of this research demonstrate resilience Shared Shared interest(s) understanding within new and evolving collaborative governance systems, Shared decisions and old systems and cultures in responsibilities government also have resilience.

Governance systems include both Shared Shared power top-down and collaborative values and resources governance models, competing and cooperating with one another, Figure 29 Seeking common ground

328 struggling for dominance. Top-down, siloed approaches have the momentum of the past on their side. The concept of ‗innovative milieu,‘ describing a complex web of relations that leads to learning and adaptation has received increasing attention in the literature on RED (Coffey and Bailly 1996; Davoudi et al. 2004). The findings of this study call for the development of a ‗sustainability mileu‘ in Canada‘s coastal regions if the trajectory set by traditional models of development and decision-making is to be shifted towards sustainability. This would require greater common ground and inclusion of sustainability in each of the areas outlined in Figure 29 within a diverse and expanded network of collaborative governance actors. Strengthening existing collaborative governance networks is required to address an apparent lack of fit between how these networks currently function and the ideal characteristics of collaborative governance outlined in Chapter 1. In light of the finding discussed above, Figure 30 compares each case to these key collaborative governance characteristics. Only the Cape Breton (NS) cases, particularly NS-W, exhibit a relatively

NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W Multi-scale

Shared power

Multi-sector

Multi-objective

Learning and adaptation

Overall collaborative governance characteristics Overall capacity

Complexity of system-to-be- governed Outcomes

Rating system: = little to no evidence of this characteristic/low rating, limited/mixed evidence of this characteristic/medium rating, significant evidence/agreement that this characteristic exists, high rating.

Figure 30 Comparison of case study characteristics and outcomes close fit with the collaborative governance ideal. Others exhibit a mix of collaborative and more traditional governance approaches. Figure 30 also suggests a potential link between the pursuit of collaborative governance and levels of governance capacity. As

329 discussed above, discrepancies exist however between capacity and commitment to collaborative governance and outcomes, explained at least in part by the complexity of the systems these networks seek to govern.

9.4 Collaborative Governance as a Complex Adaptive System: Contributions to the CASES Literature

Critics of complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) perspectives argue that further empirical support is needed, particularly from social systems, for CASES as an analytical framework and ongoing theory-building project (Gatrell 2003). This study, along with other recent works focused on the social elements and governance sub-systems of social-ecological systems (Gallopin 2006; Olssen et al. 2004; Berkes 2007), contributes to filling this gap. It also responds to those who question the utility of CASES approaches. The CASES framework has proven useful as a way of representing the realities of collaborative governance systems, which are themselves complex, and is helpful for reflecting on the interactions between these governing systems and the systems they seek to govern. As a starting point, it draws attention to the issue of complexity, a significant factor in collaborative governance outcomes, representing both challenge (as in Nimpkish and Bras d‘Or ecosystems) and opportunity (as in NS-W‘s social diversity). Developing theories of complexity have aided in considering different types, components of and changes over time in the complexity of the case study systems. Multi-directional and multi-scale interactions within multi-layered and overlapping networks of actors are key characteristics of CASES that appropriately describe the case study systems. The CASES framework provides a broad view of these cross-scale and multi-scale governance interactions appropriate for this study‘s exploratory approach. In turn the study contributes to the CASES literature by providing examples of collaborative governance systems as CASES and, in general, empirical support for the CASES framework. The adaptive renewal cycle is a particularly useful heuristic device for exploring the role of various actors in, as well responses and adaptations to, system change. Using the cycle as an analytical tool allowed for comparative analyses across cases and between findings based on adaptive cycle analysis (Chapter 9) and those generated from interviews with expert respondents (Chapter 8). The findings from Chapter 8 show, for

330 example, that diverse actors in leadership roles (primary and enablers) and multi-scale relationships are key variables in collaborative governance systems. These findings are supported by comparative analysis using the adaptive cycle, suggesting that collaborative governance systems gain resilience from leadership, multi-level system structure and relationships. What the adaptive cycle does not explain is either why cycles differ in different systems or iterations, or the roles and behaviours of specific actors in these processes of change. Here Bossel (2001)‘s contributions on essential interests (orientations or orientors) of systems are significant (Chapter 2), particularly in combination with Bryant (1999)‘s suggestion that actor orientations may be either latent or stated/explicit (Chapter 4). Where commitments of resources and/or policy support to governance processes are unstable or when the ability to cope with and in some cases influence change are otherwise uncertain, three of Bossel‘s six basic orientors are jeopardized: existence, effectiveness and security. In these cases, as Bossel suggests, case study actors often devote significant attention to satisfying these system requirements, as in the case of NL- W‘s ongoing search for financial resources or the efforts of NS-W actors to create a new collaborative planning and decision-making structure. Centralized control, dependence on one or a few sources of revenue, and/or challenges to legitimacy also threaten a fourth orientor: freedom of action. Efforts to satisfy these orientors are a significant element in power struggles and increased vulnerability of the BC-W, NL-E and NL-W cases, where significant energy is allocated to the pursuit of resources, particularly access to financial and natural resources, at the expense of other strategies and outcomes. The findings of this research further suggest that Bossel‘s sixth orientor - psychological needs – is a significant resistor to collaboration when the differences in this actor needs and associated values are too great or not aligned with principles of cooperation and sustainability. Deeply engrained values and beliefs that are incompatible with collaborative governance approaches, related power struggles and the importance of primary actors or leaders, also alluded to by Westley et al. (2001), are key dimensions of inter and intra-system interactions illuminated in this study that have not received adequate attention in the CASES literature to date. Bossel‘s orientors offer insight into behaviour and conflict within and between systems, but do not fully address Massey‘s

331 (1993) call for greater attention to the power geometry of networks, or the important role of individual actors. The findings of this research highlight and elaborate on these themes. As an increasing number of social scientists enter this area of research they bring with them added theoretical insights. Staples, dependency, political economy and regulation theories contribute to an understanding of the past and current dynamics that shape adaptive cycles, including a tendency toward unequal distribution of power and resources and cycles of resource depletion that threaten coastal social-ecological systems (Chapter 1). In return, CASES research has much to contribute to these fields. The understanding of learning and adaptation processes gained in this study, for example, can advance recent regional development concepts such as the learning region, regional innovation systems, and more broadly new regionalism. Further, this research contradicts notions that the federal state is no longer a powerful actor or that there is one mode of regulation in a ―post-Fordist‖ era on Canada‘s coasts. Theoretical insights have helped uncover themes and patterns below the surface not openly discussed by respondents, while the perspectives of expert respondents intimately engaged in collaborative governance provide understanding from ―the messiness of surface‖ that theoretical research tends to oversimplify or even avoid (White 2006). This study‘s geographical perspective has also provided a focus on the politics of scale, connections to place and the increasing importance and challenge of regions as focal scales in the panarchy. Other CASES authors have discussed the importance of regions, particularly watersheds. This research provides additional insights from RED and contrast experiences from the related policy arenas of RED and watershed management. The findings presented above provide support for Walker et al.‘s (2006) general propositions regarding change in social-ecological systems and their application to collaborative governance systems as one form of CASES. The case study experiences reinforce Walker et al.‘s (2006) proposition, for example, that the absolute and relative amounts of all forms of capital, including systems of institutions and governance, are determinants of adaptability. While several key variables have been identified, there is no single factor to which positive outcomes or adaptation can be attributed. System conditions, behaviours and outcomes are created by a set of interacting system elements, characteristics and relationships.

332 As Urry (2003) argues, complexity theory is a vehicle for moving away from reductionist accounts and binary divides, suggesting instead a continuing search for balance among apparently competing values and system characteristics. Seeking the right mix of these characteristics is an ongoing challenge. The multiple, interacting temporal scales of governance and the need for both appropriate short-term actions and longer-term planning and perspectives discussed above is an important example. As Westley (2002) argues, the interactive dynamics of CASES require governance actors to continually make judgments about ―the right time,‖ for emphasizing certain relationships, issues, system characteristics or aspects of the governance process. While supporting much of the emerging consensus within CASES literature, the cases examined also demonstrate exceptions to some of the general patterns observed and point to areas where the CASES framework can be further refined. Whereas a tendency for experimentation at lower, and conservation at higher levels of the panarchy are observed in the literature, for example, experimentation, conservation, memory and resistance to change occur at multiple levels within the case studies examined. While higher levels often provide stability, sudden political and policy change also occurs at higher levels. Short-term thinking in government challenges collaborative governance in five of the six cases examined (Figure 8.3) while local actors often provide system stability, long term perspective and even resistance to change. Further, while the adaptive cycle as a model of change is criticized for viewing actors and systems as being externally driven rather than capable of reflection and adaptation based on internal dynamics, like Gallopin (2006), this study suggests that ‗triggers‘ for adaptation may be internal, as in the case of leadership, or external. Ruitenbeek and Cartier (2001) argue that adaptive, co-management is an emergent strategy within complex systems, not an arrangement that can be legislated top-down, but one that self-organizes bottom-up. This research suggests that principles, norms and values associated with collaboration and adaptation, may be learned and evolve or emerge over time. Collaborative governance strategies can, however, also be put in place by government agencies, or with the incentive of government investment, within a relatively short time frame. Under the right conditions, collaborative governance initiatives formed largely from the top-down (such as Community Futures organizations or Regional

333 Economic Development Boards) can foster sustainable development and gain acceptance in communities and regions. Glaser (2006) points to a recent turn in CASES theory that places less emphasis on competition and more on cooperation, symbiotic ties between parts, and emergent properties of the whole. Emphasizing the importance of relationships and the promise of collaborative governance models, this research fits within this recent vein. This in turn must be accompanied by greater attention to social characteristics and dynamics such as power, values, learning and other aspects of governance and decision-making such as planning and evaluation. Yorque et al. (2001, 419) conclude that because of the inherent complexities involved in seeking sustainable futures ―the most pragmatic approach is one of learning our way to sustainable futures, rather than planning our way.‖ The findings of this research suggest that planning is an integral part of learning and adaptation within governance processes. By involving diverse actors, sharing value and knowledge systems, and planning for the future, we come to know that there is no one path to sustainability and that a range of actors, tools and processes is required to better understand and manage our behaviours and related social-ecological interactions. In summary, the use of a complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) conceptual framework in this study has contributed to the understanding of collaborative governance networks as complex policy systems, and of the relationships between policy systems and the systems they seek to govern. Holling and Gunderson‘s (2001) adaptive renewal cycle, together with Bossel‘s (2001) basic system orientors and Walker et al.‘s (2006) propositions regarding change in social-ecological systems, have proven useful in analyzing the characteristics that contribute to resilience and adaptation in governance systems, corroborating and strengthening the results of interview analysis while highlighting the important role of learning and adaptation and providing an alternative to reductionist, binary thinking. Limitations of the CASES framework include inadequate attention to social relationships, including power struggles, and the role of leadership and individual actors not only in response to but also as drivers of system change. This research emphasizes the importance of these system dimensions and adds to a growing body of literature that employs a CASES approach in the study of the social and social- ecological aspects of social-ecological systems, contributing insights from the social

334 sciences on recurring social and social-ecological relationship patterns that tend towards unsustainable outcomes such as inequity and resource depletion. Attempts to implement collaborative, sustainable governance systems are thus understood as operating within broader governing systems with these structural biases, adding to the understanding provided by CASES. Finally, by examining collaborative governance from a geographic perspective the thesis has provided insights into significant issues of scalar complexity, attachment to place and cross-scale relationships.

335 10 – Conclusion: the Promise and Challenge of Collaborative Governance

Long before Europeans first occupied her shores Canada‘s coasts and their rich natural resources supported prosperous First Nations, among them the Kwakwaka‘wakw of Northern Vancouver Island, known for their elaborate culture and social systems, and the Mi‘kmaq of Unama‘ki. In the late 1400s, explorer John Cabot sighted a ―new found isle,‖ where ―the seas swarmed with fish‖ (Francis et al. 1988, 27). Prolific marine resources drew fishers, traders, and later settler governments and communities across the Atlantic and later to the Pacific coast in a period of 17th to 19th century economic and population growth. In each of the case study regions examined, this story has turned from one of resource abundance to depletion and from the establishment of new settlements to rural communities that are, in many cases, struggling to stabilize and reverse declines in populations, economies, cultures and ways of life. Times of change such as these can be either productive periods of adaptation and renewal or can lead to system collapse. An increasing number of authors, Commissions and reports suggest that these outcomes are significantly influenced by systems of governance – the way we plan, make decisions and collectively guide our societies. This thesis explored the potential of collaborative governance as a strategy for rerouting Canadian coastal development on to a more sustainable path. Collaborative governance involves multiple actors engaging in planning and decision-making processes that consist of formal and informal relationships, power sharing, vertical, horizontal and temporal integration and ongoing processes of dialogue, struggle, learning and adaptation in identifying and pursuing collective goals. This study has examined the emergence of six collaborative governance arrangements in coastal Canada and assessed their contributions to sustainability, adaptation and resilience at the scale of the sub-provincial region. In particular, models of collaborative regional governance that were identified as having a sustainable development approach were investigated. They included two cases from each of three coastal provinces (Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and British Columbia): three focused on watershed management initiatives and three on regional economic development (RED). The objectives of this study were to better explain the concept of collaborative,

336 multi-level governance and how it has been applied in the pursuit of the complex and overarching goal of sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal zones. The degree to which these models have been able to shift the development paths of their respective regions on to more sustainable trajectories and, finally, possible causal relationships between case study characteristics and their outcomes were also explored. The governance structures and processes of each case study were examined within a complex, adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework. The CASES framework, described in Chapter 2, is theorized as an appropriate perspective for investigating complex coastal contexts and sustainability problems. Each case study was then examined by employing a seven-component research framework. Data were collected through observation, documentation and 136 formal, semi-structured interviews with a range of governance case study actors. The research sought to answer four specific questions:

Before summarizing the findings of this research as they relate to each of these questions, it is important to point out that the six case studies examined varied in the extent to which they corresponded with the collaborative governance ideal outlined in Chapters 1 and 3 during the data collection period (2003-2006). All six cases demonstrated a medium to high level of compatibility with at least two key collaborative governance characteristics but only two of six (NS-W and NS-E) illustrated a relatively close fit with all five characteristics outlined in Chapter 1 and above in Figure 30 (see also Appendix 15). The Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed management case (NS-W) was found to be the most consistent with these criteria; the Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E) the least. Increased emphasis on learning, adaptation and

337 partnerships since this time in the NL-E case illustrates the dynamic nature of collaborative governance networks and the time-sensitive nature of such assessments. It is also worth noting that the term collaborative governance is not universally accepted in the case study regions, emphasizing the importance of discussion and agreement on terminology. In Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed, for example, the terms collaborative planning and integrated management are preferred. For the purposes of this document the term collaborative governance is used, consistent with the growing body of literature in this subject area presented in Chapter 3.

10.1 Revisiting the Research Questions

1) Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal regions? In many ways, described in Chapters 6 through 8, they have. This research did not compare changes occurring in these six regions with others that do not have collaborative governance systems in place and significant challenges with monitoring collaborative governance outcomes have been identified. Nevertheless the evidence presented above demonstrates that the case study networks have enhanced individual and governance capacity, facilitated the creation of new jobs, businesses, relationships and cultural revival projects, and invested in reducing pollution and restoring damaged habitats and fish populations. Have they reversed the decline of rural communities and ecosystems in their regions? Overall, the answer is no. The research findings suggest, however, that case study governance systems have stalled the downward spiral of social-ecological decline, helping to avoid system collapse (at least temporarily) and providing an opportunity for learning and adaptation. The ―life support‖ being provided for the Nimpkish salmon by the Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC- W) and ‗Namgis First Nation is a striking example. Where breakdown has occurred collaborative governance initiatives have aided in renewal. Examples include the contributions of Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL- W) to stabilization and partial recovery of local trout stocks and economic diversification assistance provided by regional economic development agencies in regions suffering from downturns in traditional fishing, forestry and mining industries. The success of these

338 initiatives in meeting their objectives and achieving sustainable development outcomes has been modest, but the findings of this research suggest that without these efforts the economies and ecosystems they seek to govern would be more vulnerable to collapse, their recovery more difficult and uncertain. The primary achievements demonstrated by these six collaborative governance case studies have been in creating enhanced governance capacity, including developing relationships and collaborative knowledge and learning systems. Given that relationship and capacity limitations are identified as important resistors to collaborative governance and sustainable development, contributions to governance capacity should not be underestimated. Yet they are often undervalued and poorly assessed in evaluation processes focused on long-term objectives and higher order outcomes. 2) What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in collaborative governance for sustainable coastal development? While each case examined exhibits its own strengths and critical enabling factors, leadership, senior government support, the ability to finance good governance and to enhance skills and knowledge have been key determinants in collaborative governance outcomes to date. Leadership is the most significant enabling factor in the collaborative governance case studies examined, including both watershed management and RED cases. Leadership is provided by individuals of two types within collaborative governance networks: those with primary responsibility for collaborative governance initiatives (described as primary actors and typically based at a local scale), and supporting individuals (enablers) that assume the role of champion within their respective governance institutions, mainly federal and provincial governments. Both play important roles. Diversity and commitment, often linked to a sense of place, are key characteristics within a suite of important leadership qualities. Both qualities are identified as sources of stability and resilience in times of system breakdown (or potential breakdown). In watershed management cases long-term persistence and commitment by individuals, backed by community support, has substituted in part for the absence of formal policy and financial support present in RED cases. Leadership capabilities also support other forms of governance capacity. Strong management skills coupled with adequate resources

339 increase organizational capacity, for example. The ability of leaders to form social networks and build trust is an important component of relational capacity. Each of the case studies Table 42 Resistors and Enablers: Central themes examined provide an illustration 1. Leadership o Primary and supporting of the nested, overlapping

2. Relationships with government hierarchies of collaborative o Power sharing governance described in the o Personal/informal and formal o Flexibility and long-term commitment literature, particularly when a

3. Financial resources holistic, sustainable o Adequate, diverse o Reinvestment development perspective is

4. Knowledge and capacity incorporated. Fostering and o Leadership, relational and organization skills, managing relationships within knowledge systems, learning and adaptation

5. Balance and between these hierarchies is o Appreciating difference while seeking common a critical function within ground o Timing/temporal scale collaborative governance o Complexity, integration and capacity systems. The ability of

6. Nested spatial scales collaborative governance o Region as a key node, dynamic, local foundation o Expanded discretionary reach (down and up) network actors to fulfill this function is described as 7. Principles and values o Commitment to place relational capacity. Sustained o Integration/holism (need for and difficulty of) o Collaboration and good governance collaborative governance relationships involve shared understanding, interests and mutual support along with shared benefits, responsibilities and costs. Financial contributions increase participant power within collaborative governance. Shared costs imply dispersed power and greater opportunities for acquiring the necessary resources to operate effectively. Increased recognition of Aboriginal rights and title has been important in this regard, providing First Nations with access to natural resources, and resource revenues. This, in turn, has resulted in First Nations investment, enhanced participation and increased power in governance processes, particularly in watershed and natural resources management but also in RED, as illustrated by the British Columbia case (BC-E).

340 Success in fostering strong relationships, or relational capacity, is varied within the case study networks. Relational capacity is stronger overall among watershed management than in RED cases and in Nova Scotia compared to British Columbia case study regions. In all cases examples of both weak and strong relationships exist. Collaborative governance involves both informal, personal relationships among individuals, fostered through processes that allow for dialogue and relationship building, and formal institutional relationships, shaped by mechanisms such as written policies, procedures, legislation, budgets, timelines, and agreements. Formal arrangements provide accountability, stability and clarity within the governance system while informal relations are often the ―glue‖ between actors and a conduit for communication and collaboration. In the absence of formal program or policy support for watershed management, relationships with government are described overall as a resistor rather than an enabler of collaborative watershed governance. In RED cases, however, these relationships are conflicted as senior levels of governments act as both an enabler of and a resistor to collaborative efforts. Canada‘s federalist system provides a history of multi-level governance but also adds complexity within governance systems. Success in managing these cross-scale relationships has been mixed. The notion of balance is a recurring theme in the findings of this study. When systems become imbalanced, too rigid or unstable, or power relations too unequal for example, breakdown is likely to occur. Interview respondents describe a continuing search for balance along multiple governance dimensions – balance in temporal scale, among differing agendas and perspectives, and between complexity and integration on one hand and manageable ―systems to be governed‖ on the other. Challenges of integration and building relationships across policy silos are discussed further below. Balance in temporal scale has involved efforts to incorporate features such as short-term action plans, outcomes and responsiveness as well as long-term memory, vision, commitment and resilience in collaborative governance structures and processes. In part, this has been achieved by balancing flexible, informal relationships with more rigid formal relationships and by building opportunities for adaptation into formal and longer- term governance mechanisms.

341 Sub-provincial regions have also offered a middle ground between large and small scale, and bottom-up and top-down processes among the multi-layered spatial scales of collaborative governance within the case study governance networks. In each of these cases the sub-provincial region is a boundary-spanning, or bridging scale between community and provincial and federal levels within collaborative governance systems. Regional governance institutions and processes serve as important nodes in multi-level governance networks. Regions are made up of groupings of prior conceptualizations of place. They vary in geographic and population size, findings illustrating that new scales of governance, often referred to as regions, arise due to new circumstances and newly identified spatial niches. Regional boundaries that are flexible are an enabler of successful collaborative governance. Appropriate region-size is issue, place-specific and dynamic where boundaries are reviewed and permitted to shift over time. While regional boundaries tend to change over time, the findings confirm sustainable communities are the foundation of sustainable regions. Communities belong to multiple regions, including economic and watershed regions. While communities themselves also change, they provide stability in sense-of-place, leadership, commitment and local legitimacy within shifting regional spaces. Long-term relationships with place are an integral part of Aboriginal but also non-Aboriginal coastal cultures within the case study regions that provide resilience in collaborative governance systems and in the broader social-ecological systems they are part of. Resilient complex systems, including collaborative governance systems, have both fluidity and stability. There is a need for new spaces of relations and for places associated with generations of human-ecosystem interactions within collaborative governance, and for actors that associate themselves with both. 3) What barriers and resistors exist to collaborative governance and advancing sustainable development through this governance approach? The case studies examined are held up as successful examples of collaborative governance across the country, yet they face many challenges in advancing sustainable development. Research results related to resistors and barriers again emphasize the importance of relationships, particularly relationships between local actors and provincial and federal governments, and managing conflict, differing agendas and perspectives among network actors. Barriers to improved

342 relationships include unwillingness to share decision-making control and financial resources. While power relationships are being reconfigured in cases where First Nations play an instrumental role, in others local rights of adjacency remain controversial. In all cases local actors struggle to find the resources to participate in and sustain collaboration, often despite the generation of significant resource wealth within their regions. Without investment by senior levels of government, negative interpretations of collaborative governance as a cover for government abandonment and neglect of their responsibilities under a new public management agenda will continue to arise. Access to, but also stability of financial resources contributes to governance system viability and desired outcomes. Struggles over sharing decision-making authority are common within collaborative governance networks. While resistance continues, the case study initiatives demonstrate that authority can be shared, with the aim of reaching agreed upon goals. While the case studies indicate a slow and partial shift within provincial and federal levels toward greater collaboration in planning and decision-making, respondents suggest that ―government needs to be seen as much more open and willing to involve the community in the development of policy and procedures.‖ Canada‘s Oceans Strategy (Canada 2002, i) establishes Integrated Management (IM) plans as ―the central governance mechanism‖ for applying the principles of sustainable development within our oceans and coasts. The findings of this research suggest that the potential of this relatively new federal direction has not yet been realized. Even within the collaborative governance networks examined, with explicit commitments to integration and sustainable development in four of six cases, monitoring and reporting of multiple-objective, sustainable development outcomes is weak, as is integration and collaboration across the related policy fields of watershed management and RED. Watershed management and RED case study actors recognize links between sustainable development imperatives and, in most cases, collaborative governance processes are moving towards a more integrated approach. In the face of resistance from more powerful status quo governing systems, however, sustainable development remains a largely latent rather than explicit and only partially supported orientation and a ―difficult but necessary‖ goal.

343 Governance actors, particularly at provincial and federal levels, often continue to operate in policy silos, although there have been provincial-level efforts in Nova Scotia and, to a lesser extent, Newfoundland and Labrador to build cross-scale linkages within the study period. Federal commitment and capacity to pursue collaborative, sustainable development is highly varied. Struggles between actors advocating traditional approaches and those pursuing more collaborative, integrated models are taking place within agencies such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Western and Atlantic RED agencies appear to be moving in opposite directions on the continuum of siloed vs. integrated governance. Within Service Canada, despite a narrow, rigid approach overall, the results of this study suggest that some regional staff are able to interpret centralized policies in a way that reflects their own perspectives and regional needs. While First Nations and other local actors exhibit an intrinsic understanding of linkages between ecological, social, cultural and economic well-being, in some cases local leaders, relationships, priorities and capacity limitations also serve as resistors to integrated approaches. More holistic, multiple objective monitoring and evaluation processes are needed to demonstrate the integrated nature of development efforts. Complex coastal social-ecological systems call for governance arrangements suited to complexity and uncertainty (Plummer and Armitage 2007). Collaborative governance networks are complex systems. The findings of this research, and of other recent governance studies, demonstrate a need for balance between governance complexity and capacity. New regions add new layers, and thus added complexity to governance systems. Attachments to previous definitions and conceptualizations of region do not disappear within short to medium-scale timeframes. Interactions between new and previously existing layers of spatial scale, therefore, are among the relationships that must be understood and managed within collaborative governance. Inadequate attention to these relationships has created implementation difficulties for models such as the Regional Economic Development Boards of Newfoundland and Labrador. Complexity also increases as the range of issues and objectives to be addressed expands. In cases where policy and funding guidelines allow for increased scope, collaborative governance has become more integrated over time as capacity is built and initial priorities are addressed. Despite increased collaborative governance capacity, real limits to the capacity

344 of collaborative governance systems to understand and manage complexity remain, with much room for enhanced learning and adaptation capabilities within the six collaborative governance case studies examined. Finally, actor values can facilitate and inhibit sustainable development. Values such as stewardship, conservation, and holism can be learned over time, facilitated by collaborative governance experiences. These values are brought in to collaborative governance processes through traditional knowledge that embodies long term memory of social-ecological system interactions, in this case that of the Mik‘maq and ‗Namgis First Nations. Achieving sustainable development outcomes through collaborative governance requires multiple forms of capacity, but also appropriate principles and values, perhaps the greatest challenge facing collaborative governance models. 4) How might barriers/resistors be overcome, or strengths further enhanced? Multi-layered governance requires multi-layered support, with commitment and willingness at all levels to share the power to establish priorities, make decisions, generate and distribute resources. This is a tall order to fill, but the experiences of the six case studies examined suggest that, with time, communication and personal relationships across vertical and horizontal boundaries, multi-level support for collaborative governance can be created and enhanced. A BC watershed management network leader explains: ―If we get the values right, the rest will come.‖ In an environment of trust, open discussion about and review of goals and values can lead to ―double-loop‖ learning and governance guided by principles compatible with sustainable development, collaboration and/or good governance. Open, honest dialogue and social learning about principles and values requires time, trust and even culture change within traditional government institutions and among actors uncomfortable with and ill-equipped for respectful discussion at this level. Actors in each of the case study networks have engaged in dialogue about underlying goals, values and assumptions, but largely outside of formal processes of planning and evaluation. Creating genuine support for a sustainable development approach will require increased openness to, and opportunity for, frank and honest dialogue about the merits of, and commitment to integrated, collaborative approaches to governance and development.

345 Opportunities exist to create synergies between often disparate efforts within different layers and policy silos and between high level dictates such as the Oceans Strategy or Canada‘s Auditor General Act (with its sustainable development reporting requirements), and even international commitments such as Agenda 21, and local level efforts to create more sustainable communities and regions. But success in creating these synergies through collaborative governance must be demonstrated before collaborative governance will become a viable model (or, more accurately, set of potential models) capable of advancing sustainable development within Canada‘s rural coastal social- ecological systems. The impacts of collaborative governance systems must be strengthened and widely communicated and the number of such efforts increased. Only with widespread acceptance and application of these alternative models will change permeate the broader Canadian governance system. Such a change will require new and improved governance capacities at all levels, particularly at the local (community and regional) scale. Enhancing collaborative governance capacity will require more deliberate efforts to enhance learning and adaptation, including improvements in each of the four elements of learning, adaptive governance identified in this research: 1) gathering, managing and sharing knowledge within collaborative knowledge systems; 2) evaluation (formal and informal); 3) individual learning; and 4) linking knowledge with action through planning. Enhancements in learning and adaptation capacity can help overcome other identified resistors. Sharing resources and decision-making power and responsibilities, for example, also requires shared accountability. Shared accountability can be facilitated by collaborative multi-level evaluation processes, processes that require further development in all six cases examined in this thesis. Leadership diversity and recruitment are critical given the reliance on individual leaders. Devoting attention and resources to training and mentoring individuals within collaborative governance processes, recognizing and rewarding leadership at multiple levels will help ensure the long-term viability of collaborative governance systems. Managing relationships is a key function of collaborative governance. More attention to understanding and monitoring interactions among actors, changes in these relationships, and implications for sustainable development outcomes is also needed. This

346 includes relationships and communications with wider policy communities, sharing knowledge of collaborative governance challenges and achievements in an attempt to scale-up collaborative governance efforts. Finally, the capacity of network actors and institutions to understand and manage complexity must be taken into account in the design and operation of collaborative governance systems. When increasing the effectiveness and sustainability of governance systems calls for involving an expanded number of actors, interactions, issues and/or spatial scales, strategies for increasing governance complexity over time are required. The case study examples suggest several strategies for managing increased complexity, including identification of priority areas of focus while at the same time recognizing and seeking to understand multiple actors and issues associated with these priorities, the use of indicators within monitoring and evaluation programs, employing specialist strategies and human resources but also people, processes and/or institutions charged with managing cross-scale linkages. These include organizations and/or processes at the sub- provincial scale that serve as knowledge and communications hubs within governance networks. Hub and spoke models are problematic, however, unless they recognize, foster and support diversity within their regions (working to strengthen the spokes and the rim as well as the hub, or the complete system, to extend the wheel analogy).

10.2 Recommendations and Future Directions

The findings of this research translate into lessons and a series of recommendations for collaborative governance organizations, supporting provincial and federal agencies and for future research. Continued effort to develop improvement-oriented monitoring and evaluation programs are critical. In an era of accountability and scarce resources, without an understanding of, and the ability to demonstrate the outcomes of collaborative governance case study initiatives are likely to become more vulnerable and collaborative governance dismissed as an alternative for governance renewal and sustainable development on Canada‘s coasts. To advance a sustainable development approach and take into account the full range of benefits achieved, more holistic monitoring and evaluation frameworks are required that incorporate social, cultural, economic, ecological and capacity-building improvements. Efforts to foster and monitor capacity change

347 should be linked wherever possible to ―higher order‖ outcomes achieved over time, linking past with current achievements. Barriers to development should also be identified and monitored within these processes. This research has demonstrated that actor relationships can be significant resistors or enablers of sustainable development outcomes. Regional-to-senior government, region-to-community, and community-to-community relationships play a particularly important role. With limited and threatened financial resources, communications and relationship building are often neglected yet the results of this research suggest that fostering and managing relationships should be recognized as an important organizational or network function. Thus goals and objectives related to relationships should be established and planning, resources and a concerted effort made to develop relationships and increase ―relational capacity,‖ including relevant skills, communications systems, and trust within the network. Leadership at multiple levels is critical, but particularly at the local and regional level where ―primary actors‖ are located. Related recommendations include succession planning, fostering leadership through training and mentoring programs and recognizing and supporting actors that take a leadership role within agencies as champions of collaborative governance efforts. Provincial and federal governments can play a role in recognizing these individuals within their institutions and in providing support for capacity-building within collaborative governance networks. Support from government agencies for collaborative governance organizations and processes should take multiple forms, including not only financial resources but also advice and mentorship for individuals, active participation in planning and activities, and policy and legislative support. To reduce financial vulnerability within the network diverse revenue sources are recommended, including revenues that are self-generated and/or reinvestments from resource revenues in relevant sectors, as in the example of forestry royalties in the BC-W case, fisheries in NS-W or investment fund interest in BC-E. Provincial and federal governments can facilitate revenue generation by allowing for flexibility and innovation in revenue-generating activities and reinvesting resource revenues in collaborative governance of natural resources.

348 Multi-year commitments of financial resources should be accompanied by improvement-oriented mechanisms for mutual and multi-level accountability, including linking monitoring and evaluation programs at multiple levels in ways that: a) acknowledge the impacts of one policy arena or level of governance on others; and b) encourage dialogue on how these cross-scale relationships can enable rather than hinder sustainable development efforts. Canada has yet to realize the full potential of integrated management (IM) under the Oceans Act, including the potential to promote integration and collaboration across the related policy fields of watershed management and RED. Greater commitment to, resourcing, and improvement-oriented monitoring of these collaborative governance processes are required. Addressing concerns about the difficulty of achieving integrated, sustainable development, efforts should be made to encourage long-term, holistic visions and goals within IM processes while also focusing on a series of shorter term priorities and actions. Both elements and temporal scales are needed. Finally, regional boundaries for IM and other collaborative governance processes should be open to change over time, but only based on dialogue, learning and recognition of the importance of communities and local, sub-regional actors within regions. These local actors represent a critical source of knowledge, commitment and potential for implementation of plans and policies created by collaborative governance institutions and processes. Finally, the results of this research imply four key areas for future enquiry. First, the discussion of balance above suggests there are thresholds of imbalance beyond which system resilience is threatened. Much of the documentation of CASES thresholds to date has focused on ecosystem collapse (Resilience Alliance and Santa Fe Institute 2004). The findings of this research suggest that there are also thresholds of instability, rigidity, diversity and complexity within governance systems. Although vulnerable to varying degrees, the cases examined have been resilient enough to recover from breakdowns and/or adapt to change since the mid-1990s. What can we learn from those that have not? Examining the role of factors such as flexibility and complexity in examples where collaborative governance models have collapsed offers an opportunity to better understand social system thresholds, acknowledging that thresholds are themselves dynamic and context-sensitive.

349 Second, the topic of collaborative governance capacity requires further research, as do methods of monitoring change in governance capacity and relationships between capacity and longer-term outcomes. This research suggests that opportunities exist for enhancing our ability to understand complexity and manage complex problems within complex systems, therefore changing complexity thresholds. Ostrom (2005) points out that, as individuals, we deal with a lot of complexity in our lives, implicitly making sense of diverse and complex situations. Can these skills be better understood and used within our governing systems? If so, how? Research findings have also highlighted the importance of monitoring and evaluation to learning and adaptation within governance systems. Research is required to identify and assist in the development of improved methods for collaborative, improvement-oriented, multi-objective, and multi-level evaluation frameworks that include measures related to capacity, relationships and communication. Four key types of capacity have been identified in this research: leadership, relational, organizational and learning and adaptation, with indices for each. Collaborative governance organizations have an important ‗relationship manager‘ function, yet efforts to understand and monitor relationships are weak. Further development of indices and techniques such as relationship mapping to assess relational capacity is suggested, contributing to future collaborative governance monitoring and evaluation processes. Inconsistencies suggest that the leadership index employed in this study should be revisited. Tools such Olsen‘s Orders of Outcomes and the Input-Output- Outcome-Impact logic model, modified for rural and coastal community contexts and multi-level governance, also offer promise for better understanding relationships between capacity and ―higher order‖ outcomes. Quantitative factor and social network analyses may also provide greater insight into the relative importance of the indicators and indices examined, particularly when analyzed in conjunction with the results of this and other qualitative studies. Third, continued comparative research is needed. Participants in collaborative governance express a desire to learn more from the experiences of others across Canada. Comparative analysis presented in an appropriate way can contribute to the practice of learning within collaborative governance systems, while at the same time responding to the call for empirical support and enrichment of the CASES framework. In particular,

350 comparative research can shed further light on core themes raised in this research, such as the role of leadership, strategies for increasing leadership capacity or strengthening relationships within governance networks. Comparing themes from the CASES literature with research on social dynamics from the social sciences also offers promise for further development of the CASES framework. Fourth, this research calls for continued, long-term monitoring and observation of collaborative governance case studies. The findings of this three year field research study are rich with lessons learned, but extended observation of these six cases offers potential for greater insight into the challenges and opportunities of collaborative governance on Canada‘s threatened coasts. The CASES and, in particular, panarchy framework examines adaptive cycles and their evolution over time. This thesis and other case study- based literature on collaborative governance and regional development cover a relatively short time frame. The results presented above reflect a limited, three-year window within ongoing, dynamic governance processes. Further, the case studies themselves are relatively new as governance processes and institutions. Long-term monitoring is required to yield further insights into processes of change and adaptation within these complex governance systems, as well as their interactions with broader social-ecological systems, including sustainable development outcomes. MacNeil (2003) suggests that the Bras d‘Or watershed be seen as a laboratory for testing approaches to economic and social development, or as one respondent suggests a ―collaboratory.‖ Follow-up research will be required to monitor the results of investments in stewardship, planning, collaboration and social innovation in the Bras d‘Or, to observe if and how learning is translated into policy and action for sustainable development, and how each of these case studies evolve. Over time, the difficult-to-observe implicit or latent characteristics of these governance models can be better understood. This is particularly important in the Cape Breton cases where the researcher has not had the benefit of multi-year residency. Additional questions that can be observed over time include: Will the BC watershed case (BC-W) become increasingly vulnerable, or will it stabilize as power relationships in the region continue to shift and treaty negotiations are settled? Will watershed actors be able to extend their discretionary reach to marine habitats and international waters? Will the policy intent of IM under the Oceans Act be realized? What

351 are the implications for sustainable development in the Kittiwake region of NL-E‘s shift to a narrower economic focus? Will collaborative governance move beyond an experimental, pilot project mode to become a more widely accepted and applied governance approach? These outstanding questions can only be answered through long- term research and repeated observations. In conclusion, this comparative analysis of six collaborative governance initiatives suggests that collaborative governance offers promise as a governance approach more compatible with sustainable development than those that have led to depleted ecosystems and communities on Canada‘s coasts. While it is too soon to declare collaborative governance a success in shifting the current trajectory of development and decision- making on to a more sustainable path, these cases have slowed the momentum of forces pushing regional coastal systems towards collapse. Each of the six case studies examined differs in its make-up, intent, context and other characteristics. Each has strengths and areas requiring further development. Together, they demonstrate that improved understanding and re-shaping of roles and relationships within interconnected social- ecological systems is possible; that governance systems can build on the strengths provided by long-standing connections to place while being flexible enough to form new relationships and new spaces of interaction. They also demonstrate, however, that there are many challenges to be met and sources of resistance to be overcome in implementing alternative governance models. Traditional forms of governing have proven to be a significant resistor to integrated, collaborative governance. If the tug-of-war between opposing trajectories of change - sustainable and unsustainable – on Canada‘s coasts is to be won by coastal communities and ecosystems, governance alternatives that favour sustainability must be strengthened; their outcomes increased, recorded and communicated; commitment to the principles of sustainable development more genuine. Social learning and expanded discretionary reach will require the continued expansion of collaborative governance networks and capacity. The likelihood that collaborative governance will become more widely applied during the current period of governance renewal and reorganization is dependent on the ability of collaborative governance leaders and institutions to learn, adapt and scale-up their impact.

352 Reference List

Abdellatif, A. 2003 ‗Good Governance and its Relationship to Democracy and Economic Development‘ Paper presented at the Global Forum III on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity, Seoul 20-31 May 2003 Abrams, P., Borrini-Feyerabend,G., Gardner, J., and Heylings, P. 2003 Evaluating Governance: A Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process for a Protected Area, CEPA Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland Abzug, R. 1999 ‗The nonprofit sector and the informal sector: A theoretical perspective‘ Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 10(2), 131-149 ACCA (Atlantic Community Accounts). 2007 ‗Community Account statistics‘, www.communityaccounts.ca/communityaccounts/onlinedata/ACCA/acca_wbindicat ors_detail.asp?varid=gini accessed 6 November 2008 ACOA (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency). 2001 The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Opportunities for Sustainable Development 2001-2003, (Fredericton, NB: ACOA) Adams, B. and Norris, W. 2008 ‗Indian Bay Research Partnerships‘ Presentation to Memorial University – Community Research Partnerships: Resource Management in Marine & Freshwater Environments Workshop, Beaches Heritage Centre NL 21-22 August 2008. Adger, W. 2000 ‗Social and ecological resilience: are they related?‘ Progress in Human Geography 24(3), 347-364 Aglietta, M. 1979 A Theory of Capitalist Regulation - The US Experience (London: Verso) AFER (Ancient Forest Exploration and Research). 1996 Status of Old-Growth Red Pine Forests: A Preliminary Assessment, www.ancientforest.org/flb14.html accessed 5 November 2008 Ahl, V., and Allen, T. 1996 Hierarchy Theory: A vision, vocabulary, and epistemology (New York: Columbia University Press) Alasia, A. 2003 Sub-provincial Income Disparity in Canada Agriculture and Rural Working Paper Series (Ottawa: Statistics Canada) Alder, J., and Ward, T. 2001 ‗Australia's ocean policy — sink or swim?‘ Journal of Environment and Development 10, 266-289 Alexander, D. 1990 ‗Bioregionalism: science or sensibility?‘ Environmental Ethics 12 (2), 161-173 Ali, K., R. Olfert, and M. Partridge. 2007 ‗Urban Footprints in Rural Canada: Employment Spillovers by City Size‘ Presented at the Canadian Urban Institute- Canada Rural Revitalization forum: Developing the Regional Imagination: A National Workshop on Rural-Urban Interaction, Toronto, Ontario. 13 July 13 2007

353 Allemand, S. 2000 ‗Gouvernance. Le pouvoir partage‘ Sciences humaines 101, 12-18 Allen, J., Massey, D., Cochrane, A., Charlesworth, J., Court, J., Henry, N., and Sarre, P. 1998 ‗Rethinking the region 2000‘ Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 82(4), 235-236 Amin A, 2004 ‗Regions unbound: towards a new politics of place‘ Geografiska Annaler B 86, 33-44 Amin, A., and Thrift, N. 2000 ‗What kind of economic theory for what kind of economic geography?‘ Antipode 32:4–9 Amin, A., and Thrift, N. 1995 ‗Globalisation, institutional thickness and the local economy‘ in Managing Cities, eds. P. Healey, S. Cameron, S. Davoudi, S. Graham and A. Madanipour (Chichester: John Wiley), 91-108 Amin, A ed.1994 Post-Fordism: A Reader (Oxford: Blackwell) Andersson, K., and Hoskins, M.W. 2004 ‗Information use and abuse in the local governance of common-pool forest resources‘ Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 14, 295-312 Anderson, J. 2001 ‗On the edge of chaos: Crafting adaptive collaborative management for biological diversity conservation in a pluralistic world‘ in Biological Diversity: Balancing Interests through Adaptive Collaborative Management, eds. L. Buck, C. Geisler., J. Schelhas., and E. Wollenberg (Boca Raton, LA: CRC Press) 171–186 Anderson, R. 1999 Economic Development Among the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada (North York: Captus Press) Anderson, J.E. 1984 Public Policy-making, 3rd ed (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston) Andrew, C. 2005 ‗Place-Based Policy Making‘ Presentation for the Sixth Annual National Forum, Public Policy and Third Sector Initiative, Kingston: Queen‘s University Ansell, C. 2000 ‗The networked polity: Regional development in western Europe‘ Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 13(3), 279-291 (21) Ansell, C. and Gash, A. ‗Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice‘ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543 - 571 Antle, R. 2008 ‗NL a 'have province' for first time since Confederation,‘ The Telegram, St. John‘s. Nov. 4, 2008 Ardron, J. 2003 BC Coast Information Team Marine Ecosystem Spatial Analysis v. 1.2 Excerpted and revised from: Rumsey, C., Ardron, J., Ciruna, K., Curtis, T., Doyle, F., Ferdana, Z., Hamilton, T., Heinemyer, K., Iachetti, P., Jeo, R., Kaiser, G., Narver, D., Noss, R., Sizemore, D., Tautz, A., Tingey, R., Vance-Borland, K. An ecosystem analysis for Haida Gwaii, Central Coast, and North Coast British Columbia. DRAFT, Sept. 22, 2003.URL: www.livingoceans.org/library.htm accessed 7 November 2008.

354 Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1974 Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass) Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1978 Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective (Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley) Armitage, D. 2008 ‗Governance and the commons in a multi-level world‘ International Journal of the Commons 2 (1),7-32 Armitage, D., Berkes, F., and Doubleday, N. eds. 2007 Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press) Armstrong, H.W., Kehrer, B. and Wells, P. 2002 ‗The evaluation of community economic development initiatives‘ Urban Studies, 39 (3), 457-481 Armstrong, J.; Lenihan, D.G. 1999 ‗From controlling to collaborating: when governments want to be partners. a report on the collaborative partnerships project.‘ New Directions. 3, The Institute Of Public Administration of Canada, Toronto Arradotir, E. 2003 ‗The role of innovation systems in rural economic development: A case study of the exploits valley region, NL‘ MSc thesis (St. John‘s, NL: Memorial University of Newfoundland) Arseneau, D. 1975 A Proposal: Management of the Bras d‘Or Coastal Zone Submitted to the Department of Municipal Affairs of Nova Scotia (Sydney, NS: The Bras d‘Or Institute, College of Cape Breton) 15 December, 1975 ------. 1977 A Proposal for a Resource Development Strategy for the Bras d‘Or Lakes (Sydney, NS: The Bras d‘Or Institute, College of Cape Breton) April 1977 Asheim, B. 2007 ‗The learning firm in the learning region: innovating through cooperation and social capital building‘ in Europe - Reflections on Social capital, Innovation & Regional Development, eds. M. Landabaso., A. Kuklinski., and C. Román (WSB-NLU) Asheim, B. T., and Gertler, M. 2005 ‗The Geography of Innovation: Regional. Innovation Systems‘, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., and Nelson, R. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. (New York: Oxford University Press) Asselin, R. 2001 The Canadian Social Union: Questions about the Division of Powers and Fiscal Federalism (Ottawa: Political and Social Affairs Division, Library of Parliament, Canada) www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0031- e.htm#(12) accessed 6 November 2008. ATBC (Aboriginal Tourism Association of British Columbia). 2008 www.aboriginalbc.com/trellis/First_Nations_Summary accessed 6 November 2008 Aucoin, P. 2001 ‗The design of public organizations for 21st century: why bureaucracy will survive in public management‘ Canadian Public Administration 40(2), 290-306 Aus, J. 2005 ‗Conjunctural Causation in Comparative Case-Oriented Research: Exploring the Scope Conditions of Rationalist and Institutionalist Causal Mechanisms‘

355 www.arena.uio.no/publications/working-papers2005/papers/wp05_28.pdf accessed 6 November 2008. Australia. 2002 The Framework for Marine and Estuarine Water Quality Protection (Canberra: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) Babbie, E. 1986 The Practice of Social Research, Fifth Edition, (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing) Backhaus, J. 1999 ‗Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in Environmental Policy‘ Paper provided by Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization, Research Memoranda 018, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Baird Planning Associates. 2001 Taking Stock of the Regional Economic Development Process: Background and Overview, Recommendations and Action Plans (St. John‘s: Baird Planning Associates) Baker, H. 1993 ‗Building multi-community rural development partnerships.‘ in The structure, theory and practice of partnerships in rural development, ed. RC Rounds (Brandon, Manitoba: Canadian Agriculture and Rural Restructuring Group, Rural Development Institute, University of Brandon) Baker, M. 2003 ‘History of Newfoundland and Labrador summary chronology of events‘ Prepared for Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada. St. John‘s, NL Baker, M., and Pitt, J. 1988 ‗The third tier: A historical overview of the development of local government in Newfoundland and Labrador‘, Convention of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, October 7-9, 1988 , St. John's, Newfoundland, 39-43 Baldacchino, G., and Milne, D. eds. 2000 Lessons from the Political Economy of Small Islands: The Resourcefulness of Jurisdiction (London: Macmillan) Banathy, B. 1997 Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. Series: Contemporary Systems Thinking (New York: Springer) Bantjes, R. 2004 ‗Regionalism and environmental governance in Atlantic Canada‘ in Regionalism in a Global Society: Persistence and Change in Atlantic Canada and New England, eds. S. Tomblin and C. Colgan (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press) Baptista, R. 2000 ‗Do innovations diffuse faster with geographic clusters?‘ International Journal of Industrial Organization 18, 515-535 Barabási, A-L. 2002 Linked: The New Science of Networks (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing) Barrington, S. 2005 ‗Developing a strategic action plan for the Denys Basin Watershed, Nova Scotia‘ MSc Thesis (Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University)

356 Barlow-Irick, P. 1997 ‗Barriers to Making Order out of Chaos: species with fuzzy boundaries‘, www.largocanyon.org/science/species/intro.htm accessed 6 November 2008 Barnes, T., J. and Hayter, R. 1994 ‗Economic restructuring, local development and resource towns: Forest communities in coastal British Columbia‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science 17( 3 ), 289-310 Bass, J. 2007 ‗Fort Rupert Reconstruction Primer‘ http://ccpcura.anso.ubc.ca accessed 6 November 2008 Battram, A. 1998 Navigating Complexity: The Essential Guide to Complexity Theory in Business and Management (London: The Industrial Society) Baumgartner, F. and B. Jones. 1993 Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) BC (British Columbia) (BC Stats). 2008 ‗Socio-Economic Profiles‘ www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca accessed 6 November 2008. -----. 2007 http://guidetobceconomy.org/major_industries/goods_sector.htm accessed 6 November 2008 ----. 2007b Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture Final Report 3rd Session, 38th Parliament 16 May, 2007, Victoria, BC ----. 2006 Building Stronger Communities, Report of the Task Force on Community Opportunities (Victoria, BC) ----. 2006b British Columbia‘s Coastal Environment 2006 Victoria, BC. ----. 2005 Economic Hardship Indices by Regional District, 2005 Education Concerns Indices (Victoria, BC: BC Stats) ----. 2004 Provincial – British Columbia (Victoria, BC: Office of the Auditor-General) ---- (Provincial Health Officer). 2001 Report on the Health of British Columbians- Provincial Health Officer‘s Annual Report 2000 - Drinking Water Quality in British Columbia: The Public Health Perspective (Victoria, BC: Ministry of Health Planning) ----. 1999 Biodiversity in BC (Victoria, BC: Environmental Stewardship Division, Ministry of the Environment) BCBC (Business Council of BC). 2007 ‗A Dramatic Turnaround‘ www.bcbc.com/bcjobs/move_forward.asp accessed 6 November 2008. BC (British Columbia) Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. 1991 Closer to Home, Summary of the Report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care Costs (Victoria, BC: Royal Commission on Health Care Costs) BC Treaty Commission. 2007 ‗Negotiation Update‘ www.bctreaty.net/files/updates.php accessed 6 November 2008. Beckley, T., Parkins, J., and Stedman, R. 2002 ‗Indicators of forest-dependent community sustainability: the evolution of research‘ For. Chron. 78(5), 626–636

357 Bell, T. 2002 ‗MUN NL History website‘ www.mun.ca accessed 6 November 2008 Bell, T., and Liverman, D. 1997 http//www.heritage.nf.ca/environment/landscape.html Bendavid-Val, A. 1991 ‗An idealized planning model‘ in Regional and Local Economic Analysis for Practitioners, A. Bendavid-Val (London: Praeger) Bennett, J. 2008 ‗Presentation at Centreville Strategic Economic Plan Consultation Session‘ Centreville-Wareham-Trinity, NL. June 2008 Berkes, F. 2007 ‗Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the many faces of co-management‘ in Adaptive Co-Management, eds. D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press), 19-37 Berkes, F. 2004 ‗Rethinking community-based conservation‘ Conservation Biology 18(3), 621-630 Berkes, F., Bankes, N., Marschke, M., Armitage, D., and Clark, D. 2005 ‗Cross-scale institutions and building resilience in the Canadian North‘ in Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North, eds. F. Berkes., A. Diduck., H. Fast., R. Huebert., and M. manseau (Calgary: The University of Calgary Press), 225-247 Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. 2003 ‗Introduction‘ In Navigating Social- Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, eds. F.J Berkes., J. Colding., and C. Folke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Berkes, F., and Folke, C. 2001 ‗Back to the future: Ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge‘ In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC, Island Press), 121-146 ----- 1995 ‗A Framework for the Study of Indigenous Knowledge: Linking Social and Ecological Systems‘ Presented at "Reinventing the Commons‘, the Fifth Annual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, May 24-28, 1995, Bodoe, Norway Berneshawi, S. 1993 ‗Netukulimk: Resource management and the involvement of the Mi‘kmaq Nation‘ MA Thesis (Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University) Berry, M. 2002 ‗A brief history of Nimpkish (Gwa‘ni) Hatchery,‘ in Hatcheries and the Protection of Wild Salmon: Proceedings, eds. P. Gallaugher, J. Penikett and C. Orr, Proceedings document for Hatcheries and the Protection of Wild Salmon (Burnaby: Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University) Berton, P. 1997 1967, the last great year (Toronto: Doubleday) Bickers, K. and Williams, J. 2001 Public Policy Analysis: A Political Economy Approach. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin) Bickerton, J., and Gagnon, A. 2008 ‗Regions‘ in Comparative Politics, ed. D. Caramani (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Birner, R., and Wittmer, H. 2001 ‗Converting Social Capital into Political Capital‘, Paper Presented at Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New

358 Millenium 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), Bloomington, Indiana from May 31-June 4, 2000 Bish, R.L. 2002 Accommodating multiple boundaries for local services: British Columbia‘s local governance system (Victoria, BC: University of Victoria) Bish, R.L. 2001 Local Government Amalgamations: Discredited Nineteenth-Century Ideals Alive in the Twenty-First (Ottawa ON: C.D. Institute Commentary 150). Bishop, H. 1994 Newfoundland Country video. Title #: 781.642 N45. Lyrics available at: http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/05/turrs.htm Black, J. 1999 Development in Theory and Practice: Bridging the Gap (Boulder: Westview) Blunden, G., Moran, W., and Cocklin, C. 1995 ‗Sustainability, Real Regulation, Scale and Context‘ IGU, August, 1995 Blake, R. 2003 Regional and Rural Development Strategies in Canada: The Search For Solutions Prepared for the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada (St. John‘s, NL: Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada) Bodley, J. 1994 Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System (NY: McGraw-Hill) Boggs, J. and Rantisi, N. 2003 ‗The relational turn in economic geography‘ Journal of Economic Geography 3, 109-116 Bond, W., O'Farrell, D., Ironside, G., Buckland, B., and Smith, R. 2005 Environmental Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting: An Overview for Canada Background Paper to an Environmental Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting Strategy, 2004–2009 (Gatineau, QC: Environment Canada, Knowledge Integration Strategies Division) Bonta, M. and Protevi, J. 2004 Deleuze and Geophilosophy: A Guide and Glossary (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) Boothroyd, P. and Davis, C. 1991 The Meaning of Community Economic Development UBC Planning Papers Discussion Paper No. 25 (Vancouver, BC: UBC) Bossel, H. 2001 ‗Assessing viability and sustainability: A systems-based approach for deriving comprehensive indicator sets‘ Conservation Ecology 5(2),12 URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art12/ last accessed 6 November 2008 Bossel, H. 1999 Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications. — A Report to the Balaton Group (Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development) Bossel, H. 1998 Earth at a Crossroads: Paths to a Sustainable Future (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Bourgon, J. 1998 ‗A Voice for All: Engaging Canadians for Change‖ notes for address by Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet presented at the Institute on Governance conference, Aylmer, Quebec 27 October 1998

