RURAL PLANNING AND COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Samantha J. Murphy
Subrnitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban and Rural Planning
Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia April 200 1
O Copyright by Samantha J. Murphy, 2001 National Libmy Bibliothèque nationale me1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 WeHington Street 395, nre Wellington Onawa ON KiA ON4 OttawaON K1AW Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence aliowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni Ia thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Dedication Paee
To my parents, for introducing me to both sides of the question, and to Matt, for getting me through this. Table of Contents
List of Illustrations and Tables ...... vii... Abstmct ...... ~111 List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used ...... ix Acknowledgements ...... x Chapter 1 .Introduction ...... I 1.1 Purpose of Study ...... 1 1.2 Terms and Concepts Used ...... 4 Endnotes ...... 6 Chapter 2 .The Prince Edward Island Context ...... 7 2.1 Provincial Profile...... 7 2.1.1 Major characteristics ...... 7 2.2.2 History of programs and funding ...... 12 2.2 PEI Comprehensive Development Plan ...... 13 2.2.1 The development of the Comprehensive Development Plan (1970-1985) ...... 13 2.2.2 The Plan. the planners. and community development ...... 15 2.2.3 The legacy of the Comprehensive Develupment Plan ...... 16 2.2.4 PEI post-Plan - the Island today ...... 16 Endnotes ...... 17
Chapter 3 O The Practice of Rural Planning ...... 19 3.1 Rural Planning - Theory and Pnctice., ...... 19 3.1.1 Rural planning described ...... 19 3.2.2 Goals and objectives of rural planning ...... 20 3.1.3 The rural planning process ...... 22 3.2 New Models for Community-Based Rural Planning ...... 25 3.2.1 The need for new models ...... 25 3.2.2 Using rhe models ...... 25 3.2.3 Stepping Forward kif (Rural and Small Town Programme. Mount Allison) .. 25 3.2.4 First Nations Community Pfanning Mode1 (Cities & Environment Unit. Dalhousie) ...... 27 3.2.5 Analysis of methodologies ...... 28 3.3 Rural Planning in Prince Edward Island...... 32 3.3.1 Statutory conditions for planning in PEI ...... 32 3.3.2 Role of Province ...... 33 3.3.3 Local governance ...... 34 3.3.4 Creuting Oficial Plans Rr By-Laws...... 36 3.3.5 Unincorporated areus in Prince Edward Island ...... 38 3.3.6 Major issues / challenges for rural planning in PEI ...... 38 Endnotes ...... 43 Chapter 4 .The Practice of Community Development ...... 45 4.1 Community Development - Theory and Practice ...... 45 4.1.1 Community developmenf and regional inequality in Canada ...... 45 4.1.2 Public policy and regional developrnenf...... 48 4.1.3 Community -6ased action...... 50 4.1.4 Local developmcnt organizations...... 53 4.2 The Prince Edward Island Community Development Bureau ...... 58 4.2.1 Mandate for the PEI Community Development Bureau ...... 58 4.22 Steps in the community development process ...... 61 4.2.3 Role of the Community Developmenf Oficer (& Government) ...... 64 4.24 Challenges for the CDB ...... 64 4.2.5 Results ...... 66 Endnotes ...... 70 Chapter 5 - Linking Planning and Community Development .mm.....mmm....74 5.1 Comparing the two processes ...... 74 5.1.1 Similarities between the CDB process and PEI planning practices ...... 74 5.1.2 Similarities between the CDB process and fhe two models ...... 75 5.1.3 The relutionship betwcen comrnunity devefopment and planning in PEI ...... 78 5.2 Impediments to a linked pmess...... ,...... o...... o...... 79 5.2.1 Communication betwcen the two existing processes ...... 79 5.2.2 Attitudes and history...... 80 5.2.3 Departmental oreas of jurisdiction ...... 81 5.2.4 Local governance system ...... 81 5.3 Consequences of Existing Conditions - Arguments for Change ...... 83 5.3.1 Duplication by different orgunizations ...... 83 5.3.2 Incomplete processes .protecting the process ...... 84 5.3.3 Potential for conjlict / contradicting goals ...... 86 5.4 Recommendations ...... 86 5.4.1 Connecting the processes - Enhanced communication ...... 86 5.4.2 Consideration of Joint Oficial Plans ...... 86 5.4.3 Status of the Comrnunity Development Bureau ...... 87 5.4.4 Status of provincial p fanning ...... 87 5.4.5 Local governance in Prince Edward Island ...... 88 Endnotes ...... 90