359 Bras d‘Or Lakes Working Group. 1995 ‗Taking Care of the Bras d‘Or: A New Approach to Stewardship of the Bras d‘Or Watershed‘ in Proceedings of the Bras d‘Or Lakes Aquaculture Conference (Sydney: College of Cape Breton Press) Brenner, N. 2001 ‗The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration‘ Progress in Human Geography 25, 591–614 Briscoe, A. and Burns, M. 2004 Seven Reports on the Identification of Rural Indicators for Rural Communities: 4. Local Institutional Capacity. Prepared for the Rural Secretariat of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Ottawa, ON: New Rural Economy Project, Phase 2 (NRE2)) Broadbent, S. 2006 Cooperation and Competition in Region Building: The Role of Incentives (Victoria, BC: Local Government Knowledge Partnership, Local Government Institute) Brock, K. and Banting, K. 2001 ‗The non-profit sector and government in a new century: An introduction‘ in The Nonprofit Sector and Government in a New Century, eds. K. Brock and K. Banting (Kingston: Queens University Press) Brock, W. 2004 Tipping Points, Abrupt Opinion Changes and Punctuated Policy Change (Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Economics University of Wisconsin) URL: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2003-28.pdf last accessed 6 November 2008 Brodie, J. 1990 The Political Economy of Canadian Regionalism (Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch) Brody, A., Demetriades, J., and Esplen, E. 2008 Gender and Climate Change: Mapping the Linkages - A Scoping Study on Knowledge and Gaps (Brighton: Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex) Brohman, J. 1996 Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of Development. (London: Blackwell Publishing) Brown, D. 1999 The Impact of Global and Regional Integration on Federal Political Systems: A Baseline Study (Kingston, ON: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations. Queens University) Brown, K. 1994 C.B. County Economic Development Authority, Strategic Economic Action Plan, August 1994 (Sydney, NS: Cape Breton County Economic Development Authority) Brueckner, J. 2000 ‗Welfare reform and the race to the bottom: Theory and evidence‘ Southern Economic Journal 66(3), 505-525. Bruce, D. and Gadsen, P. 1998 Quality of Life in Rural and Small Town Newfoundland (Sackville, NB: Mount Allison University, Rural and Small Town Programme) Brunnen, B. 2006 Economic Performance and Economic Regions in the New Economy: Foundations, Strategy and Governance University of Victoria Local Government Institute Working Paper (Victoria, BC: University of Victoria)

360 Bryant, C. 1999 ‗Community Change in Context‘ in Communities, Development and Sustainability Across Canada, eds. J.T. Pierce, and A. Dale (Vancouver: UBC Press), 69-89 Bryant, C. 1997 A good backgrounder on the history of government involvement in CED in Nova Scotia (Halifax, NS: Community Economic Development Division, Nova Scotia Department of Economic Development) Bryant, C. 1995 ‗The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe‘ Journal of Rural Studies 11(3), 255-267 Bryson, J. and Crosby, B. 1992 Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared Power World (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass) Byrne, D. 1998 Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences (London: Routledge) Buenza, D. and Stark, D. 2003 ‗The organization of responsiveness: innovation and recovery in the trading rooms of lower Manhattan‘ Socio-economic Review 1, 135- 164 Buffinga, A. 2001 ‗The influence of cultural values and reasoned action on local attitudes towards the management of the Indian Bay recreational fishery project‘ MA Thesis (St. John‘s, NL: Memorial University of NL) Bunnell, F. 2002 URL: http://www.resalliance.org/593.php last accessed 6 November 2008 Buttimer, A. 1995 Landscape and Life: Appropriate Scales for Sustainable Development (Dublin: University College Dublin) Buttimer, A. (ed.) 2001 Sustainable Landscapes and Lifeways: Scale and Appropriateness (Cork: Cork University Press) Cameron, J., and Gibson, K. 2005 ‗Alternative pathways to community and economic development: The Latrobe Valley Community Partnering Project‘ Geographical Research 43(3), 274-85 Cameron, V. 2006 ‗Source Water Protection: Who‘s Accountable? What works?‘ Presentation to Water and Cities Conference‘ Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, June 14-16th 2006 Campbell, D. 1975 ‗Degrees of freedom and the case study‘ Comparative Political Studies 8, 178-185 Campfens, H. 1997 Community Development Around The World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training (Toronto: University of Toronto Press) Canada (Treasury Board). 2008a http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/eval_e.asp accessed 6 November 2008 ----- (NRCan). 2008b. http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/statsprofile/economicimpact/ accessed 6 November 2008 -----. 2007a ‗The Gulf of St. Lawrence - A Unique Ecosystem‘ http://www.glf.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/sci-sci/goslim-gigsl/s-2-e.jsp. accessed 6 November 2008

361 -----. 2007b ‗Equalization Program‘ www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html accessed 6 November 2008 -----. 2007c ‗Ecozones of Canada‘ http://www.ccea.org/ecozones/index.html accessed 6 November 2008 -----. 2007d www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nl/terranova/natcul/natcul7_E.asp accessed 6 November 2008 -----. 2007e http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Ceilidh/html/gaeliccb_godeeper.html accessed 6 November 2008 -----. 2005a ‗Management, Resources and Results Structure Policy‘ www.tbs- sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12412§ion=text#4 accessed 6 November 2008 ----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2005b Canada‘s Oceans Action Plan for Present and Future Generations (Ottawa, ON: DFO) ----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2005c Policy for Conservation of Wild Salmon (Vancouver, BC: DFO) ----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2004a A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries on Canada‘s Atlantic Coast (Ottawa, ON: DFO) -----. 2004b ‗Great Lakes Action Plan‘ http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/greatlakes/action- plan-e.html accessed 6 November 2008 -----. 2003a ‗Water in Canada‘ http://www.wateryear2003.org/ accessed 6 November, 2008 -----. 2003b www.atl.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/plover/brochure/page6.html -----. 2003c ‗Success through Partnerships – Shellfish Program Benefits Bras d‘Or‘ www.atl.ec.gc.ca/aboriginal/unamaki/shellfish_e.html accessed 6 November, 2008 ----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2002 Canada‘s Oceans Strategy (Ottawa ON: DFO Oceans Directorate) http://www.cos-soc.gc.ca/doc/publications_e.asp. -----. 2000 Canada‘s National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (NPA) (Ottawa, ON: Federal/Provincial/Territorial Advisory Committee, Minister of Public Works and Government, Services Canada) http://www.npa-pan.ca/en/publications/npa/toc.cfm. -----. 1996a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. People to People, Nation to Nation: Highlights from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) ----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 1996b Oceans Act s.c. 1996, c. 31. http://www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/oceans/OceansAct/oceansact_e.htm Canadian Boreal Initiative. 2007 ‗The Canadian Boreal Initiative‘ www.borealcanada.ca/framework_e.cfm accessed 6 November 2008 Canfor. 2005 Sustainable Forest Management Plan 9 - Nimpkish DFA and TFL 37 (Vancouver, BC: Canfor)

362 Canmac Economics Limited and Dan White and Associates Limited. 2005 Economic Impact of Federal Development Assistance on Cape Breton Island Report commissioned by ECBC (Sydney, NS: ECBC) Cardenas, J. 2008 Incomplete democracy. A retrospective view of Peru's governability following the transition (1980 - 2001) Should the concept of governability be redefined? (Madrid, Spain: Center for International Relations and Development Studies. Latin America Programme) Workshop No. 26 Carlsson, L., and Berkes, F. 2003 Co-Management across Levels of Organization: Concepts and Methodological Implications‘ Presented at Politics of the Commons: Articulating Development and Strengthening Local Practices, Chiang Mai, Thailand, July 11-14, 2003 Carney, D. ed. 1998 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make? (London, UK: DFID) Carr, D., Selin, S. and Scuett, M. 1998 ‗Managing public forests: understanding the role of collaborative planning‘ Environmental Management 22, 767 Carter, S. 2007 ‗Pitu‘paq - Flowing into Oneness: A unique collaborative partnership of the Mayors, Wardens and First Nation Chiefs of Cape Breton (Unama‘ki).‘ Cashin, R. 2005 Report of the Chairman of the Raw Materials Sharing Review Committee (St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador) Cashore, B., Hoberg, G., Howlett, M., Rayner, J. and Wilson, J. 2001 In Search of Sustainability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s (Vancouver: UBC Press) Castells, M. 2000 The rise of the network society, 2nd edition (Oxford: Blackwell) Castells, M. 1989 The informational city (Oxford, Blackwell) Cattan, N., Baudet-Michel, S., Berroir, S., Bretagnolle, A., Buxeda, C., Dumas, E., Guérois, M., Sanders, L., Saint-Julien, T., Allain, R., Baudelle, G., Charles Le Bihan, D., Cristescu, J., and Cunningham-Sabot, E. 2004 Critical Dictionary of Polycentricity: The Role, Specific Situation and Potentials for Urban Areas as Nodes of Polycentric Development ESPON Project 1.1.1 Report (Grand-Duche de Luxembourg: ESPON – European Spatial Planning Observation Network) CBCEDA (Cape Breton Community Economic Development Authority). 2008 ‗Present State of Economy‘ URL: http://www.cbceda.org/Index.php?PageID=33&SubGroupID=4 last accessed 6 November, 2008 CBRM (Cape Breton Regional Municipality). 2004 Municipal Planning Strategy and Land Use Bylaw (Sydney, NS: CBRM) CBU (Cape Breton University). 2008 URL: http://mrc.uccb.ns.ca/mcihome.html last accessed 6 November, 2008 -----. 2006 URL:www.msit.capebretonu.ca last accessed 6 November, 2008 CCEDNet (Canadian CED Network). 2008 URL: http://www.ccednet-rcdec.ca/ last accessed 6 November, 2008.

363 -----. 2005 The Need for New Funding Arrangements for Community Programs in Employment and Skills Development, Submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities (Ottawa, ON: CCEDNet) -----. 2004 ‗Concerns with Administrative Procedures of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada‘, August 31. Ottawa, ON CCFS (Celtic Colours Festival Society). 2005 http://celtic-colours.com accessed 4 November 2008 CEC (Commission of the European Communities). 2001 European Governance: A White Paper (Brussels: CEC) Centre for Community Enterprise .1999 Community Resilience Manual: A Resource for Rural Recovery and Renewal. December 1999 Draft (Port Alberni, BC: Centre for Community Enterprise). CEPI (The Bras d‘Or Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative). 2006 Bras d‘Or Lakes Traditional Ecological Knowledge Workshop Proceedings Proceedings of the workshop held May 3-4, 2006 (Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative) -----. 2006 Toward a Bras d‘Or Lakes and Watershed Environmental Management Plan Report prepared for the Bras d‘Or Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative) -----. 2004 Proceedings of the 2004 Bras d‘Or Lakes Workshop prepared for the Bras d‘Or Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative) -----. 2003 Proceedings of the 2003 Bras d‘Or Lakes Workshop Report prepared for the Bras d‘Or Collaborative Planning Initiative (Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative) CFDCMW (Community Futures Development Corporation of Mt. Waddington). 2008a URL: www.cfmw.ca/board-staff.html accessed 4 November 2008 -----. 2008b ‗Community Futures Mount Waddington – Growing communities one idea at a time‘ Port McNeill, BC. -----. 2004 ‗Community Futures Development Corporation Annual Report 2003/04‘ Port McNeill, BC. Chapman, K. 2005 ‗From 'growth centre' to 'cluster': restructuring, regional development, and the Teesside chemical industry‘ Environment and Planning A 37(4), 597–615 Chandoke, N. 1995 State and Civil Society Exploration in Political Theory (New Delhi: Sage). Charles, A.T., Boyd, H., Lavers, A, and Benjamin, C. 2001 The Nova Scotia GPI Fisheries and Marine Environment Accounts: A Preliminary Set of Ecological, Socioeconomic and Institutional Indicators for Nova Scotia‘s Fisheries and Marine Environment (Halifax, NS: Management Science/Environmental Studies, Saint Mary‘s University)

364 Checkland, P. 1981 Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Chichester: John Wiley). Chenoweth, J., Malano, H. and Bird, J. 2001 ‗Integrated river basin management in multi- jurisdictional river basins: the case of the Mekong River Basin‘ International Journal of Water Resources Development 17 (3), 365-377. Chippett, J. D. 2004 ‗An examination of the distribution, habitat, genetic and physical characteristics of Fundulus diaphanous, the banded killifish, in Newfoundland‘ M.Sc Thesis (St. John‘s, NL: Memorial University of Newfoundland). Chippett, J. D. 2003 ‗Update COSEWIC status report on the banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus, Newfoundland population in Canada‘ in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous in Canada (Ottawa: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) Christensen, R. 2004 ‗Non-Sovereigns Formalizing the Potency of the Informal Sector? Institutional Analysis of Nongovernmental Organizations Prescribing, Invoking, Monitoring, Applying, and Enforcing Policy.‘ Paper Presented at the EGDI-WIDER Conference, "Unlocking Human Potential: Linking the Informal and Formal Sectors," Helsinki, Finland, 17-18 September 2004 Christmas, P. 1977. ‗Supplement on Mi‘kmaq‘ Mi‘kmaq Association for Cultural Studies: http://www.mikmaq- assoc.ca/Historical%20Articles/Supplement%20on%20Mi'kmaq%201977.htm Cicin-Sain, B. and R. W. Knecht. 1998 Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management Concepts and Practices (Washington D.C.: Island Press) Cilliers, P. 1998 Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems (London: Routledge) Clapp, R. A. 1998 ‗The resource cycle in forestry and fishing‘ The Canadian Geographer 42 (2): 129-44 Clark, G. L. 1992 ‗Real regulation: the administrative state‘ Environment and Planning A, 24: 615-627 Close, D. 2007 ‗The Newfoundland and Labrador Strategic Social Plan: Governance Misconceived and Ill-Applied‘ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago Cluster Competitiveness Task Force. 2004 Winning the Job Wars of the Future: A Competitiveness Plan for the Research Triangle Region (North Carolina: Research Triangle Regional Partnership) Clutterbuck, P. and M. Novick. 2003 Building Inclusive Communities: Cross-Canada Perspectives and Strategies A Report Prepared for the Laidlaw Foundation and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. URL: http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/Clutterbuck_Novick_Inclusiv.pdf. accessed 10 December 2008 CNLACTR (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Action Team for Cod Recovery). 2005. A Strategy for the Recovery and Management of Cod Stocks in Newfoundland

365 and Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Action Team for Cod Recovery) CNN (Cable News Network). 2006 ‗CNN Larry King Live: Interview with Paul McCartney, Heather Mills McCartney‘ CNN, Atlanta. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/03/lkl.01.html accessed 3 March 2006 Coady, L. 2007 Dynamics of Change, The view up-close. How does it feel? A Canadian Forest Sector Example from the BC Coastal Temperate Rainforest, presentation Coastal Resources Centre (CRC). 2002 A World of Learning in Coastal Management: A Portfolio of Coastal Resources Management Program Experience and Products Coastal Management Report #2235 (Narragansett, RI University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center) -----. 2001 Future Directions in Integrated Coastal Management: The Consensus from Block Island (Narragansett, RI University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources Center) URL: http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/BFUTDIR.PDF Cocklin, C., Blunden, G., and Moran, W. 1997 ‗Sustainability, spatial hierarchies and land-based production,‘ in Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: A Geographical Perspective, (eds.) B. Ilbery, Q. Chiotti, and T. Rickard (Wallingford: CAB International) 25-39 Coe, S. 2006 ‗Regions and Economic Development Policies: A Comparative Perspective. The Role of Collaboration and Functional Governance in Regional Economic Development‘. Local Government Knowledge Partnership, Local Government Institute, University of Victoria School of Public Administration. Victoria, BC Coe, N. M., and Yeung, H. W. 2001 ‗Geographical perspectives on mapping globalization: An introduction‘ to the JEG special issue ―Mapping globalization: Geographical perspectives on international trade and investment.‖ Journal of Economic Geography 1,367–80 Coffey, W. and Bailly A. 1996 ‗Economic restructuring: a conceptual framework‘ in The Spatial Impact of Economic Changes in Europe, eds. A. Bailly and W. Lever (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants) 13 – 37 Cohen, S., de Loe, R., Hamlet, A. Herrington, R. Mortsch, L. and Shrubsole, D. 2002 ‗Integrated and Cumulative Threats to Water Availability‘ in Threats to Water Availability in Canada (Ottawa, ON: National Water Research Institute and the Meteorological Service of Canada) Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. 1990 'Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.' Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), 128-152

366 Colebatch, H.K. ed. 2006 Beyond the Policy Cycle: The policy process in Australia (Sydney: Allen & Unwin) Coleman, J. 1988 ‗Social capital in the creation of human capital‘ American Journal of Sociology 94 supplement, 95-120 College of the North Atlantic (CONA) 2002 Monitoring and Evaluation Handbook: Regional Economic Development in Newfoundland and Labrador Prepared on behalf of the Long Range Regional Economic Development Board (Stephenville NL: Long Range Regional Economic Development Board) Connell, J. and Kubisch, A. 1998 `Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects and problems' in New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory, Measurement, and Analysis, eds. K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. Kubisch and J. Connell (Washington, DC: Aspen Institute) Connor, R., and Dovers, S. 2004 Institutional Change for Sustainable Development (Cheltenham: Edward Elger) Cooke, P. 2001 ‗From Technopoles to Regional Innovation Systems: The Evolution of Localised Technology Development Policy‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 24, 21-40 Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. 1998 The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. (New York: Oxford University Press) Connections Research and Central Consulting Services. 2003 Out of Sight, Out of Mind – Community Does Matter! A Study of the Mandate and Roles of the Rural Development Associations and the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council Prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council Copes, P. 1971 Community Resettlement and Rationalization of the Fishing Industry in Newfoundland (Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University Department of Economics and Commerce) COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2006 COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in Canada (Ottawa, ON: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) URL: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm COST (European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research). 2003 European City-regions in an Age of Multi-level Governance: Reconciling Competitiveness and Social Cohesion Technical Annex to Draft Memorandum of Understanding for the implementation of a European Concerted Research Action designated as COST Action A26 (Brussels: Council of the European Union) Coté, D. 2005 ‗Using stewardship, long term monitoring and adaptive management to restore the Atlantic salmon population of the Northwest River‘ Technical Report in Ecosystem Science 43 Parks Canada, Canadian Heritage Cox, K. R. 1998 ‗Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics‘ Political Geography 17, 1–23

367 Cowan, R., N. Jonard and M. Ozman. 2003 Knowledge Dynamics in a Network Industry MERIT (Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology) Infonomics Memorandum Series (Maastricht, The Netherlands: MERIT and International Institute of Infonomics) Cox, S.P. and Hinch, S.G., 1997 ‗Changes in size at maturity of Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) (1952-1993) and associations with temperature‘ Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54, 1159-1165 CUS (Coasts Under Stress). 2003 Coasts Under Stress Newsletter: www.coastsunderstress.ca accessed 10 November 2008 Creech, H. 2001 Form Follows Function: Management and Governance of a Formal Knowledge Network (Winnipeg. MB: IISD) Cressman, E.M. 1987 A Proposal Concerning Integrated Management for the Bras d‘Or Lake watershed (Dartmouth, NS: Environment Canada) Crowder, L., Osherenko, G., Young, O.R., Airame, S., Norse, E.A., Baron, N., Day, J.C. Douvere, F., Ehler, C.N., Halpern, C.B., Langdon, S.J., McLeod, K.L., Ogden, J.C., Peach, R.E., Rosenberg, A.A. Wilson, J.A. 2006 ‗Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance‘ Science 13, 617-618 CSC (Community Services Council). 2004 The Nonprofit Sector as a Force for Sustainability and Renewal in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Submission to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador‘s Program Renewal Submitted by the Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: CSC) Daly, H. 2006 Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development (Boston: Beacon Press Books) D‘Aoust, R. 2000 Summary Report of the Conference on May 3rd, 2000 on Modernizing Governance (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Management Development) Dahrendorf, R. 1995 Economic Opportunity, Civil Society and Political Liberty (Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development) Davidson, D. 2001 ‗Federal Policy in Local Context: The Influence of Local State- Societal Relations on Endangered Species Act Implementation. Policy Studies Review. 18(1) 212-240 Davoudi, S. 2005 'The Northern Way: A Polycentric Megalopolis' The Yorkshire & Humber Regional Review, Spring 2005 Davoudi, S., Strange, I., and Wishardt, M. 2004 WP5: Governing Polycentricity Report on Espon Project 1.1.1. The Role, Specific Situation and Potentials for Urban Areas as Nodes of Polycentric Development (Leeds UK: Centre for Urban Development and Environmental Management, Leeds Metropolitan University) Dekker, P., and van den Broek, A. 1998 ‗Civil society in comparative perspective.‘ Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 9(1) Demetrion, G. 2004 Postpositivist Scientific Philosophy: Mediating Convergences. www.the-rathouse.com/Postpositivism.htm. A monograph based on Demetrion, G.

368 2004 Conflicting paradigms in adult literacy education: In quest of a U.S. democratic politics of literacy (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) Dent, E. B. 1999 'Complexity science: A worldview shift' Emergence 7(4), 5-19 Denny, S. 2006 ‗Native rights to lobster balanced by science‘ Shunpiking: The discovery magazine 3(7), www.shunpikig.com/ol0307/index.html Desjardins, P., Paul A., Hobson, R. and Savoie, D. 1994 Trade, Equalization and Regional Disparities in Canada (Moncton, NB: Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development University of Moncton) de Peuter, J., and Sorensen, M., with contributions by J. Lambert, R. Bollman, C. Binet, and J. Hannes. 2005. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991-2001) Canadian Rural Partnership Rural Research and Analysis, Prepared for the Rural Secretariat, Government of Canada URL: http://www.rural.gc.ca/research/profile/nl_e.phtml accessed 12 November 2008 DeWeese-Boyd, M. 2007 ‗Between history and tomorrow: Making and breaking everyday life in rural Newfoundland‘ Community Development Journal 42, 137-140 DFO/FOC (Department of Fisheries and Oceans/Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007a www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species/species_searchLocation_e.asp accessed 12 November 2008 ----. 2007b Stock Assessment of Northern (2J3KL) Cod in 2007 (Ottawa, ON: DFO) ----. 2007c. Stock Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Salmon 2006 Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report (St. John‘s: DFO) ----. 2006a. Overview Snow Crab Fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador - Backgrounder (St. John‘s: DFO) ----. 2006b. ‗Management of the Newfoundland and Labrador lobster fishery‘ Presentation to Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Ottawa, ON ----. 2006c. ‗American Lobster in NL‘ Presentation to Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Ottawa, ON ----. 2005 State of the Fisheries British Columbia www.pac.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/reports/fisheries05/stats_e.htm accessed 12 November 2008 ----- 2002 Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Environments in Canada (Ottawa: Oceans Directorate) URL: www.cos-soc.gc.ca/doc/im-gi/index_e.asp -----. 2001a The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative: Development of a Collaborative Management and Planning Process A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Federal-Provincial ESSIM Working Group (Dartmouth, NS: DFO) ----. 2001b ESSIM Issues, Challenges and Opportunities Discussion Paper (Dartmouth, NS: DFO) ----. 1999 Improving DFO Stakeholder Relations (Ottawa, ON: DFO)

369 ----. 1997. Middle Shoal Channel Improvement Reconsideration of the Screening Report Habitat Status Report 97/1 E (Dartmouth NS: DFO Maritimes Region) Diamant, P. 1997 " Restructuring Local Government: Where Do We Go From Here?" in Changing Rural Institutions R. Rounds, ed. (Brandon, Manitoba: The Rural Development Institute, Brandon University) Diamond, J. 2005 Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. (New York: Viking Press) -----. 1997 Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (Mississauga, ON: Random House) Dicken, P. 2007 Global Shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy (London: Sage) ----. 1994 ‗The Roepke lecture in economic geography—global-local tensions: Firms and states in the global space-economy‘ Economic Geography 70,101–28 Dobell, R. and Bunton, M. 2001 Sound Governance: The emergence of collaborative networks and new institutions in the Clayoquot Sound region Background paper for Clayoquot Sound Regional Workshop, September 2001 Dolan, H., Taylor, M., Neis, B., Ommer, R., Eyles, J., Schneider, D., and Montevecchi, B. 2005 ‗Restructuring and health in Canadian coastal communities‘ EcoHealth 2(3),195-208 Dooley, K. 1997 ‗A complex adaptive systems model of organizational change,‘ Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences 1(1), 69-97 Dore J. 2003 'The governance of increasing Mekong regionalism' in Social Challenges for the Mekong Region, eds. M. Kaosa-ard and J. Dore (White Lotus, Bangkok) Doubleday, N., Mackenzie, A., Fiona, D., Dalby, S. 2004 ‗Reimagining sustainable cultures: constitutions, land and art‘ Canadian Geographer 48(4) 389-404 Douglas, D. J. A. 2006 Presentation made at the Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development, Memorial University, St John‘s NL, June 2006 Dovetail Consulting.1999 An Evaluation of DFO Involvement in Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) in British Columbia (Vancouver BC: DFO). du Plessis, V. Beshiri, B., Bollman, R., and Clemenson, H. 2002 Definitions of ―Rural‖ (Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada) Drache, D. and Clement, W. 1985 The New Practical Guide to Canadian Political Economy (Toronto: James Lorimer) Dunn, C. 2003 ‗Provincial Mediation of Federal-Municipal Relations in Newfoundland and Labrador‘ Paper presented at the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations Conference, May 9-10, 2003, Queen‘s University. Kingston, ON Dunne, E. 2003 Final report: fish processing policy review (St. John‘s: Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture)

370 Eaton, P.B., Gray, A.G., Johnson, P.W., and Hundert, E. 1994 State of the Environment in the Atlantic Region (Dartmouth, NS: Environment Canada, Atlantic Region) Easterling, W.E., Hurd, B. and Smith, J. 2004 Coping with Global Climate Change: the Role of Adaptation in the United States Paper Prepared for the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change (Arlington, VA : Pew Centre on Global Climate Change) URL : www.pewclimate.org/docuploads/adaptation%2e.pdf ECBC (Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation). 2008 URL: http://www.ecbc.ca/e/default.asp last accessed Dec. 10, 2008 Ecotrust Canada and Ecotrust. 2004 Catch-22: Conservation, communities and the privatization of BC Fisheries (Vancouver, BC: Ecotrust Canada) Edgington, D.W. 1995 ‗Trade, investment and the new regionalism: 'Cascadia' and its economic links with Japan‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Studies 18(3), 333-356 EEWC (Education Equity Working Committee). 1997 Our Children, Our Communities and Our Future: Equity in Education A jointly produced policy framework of the Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association, the League of Educational Administrators, Directors and Superintendents, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, and Saskatchewan Education (Regina: Authors) EFWC (Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife Commission). 1995 Bras d‘Or Lakes Co- management proposal (Eskasoni, NS: EFWC) Eisenhardt, K. 1989 ‗Building theories from case study research‘ Academy of Management Review 14, 532-550 EKOS Research Associates. 2002 ‗Positioning the Voluntary Sector in Canada: What the Elite and the General Public Say.‘ Presentation Report to the Steering Committee of the Voluntary Sector Initiative, Ottawa, October 8th 2002. Ottawa, ON Ellison, G., and Glaeser, E. 1999 ‗The Geographic concentration of industry: Does natural advantage explain agglomeration?‘ American Economic Review 89(2), 311- 316 Encarta. 2007 ‗World English Dictionary [North American Edition] Microsoft Corporation Ennis, J. 2006 Science and Sustainable Fishery Management: The State of the Newfoundland Lobster Fishery Paper prepared for the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council Consultation Process on the Long-term Conservation Framework for Atlantic Lobster. Ottawa, ON, URL: www.frcc.ca/lobster/Fishery%20Science_comp.pdf Environment Canada, New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation, Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour, and Prince Edward Island Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Environment. 2005 Application and Testing of the CCME Water Quality Index in Selected Water Bodies

371 in Atlantic Canada (Winnipeg Manitoba: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) Environment Canada. 2008 ‗Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative‘Dartmouth, NS. www.pnr-rpn.ec.gc.ca/nature/ecosystems/nrei-iern/index.en.html accessed 3rd November 2008 ----. 1999 ‗The New World of Environment Policy Making: Theory and Practice.‘ ESAC Annual Meeting, Dartmouth, NS Eoyang, G. and Berkas, T. 1998 Evaluation in a Complex Adaptive System URL: www.chaos-limited.com/EvalinCAS.pdf accessed 3rd November 2008. Eoyang, G. 2001 ‗Conditions for Self-organizing in Human Systems.‘ [Unpublished dissertation]. URL: http://www.winternet.com/~eoyang/dissertation.pdf accessed November 4 2008. -----. 1999 Coping with chaos: Seven simple tools. (Cheyenne: Lagumo) -----. 1996 ‗A Brief Introduction to Complexity in Organizations.‘ URL: http://www.chaos- limited.com/A%20Brief%20Introduction%20to%20Complexity%20in%20Or ganizations.pdf accessed on 10 November 2008 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008 ‗Core principle 1: Watersheds are natural systems that we can work with‘ URL: www.epa.gov/watertrain/watershedmgt/principle1.html Accessed on 10 November 2008 -----. 1997 ‗The National Estuary Program: A Ten Year Perspective‘ URL: http://www.epa.gov/nep/aniv.htm Epstein, R. 1999 Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the Common Good (Reading: Perseus Books) ESDP (European Spatial Development Perspective). 1999 ‗European Spatial Development Perspective, Towards a Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU‘ CEC, Luxemburg. European and American Experience (London, MacMillan) ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observatory Network). 2004 Critical Dictionary of Polycentricity (Stockholm, Sweden: The ESPON Monitoring Committee and the partners of the projects mentioned, including Nordregio) Fairtlough, G. 2005 The Three Ways of Getting Things Done Hierarchy, Heterarchy and Responsible Autonomy in Organizations (Devon: Triarchy press) Farrell, R. 1993 Our Mountains and Glens: The History of River Denys, Big Brook and Lime Hill (North Side), Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. (Fredericton: New Ireland Press) Farrell, S.J., Reissing, E.R., and Aubry, T. 2002 Street needs assessment: An investigation of the characteristics and service needs of persons who are homeless and not currently using shelters (Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa)

372 Fenety, J. 1981 ‗New Developments in River Basin Management‘ Water, Science and Technology 13 (3) Fenger, M. and Klok, P.J. 2001 ‗Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: a contribution to the advocacy coalition framework‘ Policy Sciences. 34 (2), 157-170 Fernow, B.E. 1912 Forest Conditions of Nova Scotia, assisted by C.D. Howe and J.H. White; pub; by permission of the Dept. of Crown Lands, Nova Scotia (Ottawa: Commission of Conservation) Filion, P. 1998 ‗Potential and limitations of community economic development: individual initiative and collective action in a post-Fordist context.‘ Environment and Planning A 30, 1101-1123 Finnie, R. 2001 ‗Unequal inequality: the distribution of individual‘s earnings by province‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science 24, 265-288 Fischer, F. 1998 ‗Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositive perspective‘ Available at http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tps/e-print/peter.pdf accessed on 10 November 2008. Flinders, M. and M. Smith eds. 1999 Quangos, Accountability and Reform: The Politics of Quasi-Government (Basingstoke: Macmillan) Florida, R. 1995 ‗Toward the learning region‘ Futures 27,527–536 FNI (Federation of Newfoundland Indians). 2007 URL: http://www.fni.nf.ca/qalipu.asp. Last accessed Dec. 9, 2008 Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, CS, Walker, B., Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S., Göran Mäler, K., Moberg, F., Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockström, J., Savenije, H. and Svedin, U. 2002 ‗Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations‘ Scientific Background Paper on Resilience for the process of The World Summit on Sustainable Development on behalf of The Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, Johannesburg, South Africa Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. 2005 „Adaptive governance of social- ecological systems‘ Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 441-473 Francis, D., Jones, R., and Smith, D. 1988 Origins: Canadian History to Confederation (Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston of Canada Ltd) FRCC (Fisheries Resource Conservation Council). 2005 A Strategic Conservation Framework for Atlantic Snow Crab (Ottawa, ON: DFO) Freeman, L.C. 2004 The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science‘ (Vancouver: Empirical Press) Freshwater, D., Thurston, L. and Ehrensaft, P. 1993 ‗Negotiating Partnerships for Community Development‘ in The Structure Theory and Practice of Partnerships in Rural Development ed. R.C. Rounds (Brandon, Manitoba: Rural Development Institute, Brandon University)

373 Friedmann, J. and Weaver, C. 1979 Territory and Function: The Evolution of Regional Planning. (London: Edward Arnold) Freudenburg, W. 1992 ‗Addictive economies: Extractive industries and vulnerable localities in a changing world economy‘ Rural Sociology 57, 305-32 Gagne, G. 1998 „Accountability and public administration‘ in The Puzzles of Power: An Introduction to Political Science eds. M. Howlett and D. Laycock (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press), 175-184 Gagnon, G. and Walsh, M. 2007 ‗Drinking Water Research at Dalhousie University‘ Science Forum on Water Resource Management at Cape Breton University, 21 Feb 2007 Galaway, B., and Hudson, J. 1994 Community Economic Development: Perspectives on Research and Policy (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc) Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., Svedin, U. 2007 ‘The Problem of Fit between Ecosystems and Governance Systems – Insights and Emerging Challenges‘, Ecology and Society 12(1), 20 Gale, F., and McGonigle, M eds. 2000 Nature, Production, Power: Approaches to Ecological Political Economy (Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar Publishers) Gallaugher, P., Alder, J., Bendell-Young, L. and Guénette, S. 2005 Changing Currents: Charting a Course of Action for the Future of Oceans Summary Report of Workshop held at SFU Harbour Centre‘s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Vancouver BC, 23-26, Feb. 2006 (Burnaby, BC: SFU Centre for Coastal Studies) Gallopin, G.C. 2006 ‗Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity‘ Global environmental Change 16(3), 293-303 ----. 2001 ‗Planning for resilience: scenarios, surprises and branch points‘ in Panarchy. Understanding Transformation in Human and Natural Systems. Eds. Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (Washington: Island Press) Gallopín, G.C., Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M. and Ravetz, J. 2001 ‗Science for the 21st Century: from Social Contract to the Scientific Core‘ International Journal of Social Science 168, 219-229 Gann, G.D., and Lamb, D. eds. 2006 Ecological Restoration: A Means of conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Livelihoods (version 1.1). Society for Ecological Restoration International (Tucson, Arizona, USA and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN) GASHA (Guysborough Antigonish Strait Health Authority). 2005 Trends in Our Aging Population: Adults and Seniors (Antigonish, NS: GASHA) Gatrell, A. 2003 Complexity theory and geographies of health: a modern and global synthesis? (Lancaster. UK: Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University) Geepu Nah Tiepoh, M. and Reimer, B. 2004 ‗Social capital, information flows, and income creation in rural Canada: a cross-community analysis‘ Journal of Socio- Economics 33 (4), September 2004, 427-448

374 GEMSAP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 2001 A Sea of Troubles, Rep. Stud. No. 70 (London: GEMSAP) Gephart, R P. 1999 ‗Paradigms and Research Methods‘ Research Methods Forum 4(1), 11 Gertler, M.S., Florida, R., Gates, G., and Vinodrai, T. 2002 Competing on Creativity: Placing Ontario‘s Cities in North American Context A report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation and the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Toronto ON Gertler, M.S. and Wolfe, D.A. (eds). 2002. Innovation and Social Learning: Institutional Adaptation in an Era of Technological Change. (Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan/Palgrave) Gezelius, S. 2007 ‗Three Paths from Law Enforcement to Compliance: Cases from the Fisheries.‘ Human Organization Winter 2007 Edition Gibbs, D., and Jonas, A. 2001 ‗Rescaling and Regional Governance: the English Regional Development Agencies and the environment.‘ Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 19(2), 269-288 Gibson, J., Haedrich, R., Kennedy, J., Vodden, K., and Wernerheim, M. 2008 ‗Barriers and Diversions to Knowledge Flow‘ in Making and Moving Knowledge eds. J. Lutz and B. Neis (McGill-Queen‘s Press), 155-177 Gibson-Graham J. K. 2003 ‗An ethics of the local.‘ Rethinking Marxism 15(1), 49-74 Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2002 ‗Beyond Global vs. Local: Economic Politics Outside the Binary Frame‘ in A. Herod and M. Wright eds., Geographies of Power: Placing Scale. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers) Gilkeson, L., L. Bonner, R. Brown, K. Francis, D. Johannesen, R. Canessa, J. Alder, D. Bernard, G. Mattu, C. Wong, R. Paynter. 2006 Alive and Inseparable: British Columbia‘s Coastal Environment Prepared by the UBC Fisheries Centre and University of Victoria (Victoria, BC: Canada, BC Ministry of Environment) URL: www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/404442/bcce_report.pdf accessed 4 November 2008 Gill, A. and Reed, M. 1999 ‗Incorporating Postproductivist Values into Sustainable Community Processes‘ in J. T. Pierce and A. Dale, eds Community Perspective on Sustainable Development (Vancouver: UBC Press), 169-189 Gill, A. and Reed, M. 1997 ‗The Reimagining of a Canadian Resource Town: Post Productivism in a North American Context‘ Journal of Applied Geographical Studies 1(2),129-147

375 Gislason, G.S., Lam, E., and Mohan, M. 1996 Fishing for Answers: Coastal Communities and the BC Salmon Fishery Final Report Prepared by ARA Consulting Group for BC Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Victoria, BC: Government of BC) Glaser, M. 2006 ‗The social dimension in ecosystem management: Strengths and weaknesses of human-nature mind maps‘ Human Ecology Review 13(2), 122-142. Society for Human Ecology Goetz, A. 2003 ‗Women's political effectiveness: A conceptual framework‘ in No Shortcuts to Power, eds. A. M. Goetz and S. Hassim (London, Zed), 29-80 Goldenberg, M. 2008 ‗A Review of Rural and Regional Development Policies and Programs‘, undertaken by Canadian Policy Research Networks on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour (Ottawa, ON: CPRN) Goldstein, H. 2005 ‗The role of knowledge infrastructure in regional economic development: the case of the Research Triangle.‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science 28(2), 199-224) Graham, K. and S. Phillips. 1997 ‗Citizen engagement: Beyond the customer revolution‘, Canadian Public Administration, Summer, 255-73 Grainger, A. 2004 ‗The role of spatial scale and spatial interactions in sustainable development‘ In Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives, eds. M. Purvis and A. Grainger (London: Earthscan) 50-84 Grant Thorton. 2003 ‗Audit of the Community Futures Program‘ Prepared for: Western Economic Diversification Canada (Vancouver, BC: WD) Greenwood, R. 2005 ‗Performance Contracts and Newfoundland and Labrador‘s Regional Economic Development Boards: Initial Framework and Lessons Learned‘ presentation, St. John‘s, NL 15 March, 2005 Greenwood, R. 1991 ‗The Local State and Economic Development in Peripheral Regions: A Comparative Study of Newfoundland and Northern Norway‘ Unpublished PhD Thesis (Coventry, UK: University of Warwick) Gresh, T., Lichatowich, J., and Schoonmaker, P. 2000 „An estimation of historic and current levels of salmon production in Northeast Pacific ecosystems‘ Fisheries 25(1), 15-21 Gunderson, L., and Holling, C.S. 2001 Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington DC: Island Press) Gunnarsson, M. 2000 Regionalism and Security – Two Concepts in the Wind of Change (Umeå, Sweden: Umea Univesitet Department of Political Studies) Haas, E. 1958 The Uniting of Europe (London: Stevens & Sons) Haggan, N. 2000 ‗Back to the future and creative justice: Recalling and restoring forgotten abundance in Canada‘s marine ecosystems‘ in Just Fish: Ethics in Canadian Coastal Fisheries, eds. H. Coward, R. Ommer and T. Pitcher (St. John‘s: ISER Books)

376 Hall, M., and Banting, K. 2000 ‗The nonprofit sector in Canada: An introduction.‘ In The Nonprofit Sector in Canada: Roles and Relationships, ed. K. Banting (Kingston: McGill-Queen‘s University Press) Hall, M., Lasby, D., Gumulka, G., and Tryon, C. 2006 Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2004. Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (Ottawa, ON: Published by authority of the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada) Hall, P. 1993 ‗Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain‘ Comparative Politics 25, 275-297 Halseth, G. Manson, D., Markey, S., Lax, L. and Buttar, O. 2006 „The Connected North: Findings from the Northern BC Economic Vision and Strategy Project‘ Journal of Rural and Community Development 3, 21-27 Halseth, G., Bruce, D., and Sullivan, L. 2004 ‗Leading and lagging: The long run role of institutions and social capital in fostering community economic development‘ in Building for Success: Explorations of Rural Community and Rural Development, eds. G. Halseth and R. Halseth (Brandon, MB: Rural Development Institute, Brandon University), 309-336 Hamilton, L.C., Haedrich, R.L., and Duncan, C.M. 2004 ‗Above and below the water: Social/ecological transformation in northwest Newfoundland‘ Population and Environment 25(3), 195-215 Hamilton, L., and Butler, M. 2001 ‗Outport adaptations: Social indicators through Newfoundland‘s cod crisis‘ Human Ecology Review 8(2), 1-11 Harper, D. J., and Quigley, J.T. 2000 No Net Loss of Fish Habitat: An Audit of Forest Road Crossings of Fish-Bearing Streams in British Columbia, 1996-1999 (Ottawa, ON: Habitat and Enhancement Branch, DFO) Harrington, L. 2005 ‗Sustainability, Scale, and Critical Connections: Commentary on Robert Kates' Essay on Long-Term Trends and Transitions.‘ FORUM: Science and Innovation for Sustainable Development. URL: http://sustsci.aaas.org/content.html?contentid=645&print=1 Harrison, J. 2006 ‗Constructing New Regional Geographies: Territories, Networks and Relational Regions‘ GaWC Research Bulletin 213. Edited and posted 21st November 2006 Harvey, D. 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford/Cambridge MA) Hassink, R. 2005 ‗How to unlock regional economies from path dependency? From learning region to learning cluster‘ European Planning Studies 13(4) June 2005, 521 - 535

377 Haughton, G., and Counsell, C. 2004 ‗Regions and sustainable development: regional planning matters‘ Geographical Journal 170(2), 135-145 (11) Hayter, R. 2000 ‗Flexible Crossroads: The Restructuring of British Columbia‘s Forest Economy‘ (Vancouver: UBC Press) Hayter, R. 2001 ‗Forest Re-regulation and Industrial Restructuring: Reflections on the NDP's Forest Policy for British Columbia, 1991-2001‘ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 93(3), 706-729 Hayter, R., and Barnes, T. 1990 ‗Innis' staple theory, exports, and recession: British Columbia, 1981-1986‘ Economic Geography, 66, 156-73 Healy, A., 1999 ‗Shaping up for integration (ESDP and action plan to promote a spatial dimension in community planning)‘ Planning 1345, 19 November 1999 Healey, P., Madanipour, A. and de Magalhaes, C. eds. 2002 Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux (Ashgate: Aldershot) Healey, P. 1998 ‗Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning‘ Environment and Planning A, 30,1531-1546 Heiltsuk First Nation. 2001 How Long Will it Last?‘ Cedar Logging in the Heiltsuk Traditional Territory (Bella Bella, BC: Heiltsuk First Nation) Henoque, Y., and Dennis, J. 2001 A Methodological Guide: Steps and Tools towards Integrated Coastal Area Management IOC Manuals and Guides No 42 (Paris: UNESCO) Henton, D., Melville, J., Amsler, T. and Kopell, M. 2005 Collaborative Governance: A Guide for Grantmakers (Menlo Park, CA: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation) Hessing, M. and Howlett, M. 1997 Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy (Vancouver: UBC Press) Higgins, B., and Savoie, D. 1995 Regional Development Theories and Their Application (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers) Hildebrand, L.P. 1989 Canada‘s experience with Coastal Zone Management (Halifax, NS: Oceans Institute of Canada) Hipwell, W. 2001 ‗Taking Charge of the Bras d'Or: Ecological Politics in the 'Land of Fog‘ Ph.D Thesis (Carleton, ON: Carlton University) Hoberg, G. 2001 ‗`Don't forget government can do anything': policies towards jobs in the British Columbia forest sector‘ in In Search of Sustainability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s, eds. B Cashore, G Hoberg, M Howlett, J Rayner, J Wilson (UBC Press, Vancouver), 207 – 231 Hobson, P., Desjardins, P., and Savoie, D. 2004 Trade, Equalization and Regional Disparities in Canada URL: www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/programs/cepra/hobson_paper-1.pdf accessed 2 November, 2008 Hodge, G., and I, Robinson. 2001 ‗Planning Canadian Regions‟ (Vancouver: UBC Press)

378 Hodge, G.D., and M.A. Qadeer. 1983 Towns and Villages in Canada: The Importance of Being Unimportant (Toronto: Butterworths) Hoffman, B. 1955. ‗The historical ethnography of the Micmac of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries‘ PhD thesis (Berkley, CA: University of California) Hollett, A. 2003 ‗The Community Accounts: The Journey and Future Directions of a Newfoundland and Labrador Innovation‘ Paper presented to the Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Group Institute of Public Administration of Canada Luncheon, Sept. 29. St. John‘s, NL Holling, C.S., and Gunderson, L. 2001 ‗Resilience and Adaptive Cycles‘, In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC: Island Press), 25-62 Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H. and G. D. Peterson. 2001 ‗Sustainability and Panarchies‘ in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC: Island Press), 63-102 Holling, C.S. 2001 ‗Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems,‘ Ecosystems 4, 390-405 ----- ed. 1978 Adaptive environmental assessment and management (New York: John Wiley and Sons) -----. 1973 ‗Resilience and stability of ecological systems‘ Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1-23 Hollister, R. and Hill, J. 1995 Problems in the Evaluation of Community-Wide Initiatives. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts (Queenstown, MD: The Aspen Institute) Homer-Dixon, T. 2000 The Ingenuity Gap: How Can We Solve The Problems of the Future?(New York: Random House) ----. 2006. The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization (Washington, DC: Knopf, Island Press) Hoover, E.M., and Giarratani, F. 1985 An Introduction to Regional Economics (Morgantown, VA: Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University) House, D. 2006 ‗Oil, Fish and Social Change in Newfoundland and Labrador: Lessons for British Columbia.‘ Presentation sponsored by Simon Fraser University's Centre for Coastal Studies, Burnaby, BC, 11 January 2006 ----. 2003. ‗Does Community Really Matter in Newfoundland and Labrador? The Need for Supportive Capacity in the New Regional Economic Development‘ in Retrenchment and Regeneration in Rural Newfoundland ed. R. Byron (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 226-267 ----. 2001 ‗The New Regional Development: Is Rural Development A Viable Option in Newfoundland and Labrador?‘ Newfoundland Studies 17(1), 11-31 -----. 1999 Against the Tide: Battling for Economic Renewal in Newfoundland and Labrador (Toronto: University of Toronto Press)

379 -----. 1985 The Challenge of Oil: Newfoundland's Quest for Controlled Development (St. John's, Newfoundland: ISER Books) Howlett, M., and Brownsey, K. 2008 Canada‘s Resource Economy in Transition: The Past, Present, and Future of Canadian Staples Industries (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications) Howlett, M., and Carmichael, K. 2008 ‗Ontario to get slice of equalization pie‘ Globe and Mail Report on Business, November 3, 2008 Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. 1995 Studying Public Policy (Toronto: Oxford University Press) -----. 1992. The Political Economy of Canada: An Introduction (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart) Howlett, M. 1998 Unpublished proposal. www.sfu.ca/~howlett/SSHRC98.html accessed 11 November, 2008 Hudson, R. 2005 Economic Geographies: Circuits, Flows and Spaces (London and Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications) Hueglin, T. and Fenna, A. 2005 Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry (Toronto: Broadview Press) Huggett, D. 1998 ‗The role of federal government intervention in coastal zone planning and management‘ Ocean and Coastal Management 39(1-2) 33-50 Hurtig, M. 1991. The Betrayal of Canada (Toronto: Stoddart) Hutchings, J. 2005 ‗The Collapse of Northern Cod: Malleable Links Between Science and Policy‘ Presented at Changing Currents: Charting a Course of Action for the Future of Oceans, 23-26 Feb. 2005: www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/changingcurrents.htm Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (IBEC). 2003 Centre for Terrestrial and Aquatic Field Studies, Phase I Feasibility Study (Indian Bay, NL: IBEC) Innes, J., Connick, S..Kaplan, L. and Booher, D. 2006 Collaborative Governance in the CALFED Program: Adaptive Policy Making for California Water (Berkely: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California and Sacramento: Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University) Innes, J. and Booher, D. 1999 ‗Consensus Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems – A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning‘ Journal of the American Planning Association Autumn 1999, 65(4) 412-423 Innes, J., J. Gruber, M. Neuman and R. Thompson. 1994 `Co-ordinating growth and environmental management through consensus building' California Policy Seminar Paper, Berkeley, CA: University of California Innis, H. 1933 Problems of Staple Production in Canada (Toronto: Ryerson Press) -----. 1956 The Fur Trade in Canada: an Introduction to Canadian Economic History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press) Interfor. 1996 Interfacts April 1996 2(2) Interfor Publication.

380 Iyer-Raniga, U. and Treloar, G. 2000 ‗FORUM: A context for participation in sustainable development‘ Environmental Management 26(4), 349-361 Jackson, L., Marshall, A., Tirone, S., Donovan, C., and Shepard, B. 2006 ‗The forgotten population? power, powerlessness and agency among youth in coastal communities‘ in Power and Restructuring: Canada‘s Coastal Society and Environment eds. P. Sinclair and R. Ommer (St. John‘s: ISER Books) Jackson, R., and Jackson, D. 1998 Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour and Public Policy (Scarborough ON, Prentice-Hall Canada) Jamieson, G. and Levings, C. 2001 ‗Marine protected areas in Canada—implications for both conservation and fisheries management‘ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 138–156 Janssen, M., and Anderies, J. 2007 ‗Robustness trade-offs in social-ecological systems‘ International Journal of the Commons 1(1) Janssen, M. A. 2001 ‗A future of surprises‘ in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC: Island Press), 241-260 Jenson, J. and Phillips, S. 1996 'Regime shift: new citizenship practices in Canada' International Journal of Canadian Studies 14 (fall), 111–136 Jentoft, S. 2007 ‗Limits of Governability? Institutional Implications for Fisheries and Coastal Governance‘ Marine Policy 31, 360-370 Jessop, B. 2000 ‗Governance Failure‘ in The New Politics of British Local Governance ed. G. Stoker (London: Macmillan), 11-32 Jessop, B. 1997 ‗Governance of complexity and the complexity of governance: preliminary remarks on some problems and limits of economic guidance‘ in Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity eds. A. Amin and J. Hausner (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 95-108 Jessop, B. 1990 State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place (Cambridge: Polity) Johnson, D. 1999 ‗Industrial policy and the new economy: Cape Breton confronts an uncertain future‘ in Proceedings of the Conference ~ Cape Breton in Transition: Economic Diversification and Prospects for Tourism ed. W. O'Shea, C. Corbin and E. Krause (Louisbourg, NS: Louisbourg Institute) Johnson, P. 1996 in The Encyclopedia of North American Indians ed. F. Hoxie (New York: Houghton Mifflin) Johnson, D. and Kooiman, J. 2008 ‗The governability of governing systems: institutional adaptation as seen from interactive governance and complex adaptive systems perspectives‘ Presented at the Interactive governance and the resilience of aquatic resource exploitation systems session, Resilience 2008: http://resilience2008.org/resilience/panels/2.htm Johnston, H. 1996 The Pacific Province: A History of British Columbia (Vancouver: Douglas & MacIntyre)

381 Juda, L. 1999 ‗Considerations in developing a functional approach to the governance of Large Marine Ecosystems‘ Ocean Development and International Law 30, 89-125 Juda, L. and Hennessey, T. 2001 ‗Governance Profiles and the Management of the Uses of Large Marine Ecosystems‘ Ocean Development & International Law 32:41-67 Juillet, L. 2000 ‗Regional models of environmental governance in the context of market integration‘ in Governing the Environment: Trends and Challenges ed. E. Parsons (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 125-168 Kagan, R. 1997 ‗Political and legal obstacles to collaborative ecosystem planning‘ Ecology Law Quarterly 24(4), 871-875 Kates, R. 2000 ‗Sustainability Science‘ Presentation to the World Academies Conference, Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century. Tokyo, Japan Kates, R., Parris, T. and Leiserowitz, A. 2005. ‗What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values and practice‘ Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47(3), 8–21 Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell, R., Hall, J., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J., Schellnhuber, H., Bolin, B., Dickson, N., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G., Gruebler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N., Kasperson, R., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore, B. O‘Riordan, T. and Svedin, U. 2001 ‗Sustainability Science‘ Science 292, 641-2 Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. 2005 Governance Matters IV: Governance Indicators for 1996-2004 Report to the World Bank Group (Washington DC: The World Bank) Kaufmann, D. 2005 ‗Lecture on Governance and Corruption‘ American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, October 7, 2005 Kavanaugh, M. 2005 (original text by Goudie, I.) ‗Bird Fact Sheets: Common Eider‘ Hinterland Who‘s Who‘ Canada (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Federation) URL: http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=38 KEDC (Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation). 2006a ‗KEDC Overview‘ Presentation by Jill Bennett, Centreville NL ----. 2006b ‗Annual General Meeting Presentation‘ by Jill Bennett Hotel Gander, Gander NL Sept. 14, 2008 ----. 2003 ‗Strategic Economic Plan 2003-2008‘ (Gander: KEDC) ----. 2001 ‗Annual Workplan‘ (Gander: KEDC) ----. 1997 ‗Strategic Economic Plan‘(Gander: KEDC) Kemmis, D. 1995 The Good City and the Good Life (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company) Kenchington, T. 1997 ‗First Nations Fisheries Management in Bras D‘Or: Some Considerations‘ Prepared for Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission (Eskasoni, NS: EFWC)

382 -----. 1998 ‗Unamaki Ewey Uta‘n: A description of the Bras D‘Or region‘ Version 0.2.1 Gadus Associates report prepared for the Union of Nova Scotia Indians and Una‘maki Environment Committee Kenchington, T. and E. Carruthers. 2001 ‗Unamapaqt: A description of the Bras D‘Or marine environment‘ A report prepared for the Union of Nova Scotia Indians and Una‘maki Environment Committee Kernaghan, K. and J. Langford. 1990 The Responsible Public Servant (Toronto: IPAC/IRPP) Kildow, J. 1997 ‗The Roots and Context of the Coastal Zone Movement‘ Coastal Management 25, 231-263 Kim, Sook-Jin. 2006 ‗Networks, scale, and transnational corporations: The case of the South Korean seed industry‘ Economic Geography 82(3), 317–338 King, N. 2008 ‗Stora Enso sells Point Tupper mill‘ The Nova Scotia Business Journal. 23/09/07 Kitson, M., Martin, R. and Tyler, P. 2004 ‗Regional competitiveness: an elusive yet key concept?‘ Regional Studies, 38(9), 991-999 Kloosterman, R.C and Musterd, S. 2001 ‗The polycentric urban region: Towards a research agenda‘ Urban Studies 38(4), 623-633 Knill, C. 1999 ‗Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: autonomous versus instrumental bureaucracies‘ Journal of Public Policy 19, 113-139 Kontopolous, K. 1993 The logics of social structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Kooiman, J., and Bavinck, M. 2005 The governance perspective. In Fish for life: interactive governance for fisheries eds. J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft and R. Pullin. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press) 1-24 Koontz, T., Steelman, T., Carmin, J. Korfmacher, K., Mosely, C. and Thomas, C. 2004 Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press) Krugman, P. 1994 Peddling Prosperity (New York: W.W. Norton) Lackey, R. 2008 ‗Salmon Decline in Western North America: Historical Context‘ in Encyclopedia of Earth ed. J. Cutler, (Washington, DC: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment) Lambert, T. 2002 Overview of the Ecology of the Bras d‘Or Lakes with Emphasis on the Fish. Proceedings of the Nova Scotia Institute of Science, Vol. 42, 65-99 Larkin, G.A., and Slaney, P.A. 1996 „Trends in marine-derived nutrient sources to south coastal British Columbia streams: impending implications to salmonid production‘ Watershed Restoration Management Report No. 3 (Victoria, BC. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests) Latour, B. 1987 Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)

383 Law, J. ed. 1992 A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and Domination (London: Routledge Sociological Review Monograph) Law, J. 1999 ‗After ANT: complexity, naming and topology‘ in Actor Network Theory and After, eds. J. Law and J. Hassard (Oxford: Blackwell/The Sociological Review) Laxer, G. ed. 1991 Perspectives on Canadian Economic Development: Class, Staples, Gender and Elites (Toronto: Oxford University Press) Lebel, L. 2005 ‗The politics of scale in environmental assessment‘ In Bridging scales and epistemologies: linking local knowledge and global science in environmental assessments eds. F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistran (Washington, D.C: Island Press) Lebel, L., Garden, P., and Imamura, M. 2005 ‗The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region‘ Ecology and Society 10(2), 18 Lee, E. 2007 ‗Organizational Form and Structure of the Global Justice Movement‘ Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA URL: www.allacademic.com/meta/p173179_index.html accessed 4 November 2008 Lee, K. 1999 ‗Appraising adaptive management‘ Conservation Ecology 3(2), 3. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/ Lefebvre M. and Brender, N. 2006 ‗Canada‘s Hub Cities a Driving Force of the National Economy‘ (Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada) LEPS (Langley Environmental Partners Society), Land Stewardship Centre of Canada, Alberta, Conservation Ontario, Comité ZIP Baie des Chaleurs, Clean Annapolis River Project. National Watershed Stewardship Report: Policy recommendations and suggested actions to expand and strengthen watershed stewardship in Canada (Langley, BC: Langley Environmental Partners Society) Leygues, L. 2001 ‗Report by the Working Group on Multi-Level Governance: Linking and Networking the Various Regional and Local Levels‘ (Brussels: Council of European Municipalities and Regions) Leuven, R., Smits, A. and Nienhuis, P. 2000 ‗From integrated approaches to sustainable river basin management‘ in New approaches to river management eds. A. Smits, P. Nienhuis and R. Leuven eds (Leiden, Backhuys Publishers) 329-347 Levin, S. 1999 Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons (Reading, Massachusetts: Perseus Books) Leslie, D. 2004 ‗Geographies of Power. Placing Scale‘ (Book Review) The Canadian Geographer 48(2), 246 Lipietz, A. 1992 Towards a New Economic Order, Postfordism, Ecology, Democracy (Oxford and New York: Polity Press and Oxford University Press) Lippard, L. 1997 The Lure of the Local: Senses of Place in a Multicentered Society (New York: The New Press)

384 Little J. 2001 ‗New rural governance?‘ Progress in Human Geography 25(1), 97-102 Locke, W. and Tomblin, S. 2003. ‗Good Governance, a Necessary but Not Sufficient Condition for Facilitating Economic Viability in a Peripheral Region: Cape Breton as a Case Study‘ A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (Sydney, NS: CBRM) Lovell, C., Mandondo, A., and Moriarty, P. 2002 ‗The question of scale in integrated natural resource management‘ Conservation Ecology 5(2), 25 Lubell, M., Schneider, M., Scholz, J. and Mete, M. 2002 ―Watershed Partnerships and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions.‖ American Journal of Political Science 46, 148-163 Lukas, C., and Andrews, R. 2007. ‗Four Keys to Collaboration Success‘ URL: www.fieldstonealliance.org/client/client_pages/articles_tools/Article- 4_Key_Collab_Success.cfm accessed 24 November 2008 Lutz, J., and Neis, B. 2004 ‗Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Proposed Concepts to Unify the Volume on How Knowledge Moves‘ Unpublished Coasts Under Stress working document. MacLeod G, 2001 ‗New regionalism reconsidered, globalization, regulation and the recasting of political economic space‘ International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25, 804-829 MacNeil, T. 2003 ‗Knowledge: the Magnet and the Glue‘ Presentation to the Bras d‘Or Lakes Workshop‘ 9 October, 2003 MacDonald, M., Neis, B., and Grzetic, B. 2006 ‗Making a living: the struggle to stay‘. In Power and Restructuring: Canada‘s Coastal Society and Environment eds. P. Sinclair and R. Ommer (St. John‘s: ISER Books) Mahoney, J. 2000 ‗Path dependence in historical sociology‘ Theory and Society 29(4), 507-548 Mahoney, S. 2004 ‗The Land Mammals of Insular Newfoundland‘ Antigonish Review #124 Maillat, D. 1997 ‗Innovative milieux and new generations of regional policies‘ in Competitiveness, innovation and regional development in Ireland eds. D. McCafferty and J.A. Walsh (Dublin: The Regional Studies Association) Malcolm, K. 2003. ‗Bras d'Or Lake Designation Update‘ October 2003 Malenfant, D. 1997 ‗New horizons for community forestry: social-environmental development‘ in Changing Rural Institutions, A Canadian Perspective ed. R. Rounds (Brandon: Brandon University) Malinik, T., and Matthews, R. 2005 ‗The Question of Resource Dependence in British Columbia and its Coast Region: The Heartland-Hinterland Divide‘ (Vancouver, British Columbia: University of British Columbia) Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. 1997 ‗Towards an explanation of industry agglomeration and regional specialization‘ European Planning Studies 5 (1): 25- 41

385 Mandale, M., Foster, M., and Chiasson, P. 2000 ‗The Economic Value of Marine-related Resources in New Brunswick‘ Prepared for the New Brunswick Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Research Team (Fredericton, NB: DFO) Margerum, R. 1999 ‗Implementing integrated planning and management: A typology of approaches‘ Australian Planner 36 (3), 155-161 Markey, S. 2008 ‗Renewal: From Space to Place in Northern British Columbia‘ Presentation to Space to Place: The Next Rural Economies Workshop held at UNBC in Prince George from 15-16 May 2008 Markey, S. 2003 ‗Facing Uncertainty: Building Local Development Institutions in Rural British Columbia‘ PhD Thesis (Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University) Markey, S., Pierce, J., Vodden, K., and Roseland, M. 2005 Second Growth: Community Economic Development in Rural British Columbia (Vancouver: UBC Press) Markey, S., Pierce, J., and Vodden, K. 2000 ‗Resources, people and the environment: A regional analysis of the evolution of resource policy in Canada‘ Journal of Regional Science XXIII (3), 427-454 Marquardt, W., and Crumley, C. 1987 ‗Theoretical issues in the analysis of spatial patterning‘ In Regional dynamics: Burgundian landscapes in historical perspective eds. C. Crumley and W. Marquardt (San Diego: Academic Press) Marsden, T. 1998 ‗Economic perspectives‘ in The geography of rural change ed. B. Ilbery (Essex, Longman) Marshall, M. 1991 ‗Introduction‘ in Paqtatek - Volume 1 Policy and Consciousness in Mi'kmaq Life eds. Inglis, S., Mannette, J., Sulewski, S. (Halifax: Garamond Press) Marshall, G. 2005 Economics for collaborative environmental management: Renegotiating the commons (London: Earthscan) Massam, B. 2000 Conditions of the Civic State (Jerusalem: Magnes Press) Massam, B. H. and Dickinson, J. 1999 ‗The civic state, civil society and the promotion of sustainable development‘ In Communities, Development and Sustainability across Canada eds. J. Pierce and A. Dale (Vancouver, UBC Press), 208-239 Massey, D. 2004 ‗Geographies of responsibility‘ Geografiska Annaler, 86, 5-18 Massey, D. 1993 ‗Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place‘ in Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change eds. J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, and L. Tickner (London: Routledge), 59–69 Maunder, J. 1999 ‗The Newfoundland Wolf‘ Museum Notes No. 8 Newfoundland Museum, St. John‘s, NL Maxwell, J. 2005 ‗Building Blocks for Place-Making Policy‘ Presentation to the 6th National Forum on Public Policy and the Third Sector, Queen's University McBride, J. ed. 2001 Our Own Vision - Our Own Plan: What Six First Nations Organizations have Accomplished with their Own Economic Development Plans. (Burnaby: Simon Fraser University) URL: www.sfu.ca/cscd/pdf/our_own_vision.pdf

386 McGinnis, M. ed. 1999 Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press) McLaren, B, Hollis, T., Roach, C., Blanchard, K., Chaurette, E., and Bavington, D. 2008 ‗Knowledge flows, conservation values and municipal wetlands stewardship‘ in Making and Moving Knowledge eds. J. Lutz and B. Neis (Montreal: McGill-Queen‘s Press) M&E (Monitoring and Evaluation) Subcommittee. 1997 Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement and Regional Economic Development Board Performance Contracts. DRAFT in preparation for the Management Committee of the Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement. Meades, S., Hay, S. and Brouillet, L. 2000. ‗Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Newfoundland and Labrador‘ URL: www.digitalnaturalhistory.com/meades.htm MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005 Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Washington, DC: Island Press) Meadows, D., Meadows, D. and Randers, J. 1992 Beyond the Limits (Post Mills, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing) Meisen, A. 2005 Opening presentation. Regional Workshop on the Kittiwake Coast. Barbour Premises, New-Wes-Valley, 1 December 2005 Melnbardis, R. 2002 ‗Watchdog says Great Lakes cleanup going too slow‘ Reuters News Service 16 September 2002 Meltzer, E. 1998 ‗International Review of Integrated Coastal Zone Management‘ Oceans Conservation Report Series (Ottawa, ON: DFO) Meydani, A. and Doron, G. 2007 ‗Constitutional Court versus Non-Governability: The Israeli Case‘Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the The Law and Society Association, TBA, Berlin, Germany URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p173874_index.html accessed 4 November 2008 Miles, M., and Huberman, M. 1984 Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook for New Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) Miliband, D. 2006 ‗Power devolved is energy released‘ Speech by the Rt Hon David Miliband MP at the Local Government Association annual conference, Bournemouth, 4 July 2006 Mitchell, D. 2001 ‗The lure of the local: landscape studies at the end of a troubled century‘ Progress in Human Geography 25, 269-281 Morcol, G. 2001 „Positivist beliefs among policy professionals: An empirical investigation‘ Policy Sciences 34 (3-4), 381-401 Moran, W., Blunden, G., and Lewis, N. 1996 ‗Regulating Sustainable Rural Systems: Political Rhetoric and Reality‘ Presented at the International Geographic Congress, Den Haag, 5 August 1996

387 Morgan, K. 2007 ‗The Polycentric State: New Spaces of Empowerment and Engagement?‘ Regional Studies 41, 1237-1251 Morgan, P. 2005. ‗The Idea and Practice of Systems Thinking and their Relevance for Capacity Development‘ European Centre for Development Policy Management, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Morgan, K., and Nauwealers, C. 1999. Regional Innovation Strategies, London, Stationary Office in Cooperation with the Regional Studies Association, London, UK. MUN (Memorial University of Newfoundland) 1997 ‗Society and Culture‘ Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site Project URL: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/culture.html last accessed 9 December 2008 Murdoch, J. 1997 ‗Inhuman/nonhuman/human: actor-network theory and the prospects for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society‘ Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 15, 731-756 Murphy, R. 1986 Culture and Social Anthropology: An Overture 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall) MWLAP (Ministry of Water, Land, Air, Protection. 2000a ‗Environmental Report. 2000. Artlish River‘ (Nanaimo: MWLAP), 18 October 2000 -----. 2000b. ‗Environmental Report: Nahwitti River‘ (Nanaimo: MWLAP), 18 October 2000 Myers, R.A., and Ottensmeyer, C.A. 2005 ‗Extinction Risk in Marine Species‘ in Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea's Biodiversity eds. E.A Norse and L.B. Crowder (Washington DC: Island Press) Najam, A., Runnalls, D. and Halle, M. 2007 ‗Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions‘ (Winnipeg, MB: IISD) Native Council of Nova Scotia. 2007 Mi‘kmaw Resource Guide 4th Edition (Truro: Eastern Woodland Publishing) Naug, J. 2003a ‗Harmony, Balance and our Future are in our Nature: Bras d‘Or Lakes Watershed: Partnering to Secure Our Sustainability‘ Draft Discussion Paper, (Dartmouth, NS: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans Branch) ------. 2003b. ‗DRAFT Summary of Existing Management Groups in the Bras d‘Or Lakes‘ Prepared for the Bras d‘Or Partnership Committee (Dartmouth, NS: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans Branch) Nelson, J. 2004 ‗A Vanishing Heritage: The Loss of Ancient Red Cedar from Canada‘s Rainforests‘ A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation (Vancouver, BC: David Suzuki Foundation) Newhouse, D. 2006 ‗Aboriginal Economic Development in the Shadow of the Borg‘ in Community Economic Development: Building for Social Change eds. E. Shragge and M. Toye (Sydney: Cape Breton University Press)

388 NL (Province of Newfoundland and Labrador). 2008 ‗The Economy 2008 – Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Economic Research and Analysis Division) ----. 2007a ‗Labour Market Indicators and Trends: Gander-New-Wes-Valley Region. Strengthening Partnerships in the Labour Market Initiative‘ Report #8 Winter 2007 (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment) ----. 2007b ‗Boil Water Advisories for Public Water Supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador 28 June 2007‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation) ----. 2007c ‗THMs Summary for Public Water Supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation) ----. 2007d ‗Drinking Water Quality Community Reports - Winter 2007‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation) ----. 2007e ‗Landings & landed value – 2007‘ URL: http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/stats/landings/Landings_2007_prel.pdf Accessed 8 May 2008. ----. 2007f ‗Sustainable Development Act, S.N.L. 2007, c. S-34‘ (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: Queen's Printer,) URL: http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/sta/s-34/20070813/whole.html ----. 2006a ‗Rural Secretariat Executive Council Annual Activity Report 2005-06‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Rural Secretariat) ----. 2006b ‗Forest Management Districts 4, 5, 6 & 8 (Planning Zone 3) Sustainable Forest Management Plan – Crown (2007-2011)‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Natural Resources) ----. 2006c ‗News Release: Insular Newfoundland caribou initiative‘ (St. John‘s, NL. Environment and Conservation) ----. 2006d ‗Sustainable Development Discussion Document‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation) URL: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/publ/susdevdoc.pdf ----. 2005a ‗Community Accounts‘ URL: www.communityaccounts.ca ----. 2005b ‗Backgrounder Comprehensive Regional Diversification Strategy Gander - New-Wes-Valley‘ URL: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2005/intrd/0318n02backgander.htm ----. 2005c ‗An Immigration Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador: Opportunity for Growth‘ St. John‘s, NL: Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment) ----. 2005d ‗NL Species at Risk: The Red Crossbill‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation Inland Fish and Wildlife Division) URL: http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/wildatrisk/Red_Crossbill.pdf ----. 2003 ‗Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Strategy‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Natural Resources)

389 ----. 2002 ‗Reaching Consensus and Planning Ahead: Health Forums 2001 Regional Profile Central Region‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Health and Community Services) ----. 2002 ‗The Economy 2002 – Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Economic Research and Analysis Division) ----. 2001 ‗Source to Tap - Water Supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation) ----. 2000 Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site Project, St. John‘s, NL, Available at http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/diversity.html accessed 22 March 2007. ----. 1999 ‗Our Smiling Land: Government‘s Vision for the Protection and Use of Newfoundland and Labrador‘s Outdoor Resources‘ URL: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/1999/drr/smiling.htm last accessed 10 December 2008 ----. 1994 ‗Interdepartmental Review Committee on Land Use Policy and Planning‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Interdepartmental Review Committee) ----. 1992 Change and Challenge. A Strategic Economic Plan for Newfoundland and Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador) NLFM (Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities). 2005 ‗Strengthening Our Communities: President‘s Task Force on Municipal Sustainability Discussion Paper‘ (St. John‘s, NL: NLFM) NLREDA (Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Economic Development Association). 2005a ‗Monitoring & Evaluation Program Provincial Report on Phase 1‘ Presentation to 2005 Spring Pan Provincial, Marystown, NL ----. 2005b NLREDA News August 2005 Newfoundland and Labrador Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1995 ‗Framework for a Sustainable Development Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Newfoundland and Labrador Round Table on the Environment and the Economy) Norris, M.J., and Jantzen, L. 2002 ‗From Generation to Generation: Survival and Maintenance of Canada's Aboriginal Languages within Families, Communities and Cities‘ (Ottawa, ON: Indian Affairs and Northern Development) Norris, W. 1997 ‗Indian Bay Watershed Stream Survey Report. Submitted to Inland Fisheries (Indian Bay, NL: IBEC) Nowlan, L. 1998 ‗Preserving British Columbia‘s Coast: a Regulatory Review‘ Prepared by West Coast Environmental Law for the BC Near Shore Habitat Loss Working Group (Victoria, BC: Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force) Nozick, M. 1999 ‗Sustainable Development Begins at Home‘ in Communities, Development and Sustainability Across Canada eds. J. T. Pierce and A .Dale (Vancouver: UBC Press)

390 NS (Nova Scotia) Community Counts. 2007 URL: http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/communitycounts/ NS (Nova Scotia). 2007 ‗Negotiations‘ URL: http://www.gov.ns.ca/abor/officeofaboriginalaffairs/whatwedo/negotiations accessed 8 November 2008 ----. 2003 ‗Municipal Facts, Figures, and History - The History of Municipal Government in Nova Scotia‘ (Halifax, NS: Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations) URL: www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/muns/info/history/originHIST1.asp ----. 2002a ‗Natural Landscapes of Nova Scotia: Summary Descriptions‘ (Halifax, NS: Protected Areas Branch, NS Department of Environment and Labour) ----. 2002b ‗A Drinking Water Strategy for Nova Scotia‘ (Halifax, NS: NS Department of Environment and Labour) NSDLF (Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forests). 1994 ‗Impact of the 1974-1981 Spruce Budworm Infestation on the Forest of Cape Breton Island‘ Forest Research Report # 47 NSSC (National Seafood Sector Council). 2004 ‗Meeting the Challenge: Canada's Seafood Processing Industry Labour Market in the 21st Century‘ (Ottawa, ON: NSSC) OAGC (Office of the Auditor General of Canada). 1999a Chapter 20—Fisheries and Oceans—Pacific Salmon: Sustainability of the Fisheries in ‗1999 November Report of the Auditor General of Canada‘ (Ottawa, ON: OAGC) -----. 1999b Chapter 5 - Collaborative Arrangements—Issues for the Federal Government ‗1999 April Report of the Auditor General of Canada‘ (Ottawa, ON: OAGC) O‘Connell, M. and Dempson, J. 2002 ‗The Biology of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, of Gander Lake, a large, deep, oligotrophic lake in Newfoundland, Canada‘ Environmental Biology of Fishes 64, 115-126 OECD (Organisation for Co-operation and Development) 2006 The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance (Paris: OECD) -----. 2004 ‗OECD Review of Canada‘s Environmental Performance: Good Progress, Much to Be Done‘ OECD Environmental Performance Reviews (Paris: OCED) Ohmae, K. 1995. The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies (New York: The Free Press) Olsen, S. 2003 ‗Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives‘ Ocean and Coastal Management 46, 347-361 Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Hahn, T. 2004 ‗Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern Sweden‘ Ecology and Society 9, 4 www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/

391 Ommer, R. and research team. 2007 Coasts Under Stress: Understanding Restructuring and the Social-Ecological Health of Coastal Communities (Montreal: McGill- Queen's University Press) Ommer, R., and Sinclair, P. 1999 'Systemic Crisis in Rural Newfoundland: Can the. Outports Survive?' in Communities, Development and Sustainability Across Canada eds. J. Pierce and A. Dale (Vancouver: UBC Press) Osbourne, D., and Gaebler, T. 1992 Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (Reading MA: Addison Wesley) Ostrom, E. 2005 Understanding Institutional Diversity (New Jersey: Princeton University Press) Ostrom, E. 1999 ‗Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework‘ in Theories of the Policy Process ed. P. Sabatier (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 35-71 PAA (Protected Areas Assoc.). 2000a ‗Maritime Barrens‘ URL: www.env.gov.nl.ca/parks/library/pdf/ecoregions/Island6a_northeastern_barrens_sub region_2005.pdf accessed 8 October 2008 ----. 2000b. ‗Central Newfoundland Forest‘ URL: www.env.gov.nl.ca/parks/library/pdf/ecoregions/Island2a_north- central_subregion.pdf accessed 8 October 2008. ----. 2000c. ‗North Shore Forest‘ St. John‘s, NL. Paddock, M. 1996 ‗The good old days of Indian Bay‘ Newfoundland Sportsman Painter, J., and Goodwin, M. 1995 ‗Local governance and concrete research: investigating the uneven development of regulation‘ Economy and Society 24, 334-56 Pal, L. 1992 Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction 2nd Edition (Scarborough: Nelson) Palmer, C. and Sinclair, P. 2000 ‗Expecting to leave: Attitudes to migration among high school students on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland‘ Newfoundland Studies 16 (1), 30-46 Panitch, L 1993 ‗Different Kind of State?‘ in A Different Kind of State eds. G. Albo, D. Langille and L. Panitch (Toronto: University of Toronto), 2-16 Paquet, G. 2000 ‗The New Governance, Subsidiarity and the Strategic State‘ Paper Prepared for OECD Forum for Future Conference on 21st Century Governance: Power and Knowledge in the Global Knowledge Economy and Society, Hannover ----. 1999 Governance Through Social Learning (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press) Parker, M., Westhead, M., Doherty, P. and Naug, J. 2007 ‗Ecosystem Overview and Assessment Report for the Bras d‘Or Lakes, Nova Scotia‘ Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2789, xxii Parker M. and Westhead, M. 2006 ‗EBSAs – A case study from the Bras D‘Or Lakes‘ Presented at the DFO-FSRS Workshop on Inshore Ecosystems and Significant Areas of the Scotian Shelf 16-19 January 2006, Bedford Institute of Oceanography,

392 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia www.marinebiodiversity.ca/en/inshore/Parker%20and%20Westhead%20Pdf.pdf Parker, M. 2002 ‗Sustainability Issues: Bras d'Or Region - Final Report‘ Prepared for the Bras d'Or Field Team Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative by East Coast Aquatics, June 2002 (St. Peter‘s, NS: Bras d'Or Field Team Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative) -----. 2001 River Denys Integrated Management Report prepared for Fisheries and Oceans Canada by East Coast Aquatics (Dartmouth, NS: DFO) Parsons, G. 2005 Personal communication. Fisheries Development Officer, Dept. of Fisheries & Aquaculture Partridge, M., and Rickman, D. 2008 ‗Place-based policy and rural poverty: insights from the urban spatial mismatch literature‘ Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1(1), 131-156 Pastore, R. 1997 ‗The Beothuks‘ URL: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/aboriginal/beothuk.html. Paul, K. 2006 ‗Drinking Water in First Nations Communities‘ Presentation Oct 2006 Paul, D. 1993 We Were Not the Savages (Halifax: Nimbus Publishing) Paulette, M.J., and Prosper, K. 2002 Ka't (American Eel) Life History. Social Research for Sustainable Fisheries Fact Sheet 6 (Antigonish, NS: Social Research for Sustainable Fisheries, St. Francis Xavier University) Peet, R. 1975. Inequality and Poverty. Penfold, G., Salter, B., and Carley, D. 2004 ‗A Regional Economic Development Strategy For the Regional District of Mount Waddington‘ (Port McNeill, BC: Regional District of Mount Waddington) Perroux, F. 1969. L'Économie du XXe siècle (Paris: Presses universitaires de France) Perry R.I. and R. Ommer. 2003 Scale issues in marine ecosystems and human interactions. Fisheries Oceanography. 12: 513–522. Peterson, D., Wood, A., and Gardner, J. 2005 ‘An Assessment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada‘ Pacific Region‘s Effectiveness in Meeting its Conservation Mandate. Prepared for the David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, BC. Petrella, R. 2000 ‗The Future of regions: Why the competitiveness imperative should not prevail over solidarity, sustainability and democracy‘ Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 82(2) August 2000, 67-72(6) Phillips, D.C. and Burbules, N.C. 2000 Postpositivism and educational research (Lanham, MA: Rowman and Litlefield) Phillips, S., and Graham, K. 2000 ‗Hand-in-hand: When accountability meets collaboration in the voluntary sector‘ in The Non-profit Sector in Canada: Roles and Relationships ed. K. Banting (Kingston: McGill-Queen‘s University Press)

393 Phillips, S., and Orsini, M. 2002 ‗Mapping the Links: Citizen Involvement in Policy Processes‘ Discussion Paper No.F21 (Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network) Pierce, J.T., and Dale, A. eds. 1999 Communities, Development and Sustainability across Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press) Pierce, J. T. 1998 ‗Sustaining Rural Environments: Widening Communities of Knowledge‘ in Dimensions of Sustainable Rural Systems eds. C. Bowler, P. Bryant and P. Huigen (Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies) -----. 1995 ‗The conservation challenge in sustaining rural environments‘ Journal of Rural Studies 12(3), 215-229 Pierre-Louis, P. 2004 Director, Ministry of Local Government, Sports and Culture, Seychelles, 17 December posting: www.csiwisepractices.org email forum Pierson, P. 2000 ‗Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics." American Political Science Review 94(2), 251-267 Pinkerton, E., and Weinstein, M. 1995 ‗Fisheries That Work: Sustainability Through Community-based Management‘ A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, BC Pinkerton, E. ed. 1989 Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press) Pitu‘paq Committee URL: http://pitupaq.ca/ accessed 12 February 2007 Plummer, R. and D. Armitage. 2007 ‗Charting the new territory of adaptive co- management: a Delphi study‘ Ecology and Society 12(2), 10 URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art10/ Plumptre, T., and Graham, J. 1999 ‗Governance and Good Governance: International and Aboriginal Perspectives‘ (Canberra: Institute on Governance) Polèse, M., and Shearmur, R. 2002 ‗The Periphery in the Knowledge-Based Economy: The Spatial Dynamics of the Canadian Economy and the Future of Non-Metropolitan Regions in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces‘ (Moncton: Montreal/Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development) Poncelet, E. 2001 ‗A Kiss Here and a Kiss There: Conflict and Collaboration in Environmental Partnerships‘ Environmental Management 27 (1), 13-25 Porter, M, 1990 The competitive advantage of nations (London: Macmillan) -----. 2001 ‗Clusters of Innovation Initiative: Regional Foundations of US Competitiveness‘ (Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness and Monitor Group) -----. 2003 ‗The economic performance of regions‘ Regional Studies 37(6/7), 549-678 Power, B. 1999 ‗Trout management plan a winner‘ Evening Telegram 9 January -----. 1998 ‗Trout license a benefit‘ Evening Telegram -----. 1997 ‗Rebuilding trouters‘ heaven‘ Newfoundland Sportsman July/August, 26-31

394 Purvis, M. and Grainger, A. 2004 ‗Future perspectives: Developing sustainable development‘ In Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives eds. M. Purvis and A. Grainger (London, Earthscan) 313-339 Prescott Allen, R. 2005 ‗Coast Information Team Review Report‘ (Victoria, BC: Coast Information Team) Price, I. and Evans, L. 2005 ‗Punctuated equilibrium: An organic model for the learning organization‘ Forum: the Quarterly Journal of the European for Management Development 93, 1 Pritchard, L., and Sanderson, S. E. 2001 ‗The dynamics of political discourse in seeking sustainability‘ In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC: Island Press) 147- 169 Proulx, M. 1997 ‗The policy of governmental decentralization in Quebec: Principles, status and issues‖ in Changing Rural Institutions ed. R.C. Rounds (Brandon: Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation) Protevi, J. 2005 ‗Deleuze, Guattari and Emergence‘ Draft unpublished paper Putnam, R. 1995 ‗Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital‘ Journal of Democracy 6 (1), 65-78 -----. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton University Press) Quadra Planning Consultants. 1997 ‗No Net Loss of Habitat: Assessing Achievement‘ Workshop Proceedings (Vancouver, BC: Fraser River Action Plan) Ragin, C.C. 2000 Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) Randall, J., and Ironside, G. 1996 ‗Communities on the edge: An economic geography of resource-dependent communities in Canada‘ The Canadian Geographer 40(1), 17-35 RCEU (Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador). 1986 ‗Building on our Strengths: Final Report of the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment‘ (St John‘s, NL: Government of NL) Redman, S., Myers, D. and Averill, D. eds. 2005 ‗Regional Nearshore and Marine Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound‘ (Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Action Team) Reimer, B. 2005 ‗Rural and urban: differences and common ground‘ in Urban Canada: Sociological Perspectives ed. H. Hiller (Toronto: Oxford University Press) -----. 2004 ‗Local Governance of Rural-Urban Interaction: New Directions‘ Presentation to Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation Think Tank, College of New Caledonia, Prince George BC, April 2004 -----. 2002 ‗Understanding Social Capital: its Nature and Manifestations in Rural Canada‘ presentation to the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association Annual Conference, Toronto ON Resilience Alliance 2007 http://www.resalliance.org/576.php accessed 8 November 2008

395 Resilience Alliance and Santa Fe Institute. 2004 ‗Thresholds and alternate states in ecological and social-ecological systems‘ Resilience Alliance URL: http://www.resalliance.org/index.php?id=183 accessed 8 November 2008 Reihlin, M. 1996 ‗The Logic of Heterarchies: Making Organizations Competitive for Knowledge-based Competition‘ Working Paper No. 91 (Cologne: Koln University, Planung und Logistik) Rhodes, R. 1997 Understanding Governance – Policy networks, governance reflexivity and accountability (Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press) Richards, G. 1998 ‗Businesslike government: the ultimate oxymoron?‘ in The Puzzles of Power: An Introduction to Political Science 2 edition eds. M. Howlett and D. Laycock (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press) Richardson, R. 2004 ‗A Conceptual Framework for Comparative Studies of Higher Education Policy‘ an AIHEPS (alliance for international higher education policy studies) Working Paper (New York: AIHEPS) Robadue, D. and Hale, L. 2003 „International experience in integrated coastal resources management‟ Presented at Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning: Lessons and Applications for BC's Central Coast workshop, April 3, 2003, Alert Bay BC Robinson, L., Fuller, T., and Waltner-Toews, D. 2006 ‗Ecosystem Health and Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches – A Synthesis of the Latest Thinking‘ URL: www.uoguelph.ca/~sl~esh accessed 6 November 2008 Roman, C., and Moore, G. 2004 ‗Measuring Local Institutions and Organizations: the Role of Community Institutional Capacity in Social Capital‘ Urban Institute Report on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press) Rondinelli, D. 1990 ‗Decentralization, territorial power and the state: a critical response‘ Development and Change 21, 491–500 Rose, G. 1993 Feminism and Geography: The limits of geographical knowledge (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press) Rose, G. 2003 ‗Fisheries Resources and Science in Newfoundland and Labrador: An Independent Assessment‘ Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada (St. John‘s, NL: Royal Commission) Roseland, M. 1999 ‗Natural Capital and Social Capital: Implications for Sustainable Community Development‘ in Communities, Development, and Sustainability across Canada eds. J.T. Pierce and A. Dale (Vancouver: UBC Press), 190-207 -----. 1998 Toward Sustainable Communities (Gabriola Island, New Society Publishers) Rosell, S. 1992 Governing in an Information Society (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy) Rostow, W. 1960 The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (London: Cambridge University Press)

396 Roy, V. 2003 ‗Regional Economic Development and New Governance Models: Emerging Rural and Urban Perspectives‘ Paper presented at EDAC Seminar, St. John‘s, NL Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment in Newfoundland (RCEUN). 1986 ‗Building on Our Strengths‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador) Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2004 ‗Turning the Tide: Addressing the Impact of Fisheries on the Marine Environment‘ (London, UK: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution) Rowell, P. and E. Ewaschuk 2003 Watershed Stewardship Across the Prairies Prepared for Langley Environmental Partners Society and Fisheries & Oceans Canada URL: www.stewardship2003.ca/forum Rowles, G. 2000 ‗Habituation and being in place‘ Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, Supplement, 20, 52S-67S Rumsey, C., Ardron, J., Ciruna, K., Curtis, T., Doyle, F., Ferdana, Z., Hamilton, T., Heinemeyer, K., Iachetti, P., Jeo, R., Kaiser, G., Narver, D., Noss, R., Sizemore, D., Tautz, A., Tingey, R., Vance-Borland, K. 2003 ‗An Ecosystem Spatial Analysis for Haida Gwaii, Central Coast, and North Coast British Columbia‘ (Victoria, BC: Coast Information Team) RUPRI (Rural Policy Research Institute). 2006 ‗Eight Principles for Effective Rural Governance‘ University of Missouri-Columbia Sabatier, P. 1999 Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder: Westview Press) Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. 1993 Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press) Sabatier, P., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A. and Matlock, M. (ed.). 2005. Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management MIT Press. Sabel, C. 2004 ‗Beyond Principal-Agent Governance: Experimentalist Organizations, Learning and Accountability‘, Draft Discussion Paper Prepared for WRR Meeting, Amsterdam (May 10-14, 2004) In De Staat van de Democratie. Democratie voorbij de Staa eds. E. Engelen & M. Sie Dhian Ho (eds.), (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press) 173-195 Salamon, L. 1994 ‗The Rise of the Non-profit Sector‘ Foreign Affairs. 73 (4), 109-22 Sale, K. 2000 Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press) Sancton, A. 2001 Merger Mania (Kingston: Queen‘s-McGill University Press) Sassen, S. 1996 Losing Control (New York: Columbia University Press) Saul, J.R. 2005 The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World (London: Atlantic Press)

397 Saunders, K., and Duinker, P. 2002 ‗Perceptions of barriers to certification of government forestry in Newfoundland‘ The Forestry Chronicle 78, 6 Savitch, H. and Kantor, P. 2003 Cities in the International Marketplace: The Political Economy of Urban Development in North America and Western Europe (Princeton University Press) Savoie, D. 2000 Community Economic Development in Atlantic Canada: False Hope or Panacea? (Moncton, Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development) ------. 1992 Regional Economic Development: Canada‘s Search for Solutions (Toronto: University of Toronto Press) Scheffer, M.,Westley, F, Brock, W.A, and Holmgren, M. 2001 ‗Dynamic interaction of societies and ecosystems - linking theories from ecology, economy, and sociology‘ in Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington, D.C: Island Press) Schermerhorn J. 1975 ‗Determinants of Inter-organizational Cooperation‘ The Academy of Management Journal 18,4 Schilling, T. 1997 ‗Subsidiarity as a Rule and a Principle, or: Taking Subsidiarity Seriously‘ New York University School of Law, Jean Monnet Centre, URL: http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/95/9510ind.html accessed 6 November 2008 Schneider, F. 2007 ‗Collaboration‘ URL: http://summit.kein.org/node/190 Schneider, M., Scholz, J. Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., and Edwardsen, M. 2003 ‗Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program‘ American Journal of Political Science 47, 143-158 Schrank, W.E. 1997 ‗The Newfoundland Fishery: Past, Present and Future‘ Paper prepared for the World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. by W.E. Schrank, Department of Economics, Memorial University of Newfoundland Schuman, S. ed. 2006 Creating a Culture of Collaboration (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass) Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. 1994 ‗Report of the Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound‘ URL: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/158782/clay1.pdf Scoones, I. 1999 ‗New Ecology and the Social Sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement?‘ Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 479-507 Scott, P. 2005. www.mun.ca/botgarden/plant_bio/ Sheppard, E. 2002 ‗The Spaces and Times of Globalization: Place, Scale, Networks, and Positionality‘ Economic Geography 78(3), 307-330 SHRDA (Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency). 2007 ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2006 – 2007‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA) ----. 2006 ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2005 – 2006‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA)

398 ----. 2004a ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Business Plan 2004-2005‘ Jan. 2004 (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA) ----. 2004b ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2003 – 2004‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA) ----. 2003a ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency 2002-2003 Annual Report and Financial Statements‘ June 2003 (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA) ----. 2003b ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Business Plan 2003-2004‘ Feb. 2003 (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA) Sierra Club of Canada. 2004 ‗Footprints in the Forest: Current practice and future challenges in forest certification‘ The Canadian Standards Association SFM Standard Review and Analysis. Prepared for Fern. -----. 2003. ‗Response to the Draft Newfoundland and Labrador Sustainable Forest Management Strategy‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Sierra Club) Sim, R. A. 1988 Land and Community (Guelph, ON: University of Guelph) Simpson, J. and Weiner, E. eds. 1989 Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Simon, H. A. 1973 ‗The organization of complex systems‘ in Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems. ed. H. Pattee (New York: George), 1-28 Slaney, P. and Zaldokas, D. ed. 1997 ‗Fish Rehabilitation Procedures‘ Watershed Restoration Circular No. 9 (Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks) Slaney, T., Hyatt, K. Northcote, T. and Fielden, R. 1996 ‗Status of anadromous salmon and trout in British Columbia and Yukon‘ Fisheries 21:10–35 Smith, R. 2003 ―World City Actor-Networks‖ Progress in Human Geography, 27 (1), (2003), 25-44 Research Bulletin 71 Smith, N. 2003 ‗The Role of Local Democracy and Governance in the Kittiwake Zone, Newfoundland and Labrador‘ Presentation at annual conference, Canadian Sociologists and Anthropologists Association, Dalhousie University, Halifax Smith, B. 2000 ‗Challenges and Directions for Public Consultation‘ Prepared for DFO. Smith, KG., Carroll, S.J. and Ashford, S.J. 1995 ‗Intra- and Interorganizational Cooperation: Towards a Research Agenda‘ The Academy of Management Journal 38 (1) Smith, N. 1984 Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space (Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell) Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. 2007 ‗Vikings: the North Atlantic Saga‘ URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/start.html Sniderman, P., Fletcher, J., Russell, P., Tetlock, P., and Gaines, B. 1998 ‗The fallacy of democratic elitism‘ in The Puzzles of Power: An Introduction to Political Science eds. M. Howlett and D. Laycock (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press)

399 Snowadzky, B. 2005 ‗Coming Together or Going it Alone: How Resource-dependent Communities Survive in Newfoundland and Labrador‘ PhD Thesis (Durham, NH: Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire) Society for Ecological Restoration International and IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (SERI and IUCN). 2004 ‗Ecological Restoration, a means of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods‘ (Tucson, Arizona: Society for Ecological Restoration International and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN) Soja, E. 1989 Postmodern Geographies: The reassertion of space in. critical social theory (New York: Verso) Sokal, A. and Bricmont, J. 1998 Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers‘ Abuse of Science (London: Profile Books) Sorensen, J. 1997 ‗National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: definitions, achievements, lessons‘ Coastal Management 25(1), 3-41 Sorensen, M. and de Peuter, J. with R. Bollman, J. Lambert, C. Binet and J. Hannes. 2005a ‗Rural British Columbia Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991 – 2001)‘ (Ottawa, ON: the Rural Secretariat) Sorensen, M. and de Peuter, J. with R. Bollman, J. Lambert, C. Binet and J. Hannes. 2005b ‗Rural Newfoundland and Labrador Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991 – 2001)‘ (Ottawa, ON: the Rural Secretariat) Sorensen, M. and de Peuter, J. with R. Bollman, J. Lambert, C. Binet and J. Hannes. 2005c ‗Rural Nova Scotia Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991 – 2001)‘ (Ottawa, ON: the Rural Secretariat) Sorensen, M. and Aylward, J. with R. Bollman, K. Humpage, J. Lambert, C. Binet, and J. Hannes ‗National Rural Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991-2001)‘ (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Rural Partnership, Rural Research and Analysis) URL: http://www.rural.gc.ca/research/profile/nat_e.phtml. Soussan, J. 2004 ‗Linking the Local to the Global: Can Sustainable Development Work in Practice?‘ in Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives eds. M. Purvis and A. Grainger (London, Earthscan), 85-98 Speck, D. Culhane. 1987 An Error in Judgement (Vancouver: Talonbooks) Stake, R. 1995 The art of case research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) Statistics Canada, 2008a CANSIM, table 282-0088: www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labr67b.htm -----. 2007 ‗Income of Canadians 2005‘ The Daily Thursday, May 3, 2007 -----. 2007a www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm -----. 2007b ‗Labour Force Information‘ Catalogue no. 71-001-XIE -----. 2007c http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/definitions/geography.htm. Accessed March 22, 2007

400 -----. 2007d ‗2006 Community Profile‘. 2006 Census, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE. Released March 13, 2007 ----- 2006 ‗Human activity and the environment‘ -----. 2005 ‗Life expectancy - abridged life table, at birth and confidence interval, by sex, three-year average, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions and peer groups‘ 2001Catalogue no. 82-221, Vol. 2005 No. 1 -----. 2005b ‗General Social Survey: Criminal victimization‘ 2005. Internet source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051124/d051124b.htm -----. 2004a Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. -----. 2004b ‗Newfoundland and Labrador: The labour market in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to improve‘ The Canadian Labour Market at a Glance -----. 2002. Self-rated health, by sex, household population aged 12 and over, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions and peer groups, 2000/01. -----. 2001 ‗2001 Community Profile‘. 2001 Census -----. 2000 Statistics Canada, CD ROM No. 71F0004XCB Steytler, N. 2002 „Background Paper on the Place and Role of Local Government in Federations‘ Prepared for the Cities and Federalism Conference, Rio de Janiero, Brazil, 6-7 May 2002 Stewart, P. 2001 ‗Complexity theories, social theory, and the question of social complexity‘ Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31, 323-60 Stoker, G. 2000 ‗Urban Political Science and the challenge of urban governance‘ in Debating Governance ed. J. Pierre (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Stone C. 1986 ‗Power and social complexity‘ in Community Power: Directions for Future Research ed. R Waste (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), 77 – 113 Stora Enso Port Hawkesbury Ltd. 2006 ‗Sustainable Forest Management Long-Term Plan‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS: Stora Enso) -----. 2005 ‗Green Balance Report‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS: Stora Enso) Stora Enso Oyj. 2006b ‗Stora Enso's Port Hawkesbury Mill to restart‘ Stora Enso Oyj News Release 29 September 2006 Storper, M. 1995 ‗The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies'‘ European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3), 191-221 Storper, M 1997 The regional world: territorial development in a global economy (New York: The Guilford Press) Sunstein, C. 1990 After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press) Synergy Management Group. 2003 ‗Proprietary Economic Modelling and Impact Analysis for the Mt. Waddington Region‘ Pilot project report produced for Province of British Columbia (Victoria, BC: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management)

401 Swift, J. 1999 Civil Society in Question (Toronto: Between the Lines) Swyngedouw, E. 2000 ‗Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of rescaling‘ Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18, 63–76 ----. 1997 ‗Neither global nor local: "glocalization" and the politics of scale‘ in Spaces of globalization ed. K Cox (New York: Guilford), 137-166 Tainter, J. 1996 ‗Complexity, Problem Solving and Sustainable Societies‘ in Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics ed. R. Costanza (Washington DC, Island Press) -----. 1988 The collapse of complex societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Task Force on CED (Task Force on Community Economic Development in Newfoundland and Labrador). 1995 ‗Community Matters: The New Regional Economic Development‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador) Taylor, P., Evans, D. and Pain, K. 2006 ‗Application of the inter-locking network model to mega-city regions: measuring polycentricity within and beyond city- regions‘ GaWC Research Bulletin 201. Taylor, P. 1994 ‗The state as container: territoriality in the modern world-system‘ Progress in Human Geography 18, 151-162 Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B. and Geran, J. 1998 Evaluating Collaboratives (Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension) Tellis, W. 1997 ‗Introduction to case study‘ in The Qualitative Report 3(2) URL: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html Tennant, P. 1989 Aboriginal Peoples and Politics in BC (Vancouver: UBC Press) Thayer, R. 2003 LifePlace: Bioregional Thought and Practice (Berkeley: University of California Press) Thrift, N. 1999 ‗The place of complexity‘ Theory, Culture & Society, 16, 31-69 -----. 1996 ‗A phantom state? International money, electronic networks and global cities‘ in Spatial Formations (Beverly Hills: Sage), 213-255 Tickell, A and Peck, J. 1995 ‗Social regulation after Fordism: regulation theory, neo- liberalism and the global-local nexus‘ in Economy and Society 24(3), 357-386 Todaro, M. 1997 Economic Development (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company) Tomblin, S. 2005 ‗Memorial Presents‘ Presentation to Regional Approaches to Governance in Economic Development and Municipal Government, A Dialogue on Social Innovation. Harris Centre, October, St. John‘s NL URL: http://www.mun.ca/harriscentre/presents.php/. -----. 2004 ‗Introduction and overview‘ In Regionalism in a Global Society: Persistence and Change in Atlantic Canada and New England eds. S. Tomblin and C. Colgan (Toronto, ON: Broadview Press)

402 -----. 2002 ‗Newfoundland and Labrador at the crossroads: Reform or lack of reform in a new era?‘ Journal of Canadian Studies, Spring 2002 -----. 2000a ‗Newfoundland and Labrador at the Crossroads: Prospects for Effecting Change in the Knowledge-based Economy?‘ Presented at the North Atlantic Forum 2000 -----. 2000b ‗Regional Integration and the Quest to Strengthen Transborder Connections: Rethinking the Line‘ presented at the conference session The New Regionalism: Lessons From the Atlantic Seaboard, Policy Research Initiative (Privy Council) - University of British Columbia & Washington State University Tompkins, E. and Adger, N. 2004 ‗Does Adaptive Management of Natural Resources Enhance Resilience to Climate Change?‘ Ecology and Society 9 (2) October Torjman, S. 2006 ‗Preparing for the Demographic Tsunami‘ Caledon Institute of Social Policy Tota, K., 2002 ‗Can place-based collaborative planning work between First Nations and Local Governments in Nova Scotia?‘ Master of Urban and Rural Planning (Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University) Tremblay, D. and S. Rousseau. 2005 ‗The Montreal Multimedia Sector: A Cluster, An 'Innovative Milieu' or A Simple Co-location?‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science 28, 299-328 Tremblay, R. 2005 ‗Introduction‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science 28 (2) Summer 2005, 19(4) UINR (Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources) URL: www.uinr.ca ------.2006a Spring newsletter. -----. 2006b American Marten in Unama‘ki. UMA Group (Underwood McLellan Associates). 1989 ‗Bras d‘Or Lake Watershed Integrated Resource Management Plan Study‘ (Sydney, NS: Bras d‘Or Institute) UN (United Nations). 2005 Millennium Project Task Force on Environmental Sustainability -----. 1992 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 1997 Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP policy document URL: http://magnet.undp.org/policy/summary.htm Urquizo, N., J. Bastedo, T. Brydges, H. Shear. 2000 ‗Ecological Assessment of the Boreal Shield Ecozone‘ (Ottawa: Environment Canada) Urbanwater.info. 2005 http://www.urbanwater.info/Organisation/AdaptiveManagement.cfm. Hunter and Central Coast Councils.

403 Urry, J. 2003 Global Complexity (Cambridge: Polity Press) US Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004 ‗An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy‘ Final Report (Washington DC: US Commission on Ocean Policy) Uvalic, M. 2002 ―Regional Cooperation and the Enlargement of the European Union: Lessons Learned.‖ International Political Science Review 23(3) Van Zyll de Jong, M., N. Lester, R. Korver, W. Norris, B. Wicks 2002 ‗Managing the exploitation of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill), populations in Newfoundland lakes‘ in Ecology and Management of lake and Reservoir Fisheries, Fishing ed. I. Cowx (Oxford, UK: News Books), 267-283 Victor, D. 2006 ‗Recovering Sustainable Development‘ Foreign Affairs, 85 (1), 91-103 Victoria County. 2000 ‗Choice Not Circumstance: The Victoria County Strategic Plan‘ June 2000 (Baddeck, NS: Victoria County) Vodden, K. and Bannister, K. 2008 „Circularising Knowledge Flows: Institutional structures, policies and practices for community-university partnerships‘ in Making and Moving Knowledge J. Lutz and B. Neis (eds.) (Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queen‘s Press), Chapter 13 Vodden, K. and Kennedy, J. 2006 ‗From Resignation to Renewal: First Nations Strategies for Resilience‘ in Power, Agency and Environment: Restructuring Canada‘s East and West Coasts eds. P. Sinclair and R. Ommer (St. John‘s, NL: ISER Books) Vodden, K., Ommer, R. and Schneider, D. 2006 ‗A Comparative analysis of three modes of collaborative learning in fisheries governance: Hierarchy, Networks, and Community‘ in Participation in Fisheries Governance ed. T. Gray (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer) Vodden, K. and Panek, P. 1998 ‗Government and Community Groups: Friends or Foe in Ecological Restoration?‘ in Helping the Land Heal (Victoria BC) Vodden, K. 2006 ‗Adapting to Uncertain Futures: Alert Bay Community Background Report‘ URL: www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/uncertainfutures/ -----. 2005 ‗Case Studies in Municipal Service Sharing‘ Prepared for Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: MNL) -----. 2004 ‗Knowledge Sharing and Collaborative Watershed Governance - Coast to Coast‘ Presentation to the Canadian Water Resources Association Conference, November 2004, Regina, SK Vodden, K. 2002. ―Sustainable Community Development in a Coastal Context: The Case of Alert Bay, British Columbia‖, Canadian Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development. Vol. 3. No.1. -----. 1999a ‗Nanwakola: Co-management and Sustainable Community Economic Development in a BC Fishing Village‘ MA thesis (Burnaby: Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University) URL: www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies

404 -----. 1999b ‗Cormorant Island Community Profile, Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre, Alert Bay, BC‘ Unpublished paper Waldrop, M. 1992 Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos (New York: Simon and Schuster) Walesh, K. and Henton, D. 2001 ‗The Creative Community: Leveraging Creativity and Cultural Participation for Silicon Valley's Economic and Civic Future‘ Working Paper (Mountain View, CA: Collaborative Economics) Walker, B. H., L. H. Gunderson, A. P. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006 ‗A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems‘ Ecology and Society 11(1), 13 URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/ Walker, BH and Abel, N. 2001 ‗Resilient Rangelands – Adaptation In Complex Systems‘ Chapter 11 in Gunderson, L, and Holling, CS (eds) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington DC: Island Press) Walker, B. H., and R. L. Lawson. 2006 ‗Case studies in resilience: fifteen social- ecological systems across continents and societies‘ The Resilience Alliance. URL: http://www.resalliance.org/1613.php Walker, B. and J. A. Meyers. 2004 ‗Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological systems: a developing database‘ Ecology and Society 9(2): 3 URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3 Wall, D. 2005 ‗British Columbia‘s Community CharterA Legislative Framework for Modern Local Government‟ Public Sector Management Workshop, May 30, 2005 Wall, E. And K. Marzall. 2006 ‗Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural Communities‘ Local Environment 11(4) 373–397, August 2006. Wallace, R., Wallace, D., Ullmann, J.E. and Andrews, H. (1999) Deindustrialization, inner-city decay, and the hierarchical diffusion of AIDS in the USA: how neoliberal and cold war policies magnified the ecological niche for emerging infections and created a national security crisis, Environment and Planning A, 31, 113-39 Wang, Puqu. 2002 ‗On the Viability of Polycentric Governance Theory to Contemporary China‘ Presented at the Institutional Analysis and Development Mini-Conference and TransCoop Meeting, Humboldt University/Indiana University, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Bloomington, IN, December 13-16, 2002 Ward, K. and A. Jonas. 2004 ‗Competitive city-regionalism as a politics of space: a critical reinterpretation of the new regionalism‘ Environment and Planning A, 36, 2119-2139 Warren, W. 2005 ‗Hierarchy Theory in Sociology, Ecology, and Resource Management: A Conceptual Model for Natural Resource or Environmental Sociology and Socio- ecological Systems‘ Society & Natural Resources 18 (5), 447 – 466 Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning Steering Committee. 2000 ‗Watershed- based Fish Sustainability Planning: Conserving Fish Populations and their Habitat: A Guidebook for Participants‘

405 Watkins, M. 1982 ‗The Innis Tradition in Canadian Political Economy‘ Canadian Journal of Political Science and Social Theory 6 (1-2), 12-34 Way, S. 2003. Kittiwake Coaster Winter 2003 WCED (World Commission on the Environment and Development) Brundtland, Gro Harlem, Chairperson. 1987 Our Common Future (New York, Oxford University Press) WD (Western Diversification) ‗2003/2004 Annual Report‘ Webber, M. 1964 ‗The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm‘ in: Explorations into the Urban Structure eds. Webber et al (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press) 79-153 Weick, K. 1995 Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) Wein, F. 1997 ‗The Royal Commission Report: Nine Steps to Rebuild Aboriginal Economies‘ in The Cost of Doing Nothing: A Call to Action. (Toronto: CANDO- Royal Bank Symposium) Weinstein, M. ‗Design possibilities for a regional resource management board for the implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy within the MTTC First Nations' territories: Discussion Paper‘ (Coquitlam, BC: Watershed Watch) ------. 1991 ‗Nimpkish Valley: A History of Resource Management on Vancouver Island Lands of the Nimpkish Indian People, from Aboriginal Times to the 1980s‘ A report prepared for the Nimpkish Indian Band Council, Alert Bay, BC Welch, R. 2002 ‗Legitimacy of Rural Local Government in the New Governance Environment‘ Journal of Rural Studies 18, 443-459. Werring, J. and Chapman, D. 2002 ‗Law and Disorder: A Review of Habitat. Legislation and Protection for BC's Salmon Streams‘ (Vancouver, BC: Sierra Legal Defense Fund) Wescott, G. 2002 ‗Partnerships for capacity building: community, governments and universities working together‘ Ocean & Coastal Management 45, 549–571 Westhead, M. and M. Parker 2005 ‗Ecosystem overview report‘ Wettenhall, R 1981 'The quango phenomenon' Current Affairs Bulletin 57(10), 14-22 WFP (Western Forest Products) ‗North Vancouver Island Region Sustainable Forest Management Plan - 8 - Last Revised: November 24, 2007‘ Westley, F., Carpenter, S.R., Brock, W.A., Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H 2001 ‗Why systems of people and nature are not just social and ecological systems‘ in Panarchy. Understanding Transformation in Human and Natural Systems eds. L. Gunderson and CS. Holling (Washington, DC: Island Press), 103-120 Whiffen, G. and Hilliard, W. 2000 ‗DFO Warns of Decline‘ Evening Telegram 28 March 2000. White, R. 2006 Complexity and Chaos (Blackstone Audio Inc. Science & Discovery Series)

406 Wicks, B. 1996 ‗Economic Development Plan for the Indian Bay Watershed‘ (Indian Bay, NL: IBEC) Williams et al. 2006. Fishing Industry Renewal Discussion Paper Williams, C. and A. Millington 2004. ―The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development‖. The Geographical Journal. Vol. 1 No. 2. pp. 99-104. Williamson, T.B., and S. Annamraju. 1996. Analysis of the contribution of the forest industry to the economic base of rural communities in Canada. Working Paper 43. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Industry, Economics and Programs Branch. Wilson, P. 1997. Building Social Capital: A Learning Agenda for the Twenty-first Century. Urban Studies. Wilson, C. 2000 ‗Policy Regimes and Policy Change‘ Journal of Public Policy Winer, M. and Ray, K. 1994 Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the Journey (Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation) Wittayapak, C., and P. Dearden. 1999 ‗Decision-making arrangements in community- based watershed management in Northern Thailand‘ Society and Natural Resources 12, 673–691 Wolfe, D. ed. 2005 Clusters Old and New: The Transition to a Knowledge Economy in Canada‘s Regions (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen‘s Press) Wolfe, L. 2000 ‗Patterns of Equivocality in Decision Making for Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems: Towards the Design of Equivocality-Reducing Management Systems‘ PhD Dissertation (Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University School of Resource and Environmental Management) Wolfish, D. and G. Smith. 2000 ―Governance and Policy in a Multi-centric World‖ Canadian Public Policy, XXVI Supplement Woodrow, M. 2006 ‗Definitions of Resilience‘ presentation to workshop on Adapting to Uncertain Futures, Alert Bay BC, Oct. 3. -----. 1996 ‗Resistance to regulatory changes in the fishery: a study of selected communities of Bonavista North, Newfoundland‘ Unpublished PhD Thesis (Montreal, QC: Universite Laval) Wuttenee, W. 2006 ‗Making Space: Aboriginal Perspectives of Community Economic Development‘ in Community Economic Development: Building for Social Change eds. E. Shragge and M. Toye (Sydney, NS: Cape Breton University Press) Yin, R. 2002 Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park, Sage Publications. Yorque, R., B. Walker, C.S. Holling, L., C. Folke, S. Carpenter and W. Brock 2001 Toward an Integrative Synthesis, in Gunderson and Holling (eds) Panarchy. Understanding Transformation in Human and Natural Systems, Washington, Island Press: 419-438

407 Young, O. 1994 International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society (Ithaca, Cornell University Press) Young, D. and J. Charland 1992 Successful Local Economic Development Initiatives. Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research (Toronto: ICURR) Young, N. and R. Matthews. 2007 ‗The economic spaces of community and industry in rural British Columbia: the political reconstitution of a rural economy‘ Area 39 (2), 176–185 ------. 2005a ‗Spatial strategies for rural development in British Columbia‘ Draft unpublished paper, July 2005 Yuan, M. 2000 ‗Representation dynamic geographic phenomena based on hierarchical theory‘ in Proceedings: 9th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling Spatial Data Handling ed. P. Forer, 2a.19-2a.29 Yuliani, E.L. 2007 Decentralisation, deconcentration and devolution; what do they mean? Internet www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf Zdravko, P. 2002 ‗Political Economy of the Croatian De-Evolution‘ Presented at the Institutional Analysis and Development Mini-Conference and TransCoop Meeting, Humboldt University/Indiana University, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Bloomington, IN, December 13-16, 2002 Zartman, I. 1996 Governance as Conflict Management: Politics and Violence in West Africa (Washington DC: Brookings Institute) Zimmerer K. and Basset T. 2003 Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to Geography and Environment – Development Studies (Guilford, New York) Zimmerman, B., C. Lindberg and Paul Plesk. 1998 ‗A Complexity Science Primer‘ Adapted from Edgeware: Lessons from Complexity Science for Health Care Leaders (Dallas, TX: VHA Inc.)