Chapter 6 - Conclusion mommmmmmoommoo~mmmmommommmmmmommoommmmmmoooooommm91 6.1 Implications of Study ...... 91 6.1. I Overview of /Nidings...... 91 6.1.2 Lessons for Prince Edward Island ...... 91 6.1.3 Summary of recommendations ...... 94 6.1.4 L essons regarding the rclationship beiween planning and community development...... 95 Appendix 1- Prince Edward Island Municipalities...... 98 List of IlIustrations and Tables
Figure 2.1. Map of Prince Edward Island ...... 7 Figure 3.1. Rural Planning Wheel ...... 19 Figure 3.2. Stepping Fonvurd Kit - Stages and Seps of the Planning Process...... 26 Figure 33: First Nations Cornmunity Planning Model - Stages of the Planning Process ...... 28 Figure 3.4. Comparing the Planning Methodologies .Similarities & Differences ...... 29 Figure 3.5. Elements of Community Planning ...... 31 Figure 3.6. Regulatory Aspects of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island ...... 32 Figure 3.7. Planning In Prince Edward Island - Separation of Jurisdiction ...... 33 Figure 3.8: Capacity Building Aspects of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island ...... 35 Figure 3.9: Division of provincial and municipal planning at the provincial level of governmen t ...... 36 Figure 3.10. Municipalities in Prince Edward Island ...... 37 Figure 3.11: Long Term Change Through Community Planning in Prince Edward Island ...... 38 Figure 3.12. Elements of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island ...... 41 Figure 4.1: Federül Governrnent Development Initiatives and Corresponding Programs and Departments...... 48 Figure 4.2: Prince Edward Island Community Development Areas as presently defined ...... 59 Figure 4.3. Organizational chart of the Community Development Bureau ...... 60 Figure 4.4. Make-up of Community Development Areas ...... 62 Figure 4.5. Stages of Community Planning ...... 68 Figure 5.1: Capacity Building Aspects of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island ...... 75 Figure 5.2: Similarities in Process - Community Developrnent & Municipal Planning .78 Figure 53: Comparison of Community Development & Municipal Planning ...... 79 Figure 5.4: Impediments to Linking Community Development & Municipal Planning .80 Figure 5.5. Regulatory Aspects of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island ...... 82 Figure 5.6: Long Term Change Through Community Planning in Prince Edward Island
vii Abstract
In Prince Edward Island, changing patterns of life are having an impact on the quality, and vitality, of many rural communities. Past patterns of urbanization, lack of employment opportunities at home, changes in the ability of residents to live off primary resources, and recent trends of new movement to rural communities al1 combine to make a renewed sense of community (one that includes new and old residents) a growing concern and a real priority for government and community groups alike.
In July 1999, the Government of Prince Edward Island launched a new comrnunity development initiative called the Community Development Bureau, whose mandate was to help rural communities in the province reach higher levels of self-reliance and sustainability. Enhancing local leadership, supporting local strengths, and motivating action at the comrnunity level, it was thought, could counter local challenges such as de- population in some cornmunities, loss of traditional means of employment, a lack of local control, and environmental issues. Meanwhile, the Province of Prince Edward Island does have a Planning & Inspection Services division responsible for planning at the provincial level and for overseeing municipal-level planning.