408 Appendices

Appendix 1 – Case Study Outcomes

a) Respondent perspectives: Outcomes are listed in order of the frequency with which they were noted by respondents from each case). Yes (Y), Medium/To some degree (M), or No (N) indicate assessments of the presence of these outcomes, considering observations, disagreements among respondents and inconsistencies among data sources.

NL-W BC-W NS-W 1. Knowledge/science (Y) 1 a. Learning/capacity building 1. Relationship building and 2. a. Community/public (Y/M) information sharing (Y) education/awareness (Y/M) b. Relationships (M) 2. Knowledge/capacity and b. Monitoring and c. Employment (Y) understanding (Y/M) enforcement presence (M) 2. Coordination and communication 3. Water quality 3. Management improvements (Y/M) improvement (M), pollution (Y) 3. Pride (Y) reduction measures (Y) 4. a. Field school prep/potential 4. a. Stewardship (M) 4. Employment (Y/M) (Y/M) b. Public relations (Y/M) 5. a. Value for $/efficiency b. Student training & jobs (Y) c. Leverage/access to financial b. Integration/improved c. Habitat protection (Y/M) resources (Y/M) management and policy (Y) 5. a. Improvement in fish stocks 5. a. Improvement in overall (Y/M) watershed health (M) Other: just being, enforcement/ b. Economic dev‘t (Y/M) b. Habitat protection and coordination, access to $ (through restoration (Y) SCI), equity/ empowerment, c. Financial management (Y) habitat protection and restoration, Cultural – presence on the land (Y) local stewardship/safeguarding

NL-E BC-E NS-E 1a. Coordination and 1. Business support/development 1. Capacity building/education cooperation (M) (Y/M) 2. Support for development (M) 2a. Industry development (M) 2. Regional thinking/relationship efforts (info, facilitate) (Y) b. Assistance to small building (M) 3. a. Ease for government (Y) business (M) 3. Access to funding/$ into area (Y) b. Regional planning and c. Internal/organizational 4. Capacity building (Y/M) cooperation (Y/M) capacity building (M) 5. Rebuilding reputation (M) 4. Access to funding/$ (Y) 3a. Liaison with government/ 6. Development of/support for new 5. Business support/ advocate for the region (M) NGOs (Y/M) development (Y) b. Education/capacity 7. Diversification/support for new 6. Infrastructure improved (Y) building (Y) industries 7a. Comm. planning (Y/M) 4a. Giving youth a voice/ b. Industry development (Y) addressing youth issues (Y) Other: voice for youth, 8a. Survival and organizational b. Strategic planning (Y/M) job creation/experience/transition, development (Y) 5a. Seeing the bigger picture, infrastructure 9. Representation/voice (Y) ―thinking outside the box‖ and about issues broader than one Debate re. role as government/ Other: youth involvement community can tackle (Y) community interface and (limited), ease for communities of b. Funding/resources (Y) communication/coordination (#8) horizontal partnerships, labour c. Diversification (M) Some criticisms re. lack of outcomes, market development, job creation, very difficult region green energy projects

409 b. Outcomes organized by sustainable development imperative/indicator category (#s reflect the number of respondents citing each type of outcome out of a total number ―n‖of respondents discussing outcomes).

NL-W (n=28) BC-W (n=13) NS-W (n=32)

System capacity: System capacity: Social/system capacity: 1. Knowledge/science (Y) – 13 1 a. Learning/capacity building 1. Relationship building and 2.a. Monitoring and enforcement (Y/M) - 7 information sharing (Y) - 25 (M) - 10 2. Coordination & 2. Knowledge/capacity and b. Community/public education/ communication (Y/M) - 5 understanding (Y) – 24 awareness (Y/M) - 10 4a. Stewardship (M) - 3 5b. Integration/improved 3. Management improvements (Y) 4b. Public relations for DFO, management and policy - 5 - 9 forest companies (Y/M) - 3 4a. Field school prep/ potential 5. Financial management (Y) Ecological: (Y/M) - 8 #3. Water quality Social: improvement/pollution Ecological: Relationships (M) - 7 reduction measures – 11 (Y/M) 2.c. Habitat protection and 3. Pride (Y) - 4 restoration (Y/M) - 10 Economic: 5. Improvement in fish stocks Economic: #4. Employment – 7 (Y/M – (Y/M) – 7 1. Employment (Y) - 7 LT, some ST losses, room for - limited to fisheries focus 4. Leverage/access to financial improvement in FNs emp.) resources (Y/M) – 4/1? #5 a. Value for $/efficiency - 5 Economic: 4b. Student training/jobs (Y) - 8 Ecological: Cultural/legal: 5. Ec dev (Y/M) -7 5. a. Improvement in overall - Presence/leadership in watershed health (M) - 2 resource management and Social/cultural: b. Habitat protection and resource industries - lifestyle protection restoration (Y) – 2/1? - Cross-cultural sharing - limited to fisheries focus Other: government awareness, stewardship, land use planning, Cultural/legal: litter clean-up - Presence/leadership on the land & in fish management

410 NL-E (27) BC-E (20) NS-E (11)

System capacity: Economic: System Capacity: 1a. Coordination and cooperation 1. Business development (Y/M) - 1. Capacity bldg/ed. (M) - 7 (M) - 6 14 2. Support for dev‘t efforts 2c. Internal/organizational capacity 3. $ into the area, projects and (info, facilitate) (Y) - 5 building (M) - 5 businesses (Y) - 9 3. a. Ease for gov‘t (Y) - 4 3a. Liaison with gov‘t/ advocate 7. Diversification/support for new b. Regional planning and for the region - 4 industries - 5 cooperation (Y/M) b. Education & community System Capacity: 4. a. Comm. plans (Y/M) - 3 capacity building (Y) - 4 2. Regional relationships (M)- 11 5. a. Survival, organization 4.b. Strategic planning (Y/M) - 3 4. Capacity building (Y/M) - 8 development (Y) - 2 5.a. Seeing the bigger picture, 5. Rebuilding reputation (M) - 7 b. Represent‘n/voice (Y) - 2 ―thinking outside the box‖ and 6. Support for, dev‘t of new Economic: about issues broader than one NGOs/agencies (M) - 6 3c. Access to funds/$ (Y)- 4 community can tackle (Y/M)-2 Social: d. Business support/ Economic: 2. Relationships (M) - 11 development (Y/M) 2. a. Industry development (M) - 5 e. Infr. improved (Y) b. Assist small bus. (Y/M) - 5 Other: youth involvement/jobs 4. b. Industry dev‘t - 3 5.a. Funding/resources (Y) - 2 (3), assistance to social NGOs, b. Diversification (M) - 2 some assistance for projects with Other: youth involvement Social: ecological and cultural benefits (limited - social), ease for 1b. ―Building bridges‖ (Y/M) - 6 communities of horizontal 4.a. Giving youth a voice/ partnerships, government addressing youth issues (Y) - 3 learning as part of such Ecological: partnerships (esp. RT and SCI), - support for c.r.m. efforts labour market development, job (Eastport, GRMA, Ragged creation, green energy projects Harbour, eider) (M) (ecological)

411 c. Outcomes compared to stated mission/mandate (officially desired outcomes)

Element of stated mission/mandate Outcome Observed Notes type sought outputs, outcomes NL-E Develop SEPs, coordinate Capacity Yes/To some Major emphasis of government implementation degree partners, implementation gaps Coordinate business development Capacity To some Recognition, communication, degree resources, resistance Support organizations and Support for specific identified groups communities Capacity Yes and initiatives, aided by government req. for support Coordinate RED-related social and To some # of actors involved, recognition, economic initiatives Capacity degree communication, resources Promote public participation, Community capacity building community education in RED Capacity Yes program, increased awareness of interdependence Other outcomes: organizational development, assisting small business, advocacy, diversification, bringing $ into the region, relationship bldg, voice for youth, lifelong learning initiative, support from CRM efforts. Note: More holistic 1997 vision statement omitted in 2003 plan, elements remaining in goals. NS-E To lead in the facilitation, Combination of response to requests coordination and initiation of Economic Yes and targeted strategic projects and community and business issues + Capacity partnerships and opportunities The integrating force in developing To some Similar to KEDC, difficulty sustainable regional economics and Capacity degree integrating/coordinating with many communities actors, limited connection to or recognition by many of them Logic model refers to interim Yes/To some Need for updated regional plan, outcomes - capacity, programs, Capacity degree additional capacity bldg but also leadership and planning achievements Other outcomes: internal organizational development, broad mandate covers outcomes BC-E Foster responsible economic Economic Yes Limited but important outcomes, growth difficult context Leadership in: Have not been active in this area, until Community-based strategic Capacity Limited required by SEAI planning (note vs. regional) Small bus. training, development, Economic + Yes Investment funds, SEA program financial support capacity important support Developing alternatives for EI and Economic To some SA funding cuts SA recipients through SEP degree Coordinating, targeting and Capacity Limited Have not been active in this area – O- designing employment training Zone, referrals Partnerships for creative econ. Capacity Yes/To some Some communities feel excluded diversification solutions degree limiting potential

412 Other outcomes: Regional relationship building, youth engagement, assistance to social and other NGOs – local capacity building, internal organizational development (reputation recovery) Note: Also identify a set of more holistic strategic priorities.

Element of stated Outcome type sought Observed outputs, Notes mission/mandate outcomes NL-W Preserve and enhance our Ecological Yes/to some degree Have protected and restored wilderness heritage trout pop.s to some degree, (forests, rivers and restored habitats, achieved streams) land use planning and conservation measures but fisheries focused Sustainable ec dev Economic To some degree Government funding through a revitalized dependent for IBEC jobs, recreational fishery local fishery sustained Other outcomes: management/governance capacity (knowledge/science, monitoring and enforcement, community/public education/ awareness, management improvements, research and education facilities), student training/jobs and support for tourism and recreation and resource management-related economic development, lifestyle protection NS-W Stakeholder collaboration Social + capacity Yes (with need to High level of collaboration further engage taking place with room for community at large, further enhancement industry players) IM planning Capacity/institutional In progress River Denys only Plan implementation Capacity/institutional Limited (actions on Interim actions only, sewage issues) planning underway Incorporating TK and Social + capacity Yes Significant role played by western science UINR, CBU Sewage remediation/ Ecological To some degree Infrastructure water quality improvements and early improvement positive signs in testing Protecting and preserving Ecological Limited/to some Much left to be done the BLWE degree Meeting the needs of Economic + social, Limited/to some Job creation benefits have current generations cultural, ecological degree occurred but also fishery - Mi‘kmaq employment jobs lost, ltd. emphasis to date One-window/ improved Capacity/institutional To some degree Silos still considered a government service problem but several projects have benefited First Nation‘s Social, cultural + Yes/To some degree Management model still in strengthened and equal capacity/ institutional development but with sign. participation in resource involvement and capacity management bldg Other outcomes: value for $/efficiency (others covered by broad objectives above) BC-W Re-establish and rebuild Ecological Limited Habitat protection and Nimpkish salmonid stocks restoration measures,

413 reported improvement in overall watershed health but salmon stocks remain at low levels Integrated resource Capacity/institutional To some degree Increased coordination and planning and coordination communication, used as of resource use/activities clearinghouse for resource impacting salmon applications but planning is limited outside fisheries recovery activities Other outcomes: enhanced governance/management capacity (learning/capacity building, stewardship, improved financial management and leverage/access to financial resources), public relations for DFO and forest companies, relationship-building, pride, employment, First Nations presence/leadership on the land & in fisheries management

Outcome Index

Interviews results presented above are compared to secondary data and the following scores were consequently assigned to create the radial diagrams:

0 = no evidence of impact in this area 1 = some evidence of improvement but majority of evidence suggests outcomes are minimal 2 = some evidence of impact but only of medium significance and/or data is conflicting 3 = evidence of significant impact but with remaining gaps unaddressed or some disagreement in the data 4 = evidence of significant impact in this area

NL-W NL-E Gaps Outcomes Outcomes Ecological 3 2 1 Economic 3 2 2 Individual 3 3 3 Social 1 2 3 Cultural 2 2 2

NS-W NS-E Gaps Outcomes Outcomes Ecological 3 2 2 Economic 3 2 3 Individual 2 3 2 Social 2 4 2 Cultural 1 4 2

414

BC-W Gaps Outcomes BC-E Outcomes Total Outcome Score Ecological 2 1 1 9 Economic 2 2 3 14 Individual 3 3 2 16 Social 3 2 3 16 Cultural 2 3 1 14

Calculation of improvement in priority sustainable development issues:

Contribution towards sustainability gap score = outcome score for each category where there is a gap up to a maximum of the sustainability gap score in that category

Improvement score = contribution score/total sustainability gap (all categories added)

100% = 4/4 85%+= = 3/4 (NS-E) 70-84% = 2/4 (BC-W, BC-E, NS-W, NL-W, NL-E)

BC-W Example:

Contribution = 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 2 (vs. 3) = 10 Sustainability gap total = 12 10/12= 83%

Overall outcomes ratings are presented in Table 33 (p. 262).

415

Appendix 2 - Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable Development

While a high degree of consensus may exist on the principles of good governance, measuring their practice has proven notoriously difficult (ESPON 2005). Attempts to develop indicators for current governance practice and opportunities for improvement have met with mixed success. Further, the evolving nature of the governance process makes it difficult to set up permanent indicators. New priorities continue to arise, such as the increasing emphasis on flexibility, adaptation and collaboration described in Chapters 2 and 3. Indicators should be used cautiously, evaluation undertaken over a sufficiently long period of time and evaluation methods themselves critically reviewed initially and periodically. Despite these challenges the effort to measure good governance remains an important attempt to improve confidence in complex institutions (CEC 2001).

Note: principles of good governance, collaboration and sustainable development are interconnected and therefore some indicators provide evidence of more than one principle in practice. Good governance (the accumulation of good governance principles in practice) is, for example, itself considered a principle of sustainable development.

Good Governance

1. Effectiveness: The degree to which actions/policies lead to changes in behaviour that help to solve the problems being addressed (have intended effect)

Satisfaction of effectiveness criteria relates to the principle of thoroughness/fullness. Effectiveness requires sufficient depth to the examination of issues, as well as a scale(s) of decision-making appropriate to the problem and implementation capacity.

Indicators: - documented clear objectives and action plans clearly and logically linked to those objectives - program/procedures in place to review and monitor policy performance - evaluation criteria and procedures for staff and Board members - demonstrated achievement of established goals and objectives

Sources: Massam and Dickinson (1999), Paquet and Wilkins (2002), CEC (2001), Abrams (2003)

416 2. Transparency/openness: sharing information and acting in an open manner, with open channels of communication between stakeholders and officials and sufficient range of accessible information provided to understand and monitor institutions and decision- making processes. Relevant decisions ―behind closed doors‖ should be avoided outside of collaborative governance processes, hidden agendas revealed.

Indicators: - regular reports the public in appropriate venues about activities and decisions - public availability of meeting minutes and documents - meetings open to the public - provision of information on web sites - language is clear and understandable (accessibility) - consistence between stated values and practices

Sources: CEC (2001), Davoudi et el (2004), UNDP

3. Accountability: ―To be accountable is to answer for one‘s responsibilities, to report, to explain, to give reasons, to respond, to assume obligations, to render a reckoning and submit to an outside or external judgement‖ (Gagne 1998 p. 175).

Accountability is the requirement of decision-makers/power-holders to explain and justify their actions to stakeholders, act on criticisms, and accept responsibility for failure. It requires clear roles and responsibilities, adequate and open access to information (related to transparency) and organized stakeholders who are able to monitor and respond). Accountability also requires enforceability of sanctions for powerholders who make mistakes or engage in illegal behaviour. Accountability becomes more difficult to enforce as goals, objectives and responsibilities become more complex. Organizations may have accountability to more than one stakeholder and that these may conflict. Goals may be ambiguous and/or continually modified through negotiation and reflection in collaborative, adaptive governance, thus, it is argued, not having the same level of accountability as a traditional government led by elected officials. Long time frames for action can exacerbate the problem of monitoring and reporting on effectiveness and meeting the accountability principle.

Indicators: - documentation demonstrating clear/well-defined, transparent rights, roles, responsibilities, authority and accountability (e.g. contracts, MOUs, legislation) - documentation demonstrating clear/well-defined, transparent goals, objectives and targets, expectations/guidelines for behaviour - stakeholders with adequate knowledge regarding what is at stake in decision- making, who is responsible, goals, objectives, plans and how those responsible can be made accountable - mechanisms for audit/review/evaluation - methods for reporting back to stakeholders on evaluation results (open information) - mechanisms for providing feedback/demanding accountability that are accessible to all

417 - mechanisms for responding to feedback - evidence of action taken in response to concerns raised (e.g. decisions modified when reasonably questioned, % of complaints responded to/acted upon) - evidence of action taken in response to evaluation results - clear process for overturning decisions - concrete rewards for good decisions and repercussions/sanctions for those making inappropriate or irresponsible decisions (e.g. job sanctions, election - ballot box is the traditional democratic mechanism according to Morgan 2007) - mechanisms for dealing with violations of group rules/norms - mechanism for financial review and accountability

Sources: UNDP, Savoie (2000), Goetz (2002), CEC (2001), Abrams (2003), Coe (2006), Markey et al (2004), Kernaghan and Siegel

4. Legitimacy/authority: ―sanctioning of actions by the populace‖

Authority is a legitimate right to exercise power and to change formal decision-making rules, legitimate in that the public and stakeholders accept that governing body has the right to and/or should make decisions for them. Legitimacy is often garnered by balancing power on one hand with support on the other, including providing access to argument and follow-up response, honesty and sincerity, presenting a case for action based on evidence and full justification. Weber identifies three sources of authority and legitimacy: traditional authority (derived from custom and history); charismatic authority (based on popular admiration); and rational-legal/bureaucratic (from the offices individuals hold and institutions that got them there).

Indicators: - clearly identified roles and responsibilities (overlaps in responsibility also identified) - election of representatives - election turnout rates - approval for election process - endorsement of elected governments (or composition of governing bodies), respect for leadership - support for decisions and policies - compliance with rules, legislation and agreements - degree to which stakeholders believe agreements are honoured by governing bodies (or if not satisfactory explanations are provided) - use of mix of soft and hard policy instruments

Sources: Jackson and Jackson, Massam and Dickinson (1999), Abrams (2003)

5. Inclusive Public Engagement/Participation: engagement of stakeholder groups and representatives but also the general public ―based on the democratic maxim that those affected by a decision should participate directly in the decision-making process‖ (participatory democracy a form of representative democracy)

418 Public participation provides leadership through support and coordination rather than simple command and control. Ideally it recognizes, respects and accommodates stakeholder diversity, balancing communities of interest and communities of place. Inclusiveness should be considered in access, presence and influence. All significant and legitimate interests should be taken into account, including: those to be affected by the process outcome; those required to implement decisions; those who could undermine the process if not included; and those who bring required experience, knowledge or skills to the process, recognizing, however, that not everyone will/can be involved. The level of involvement should be appropriate for the level of public interest, seriousness of the issue and decision-making power available to citizens while keeping group size manageable. Benefits and costs of participation must be balanced. Appropriate players and methods may change over time. Some authors argue for sustained rather than sporadic and episodic methods of engagement while others advocate timelines that limit the process. By providing opportunities for participation governance processes recognize, value, and support all community members in contributing to the economic, social and cultural life of a society. Stakeholder participation policy must be backed by sufficient resources, staff, and commitment to be effective and meaningful, should have a meaningful influence and implementation ability and the parties should be sufficiently supportive and committed to invest the time necessary to make it work (see also Collaboration principles below). Timeliness of involvement where possible indicates sincerity, recognizing that missing actors may be identified or come forward later.

Indicators: - existence and frequency of public meetings, presentations and other opportunities for citizen input, including opportunities that do not require public speaking or written response - advertising of opportunities for input in locally appropriate venues, including use of local media, schools, community groups (all sectors) - existence and updating of stakeholder analysis - number and range of different social actors involved in governance initiative/organization - opportunities provided before decisions are made (early in the process and throughout) - power sharing, e.g. delegation of responsibility where appropriate - opportunities for dialogue provided - open discussion about governance issues within civil society and/or the media - diversity of representation (inclusion of underrepresented groups, e.g. youth/students, non-resident interests) - examination and addressing of barriers to participation - special measures to ensure that marginalized groups have access to programs and participation (expression without discrimination by gender, ethnicity, social class etc.) - program to build participation capacity - stakeholder involvement in evaluation - stakeholder satisfaction with opportunities for participation - frequency of reports to stakeholders and the public

419 Sources: CEC (2001), RUPRI (2006), Bryant (1999), Eoyang (1999), Abrams (2003), Clutterbuck and Novick (2003), Markey and Vodden (2003)

6. Conflict resolution and consensus building: builds collaborative relationships and consensus solutions among stakeholders, evolution of consensus solutions based on shared values/principles and common commitments, seeking to resolve disagreement while allowing for expression of different points of view, exploration of diverse meanings, respecting and accommodating the diversities within society

Balance is needed when considering participation and consensus-building principles. Consensus process gets more difficult and costly as the number of parties increases. Scharpf (1997: 70) suggests ―as the number of affected parties increases . . . negotiated solutions incur exponentially rising and eventually prohibitive transaction costs.‖ Hooghe (2001) argues in some cases a control approach (hard instruments) may be needed, although the threat of a forced decision is often an incentive for collaborative negotiation.

Indicators: - goals and objectives determined by consensus (widely agreed upon) - opportunities provided for sharing common experiences - identification of and steps taken to discuss and seek resolution to areas of disagreement - existence and use of consensus building and conflict resolution techniques - staff training provided in consensus building and conflict resolution techniques - used of skilled, independent facilitators when necessary (e.g. important planning processes, dealing with controversial issues) - demonstrated respect for different points of view - seek solutions acceptable to all - % of decisions by consensus vs. vote

Sources: Davoudi et al (2004), Scharpf (1997), Hooghe (2001), Clutterbuck and Novick (2003)

7. Efficiency/Cost-effectiveness: outputs and outcomes commensurate with inputs (effort expended and resources committed)

Indicators: - comparisons of costs to other similar initiatives/organizations - certification of effectiveness and efficiency - trends in time required to reach agreement on decisions - source of financing/revenue adequate to support the governance process - stakeholder understanding of costs and benefits

Source: Abrams (2003)

8. Equity/Fairness: upholding justice, non-discrimination and consistency, equal opportunity and benefit, fair sharing of benefits with costs, respect for welfare, justice and basic human rights, efforts to ensure everyone has the means to meet their needs (i.e.

420 income supports, employment, food, housing), develop one‘s capacities and actively participate in community life recognizing that to be treated equitably and foster a barrier-free environment some people may need more or different supports. In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for "equal protection" and "equal benefits" for all Canadians.

Indicators: - rule without bias, right to a fair hearing, impartial enforcement - consistent application of rules, rewards, sanctions - programs aiming to provide territorial equality in services (training, culture, health, economy) - programs aiming to reduce economic, social and cultural inequities (e.g. economic disparities, racism, age or gender discrimination, etc.) and provide opportunities for all to improve or maintain their well-being (e.g. integrated recreation programs welcoming all community members, such as people with disabilities; mixed income housing developments; preventive as well as protective public health programming - services provided in culturally, socially and ecologically sensitive and appropriate ways - planning for inter-generational equity (maintaining future opportunities, including youth) - opportunities to be heard for all (see participation above) - compensation for losses without consent - employment practices that ensure equity and fairness - proportion of decision-making positions held by traditionally marginalized groups, support for their participation - recognizing the value of different ways of learning and views of knowledge - mention of equity/fairness as a core value

Sources: Massam and Dickinson (1999, 229), Abrams (2003), EPSON (2004), Clutterbuck and Novick (2003), EEWC (1997)

9. Integration/Fullness/Holism/Coherence: parts of the system function in complementary ways. While governance processes and structures may be designed for specific issues and purposes there is a need for mechanisms to address what have been termed "cross- cutting" or "wicked problems". In addressing such problems, Sabel (2000) suggests governance must draw on both local knowledge and an ability to co-ordinate and frame experimentation across a wide range of jurisdictions. It must balance the social, economic and environmental needs of present and future generations (sustainable development). System-wide alignment of and mutually reinforcing components (coherence) provide more system stability than other self-organized patterns. Coherence provides mutually reinforcing dynamics that make change more difficult, creating systems that are stable than incoherent ones.

421 Indicators: - policies, projects and/or structures that address economic, social and ecological issues variety, breadth and relevance of issues addressed - a broad, long-term perspective - understanding of historical, cultural and social complexities impacting the governance context - ecosystem approach - horizontal and vertical integration: existence of joint initiatives, coordinating structures and processes with other governance authorities with overlapping interests (across issues and scales) - frequency of decisions supported, overruled or contradicted by other governance processes/bodies - shared meaning, limited internal tensions - promotes a consistent approach within a complex system - existence of an overall strategic vision and plan (vs. piecemeal approach) - consistence between stated values and practices

Sources: Massam and Dickinson (1999), Sabel (2002), CED (2001), Davoudi et al (2004), Eoyung (2001), Abrams (2003)

10. Robustness/stability: ability ―to overcome a variety of threats/obstacles and come out strengthened from the experiences‖ (Abrams et al 2003, p. 21)

Resilience in complex adaptive systems requires a balance between change and stability. World Bank (2004) governance indicators, for example, suggest political stability as one of six key themes in measuring good governance. Paquet and Wilkins (2002) suggest that a system of governance must have both the robustness to withstand perturbations and the flexibility to make necessary changes, which will in turn contribute to resilience.

Indicators: - years governance process/institutions have been in functioning - legal and policy basis for governance process/organization - frequency of change in membership of governing bodies (turnover more frequent than called for by bylaws?) - # of agreements/decisions recanted or changed - number of type of threats and changes in the operating environment - use of risk management to face threats - threats effectively dealt with in the past

Sources: Abrams (2003), Paquet and Wilkins (2002), World Bank (2004)

11. Flexibility, adaptation, continuous learning and improvement: considered critical to the long-term viability of CASES, including governance sub-systems (as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3) Evolution and timely response to feedback is incorporated, drawing from accumulated knowledge and experience in an ongoing and iterative process.

422 Indicators: - ongoing evaluation, capacity for self-monitoring and acting upon results (see accountability indicators) - frequency of stakeholder feedback resulting in changes, new initiatives or other actions - information-based decision-making (capacity for information management – timely, accurate, relevant, comprehensive, reliable) - proactive, efforts to anticipate upcoming issues, monitoring of internal and external environment - staff, board and community/constituent training allowances and programs - learning promoted through information sharing and exchange - rules of operation the promote collaborative learning - structures, strategies and processes shift over time - movement to higher order outcomes over time - positioning on the adaptive cycle - changes to strategies and goals explicitly based on lessons learned from evaluation, reflection and/or dialogue - instances of ―remarkable flexibility‖, demonstrating an ability to experiment and adopt novel solutions

Sources: Abrams (2003), Gunderson and Holling (2001)

With thanks to A. Catmur and D. House, who, along with myself, prepared an initial list of indicators for the analysis of Regional Economic Development Boards in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Collaboration

1. Commitment to collaboration: ―Participants must share a common concern, which they are committed to resolving and can see that concern is best resolved through a collaborative process. They set milestones and timelines in working towards agreed upon objectives and those responsible for implementation or follow-up action are genuinely committed‖ (Markey and Vodden 2003: 52). Such commitment is often fostered by collaborative leaders.

Indicators:  all participants commit significant resources (not necessarily financial) to the collaborative initiative  overall commitment of resources adequate to achieve mandate (often long-term)  % of meetings missed/attended  completion of agreed upon tasks by individual collaborators

2. Trust/honesty: clear, transparent decision-making processes, trust among collaborators built on reliability and reputation (performance based) or kinship/community, ―real‖

423 collaboration and power-sharing vs. ―sham forms of participation‖ (Sabel 2004), delegated service delivery (deconcentration and/or devolution)

Indicators: - consistence between stated values and practices - frequency with which sincerity is questioned - use of written policy statements on key issues of concern - see also transparency above

3. Accountability mechanisms - see governance principle #3 above

4. Common goal-setting, consensus building - see governance principle #6 above

5. Mutual respect, understanding: respect for the needs of each party, understanding and appreciation of differences, diverse values, interests and backgrounds, respect for different sources and forms of knowledge, recognition of different partners‘ cultures

Indicators: - initiatives/efforts for partners to learn and appreciate each others‘ the working practices and cultures - consideration of traditional means of conflict resolution and/or decision-making - use of local, traditional and conventional scientific knowledge (social and natural) in CASES decision-making

6. Decision-making and dispute resolution mechanisms: agreed upon process for making decisions and resolving conflicts - see governance principle #6 above

7. Effective listening and communication, two-way information flow: clear, open/transparent and ongoing lines of communications, communicative interaction to build mutual interaction and acceptance

Indicators: observation, satisfaction surveys, evidence of two-way information flow: concerns and comments raised are reflected in meeting documents and decisions, all important sources of information are made available to all collaborators, frequency and nature of communication between collaborators

8. Fair and agreed upon sharing of benefits, costs and responsibilities/decision-making (power): relationship includes mutual benefit/reciprocal exchange, sharing of costs/workload and resources or benefits, and a true sharing of decision-making (see also #8 above).

Indicators: - evidence of mutual benefit - costs seen as commensurate with benefits/satisfaction by individual collaborators

424 - shared financial contributions (facilitated by a degree of economic self-sufficiency or a diversity of funding sources) – may differ according to ability to ay and other contributions - balance of overall contributions - open dialogue about fair allocation of costs and benefits from the partnership - members understand their role in the collaboration and the role of others - written record of responsibilities, costs and expected benefits completion of agreed upon tasks/responsibilities by all collaborators documented, clear, agreed upon decision-making process avenue for recourse when injustice is claimed satisfaction/complaints about fairness and the way injustices have been addressed compensation for losses without agreement and/or benefit

9. Time - long-term view: the mutual learning required to build understanding and work toward consensus take time, as does building trust, establishing structures and relationships, capacity-building. Time frames required for successful collaboration are often greater than a single short-term project and may take more than a decade. Short, time-limited partnerships often spend too much effort establishing relationships. More enduring relationships allow for a more concerted focus on objectives and delivery. Start small. Build on successes.

Indicators: time set aside for defining and agreeing on ―process‖: the identification of roles, responsibilities and understanding of the partnership environment, establishment of clear administrative procedures time set aside for relationship building where required plans includes a long-term vision and goals longevity of the collaboration stated and demonstrated commitment to sustainable development (see below)

10. Open to change, ―permeable boundaries‖ - See also governance principle #10 above

Indicators: - initiatives that demonstrate innovation, new approaches - frequency of new members or partners - evidence that monitoring and evaluation results in change, revisiting of both ends and means

Sources: Gertler and Wolfe (2002), Markey et al (2004), MacNeil (1994), Berkes (2004), Davoudi et al (2004), Markey and Vodden (2003), Abrams (2003)

Sustainable Development

1. Living within ecological limits  maintaining and restoring a healthy environment/natural capital

425  overt recognition of limits to biophysical carrying capacity and of the natural capital stock of a locality and taking measures to that development activity does not degrade this natural capital  recognition of the need not just to maintain current levels of natural capital but to reverse and restore past degradation  wastes disposed of at a rate not greater than the physical environment's ability to assimilate them  reduce or eliminate inputs of hazardous and radioactive substances  resources extracted at a rate not greater than the resource and its supporting systems are replenished  harvest rates that do no result in loss of species or genetic diversity  monitoring of the status of ecosystem health  identified limits to growth  areas protected from development to maintain biological diversity (species and ecosystems)  calls for a precautionary, ecosystem approach

Sample indicators:  Water quality: eutrophication, algae concentration, oil pollution, faecal pollution, heavy metal parameters, solid waste on beaches, disease agents, salinity, turbidity, beach closures or boil water orders due to water quality concerns  Biodiversity and habitats: threatened or endangered species (as % of total), threats to habitat and ecosystem structure, % cover of key habitats (e.g. forest) and related trends, fish populations as a % of historic levels/population trends, # of fisheries closures

2. Positive, ongoing environmental change (stewardship): Striving for:  more efficient use of resources and improved conservation measures  pollution prevention and the elimination of toxic materials  replacement of non-renewable with renewable resources  waste minimization  maximum reuse and recycling  biodiversity preservation  use of environmentally benign technologies and durable, repairable products  restoration and/or enhancement of natural habitats affected by past use

Sample indicators: % of citizens involved in volunteer environmental initiatives, # of ENGOs, presence of recycling and composting programs, % diversion, level of awareness of and concern about ecological and sustainable development issues

3. Equity and social justice (satisfies needs of all, includes marginalized and disadvantaged groups, intergenerational equity, fair sharing of costs and benefits)  provision of affordable housing, education, health care  provision of safe, clean water and adequate nutrition for all  costs and benefits of development fairly distributed (including consideration of

426 historic dependence and adjacency and "fairer" distribution of income  seeks to eliminate poverty  maintains basic freedoms and human rights  land claims resolution and recognition of Aboriginal rights  implications of development decisions for future generations taken into account - should have access to at least the same resource (or natural capital stock) base as the previous generation.

Sample indicators: % of population living below the poverty line, nutritional status of children, %%% of population with access to primary health care facilities, adult secondary achievement, Gini index of income inequality (from CSD Theme Indicator Framework), compensation for losses without agreement and/or benefit. See also governance principle #8 above.

4. Economic viability/vitality (of individuals, businesses, organizations, ventures, processes): a sustainable SES fosters a healthy economy that provides the adequate material means for individuals and communities to live and manage their affairs in manner consistent with the other principles outlined, including recognition of the value of non-monetary contributions to community and economy (the voluntary and informal economy).

Sample indicators: unemployment rates, income levels, poverty measures, diversity of the economic base, local investment, measures/surveys of informal economy participation, communication, transportation and municipal infrastructure

5. Broad-based participation and collaboration: Agenda 21 and other documents and research results suggest that "access to information and broad public participation in decision-making are fundamental to sustainable development", linked to social justice, community-building/community mutuality (looking after each other), the right of individuals to have a voice and recognition of multiple knowledge sources/forms.

Sample indicators: see governance principle #5

6. Diversity: biological and cultural diversity, economic diversification, diversity of perspectives/ backgrounds, knowledge etc., recognition that diversity creates resilience, land use diversity

Sample indicators: species richness, economic diversity/single industry or government dependency, cultural diversity, diversity of participation

7. Integration: a comprehensive, holistic approach, integrating social, economic and environmental objectives and seeking development options that balance these imperatives rather than position them as ―either-or‖ alternatives, encourages thinking broadly across issues, disciplines, physical and social boundaries.

Sample indicators: see governance principle #9, also collaboration #11

427

8. Qualitative development (vs. emphasis on quantitative economic growth) - development that aims to maximize all forms of capital (natural, social, cultural, human as well as economic)

Sample indicators: perceived quality of life

9. Long-term perspective, ongoing improvement: consideration of the long-term consequences from today‘s actions and decision, linked to concept of intergenerational equity but also to need for process patience discuss above, ongoing process of learning and building adaptive capacity, ability to address increased complexity over time

Sample indicators: see collaboration principle #10, 11

10. Values community, role of the local and global - recognizes critical role of local actors in sustainable development, including contributions of local knowledge and of commitment to place - also acknowledges multi-scale dimensions of sustainability

11. Good governance: also termed institutional criteria for sustainability, represents the social structures that proprogate and sustain sustainable development values - increasingly recognized as a pre-condition for sustainable development (see Chapters One and Two)

Sample indicators: see good governance principle indicators above, also shared perspectives on what constitutes good governance

Sources: Vodden (1999); Belfiore et al (2003); Woollard (2000); CRC (2002); Booth and Halseth; Bauen, Baker, and Johnson (1996); Abrams (2003)

428 Appendix 3 – Case Study Principles

a. Principles emphasized by case study interview respondents (compared to those in the organization or network‘s written documentation as outlined further in Appendix 4 section b) n = number of respondents that discussed guiding or operating principles, which were grouped into three categories (sustainable development, governance and collaboration) according to the methodology outlined in Chapter 4 and recognizing that some principles could be placed in more than one of these overlapping categories. The number of respondents discussing each individual principle is also provided and principled are listed in order of the frequency with which they were noted. For example, 22 of 36 NL-W respondents discussing principles noted the need to integrate social, economic and ecological imperatives, but 23 of 36 emphasized economic imperatives or suggested that economic imperatives dominate watershed governance in Indian Bay area and/or in the province of NL. The importance of ecological and social/cultural imperatives was noted by an equal number of respondents in this case (14/36).

Principles Principles emphasized by interview respondents emphasized in written documents

Sustainable Development Governance Collaboration - Economic values - Community involvement in -Collaboration NL-W (n = 36) emphasized (23) resource management (25) principles (14), - Integrating social, -Governance principles (25), including: - shared responsibility economic and ecological including: - Mutual benefit (6) - conserve and imperatives and ecosystem- - Credibility/legitimacy (8) - Communication (3): enhance wilderness based management/ - Discretion/flexibility (7) best fostered through heritage governance - difficult but - Cooperation (5) dialogue - cultural & economic necessary (22) - Public participation (5) - Respect (3) identity - Ecological (14) - changing - Monitoring and evaluation - future generations attitudes toward the (5) Note: Overlaps - sustainable economic ecological a ―long, b. – Need for a mix of LK/TK with governance development slow/difficult process‖ and ―science‖ (5) - equality of access, - Social/cultural (14) - being - Transparency (4 - weak) user management, cost outdoors/going to the cabin - Accountability (3 - weak – recovery/ self- key aspect of quality of life MOUs a mechanism) financing - Adjacency (5) - Efficiency (3)

429 - Integration (28) among - Terminology - don‘t use Collaboration, a NS-W (n = 34) actors4 (13), also social, the term governance (7) principle flowing economic) and ecological throughout Bras d‘Or - collaboration pillars (11), with culture (7), Participation and bottom-up efforts (27) - IM environment/economy (4), vs. top-down (31): co- - sewage remediation having natural and human management or shared Common ground (13) - healthy watershed resources for the long-term governance recommended Long-term (13) ecosystem (3 – 1 mentions future by 12/31, 24/31 more local Respect/trust (12) generations, 1 ongoing control process), also a spiritual Flexibility (21) Linked to principle of dimension (3) Capacity building, learning equality and Mi‘kmaw - IM (11) (17) culture - Not happening yet (11) - 3 Aboriginal rights and title - A lot to do with economic weak (enviro (14) leadership style focus), 5 economic/growth Transparency (14) - 8 focused, 2 not in their largely yes (improving), 4 mandates consider it a problem (with - More of this kind of exceptions) thinking occurring (10) Recognizing complexity - Too difficult (1) (12) - - Limited mention of fed. Linking science and TK/LK SD planning requirements (12) except ACAP (4) Evaluation (8) - - Better understanding of Inclusive (8) SD needed (4) Accountability (7) - - Link to Brundtland (SCI, Effectiveness (4) CD policy), Rio (2) Efficiency (4) - Equality (4) - - Stewardship/care (13) Adjacency (4) - Whole ecosystem approach/earth as a living system (10) - Environment as the foundation (4): ―The environment has to come first.‖ - - First Nations perspective environmentally-based (3), 1 disagrees/exceptions

- Community survival (10)

430 - Economic/employment Principles of good Principles of BC-W (n = 14) emphasized (14), followed governance (9): collaboration (10): by social/cultural (9) and - Long-term view (8) - Power sharing (9) - fish first, stock then ecological or ―fish- - Coordination (7) - Trust and rebuilding centric‖ (8) - common - Aboriginal rights (7) understanding (6) - prioritization/ objective - Inclusive participation(6) - Cooperation recovery and - Integrated approach (9), - Transparency (6) - Commonality (5) integrated resource recognize full range of - Cost efficiency (5) - Mutual benefit (5) planning values ―not just - Learning and adaptation - Buy-in (2) - coordination of preservation‖, socio- (5) - Autonomy (2) resource use/activities economic, cultural and - First Nations leadership impacting salmon ecological linked (9) role (5) Other: Compromise, - economic and - Linking science and respect cultural significance LK/TK (4) acknowledged - Flexibility/ diversity (4) - Effectiveness (4) and monitoring and evaluation (3)

Sustainable Development Governance Collaboration - Ecological aspects Principles of good Cooperation/ NL-E (n= 35) emphasized, slow change, governance (27) including: coordination (3): current development - Public and stakeholder - Still a lot separate - Flexibility unsustainable but participation/inclusion, thinking in different to ec dev improving (17), increasing important but difficult (18), agencies/groups (1) - Good basic services ecological awareness, benefits of community - Repetitiveness, groups (health, education, models of integrated/s.d. participation (5), need to working toward similar social) - Difficulties of integration, balance top down and bottom goals that can benefit - Lifestyle based on although also of separating up (5), role for both from greater respect for each other social and economic, ec dev government and community collaboration (1) Communities won‘t and and conservation still seen (3) - environment as mutually exclusive survive without a - Partners, create ones (16) - Accountability (multi-level) collaborative approach own future - Economic (14), social (9) (1) (Vision ‗97 SEP) (11) and cultural (4) - Learning and adaptation (7) sustainability concerns - - Legitimacy (5) * Discussed as social gains seen as easier - Cooperation/coordination outcomes (6) but not a to achieve and measure (3) Current: economic and major emphasis in than economic discussions on goals entrepreneurial - Importance of c.r.m. to Other: subsidiarity, and principles development and sust. devt. (12) planning, partnerships transparency (1), efficiency, - Rural survival (11) – and capacity flexibility/diversity (3 - ST vs. LT focus (4) significant barrier), development to - Adjacency (2) support these aims Quality of life (2) - Integrated, holistic Principles of good Cooperation/collaborati BC-E (n=20) approach, triple bottom governance (20): on (14): line/env and econ (12) - Inclusive/participation (15) - Diversity/inclusive - Responsible econ. - Current development - Coop/collaboration (14) (11) unsustainable but - Flexibility (11) - Common ground (10)

431 growth improving, CFDC SD - Accountability (6) - Building trust (7) - Citizen participation approach (3) - Community as leaders (6), - Planning - Ecological concerns (5) programs to local - Reflects ecological - Rural community circumstances (4) and social values of survival (5) -Government as enablers (5), residents - Economic/financial including capacity building - Broad representation sustainability issues (3) (3), policy and program/ - Diversification - Long-term perspective (3) structural support (3), - Social issues addressed - Partnership $/getting resources to only to a ltd. extent locally, - Effective resource social economy approach communities (3), use nationally assistance in a crisis (2)

- Self-sustaining - Transparency (5)

- Proactive vs. reactive (4) (Annual Report 2003- - TK/local knowledge (4)

2004) - Aboriginal rights and title

(2) NS-E (n=19) - Holistic approach/ Principles of good -Collaboration (6) balance – mixed re. practice governance (19): -Time (4) (16) -Bottom-up (13) - Environment/economy -Flexibility/diversity (6) Other: independence + emphasis -Accountability (4) interdependence -Social -Transparency (3) - Long term (4) Other: be aware, reduce - Improving (6/16) complexity where possible, - Elements planning as a response, self- come together in sufficiency, evaluation community (4), yet communities not addressing Term governance has links (2), in negative connotations (3) community/RDA plans

- Community survival (7)

BC-E rep: ―Principles before personality... We have principles but it‘s a huge struggle to live up to it.‖

Review of statements of goals, principles and priorities (summarized above)

Note: emphasis on key themes has been added by the author using italics.

NL-W (IBEC)

Mission statement: "We believe that all of us together have a shared responsibility to conserve and enhance our wilderness heritage, that our forests, rivers and streams form the life blood of our cultural and economic identity, and that this priceless gift must be preserved, protected and passed on as our own legacy to generations yet unborn."

432 - no organizational plan/further official goal statements

Guiding principles: conservation, equality of access, user management, cost recovery/self-financing.

Goal: sustainable economic development from a revitalized recreational fishery

Source: Wicks (1996)

NS-W (Bras d‟Or)

SCI The Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative is about supporting communities through a collaborative approach which integrates social, cultural, economic and environmental policies and programs. It's about governments at all levels working together - and with the communities they serve - toward decision-making that meets the needs of today without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

The Nova Scotia Sustainable Community Initiative (SCI) is a unique partnership comprised of more than 40 federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations organizations dedicated to working with communities towards improved social, economic, environmental and cultural well being... The teams meet regularly to share information and to find ways of supporting community priorities in a holistic, sustainable way... Their role is to support local initiatives and priorities... SCI offers single window access to government for community groups wishing to obtain support or information about programs and services. It presents an opportunity for a more holistic understanding of community issues within government and, as a result, improved service.

The purpose of the Initiative is to:  coordinate and improve citizen-centred programs and service-delivery across all governments;  forge new partnerships and collaborate with local citizens in their efforts to build strong, sustainable communities.

CEPI The Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (CEPI) is initiated by First Nations to bring all partners together to work collaboratively on solving environmental challenges in the Bras d'Or Lakes and to develop a management plan for Bras d'Or Lakes.

Source: Bras d‘Or Charter (signed Nov. 2005)

Vision: To lead a unique collaboration of partners that incorporates traditional Mi‘kmaq and Western science perspectives in order to foster a healthy and productive Bras d'Or Lakes ecosystem.

433

Purpose: To develop an overall management plan for the Bras d‘Or Lakes ecosystem and to facilitate its implementation by governments and other relevant stakeholders

Objectives: A balance of environmental, social, cultural and institutional objectives will be pursued to ensure the health and sustainable use of the Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed ecosystem.

Other:  Improve communications, and awareness of issues on many levels  Integrate traditional Mi‘kmaq knowledge into the governance of the watershed  Develop community participation over a broad spectrum, including youth and elders from both cultures  Manage for sustainable natural resources  Foster ecosystem-based management to ensure healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems

Source: UINR website (July 2008)

Pitu‘paq Out of growing public concern over the adverse effects of sewage pollution to the Bras d‘Or Lake watershed, a committee has come together focusing on sewage remediation. Pitu'paq is the society name and it is comprised of five First Nation and five municipals leaders from Bras d‘Or communities. The committee has served and enabled municipal governments and First Nations to work collaboratively in protecting and preserving the Bras d‘Or Lake watershed. It is facilitated by the NS Department of Environment and Labour through the Bras d‘Or Lake Coordinator and is working together to address on- site sewage, sewage treatment plant issues and boating sewage.

UINR Since 1999, Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR) has represented Cape Breton's First Nation's voice on natural resources and environmental concerns.

Goals: • To provide resources for First Nation‘s equal participation in natural resource management in Unama‘ki and its traditional territory. • To strengthen First Nation‘s research and natural resource management while maintaining our traditions and world views. • To partner with other groups sharing the same desire to protect and preserve our resources for future generations.

UINR Forestry Division: strive for an environmentally sound way to use our natural resources while at the same time creating employment for members of our communities and further strengthening relationships between local industry and First Nations people

434 BC-W (NRMB)

Purpose: ―fish-first‖, re-establishment and rebuilding of the Nimpkish salmonid stocks

Nimpkish Watershed Restoration Plan (p. 2-3) re. NRMB mandate: ―coordinate all the various resource use initiatives (including but not exclusively fishery resources) through a central ‗clearing house‘‖, integrated resource planning

Nimpkish Watershed Fish Resource Management Plan/Nimpkish Watershed Fish Sustainability Plan (2002): protection and enhancement of endemic fish stocks in the Nimpkish watershed, with a plan to ―assess, prioritize, coordinate and monitor the planned and ongoing initiatives that were influencing salmon populations in the Nimpkish and Kokish watersheds‖

Source: Nimpkish Watershed Salmon Recovery Plan (2003), Nimpkish Watershed Restoration Plan 2002-2006

NL-E (KEDC)

Vision (1997): Our vision is that the people of the Kittiwake Economic Development Zone will live in a region that has the flexibility to develop its economic potential, has good basic services (health, education, and social programs), is secure, and maintains a lifestyle that is based on respect for each other and our environment. We believe community economic development means the people themselves should be directly involved in pursuing and managing their own economic development. In order to achieve success, many partnerships must be formed between stakeholders (people and interest groups), all three levels of government, education and others.

Mandate (2003): Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) lists only the organization‘s government assigned five point mandate, which included: developing and coordinating the implementation of strategic economic plans (SEPs); coordinating business development support in each zone; supporting organizations and communities within the zone; coordinating social and economic initiatives relating to regional economic development; promoting public participation and community education related to regional economic development.

As discussed in Chapter 6 this mandate has since been narrowed to: develop and coordinate the implementation of a SEP, supported by an integrated business plan; develop a strong partnership with municipalities in each Zone that incorporates their strategies and priorities in the economic planning process; develop partnerships in planning and implementation with chambers of commerce, industry associations, labour organizations, post secondary institutions, CBDCs, and other Zones that advance and support economic and entrepreneurial environment; undertake capacity building and support stakeholders to strengthen the economic environment; coordinate and facilitate linkages with government agencies at all levels in support of the SEP. A new SEP is being developed for 2009 in accordance with this revised mandate.

435

Source: KEDC SEP (1997 and 2003), KEDC website (2008)

NS-E (SHRDA)

Mission/mandate: to lead in the facilitation, coordination and initiation of community and business issues and opportunities, as the integrating force in developing sustainable regional economics and communities - best utilization of government resources, federally, provincially and municipally in Nova Scotia - facilitators and coordinators of community and economic development - partner, promote and nurture growth for community vibrancy - lead on studies, data collection, analysis and reporting for municipalities, ec dev planning, local engagement of citizens/community groups, collaboration for/coordination of ec dev planning, economic related lobbying and advocacy (2004/05 Business Plan)

Strategic directions: Community development and support, business development and support, innovation, labour development, major projects/strategic economic generators, operational effectiveness

Source: Business Plan 2004/05; Annual Report 2003-2004

BC-E (MWCFDC)

Mission: To foster responsible economic growth in the North Island region.

Mandate: - leadership in community-based strategic planning - leadership in small enterprise training, development, financial support - in developing alternatives for EI and SA recipients through NE SEP - in coordinating, targeting and designing employment training - partnerships for creative ec diversification solutions

Strategic Priorities: 2. Economic development guided by a plan created and updated through citizen participation, supported by the majority of residents, reflects their ecological and social values and concerns 3. Effective organization, Board with broad representation balancing gender, labour, business and First Nations involvement 4. Healthy, growing business ventures, sustain and increase employment, diversification 5. Educational and social development programs to eliminate barriers 6. All NI ec dev orgs working in partnership to use resources effectively 7. Self-sustaining org through income generated by capital pool investments and services provided

436 Source: Annual Reports 2003 and 2004

437

Comparison of principles reported by interview respondents and written statements above

Most frequently reported Reflected in mission/ goal Reflected in strategic directions/activities? principles/values statements61? NL-W Community involvement in Yes Yes resource management Economic development Yes To some degree (self-sufficiency, staff employment) Integrated approach Yes Yes/To some degree (fisheries focus but multiple fisheries values are considered) Ecological/conservation Yes Yes/To some degree (fisheries focus) Lifestyle preservation Yes Yes (through fisheries conservation, (social/cultural) planning, facilities/information) NS-W Integrated approach Yes Yes/To some degree (enviro. focus for some groups and initiatives but with recognition of other dimensions) Collaboration Yes Yes Bottom-up /community Yes Yes involvement Flexibility/diversity To some degree (broad Yes mandate allows) Capacity-building Yes/to some degree Yes

Most frequently reported Reflected in mission/ Reflected in strategic directions/activities? principles/values mandate statement62? BC-W Economic No Yes/To some degree (primarily in management/restoration) Integrated Yes To some degree (fish focused and limited integrated planning, multi-objective commitment is not explicit/written) Social/cultural No Yes/To some degree (cooperation, emphasis on cultural preservation for some actors) Ecological Yes Yes Power sharing No To some degree (some joint planning and decision- making taking place but feeling that DFO and ‗Namgis have control and have limited willing to share their respective power)

61 Includes identified ―strategic priorities‖. 62 Includes identified ―strategic priorities.‖

438

NL-E Public involvement/participation Yes Yes (with opportunities for improved and inclusion outreach) Ecological sustainability No (1997 yes) To some degree – yes initially, less since 2003 and little discussion in most recent documentation Integrated/SD development No To some degree – yes initially, less since approach 2003 and little discussion in most recent documentation Rural community survival Implied (to some Yes degree) Accountability No To some degree NS-E Integrated approach, ec dev + Yes/to some degree (some concerns re. environmental sustainability, Yes industrial + growth focus, aquaculture, oil social to a slightly lesser extent and gas but also green initiatives) Bottom-up development No Yes Rural community survival Yes Yes Flexibility and diversity To some degree (broad Yes/To some degree (some diversity mandate) concerns) Collaboration No Yes BC-E Inclusion/participation Yes To some degree (some concerns) Collaboration/partnerships Yes Yes/To some degree Integrated/holistic approach Yes Yes/To some degree (tensions related to ecological values) Flexibility and diversity Yes (diversity) Yes/To some degree (flexible approach, some diversity concerns, challenges/ constraints from community and gov‘t) Accountability No To some degree (reporting req.)

Notes: WD cited as increasingly taking a SD approach, understanding of social and economic linkages. The opposite trend is observed of ACOA. BC-E most closely follows its stated mission and in particular its ―strategic directions‖ which provide a broader guiding framework than their official mandate. NS-E activities closely match their reported principles, as do the others with some concerns/constraints. There is a mismatch between official and unofficial missions of NL-E, for example, as a broad sustainable development approach is no longer part of their mandate but many actors involved still express a commitment to a more holistic perspective and set of goals.

Deriving a ―principles compliance‖ index

A rating for each case was derived for each of the three principle sets being examined; those related to sustainable development, good governance and to collaboration (described in Appendix 2). Wherever information was available, considering the full range of sources, the indicators outlined in Appendix 2 were considered in deriving an overall index score out of 20 for each case and each principle set. As noted in Chapter 4 these indices are to assist in comparative analysis but involve a degree of judgement and

439 thus subjectivity in the interpretation of available data and assigning of scores for each part of the index.

440 Sustainable Development Recognized SD in Official Evidence of SD by Ecosystem/ Mandate/Multi- Approach in Respondents multi-resource Overall objective (see a Activities (see (see a. and/or multi- Average (out and b. above) c. above63) above)64 sector approach of 20) NL -E 1 2 2 n/a 11 NS-E 3 2.5 3.5 n/a 16.5 BC-E 3 2.5 2.5 n/a 14 NL-W 4 3.5 2.5 3 15.5 NS-W 4 3.5 3.5 4 17.5 BC-W 1 2.5 2.5 2 11.5

Individual ratings are out of a possible score of 4. 1 = little to no evidence, 2 = limited or mixed evidence of a holistic, sustainable development approach, 3 = some evidence, 4=significant evidence of an organization/network-wide holistic, sustainable development approach.

Individual principles related to good governance and collaboration are reviewed below for evidence of ―compliance‖ with or attention to these principles in the activities of the case study organizations and networks. For each of these a score of 0, 1 or 2 is assigned: Y - 2, TSD/mixed response - 1, N – 0. A total score or rating is derived by adding individual ratings and dividing the total by the # of indicators for which a rating was available (for an average rating out of 2 multiplied by 2 for a rating out of 465, comparable to the sustainable development ratings above). Note that all indictors are weighted equally. As noted in Chapter 8, this is due to the qualitative nature of the research design, which did not set out to measure each indicator or principle‘s relative importance or assume that a uniform weighting of indicators across all cases would be appropriate given differing circumstances.

63 For written statements of priority, actions beyond stated priorities are considered here. For watershed groups, for example economic, social and cultural considerations are taken into account to a greater extent than what is reflected in written/official documents. 64 For example, ¾ suggests approximately 75% of respondents discussing principles recognized and referred to the need for a holistic or multi-objective sustainable development approach, 2/4 50% of respondents, 2.5 60-65% etc.. 65 Rounded to the nearest rating at 0.5 intervals.

441

Good Governance NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W Effectiveness 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 0.5 Transparency 0 0.5 1 1 1 1 Accountability 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 Legitimacy/authority 1 1.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 Participation, inclusive 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 Consensus-building 1 ? 1 ? 2 1 Efficiency ? ? ? 1 1.5 0.5 Equity 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 Integration 1 2 1 1 2 1 Flexible, adaptive66 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 1 Robust/stability 1 1.5 2 1 1 0.5 Evidence of principles in action overall /4 1.5 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 Recognition in official mission and 1 2 2.5 1 1.5 2 mandate /4 Respondent recognition /4 3 4 4 3 3.5 2.5 Overall (converted to a rating out of 20) 9 14 14 10 12.5 11

Collaboration NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W Commitment 0.5 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 Consensus- building 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 1 Fair sharing of costs and benefits ? ? ? ? 1 1 Effective communication 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 Decision-making and dispute resolution 1 1.5 1 1 0.5 1 mechanisms Two-way information flow 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 Accountability mechanisms 1 1.5 1 1 1 1 Trust/honesty 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 Mutual respect and understanding 1 1 1 1 1 1 Time 1 1 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 Evidence of principle in action overall /4 1.5 2 2 2 2 2 Recognition in official mission and 3 2 3 2.5 3.5 2 mandate /4 Respondent recognition /4 0.5 1.5 3 1.5 3 3 Overall (converted to a rating out of 20) 8.5 9 13.5 10 14 11.5

Note: Ratings are out of a possible score of 4. 1 = little to no evidence of a commitment to principles of good governance or collaboration, 2 = limited or mixed evidence, 3 = some evidence but not extensive, 4=significant evidence of commitment and efforts to ensure principles are reflected in action.

66 See also Chapter 9, Figure 28 for a discussion on evaluation and reflection in action.

442

Overall Principle ―Compliance‖ (attention to principles suggested by the literature, Appendix 2)

Outcomes Governance Collaboration Sustainability Principles - Rating Principles Principles Principles Overall NL -E 10 9.0 8.5 11.0 9.5 NS-E 16 14.0 9 16.5 13.2 BC-E 10 14.0 13.5 14.0 13.8 NL-W 12 10.0 10 15.5 11.8 NS-W 10 12.5 14 17.5 14.7 BC-W 6 11.0 11.5 11.5 11.3

443

Appendix 4 – RED Case Study Actors and Relationships

Number of Actors Described

NL-E NS-E BC-E TOTAL Federal agencies 6 11 7 1467 Provincial 8 11 6 25 agencies First Nations 3 3 + Grand 18 - 14 Nations, 4 26 Council and Tribal Councils UNSI Municipal 39 + 31 LSDs 3 9 – 6 municipal, 2 82 governments Regional District, 1 Improv District Intergovernmental 2 3 2 7 Local economic 15 described: 7 Est 75 local FNs (3): AHRDA 134 development RDAs, 11 regional (NVIATS), UCC, NGOs68 GADCo., 2 BBEDS heritage groups, 4 RED agencies: 10 others + est. a min. of 20 others unidentified Chambers of 2 6 2 10 Commerce/ Board of Trade Tourism assoc.s 3 8 1 12 NGOs – other Prov‘l/fed‘l - 8 Prov‘l/federal69 - Provincial/federal Prov‘l/federal – Env‘t/resources 7 – 9 24 – 6 Env‘t/resources - Env‘t/resources - Env‘t/resources 16 7+ – 29+ Industry/business Industry/business Industry/business orgs other - 7 other - 1 other - 8 Post-secondary 4 + School 10 + Strait- 5 21 Board Region School Board TOTAL 148 174 80 392+ Businesses in the 1,628 1,315 641 3584 region (2004) (MW + 50% CC)

67 Agencies active in more than one case counted once only. 68 Case study organizations are included in local (regional) NGOs. 69 Nova Scotia Native Women‘s Association and Native Council of Nova Scotia (off-reserve membership) were also mentioned by one provincial representative as active provincially but not by Cape Breton respondents. These groups are, therefore, not included above. Lack of mention of these groups may be related to the respondent mix.

444 Key actors (most ACOA, other SH-RDA, ECBC, CFDCMW, RD influence in RED) funding OED, (BS), First agencies communities, Nations, (INTRD, First Nations, municipal, HRSD), private enterprise provincial and KEDC, federal municipalities, governments key (WD, HRDC) government officials

Relationships (overall condition 2003/2004)

NL-E NS-E BC-E Role Significant control ―Creatures of the Significant federal of/relationship with remains with funding province‖, power/cost control but flexible sr govt agencies, mixed sharing but concerns re, (WD), delivery agent recognition of value of top-down approach, for some provincial regional orgs. support in region and programs, strong Halifax ACOA, ECBC support for the model mixed Relationship status Mixed (declining) Mixed Mixed Relationship $, monitoring of $, monitoring of RDA $, monitoring of mechanisms Strategic Economic business plans, ex- annual operating plan Plans officio/support and targets Role Little awareness in Strong with some Medium-high public of/relationship with general public, mixed municipal, difficulties awareness, varied community among business and with others, some NGO relationships due to community leaders, resentment, weak bad press and Governments and decline in community connection to FNs, community division NGOs presence smaller communities, (#2 barrier) some public dissatis. (#3 barrier) Relationship status Mixed (declining pre. Mixed Weak to mixed 2006) (improving) Relationship Board representation Board representation, Board representation mechanisms Open AGM, project partnerships, Open AGM, newsletter, projects, advisory support newsletter, use of capacity bldg local media Role Weak except for client Has worked with several Medium – some of/relationship with assistance (low (large) private sector Board representation, private sector awareness) partners, referrals and awareness and client assistance to small bus assistance Relationship status Weak to mixed Strong to medium Medium Relationship Assistance, Board Assistance, Board, Lending and mechanisms representation from project assistance, Board each sub-zone funding/contracts, representation (considered weak) committees, membership in industry orgs, Strait Chamber, ACCIC

445 Role MUN, Canadian NS Community College, Royal Roads, UBC, of/relationship with Centre for Fisheries Universite St. Ann and SFU, College post-secondary Innovation others and the Marine Institute Relationship status Mixed but improving Mixed, increasing Mixed to strong Relationship Projects with partners, Project partnerships, Several joint projects mechanisms 2006 Harris Ctr wksp increased from 2003- 2005, Board ex-officio Role Partnership initiatives Some investment Little global outreach of/relationship with prospecting in minerals global actors Relationship status Weak/limited to Weak/limited to medium Weak/limited medium (declining) Relationship Prospecting initiative ISO accreditation, mechanisms with Town of Gander, research some seafood marketing, international outreach in web mktg, research fisheries, energy, tourism and shipping sectors, involvement in UNESCO designation?

NL-E NS-E BC-E # of organizations in 148 organizations and 174 organizations and 80 organizations and network governments/agencies governments/agencies governments/agencies + 641 + 1628 firms = 1776 + 1,315 firms = 1489 firms = 721 Est. # of org.s have Est. 175 (10%) Est. 370 (25%) 80 (11%) but has assisted a interacted with/yr (% - 2003-2004 approx. high % of bus community over of total actors) 95 orgs as partners time (est. 16-19%70) Communications Limited after loss of Communication Multiple communications program marketing coordinator strategy in place methods used, no strategy Active website Yes Yes Yes but not fully functional (improved by 2008)

Government Relationships

NL-E NS-E BC-E Federal agencies 6 - ACOA, HRSDC 11 - ACOA, ECBC, 7 - WD, HRDC + DFO, major partners, FBDB, HRDC major Rural Secretariat, Cdn. DFO, RS, Federal partners Tourism Commission, Council DIAND Contribution Federal funding $123,420 (approx. Federal grants = (Budget 2002/03) (contract + 134,727 1/3 of core $ - $707,250 core/grant) = $125,000) 231,288 core $ + $434,121 softwood lumber program admin and WD-

70 Reported 33% success on SEA loans since 1992 (roughly 80 surviving businesses). Expect higher on regular loans, therefore estimate 100-120 existing businesses assisted.

446 funded small projects Relationship Supervisory/overseer, Information, Limited non-financial mechanisms (other local info sharing, SEP volunteers - ex- support a concern, than financial) considered in funding officio Board reporting decisions representation (HRDC and ECBC), reporting Relationship status Mixed - paternalistic Mixed support Mixed - significant issues with HRDC (in all cases), with some recognition, WD very supportive but has ltd. reg‘l presence Provincial agencies 8 - INTRD (principal 11 - Office of Ec. 6 - Little interaction with partner), HRL&E, Dev. major partner prov‘l agencies Tourism, Crown Lands, MAPA, F&A, SSP/RS, Natural Resources Contribution ($) Provincial core $: Approx. 1/3 core = None reported – some $54,890 $125,000 fisheries, SEA $ in the past Relationship ―Like mother, See map Limited – occasional info mechanisms nurturer‖ sharing Relationship status Mixed - generally Strong overall Weak/limited role – described as positive supportive but interaction but declining, missed primarily with MWRD positions within govt Intergovernmental LMDA Committee, Tripartite Forum, Rural Team Rural Team (1 prov. SCI, Rural Team (3 LMDA (regional respondent, little use) – 1 prov., 1 fed, 1 committee for larger NI) - formerly SSP staff) Contribution ($) No $ reported as N/a N/a LMDA – problems with accessing funds under new rules, HRDC funds may be LMDA Relationship None reported SCI Field Team, WEPAs - joint federal/ mechanisms otherwise little provincial, multi-year interaction initiatives, NTFP application unsuccessful – no prov‘l $ Relationship status Federal-provincial Limited Weak/limited poor First Nations Contribution ($) N/a Little interaction N/a Relationship GRMA, RDA N/a Board and committee mechanisms membership, training, project partnerships Relationship status Weak/ltd - little Weak/ltd Limited to medium –

447 interaction increasing Municipal Municipal N/a 1/3 of core = N/a contribution ($) approx. $125,000 Relationship Board representation, Quarterly municipal Board and committee mechanisms training, joint projects meetings, formal membership, project Board partnerships representation Relationship status Qualified/mixed Mixed - Richmond Mixed – varies by municipal support County returned community April ‗03, goal to strengthen relationships

Non-government Actors

NL-E NS-E BC-E Within Local development Local development agencies (est. Local development: region (26+): MIRA, Fogo 75+): see below Bella Bella Ec Dev Island Survival, Society Banting Heritage, Cape SHRDA (2006) estimates that Freels Heritage, the region has over 600 Other FNs devt orgs: Gander Airport community development NVIATS/NVIAMS, Authority, Wesleyville organizations, 75 to 100 U‘Mista CC Harbour Authority + a organizations engaged in minimum estimate of economic development and Business and tourism 20 others unidentified enterprise development. One (4): Port Hardy and Port (note: this may be source reports 76 in Inverness McNeill Chambers, NVI much higher, an County alone. Artists, VINVA inventory has not been completed) Business, industry and tourism CRM/conservation and (21): Strait Area, NE Highlands, enhancement groups Community resource CB County, Grand Narrows (7+): NRMB, PMKC, mgmnt. (6): IBEC, Chambers, APCIC, CBP, tourism Quatse, Woss, Kokish, GRMA, NWR, RH, assocs (Isle Madame, Baddeck NIFC, LOS FABEC, Eastport and Area, Destination CB, MPA, lobster Destination Richmond, Tourism Other RED agencies (9): committee CB, Cape Smokey, Snowbelt, ICNRC, Women‘s NS Tourism Partnership Employment and Business and tourism Council) + ICCA, CBCCD, NS Training Coalition, NGOs (5): TITA, Road IT HR Council, Value-Added NTFP Centre, Trails to the Beaches Wood Assoc., Mining Society, Society, NI Community Tourism, KCTA, OTANS, Fed. of Ag Services, Opportunity Lewisporte Chamber, Zone, Coast Gander Chamber Resource/conservation groups Sustainability Trust (16): includes 3 groups (MW Regional Steering Other RED agencies campaigning against the Melford Committee), NI Post- (8): GADCo. + 7 mine - no noted direct Secondary Education RDAs - Cape Freels, association with SHRDA Committee

448 AB-TN, Fogo, T-NWI, GB-HS, GIBDA, Other REDOs (10): see map Lewisporte Outside NLFM/MNL, NL Fed. of Cdn. Mun. (FCM) EcoTrust, TAVI of CBDCs, NLEDA CPRN, ALIN CFDC Assoc., CFDC region NLREDA, WISE NS Assoc. of RDAs, CDENE Pan Cdn., CFDC Pan FINALY, NLOWE AA CBDCs, AIC Wst. DUC CPRN, EcoTrust, CCN VIEDA, FLT

NS-E local development NGOs identified by respondents and literature reviewed (45):

Strait of Canso (4): Strait of Canso Superport Corp., Straits East Nova Community Enterprise Network, Strait Area Waterfront Development Association

Inverness County (23): Cheticamp Development Commission/Cheticamp Development Association71, Société Saint-Pierre/Les Trois Pignons, Meat Cove Development Group/Meat Cove Development Association, Pleasant Bay Development Association, LeMoine Development volunteer committee/Lemoine Development Association, Margaree and Area Development Assoc., Inverness Development Agency/Inverness Development Association, Lake Ainslie Development Assoc., Whycocomagh Development Commission/Whycocomagh Development Association, Mabou Development Association, Judique and Area Development Association, Port Hood Area Society/Port Hood and Area Development Association (PHADA), Port Hastings Community Development Association , Orangedale Improvement Association, Orangedale Station Association, Glendale & Area Community Co-operative, West Bay and area development, West Bay Road Community Group, Marble Mountain Community Association, North Highlands Community Organization, Inverness CAP Network, Strathspey Place, L‘Arche

Richmond County (10): Richmond Literacy Network, Development Isle Madam Association Inc., Richmond CAP Network, Lakeside Community Association, L'Ardoise Economic Association for Development, Village on the Canal Association, St. Peter's and Area Lions Club (runs the marina), Career Development Association of Inverness Richmond, The MacKinnons Harbour Survival Association, Richmond Rail Trail

Victoria County (5 - over 140 community organisations based on a S-HRDA inventory): Community Learning Association North of Smokey (CLANS), NOSEDA (North of Smokey Economic Development Association), SOVICDA (South Victoria Community Development Association), St. Ann`s Bay Development Association, Ingonish Development Society

CD organizations outside/not specific to the region noted: Bras d'Or Centre Community Development Association, New Waterford and District Economic Renewal Association, Margaree and Area Development Association, also harbour authorities

71 ―There are at least 20 or so non-profit associations which are vying for political favours within Cheticamp.‖

449 MWCFDC – Mount Waddington Community Futures Development Corporation (BC-E)

Strength of Relationships Map

450 Mount Waddington Community Futures Development Corporation (BC-E)

Types of Relationships Map

451 Mount Waddington Community Futures Development Corporation (BC-E)

Acronym Organization AHRDA / Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement / North Vancouver NVIATS Island Training Society BBEDS Bella Bella Economic Development Society CEAI Community Economic Adjustment Initiative CFDC Ass. Community Futures Development Corporations Association CFDC Pan CN Community Futures Development Corporations Pan Canadian CFDC Pan Wst. Community Futures Development Corporations Pan West CPRN Canadian Policy Research Network CST Coast Sustainability Trust DIAND Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans FLT Fisheries Legacy Trust GNN Gwa'sala-'Nakwaxda'xw First Nation HR/EIA Human Resources/Employment and Income Assistance HRSD Human Resources and Social Development ICNRC Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre LOS Living Oceans Society LWBC Land and Water British Columbia MED Ministry of Economic Development MISC Malcolm Island Shellfish Cooperative MTTC Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council MWRD Mount Waddington Regional District NI College North Island College NI Community North Island Community Services Services NIEFS North Island Employment Foundations Society NIFC North Island Fisheries Centre NIPSEC North Island Post-secondary Education Committee NRMB Nimpkish Resource Management Board NTFP Centre Non-timber Forest Products Centre/Mount Waddington Innovation Centre Society NVIAS North Vancouver Island Aboriginal Management Society Quatse Quatse Hatchery/Northern Vancouver Island Salmonid Enhancement Association RECN Ragged Edge Community Network SFU Simon Fraser University SRM Sustainable Resource Management TAVI Tourism Association of Vancouver Island UBC University of British Columbia UCC U‘mista Cultural Centre Uninc. Comm. Unincorporated communities UVIC University of Victoria VIEDA Vancouver Island Economic Developers Association VINVA Vancouver Island North Visitors Association WD Western Economic Diversification WETC Women‘s Employment and Training Coalition

452 Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E)

Strength of Relationships Map

453

Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E)

Types of Relationships Map

454

Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E)

Acronym Organization AA CBDCs Atlantic Association of Community Business Development corps. ACCESS Association of Core Fishers Committed to Equitable Sharing of Snow Crab ACOA Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ADAM Aquatic Development Association of Margaree AIC Atlantic Innovation Council ALIN Atlantic Learning Innovation Network APCIC Atlantic Provinces Chambers Innovation Council BDC Business Development Bank of Canada BPF Bras d‘Or Preservation Foundation BSS Bras d‘Or Lakes Stewardship Society CB Cape Breton C/CEN Community Enterprise Network CBCCD Cape Breton Centre for Craft and Design CBDC Community Business Development Corporation CBGF Cape Breton Growth Fund CBP Cape Breton Partnership CDENE Le Conseil de development economique de la Nouvelle-Ecosse CPRN Canadian Policy Research Network DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DNR Department of Natural Resources ECBC Enterprise Cape Breton Corp. FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities HRSD Human Resources and Social Development/Service Canada, formerly Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) ICCA Inverness County Craft Assoc. KLOG Kanata Learning Opportunities Growth Centre MCC Melford Concerned Citizens MLAHRS Margaree Lake Ainslie Heritage River Society MSA Margaree Salmon Association NRC Natural Resources Canada NSARDA Nova Scotia Association of Regional Development Authorities NSBI Nova Scotia Business Inc. OTANS Offshore Technology Association of Nova Scotia RDÉENÉ Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité Nouvelle-Écosse SCSPC Strait of Canso Superport Corp. SENCEN Straits East Nova Community Enterprise Network UCCB/CBU University College of Cape Breton /Cape Breton University UINR Unama'ki Institute of Natural Resources WWF World Wildlife Fund

455 Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E)

Strengths of Relationships Map

456

Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E)

Types of Relationships Map

457

Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E)

Acronym Organization AB-TN Alexander Bay – Terra Nova Development Association ACOA Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency CONA College of the North Atlantic CWT Town of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Eastport MPA Eastport Marine Protected Area F&A Fisheries and Agriculture FBDB Federal Business Development Bank FINALY Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador FNI Federation of Newfoundland Indians GADCo Gander Area Community Business Development Corporation GB-HS Gander Bay – Hamilton Sound GIBDA Gambo-Indian Bay Development Association GRAMA Grand River Management Association HRL&E Human Resources Labour and Employment HRSDC Human Resources and Social Development Canada IBEC Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation INTRD Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development KCTA Kittiwake Coast Tourism Association MHA Member of House of Assembly MIRA Millennium Institute for Rural Advocacy MP Member of Parliament MUN Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador NL CBDC Newfoundland and Labrador Community Business Development Corporation NLEDA Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Developers Association NLFM Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities NLOWE Newfoundland and Labrador Organization for Women Entrepreneurs NLREDA Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Economic Development Association SSP/RS Strategic Social Plan TITA Twillingate Islands Tourism Association T-NWI Twillingate – New World Island WISE Women Interested in Successful Employment

458 Watershed Management Case Study Actors and Relationships

Actors Described NS-W NL-W BC-W All Federal agencies 1872 9 2 18 Provincial agencies 11 7 4 22 First Nations 5 + 5 1 3 14 Municipal 6 12 (inc 2 LSDs) 4 (3+RD) 22 governments Intergovernmental 3 0 3 6 Local ENGOs or 11 12 9 32 collaboratives Companies 11+ - 2 gypsum cos., 14+ - 2 forestry, 10+ - 4 major 35+ 2 forestry, 3 tourism 1 blueberry, 1 resource companies noted, 3+ consultants, local + 4 contractors + Maritime NE Pipeline manufacturer, 8 applicants for - est. 1000+ retail/gas, cabin watershed businesses operating rental, hardware development in the watershed retailer - less than 100 - includes additional business in the businesses watershed Industry 5 1 0 6 associations NGOs – other Local 4+ Local 5 1 local 10+ Fed‘l/Prov‘l 8 Fed‘l/Prov‘l 9 4 provincial 21 Post-secondary 5 8 8 21 TOTAL 92 88 48 228 Including 287+ 88 51 unincorporated - 1200+ including all - less than 150 with communities businesses all businesses Key actors (most First Nations (Chiefs, IBEC, DFO ‗Namgis First influential in UINR, EFWC), Nation, Province of watershed Province/NSE&L, BC, DFO management municipalities/Rural decisions) CB Planning Commission, Federal agencies (esp. DFO, EC, DIAND)

Relationships (2003/2004) NS-W NL-W BC-W Role of/relationship Leadership role (prov‘l Important but not Important partnership with sr. gov‟t in SCI and federal in leadership role – but not leadership CEPI) tenuous funding role relationship Relationship status Strong to medium Strong to mixed Mixed – better with (federal), mixed local, technical DFO

72 Combines DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard, a Special Operating Agency of DFO.

459 (provincial) than decision-makers, different priorities than provincial Relationship 5 Chiefs/RDG MOU (expired), Funding, watershed mechanisms meetings, MOUs, SCI, Awareness planning BPC, funding, frequent Campaign, forestry comm‘n, coastal planning, funding, planning (IM), incorp. agreement re. of TK and increasingly enforcement, frequent other LK comm‘n, LK incorp in decision-making Role of/relationship FNs leadership + some ―Community‖-driven Primarily through the with community NGOs key, non-FNs but with concerns board and affiliations, (governments and leadership getting about lack of general public NGOs) engaged, particularly communication with awareness and through Pitupaq general public involvement low

Relationship status Mixed (community-at- Medium/mixed – Weak to mixed large awareness and public awareness and general public, mixed involvement low (gov‘t involvement is to good with related focus) but described as variable NGOs improving, varied municipal involvement Relationship Elders committee, Primarily through the Annual meeting of mechanisms employment policies board members and involved groups, (FNs), Pitu-paq & SCI, their affiliations occasional news financial contributions, (attention to Board coverage, ex. community workshops, and employment knowledge of Gwan‘i outreach/use of media dist‘n, annual general/ hatchery in AB community meeting, community events Role of/relationship Increasing Forestry activity is Central with private sector collaboration significant but overall - project sponsors - legal disputes collaboration on - committee co- Note: varied - contracted research watershed chair - Stora certification and management is forestry project limited - local - seeking to establish spending + IBEC FNs/Industry Advisory input in forestry Council planning – - partnership committee Relationship status Mixed/medium Mixed (firm Strong dependent, powerful differences) Relationship Forestry planning Forestry planning Co-chair, co-funding mechanisms processes, forestry processes, periodic (forestry planning agreement, $ funding provided by separate) forest co., support for local business through spending

460

Role of/relationship Important research and Critical knowledge, Research partnerships with post-secondary education role research and but a less dominant education/ training role partners, revenue generation potential Relationship status Medium to strong – Medium/mixed to Mixed, would like to CBU strong strong expand, past conflicts Relationship Research, education, Advisory Committee, mechanisms funding, committees project partnerships/ grad students Role of/relationship Potential tools for Some outside Impacted by Can/US with global actors conservation/tourism, research interest and decision-making re. policy and industry outreach, policy and salmon, also forestry influence, summer industry influence trade but little global residents outreach Relationship status Limited to medium Limited to medium Limited Relationship WSSD, Rio declaration Partnerships have PSC/genetics, tagging mechanisms as impetus, pursuit of resulted in some partnerships Biosphere Reserve international projects, designation Cdn Fish Science Conf.

Relational capacity/activity measures

NS-W NL-W BC-W Role of/relationship with 2 1.5 1 sr govt Role of/relationship with community 2 1 1 (government and NGOs) Role of/relationship with 1.5 1 1.5 private sector Role of/relationship with 2 1.5 1 post-secondary Role of/relationship with 1 1 0.5 global actors # of organizations in 2 2 1 network Est. # of org.s have 3 3 3 interacted with/yr (% of total actors) Communications 2 1 1 program Active website 2 1 0 17.5/20 13/20 10/20

Weak – little interaction or majority of respondents suggest poor/needs significant improvement (0)

461 Mixed – Conflicting responses and/or some positive aspects with areas for improvement (1) Strong – majority report relationships are positive, ongoing, diverse, parties work well together (2) Improving + 0.5, Declining – 0.5

200 or more actors 3 25% or less 1 50-199 2 26-49% 2 less than 50 1 50% or more 3

462 Government Relationships NS-W NL-W BC-W Federal agencies Environment Canada DFO, ACOA, HRSD, DFO, HRDC (HRSD) Department of Justice Parks Canada, CWS, DIAND/INAC, ACOA Environment Canada, ECBC, NRCAN, DFO DIAND, Heritage Health Canada, Canada, Health Infrastructure Canada Canada Rural Secretariat/Ag. Can, Can. Customs & Rev., CMHC, Transport Canada Public Works & Gov. Services, HRSD/ Service Canada, Parks Canada, RCMP Industry Canada Contribution ($) SCI 2004: $150,000 – 2005: 2003: $379,000$ federal/provincial cost DFO $10,000 $ 52,000 DFO share ACOA $368,950 5,000 HRDC HRSD $34,794 (HRSD) UINR 2004: $383,565 2005: federal (DFO, + $322,000 Gwani – INAC) and provincial DFO/ NFN (52% = $676,000)

Pitupaq Dec.-June 2003 $191,198

CEPI 2005 commitment as of Jan 05: $147,500 Relationship See map DFO trout and salmon Strong DFO mechanisms (other advisory groups, participation as Board than $) enforcement pilot Co-Chair, committee membership, project partnerships Relationship status Strong to medium/ Strong to medium/ mixed mixed

463 Provincial Dept. of Health, ENL/ERC, Committee MOE/WLAP, agencies Service NS and Mun on Use of Outdoor MSRM/MFR/Ag. & Relations, Envt and Resources (former), Lands, FRBC/FIA Lbr, Ec Dev, Natural ITRD, Tourism, HCTF Resources, Ag and Culture and Rec, Forest and Agrifoods, Crown Fish, Comm. Lands, OMNR Services Aboriginal Affairs, Tourism, Transportation and Works, Education

Contribution ($) SCI 2004: 150K ITRD 2005: $23,000 2003: $241,000 (from fed/prov cost share - constraints on revenue forestry and Pitupaq: $1000 Dec.- generation potential hunting/fishing June 2003, $28,000 royalty/licensing 2005 revenues)

CEPI 2005 commitment as of Jan 2005: $75,000

UINR 2004: $0 2005: federal and provincial (52% = $676,000) Relationship See map MOU (expired), CES Board and committees mechanisms - Committee, (participation limited other collaboration in vs. DFO, Canfor and enforcement and fish NFN), project and wildlife partnerships management, land use (steelhead/sport focus) decision-making Relationship status Medium/mixed Medium/mixed Medium/mixed Intergovernmenta FEDC-DM N/a Canadian Council of l MNS Tripartite Forum Fisheries and Rural Team Aquaculture Ministers (CCFAM, 1999), Pacific Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers (PCFAM, 2003), Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (PFRCC)

Contribution ($) N/a N/a N/a Relationship See map Formerly CASEC Above orgs + joint

464 mechanisms agreement, fed‘l/prov‘l MoELP/DFO/FRBC devt agreements Resource Management Planning (RMP) Trout and salmon exercise (2001), BC advisory committees Agreement on the include both provincial Management of and federal Pacific Salmon representatives Fishery Issues (1997), MOU for Implementation of COS in B.C Relationship status Strong N/a – ongoing Weak to medium discussions on division (PFRCC, small grant of costs/resp. in 2005) First Nations Mi‘kmaq leadership Informal & occasional NFN leadership role role collaboration Contribution ($) UINR 2004: $278,636 N/a 2003: $15,000 2005: $572,000 (KTFC)

Pitupaq (Dec.-June + Gwani Hatchery 2003): $1000 $322,000 (NFN CEPI as of Jan. 05 program, DFO $7500 + EFWC primary funder) contributions/research and related activities (AFS, federal contracts + fishing income)

EFWC: 230K AFS + 1 million fishing income

Overall 52% of total: est. $1.56 million+ (2005) Relationship See map, UINR as Info sharing, inclusion Co-Chair, committees, mechanisms secretariat/coordinatio of IBEC staff in project partnerships, n role guardian training NFN secretariat/coordinatio n role Relationship status Strong Limited but strong Mixed/strong Municipal Key partners in some Informal only, some Little involvement parts of the network, conflict/communication growing role s barriers Municipal Pitupaq Dec.-June N/a N/a contribution ($) 2003: $5000 Relationship Mayors and Wardens Some Board members Little municipal mechanisms on Pitupaq, SCI field also members of Mayor involvement team participation and Council Relationship status Medium to strong Weak to Mixed Weak

465 (increasing through Pitupaq)

Non-government Actors NS-W NL-W BC-W Within region Connectivity Alliance, IBEC, Snowmobile 4 hatcheries (PMKC, S-HRDA, Baddeck and ATV Club, Quatse, Woss, Kokish), Women‘s Centre, OIA, GIBDA, Cape Freels NIFC, KTFC, ICNRC, , McKinnon‘s Hbr. RDA, KEDC IWA local, ABMRS, Survival Coalition KCTA, former NIFC, LOS Gander-Bonavista MRWMS, North Angler Ec dev: MWCFDC, Sampsonville Water Association NIAMS Assoc., BPS, BSS, OWA, SRDWA GRMA, FABEC, - little affiliation with Ross‘s Ferry Northwest River, other NI NGOs Stewardship Society + Ragged Harbour 4 watershed River, Eastport collaboratives Lobster Committee Outside of region CCN, NS Institute of Gilbert Bay, St. Pacific Salmon (watershed) Science, NB Cons. John‘s and Humber Foundation, Vancouver Council, S. Gulf of St. ACAP, ERMA, Foundation, Pacific Lawrence Coalition on BASE, Bay St. Salmon Endowment Fund, Sustainability, NS George Devt Assoc. BC Conservation Council for Status of Foundation Women, CAP Network PAA, SCNL, SAEN, SPAWN, CORA, UNSM, ASF, DUC, NL FCM Conservation Corps, Wildlife Federation

466 Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W)

Strengths of Relationships Map

467

Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W)

Types of Relationships Map

468

Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W)

Acronym Organization ABMRS Alert Bay Marine Research Society BCCF British Columbia Conservation Foundation CANFOR Canadian Forest Products (forestry company) CCFAM Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers CIT Coast Information Team DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans FRBC/FIA Forestry Renewal British Columbia / Forest Investment Account HCSP Habitat Conservation and Stewardship Program HCTF Habitat Conservation Trust Fund ICNRC Inner Coast Natural Resource Center IWA International Woodworkers of America LOS Living Oceans Society MOE/WLAP Ministry of Environment / Water, Land, and Air Protection MSR/MFR Ministry of Sustainable Resources/Forestry MWCF Mount Waddington Community Futures NIC North Island College NIFC North Island Fisheries Centre NSERC Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada NWAC Nimpkish Watershed Advisory Committee PBS Pacific Biological Station PCFAM Pacific Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers PFRCC Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council PH Port Hardy PMKC Port McNeill Kokanee Club PSEF Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund PSF Pacific Salmon Foundation RDMW Regional Development Mount Waddington SFU Simon Fraser University UBC University of British Columbia UVIC University of Victoria WFP Western Forest Products

469 Bras D‘Or Watershed Network (NS-W)

Strengths of Relationships Map

470

Bras D‘Or Watershed Network (NS-W)

Types of Relationships Map

471

Bras D‘Or Watershed Network (NS-W)

Acronym Organization ACOA Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency BABTA Baddeck Area Business and Tourist Association BPC Bras d‘Or Partnership Committee BPS Bras d‘Or Preservation Society BSS Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society CAP Network Community Access Program Network CBRM Cape Breton Regional Municipality CCN Coastal Community Network CBU Cape Breton University CCN Coastal Communities Network CEPI Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative CMHC Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DIAND/INAC Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development/ Indian and Northern Affairs Canada ECBC Enterprise Cape Breton Corp. EFWC Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission Envt and Lbr Department of Environment and Labour FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities FEDC/DM Federal Economic Development Council and Deputy Ministers FN Envt Network First Nations Environment Network HRSD Human Resources and Social Development MNS Tripartite Forum Mi‘kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Tripartite Forum MRWMS Middle River Watershed Management Society NRCAN Natural Resources Canada OIA Orangedale Improvement Assoc. OWA Orangedale Water Assoc. SCI Sustainable Communities Initiative SFU Simon Fraser University SHRDA Strait Highlands Regional Development Authority SRDWA Stewards of the River Denys Watershed Assoc. TIANS Tourism Industry Assoc. of Nova Scotia UINR Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources Society UNSI Union of Nova Scotia Indians UNSM Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities

472 Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W)

Strengths of Relationships Map

473

Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W)

Types of Relationships Map

474

Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W)

Acronym Organization ACAP Atlantic Coastal Action Program ACOA Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency ASF Atlantic Salmon Federation BASE Burin Peninsula Association for Salmon Enhancement CONA Coastal Communities Network CORA Citizen‘s Outdoor Rights Alliance CWT Town of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans DNR Department of Natural Resources DUC Ducks Unlimited Canada FABEC Freshwater/Alexander Bay Ecosystem Corporation GIBDA Gambo-Indian Bay Development Association GRAMA Grand River Management Association HRDC Human Resources Development Canada HRL&E Human Resources Labour and Employment HRSD Human Resources and Social Development ITRD Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development KCTA Kittiwake Coast Tourism Association KEDC Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation KTA Kittiwake Tourism Assoc. MUN Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador NWRASC Northwest River Atlantic Salmon Committee OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources PAA Protected Areas Association RHRCG Ragged Harbour River Conservation Group SAEN Salmonid Association of Eastern NL SCNL Salmonid Council of NL SFU Simon Fraser University SPAWN Salmon Preservation Association for the Waters of Newfoundland SSP/RS Strategic Social Plan / UNB University of New Brunswick

475 Appendix 5 – Mechanisms Used

Most frequently referred to mechanisms used in RED NL-E (41) BC-E (21) NS-E (28) 1. Planning – 24 1. Comm‘n, networking – 16 1. Planning - 11 2. Training/education/capacity 2. Planning - 15 2. Info. sharing/dialogue - 8 building - 17 3. Capacity building - 14 3. a. Evaluation and 3. Board of Directors - 15 4. a. Community Board - 13 reporting 4. a. Business assistance - 13 b. Business support services - a. Training - 6 b. Industry development - 13 13 b.Assistance with funding 5. Evaluation and reporting - 12 5. a. Assistance with proposals proposals/bus plans 6. Multi-stakeholder b. Evaluation and reporting - 11 4. a. Use of technology - 5 committees/structures - 11 6. a. Community dev‘t - 10 b. Funding provision 7. REDBs as funding/ financing b. Lending (primarily partners agencies - 10 c. Program/project $ agencies) 8. a. Facilitation/support - 7 7. Industry development - 8 c. Multi-stakeholder b. Communications 8. a. NGO start-up/support - 7 committees 9. Political action/networking - b. Youth Council c. Board 4 9. Committees - 6 5. a. Mktg and branding - 4 10. a. Investment attraction - 3 10. a. Use of technology - 5 b. Co-location b.Project delivery b. Ec dev lunches 6. a. Federal-provincial c. Co-location agreements - 3 d.Growth centres b. Labour market 11. a. MOUs - 2 development/supply b. Youth Council 7. a. Operating standards - 2 b. Youth programs/voice c. MOUs/agreements

#1. Planning (50) #2. Training/education/capacity building (37) #3. Board of Directors (33) #4. Business assistance (32) #5. Communications (31)

Evaluation and reporting (29) Funding/funding assistance (25)

476 Most frequently referred to mechanisms used in watershed management

NL-W (43) BC-W (11) NS-W (32) 1. a. Research (19) 1. Stock assessment (10) 1. a. Planning and b. Revenue-generating 2. a. Research (8) prioritization (24) activities/mechanisms (19) b. Habitat restoration (8) b. Training and education 2. a. Resource management c. Planning (8) (24) guidelines/regulations (18) 3. Enhancement/hatcheries (7) 2 a. Funding/revenue b. Education (18) 4. Public outreach/education generation (22) 3. Board of Directors (16) (6) b. Community consultation/ 4. a. Federal/provincial 5. a. Training/capacity building involvement agreements (15) b. Fundraising (5) 3. Communication (19) b. Enforcement/compliance c. Technical Working Group 4. MOUs/agreements (17) monitoring (15) d. Fertilization (5) 5. a. Dialogue (16) 5. a. Planning (14) 6. a. Management Team (4) b. Committees/field teams b. Habitat restoration and b. Review of dev‘t proposals 6. Workshops and protection (14) c. Board (4) conferences (15) 6. Community meetings/public 7. a. Federal/provincial 7. Research (14) consultation (12) agreements (3) 8. Pilot projects (12) 7. Research Centre/Field School b. Promotion (3) 9. Legislation (11) (11) c. Consultation (3) 10 a. No discharge 8. a. Committees (10) d. Coordinator (3) designation (10) b. MOUs (10) e. Monitoring and review b. Reciprocal principles (10) 9. Awareness Day/Campaign (3) (8) f. Enforcement (3) Other: addressing 10. Stock assessment (8) 8. a. Reporting (2) municipal/residential sewage b. Protected areas (2) (9), cross-cultural awareness/ Other: monitoring (6), lobbying c. Expert Advisory Team (2) communication (9), mapping (4), marketing & comm‘n (2) d. Certification e. NWAC (9), court cases (9), (2) compliance monitoring (8) f. Management measures (2) evaluation and reporting (8) relationship building/ partnerships (7), champions (7), Protected areas/ Biosphere Designation (6), HR policies (6) infrastructure (6), CEPI (5), shellfish and water quality monitoring (5), conflict resolution (4), fisheries and aquaculture management (4), lobbying (3), forestry management (2), certification (2)

477 #1. Education (48) #2a. Revenue generation (46) #2b. Planning (46) #3. Research (41) #4a. Community involvement/consultation (37) #4b.Board/committee structure (37)

MOUs/Agreements (35) Habitat restoration and protection (32) – including no discharge and other pollution measures in the BD Resource management guidelines/regulations (31) Communications (27) Enforcement (26)

Most commonly discussed mechanisms overall (RED + watershed management) Planning: 96 Education/training/capacity building: 85 Board/committee structure: 70 Communication: 58

Activities within the Bras d‟Or Lakes Watershed/NS-W (1989-2004)

Scientific 1996  Cape Breton First Nations communities organize an Ecological Research and Monitoring Workshop

1997  Shellfish Section of EC enters into partnership with EFWC in a collaborative shellfish water quality monitoring program

1999  Several research projects underway at EFWC/UINR in partnership with various agencies (herring stock discreteness, green crab distribution and oyster size preferences, groundfish survey, TEK studies and coastal resources mapping)  2nd workshop outlines broadened research goals (DFO, ECBC $)  MOU is signed between DFO and Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR), DFO agrees to provide research vessel for 5 yrs

2000  2 projects developed by DFO Science in cooperation with other federal, provincial, FNs and academic partners (Dal) under Bras d‘Or Lakes Ecosystem Study: 1) deployment of two instrumented moorings to address sediment dynamics questions and gaps in knowledge of winter processes in the Lakes 2) an extensive habitat mapping exercise to delineate sensitive areas worthy of more detailed attention, including:

478  Multi-beam Sonar data collected in deeper portions, Airborne LIDAR data gathered for shallow areas  Sidescan Sonar data and bottom grab samples  Remote sensing over-flights and ground truth field studies

 Enhanced EC/EFWC shellfish water quality monitoring pilot study begins aimed at: creating conditionally managed oyster harvest within closed areas of River Denys Basin, and working with gov‘t and community interests to develop a remediation strategy to improve water quality in the Basin Watershed. A Flow Gauge Station is being established for River Denys, owned and operated by UINR.

 Science for the Integrated Management of the Bras d'Or Lakes (SIMBOL) established, conducting a range of scientific studies (DFO in partnership with UINR), including:

 Verification Of Benthic Habitat Classification Maps;  Evaluation Of The Current State Of Wild American Oyster Population in the Lakes;  Potential Limiting Factors And Enhancement Approaches for Lobster;  Identification And Distribution Of Macrophytic Algae;  The Timing And Duration Of Phytoplankton Blooms In the Lakes;  Monitoring of Herring Spawning Populations;  Stock Assessment of Atlantic Herring Population Through Acoustic Surveys;  Green Crab and Its Effect On the Epibenthic Communities in the Bras d‘Or Lakes;  Bras d‘Or Lakes Ecosystem Baseline Studies including: Plankton and Zooplankton; Bras d‘Or Lakes Trawl Survey; Cod Tagging Program; Benthic Survey  Sediment Dynamics In Denys Basin;  Bras d‘Or Lakes Gaspereau Population;  Stock Assessment Of the Atlantic Mackerel: Fishing Potential For First Nations;  Environmental Monitoring Of the Bras d‘Or Lakes;  An Examination Of Atlantic Herring Egg Size And Larvae As Recruitment Indicators;  The Bras d‘Or Lakes Eel Population: An Experiment To Determine Enhancement Feasibility.

 DFO/UINR jointly awarded annual scholarship to a Dalhousie University team (graduate student and supervisor) focusing research on the Bras d'Or Lakes ecosystem. Project must include the mentoring of a high school student from a Cape Breton First Nation.

Legal/Policy Development and Planning

 Series of discussions over late 70s/early 80s re. need for better management

1989  Bras d‘Or Lake Watershed Integrated Resource Management Plan Study (UMA Group for Bras d‘Or Institute, UCCB with EC$)

479  Aboriginal Fisheries Task Force leads to the establishment of EFWC (1991)

1992  First Nations lobby successfully for exclusion of fish draggers from the Lakes

1995  Taking Care of the Bras d‘Or report recommends the establishment of a Bras d'Or Stewardship Commission as a community-based co-management organization (Bras d‘Or Lakes Working Group with UCCB, $ from ECBC)

1996  Middle Shoal channel dredging project at the entrance to the Bras d‘Or Lakes suspended by a Federal Court order after the Union of Nova Scotia Indians requested a judicial review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) review of the project.

1999/2000  Lakes and watershed are designated as pilot Integrated Management Project under the Oceans Act

2002 – 2004 UINR Oyster Harvesting Guidelines (UINR Project, INAC $)  UINR to establish community guidelines for oyster harvesting and a natural Dispute Resolution Process. This pilot project focuses on community consultation and education, formation of guidelines, and establishing consensus on how the dispute resolution process should be set up. Once established, this process may be applied to other aspects of natural resource management.

2003 - present  Pursuing new collaborative planning structure (UINR lead with fed‘l agencies) under the Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative  Pursuing designation as No Discharge Zone under the Canada Shipping Act (Pitu‘paq and SCI)

Infrastructure/Sewage Treatment/Pollution Control 2003  Bras d‘Or Youth Internship Initiative/Bras d‘Or Lake Cleanup Project (Pitu‘paq with support from SCI and associated agencies, $ from HRDC and Justice Canada):

 Mapping discharge sources  Developing proposal to the Canada-Nova Scotia Municipal Infrastructure Program to address on-site sewage issues  No Discharge Zone application (see above)

Habitat Restoration  Restoration activities on all the First Nation Reservations tributary to the Lakes, on Middle River, and on streams in the River Denys Basin Watershed (led in some cases

480 and supported in others by DFO Oceans Branch, with UINR, Stewards of the River Denys Watershed Association and others) Enforcement 1992  Aboriginal Fisheries Guardian Program put in place

2002-2003  Multi-agency joint enforcement pilot through the SCI field team, to assist in the dissemination of information to the public and provide enforcement capability

Public Outreach and Education 1996 and 1999  Bras d‘Or Lakes Ecological Research and Monitoring Workshops

2001 –  Bras d‘Or Partnership Project (UINR/Partnership Committee Project, INAC $): project coordinator from a FN community to receive training and experience in communications, establish networks with Federal/Provincial/Municipal governments, coastal communities and FN communities to increase communication and cooperation and build awareness through formal presentations and workshops, newsletters, radio/TV specials and the creation of a professional displays and posters and consultations.

2003  Public awareness campaign re. the environmental impacts of boat sewage (coordinated by EC with other local and gov‘t partners)  Community workshops re. SCI and priority sustainability issues in the watershed

Industry Agreements/Development 1970s  oyster farming experiments with DFO and FNs

2001-2003  UINR Forestry Management Project (INAC $): to develop a strategy and agreement with a major pulp and paper company (STORA), the sole leaseholder of crown lands in Cape Breton, to allow the Mi'kmaq to become partners in the management of the forestry industry, gain experience and expertise, and pursue economic benefits

 Georgia Pacific Linkage Project (UINR Project, INAC $): Phase II of this initiative continues the development on an Advisory Council of the Mi'kmaq leadership from Cape Breton and leading business persons showing interest in the development of Aboriginal/Corporate relations and employment of skilled individuals from First Nation communities. This project will build on past successes with such major employers as Georgia - Pacific Canada Limited and Stora Enso Port Hawkesbury Limited, who will become founding members of the Advisory Council. Relationships will also be established with training facilities and government agencies.

481  See above re. ongoing measures related to the shellfish industry. Also MSX Working Group and the Integrated Oyster Management Committees for Bras d‘Or

Initiatives Under Discussion (2004/2005)  Workshop on bylaws as a tool on-reserve  Bi-annual (or more) symposiums for info sharing, coordination and partnership development among all relevant groups  Explore solutions to contaminated sites + preventative measures re. fuel tanks  Possible assistance to Chapel Island FN re. protection of water supply source  Potential research re. the impact of Climate Change on the Bras d‘Or Lakes  Capacity building with UINR lab re. microbiology and chemical analysis  Discussions with INAC re. $ for FNs training on oil spill response and contingency planning  Exploration of designation as a UN Biosphere Reserve

Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) Activities

Science/Assessment  Ongoing snorkel assessment program throughout watershed  Upstream fence count program  Watershed assessments (Canfor and Timberwest)

1992, 93, 97  Sockeye mark/recapture (Gwa‘ni hatchery with KTFC)

2000-2008  Lake fertilization: ongoing monitoring program, including analysis of food web structure and water chemistry in fertilized and control Lakes (with Don McQueen, York University, Gwa‘ni and DFO)

2002  Marine survival study

2001-2003  Nimpkish estuary productivity study (Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre)

2002 - present  Sockeye genetic structure (DFO)  Hydroacoustic juvenile assessments in lakes (York, SFU, DFO)

2003  Downstream smolt assessment and trapping (rotary screw trap)  Upstream assessment fish wheel (KTFC, Gwa‘ni Hatchery)

482 Stock Enhancement 1979 - present  Salmon hatchery (Gwa‘ni Hatchery) 5.5 million smolts released 2002/2003, 4 species

Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement 1997- ongoing  Instream restoration activities (Canfor, ‗Namgis, MoF FIA $)

2000 - ongoing  Lake fertilization (Don McQueen, York University, Gwa‘ni and DFO)

Planning/policy 2000 - 2001  Nimpkish Watershed Recovery Plan  Watershed Fish Sustainability Plan (DFO, MoELP, MAFF)  Review of development proposals and forestry plans

483 Planning as a governance mechanism

Plan Type Role Timeframe Geographic Issue Scope Scope NL-E Annual work plans Lead 1 year Organization/ Economic focus economic region (current, formerly integrated) Economic plan Lead 5 year Economic region Integrated + sub-region Community Support Varies Community/ Varies planning municipal Forestry planning Participant 5 year Planning Zone 3 Forestry/economic (Districts 4,5,6, 8) focus NS-E Business (work) Lead 1 year Organization/ Economic focus + plan Economic region social, ecological Communication Lead 3 years Same as above Organizational plan Economic plan Lead 5 year Economic region Economic focus Sectoral plans Lead Strait Economic/social - HR, Green AP Economic/Ecological Community Support Varies Communities + Varies planning sub-regions Forestry planning Participant 10 years Stora forest lands Forestry/economic focus BC-E Annual work/ Lead 1 year Economic region Organizational, operating plans economic + social Regional economic Lead (+ Short term - Regional District Economic focus + plan participant, project id. (sub-region) social, ecological RD plan) Land use and Indirect Long-term Central Coast/NI Integrated/ coastal planning participant (2050) Straits – multi- Economic focus level NL-W Business planning Lead Approx. 5 Watershed/ Initiative specific - years research centre economic focus site, national and international clientele Fisheries Lead + 5 year Watershed + Ecological + social, management Participant Provincial economic Forestry Participant 5 year Watershed + Forestry/economic Districts 4,5,6,8 focus Land use planning Lead Long-term Watershed Focused on ecological/cabin zoning

484

NS-W SCI business plan Participant Provincial/two Organizational regions Annual work plans Participant 1 year Watershed Science program (DFO led) Lead SCI field team CEPI/coastal Lead Long-term Watershed, sub- Integrated, ecological planning watersheds, focus LOMA Forestry planning Participant 10 years Stora lands Forestry/economic Community plans Indirect Varies Community/First Varies participant Nation territory BC-W Fish/w. recovery Lead 5 years/ Watershed + sub- Ecological planning (3), work annual basins plan Forestry planning Indirect 5 years Watershed/TFL Forestry/economic participant focus Land and resource Indirect Long-term/ Watershed, Integrated use planning participant multi- ‗Namgis generation territorial, Central Coast – multi- level

485 Appendix 6 - Factors in Collaborative Governance Success: Resistors and Enablers

Intellectual/knowledge capital

Enablers: learning, including learning to work together in the face of conflict, evaluation, failures viewed as source of learning, ongoing leadership training

Barriers and resistors: gaps in capacity and understanding at all levels, lack of necessary information, lack of participant education and training, lack of familiarity, knowledge or skills, low morale contributing to resistance to change

Social capital/collaborative spirit

Enablers: Mutual respect and trust*, reciprocity and social understanding, history of cooperation or collaboration, established informal relationships and communication links, homogeneous community, shared view of interdependence, relationships (including both staff and political levels of government), sense of regional community over time

Barriers and resistors: intercommunity competition, personnel turnover, mistrust/hidden agendas

Political/leadership capital

Enablers: the capacity to act collectively, collaborative group seen as a legitimate leader/provides avenues for legitimate representation, favorable political and social climate, commitment from all levels of government and other key decision-makers, including implementation support

Enabling types of leadership: Skilled, strong traditional authority, ability to hear all perspectives and work out differences/manage conflict and diversity as opportunity, build capacity and understanding and address power imbalances, ability to compromise, concerted effort to share leadership, building credibility in the community and with government (e.g. through measurable results)

Barriers and resistors: willingness (for SD), ability to work outside of the collaborative process (e.g. patronage, side deals), jurisdictional disputes, party politics, key interests not willing to participate, lack of political commitment, inconsistent values/political philosophy, lack of constituency support, downloading without support for capacity building, legacy of past policies, personal resistance to change – e.g. low morale/political capital

486 Material capital

Enablers: sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time to adequately consider potential regional initiatives and to put plans into action, sound funding base, ability to assemble resources from a wide range of sources/cost sharing

Barriers and resistors: cost (time and money), volunteer burnout and lack of volunteer and human resources (e.g. energy, leadership, skills), resource access (e.g. natural resources)

Structures

Enablers: Supportive policy and/or legislative framework, flexibility, adaptability, mechanisms for recognizing First Nations rights and title

Barriers and resistors: Legal and constitutional barriers, difficulty in changing existing institutional structures, poorly designed organizational structure, power and influence of the elite/established structure

Process

Enablers: Clear roles and policy guidelines, management area geographically defined (with some clarity and consensus)/reasonable boundaries, multiple layers of participation, includes all who may be directly influenced but not so many as to make the process unwieldy, early inclusion, balanced participation, ability to draw in new groups, withstand the loss of others, appropriate pace of development, open and frequent communication, shared indicators of progress, maintaining identity within the partnership, equity/fairness in cost sharing and governance arrangements (shared power and control), agreements (not always written) that provide mutual benefits (emphasis on win-win), persistence/patience, adequate orientation and time for planning, dialogue, negotiation and relationship building, external support systems (e.g. facilitator, funder) in a periodic role, evaluation, celebration of success, sequencing of programs or projects that show evidence of progress with a coherent direction, flexible solutions, accommodating participants‘ needs

Barriers and resistors: time constraints, lack of communication/reporting/information flow, lack of planning, particularly of a transition strategy

Purpose

Enablers: Concrete, attainable goals and objectives (clear and important reason to become partners), negotiated goals reflect the major interests of partners and concerns of citizens/ community members, shared vision, purpose and stake in both process and outcome (members see collaboration as in their self-interest, that partnership is needed to address the problem at hand), unique purpose, people buy-in, feel they are benefiting more than

487 paying - benefits are identified and appreciated by all partners, necessity, shared understanding of the problem developed

Values

Enablers: recognition of the adjacency principle by decision makers, traditional role of community in stewardship

Barriers and resistors: value conflicts and resistance to change, e.g. due to fear of job loss

Sources: Winer and Ray (1994); Rees (1990); O‘Riordan (1976); McManus (1996); Burkey (1993); Pomeroy (1989); National Round Table (1993); Gallaugher et al. (1996); Gallaugher (1997); Mitchell (1986); Vodden et al. (1997b); Pinkerton (1997); Mitchell (1994); Renard (1991); Dovetail Consulting (1994); Pinkerton and Weinstein (1995); Vodden (2005); Baker (1993); Freshwater et al. (1993); Taylor-Powell (1998); Coe (2006)

488

Appendix 7 - Respondent Profile

NS NL BC # % # % # % Total 52 55 34

Actor Category Federal 18 35 14 26 9 27 Provincial 7 12 12 22 2 6 Municipal 3 6 7 13 3 9 First Nation 8 15 1 2 8 24 NGO/Community - 14 27 19 35 12 35 Other Legend University 8 15 4 7 1 3 Study Org 28 54 17 31 20 59 University

NGO/Community Other Gender

Male 36 69 45 82 24 71 Federal Female 16 31 10 18 10 29 Provincial

Case Study Municipal WM 25 48 21 38 11 32 CED 7 14 22 40 15 44 First Nation Both 20 39 12 22 8 24

NS Respondents (52) BC Respondents (34)

14% 3% 31% 26% 34% 24% 6% 12% 8% 14% 23% 5%

NL Respondents (55) 7%

25% 33%

2% 21% 12%

489 Appendix 8 - Interview Topics

Organization/initiative background: when and how it started, goals and objectives, major players, staff, Board/committee structure, financing (obtain print/web material where available)

Sustainable development: meaning, sustainability of resource extraction, tourism, residential and other forms of development in the watershed/region, major sustainability issues, changes over the past 10 years, changes as a result of your organization/initiative

Governance: meaning, major decision-makers re. development in the region/watershed currently, their respective roles, recent changes, future vision, barriers to change

Working relationships/cooperation: study region as a model, factors in success, quality and nature of relations (past and current) between: communities (First Nations and non- First Nations), communities and provincial and federal governments, federal vs. provincial, industry, environmental groups, educational institutions, steps taken to improve relationships, clarity of responsibilities, role of government - leader/initiator or facilitator?

Tools of cooperation: frequency of communication with major partners, through what forms, about what kinds of issues, processes for establishing common objectives, arriving at solutions and resolving conflicts, benefits of the relationship (for both), willingness to share control, level of mutual understanding, formal vs. informal agreements and structures for working together

Scale: meaning of community, local community vs. watershed/regional level problems, regional vs. provincial/ national interests, pros and cons of planning at the regional/watershed level, local feeling of connection and belonging to the watershed/ region as a whole

Principles: that guide development in the watershed today, that should guide development in the future, principles and values that guide of your organization/initiative (written or unwritten?), principles of good governance

Application of key sustainable development and governance principles in the watershed/region and in your organization/initiative: integration of social, ecological, economic and cultural objectives, precautionary approach, sensitive areas protection, poverty, social issues, rural community survival, responsibilities and rights to benefit from adjacent resources, rights of historic dependence, learning and adaptation, consideration and respect for TK/LK and conventional science, inclusivity, transparency/ information sharing, legitimate representation, strategic planning, monitoring and reporting on successes/failures, responding to concerns/suggestions, proactive v. reactive, public awareness, involvement and support

Respondent profile: occupation, role/position in organization/initiative, history of involvement, flexibility in position, length of position (past and future), age, birthplace,

490 language, years in the region, education and career history, how your background assists you in your position and in building cooperative relationships

Feedback on interview, other comments? THANK YOU!!!

491

Appendix 9 - Regional descriptions and well-being/sustainability indicators

Table 9.1 Overview of demographic and economic indicators (2001) Kittiwake NL SH NS MW/CC BC Canada # of communities Approx. Approx. Approx. - 75 Approx. 27 - 555+76 5,984 (watershed est.) 120 63673 30074 from 23 (6) (2) (100+) POPULATION Population ‗01 48,065 512,930 30,162 908,007 14,802 3.9 mill 30 mill

Population ‗06 46,43177 505,469 28,776 913,462 13,137 4.1 mill 31.6 mill % pop. change - 10 - 7 - 5 0 - 10 + 5 + 4 (‘96–01) % pop. change (‘01- - 3 - 1.5 - 5 1 - 11 + 5 + 5 ‘06) % pop. under 20 24 25 26 25 31 25 26 (‘01) % pop. 65+ 15 12 16 14 6 14 13 Med. pop. age - 38 41 39 35 38 38 % aboriginal identity 1 4 4 2 20 4 4 % immigrant/visible 2/178 2/1 3/1 5/4 8/2 26/22 18/13 minority JOBS and INCOME % unemployment 29 22 22 11 13 8.5 7 % employment 40 45 44 55 64 60 61.5 Median individual 15,00079 16,800 15,455 18,735 23,374 23,073 22,120 income (‗00) Median family 31,000 32,700 42,367 46,523 54,526 54,840 55,016 income (‘00) Labour force in 11 10 12 7 23 5 5 primary industry (%) % of income from 29 22 24 16 10 12 11 transfers

73 NLFM reports in 2005 there were 283 municipalities (3 cities and 280 towns), 182 LSDs, 168 unincorporated communities in the province. While Inuit communities were considered municipalities at this time there are an additional 2 Innu communities and the Mi‘kmaq community of Conne River. 74 Communities within Richmond and Inverness counties listed by Community Counts. 75 Includes 31 towns, 18 counties, 13 First Nations, number of communities within counties is unknown. 76 Includes 157 municipalities, over 200 Local Improvement Districts (all but one located within 27 Regional Districts) and 198 First Nations. 77 Estimate based on average of community population losses. 78 Based on the seven largest towns of the Kittiwake region, comprising more than 50% of the population. 79 RCEUN (1986) points to the need to be careful in comparing economic well-being across regions, pointing out for example that while incomes are less in rural Newfoundland and Labrador (69% of urban) the ―monetary cost of living was less‖, and ―in some ways rural Newfoundlanders were, and remain, better off than urban Canadians.‖ With over 90% home ownership, for example, (vs. 70% in urban Nfld. and 62% in Canada overall), there are minimal interest and mortgage payments to make. Further, many do their own repairs, collect firewood, provide their own food and have used modern appliances and machines to enhance this production (although this is itself costly).

492 Sources: Statistics Canada (2001 and 2006), BC Stats Indicators of Education Concerns, BC (2006), Atlas of Canada, Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, 2000/01 Statistics Canada (2005), NS Community Counts (2007), Roy (2003)

Table 9.2 Overview of social capital and individual well-being (human capital) indicators, 2001 Kittiwake NL SH NS MW/CC BC Canada HEALTH Life expectancy 78 78 79 79 79 80 79.5 (Central) (Zone 4) 76 (2003) Self-rated health - % 65 66 58 59 63 (Upper 59 61 Ex. Or VG (Zone 4) Island/CC) EDUCATION % pop with less than 50 (20+) 33 (20-64) 29 (20-64) 25 30 (20-64) 19 HS grad 52 (15+) 42 (15+) 35 28 31 % pop with university 7 (25-54) 14 (20-64) 13 (20-64) 20 10 (20-64) 23 degree 5.5 (15+) 10 (15+) 14 16 15 % pop college or univ. 32 (25-54) 34 (20-64) 40 (20-64) 34 32 (20-64) 31 incomplete 32 (15+) 36 (15+) 37 40 36 SOCIAL % child care 37 37 30 30 34 29 - % senior care 20 18 21 15 11 14 18 % very strong sense of 41 30 3180/28 23 28 20 17 comm.. belonging (‗05) % someone to listen 93 91 88 90 88 89 most or all of the time Sources: Community Accounts NL, Community Counts NS, Statistics Canada Community Profiles, Canadian Community Health Survey 2001, 2005, GASHA 2005

Provincial Ecosystem Well-being Indicators - Explanatory Notes

Biodiversity With more ecosystems and species than any other province, BC is highly diverse and productive (BC 1999). Coastal BC‘s biodiversity is considered to be of global importance, representing approximately one-quarter of the world‘s remaining coastal temperate rainforests. BC has the highest number and percentage of total species endangered, a function primarily of southern urban development pressures and to a lesser extent rural industrial practices. For its size NS also has rich landscape and species diversity, although forest species diversity has declined considerably (Wilson et al 2001). Mahoney (2004) describes the island of Newfoundland‘s fauna “an intriguing mix of low diversity but high distinctiveness‖ developed over a long period of isolation. NL is, however, home to globally significant seabird colonies and caribou herds and part of Canada‘s boreal forest. Providing one-quarter of the world's remaining original forests, critical bird habitat and ecological functions such as carbon storage and water purification, scientists and others are recommending at least half of Canada‘s Boreal

80 31 includes Guysbourough and most of SH (Zone 4), Zone 5 is the remainder of CB (28). BC region figures from NVI Health region.

493 Forest be designated protected areas (CBI 2007). NL (2006b) suggest the boreal forest has 500 times as many mycorrhizal fungi as a tropical rainforest and that the 95% of boreal organisms that are not plants and vertebrates are largely unrecorded and unstudied.

Table 9.3 Provincial ecosystem indicators NL NS BC % forest/woodland covered 46-50 79 68 land % old forest of total forest 14 – 121 years+ 0.15 – 100+ years 66 (140 years+, mid- land 38 – 80 years+ 1 (80 years+) 1990s, coastal) (island of Nfld, 2003) (2001) Harvesting trend (1991- Fluctuating but relatively stable Increasing Decreasing– after 2001) overall increasing until late 80s % of land base protected 4 8 13 (2003)81 % of land base Crown- 99 29 94-96 owned % of forest area certified 19 39 66 Estimated # of species Total unknown82 40,000 75,000+83 - plant and mammal estimates lowest COSEWIC listed 7 8 64 (86 in coastal BC endangered species 2005, 15 extinct or 84 (2004) extirpated) 21 (2002) 36 (2006)85 440 (2005) Listed by provincial CDCs 13 16 43 FOC-listed marine species at risk % of fish species 51 (Rose 2003) 62 (LOS 2003) considered at low relative - structural change 51 (salmon stocks)

81 The important issues of connectivity between protected areas and protected area size are excluded here. Internationally agreed upon targets for protection range from 10-12% (CBPP, Prescott Allen 2005) although Rumsey et al (2003, p. 19) suggest ―most studies and experts have concluded that some degree of protection for at least 40-60% of the terrestrial lands and fresh waters would be required to sufficiently protect biodiversity in temperate regions, assuming that the very ―best‖ and representative areas are selected‖. For marine areas 10-50% is suggested, while protection of 20% of the shoreline is considered a ―Medium Conservation Risk Option‖. They add that to protect species such as grizzly bear areas between 10,000 km2 and 40,000 km2 must be designated. 82 The total number of species in NL is unknown (Pardy 2007) but estimates of plant (1300) and bird (350) species diversity are lower than the other two provinces (Meades et al 2000). Mahoney (2004) describes 13 resident, two seasonally visiting (polar bear and arctic fox) and approximately ten introduced mammals on the island. 83 BC (2007) estimates approximately 65,000 vascular plants, animals and invertebrates in the province in addition to 1000 bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), 1600 lichens, 522 species of attached algae and over 10,000 species of fungi. The number of the number of vertebrates, invertebrates (over 20,000), and plants in Nova Scotia is estimated to approach 40,000 (NS 2002). There are an estimated 50 species of mammal, 185 species of bird, and approximately 3000 different plant species in eastern Nova Scotia (Stora Enso 2006). 84 Excluding ocean species. 85 UINR (2006) refers to 47 NS species seriously at risk and five extinct.

494 to historic levels - no structural change # of MPAs (provincial and 10 17 (maritimes) 130 – 240,000 ha (less federal, 2001) than 0.5%) Waste disposal per capita 725 417 667 (kg, 2002) % of population in Less than 55 Less than 55 63 communities of 1000+ with (Atlantic) (Atlantic) sewer served by secondary sewage treatment Water quality 322 (2001) 304 (2001), boil orders 226 (2007) ? 3016 total systems communities with high 115 (2007) 10 (2002) (+468 FNs systems THMs monitored by DIAND)

―almost none‖ Sources: BC (1999, 2001, 2006b), FOC (2007, 2005), Statistics Canada (2006), Jamieson and Levings (2001), Rose (2003), NS (2002), NL (2007), NL CDC (2002), Atlantic CDC (2006), Peterson et al (2005)

Forest ecosystems Both NS and BC forest ecosystems are suffering from a history of high-grading (removing the best trees) and clearcutting (both for forestry and land clearing in NS). In 1958, 25% of the province‘s forest was more than 80 years old, now only 1%. Old-growth forests (with trees once up to 800 years old) remain only in very small, isolated pockets. In the mid-1990s, about 40% of the total area of the BC coast was still covered in trees over 140 years old, two-thirds of the total forested land base. Trees in Pacific old growth rainforests can live for more than 2,000 years and require 200-300 years to fully mature (Alaback 1982, 1984). Harvesting on the coast has been declining since the mid-1980s due to sawmill and pulp mill closures, a decrease in accessible big trees and increasing costs of accessing higher elevation timber. In contrast, the volume of wood harvested annually in NS nearly doubled from the early l980s to 2000. Old-growth forests are considered ―rare and endangered ecosystems in the Atlantic Region‖ (Eaton et al 1993, 417). The NL Forest Service (NFS) introduced an old forest objective in 2003 that 15-20 % of the total productive forest within a district will be older than 80 years. In 2003 38% of Newfoundland island‘s forests fell within this age class. Approximately 14% were over 121 years of age but no protection is provided for forests older than 80 years under the Strategy (NL 2003). With almost 70% of land owned privately, protected area establishment is particularly challenging in NS (29% provincial ownership vs. 96% in BC and 99% in NL) (Statistics Canada 2002, Canada 2006). Similarly, of the island of Newfoundland‘s productive timber lands 59% have been tenured to the province‘s two pulp and paper companies and are treated by the province‘s financial and legal system as private land (NRC 2006). Black ash, of great cultural importance to the Mi‘kmaq, is now rare in NS. Species such as white and red pine have been reduced by more than 50% and are also at risk and declining in NL, where policies for conservation have recently been put in place (Urquizo et al 2000, NL 2003).

495 Marine Rose (2003) describes the state of NL‘s fisheries resources as mixed, with groundfish and pelagic stocks at low and crab (in two areas), shrimp, sand lance and seal populations at high current levels, listing 49 NL fish stocks and characterizing the status of 25 as low (51%), six unknown, 14 moderate and only four as high. Special management measures and quota reductions have subsequently been required for snow crab. Misunderstanding and uncertainty regarding resource availability, fisher behaviour and pressure for increased quotas, the need to add value, improve quality and ensure full utilization were all noted as issues impacting the NL fishery‘s sustainability. The decline in many NL fish stocks is also attributed to ―the inability to control foreign and domestic fisheries, inadequate science, inappropriate policies, ineffective management, and the inability to react to local environmental and fisheries conditions and knowledge‖ (Rose 2003). Pre-1997 cold conditions were associated with higher productivity for crab and shrimp but lower for formerly dominant species, particularly cod and capelin. The combined effects of these events are said to have caused an early-1990s ecosystem regime shift from a pelagic-demersal fish group (e.g., capelin-cod) to a crustacean- dominated biological community (shrimp and crab), shrinking the trophic pyramid in the middle while increasing it at the top and bottom. Rose (1993) suggests that the relatively short life cycles of crustaceans may make the system less stable than one dominated by longer-life cod and redfish. Greater understanding of crab biology and ecology is needed. Changing ecological conditions, including post-1997 warming, coupled with an increase in harvesting pressure associated with a quadrupling of the number of crab licenses in NL and throughout the Atlantic region from 1992 to 2004, have led to quota reductions and special management measures for snow crab (FRCC 2005). Landings in the Newfoundland lobster fishery peaked in 1992, after a period of increase linked to ecological conditions. Post-1992 declines throughout Atlantic Canada led to a 1995 review by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC), licence buy out/early retirement programs in the 1990s and a 1998 integrated management plan calling for v-notching (the voluntary marking by fishermen of berried females they catch), an increase in the minimum size for harvest, shortened seasons and reduced trap limits (DFO 2006d). Exploitation rates in the high intensity fishery remain higher than 95% in more productive fishing areas despite effort reductions. Management of the NL lobster fishery is described resilient after more than one hundred years but not sustainable, requiring an ongoing commitment to lowering exploitation levels by building on recent locally-driven conservation initiatives such as area closures and v-notching (Ennis 2006). The Pacific salmon is a symbol of BC‘s ecoystems and a ―cornerstone‖ species supporting much of the Pacific coastal ecosystem, linking the ocean, freshwater and land (BC 2001). Thus salmon declines are a critical ecological as well as cultural and socio- economic concern. With a complex number of species, populations, stocks and factors influencing their health, the status of Pacific salmon is frequently debated (Canada 2004). Canada (2004) suggests that while the catch has decreased and numbers of spawners are below early 1990s highs they have stayed relatively stable overall over the past fifty years. Declines in the 1990s are attributed to poor marine survival due to climate-related factors, resulting in strong conservation measures for some populations and thus declining catches. They report that overall abundance and catch has decreased but the total number of salmon returning to B.C. streams to spawn had been maintained. Canada (2005b)

496 states, however, that both salmon and herring stocks (also a keystone species) in the Pacific Maritime ecozone have generally been overfished and that salmon stocks, critically important in BC coastal ecosystems (Rumsey et al 2003, Canada 2004), are continually declining and at ―dangerously low levels‖ (Canada 2005b). Concerns exist about declining overall abundance but also lost biological diversity, genetic differences and the habitats that support this diversity, in turn supporting adaptation and resilience. Large runs such as the Fraser, Skeena and Nass (themselves diverse) mask problems with hundreds of smaller systems. Conservation concerns about sockeye salmon, Strait of Georgia coho and all Lower Mainland (south coast) steelhead are noted in particular (DFO 2005). Slaney et al (1996) reported that salmon had been extirpated in two percent of the spawning locations assessed and were at high risk of extinction in another 12 per cent. A COSEWIC recommendation to list three groups of Pacific salmon as Endangered under SARA was a strong motivation for the Wild Salmon Policy (Canada 2004). Many inshore BC rockfish species are also experiencing low levels of abundance or recruitment, with 89 areas closed to fishing. Other important species, however, appear to be harvested at sustainable rates (halibut, perch, hake, geoduck, herring, Dungeness crab) and there is no reported trend in changes of trophic levels of fish caught since 1982 (indicating little change in ecosystem structure, unlike NL). Fecal contamination, the introduction of endocrine-disrupting compounds in municipal, agricultural and industrial wastes, shellfish contamination from persistent organic pollutants (POPs), continuing presence of organochlorine pesticides such DDT and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)- related compounds in seabirds and seabird food chains (thought to reflect atmospheric transport from areas of ongoing use in Asia), pollution inputs from agriculture and abandoned mines are all considered threats to coastal ecosystems in BC (BC 2006).

Water and wastewater Municipal wastewater effluents (sewage and stormwater) represent one of the largest sources of pollution in Canadian waters. In 1999, an estimated 63% of the population in BC living within municipalities with populations of 1000 or more with sewer systems had secondary or tertiary treatment, compared to 55% in the Atlantic provinces and 78% Canada-wide (Environment Canada 2005b). Nevertheless, shellfish closures have increased in BC along with population growth, reflective of a corresponding increase in sewage discharge (BC 2006b). NL has the lowest drinking water quality overall using boil water advisories and THM presence as indicators, including the highest number of communities with annual average Trihalomethanes (THM) levels above recommended amounts (NL 2007c). A by- product of chlorine disinfection that reacts with organic matter, most commonly in surface water supplies, THMs may pose risks of cancer and adverse birth outcomes (NS 2002). NL also had the highest number of boil water advisories in place in 2001. NS does not have a public record of boil orders. The Province reports only ten water supplies as having elevated THM levels in 2002, but arsenic is a concern in rural NS drinking water supplies (Gagnon and Walsh 2007, NS 2002). Despite 76% reliance on surface water supply, ―almost all‖ of BC‘s water systems maintain THM levels below current acceptable levels. However, BC has had the highest rate of intestinal illness in Canada, caused primarily by consuming contaminated water or food. On average at least one waterborne disease outbreak occurs in BC each year, many the result of water system failures or lack of adequate treatment (BC 2001). It is noteworthy that as of 2001 there

497 were ―no requirements for the use of qualified or certified personnel operating water systems on Indian reserves.‖ INAC collects data about these water systems in its community infrastructure database and produces summary reports annually. (BC 2001, 42). These systems are excluded from this analysis.

498

Regional Ecosystem Indicators

Table 9.4 Comparative Table of Regional Ecosystem Indicators

Kittiwake SH MW/CC % forest/woodland 37% productive forest 80% of watershed 49% MW (50% covered land land in FMD 5 (excluding saltwater/ mountain, lake, Lakes portion, 56% of glacier, 1% total) urban)/50% CC - 78% NW % old forest of total 10% 3-12% of forestry EPUs Approx. 50% in CC forest land planning area, 12% in NW w. recruitment in OGMA Harvesting trend Increasing (reference Reference to high levels Decreasing to high level ‗01-05) of cutting since softwood lumber exemption (VC 2000) % of land base Est. 5%, 0% watershed 3-5% Bras d‘Or, 15% 20% in CC – 6% NW protected SH, 28% Highlands and (39% of forest 3% of Lowlands EPUs constrained by special management, 20% of productive permanently set aside) % of forest area 28% CBPP - District 5 30% (Stora Enso lands - 4% CSA as of 2003 – certified (ISO 14001, CSA), A- ISO 14001, SFI, CSA) WFP, Canfor, C 14% (ISO 14001) Weyerhauser) + ?% TW ISO Species at risk: - Great Auk and NL Several extinct or - 11 listed species, 16 wolf extinct, piping extirpated species + 15 plant associations in COSEWIC listed plover appears to be referenced rare or NW, wolverine, endangered extirpated endangered species marmot considered species86 Common eider extirpated breeding pop. low 19 NI Straits marine Listed by provincial Pine marten species CDCs American eel and - rare sponge reefs banded killifish with continued (freshwater – IB) damage Other species trends Moose and caribou Deer decline, moose Deer and elk pop. decline, increases increasing, birds and recovering, in furbearers/predators other wildlife mixed conservation concern re. mountain goat, grizzly and wolf, furbearers low, black bear and cougar

86 Excluding ocean species.

499 secure Forestry-related Old forest-dependent Old/diverse forest- #1 respondent concerns species; reduced forest dependent species; ecological concern diversity; run-off, reduced diversity; Old forest-dependent water levels and harvest levels; erosion/ species, erosion, temperatures; siltation; habitat loss siltation and stream spraying/pesticides; Stora Enso policies and habitat damage, loss erosion/compaction/ targets in place re. of old growth and siltation; road access protected areas, old forest diversity, to remote areas (#2); forest, diversity, vulnerability to flood buffer zones to protect clearcutting, wildlife events (coupled with water quality and fish habitat protection etc. climate change), habitat (#1); forest but private lands (62%) clearcutting, high regeneration; are poorly monitored grading and loss of protecting aesthetic and protected culturally important values species, pesticides (improvements noted) % of fish species #1 respondent 70% in the Bras d‘Or 71% populations considered at low ecological concern watershed considered examined by CIT in relative to historic - Majority of species low and/or declining Upper-Mid Coast levels low relative to historic declining levels but with some Central Coast 80% (overfishing – legal signs of recovery Pacific salmon units and illegal – was - inshore cod in decline among the factors recovering slowly but Weinstein (2007) noted in all cases) highly vulnerable, describes a regional offshore no recovery, salmon collapse in the some capelin + lobster Kwakwaka‘wakw sea improvement but low abundance, crab - variability in vulnerable, shrimp Nimpkish salmon stable returns since 1800s freshwater pop.s noted stressed (trout declines with some recovery and system integrity in IB, salmon pop.s below conservation req.s with increases in some areas) # of MPAs 1 formal MPA 0 formally designated, 5+ (MW) - 2% of (provincial and (Eastport) + marine protection around total Queen Charlotte federal) portion of Funk Island Spectacle and Bird Sound and Strait (2) Islands (2) marine area – 67,793 ha Water quality Mixed – good in #1 respondent 132 Upper Island Gander watershed and ecological concern water systems IB (drinking and fish significant concerns re. excluding FNs habitat) but 16% of fecal coliform/ sewage- systems, only 10% local governments on related pollution with provincially inspected boil orders (5/11 LT), recent improvements, in 1999/2000 (vs.

500 34% high THM levels chemical contamination 24% BC) – of 46 (including fish farms), rated systems 78% erosion/sedimentation low hazard rating (vs. Denys basin drinking 75% BC), 9% high water: aluminum, (8% BC), 16 boil bacteria, supply order advisories = 12% of systems (10% in BC) Other Lack of $ for resource Invasive species and Lack of $ for resource management and parasites management and stewardship Climate change stewardship Attitudes/‖culture of Urban and beachfront Change in climate exploitation‖, development and ocean conditions improving and to a Lack of land use - Aquaculture lesser extent in IB, planning Tourism and cottage particularly re. trout Atmospheric pollution development Threat of gold mining Acid precipitation Predation (seals, Illegal harvest Predation & competition introduced trout) - Climate/ocean - Attitudes/greed - Pollution from ship conditions (literature) traffic, proposed oil and gas development

Regional Ecosystem Well-being - Explanatory Notes

Kittiwake (NL-E) Region The region is still home to significant seabird populations, but Funk Island, a seabird sanctuary in the region, is believed to have been home to the world‘s last known breeding colony of the now-extinct great auk, driven to extinction by human exploitation. Glavin (2006) points out that Newfoundlanders sought assistance from Britain in restraining the slaughter, primarily by New Englanders, in the 1700s and even publicly flogged auk plunderers in St. John‘s, but by the early 1800s auks could no longer be found on the island. The northeast coast area was also historically home to significant breeding and wintering populations of the Common Eider. By 1970 the Eider population around the island has been decimated to just 500 nesting pair (Way 2003). Recovery has been slow (Kavanagh 2005). Local respondents suggest that illegal harvest and selling of seabirds is a significant conservation threat. Some stewardship efforts have been undertaken to facilitate Eider nesting on offshore islands. Portion‘s of the region‘s sandy coastline were once a nesting area for the endangered piping plover but its presence is no longer known. Recreational use and development of beach habitats are considered significant factors in piping plovers declines (Canada 2003). Two COSEWIC-listed fish species of special concern exist within the Indian Bay ecosystem – the NL banded killifish (provincially threatened) and the American eel. Despite being provincial and/or national concern, there is no evidence of decline within the system of either species. Further killifish research is now underway. Indian Bay is one of seven known sites for the population, which is considered locally abundant but

501 vulnerable to water quality disturbance including forestry impacts (NL 2006b). The threatened pine marten and endangered red crossbill can also be found within the region (Kittiwake and Forest Management Districts 4 and 5). Dependent on late successional mixed or coniferous forests and large home ranges, the marten population is suffering due to habitat loss, accidental mortality from snaring and trapping and low, isolated numbers (Canada 2007d). Habitat loss (particularly older mature forest) is also considered a factor in red crossbill declines, along with competition from the introduced red squirrel (NL 2005). Red pine was once present throughout Newfoundland‘s central boreal ecoregion but is now the province‘s rarest tree. The range of white pine has also declined due to harvesting and blister rust but is still present in locations throughout the region and is no longer harvested by commercial operations in the zone (NL 2006b). Old-growth red pine forest is considered a critically endangered ecosystem (<2% remaining) in eastern North America (Noss et al 1995). AFER (1996) identifies 22 remaining stands in eastern North America87. Seven of these are in the Kittiwake region (AFER 1996). Of the region‘s 534 hectares of old-growth red pine identified by AFER (1996) 75% is under some protection. The issue of limited remaining old growth forest applies to forest stands of all types throughout the region. Despite only 10% of the productive forest land base being identified as 81+ years (vs. 38% in NL in 2003) and a provincial target of 15-20 % per district (2006b, p. 28) suggests that ―with the oldest first management policy, Class 5 should be able to support some harvesting for commercial and domestic operations until Class 4 areas are needed‖. No 100+ year stands are identified in the District. Reduced forest diversity is also a concern due not only to forestry practices but also browsing preferences of the introduced but now abundant moose (Parks Canada 2007).

Table 9.5 % of productive forest by age class, District 5 (NL 2006b) 1 (0-20) 2 (21-40) 3 (41-60) 4 (61-80) 5 (81-100) Total 23% 34% 3% 28% 10% 214,245 ha

Moose were first introduced to the province within the region (Gander Bay) in 1878 (NL 2006). Results of the most recent moose census for the area (Bonavista North, Area 23) suggest a 56% drop since 1991. Wildlife officials believe several factors have contributed, including a combination of poaching, timber harvesting and lack of a quality food (Pretty 2005). Increasing predator populations may also be a factor. Poaching and habitat fragmentation due to the TransCanada highway are thought to be factors in the condition of the small reportedly depressed (relative to the 1960s) Indian Bay ecosystem caribou population. After a recovery in the Kittiwake and neighbouring zones in the 1980s and 90s caribou populations have since experienced a significant decline. Access to remote areas (increasing road-kill and poaching), logging and other disturbances in calving areas, lichen abundance and distribution are factors (NL 2006b). Respondents report increases in bear, loon, coyote, beaver, and lynx (due to part to less trapping) and fluctuating rabbit populations. Ten species of furbearer are found in the zone, three non- native88.

87 NL (2006b) suggests there are 22 small, scattered red pine stands remaining in insular NL. 88 Lynx, red fox, beaver, otter, muskrat, short-tailed weasel, pine marten, red squirrel, mink, and coyote (the last three non-native) (NL 2006b).

502 The Kittiwake region is made up of several significant rivers and watersheds, including the Gander, Terra Nova, Gambo, Indian Bay and Ragged Harbour systems. The Gander River watershed constitutes nearly 50% of the region at 6400 square km (O‘Connell and Dempson 2002). Forest harvesting occurs in approximately 4/5 of the Gander system, an important fishing destination, water supply and home to over 20% of the region‘s population. Extensive clearcutting on parts of the river with resulting changes in water levels, run-off and water temperature are a concern (although forestry officials counter that changing water levels are due to precipitation), along with access roads, spraying, site preparation, thinning and planting activity (Environment Canada et al 2005, Beacon 1999). The most common forestry-related issues raised by interview respondents in the region (24% referred to forestry-related concerns) were the need for extended buffer zones and the impacts of increased road access to remote areas, particularly watershed headwaters. Several respondents suggested that given the political power of the forest companies and economic reliance of some communities on the industry, it is difficult to get protection measures in place. The province‘s Sustainable Forest Management Strategy (2003) requires a minimum 20 m buffer on water bodies (30-150 m in various components of drinking water supply systems such as Indian Bay). While also increased in some areas such as salmon spawning, cabin development or aesthetic areas, wildlife habitats or outfitting camps, selective harvesting is now being undertaken in buffer zones. Pesticides and waterway siltation, particularly from road construction, remain a concern (Eaton et al 1994, Wells 1992). Eaton et al (1994) further suggest that clearcutting on poorer Newfoundland soils can cause long-term failure of forest regeneration. 64% of District 5 has medium timber growth potential, 23% poor (NL 2006b). A major forest fire in 1961 decimated the Bonavista North region (including Indian Bay)‘s large stands of valuable timber. Ecological impacts of pre-1960s logging activities are mixed (Pritchett 1997). Commercial logging is now underway again in the more remote, headwater areas of the system, some of which were not damaged by fire. Wells (2002) describes one such area, since harvested, as a productive black spruce forest with trees 82 years old and a predominantly feathermoss forest floor. One forestry official suggests the majority of the watershed is an age class two stand and won‘t be cut for 30- 40 years. Respondents expressed concerns related to renewed forestry activity, including the need for increased buffers, cutting on slopes, impact of harvesters on soil compaction, erosion and sedimentation and of increased road access. There is also perception among some local residents that the watershed should not be used for industrial activity. Proposals for decommissioning logging roads have not been successful but the two major forest companies operating in the watershed have conceded to 100 m buffers, as suggested by DFO for sensitive spawning areas, (―the most protection you could possibly hope for‖ according to one forestry official) and use of winter roads in new areas. A one km management zone is regulated for salmon habitat protection along the Gander River (NL 2006b). IBEC has struggled with only temporary success, however, to protect portions of the watershed with remaining old timber (one portion with white pine also identified) from harvesting. The Protected Areas Association of NL (1998) suggested, unsuccessfully, that a portion of the watershed containing old growth timber be designated a protected area. Despite concerns about forestry-related impacts on water quality and, until recently, sewage discharges from the towns of Glenwood and Appleton a 2005 national

503 study rated Gander River water quality as good for both protection of aquatic life and drinking water. Bogs and fens influence water quality in some rivers by making the water a tea-like colour, increasing levels of dissolved organic carbon and naturally occurring metals and lowering pH (Environment Canada et al 2005). As of June 28, 2007 eleven municipalities or LSDs in the region (16%) were on boil water advisory. Five of these had been in place for more than a year (NL 2007). Incidence of high THM levels in drinking water supplies is also a significant issue, impacting 24 communities with local governments and therefore responsibility for public water systems (34% of total). Town of Indian Bay water quality, drawing from the Indian Bay River, is within acceptable THM levels and is ranked ―very good‖ according to a water quality index (NL 2007). The region‘s freshwater systems support salmon, brook trout, Arctic charr, rainbow smelt, American eel, sea lamprey, rainbow trout, and other fish species. Atlantic salmon stocks are a conservation concern province-wide, closed to the commercial salmon fishery in 1992. Despite some improvements in recent years returns remain low relative to historic levels, four of six assessed rivers in two local management areas not achieving conservation requirements. The Gander River has met or exceeded requirements in only seven of the last 15 years, including 2004 and 2005. Marine survival remains low. Illegal harvesting both near-shore and in-river is considered a significant factor. Efforts to curb poaching and encourage stewardships appear to have resulted in improvements in the status of salmon in Northwest River (Terra Nova Park) (Cote 2005), with similar efforts underway on other systems. Salmonid populations are also dependent on the condition of adjacent forests and riparian vegetation, discussed above (Wells 2002). Outside of the Indian Bay ecosystem limited information is available on other freshwater species within the region. Trout populations are reported to have declined throughout the province in the 1990s (SAEN 1994), corresponding with increased access according to one respondent, and a study of a seatrout population in the Greenspond area suggests overexploitation and resulting population declines (Sutton 1997). Because the original species composition, productivity and recently the population age structures of the trout and landlocked salmon have been retained Gibson (2004) suggests, from a fisheries perspective, Indian Bay watershed could be considered a near healthy ecosystem. Local observers, however, share stories of greater past abundance. ―It was once a wonderful place to fish, but there's nothing left up there now. That goes for many types of trout, and eels, and salmon.‖ Widely known as one of the best trout fishing locations on the island, trout numbers and size declined considerably throughout the 1960s and 70s as access increased due to a new highway, the opening up of former logging roads and the introduction of snowmobiles, ATVs and even small planes. Outdoor Canada (1989) rated Indian Bay one of the five best fishing holes in Canada due to good fishing, unspoiled surroundings and easy accessibility but by the 1980s ―Indian Bay was fished out,‖ resulting in the formation of IBEC (see Chapter Seven). Research suggests that the trout population has since stabilized with substantial increases in trout size over the past decade (de Jong 2004), although not to pre-1980s size or numbers. Despite restrictions and reduced fishing effort (particularly for salmon) harvesting pressure is still considered high. ―On average fishing is at the upper limit of system capacity, the current fishery is of high quality and sustainable but cannot sustain any dramatic increase‖ (de Jong 2004), in fact five ponds are considered overexploited (de Jong et al 2001). Stable growth rates suggest any declines are due to human rather than natural factors. Concerns were also noted about Indian Bay salmon and sea trout

504 populations. Catch per unit effort was low on Indian Bay Brook relative to the provincial average from 2002-2005 and nearby Middle Brook, an indicator river, saw salmon declines until 2003 with recent improvements. The subject of climate change received little attention from interview respondents with the exception of three who referred to impacts on salmon survival at sea. Like other areas of the province the Kittiwake region was hard hit by the cod moratoria. Research in the late 1990s illustrated that there are at least two groups of cod in the region (cod management 3KL): a resident, coastal (inshore) group and a migrant offshore group that moves south in the winter and returns in the spring/summer. The spawning stock in offshore areas has been at an estimated 1-2% of 1980s levels since the mid-1990s, with low recruitment and high mortality (CNLACTR 2005). Most recent reports indicate increases in inshore cod biomass since 2003, but still at relatively low levels (although fish harvesters feel inshore abundance in 2006 was better than the late 1980s). Studies also indicate a decrease in older (4+) age classes. A 2006 ―pilot fishery‖ for cod removed an estimated 8% of the biomass. The most recent stock status report suggests that with no removal biomass the central inshore stock can be expected to increase 6% from 2007-2010 but a 22% decline is expected if 2006 harvest levels are continued. Cod condition and weight are reportedly improving but recent recruitment has been weak. Cod status in the region can be described as exhibiting signs of slow recovery but with high vulnerability. There is limited information available and considerable uncertainty regarding capelin stocks, a key food source for cod, seabirds and other species. One respondent described, ―You know we started fishing capelin… It was what the cod fed on. We were taking it out of the water in tons, and then we started seeing declines‖ (in both capelin and cod). Although there is evidence of offshore cod lacking capelin in their diet (CNLACTR 2005) there are recent indications of improvements in capelin conditions and spawning inshore (again still below late 1980s levels) (FOC 2007). Interview respondents suggested considerable concern for the future of the marine fishery overall, particularly the lucrative snow crab segment, observing ―we‘re heading for disaster… the different fishermen‘s committees and the union … when February or March comes around that‘s what they‘ll be doing, going into St. John‘s looking for more crab quota… We‘re our own worst enemy‖. While province and federal governments contributed to capacity problems by licensing additional crab harvesting and processing licenses in the 1990s (Cashin 2005), management measures have been taken to minimize high grading and soft shell crab harvests, along with quota decreases (rising again in 2007). The industry is highly vulnerable to declines in either crab or shrimp, which now support 75% of harvesting revenues (Dunne 2003). Concerns were also raised not about shrimp populations themselves but about harvesting operations and ―what is it doing to the crab grounds, the dragging‖. Many inshore, small boat fishermen in the Kittiwake region are engaged in the lobster harvest89, a fishery about which concerns were also raised, including excess harvesting pressure and harvesting of undersize (pre-spawning) lobsters. Mid-1990s lobster conservation concerns led to the establishment of the Eastport Peninsula Lobster Protection Committee, involving approximately 50 harvesters from seven small

89 Three-quarters of the core fishing enterprises in NL operate from vessels under 35 feet, which are dependent on the lobster, cod, capelin and lumpfish fisheries (Williams et al 2006).

505 communities in the Kittwake region. It was ―not a requirement by law to return females without eggs but the fishermen made it a practice.‖ In 1997 Eastport Peninsula Lobster Management Area was formed, establishing two small protected areas as part of a co- management agreement between licence holders and DFO (Ennis 2006, DFO 2006d). Scientific research, self-monitoring and public education have also proven important. According to recent data, the Eastport program has lost momentum in recent years but by combining a size limit increase, v notching and closed areas the result has been a 40% increase in egg production. Despite these local successes region-wide lobster landings continued to decline from 1995 to 2004, increasing in 2005 but still well below mid 1990s levels. ―Chasing mackerel from bay to bay‖ was also raised as a concern while strong squid populations were reported in recent years. Overall the region‘s terrestrial and freshwater systems remain largely undeveloped with the exception of logging and some mining activity and scattered, relatively low density cottage areas. Tourism outfitters and local residents also use forest access roads for outdoor recreational activities and also cross the countryside with all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. There are eight provincial protected areas and one national park in the Kittiwake region (none within the Indian Bay watershed) offering varying degrees of protection from such activities. The largest of these is the Bay du Nord Wilderness Area, one of two wilderness reserves in the province. While only a small portion of the 2,895 km2 Reserve is within the Kittiwake region (estimated 10%), it includes the headwaters of the Terra Nova watershed along with the wintering and calving grounds of 15,000 woodland caribou, the largest herd on the island. Motorized recreational vehicles are restricted in some areas of the reserve. The region‘s second largest protected area is the 405 km2 Terra Nova National Park, which became Newfoundland's first national park in 1957. Funk Island is the only ecological reserve in the region and is restricted from all but research use (island 0.2 km2, 5.2 km2 total). An additional six provincial parks focus on recreational opportunities but some also protect special landscape and ecological features. In total an estimated 710 km2 are protected in the region. At 5% of the total terrestrial/freshwater area this is well below the recommended (although debated) 12% conservation target. Further, this figure includes parks with primarily human use objectives. NL (2006b) proposes an additional ecological reserve at Gambo Pond. In Forest Management District 5 56% of productive forest area is Crown land (higher than the provincial average), 42% tenured to one of two forest companies. Marine protected areas include the Round and Duck Islands area in Eastport and a 5 km2 marine portion of Funk Island Ecological Reserve.

Table 9.6 Major sustainable development issues described by interview respondents BC Mount Overharvesting (forestry and fishing), economic decline, aquaculture, need for Waddington more value-added, climate change, culture, attitude/greed - ―gold rush‖ of 70s-90s with some positive change/learning from fisheries declines Nimpkish Forestry impacts, ocean conditions, commercial and sport fishing harvest, watershed poaching, cottage development, climate change/weather events, stocking/non- native species, tourism impacts, hydroelectric (the latter two primarily concern about the future) – also lack of $ for resource management and stewardship/restoration

506 NS Strait- Economic development, sewage-related contamination, shellfish closures, Highlands fisheries declines, tourism impacts - related to ecological concerns Bras d‘Or Sewage pollution and associated water quality concerns, lack of economic watershed opportunity/unemployment and low incomes (linked to out-migration concerns), land use (impacts of residential property development and to a lesser extent forestry and farming), planning and decision-making processes, fisheries declines/overharvesting, shipping/ ballast water and invasive species, water access, recreational vehicles NL Kittiwake Fisheries management/declines, economic development, attitude/culture of economic exploitation but with slow change and important examples of stewardship, forestry zone impacts, inequity in the fishery, value-added of raw materials, technological change - fewer jobs Indian Bay Fishing pressure (freshwater fisheries), industrial development (forestry, mining), watershed road access, poaching/illegal harvest, attitude/ethics, water quality, cabin development, ATVs and snowmobiles, ounaniche/competition and ecosystem change, job loss, viability of recreation fishing sector and the need for protected areas - – also lack of $ for resource management and stewardship/restoration COMMON Fisheries declines and harvesting pressure, forestry practices (overharvesting, THREATS reduced biodiversity, siltation/erosion, road access), population and economic decline/need for economic development, impacts of tourism and recreation Note: Concerns are listed in order of the frequency with which interview respondents noted them.

Attitudes toward the environment and in particular a ―culture of exploitation‖ is described as a negative factor in ecosystem well-being in both the province and the region, linked to a history where ―you had to live off the land in order to survive, that meant going out and shooting five or six moose to put on your table, it meant going out and killing 200 fish in a week.‖ A municipal representative suggests, ―local people think they should have free access to fish, feel they own them because they live here. I don‘t think people see the links.‖ Buffinga (2001) suggests this attitude toward open access may be part of a cultural belief system, described as a survival strategy linked to a short- term/immediate need for jobs and household resources but that has resulted in lost current and future opportunities and is ―killing itself.‖ Extending from communities to the provincial government, one senior official explains there is little talk ―about the environmental and stewardship side of things.‖ Saunders and Duinker (2002, p. 863) suggest that in ―the underdeveloped economy of Newfoundland, the political basis of decision-making often results in priority being given to the maintenance of jobs and operations as opposed to the improvement of environmental performance‖. Respondents also report a slow change in attitude and important examples of stewardship in practice, several in the Kittiwake region. One local representative explains ―It is changing. But it‘s taking a long time.‖ A federal official observes ―I think it all started with the loss of the commercial cod fishing… fisherpersons lost total access to something that was there for hundreds of years.‖ One Indian Bay elder suggests that in an earlier era ―there was a code of ethics among the old guys… we used to look for people jigging and netting on the river. There was not too many then, not like now.‖ Another from elsewhere in the region suggests, ―My thinking now is like my great grandfather‘s. More conservation, people are

507 beginning to say if we don‘t take care of this, government is not going to take care of it for us, so we‘ve got to take care of it ourselves… I see it happening and I thank the school systems for that, this being practiced in the schools now to conserve.‖

Strait-Highlands/Bras d‘Or One of the major forest companies operating in the watershed, Stora Enso, is ISO 14001 Environmental Management Standard (1998), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2001) certified. In total, Stora Enso manages approximately 30% of the watershed, primarily in two sub-watersheds. Stora Enso‘s sustainable forest management plan includes ―water quality monitoring, strict operating procedures around streams, steep slope (> 30% slope) reservation from regular harvesting and limited harvesting (at least 80% in non clearcut condition) in key identified watersheds (Westhead and Parker 2005).‖ Nevertheless several concerns about the ecosystem impacts of forestry activities are raised by interview respondents and in the scientific and ―grey‖ literature. In particular, private lands (62% of the watershed) are not adequately tracked or monitored (Westhead and Parker 2005). In Denys sub-watershed it is common for landowners to supplement their incomes by harvesting on their lands (Barrington 2005). Major cutting began in the highlands from the mid-1970s to 1990 when an outbreak of spruce budworm killed 77% of the mature balsam fir. Most of the infested areas were clearcut in a salvage operation, replaced by mono-culture fir forest (UINR 2006b). Pesticide use has also been a concern (Hipwell 2001). Victoria Country (2000) suggests that softwoods have been cut at an unsustainable rate since Atlantic Canada was exempted from Softwood Lumber Agreement export limitations. Elders also express concern about disease in beech trees, Dutch elm disease and alder trees, used for sweat lodges, medicine and dyes, stating that they are unhealthy and dry, impacted by pollution and new insects (CEPI 2006). Loss of forest diversity is a significant concern on the island. Previous forestry operations have selected against yellow birch mixed woods, replacing them with softwood forests. Stora Enso (2006) reports that the mixed wood forests of the Cape Breton Lowlands (currently with less than 5000 ha remaining) have suffered from high- grading and even-aged management. Forestry management plans recognize that naturally regenerated areas tend to be more diverse in the number and type of tree species and generally more resilient to disturbance and stress, targeting 50% natural regeneration and increases in mixed wood forests. The decline of black ash and maple in the watershed has negatively impacted First Nations communities who use maple to make baskets (CEPI 2006). There is thought to be less than fifty individual trees remaining in the watershed (UINR 2007 website). Concerns also exist about the clearcutting of areas used to harvest medicinal plants and about declines in once abundant gooseberries, raspberries, wild strawberries and blackberries, mint and hazelnuts (not necessarily linked to forestry) (CEPI 2006). An estimated eight percent of Stora Enso forest lands are in recent clearcut condition (less than 15 years old). The company‘s long-term plan recognizes that clearcutting is ecologically appropriate for some areas but not others. Partial cutting is used in the majority of the Cape Breton Lowlands, although plans call for an increase in the clearcut percentage (SE 2006). Impacts associated with clearcutting and intensive harvesting include: soil erosion and siltation, diminishing populations of sensitive wildlife species, accelerated nutrient losses, loss or alteration of habitat, altered hydrology,

508 changes in vegetation, increases in water temperature and negative visual impacts (Malcolm 2003). Siltation and sedimentation is identified as a major concern. In areas of the Denys Basin critical to the Lakes‘ wild and cultivated oyster industry studies have shown that hard bottom habitats may have decreased by as much as 60% due to sedimentation from land based sources (ECA 2001 in Westhead and Parker 2005). Basin residents believe the main cause of sedimentation to be clearcutting near streams and on steep hillsides coupled with the removal of riparian vegetation on private properties. Interview respondents also referred to obstructions in streams, loss of aquatic habitat, and loss of protective cover for species such as deer as negative impacts of clearcutting observed in their area, along with impacts of forestry roads built on steep hillsides and the use of forestry machinery in or near streams or in wetland areas. While supporting the forest industry most felt that responsible practices, including selective cutting, should be used (Barrington 2005) Through fifty years of trawl surveys a total of 46 species of fish have been identified in the Lakes, most of these benthic (Parker 2006). Recent studies suggest that fish biomass was approximately three times more abundant in 2000 then in 1967 and that fish abundance is generally increasing (Lambert 2002, Westhead and Parker 2005). These findings conflict with public (and respondent) concern about fisheries declines (e.g. Barrington 2005), possibly due to the decline of key commercial and locally consumed species such as herring, lobster and oysters or area-specific declines. Scientific studies also acknowledge there have been significant declines of some species and that pollock, haddock, dogfish, and pout present in the 50s and 60s were not found in more recent surveys. Elders also observe a decline in both size and abundance of local eel populations, attributed in part to bridges and causeways (CEPI 2006). Westhead and Parker (2005), CEPI (2006) and Barrington (2005) refer to the status and/or population trends of 23 watershed species. Of these 16 (70%) are at low and/or declining levels of abundance, four stable or increasing (17%). Information for three is inconsistent (see Table A9.7). Pelagic species of the Bras d‘Or include include mackerel, herring, gaspereau, smelt, Atlantic salmon and a white stickleback that appears to be a new species. The majority of these species is in decline or considered at low levels. The herring fishery was closed in 1999 after excess fishing effort brought the already declining population to the point of collapse (Westhead and Parker 2005), likely a major ecosystem component, important food source for other species and source of marine-derived nutrients (Kenchington 2001). Stocks have not recovered since the closure. Spawning is still absent from some traditional areas and spring spawning biomass considered very low (Power et al, 2003). Elders attribute the decline primarily to overexploitation but also to pollution, seals and loss of eelgrass, which is observed to have declined around the Lakes since the 1940s and 1950s. Despite an overall decline, healthy eelgrass beds remain in certain locations. Elders also observe a general loss of aquatic plant life (CEPI 2006). Salmon stocks have been declining for many years due to overharvesting and environmental conditions (EFWC 1995), although some rivers still have healthy populations (CEPI 2006). The most abundant of the Bras d‘Or groundfish is winter flounder, observed to be rebounding after declining in the 1960s and the subsequent closure of the trawl fishery (Lambert 2002). Dragging in the late 1980s was thought to be a potential leading cause of the decline in several species resulting in the exclusion of fish draggers from the lake in 1992. Windowpane flounder, winter skate and cod are said to have wide distribution, cod

509 seeming to have increased in abundance according to Lambert (2002). TEK and LEK, however, suggests declines in cod, flounder and skate (CEPI 2006, Barrington 2005). American plaice has decreased significantly, now confined to a few deepwater areas after historically being widespread and plentiful (Lambert 2002). Shellfish populations are also in mixed condition. The American Oyster, a culturally and economically important species, faces limited suitable habitat, blue mussel competition and starfish predation combined with predation and disease from introduced organisms. Heavy harvesting of wild oyster stocks in 1999 and 2000 is said to have decreased stocks, along with more recent overharvesting and harvesting of small ―cocktail size‖ oysters (Westhead and Parker 2005, Barrington 2005). Siltation and pollution (particularly from sewage but also roadside herbicides) are also blamed for oyster declines along with eelgrass decline (CEPI 2006). Weeds in shallows along the shore are also said to be more abundant, smothering oysters. Some areas are less affected than others by these various factors. Westhead and Parker (2005) suggest that current lobster landings are poor and that fishermen report population declines, as does a recent TEK report (CEPI 2006). Kenchington and Carruthers (2001) suggest that Bras d‘Or lobsters are larger than average but that production is low. Denny (2006) explains that First Nations are not using their full food fishery allocation for conservation reasons despite an ongoing commercial fishery but that Cape Breton area lobster stocks are still relatively healthy (presumably referring to stocks outside the Lakes). Blue mussel populations are stable and perhaps increasing. One study suggests that abundance may vary significantly year-to-year (Westhead and Parker 2005). Sea urchin and starfishes are found throughout the Lakes but little is known about them (Westhead and Parker 2005). Elders observe declines in clams and urchins.

510 Table 9.7 Status of Bras d‘Or Fish Species Species Status/Trend Source Overall Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002, Parker 2006 Herring Low and/or in decline (L/D) Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006 Barrington 2005 Dogfish L/D Lambert 2002 Pout L/D Lambert 2002 Eel L/D Barrington 2005, Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006 Trout (speckled, L/D – speckled increase in CEPI 2006 rainbow) Whycocomagh Gaspereau L/D CEPI 2006, Barrington 2005 Smelt L/D CEPI 2006 Mackerel L/D Barrington 2005 Winter flounder Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006 Salmon L/D EFWC 1995, Barrington 2005 Pollock L/D Lambert 2002 Haddock L/D Lambert 2002 White hake Increase Lambert 2002 Winter skate Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002 CEPI 2006 Cod Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006, Barrington 2005 American plaice L/D Lambert 2002 American Oyster L/D CEPI 2006, Westhead and Parker 2005 Lobster L/D (stable on the outer Westhead and Parker 2005, Denny 2006, CEPI 2006 shores of Cape Breton?) Rock crab + scallop Abundant but in limited area Lambert 2002 Blue mussel Stable or increasing CEPI 2006 Clams L/D CEPI 2006 Urchin Widespread but declining CEPI 2006

Like fisheries, the status of wildlife species is described as mixed in literature relating to the region. Mammals of the Acadian forest include white-tailed deer, moose, black bear, snowshoe hare, porcupine, beaver, marten, northern flying squirrel, and more recently the coyote. Woodpeckers, grouse, owls and numerous nesting birds can also be found, while waterways provide habitat for trout, salmon, herons, loons and fresh-water ducks, tall trees nesting sites for ospreys and eagles (Eaton et al 1994). Species described as increasing in the Bras d‘Or include seals (during winter months), moose, coyote, rats, mice, skunk and porcupines (recently introduced). Ten species of birds ranging from cormorants to grouse and bald eagles are described as stable or increasing (CEPI 2006). The Lakes are home to the highest concentration of breeding bald eagles in northeastern North America. Bobcats in the Bras d‘Or watershed are reported as rare and declining (CEPI 2006). A drastic decline is deer populations has been seen since 2002 as a result of a harsh winter, the deer harvest dropping from over 500 in the SH region in the late 1990s to less than 100 in 2004 (Westhead and Parker 2005, CEPI 2006). A variety of birds are also declining, including herons, kingfisher, sandpiper, grayjay, sparrows, while barn swallows are rare (CEPI 2006). One respondent also suggests declines in the fox population. Sea bird nesting is limited within the Lakes but locally significant populations

511 occur on islands in West Bay and St. Patricks Channel and Bird Islands beyond the mouth of the Great Bras d‘Or Channel are home to the largest colony of Great Cormorants in North America along with major populations of other species. Several species are extinct or extirpated from the region, including caribou and wolves. While hunting was a significant contributor in both cases, climate change, predation and other factors are also implicated. Other species that are or are likely to identified in the watershed or SH region and listed either by COSEWIC or the NS Endangered Species Act include: Eastern Cougar, Bicknell‘s Thrush, Prototype Quillwort, Canada Lynx, American Marten, Gaspe Shrew, Wood Turtle, New Jersey Rush, Piping Plover and Felt Boreal Lichen along with Barrows Goldeneye, Harlequin Duck, Wolfish and Monarch butterfly (neither the Harlequin or the Wolfish have been recorded within the watershed, both are likely to be present, however, in SH coastal waters). A rare and sparse marine algae is also found at several sites in the Bras d‘Or Lakes (Westhead and Parker 2005). Threats to these species include habitat loss from forestry, urban and beachfront development (in the case of the piping plover for example), atmospheric pollutants and acid precipitation (boreal lichen). Historically found throughout the province, American marten but are now found in low numbers in only two locations, one being Unama‘ki. The central highlands plateau was vacated by marten following the salvaging of budworm-killed timber in the 1970s and ‗80s, leaving the population split into two separate isolated groups. Habitat fragmentation is thought to have drastically reduced reproduction. Past unregulated trapping along with habitat loss (including lost forest diversity) are believed to be the two most significant factors in the Cape Breton marten‘s decline (UINR 2006b). Both the marten and the lynx bring attention to the value of mature, diverse forest habitats. Lynx rely on mature, structurally diverse softwood stands for feeding and denning. The Cape Breton Highlands and Boisdale Hills areas are home to the few remaining lynx populations in NS. Threats to the Lynx include: harvesting, competition from bobcats and coyotes, habitat loss, disease and climate change (NS 2007). There is no clear indication of the area of old forest remaining in the region, with estimates ranging from 3-12% (in the highlands)90. As of 2003, 66% of all parcels of land available for development in the Bras d‘Or watershed were vacant, 34% developed. Approximately 62% of watershed lands were privately owned, and 33% owned by the province (vs. 70% private for NS). Bras d‘Or watershed provincial protected areas total 79.1 square km91, totalling 3% of the terrestrial and freshwater area. An additional 2% of the total area is set aside from forest harvest due to steep slope conditions (Westhead and Parker 2005). Ten areas protected for ecological values were identified in the SH region, totalling approximately 750 square km (15% of

90 Westhead and Parker (2005) refer to 55.3 sqr km of old forest in the watershed identified by Stora Enso. If this is within their area (approx 750 sqr km) the amount of old forest is 7%. Stora Enso (2006, p. 11) suggest the forested area in the CB highlands is 176,131 ha – old forest 4413 (3%), Lowlands 44,294 ha, old forest 1495 (3%) (total 5908 ha, 3% - 121+?). Later in the Plan (p. 91) they refer to the % of EPU in old forest condition, with a target of 8% in each EPU (current percentage 12% of the highlands and 7% of lowlands). 91 Includes Middle River (56 km2), Bornish Hills (9.6 sqr km), Washabuck (0.67 sqr km) and Spectacle Island Game Sanctuary (1 ha) = 66.8 sqr km

512 total area).92 Considering forestry Ecological Planning Units (EPU), Wilderness and Freehold Protected Areas total 20% of the Cape Breton highlands and lowlands areas, including 28% of the highlands with all of Cape Breton Highlands National Park but only 3% of the lowlands (SE 2006). Special lynx management areas, martin conservation zones, riparian buffers and connectivity management zones (corridors) between ecologically significant areas are also in place. Stora Enso has committed to 12% or greater protection on its forest lands (SE 2006). While there are no marine protected areas in the system, ecologically and culturally significant areas have been identified within the Lakes, including areas with high species diversity or unique features. Sewage-related pollution, with related concerns about water quality and shellfish closures, was the number one ecological threat raised by interview respondents and literature sources, followed by land use and related habitat impacts, including forestry, agriculture, mining, residential and recreational/tourism development, and fisheries declines (discussed above). With only two narrow openings to the sea (excluding the St. Peter‘s canal), the Lakes have very limited ability to flush contaminants, which stay in the system for long periods of time as a result. Even small amounts of pollution can build up quickly. Parker (2006) suggests there is little contamination from heavy metals and organic contaminants in the Lakes but the sheltered embayments favoured by oysters and shellfish growers are highly susceptible to fecal coliform build-up. Only 25% of the developments in the watershed are located in the seven shoreline communities served by a central sewer system. Some of these central community collection systems are outdated, although approximately $10 million in upgrades have been funded in four of the seven communities. In the mid 1960s Nova Scotia prohibited the construction of new outfall pipes discharging raw sewage, but over 2000 identified ‗straight pipes‘ were not addressed. Private landowners have contributed as well, however, investing an estimated $2 million in new and upgraded on-site systems since 1995. Boating activity is also increasing, boaters often disposing of waste in pristine coves and boating anchorages rather than pump-out stations. In the summer months heavy algal blooms cause ―severe contamination of enclosed water bodies‖, linked to an increasing number of shellfish closures (Malcolm 2003). Beginning in the 1970s, the number of shellfish closures due to high contamination levels rose from 33 in 1999 to 48 in 2003, although the proportion of the Lake area approved for harvesting rose slightly from 1995 to 2003 (from 93 to 94%). Divers observe an increase in dead zones at the bottom of the Lakes and incidents of sewage sludge. Additional environmental and human health concerns related to sewage discharges include: oxygen demand, disease-causing pathogens, heavy metals, synthetic organic chemicals and beaches closed to swimming (Westhead and Parker 2005). As Malcolm (2003) points out ―shellfish contamination, unusual algae blooms and declining fish populations are indicators of a system under stress‖. In addition to forestry impacts some interview respondents express concern about residential and commercial development. McCready (2006) explains that 398 new

92 They include Cape Breton Highlands National Park (950 km2) and provincially protected Pollets Cove- Aspy Fault (272.3 km2), both shared by Inverness and Victoria Counties, along with seven Wilderness Areas and Nature Reserves in Inverness Country Margaree River (68.5 sqr km), Trout Brook (28.8); River Inhabitants (NR 3.6), Jim Campbell‘s Barren (17.5 WA), Sugarloaf Mountain (7.5 km2); McFarlane Woods (1.32 NR), Bornish Hills (9.6 NR) and the Middle River-Framboise Wilderness Area (56.4 km2), partially in Richmond County.

513 residential dwellings were built from 1987 to 2004 in the portion of the Bras d‘Or watershed that is within CBRM, 100 of these located on waterfront lots. There are an estimated 2000 seasonal cottages on the Lake, 50% on northeastern portion. However, the trend in this area since 1990 has been toward less residential development (fewer permits). Approximately 26% of Bras d‘Or watershed lands are used for agriculture, including beef and dairy production and horticulture (Westhead and Parker 2005). Concerns about these developments include contributions to sewage and chemical contamination, erosion and sedimentation. Clearing of riparian vegetation increases the vulnerability of shorelines to erosion caused by wave action, exacerbated by highspeed pleasurecraft (Barrington 2005). Road construction and maintenance practices (ditching, bridges) and a general lack of land use planning outside of CBRM is also a concern. TEK identifies siltation and watershed runoff along with raw sewage and chemicals in fish food from fish farms as causes of eelgrass decline, factors that have generally increased in recent decades (CEPI 2006). The Lakes, and in particular their shellfish, have been impacted by a series of introduced species and parasites. Green crab arrived from 1992-95 and is now widespread. Having devastated Maine‘s clam industry in the 1950s (Marshall 1999), the crab is known to occupy protected embayments and ―prey voraciously‖ on bivalves, including rock crab (Elner 1981 in Westhead and Parker 2005). Green crab and lobster may compete for food sources and habitats, although cod appear to feed heavily on the crab. Food web impacts require better understanding (Parker 2006). Since 1970, an average of one new invading tunicate species every five years has been observed in east coast waters (FOC 2005), including the Golden Star Tunicate and sea squirt now in the Lakes. Tunicates can cause shellfish mortality, form thick blankets that cover substrates in the sub-tidal zone, interfere with the settlement of oyster and mussel larvae and compete for food with juveniles of these species (Westhead and Parker 2005). Elders report areas where eelgrass is heavily fouled with tunicates (CEPI 2006). Since 2002 two new oyster diseases have also been found in the Lakes: MSX and SSO (microscopic parasites). MSX have a wide salinity tolerance and is widespread, causing 90-95% mortality in infected shellfish. Lower tolerance to low salinity is likely to limit SSO distribution, which can cause mortalities of 20-40% (Westhead and Parker 2005). Respondents and various reports suggest ballast water release from foreign vessels may be a transport mechanism for the parasites (CEPI 2006). On average 45 vessels per year enter (from the U.S.) and exit the Lakes as part of Little Narrows Gypsum‘s operations. Small cruise ships are occasional visitors to the Lakes, docking overnight at Baddeck. Brown trout and rainbow trout have also been introduced to the Lakes and have established reproducing populations. Finally, climate change is noted as a threat to ecosystems in the region. Local and traditional knowledge suggest a noticeable change in climate in the Bras d‘Or watershed in recent decades, including warmer winters with more rain and hotter summers (CEPI 2006, Barrington 2005). Implications include a reduction in winter ice cover, increased algae, accelerated erosion and reduction in water column visibility. A decline in eelgrass after storms suggests vulnerability to storm surges along with erosion impacts on shallow areas where eelgrass beds occur. A direct link also exists between climate change, they suggest, and the decline of berries, black ash trees and jellyfish, although increasing insects and seals. Warmer winters bring less runoff in the spring and thus less flushing and an increase of bacteria in the water, as well as drier brooks and reduced water levels

514 (CEPI 2006). One respondent suggests warmer waters make oysters more vulnerable to MSX infection. Climate change issues are increasingly recognized, noted as a relatively minor concern in 2003 but by 2006 as ―the most important issues facing us today‖ (Dennis 2006).

Mount Waddington/Central Coast (BC-E region) The MW/CC case study area falls within the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince of BC, extending from coastal Alaska to coastal Oregon (Rumsey et al 2003), and within the the Pacific Maritime ecozone. The ecozone is home to an estimated 3 800 species of invertebrates and 220 species of fish in the ecozone, of which the Pacific herring is most abundant. Apart from seabird colonies, herring spawning areas, and hexactinellid reefs, rare and endangered species and features are recorded patchily and unreliably and therefore it is difficult to determine how well they are represented. BC (2002) identifies 19 listed marine species with the North Island Straits region. While higher concentrations of identified species at risk can be found in more populated regions in the province these figures remain cause for investigation and concern. Concern exists about commercial fishing and whale watching impacts on red-listed orca populations, which are present each summer and important to the local tourism sector. The region‘s sea otter population was extirpated due to hunting and fur trade by 1929 but since reintroduction in 1969-72 has experienced a recovery (Ardron 2003). Due to survival from glacial refugia in some areas, island isolation, and the barrier of the Coast Mountains the north and central coast contains 12 endemic species and 41 endemic subspecies (16 plants, about 10 fishes, 3 birds, and 24 mammals). The Upper Mid-Coast is home to two hexactinellid sponge reefs (only four exist on the world, all of them in BC‘s North and Central Coast). The reefs are 8,500–9,000 years old (individual sponges 100–200 years old) but are easily broken and have been damaged by trawling. Although now closed to fishing damage continues (Prescott Allen 2005). Globally the coastal temperate rainforest is considered a rare ecosystem (Rumsey et al 2003). According to the B.C. Conservation Data Centre there are five red-listed and five blue-listed vertebrates (six birds including the red-listed Queen Charlotte goshawk and marbled murrelet, three mammals and one amphibian), one plant and 16 listed plant associations within the forest ecosystems of the Nimpkish watershed. The watershed is one of 496 freshwater ecosystems identified within the central coast by the Coast Information Team (CIT) (Rumsey et al 2003). One blue listed plant and a number of plant communities at risk are also present (CDC 2004). Forestry practices are considered a significant threat to the marbled murrelet, which is dependent on old-growth habitat for nesting (Nelson 2004). Other potential factors in their decline include gillnets, oil pollution, predation and a decrease in food supply associated with El Nino events (Ardron 2003). The goshawk is also associated with mature/old-growth coniferous forests (for foraging and nesting), as is the tailed frog, a blue-listed/species of special concern found in the central coast but not recorded in the Nimpkish system (Rumsey et al 2003). Within the Nimpkish watershed the red legged frog is blue-listed (Canfor 2005). Wolverines and the endangered Vancouver Island marmot are both considered extirpated from the area. Unique karst features support bat populations, including the red-listed Keen‘s long-eared myotis (also linked to old forests). Species associated with the region‘s karst habitats are vulnerable to both tourism and logging. Furbearer populations are thought to be low, impacted by logging, disease and reduced salmon returns. Predator (except wolf) and

515 ungulate populations remain relatively healthy. Both black and grizzly populations (not found in the watershed) are being monitored as a focal species in the central and north coast land use process (Rumsey et al 2003). Throughout the 1990s deer and elk were considered low compared to historic levels in the Nimpkish system but due to steps were taken to protect and manage for old-growth winter ranges they are reported to be recovering93. Moose and mountain goat are also present elsewhere in the MW/CC region (the latter of conservation concern and also considered a focal species in CC land use planning). All six species of BC salmon, cutthroat, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden char are present within the watershed. Of the salmon in the system all but pink and steelhead are considered ―major‖ runs in the province. Within the Mid-Coast of the fish focal species examined by the CIT, eulachon were found to be the worst off in the region, with 85% of populations declining. The central and north coast region is home to half of the spawning run of eulachon, a species which spawns in the lower reaches of rivers from the southern Bering Sea to northern California and is both ecologically and culturally significant (Prescott Allen 2005, Ardron 2003). Eulachon oil or ―grease‖ is used by First Nations to flavour and enriching fish, seaweed, and berry dishes (Prescott Allen 2005) but also for medicinal purposes. Declines in eulachon are followed in severity by salmon. On the central coast 80% of Pacific salmon units are in decline. Causes cited include climate change and events, changes in land use, hatcheries and over-fishing (Rumsey et al 2003). Weinstein (2007) describes a regional salmon collapse throughout Area 12 (the Kwakwaka‘wakw sea), with 100+ once productive salmon streams no longer fishable because of low spawning escapements. Herring stocks, proposed as a keystone marine species (Ardron 2003), are considered to be rebounding and in good condition coast-wide after overfishing led to the collapse of herring stocks in 1967 and restrictions were put in place (Canada 2005b). Overall, the mean percentage of declining fish populations is 71% in the Upper Mid-Coast, the highest percentage within the overall central and north coast planning area. The Port Alice pulp mill may be the region‘s main industrial polluter but, encouraged by 1992 regulations requiring BC pulp mills to remove organochlorine discharges from their liquid effluent by 2002, BC‘s pulp and paper industry has invested significant resources to modify its bleaching processes, reducing dioxin and furan burdens by over 97% (Hagen et al 1997). Wood stoves are relatively common, however given low population density and the presence of few industrial polluters local air quality can be described as high. Within the Mid-coast area air quality is extremely good where monitored. Population density is the lowest in the province (along with Kitimat-Stikine) (BC 2006b). BC (2006b) reports that significant tugboat traffic passes by the Scott Islands each summer when the islands are home to more than two million breeding seabirds, considered a concern because the tugs may be the source of many small-scale oil spills. Seabirds congregating adjacent to their breeding colonies are particularly susceptible to major and minor spill events in the area. While an area of much contention, there is significant concern among First Nations, communities, scientists and environmental organizations about the ecological impacts of salmon aquaculture in the region, including impacts of escapes on wild salmon populations such as competition for food and habitat and fear of cross-breeding, pollution

93. Deer and elk are sensitive to increases in snowpack and to the loss of old-growth stands, which intercept snowfall.

516 from feed and antibiotics, sea lice and diseases (Eklund 2004). Aquaculture impacts have been linked to mainland pink salmon collapses (Weinstein 2007). Both aquaculture and overfishing are observed to have contributed to declines in cod and clam resources. Clams are observed to be smaller and darker in colour, little-neck clams (the key commercial species) depleted (Weinstein 2007). Reasons for declines in eulachon runs may include ―unknown changes in habitat, the warming of the ocean climate, increased marine mammal predation and bycatch from offshore trawl fisheries,‖ all cited as contributing factors (BC 2002, p. 15). Humpback whales have returned to the area after the end of the whaling industry in the area in 1968. Whale populations are observed as disturbed by underwater devices used to deter seals at fish farms. Finally forestry impacts have been the subject of heated debate along the BC coast, including issues such as overharvesting, clearcutting, riparian damage and erosion/siltation and the loss of old-growth forest habitats. A 1994/95 Timber Supply Review for the Kingcome TSA on the central coast a 46% percent reduction in the AAC in the long-term AAC (Fitzgibbon & Associates 1995). Nelson (2004) suggests that as a result of lobbying by logging interests the cut was reduced by only 15 percent as a ―transitional phase to deal with the impacts of reduced timber and job supply…‖ (Interfor 1996). NRMB (2003, p. 63) suggests of the Nimpkish that ―since the majority of the activities in the watershed are forest harvest related, future impacts on fish habitat (if any) are likely to stem from that activity‖. CIT (2005, 11) recommended that ―to secure a high probability of maintaining ecological integrity overall at the sub-regional scale and in landscapes and watersheds with significant cultural and ecological values, while allowing for greater focus on economic activity in landscapes, watersheds, and sites with lower conservation value … the old growth target at landscape level is 50% of the natural proportion, provided the average across all landscapes is 70% (the subregional target); and at watershed level 30%, provided the average across all watersheds is 50% (the landscape target).‖ The natural mean amount of old growth (250+ years) for the planning area is considered to be 82%, 74% in fluvial areas. Wilson (2004) suggests that approximately 50% of the existing CC planning area forest is considered old growth (older than 250 years). In the Nimpkish Valley only 12% of the productive forest (18,794 ha) is referred to as old growth (part of designated Old Growth Management Areas), only 28% of this within protected areas (Canfor 2005). ―They have run out of good wood,‖ comments one respondent, linking this fact to the recent sale of Canfor‘s TFL 37 operations. Canfor acknowledges that the watershed was historically dominated by old forest and the importance to biodiversity of retaining and developing old growth across the TFL. Significant old growth harvesting is still occurring with over 60% of existing old growth (and 20% of the productive forest overall) permanently reserved from harvest and a commitment to old growth recruitment in Old Growth Management Areas. Nelson (2004) identified high grading of red cedar (higher % of cut than of the forest mix, harvesting large red cedar and leaving smaller, lower quality trees behind) as a concern in the region. A 2001 report commissioned by the Heiltsuk Nation showed that at current cedar harvesting rates ―most of the operable old-growth cedar in Heiltsuk traditional territory will be gone by the year 2026‖ (Heiltsuk 2001 in Nelson 2004). Old- growth dependent species of concern are noted above. While black bears are dependent on old forest for denning they are considered secure and not at risk provincially, nationally and globally (Rumsey et al 2005). Nelson (2004) indicates, however, that

517 studies in one northern Vancouver Island watershed determined that 48 percent of the forested area suitable for bear denning in one watershed and 83% in another had been logged by 2000, with 250 of the remaining 570 hectares of suitable forest scheduled to be logged (MWLAP 2000a and b). Forestry can also couple with climate change to increase likelihood of flood events, with consequent habitat damage. Rumsey et al (2005) cite Jones and Grant (1996) and Jones et al. (2000), suggesting that the likelihood of a flood event increases significantly with partial logging (25% of watershed or more). Although 11% of the Central Coast area was protected and 20% under interim protection under an interim Central Coast land use plan ecosystems in the region were considered underrepresented in a 2005 report (Prescott Allen 2005). Within the Central Coast and northwest Vancouver Island, several large areas of high conservation utility have been identified (Ardron 2003) and proposed for protection, including: Hexactinellid Sponge Reefs, Goose Islands, Bardswell Islands and vicinity, Rivers Inlet, Scott Islands, entrance to Queen Charlotte Strait, Broughton Archipelago, Head of Knight Inlet, Cordero Channel, Scott Islands, Mid-Quatsino Sound and Brooks Peninsula (Cape Cook) westward to the base of the continental slope. A 1.2 million ha central and north coast coastal protected area was announced in Feb. 2006 (bringing the total protected area to 1.8 million ha of the 11 million ha central and north coast land base - 16%). Witihin the Central Coast more than 20 large protected areas were creating bringing the total area protected to approximately one million hectares (20%), with harvesting deferrals in an additional 11% for completion of an ecosystem-based management framework and separate land use plans (Coady 2007). By contrast only 6% of the Nimpkish Valley‘s TFL 37 is protected area (11,422 ha94) excluding areas under other special management constraints (totalling 39% of operable forest); 78% of the area is productive forest, 53% operable. Of the marine portion of the Queen Charlotte Strait ecosection 3% is protected, decreasing to 2% in the much larger Queen Charlotte Sound (BC 2006b). According to Sierra Club (2004) a total of 770,000 ha (4% of the forested land base in MW/CC) was operated under the CSA Sustainable Forest Management standard as of Dec. 2003 (Western Forest Products 230,000 ha, Canfor 200,000 ha, Weyerhauser 340,000 ha). The Nimpkish watershed largely corresponds with TFL 37, of which 81% of the land base is productive forest but only 48% operable for forestry. (+ TimberWest ISO 14001 in 2000 – confirm area (TFL 47, Kokish). Under the Sustainable Forest Management Plan for the TFL 37 (Nimpkish watershed) 39% of forest lands are constrained by measures such as an Ungulate Winter Range Plan (2001), Queen Charlotte Goshawk Plan (2003), Marbled Murrelet Plan (2004), Old Growth Management Areas (2005), Retention harvesting (2002) and Biodiversity Conservation Plan (in prep) (Deal 2005). It is uncertain what impact the acquisition of TFL 37 and its Canfor operations by Western Forest Products in 2005/2006 has had on these plans. Canfor representatives suggest that while such forest management practices are complementary with certification ―That wasn‘t a driver to do it, no. We were there before that… It‘s not like people in the forestry industry go out and build bad roads because they want to build bad roads to disturb the environment, it‘s just that that was kind of standard or a practice of the day. They went hey, this is a good

94 Another section of the SFMP (Canfor 2005) refers to ―PAs designated within and adjacent to the Nimpkish DFA, which consist of both parks and ecological reserves… approximately 19,000 ha‖. If all within the watershed this would amount to 10% protection but the term adjacent implies the 6% figure is applicable.

518 change, right. So it‘s been a continual change. The code stepped it up a round, certification steps it up another notch…‖ The company has had a biologist on staff since 1973.

519 Table 9.8 BC-E Region First Nations

First Nations 1996 reserve 2001 reserve Tribal Council Treaty stage95 (Settlements) pop pop Da'naxda'xw/Awaetlala 0 0 KDC Stage 4 (Knight‘s Inlet) Gwa‘Sala- 387 387 KDC Stage 4 Nakwaxda‘xw (Tsulquate) Gwawaenuk or Kwa- 10 5 N/a wa-aineuk (Hopetown) Heiltsuk (Waglisla) HTC Stage 4 Kitasoo/Xai'xais OKNTC N/a Nation Kwakiutl (Fort Rupert) 339 305 KDC Stage 4 – in suspension Kwicksutaineuk-ah- 28 35 MTTC kwaw-ahmish (Gilford/Gwa‘yasdams) Mamalilikulla- 0 0 KDC Qwe‘Qwa‘Sot‘Em ‗Namgis (Alert Bay) 655 692 MTTC Stage 4 Quatsino 217 198 KDC Stage 4 Tlatsikwala (Hope Is.) 0 5 KDC Stage 4 Tlowitsis 0 0 N/a Stage 2 Tswataineuk/ 130 95 MTTC Dzawada‘enuxw (Kingcome/Quaee) Wuikinuxv Nation OKNTC Stage 4 (formerly known as Oweekeno Nation) TOTAL 1766 1722

Note: The Tlowitsis First Nation above is assumed to refer to the Tlowitsis-Mumtagila First Nations. The Mumtagila people may alternatively be considered a fifteenth independent nation.

Central Coast Area A (pop. 143), including the communities of Rivers Inlet (home of the Wuikinuxv Nation) and Ocean Falls, reports a primarily non-Aboriginal population. However, 2006 statistics show a population of 83 members residing on the Oweekano/Wuikinuxv reserve, indicating growth in the Aboriginal population. Klemtu/Kitasoo (pop 295) is home of the Kitasoo/Xai'xais Nation.

95 BC Treaty Commission website Dec. 31, 2006

520

Appendix 10 - Regional Economic Development Models

NL-E NS-E BC-E Initiation Province/ACOA/RDAs in Province + local pilot Federal (EIC) CFDCs since mid-90s dialogue (1995) (1994), from CFDC 1986, MW (1991/92) Reasons Policy (provincial with Local models + Federal policy federal support) + public provincial policy pressure Mandate/focus Planning, CED, business Planning and CD, Lending + CD – local development, HR promotion, counseling delivery bodies development and and mentoring business communications – local and community groups – coordination local coordination Governance Volunteer Board + Volunteer Board + ex- Volunteer Board + committees (4: Tourism, officio government and committees (2: self- NR, HR, Bus/mfg.) academic partners, employment and loan review project partnership + 3 + special purpose) Board committees (HR, Exec, Policy & Proced.) RED Structure Set up as local Set up as local CFDC as local delivery agent coordinating bodies coordinating bodies – combines lending with (―hub‖), range of other (―hub‖ or ―nucleus‖), planning, other CED groups, local ED groups, CBDCs wide range of CED community and regional for small business lending groups, ECBC, CBDCs (loose network), Regional for business lending, District involvement in support vs. replace planning and policy Size of area 13,167 sqr. km 5,082 sqr km + Victoria MWRD 20,288 sqr km covered County – 2,768 sqr km CC Area 19,943 sqr km 40,231 sqr km Definition of ED zones by Premier, RDAs created by Commonly accepted regional region RDAs by community provincial/federal concept (previously defined agreement, tied to county areas) boundaries Population 48,065 30,160 (excludes Victoria 14,802 (including 1,691 in (2001) County 7,960) expanded area) Number of 102-120 communities (39 Approx. 300 comm. (2 Approx. 27 communities communities municipal, 31 LSDs) counties, 1 Town, 2 FNs (17 non-FNs or mixed, 10 settlements) - excludes FNs settlements, 6 Victoria County with municipalities, 2 RDs, 1 approx. 73 communities Improvement District) Number of 145 organizations and 174 organizations and 80 organizations and actors governments/agencies + governments/agencies governments/agencies + 641 1628 firms + 1,315 firms firms Outcomes No data available on Contributed to over $30 Contributed to 240 businesses economic benefits million investment (SEA), 238 jobs (by ‘0497),

521 2003/04 and 700+ jobs over $6 million CEIA/SCEIA since 200096 projects, $3.6 million loan funds (approx. 18 SEA clients in 2004, 40 in 99/2000)

Resources Available

NL-E NS-E BC-E Volunteer Board 18 – cut to 14 in 2006 9 + 4 ex-officio, 6 12 in 2003, 9 in 2004 ex-officio as of 2006 (seeking new members) Representatives of: (6 + 3 in 2003, - 7 in 2007 business (one per seven without Richmond sub-zones), three County) Representatives of: various existing development communities, business groups, one Representatives of: people, First Nations representative each for community, business - no formal allocation education, labour, and municipalities (3 disabled, youth, each, no more than GADCo., Chambers of 50% municipal) Commerce, large and small municipalities Ex-officio: gov‘t + college and university partners Annual Budget Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: 2001/02 – $368,972 2001/02 – $374,266 2001/02 - $3.4 million 2002/03 - 498,990 2002/03 – 363,000 2002/03 - 1.15 million 2003/04 – 403,851 2004/05 budget - 2003/04 - 1.065 million 2004/05 – 299,694 $570,800, core 2005/06 – 242,054 + $395,800, expect Less investment funds and 547,657 broadband $75K increase 05/06 SEA participant wages = (HRDC contract cuts) 680,274 Funding 60% Federal 34% Provincial 61.5% Federal grants, 30% (2002/03) contracts, 27% ACOA 29% Federal projects, interest and core/grant = 87% 29% Municipal management fees 7% Other (interest, 8.5% Other gov‘t $ 11% Provincial core rentals, appropriation (unspecified) 2% Other from surplus) Excludes investment funds ($3.6 million 2003) & SEA participant wages. Staff 2003: 7 – 2 core, 5 2003: 9.5: 3 core, 6 2004: 6.5 - 6 + 1 summer HRDC contract project, 1 summer (Avg. CFDC staff = 8) 2003 cost: $252,744 2003 cost: 216,833 + 18,369 projects 2003 cost: $334,617 2004: 4

97 Postscript: A recently released 2007 Achievement Report suggests this figure is closer to 850 jobs. 96 Postscript: Includes EDS call centre in Port Hawkesbury, which closed in 07/08. Another opened in Cheticamp.

522 2004: 6.5 - 5 + 1 PT 2007: 6 core staff project staff, 1 coop 2006: 5 - 3 core, 2 work term and 1 project summer student

2005: 11 - 5 core + 5 project + 2 seasonal

2006: 10 - 4 core, 5 project, 1 coop, 1 summer

2007: 22.5 - 5 core +17 project, 1 summer Note: Average CFDC Revenue $580,108, 287,449 from WD (wages and travel higher than avg.) + CEAI, SEAI (FW 2002), average BC operating funding $224,000 (MW 231,288 ‘03 + softwood lumber program admin and WD small projects), avg. investment funds in BC $1.9 million - RDAs $125,000 min. municipal contribution – SW Shore RDA budget up to $600K+, core staff 4-8, core funding has risen from $300,000 to 307,000 (02/03) to 375,000

RED Organizational Capacity Measures (2004/2005) *

NL-E NS-E BC-E Comments Planning 2 1.5 1.5 NS-E last plan 1995, seeking funds for new process, support for others, 3-5 yr. planning not initiated by BC-E Annual reports 1 1.5 2 Recent NS-E reports without financials (in bus plan), NL-E reports no financials Evaluation 1 1.5 0.5 NL-E and NS-E in development, NS-E program further, CFDC required stats only Year started 2 2 2 All 1992-1995 # individuals/ 2 3 1 NL-E reports 150+ inquiries, NS-E 370, groups served BC 18-40 SEA businesses + ? (est. less than 100) # of service 3 3 3 5-7 in all cases areas Website 2 2 1 BC-E not functioning properly Other public 1 2 2 NS-E communications strategy, BC-E comm. vehicles range of methods used, NL-E limited Board of 1 1 1 NS-E lacks diversity, others have unfilled Directors seats Volunteers 2 1 2 Involvement in committees Staff 1 2 2 4 (NL-E) – 7 (both others with summer students included) Budget 2 3 3 NS-E revenue growth, projected to be above $500K for 04/05 20/28 23.5/28 21/28

523 14/20 17/20 15/20 * each of these measures is dynamic and changes depending on the time period

Planning 0 = no plans 1 = annual work plan 2 = 3-5 year plan incorporating stakeholder input

Annual report 0 = no report 1 = publicly available annual report with no financial report 2 = publicly available annual report with financial report

Evaluation program 0 = no evaluation program 1 = evaluation program under development 2 = well developed evaluation program (ideally with ongoing improvement)

Year started 1 = 1997 – 2007 2 = 1987 – 1996 3 = Pre-1984

# groups served 1 = less than 100 2 = 100 – 250 3 = 250 +

# of service domains 1 = 1-2 domains 2 = 3-4 3 = five or more

Website 0 = no website 1 = website not updated/partially complete 2 = active, up-to-date website

Other public communication 0 = no other public communications initiatives 1 = occasional public information releases/efforts and/or one- time communications avenue 2 = communications strategy with multiple vehicles used

Board of Directors 0 = No Board 1 = Board with unfilled seats and/or limited diversity 2 = Complete Board reflective of regional diversity

Volunteers 0 = No volunteers 1 = Board volunteers only 2 = Board + other volunteer involvement

Staff 0 = no paid staff 1 = 1-5 paid staff 2 = more than 5 paid staff

Budget 1 = less than $100,000

524 2 – between $100,000 and $500,000 3 = over $500,000

525

Relational capacity/activity measures

NL-E NS-E BC-E Role of/relationship with sr govt 0.5 1 1 Role of/relationship with community 0.5 1 1 Governments and NGOs Role of/relationship with private sector 0.5 1.5 1 Role of/relationship with post-secondary 1.5 1.5 1.5 Role of/relationship with global actors 0.5 1 0 # of organizations in network 3 2 1 Est. # of org.s have interacted with/yr (% of 1 3 2 total actors) Communications program 1 2 2 Active website 2 2 1 10.5/20 15/20 10.5/20

Weak – little interaction or majority suggest relationships are poor/needs significant improvement (0) Mixed – conflicting responses and/or some positive aspects with areas for improvement, short- term vs. ongoing relationship, limited in scope of collaboration (1) Strong – majority said relationships are positive, parties work well together, ongoing relationship, diverse scope (2) Improving + 0.5, Declining – 0.5

1500 or more actors 3 10% or less 1 1000-1499 2 11-24% 2 less than 1000 1 25% or more 3

See Appendix 5 for details on relationships.

526 Appendix 11 - RED Policies and Programs in Canada

Roy (2003) describes the early approach to addressing regional inequity in Canada as a passive one, with a focus in the 1940s on revenue transfers to the provinces through equalization payments. Programs were also initiated in this early era to address problems in particular sectors, such as the Depression-era Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act of 1935 and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1949 (Blake 2003). Although not specifically designed for this purpose, post World War II personal transfer payments such as Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Insurance, and Family Allowances, along with federally funded infrastructure, helped bolster struggling regional economies. The late 1950s saw a shift to a more deliberate federal effort to develop regional economies. A 1957 Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects stressed that twenty years of economic growth had not been shared equitably across the country, particularly with the Atlantic region. Equalization payments were insufficient to address this gap. The Commission recommended capital investment in rural communities and migration of displaced workers to Central and Western Canada. A series of programs followed, from support for large hydroelectric and other capital projects to the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Rural Development Act (ARDA), the first explicit national rural development program (Blake 2003). The solution, it seemed, was to modernize resource and agricultural development and pursue import substitution through the manufacturing sector (RCUEN 1986). By the late 1960s, the emphasis shifted towards building social and economic infrastructure and training for non-primary industries, particularly in regional growth poles. Calls for greater coordination of the various federal programs and between federal and provincial levels led to the creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE) to coordinate federal efforts and establish General Development Agreements with the provinces, with DREE and other federal departments as planning partners. Despite a largely top-down federal approach, early experiments with community-based, bottom-up approach were introduced, such as the Company of Young Canadians and the Local Initiatives Program. One long-time government employee explains ―how government supports CED, it has a lot to do with the intersection of government and community… up until the mid to late 60s there was no intersection. People would go to the government offices; they would stand in line...‖ The Company of Young Canadians placed young volunteers in communities to encourage and support community development. The program helped to ―avoid the social unrest caused by unemployed youth that was being experienced in other countries‖ (Roy and Wong 1998) but was also a ―catalyst in the struggle for human rights, native rights, women‘s rights and grass-roots politics—all new concepts in 1967‖ (Berton 1997, 186). Observers also refer to early horizontal program delivery approaches where, for example, five agencies would jointly fund one office or worker in small rural communities. Despite these efforts, the results in terms of addressing disparities were limited and by the late 1970s regional development fell out of favour. The 1980s was a decade of profound change, coming out of a recession influenced by the election of the Mulroney Conservative government along with structural changes such as deindustrialization, the rise of the service sector, new technologies, growth in newly industrializing countries, escalating costs of production and changing trading patterns. Megaprojects and market-driven continental rationalization though free trade

527 were the proposed solutions of the day98. Sustainable development had emerged as an alternative but was unable to challenge the vision of unregulated free enterprise. The 1982 Constitution Act committed the Government of Canada to ―furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities‖ and ―providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians‖ (Desjardins et al., 29). The challenge of fulfilling this commitment posed a dilemma for a government that espoused free trade policies as opposed to traditional tools such as subsidies, differential pricing or purchasing policies. Savoie (1992) describes a shift to competitive federalism rather than the cooperative federalism that had facilitated 1970s federal-provincial agreements. The result was the establishment of federally controlled but regionally located (―decentralized‖) development agencies in Atlantic (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency - ACOA), Northern Ontario (FedNor) and Western Canada (Western Diversification - WD) in 1987. Under the Western Economic Diversification Act (1985), for example, Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) is mandated to "promote the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada and to advance the interests of Western Canada in national economic policy, program and project development and implementation" (WD 2004). Support is provided for projects in innovation; information and communications technology; trade and tourism; business and community development; access to capital; skills development; retention and attraction of youth (Goldenburg 2008). Goldenburg (2008) observes that these agencies have moved from a more traditional approach using economic and enterprise development instruments to a wider variety of approaches, including support for innovation and commercialization, CED, the social economy, and community capacity building. Community Futures organizations have become a vehicle used by these agencies to meet their mandates. The Community Futures Program was first established in 1986 by Employment and Immigration Canada (now Service Canada) to support CED and help local organizations address their own local problems. The program built on the success of an earlier Local Economic Development Agency program (Savoie 1992). Targeting areas with low employment, incomes and/or education levels, the program sought to address the criticism that many past regional development programs had not met the needs of rural Canada. By the early 1990s, however, with Labour Market Development Programming funded under the Employment Insurance (EI) account and measurements of success became centred on individual workers, their return to work and savings to the account. As a result, cuts were made to longer term CED programs that had fewer short- term, measurable job creation and human resources outcomes. By 1995 the agency became reconfigured as Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) and responsibility for the Community Futures program had been transferred to federal regional development agencies. There are now 250 CFDCs and CBDCs across Canada, including 41 CBDCs in rural Atlantic Canada (Blake 2003). As of 1996, under a new Employment Insurance Act, HRDC (now Human Resources and Social Development Canada and Service Canada) also transferred some of its responsibilities to the provinces through Labour Market Development Agreements. The Agreements provide resources from the EI Program to support labour market development. In PEI and the Yukon, programs are co-managed rather than provincially

98 The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in Jan. 1989 with promises that it would provide opportunities for disadvantaged regions that could then develop their natural north-south linkages.

528 operated. In NL the LMDA is currently being taken over by the provincial government. In addition Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement holders deliver labour market programming to Aboriginal Canadians in over 400 locations across the country. HRDC has also played a significant role in supporting restructuring during times of employment crises, such as the 1990s cod closure in NL and salmon fishery restructuring in BC. A 1999 internal audit and October 2000 Report of the Office of the Auditor General, however, found ―serious and widespread problems in HRDC's systems and practices for managing grants and contributions.‖ Regulations and procedures associated with Service Canada funding have since been significantly more rigid. Industry Canada has provided important infrastructure support to rural and northern regions while Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has contributed to fisheries adjustment programs and incorporated economic considerations and objectives in coastal planning (Chapter 7). The efforts of both departments are consistent with the Federal Framework for Action in Rural Canada and Canadian Rural Partnership. The Framework was launched in 1998, providing an overall federal approach to supporting rural development and reconnecting government with rural Canadians. A Rural Lens is intended to ensure that programs, services and policies are appropriate for rural Canadians (Baker 2003). Strategic investments to improve the well-being of rural and remote Canadians have been identified and Rural Teams established. The Teams, an example of horizontal governance, are generally Co-Chaired by federal RED agencies. In BC, one member explains, the Team includes an array of provincial ministries, is Co- Chaired by provincial and WD representatives and has a staff member funded half time by Agriculture Canada and half time by Service Canada. The Team has sponsored rural dialogues throughout the province, holding sessions with women and youth, by region and industry, with various departments contributing financial resources. Baker (2003) and others are sceptical however, that the initiative will lead to significant change, despite the requirement for annual reports to Parliament on the government`s progress in meeting rural and remote Canadians‘ needs and priorities. Roy (2003) adds that many of the expressed commitments to collaborative, bottom-up approaches through the 1990s have amounted to little more than rhetoric. Collaborative programs remain challenged by lack of investment, understanding and involvement. Public expenditure on labour market programs in Canada is low in comparison with other OECD countries and the country‘s fiscal imbalance fosters top-down federal initiatives, limiting provincial and local involvement in decision-making (Roy and Wong 1998, Greenwood 2005). Markey et al. (2005) contend that community and regional development models continue to require government initiative, expertise, and resources. Rather than finding a balance of top-down and bottom-up direction and initiative, however, communities often feel like they are ‗on their own‘. Coordination of agencies and programs also remains a concern. Savoie (1992) reports, for example, that there are over 400 federal and provincial programs providing small business support in Canada. Blake (2003, 204) argues that ―there has never been in Canada a coherent well-articulated policy for the development of rural Canada.‖ The ability of Canadian governments to alleviate regional disparities based on the strategies employed to date has been limited, although with some successes and lessons for the future. Specific milestones and regional development programs associated with each of the eras discussed above and in Chapter 6 are outlined in the table below:

529

Name Years Regions Details Rowell-Sirois 1940 Canada Commission Royal Commission on 1957 Canada Canada‘s Economic Prospects (Gordon Commission) Winter Works 1958-59, Atlantic programmes 1959-60

Local Initiatives 1971-1977 Canada Work programs for unemployed workers, Program (LIP) projects not be profit-oriented, to provide useful services or facilities to communities Canada Works 1977-1980

Canada Employment 1980-1983 Slow growth Comprehensive direct job creation program in Program - Canada areas, projects of continuing value to the communities Community primarily Development Projects Atlantic and Quebec Atlantic Province Late 1950s Atlantic Payment in addition to the regular equalization Adjustment Grants payments for large hydroelectric development and other capital projects Agricultural 1961 Rural areas - first explicit policy to create a national Rehabilitation and program for rural development Rural Development Act Expanded - to raise farm incomes and make farm land (ARDA) 1963 more productive - Minister empowered to develop agreements Agricultural and Rural 1966 with the provinces Development Act - program lacked a clear focus and had a (name change) modest impact - 729 projects (with a value of $61 million) Special ARDA program 1971-1989 initiated by 1965, - little to suggest they were part of a comprehensive development program - 1963 shifted focus from largely individual and unrelated agricultural assistance projects to a more systematic and coordinated regional development strategy - 1966 expanded to include non-agricultural programs in rural areas, designed to absorb surplus labour from farming - Special ARDA federal-provincial cost share, focus on First Nations Atlantic Development 1962-1969 Atlantic - first economic strategy for the region Board - staffed by individuals from several federal departments Atlantic Development - $186 million to develop and improve basic

530 Fund economic infrastructure, over half spent on highway construction and water and sewage Replaced with Atlantic systems, some for electrical generating and Development Council 1969- transmission facilities and to service new (advisory) industrial parks - not able to create and implement a comprehensive plan gearing expenditures towards specific targets - failed to deliver a comprehensive regional development plan - accusations of use as a political tool Areas Development 1963 - encouragement of ‗industrial development in Authority and Areas areas of chronic Development unemployment on a planned basis‘ by providing Incentives Act for tax relief incentive and cash grants to industry - incentives were given to industry without any effective attempt to specify what objectives were being pursued - use of growth pole model Fund for Rural 1966-1969 Gaspé - $50 million to be applied only in areas with Economic Development Peninsula, widespread low incomes and major problems of (FRED) Que., two economic adjustment, lacking in social capital, regions in NB, education, and wealth all of PEI, - separate and comprehensive development plans parts of developed for each regions to invest in northern infrastructure and industry Manitoba Cape Breton 1967- Cape Breton To fill the economic void left by the decline of Development Corp. the coal and steel industries (DEVCo.) - incentives to attract new firms - mine modernization, coal-fired power - business operation, financing and support PEI Comprehensive 1969-1981 PEI Infrastructure, incentive grants, market studies Development Plan Department of Regional 1969-1982 1) all but BC, - pinnacle of integrated planning Economic Expansion Alberta and - coordinating various federal programs in (DREE) Ontario RED under a powerful Minister south of the - two-pronged approach: Special Areas Program Ottawa River 1) industrial incentive program, providing capital assistance to encourage companies to 2) ‗special locate in ‗less-favoured‘ areas of the country areas‘ (growth 2) comprehensive development of educational centres) training facilities, industrial parks, the construction of housing, the provision of a range of social and health services, and the creation of jobs in services or manufacturing - funded and administered in federal-provincial partnership, mostly federal $ - criticism of central control

531 General Development 1974-1981 Provincial, all - comprehensive agreements to stimulate growth Agreements (GDAs) but PEI in depressed areas, involved DREE, the provinces and other federal departments as Economic and Regional planning partners Development 1981- - shifted attention from rural development Agreements (ERDAs) towards regional urban industrial development, growth poles - moved to more project-based funding - ERDAs delivered directly by federal vs. provincial agencies, joint planning, programs and projects could be federally delivered ―Social service state‖ 1965-75 Government transfers to individuals increased by 400% Company of Young 1966-1976 - community focus Canadians - young volunteers trained in "social animation" - arm‘s length from the government (re- - replaced by summer organized 1970) student employment - mandate to encourage social, economic and programs 1977-present community development - affiliation with revolutionary activity, attempt to ―co-opt radical youth‖ Ministry of State for 1982-1984 Canada Co-ordinate federal action to encourage and Economic and Regional foster regional and rural development, made all Development (MSERD) departments of government responsible for regional development - currently each agency has a Minister Industrial and Labour 1981 Ont., NS, NB Funding to help urban areas with economic Adjustment Program communities adjustment, for restructuring, retraining and mobility (urban community focus) Department of Regional 1982 Canada To wind down DREE, deliver a regional Industrial Expansion industrial program based on a "development" (DRIE) index that classified all regions into four categories of need Local Economic 1980-1983 Through DREE and EIC Development - involved local business and other interests in Assistance (LEDA) stimulating local enterprise development - funded planning and operation of community- Local Employment 1983-1986 Communities based corporations to provide technical support Assistance and with pop and financial assistance Development (LEAD) 50,000 or less - LEAD funded infrastructure projects, enterprise projects, or LEAD corporations, depending on community needs and plans ACOA, WD, FedNor, 1987- Atlantic, Regional agency support entrepreneurship, CED-Q present Western, Ont., innovation, technological and community Que development Canadian Jobs Strategy Introduced as part of the Government of - Community Futures Canada‘s Canadian Jobs Strategy (1985) to initiative 1986- 80% of provide CED tools to rural communities dealing present Canada with economic change and labour-force adjustment

532 ECBC 1988- Cape Breton Split from DEVCo. to promote non-coal present activities in Cape Breton, financing and industry development The Atlantic 1994-1998 $1.9 billion adjustment program, followed by Groundfish Strategy another $730 million package to assist with (TAGS) - post TAGS retraining and restructuring adjustments for package 1998- displaced workers Pacific Salmon 1996- BC fishing Included Fisheries Legacy Trust investment fund Revitalization Strategy communities/ owned by the Coastal CFDCs, with loans to regions impacted communities, and a $27 million Community Economic Adjustment Initiative (CEAI) Softwood Lumber 2003-2005 Softwood Through Industry Canada, delivered in BC by Strategy dependent WD in partnership with CFDCs, resulted in over regions $50 million in investment in projects across rural BC through a Softwood Industry Community Economic Adjustment Initiative (SICEAI). Transitional Jobs Fund 1996-2000 areas with and Canada Jobs Fund 12%+ unemployment Labour Market 1996- Canada Encourage, support and facilitate human Development present resource planning and labour market Agreements adjustments: co-managed in NL, PEI and Yukon, others transferred to provinces (NL transfer planned for 2009/2010) Smart Communities

Broadband for Rural 2002- and Northern Development Pilot Program

Source: Baker (2003), Mulvin (2007), Savoie (1992), Roy and Wong (1998), Desjardins, Hobson and Savoie (2004), Hodge and Robinson (2001), Hamilton and Butler (2001).

533

BC Regional Development Summary from Markey et al. (2008) Date Model Description 1950s- Province Building: Roads  Province building: economic expansion, infrastructure and 1970s to Resources access to resources;  Re-organization of the provincial ministries and their mandates;  Built upon work of the Post-War Reconstruction Committee. 1987- Ministers of State and  Regional districts established and assigned a Minister of 1992 Regional Development State; Officers (RDO)  Regional offices opened in eight regions, consisting of Minister of Regional regional development officer (RDO), a regional Economic Development development liaison officer (RDLO) and clerical staff; (1989)  Mandate to establish regional priorities, implement government programs, and conduct evaluations and reporting. 1993- Regional Economic  Five regional offices established with Regional Economic 1996 Development Offices Development Officers (REDOs);  REDOs responsible for a more community-based approach towards economic development and implementation of government programs. 1998- Northern Development  NDC Established by the Northern Development Act and 2001 Commission (NDC) headed by a Commissioner supported by five staff servicing three northern regions;  NDC mandate for advocacy and consultation with small fund available to assist development projects. 1999- Ministry of Community  Variety of community economic development programs 2001 Development, and transition funds. Cooperatives, and Volunteers 2000+  Northern Caucus  Macro environment: tax reductions, deregulation, labour  Community Charter flexibility;  Heartland‘s Strategy  Tourism (especially the 2010 Olympics);  Northern Development  Transportation; Initiative  First Nations support;  Regional Trusts  Sector marketing and support;  Northern Development Initiative Trust.  (adapted from Lax et al., 2001)

From Coe (2006):

Post-2000 regional initiatives include: Task Force on Community Opportunities, Building Stronger Communities (2006), Cariboo Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition, Omineca Beetle Action Coalition, Okanagan Partnership, Columbia Basin Trust, Northern Development Initiative Trust (2004), Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust, North Island - Coast Development Initiative Trust

534 The Task Force on Community Opportunities recognized the specific needs of resource communities and the need for customized approaches. One example is the Provincial/Peace River Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which addresses the unique situation in the Peace River region in relation to the dispersed oil and gas industry. In the Peace River Regional District, for a variety of reasons, the property tax system is incapable of delivering industrial property tax revenues to the region‘s local governments in ordinary ways. Local governments have therefore faced financial challenges in meeting service and infrastructure demands associated with oil and gas development. The MOU is designed to replace revenues that are otherwise not available to Peace River local governments through industrial property taxes. It does this by providing an annual provincial transfer to the signatories. While recognizing that the Peace River Regional District is unique, the Task Force sees some merit in exploring servicing and taxation issues in other resource dependent regions or sectors.

The $50 million North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust was created in September 2005. The trust model builds on the success of the U.S./Canadian Columbia Basin Trust established in 199 and diverts resource revenues into the trust that provide stable financing to RED efforts (Markey et al. 2006). North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust Funds are managed by a Board of Directors consisting largely of municipal and provincial political representatives, with additional representatives appointed by the Province. The region includes Sunshine Coast as well as Central-North Island communities.

Goldenberg (2008):

The British Columbia Resort Municipality Initiative provides resort-oriented municipalities with new finance, development and business promotion tools to enhance the resort sector and promote tourism in the province. Areas of the province may be designated as a Resort Region, qualifying local governments for finance, development and business promotion tools, including transfers, by agreements with Resort Bodies, up to 4% of the 8% Provincial Hotel Room Tax (HRT) generated within the Region to the designated Resort Body for the development of their tourism economies.

The Community Charter provides authority for municipalities to exempt property from municipal property taxes for up to 10 years under a revitalization program where property owners may contribute to environmental revitalization, investment and employment, social revitalization; conservation of heritage property, or neighbourhood rejuvenation.

The Province also has a venture capital program, a fund for Aboriginal business, grants for infrastructure and small communities and partnerships with the federal government on programs such as the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and Urban Development Agreements.

The BC Task Force on Community Opportunities (2006) pointed to several problems with RED in BC, including: lack of attention to economic development by local government structures, regional economies that operate at scales beyond local

535 government boundaries, challenges of developing partnerships between different regional interests, and lack of economic rewards from development efforts. Markey et al. (2006) further identify lack of control of local resources, conflicts between three to five year government policy horizons and the long-term development process, and lack of meaningful bottom-up direction. Despite, and even because of, these common constraints, Markey et al. (2006) argue that a sense of regional identity has been strengthened in rural and northern regions.

Alberta In Alberta the first Regional Economic Development Alliance was established in 1998; now there are 10 Regional Economic Development Alliances and two metro initiatives (involving a total of 230 Alberta communities). These organizations are strategic alliances of the provincial and municipal governments and community and business leaders intended to promote business and community development on a regional basis. [see www.alberta-canada.com/regionalDev/reda.cfm]. There is also a Northern Alberta Development Council in the province.

Saskatchewan from Stabler (1996): The Province of Saskatchewan has recently initiated a program in which local communities and rural municipalities are encouraged to voluntarily form Regional Economic Development Authorities (REDAs). The REDAs consist of contiguous rural jurisdictions, approximating local labour market areas, which include at least one community in the top four functional levels of the trade centre system. This is an important first step in redefining the rural governance structure in that province.

From Goldenberg (2008): Saskatchewan has 28 Regional Economic Development Authorities currently operating in the province. Introduced as part of Saskatchewan‘s Partnership for Renewal Strategy in 1992, Regional Economic Development Authorities are a ―priority for the government and a key component of Saskatchewan‘s continued economic growth.‖ [see www.ir.gov.sk.ca/] The purpose of a Regional Economic Development Authority is to allow communities and organizations to join together in cooperative and coordinated ventures to promote economic development in their region. The provincial government provides cost shared funds to help Regional Economic Development Authorities form and cost-shared funding is also available to assist established Authorities in building their service capacities and forming partnerships with provincial government departments and the cooperative and private sectors in joint projects supporting job creation and economic growth and investment. The provincial government also provides professional and business development services and technical expertise to Regional Economic Development Authorities and is currently examining government support programs for business, and where appropriate, redesigning them so that these programs can be delivered by Authorities.

Ontario from Goldenburg (2008): Ontario‘s Rural Economic Development (RED) Program has focused on community revitalization; improved access to health care services; and skills training and enhancement as initial priorities. Projects are cost-shared, with the provincial government

536 (normally up to 50 per cent of the project‘s eligible cost). The Program also has a Business Retention and Expansion (BR+E) component, including a Business Retention and Expansion (BR+E) Tool Kit and Community-readiness Checklist. Other Government of Ontario initiatives range from traditional business and economic development support to rural community development and innovation initiatives. Ontario‘s Commercialization Network (OCN) is a series of twelve regional commercialization nodes, a ―network of networks‖ to facilitate cooperation and sharing of best practices within the province. The GO North Investors Program helps northern communities attract and retain jobs and investment and the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF) helps provide infrastructure investments that support long-term economic growth and sustainable communities. The program is a partnership between the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and Ontario municipalities.

Quebec From Goldenberg 2008: The Quebec Government has a variety of programs to provide financial assistance to community organizations to support such their efforts to foster community development, including local economic development and social economy activities. Funding is provided under three-year agreements. Other policies and instruments to support rural and regional development include support for economic development, enterprise development, and the social economy; initiatives to foster community development and capacity building; tax incentives and measures; and initiatives to promote innovation and commercialization.

Quebec‘s ACCORD (Action concertée de cooperation régionale de développement [concerted action for regional development co-operation]) program supports the development of regional niches of innovation and excellence and providing financial support for community development corporations for community and volunteer action. The program promotes the development of intra-regional and inter-regional industrial networks, with regional agreements signed to support the implementation of action plans. The program also makes specialized consulting firms available to conduct studies on trends and market opportunities and offers technical assistance in structuring financing and financial assistance under various programs.

Financial support is also available for regions and municipalities experiencing serious economic difficulties, notably in the case of single-industry regions, to assist in economic diversification and development. The maximum level of support that can be provided is 90% of total eligible costs.

The Province has a Rural Pact Policy on Rural Development, under which five year funding agreements are negotiated with Quebec‘s 21 regional county municipalities to support sustainable development and community well-being and development. Overall, in 2005-2006, the Quebec Government granted $634.7 million to community organizations under 63 community organization programs or financial support measures administered by some 20 government departments and agencies.

537 Federally funded Community Business Development Corporations (CBDCs) also operate in parts of Quebec (and Ontario), along with and Community Economic Development Corporations (CEDCs) in disadvantaged urban areas.

PEI Agencies involved in economic development in PEI include:

Provincial  Enterprise PEI, a provincial agency with outlets in most Regional Service Centres, staffed by regional development officers;

Federal/provincial  The Canada/Prince Edward Island Business Services Centre, a joint federal- provincial operation, provides information on government business services from five community resource sites;  ACOA, in cooperation with the provincial Department of Economic Development and Tourism, is responsible for Prince Edward Island's four community-based development corporations.

Regional  Prince Edward Island's Community Development Corporations: o The Western Development Corporation (Bloomfield, serving West Prince); o The Central Development Corporation (Central Bedeque, serving East Prince); o Opportunities East Inc., (serving Kings Co.) and; o The Baie Acadienne Development Corporation (Wellington)56  are run by local boards and assist small businesses and prospective entrepreneurs with counselling, mentoring and financial assistance.

Cousins (1999) suggests: ―There are also a large number of rural and community development corporations across the province.‖

New Brunswick from Hodge and Robinson (2001) and Bruce (2008): The province adopted an integrated provincial development approach in the 1960s and 70s with multiple economic development efforts. Seven planning regions were established, undertaking federally sponsored projects. Large provincial investments are also described, including the failed Bricklin automobile venture. ―New Brunswick had development commissions in place, they were more like industrial commissions, and they brought those forward up until one to two years ago when the Premier implemented a broader community based economic development model...‖ Today the province has 15 Enterprise Agencies.

538

International examples of RED programs include:

- Scotland‘s Highland and Islands Enterprise/Local Enterprise Corps. - Local Area Groups under LEADER - UK Development Trusts and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) - Alaska Regional Development Organization program (ARDORs) - Australia Sustainable Regions Program - New Zealand Regional Partnerships

539 Appendix 12 - Watershed Management Models

NS-W NL-W BC-W Initiation Grand Narrows and Community/RDAs, 1988 First Nations/DFO, 1987 District Board of IBEC formed, incorporated NRMB formed, inactive 1990- Trade 1985, Env. 1995 1997 Canada 1987, UCCB 1989/1995, First - 1970s efforts by ‗Namgis Nations-EFWC 1991, (enhancement, fisheries BSS 1997, UINR and restrictions) SCI 1999, CEPI 2003 Geographic 3600 km sqr - 2500 1000 km sqr. -700-750 sqr km 2226 km sqr (2003 plan) - scale land and freshwater, drainage 1780 sqr km drainage, 550 sqr 1100 marine Largest lake – 11 sqr km km major tributaries, lakes Note: 1 km sqr Largest lake - 36.5 sqr km = 100 ha (Gander 5000 km sqr) Estuary - 13.7 km2 20 sub-basins Population/ 200+ shoreline 2 in watershed (pop 1,361), 6 communities, pop 5,100 (2 communities comm.s, all under 12 communities regular users/ with 1,000+) 1,000 except engaged in WM (pop 20,434 Eskasoni, pop 22,000 in 2001; 6 with pop 1000+) Reasons for Resource (primarily Resource decline (fish) Resource decline (fish) initiation fish) and water quality decline Watershed Culture/traditional Recreation and culture Logging, tourism and uses use, tourism and (social, traditional use), cabin recreation, culture/ traditional recreation, fisheries, dev‘t, logging, tourism, use, some cabin/housing dev‘t aquaculture, forestry, agriculture (ltd) mining, marine transport, agriculture, urban/cottage dev‘t Pressing issues Sewage, invasive Overfishing, logging (habitat, Ocean survival, logging, species, overfishing, access), poaching, overfishing - Fish focus, habitat damage recreational cabins and motivating vehicles, issues re. municipal Cultural revival factor Economy, education, water supply Employment youth out-migration, health risks/care, Preserving a way of life, decision-making, economy partnerships Governance Diffused Concentrated Semi-Concentrated

- many groups - one group recognized by - one key group with others - few strong ones, senior government and also acting independently but esp FNs largely by community connected through committee - connected through - grassroots voting model membership and committees and - less emphasis on communication loose networks governance partnerships, - seeking new more more on funding and projects structured

540 mechanism Structure Network of various One primary non-profit Multi-stakeholder committee orgs and committees, society/corp., other associated (uninc) with other formally UINR as secretariat interests loosely associated connected orgs & initiatives, for CEPI, Pitupaq - Board/staff subcommittees management committee and technical working group Activities Economic focus: FNs Economic focus: Economic focus: work in (actions and fishing licenses, Work projects (maintenance restoration for FNs orientations) protecting/restoring and infrastructure), research fisheries centre development, training Ecological focus: Note: for local students Habitat restoration and Ecological Ecological focus: fisheries enhancement, focus but Mapping and Ecological focus: habitat mapping and research, fishing strongly research (baseline, cleanup, reduced bag limits and forestry restrictions motivated by fisheries, water and seasons, logging buffers, other reasons quality), sewage stock assessment and research Social/cultural focus: improvements, maintenance of fishing and stopping habitat Social/cultural focus: opportunities, presence on the damage, no maintenance of fishing and land base discharge, fisheries recreation opportunities closures (lobbying/ advice to mgrs)

Social/cultural focus: maintenance of fishing and recreation opps  New sewage  Litter clean-up  Restored habitat but still Ecological treatment plant  Reduced bag limits fluctuating returns outcomes  No discharge  Increased enforcement  Employment and pride of designation  Increased buffers FNs, involvement in

 Fisheries closures  Needed trout info managing territory

Overall: some early Overall: some improvement, Overall: salmon returns not signs of improvement, particularly with litter improving, some improvements continued declines in removal, trout size in forestry practices noted some species

541 Resources Available

NS-W NL-W BC-W Volunteer SCI coordinating committee: 38 12 22-40 (annual meeting Board SCI field team: 34 (2002) – full membership) UINR: 5 chiefs, Pitupaq: 10 CEPI committee: 21 (2005) Annual 2001/02 Marshall Agreement – 2001: $302,000 2003: $603,500 Budget commitment of over $3 million 2002: $276,000 2004: 268,000 to EFWC 2005: approx. $450,000 + Gwan‘i Hatchery SCI 2004: 300K (50% BD) est. $220,000 + approx. $322,000 CEPI 2005: 250K infrastructure Pitupaq 2003: 200K+ federal Total ‗03: $925,500 (income Dec.-June $198,185) ACOA over $2 million 2004: $590,000 UINR 2004: 697,391 since 1997 2005: 1.3 million 1997-2001 FRBC 2006: 1.8 million habitat restoration EFWC: 230K AFS + 1 million commitment over $1 fishing income million (Berry 2002 Total: approx. $3 million (2005) suggests total spending of 2.7 million on restoration) Funding SCI: federal and provincial cost 2005 2003 share (federal majority) DFO $10,000 (2%) FIA $235,000 (25%) Note: ACOA $368,950 (84%) ($130-160,000 2004) Full UINR: 2004: federal 55%, ITRD $23,000 (5%) financial forestry 27%, UNSI 13%; 2005: HRSD $34,794 (8%) Foundations: (28%) info. not federal (DFO, INAC) and $180,000 PSEF available provincial (52%), forestry and Total 436,744 50,000 Vanc. Fdtn. for the mining royalties (44%), 30,000 PSF same contracts/misc (2%), CBU 2% Federal 94% , year in all $ 10K ASW, cases Pitupaq: Dec.-June 2003 federal $ 6K HCTF, (2003- 96.5%, 2.5% municipal, 0.5% 2006 $ 24 Canfor (3%) 2005 each First Nations and prov‘l – ACOA 308,800 range) prov‘l 50% of coordinator costs HRSD $45,000 Federal: (41%) in 2005 ITRD $35,530 $ 5K HRDC DFO $10,000 $ 52K DFO CEPI Jan 05: federal 59% Gwani – DFO/NFN confirmed, 30% prov, 4% NGO, $322,000 3% UCCB, 3% FN + EFWC contributions/ research and $ 15K KTFC related activities (AFS, federal contracts + fishing income) 2002/03: $30K HCTF 2005 overall: fed‘l and prov‘l 44%, resource revenues 52%, 4% other Staff 30-40 EFWC (2004) 6 regular (2 FT, 4 1 BC-W, 5 assessment

542 11 Pitupaq (2003) seasonal), students/ + consultants, 10 4 SCI (= 2 Bras d‘Or) research associates (5), hatchery + restoration 12 UINR (2006) = 44-65 construction (8-10)= 20, temps = 16-20, approx. 11 FTEs approx. 12 FTEs

Watershed Management Organizational Capacity Measures *

NS-W NL-W BC-W Comments Planning 2 1 2 No NL-W business plan since 1996 (IBCES only) Annual reports 1 0 1 – Verbal + Not referred to interviews – to funders UINR yes, SCI and Pitupaq? Monitoring and 1 (SCI) 0.5 1.5 Limited evaluation in all evaluation three cases, BC-W M&E constrained by resources and methods/capability Year started 1.5 2 2 Earlier efforts in Bras d‘Or and Nimpkish but case study orgs. began in 80s and 90s # of actors in 2 2 1 See below network Service/activity 3 3 3 See mechanisms domains Website 2 1 0 Other public 1.5 1 1 NL-W and BC-W - Periodic comm. vehicles news articles and annual meetings open to the public, no comm. plan but extensive methods in NS-W Board of 1.5 1.5 1 BC-W informal with MC, Directors many on various BD boards - loose overall Volunteers 1.5 1.5 1 Staff 2 2 1 Budget 4 2 3 22.5/28 17.5/28 16.5/28 Converted to /20 16 12.5 12 * Each of these measures is dynamic and changes depending on the time period. Data is 2003/04 with the exception of websites, which were checked in 2007.

Planning 0 = no plans 1 = annual work plan 2 = 3-5 year plan incorporating stakeholder input

Annual report 0 = no report 1 = publicly available annual report with no financial report

543 2 = publicly available annual report with financial report

Evaluation program 0 = no evaluation program 1 = evaluation program under development 2 = well developed evaluation program (ideally with ongoing improvement)

Year started 1 = 1997 – 2007 2 = 1987 – 1996 3 = Pre-1984

# of groups in network 1 = less than 100 2 = 50 – 199 3 = 200 +

# of service domains 1 = 1-2 domains 2 = 3-4 3 = five or more

Website 0 = no website 1 = website not updated/partially complete 2 = active, up-to-date website

Other public communication 0 = no other public communications initiatives 1 = occasional public information releases/efforts and/or one-time communications avenue 2 = communications strategy with multiple vehicles used

Board of Directors 0 = No Board 1 = Board with unfilled seats, no formal structure and/or limited diversity/representation of major stakeholder 2 = Complete Board reflective of regional diversity

Volunteers 0 = No volunteers 1 = Board volunteers only 2 = Board + other volunteer involvement

Staff 0 = no paid staff 1 = 1-5 paid staff 2 = more than 5 paid staff

Operating Budget 1 = less than $100,000 2 – between $100,000 and $500,000 3 = over $500,000 4 = over $1,000,000

544 Relational capacity/activity measures

Weak – little interaction or majority of respondents suggest poor/needs significant improvement (0) Mixed – Conflicting responses and/or some positive aspects with areas for improvement (1) Strong – majority report relationships are positive, ongoing, diverse, parties work well together (2) Improving + 0.5, Declining – 0.5

200 or more actors 3 25% or less 1 50-199 2 26-49% 2 less than 50 1 50% or more 3

See Appendix 5 for details on relationships.

545 Appendix 13 - Watershed Management Legislation, Policies and Programs in Canada

Transboundary and International Name Year Details U.S.-Canada Boundary 1909 Established to ―preserve levels and flows‖ of Waters Treaty transboundary waters, leading to several watershed/river basin initiatives Sanitary Practices in 1948 Implemented through the Canadian Shellfish the Shellfish Industries, Sanitation Program (CSSP) of Environment Canada in Memorandum of collaboration with (DFO), the Canadian Food Inspection Agreement Agency (CFIA) and some provincial governments and other partners. Columbia River Treaty 1964 Canada–U.S. Great 1972 Lakes Water Quality Agreement UN Convention on the 1982 Includes the duty of the state to protect the sea from land- Law of the Sea based activities. Pacific Salmon Treaty 1985 Canada and the United States signed the Pacific Salmon Treaty to provide for optimum production and equitable exploitation of salmon stocks. Each party is to receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters, and is to avoid undue disruption to the other‘s fisheries. Bilateral agreements must be periodically developed to implement the Treaty‘s principles for long- term conservation and harvest sharing. The Pacific Salmon Commission was established to advise both countries on the implementation of Treaty provisions. Helps to manage the complexity of mixed stock and intercepting fisheries in Canada and the U.S. Great Lakes Charter 1985 Recommended as an institutional framework for dealing with diversions of water by a task force of the Council of Great Lakes Governors. Led to the creation of Great Lakes 2000 in 1989 to fulfil Canada's commitments. Ramsar Convention/ 1986 Has resulted in a number of Canadian estuary stewardship North American programs. In Eastern Canada the Eastern Habitat Joint Waterfowl Venture is the operational arm of the Waterfowl Management Plan Management Plan, a partnership of the six eastern provinces, Environment Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada and Wildlife Habitat Canada. Activities include securement, promoting sustainable agriculture and forestry land-use practices, wetland restoration and enhancement, and community projects (NPA 2000). Brundtland/World 1987 Commission on Environment and Development UN Convention on 1992 Signed by more than 150 countries at the 1992 Earth Biological Diversity Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Convention has three main goals: (1) conservation of biodiversity; (2) sustainable use

546 of the components of biodiversity; and (3) fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the commercial and other use of genetic resources Conservation of 1992/93 Established the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Anadromous Stocks in Commission (NPAFC). The NPAFC includes Canada, the North Pacific Japan, the Republic of Korea, Russia, and the U.S., the primary states of origin for salmon stocks in the North Pacific. The Convention prohibits directed fishing for salmonids on the high seas of the North Pacific and includes provisions to minimize the number of salmonids taken in other fisheries. The NPAFC promotes the conservation of salmonids in the North Pacific and its adjacent seas and serves as a venue for cooperation in and coordination of enforcement activities and scientific research. UN Global Programme 1995 Signed by 108 governments including Canada. Requires of Action for the NPAs with targets, timelines and political commitment to Protection of the implementation. Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) Pacific Salmon 1999 Established abundance-based fishing regimes for salmon Agreement fisheries. Created two bilaterally managed regional funds to promote cooperation, improve fisheries management, and assist salmon and habitat enhancement efforts. Included a commitment by the two countries to improve how scientific information is obtained, shared and applied to management decisions. Supplementary 2001 Committed Great Lakes states and provinces to prepare a Agreement to the Great basin-wide binding agreement, establish a decision- Lakes Charter making standard for review of proposals, develop public (Implementing participation, decision-making and dispute-resolution Agreements, 2005) mechanisms, collect common water use and management data, coordinate research and data exchange, establish a Water Resources Management Committee and a Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Management Program. Lakewide Management Plans consist of plan of actions to assess, restore, protect and monitor the ecosystem health of a Great Lake and have been developed for lakes Erie, Ontario, Superior and Michigan. The Lake Huron Binational Partnership was created to coordinate environmental activities in the Lake Huron basin. World Summit for 2002 Reaffirmation of Agenda 21 and Millennium Development Sustainable Goals – eight targets to reduce poverty and promote Development sustainable development. Goal 7 to ensure environmental (Johannesburg) sustainability. Focused on partnerships as a viable mechanism, complementing government action.

547

National Name Year Responsible Details Department/ Agency Fisheries Act 1867 DFO The primary legislative basis for fisheries management in Canada. Authorizes the Minister to make decisions about the conservation of fisheries resources and habitat, to establish and enforce standards for conservation, and to determine access to and allocation of the resource. Sections 35 (prohibiting the harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of fish habitat) and 36 (prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish) confer strong powers to protect habitat. Stewardship and 1970s- DFO Regional community advisors put community Community groups together with DFO experts to work on Involvement particular habitat problems; facilitate partnerships Program between groups and help find funding Canada Water Act 1970 Environment Provided a vehicle for provincial-federal cooperation in water resource management. Permits the federal Minister to enter into agreements with the provinces s to collect data and develop plans for major river basins. Constitution Act, 1982 Protection provided to Aboriginal and treaty rights Section 35 Policy for the 1985/86 DFO ―No Net Loss Policy‖ under the provisions of the Management of Fisheries Act Fish Habitat Federal Water 1987 Provides a focus for water-related activities of all Policy federal departments Green Plan 1990 Environment Sets out environmental goals and programs, Canada covering environment, health, fisheries, forestry, agriculture and energy, involving other federal departments and non-government partnerships Atlantic Canada 1991 Environment The program identified nine (now 13-14) ―hot Action Program Canada spots‖ and formed groups formed with multi- stakeholder volunteer Boards of Directors, $50,000 in annual operating funds and additional project dollars. All are watershed and coastal zone initiatives, including groups in Sydney, Nova Scotia, St. John‘s and Humber Arm, NL. Aboriginal 1992 DFO Provides resources for Aboriginal involvement in Fisheries Strategy fisheries management Accord for the 1996 Environment Under this agreement, the Canadian Endangered Protection of Canada/DFO Species Conservation Council was created to Species at Risk in determine responses to assessments made by the Canada Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), the independent body of

548 scientists responsible for designating the status of species. Canadian 1995 Environmental Assessment Act Oceans Act 1997 DFO Canada—British 1997 DFO Columbia Agreement on the Management of Pacific Salmon Fishery Issues Approach to Sets out broad principles and objectives for Implementation of fisheries management, including opportunities for the Inherent Right increased Aboriginal participation and and the involvement in fisheries management Negotiation of Aboriginal Self- Government Gathering 1997 Canada Access to fisheries resources and decision-making Strength— provides an opportunity to improve First Nations Canada‘s economic and social circumstances, consistent Aboriginal Action with the Action Plan Plan A New Direction 1998 for Canada‘s Pacific Salmon Fisheries Marshall program 1999 The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the Marshall case on September 17, 1999, stating that local Treaties signed in 1760 and 1761 by Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities include a communal right to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a "moderate livelihood." To address the Government's obligations and pursue its objective of increased self-reliance for First Nations, DFO initiated a program aimed at increasing Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities' participation in the Atlantic commercial fishery. Guiding principles included:  respect for conservation,  respect for the Treaty right,  recognition of the interests of non- Aboriginal fishers, and  an orderly and regulated fishery. With an allocation of $159.7M, DFO negotiated interim fishing agreements to provide the opportunity for First Nations to achieve success in the commercial fishery, through increased participation in fishing and a role in co-

549 management of the resource. Agreements were negotiated with 30 out of 34 affected communities. Recognizing that fishery access alone is not sufficient to build sustainable Aboriginal fishing enterprises, these agreements included a range of capacity-building components. Canadian 1999 (in Aimed at preventing pollution, protecting the Environmental force environment and human health and contributing to Protection Act 2000) sustainable development. NPA for the 2000 Environment Two key strategies: pollution prevention and Protection of the Canada integrated management of activities taking place Marine in or affecting the coastal zone. The goals of the Environment from NPA are to: protect human health and the Land-Based environment, reduce degradation of the marine Activities environment, remediate damaged areas, promote conservation and sustainable use of marine resources, and maintain the productive capacity and biodiversity of the marine environment. Canada‘s 2002 Endorsed by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Stewardship Resource Ministers. A plan for collaboration with Agenda a national vision and operating principles, four key goals and actions to recognize and empower stewards. Oceans Strategy 2002 DFO Based on three pillars: sustainable development, the precautionary principle and integrated management. Freshwater 2002 DFO Includes a goal to engage Canadians in Fisheries Strategy management and stewardship, guided by an ecosystem approach Canada‘s National 2003 Emphasizes ecosystem management and Forest Strategy community engagement in SFM Aboriginal Aquatic 2003 DFO To increase the organizational capacity of Resource and Aboriginal communities so that they can be Oceans effectively involved in the management of Management fisheries, both at the community and aggregate Program level (AAROM)

Agricultural Policy 2003 Advancing Environmental Farm Plans Framework Species at Risk Act 2003 DFO (aquatic)/ Fulfills a national commitment under the UN (SARA) Environment Convention on Biological Diversity. Requires protection of species at risk and their habitats, including the legal requirements to implement automatic prohibitions, develop recovery and action plans, plan and implement critical habitat protection, and conduct consultations within specified timelines. Listing a species or population as Extirpated, Endangered or Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA is based

550 on recommendations in a COSEWIC Status Report for the species. Conservation may involve cooperative agreements with landowners and stewardship action plans.

Atlantic Fisheries 2004 Offers a new vision of how the Atlantic fisheries Policy Review/A can be managed. Objectives include conservation Policy Framework and sustainable use and self-reliance. Gives for the resource users a stronger role in the stewardship Management of of the resource, delegation of certain fisheries Fisheries on management responsibilities to users. DFO to be Canada‘s Atlantic concerned primarily with developing policy, Coast setting strategic direction and evaluating performance vs. day-to-day activities. Promises new advisory processes, a more inclusive approach to policy planning; facilitated Aboriginal participation in policy planning and decision making; and support building capacity for resource users to take on new responsibilities. Canada‘s Policy 2005 The stated goal is to restore and maintain healthy for Conservation of and diverse salmon populations and their habitats. Wild Salmon It provides for incorporation of information on ecosystems and ocean climate impacts in annual assessments of salmon abundance. Oceans Action 2005 Released after criticism for the slow pace of IM Plan planning. Committed to the establishment of planning forums that will work to ―better manage oceans activities and to determine where special measures are necessary to protect biologically and ecologically productive areas‖ and to develop ―proactive means for First Nations involvement in marine and coastal resource management at the broader oceans management scale, as well as within the smaller coastal community scale‖ (FOC 2005).

Alberta from Rush (2003) A range of agencies play a role in watershed management in Alberta. The South Saskatchewan River Basin Management Plan (1990), for example resulted in the creation of four multi-stakeholder sub-basin advisory committees (BACs) and the adoption of a 1991 South Saskatchewan River Basin Regulation to support the policies reflected in the Plan. The South Saskatchewan River Basin encompasses much of southeastern Alberta and extends into south-central Saskatchewan, with 90% of its water flow generated from the snow and glaciers of the Rocky Mountains and a population of approximately 1.5 million. The Oldman Basin is one subwatershed of this system, along with the Red Deer, Bow and South Saskatchewan. The Oldman Basin is home to non-government initiatives such as the Oldman River Basin Water Quality Initiative and planning by the Oldman Inter-municipal Service Agency in addition to the Oldman River BAC.

551 According to Rowell and Ewaschuk (2003) approximately 60 groups are involved in water and watershed management at local and basin levels in Alberta (see www.albertawatersheds.org).

Other related provincial policies and plans include Water for Life: Alberta‘s Strategy for Sustainability (2002), regional sustainable development strategies (2002) and provincial Integrated Resource Plans that include watershed protection objectives.

Saskatchewan Saskatchewan watershed stewardship groups, agencies and organization formed the Saskatchewan Network of Watershed Stewards (SNOWS) to coordinate and support watershed programs in the province. See www.snows.sk.ca. The Province of Saskatchewan‘s Saskatchewan Watershed Authority participates in SNOWS, South Saskatchewan River Basin Management, and the Prairie Provinces Water Board (see below).

From Prairie Provinces Water Board (2004) A Prairie Provinces Water Board was formed in 1948 under the Prairie Provinces Water Board Agreement, including Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The work of the Board, reconstituted in 1969, includes sharing the flow and responsibilities for the quality of interprovincial streams in nine river basins (Churchill, North Saskatchewan, South Saskatchewan, Battle and Lodge Creeks, Qu‘Appelle, Saskatchewan, Lakes, Assiniboine and Souris River sub-basin). The Board has federal spending authority of up to $625,000 from funds committed under the Canada Water Act administered by Environment Canada. As of 1995 Environment Canada took on the Secretariat function for the Board

In 2003 DFO launched the Stewardship in Action program in the prairie provinces to help grow community stewardship capacity.

Manitoba According to Rowell and Ewaschuk (2003) 16 Conservation Districts work in partnership with and with support from the Province of Manitoba to carry out integrated resource management within 60% of agro-Manitoba (see www.gov.mb.ca/ia/programs/conservation_districts.html).

From Schroeder (2004) In 2003 the Government of Manitoba announced a new Water Strategy, followed by the formation of a new Department of Manitoba Water Stewardship. In 2004 a Water Protection Act provided a framework for watershed planning and water quality management in newly established water quality management zones. The 2003 Strategy recognized that partnerships between a myriad of pre-existing organizations, programs, activities and resources must be built to make watershed management effective and developed a capacity building framework to build these partnerships and identify and fill remaining gaps in watershed stewardship capacity.

552 From Manitoba (2007) The Conservation Districts Program operates under the authority of The Conservation Districts Act and provides for conservation, control and prudent use of resources by establishing conservation districts in partnerships with the Province of Manitoba and its municipalities. In place since 1976, the act governs conservation district (CD) formation and allows municipalities to collect a levy that supports CD programs. Provincial cost- share funding with conservation districts varies according to current policy. The Conservation Districts Program now includes 18 CDs, covering 85 per cent of municipal Manitoba. Since 1999, the number of CDs has doubled. An additional three CDs are expected to be formed in the next three years.

The Conservation Districts Commission, established by The Conservation Districts Act, develops and applies provincial policies that guide effective delivery of the Conservation Districts Program. The commission is chaired by the deputy minister of Manitoba Water Stewardship and its members include deputy ministers from Manitoba Conservation, Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation and Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. It also includes representatives from the Manitoba Conservation Districts Association and the Association of Manitoba Municipalities.

• In 35 years, the CD program has not changed significantly, despite the fact that stresses on water and land resources have increased substantially. • The Water Protection Act came into force in 2005. It identifies conservation district boards as entities that may be designated as water planning authorities to deliver integrated watershed management planning (IWMP). • The current expectation that Manitoba should provide three times the funds CDs raise with annual levies is no longer sustainable. From 1972 to 1987, six variable cost-sharing arrangements were in place, depending on the program. These cost-shares ranged from 90 per cent provincial and 10 per cent municipal to 60 per cent provincial and 40 per cent municipal. A 1987 policy decision changed cost sharing to 75 per cent provincial and 25 per cent municipal for all programming. • Provincial funding must be more clearly linked to the measurement of change rather than the number of projects completed. • Involvement of the CD Commission, conservation districts, Manitoba Conservation Districts Association, First Nations, Manitoba Northern Affairs communities, Association of Manitoba Municipalities, rural communities, and other stakeholders will move the CD program into the future. • Continued program expansion and new provincial directions have placed a demand for a new mandate, demonstrated support of provincial priorities, broader governance, surface water management, drainage infrastructure partnerships, integration of large urban centres and a new funding formula that is fair and equitable.

The target is to implement the new strategic framework for the Conservation Districts Program in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

Ontario Conservation Authorities from Ivey (2002) Number: 38 (mostly southern Ontario)

553 Size: 215-10,933 square km Revenue (1998): $355,893-$31 million (59 million total p.a.) Permanent staff: 3-205 Legislation: Conservation Authorities Act (1946)

Conservation authorities hold major responsibilities for research, planning and program implementation in Ontario watersheds. Their mandate is to establish and undertake programs for the ―conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals‖. Activities include research, land acquisition, construction of works such as reservoirs and dykes, controlling surface water flows, reforestation, creating regulations, prescribing fees, permits and municipal levies, watershed and subwatershed planning, agricultural and rural landowner assistance and environmental education.

The Authorities were created in response to concerns about post-WWII employment and ―the possibility that environmental degradation could shortly impair economic development in Ontario.‖ Three principles guided the program: 1) use of the watershed as a resource management unit; 2) local leadership and initiative; and 3) provincial- municipal partnerships.

Under the Conservation Authorities Act of the provincial legislature municipalities must request the formation of an Authority, which may then be created by an order of the Lieutenant Governor with the agreement of a minimum of two-thirds of the municipalities within a watershed. Board members are appointed by municipalities, although they may be appointed from outside of municipal councils.

Operations are funded through municipal levies, senior government grants, and self- generated revenues. Costs range from $0.25 to $37.40 per hectare (1997-1999). Between 1995 and 1997 operating grants to CAs from the Ministry of the Environment were cut by 42% due to cutbacks, the Province now funding only projects of core provincial interest such as flood control.

See Ivey (2002) for a case study of the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, covering a 3,260 sqr. km area..

O‘Grady (2004) suggests seven key lessons from the experiences of the South Nation River Conservation Authority: 1) full public participation, including establishing a sense of watersheds as ―place‖ and a sense of control over what happens in the watershed; 2) better communication and use of words and ideas that are useful to local residents; 3) greater attention to implementation of planning recommendations; 4) the need for statutory support for watershed planning (legal recognition of watershed as place); 5) government funding is not a requirement; 6) planning involves political decision-making; 7) success must be measured in decades not years.

From Cameron (2006) Ontario is approaching source water protection with big government, big regulation and lots of funding. They recently announced that $67.5 million will be put into support for the Ontario

554 Conservation Authorities over the next five years for source protection. In addition, they have gone through the second reading in the House for the Clean Water Act, a sweeping piece of legislation that deals with source water protection. The allocated funding is just to deal with assessment and planning of source water areas, not with implementation issues.

From de Launay (2006) A proposed Clean Water Act was introduced on December 5, 2005. Under the Act communities will work together on a watershed-basis to develop and execute plans to protect their drinking water sources. • The draft Clean Water Act will implement key recommendations arising out of the Walkerton Inquiry. • A key component of the government‘s multifaceted water stewardship strategy and will establish a collaborative, locally driven, science-based, multi-stakeholder process • Complements current suite of safe drinking water tools and legislation, including:  Safe Drinking Water/Drinking Water Protection Legislation (2002)  Nutrient Management (2002)  Sustainable Water & Wastewater Systems (2002)  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)  Canada Ontario Agreement (COA)  Ontario Water Resources Act

The legislation, if passed, would establish Ontario as a leader in the delivery of safe drinking water by:  Requiring municipalities and conservation authorities (CAs) to map sources of municipal drinking water and vulnerable areas that need protection to prevent supplies from being depleted or contaminated;  Directing local communities to monitor any activity that could potentially threaten water quality or quantity and take action to reduce or remove that threat; and  Empowering local authorities to take preventative measures to protect drinking water supplies. • promotes a shift in social attitudes with respect to water resources towards a notion of stewardship - the shared responsibility of all stakeholders to protect the integrity of local sources of public drinking water.

Shrubsole (2004) describes three major documents that illustrate the evolution of watershed planning in Ontario:

 Watershed Management on a Watershed Basis: Implementing an Ecosystem Approach (1993)  Evaluation of Watershed Management in Ontario (1997)  Protecting Ontario‘s Drinking Water: Toward a Watershed-based Source Protection Framework (2003)

The latter document integrated human health and ecosystem considerations and called for the formation of 24 Source Protection Coordinating Committees in the province, with 1/3

555 municipal and 1/3 provincial representation, along with 1/3 public health and other stakeholders.

Quebec ZIP (Zones d‟intervention prioritaire) committees from LEPS et al (2003) Since 1991 14 ZIP committees have been formed along the St. Lawrence River under the St-Lawrence Vision 2000 Action Plan. The Committees are supported by a coordinating body, Strategies Saint-Laurent. Committees are multi-stakeholder advisory boards covering an ―area of prime concern.‖ Comite ZIP Baie des Chaleurs, for example, covers a 350 km stretch of coastline along the southern portion of the Gaspe Peninsula, building partnerships in stewardship for more than ten years.

ZIP Committees have the following mandate: 1. Mobilize riverside communities to work toward the protection, rehabilitation and sustainable use of their part of the River 2. Organize a public consultation to target the priority issues and the necessary actions 3. Develop and implement an Ecological Rehabilitation Action Plan (ERAP) 4. Co-ordinate, give ongoing support and monitor results all along the ERAP process

From http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/bassinversant/index_en.htm ―Integrated watershed management is a major course of action in the Québec Water Policy adopted in fall 2002. Its primary goal is to reform the governance of water resources. Watershed-based management considers local as well as regional issues and is rooted in an ecosystem approach to management that uses the watershed as a water quality planning unit.

The principal players in watershed-based management are watershed or basin organizations. These organizations are composed of representatives of all those involved in basin-scale water management, such as regional county municipalities (RCM), municipalities, users, environmental groups and citizens. Governments are also represented, but do not have the right to vote. Basin organizations are actually issue and planning tables whose primary purpose is to develop a master water plan containing an overview and diagnosis of the watershed, issues, directions and goals to be attained, along with an action plan to be implemented through the signing of basin contracts.

By moving to an integrated watershed management approach, the Québec government is hoping to enhance consensus building and accountability among the various players and the public with regard to management of the common resources of water and aquatic ecosystems. To that end, technical and financial support will be provided to basin organizations‖.

New Brunwick In the Province of NB beverage container deposits go into an Environmental Trust Fund which is in turn distributed to community-based watershed groups

NL Watershed Groups Bay St. George; Exploits River Management Assoc.; Freshwater Alexander Bay Ecosystem Corp.; Harry‘s River; Gander River Management Assoc.; Humber Arm ACAP

556 site/Humber Arm Environmental Assoc.; Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp.; Northwest River Working Groups; Ragged Harbour; Rennies River; St. John‘s Harbour ACAP

557

Appendix 14 – Success Factors (Enablers) and Barriers (Resistors)

Success factors/Enablers NL-W (21) BC-W (10) NS-W (32) 1. Personality/individuals (9) 1. Desire/interest (7) 1. Individuals/human resources 2. a. Public input/participation (5) 2. First Nations/place (6) – both = (26) b. Commitment (5) commitment 2. Time (22) 3. The area (4) 3. a. Time/persistence (5) 3. Cooperation/relationships 4. a. Integration (3) b. Resource over politics/ (19) 4. Senior level government b. Persistence/time (3) operational focus (5) support (13) Evolution (2), the right 4. a. Individuals (4) 5. Common ground and shared timing (2) b. Capacity/track record (4) understanding (11) 5. a. Government/willingness to c. Agreement/common ground (4) 6. Integrity/trust (9) delegate (2) 5. a. Ability to deal with conflict b. Coordination of effort (2) 7. Capacity building/ learning (7) 8. a. Communication (6) b. Community support (6) 9. a. Financial resources (5) b. Flexibility 10. First Nations legal and organizational clout (3)

NL-E (*) BC-E (18) NS-E (12) 1. Core funding (ACOA) 1. Communications/networks (10) 1. Leaders/individuals (7) 2. Federal/provincial agreements 2. a. Common ground - similar 2. a. Government staff support 3. Supportive individuals in objectives, understanding (8) b. Time (4) government (some lost), b. Individuals (primarily CFDC 3. a. Political will/support (3) particularly in regions staff, Board - Brenda) (8) b.Knowledgeable staff 4. Strategic plans (if 3. Community Board structure (7) c. Common goals/interests participatory, living, 4. a. Gov‘t (WD) coop/support, 4. a. Regular comm‘n (2) integrated) flexible programming (6) b. Power/cost sharing 5. Community capacity building b. Trust (6) c. Flexibility 5. Time/persistence (5) 6. Broad-based Board d.Resources/$ 6. a. Leadership/taking action (4)

b. Regional thinking (4) Other: trust, groundwork, regional approach, Board Other: flexibility (3), $ (2), local structure, connections, stability, knowledge/capacity (2) attitude, strategic planning

* Success factors/enablers were added to the framework after analysis for NL-E was completed. A score of five was allocated to each of the above points in the calculation of overall totals, with the exception of individuals. Transcripts were reviewed for reference to individuals as success factors and ten were recorded.

558

Success Factors Summary Success Factor NL-E BC-E NS-E RED Common goals/interests/ 8 3 11 Understanding Communication/cooperation 10 2 12 Time/persistence 5 4 9 Individuals/leaders 10 8 7 25 Government support 5 6 4 15 Flexibility 3 2 5 Local capacity/capacity building 5 2 3 10 Funding/$ 5 2 2 9 Sharing costs and power 2 2 Trust 6 1 7 Intergovernmental coop 5 5 Planning 5 1 1 7 Regional thinking/approach 4 1 5 Political support 3 3 Community input/support 1 1 FNs 0 Commitment/interest 0 Resource over politics 0 Ability to deal with conflict 0 Integration 0 Board 5 7 1 13 Attitude 1 1 The area

559 Success Factor NL-W BC-W NS-W* WM Common goals/interests/ 4 5.5 9.5 understanding Communication/ 2 9.5 11.5 cooperation Time/persistence 5 5 11 21 Individuals/leaders 9 4 13 26 Government support 2 8 10 Flexibility 2.5 2.5 Local capacity/ capacity 4 3.5 7.5 building Funding/$ 3 2.5 5.5 Sharing costs and power 1 1 Trust 4.5 4.5 Intergovernmental coop 0 Planning 0 Regional 3 6.5 9.5 thinking/approach Political support 0 Community input/support 5 6 3.5 14.5 FNs 6 1.5 7.5 Commitment/ 5 7 12 interest Resource over politics 5 5 Ability to deal with conflict 2 2 Integration 3 3 Board 0 Attitude 0 The area 4 1 5

* #s divided by two for Bras d'Or responses to reduce Bras d‘Or bias due to high Bras d‘Or response #s for questions related to this topic.

560

Barriers/challenges to collaborative governance for S.D. – ―there are many, many pitfalls‖

NL-W (43) BC-W (13) NS-W (32) 1. Financial/economic (26) 1. a. Financial (9) 1. Education/awareness/ 2. Government support (24) b. Different agendas/ understanding (22) 3. Culture of exploitation (18) perspectives (9) 2. Resentment/differing 4. Fear of privatization/ common 2. Capacity/understanding (7) perspectives (21) property rights (17) 3. a. Government support (6) 3. Government (20) 5. a. Legitimacy/credibility and b. Integration/narrow focus 4. Silos/fragmentation in community support (13) 4. a. Politics (5) governance (19) b Time scales (13) b. Representation and 5. Timing/temporal scale (16) 6. Politics/political (12) communication (5) 6. Financial/reluctance to 7. a. Lack of intergovernmental 5. a. Competition (4) commit $ (14) coop. (10) b. Relationships (5) 7. Attitude (10) b. Communication (10) c. Time/bureaucracy (5) 8. a. Lack of clarity re. roles (9) b. Lack of communication (9) 8. Building community/ d. Personality (5) 9. Integration (8) stakeholder knowledge (9) e. Disconnect from the 10. Leadership/capacity (7) ecosystem (5)

Other: geography/scale (5), Other: developing common integration (5), conflict/ Other: Need for a more formal goals and principles (5), disagreement (4) structure (3), intergov‘l cooperation (3), conflict of complexity (4), evaluation (3), interest (3), conflict (2) lack of First Nations power (2), reactive approach (2), engagement (3) need for public education/ awareness (2)

561 NL-E (50) BC-E (21) NS-E (21) 1. Tightening rules/reduced 1. Community divisions: 1. Community divisions: conflict, flexibility, ―red tape‖ (19) conflict, competition, competition, difference (14) 2. a. Financial ($) (18) difference (17) * 2. Top down governance (11) b. Local capacity (18) 2. Reputation/lack of community 3. Lack of comm. support (8) 1. Community competition (14) support (14) 4. a. Silos – other (7) 2. Politics vs. planning (12) 3. a. Politics (10 – local 8) b. Financial ($) 3. Short-term thinking (11) b. Local capacity c. Clarifying roles 4. a. Implementation ability (10) c. Inclusion/dealing with d. Time scales b.Intergovernmental diversity e. HR capacity/leadership cooperation/coordination 4. a. Financial resources (9) 5. Politics (6) c. Government support ** b. Tightened rules/reduced 6. a. Geography/region size (5) 5. a. Diversification/traditional flexibility d. Transition/dealing with change fisheries focus (9) c. Lack of government support e. Integration/balance b. Macro-economic factors (non-financial) 7. a. Fragmentation (4) 5. Time scales (8) 6.a. Low public awareness and b. Bureaucratic/inflexible 6. a. Division within government, communication difficulties (8) government systems b. State of economy/natural b. Top down approach: resistance c. Lack of government support to loss of power resources, c. Attitudes, d. communication/confusion re. d.Recognizing facilitator role 7.a. Government dependency/lack mandate (7) 8. Agendas/self-interest (3) of local empowerment (6) 7.a. Cultural differences (6) 9. a. Natural resource sustainability b. Lack of government CD b. Government inability to deal (2) capacity/understanding with complexity c. Loss of diversity c. Negative attitudes 8. Distance/geography (5) Other: staff turnover, lack of 10. a. UI dependency, b. Lack of planning, liability, mistrust/ 9. Staff turnover (4) community support, understanding, dependency, a. Dependency (3) c. Geography/location (5) 10. conservatism, uncertainty, lack of b. Global markets/vulnerability marketing, negative attitude/image of region

* With respect to community divisions those between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities are the most frequently referred to in both NS-E and BC-E cases. ** In all cases lack of government support is a concern, however supportive individuals and/or agencies are also noted (by 1/3 of respondents in BC-E case, for example)

562

Barriers NL-E BC-E NS-E RED Financial 18 9 7 34 #3 Government 10 11 11 32 #4 Culture/disconnect from ecosystem Common property rights Community involvement/support 5 14 8 27 #7 Time/timing 11 8 7 26 #8 Politics 12 10 6 28 #6 Lack of intergovernmental coop 10 7 7 24 Communication 8 7 15 Knowledge/capacity 18 10 7 35 #2 Geography/scale 5 5 5 15 Integration (lack of, difficulty) 16 7 7 30 #5 Conflict and different agendas/ 14 17 14 45 #1 perspectives Attitude 9 7 3 19 Lack of clarity re. roles 7 7 14 Leadership 7 7 Complexity 6 6 Evaluation 0 Red tape/lack of flexibility 19 9 4 32 #4 Macroeconomic 9 3 12 State of economy/resources 7 2 9 Staff turnover 4 1 5 Dependency 5 3 1 9 Transition/dealing with change 5 5

563 NL-W BC-W* NS-W WM Financial 24 18 14 56 #2 Government 27 12 20 59 #1 Culture/disconnect from 18 10 4 32 #8 ecosystem Common property rights 17 private property 17 #12 Community 13 4 2 19 #11 involvement/support Time/timing 13 10 16 39 #6 Politics 12 10 22 #10 Lack of intergovt coop 10 12 19 41 #5 Communication 10 10 9 29 #9 Knowledge/capacity 9 14 22 45 #3 Geography/scale 5 5 Integration (lack of, 5 12 19 36 #7 difficulty) Conflict and different 4 18 21 43 #4 agendas/ perspectives Attitude 10 Lack of clarity re. roles 9 9 Leadership 7 7 Complexity 4 4 Evaluation 3 3 Red tape/lack of 1 6 7 flexibility Macroeconomic State of economy/ resources Staff turnover Dependency Transition/dealing with change

* BC-W response #s doubled to account for low response #s to questions related to this topic.

564 Leadership Capacity Indicators

Key Actors

Drivers/Primary Actors: Charlie Dennis, UINR CEO Winston Norris, IBEC General Manager Lawrence Ambers, ‗Namgis Band Manager Blaine Gillis, SHRDA CEO

NL-E/KEDC/ (16): 4 federal (1 political, 2 senior staff, 1 regional), 6 provincial (2 political, 1 senior staff, 2 mid-level, 3 regional), 2 staff, 2 community reps - 8 remaining (2005)

NS-E/SHRDA (7): 2 federal (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2 provincial (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2 former Board members, 1 staff member - 2 remaining (2005)

BC-E/MWCFDC (12): 4 federal (1 mid-level manager, 2 senior, 1 regional staff), 3 staff members, 2 Board members, 1 local politician, 1 town staff member, 1 First Nations NGO - 10 remaining (2005)

NL-W/IBEC (13): 5 federal (2 political, 1 regional staff, 2 mid-level manager), 6 provincial (2 political, 2 senior staff, 1 mid-level, 1 regional), 1 staff, 1 community rep. - 6 remaining (2005)

NS-W/Bras d‘Or (23): 3 federal (senior staff), 7 provincial (4 senior, 1 mid-level, 2 regional), 7 First Nations, 3 municipal (1 politician, 2 staff), 1 municipal/provincial politician, 2 NGO/community - 22 remaining (2005)

BC-W/NRMB (10): 2 federal (1 regional staff, 1 scientist), 3 First Nations, 1 consultant/community rep, 2 community/NGO, 1 academic, 1 industry - 8 remaining (2005)

―Key Actors‖ - Federal ―Key Actors‖ - Provincial Total/8 categories Political Sr. Mid Regional Political Sr Mid Reg‘l NL-E X X X X X X 7 NS-E X X X X 4 BC-E X X X 3

NL-W X X X X X X X 7 NS-W X X X X X 5 BC-W X X 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3

565 Reference to individuals as key actors/leadership as enablers

a. Reference to/dominance b. % referring to key actors of primary actors NL-E/KEDC 0 60% = 3 NS-E/SHRDA 2 58% = 3 – 1 = 2 BC-E/CFDC 1 44% = 2 NL-W/IBEC 2 43% = 2 NS-W/BD 3 81% = 4 – 1 = 3 BC-W/NRMB 3 40% = 2

Notes: 1. Based on % of respondents that answered the question re. enabling factors 2. b.: 4 = 75%+; 3 = 51-75%; 2 = 26-50%; 1 = 25% or less; 0 = 0%

Note: leadership also a barrier according to 33% of SHRDA respondents and 22% of Bras d‘Or therefore 1 deducted from each score.

Leadership diversity and continuity

Total # of key actors Diversity of key actors % of total remaining (overall) active in 2005 NL-E/KEDC 16 = 3 7 + 2 = 9 = 3/4 8 = 50% = 2 NS-E/ 7 = 1 4 + 2 = 6 = 2/4 2 = 29% = 2 SHRDA BC-E/CFDC 12 = 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 1.5/4 10 = 83% = 4 NL-W/IBEC 13 = 2 7 + 1 = 8 = 2.5/4 6 = 46% = 2 NS-W/BD 23 = 4 5 + 3 = 8 = 2.5/4 22 = 96% = 4 BC-W/ 10 = 1 2 + 5 = 7 = 2/4 8 = 80% = 4 NRMB

Notes: 1. Total # of key actors: 0 = 0 mentioned, 1 = 1-10, 2 = 11-15, 3 = 16-20, 4 = 20+ 2. Diversity of key actors considers the presence of key actors within each of the eight senior government categories noted above + 1 for any of the following: municipal, First Nation, private sector, academic and NGO/community other (= rating/12 converted to score of 4).

Key actor continuity: 4 = 75%+ remaining (2005 vs. total); 3 = 51-75% remaining; 2 = 26-50% remaining; 1 = 25% or less remaining; 0 = 0%

566 Leadership training/expertise in field and governance + recruitment

Training/expertise Recruitment/replacement efforts NL-E/KEDC 2 2 NS-E/SHRDA 3 2 BC-E/CFDC 2 2 NL-W/IBEC 2 2 NS-W/BD 3 4 BC-W/NRMB 3 3

Notes: 1. Training considers formal training, experience and access to in-house technical expertise + interview responses 2. Recruitment: 2 = youth involvement, most commonly for example; 4 = active recruitment and new leadership training efforts

Overall leadership index

/28 /20 NL-E/KEDC 15 11 NS-E/SHRDA 14 10 BC-E/CFDC 14.5 10 NL-W/IBEC 14.5 10 NS-W/BD 23.5 17 BC-W/NRMB 18 13

Note: /28 totalled from above tables. As with other indices all factors are considered equal.

567 Appendix 15 - Overall case study comparison (rankings relative to other cases in the policy sub-system)

IBEC BD NRMB KEDC SHRDA MWCFDC (NL-W) (NS-W) (BC-W) (NL-E) (NS-E) (BC-E) Outcomes rating M/H M L M H M Circumstance/Context Complexity – actors L H M M H L Complexity – issues L H M M M/H M Complexity – L M/H H ecosystems Overall complexity L H M/H M H/M M Capacity Organizational M H L/M L H M Relational M H L M H M Leadership M H M/H M L/M L/M Principles Principles of good L H M L M/H M/H governance Principles of L/M H M L/M M H collaboration Principles of M H L L H M sustainability Collaborative Governance Criteria Multi-scale M H H M H/M L Multi-sector M H L H H H Multi-objective/ M/H H L/M L/M H M ecosystem-based Learning, adaptive L/M H M L/M H/M M - L (past), recent evidence of M/H Degree of power M H L/M L H M sharing Additional Key Characteristics Initiation Comm. Comm./ Comm./ Gov‘t/ Gov‘t/ Gov‘t Gov‘t Gov‘t Comm Comm Years in operation H L M M/L M H (current form) (1995) (1995) (1986/92) Degree of local L M/H M/H L M/H M/H control in agenda setting Budget size L H M M L H Local revenue L H M L M/H M/H sources Funding diversity L M H L H M

568

Figure 15.1. Multi-scale

BC-E NL-W, NL-E, NS-E NS-W, BC-W

Figure 15.2. Multi-sector

NL-E , BC-E, NS- BC-W NL-W E, NS-W

Figure 15.16. Multi-objective

NL-E BC-E, BC-W NS-W, NL-W, NS-E

Figure 15.4. Learning, adaptive, multi-temporal

BC-E, NL-W, NS- NL-E NS-E BC-W W

569

1. NL-W 2. NS-W 3. BC-W 4. NL-E 5. NS-E 6. BC-E Power sharing positions adjusted using dotted arrows (and temporal integration of BC-W)

2 3 5 .

1 4 .

1. NL-W lowest complexity, medium/high performance, medium capacity, high financial and decision-making constraints, formal, concentrated but open semi-adaptive/learning structure, single sector emphasis but multi-objective –informal vs. formal evaluation

2. NS-W: high capacity, medium performance collaborative, adaptive/learning network structure – social learning, pluralist/issue network

3. BC-W multi-level, single sector focused (also NL-W to a lesser extent), power struggle burdened, medium capacity, low performance, adaptive, semi- formal, semi- concentrated/triad structure

4. NL-E: government-dominated, medium complexity/, low capacity, low performance, financially constrained formal structure (with recent evidence of adaptation – possibly overcorrection)

5. NS-E: high capacity, high performance collaborative, adaptive, formal semi-concentrated structure – lesson-drawing, corporatist (Howlett and Ramesh 1995)

6. BC-E: isolated/region-focused, medium performance, and capacity formal, semi-concentrated collaborative structure

570