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to explore planning and community development in Prince Edward Island in order to understand how they relate to each other in that province and elsewhere, if and how they are linked, and the impact they have, jointly or separately, on Island communities. There is no question about whether or not the Province is thinking about the future, the needs of Island communities, and what actions need to be taken. The interesting thing, however, is how projects, programs and strategies directed at the needs of Islanders and future conditions relate to each other. What becomes obvious from an examination of the layout of government programs is that there is not always a clear and coherent strategy that links the various government strategies together. Provincial planning, as it presently exists, is il1 equipped to respond to the needs of unincorporated or non-planning incorporated communities. The Comrnunity Development Bureau has undertaken a process of community-building that incorporates a holistic view of communi ty transformation but whose organizational structure, while it is one with which most Islanders willingly identify - regional communities - does not permit more formalized planning. Community development cannot readily, therefore, link up wi:h municipalities in a CO-ordinated planning process. Overlap of boundaries, goals, and jurisdiction end up hindering the ability of the Govemment and its various departments and agencies to fully integrate and build on what is occurring in different areas. Duplication and missed opportunities then become a clear danger, even given great potential for comprehensive and integrated action.
This observation leads to the conclusion that lslanders do in fact wish to plan for the future of their community, given an environment of support in terms of facilitators and funding, when that planning involves empowerment and an emphasis on solutions and cooperation rather than control and regulations. viii List of Abbreviations and Symbols Used ACOA Atlan tic Canada Opportunities Agency ARDA Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act ARED Agreement on Regional Economic Development CAP Canada Assistance Plan CBC Community Business Corporation CD Community Development CDA Community Development Areas CDB Community Development Bureau CDC Community Development Corporation CD0 Community Developrnent Officer CDP Comprehensive Development Plan CED Community Economic Development CHST Canada Health and Social Transfer CIC Community Improvement Committee CIP Canadian Institute of Planners CPC Community Planning Committee DIMA Development Isle Madame DREE Department of Regional Economic Expansion FRED Fund for Rural Economic Development HRDC Human Resource Development Canada IRAC Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission LDO Local Development Organisation LEAP Local Employment Assistance Program LFI Local Financial Institution LIDA Local Initiative Development Association LIP Local Initiative Program LMDA Labour Market Development Agreement LTI bcal Training Institution LUSC Land Use Services Centre MA PEI Municipali f ies Act PA PEI Planning Act PEI Prince Edward Island RDC Rural Development Council Acknowledgemeats
Various people in Prince Edward Island were kind enough to give time to this project, including Bill Buell, Melody Beck and Nancy Murphy of the Community Development Bureau, Darlene Rhodenizer and another planner with the Department of Community and Cultural Affairs, Rochelle Gallant from the Executive Council Office, Harry Baglole from the Institute of Island Studies (UPEI), and Edward MacDonald of the Department of History at the University of Prince Edward Island. The community development corporations from the Gulf Shore Area and the Cardigan Area were also kind enough to allow me to attend committee meetings and public meetings for their cornmunities, giving me the opportunity to see the Community Development Bureau process in action. Staff members from the Rural and Small Town Programme at Mount Allison University were very helpful, as were the members of Dalhousie's Ciiies and Environment Unit. Others who helped out include Ken Shelton, a former planner with the PEI Land Use Services Centre, and Islanders formerly involved with the Rural Development Council and other community development projects during the Comprehensive Developrnent Plan years.
1 also received a great deai of assistance from my thesis committee, Susan Guppy and Frank Palerrno, as well as Fred Wien from the Maritime School of Social Work, who graciously allowed me to sit in on his classes. Finally, the environment of mutual support and learning created by the MURP class has been an incredible gift.
My thanks to ail of these individuals. Chapter 1 - Introduction
"And she said again, 'Tell me about your home land.' And alrhough i had breakfasted with senators and shaken hands with presidents, I could Say absolutely nothing to this old woman. Finally I said, 'in America we have careers, not places. ' "The look of piîy in her eyes burned me, became a constant pressure Iike a seed in rny shoe, and after a while I really had no choice but to return to the place where i grew up - Seattle, Washington - and to try to re-establish a sense of connecrion to a place, to a comrnunity. " Alan Durning, Ways We ~iw'
1.1 Purpose of Study Creating and fostering 'community' and a sense of place is really what both community development and rural planning is about. Social connections are critical for communities to grow in healthy ways. Improving and protecting quality of life, with al1 that entails regarding health, the state of the environment, the ability of individuals to support themselves and options for recreation, is what makes planning efforts and community development worthwhile. in Prince Edward Island, many would argue that the state of 'community' is not nearly as bad as the above quotation would suggest. Perhaps it is the reality of being an island, perhaps the small scale of the province, but regardless, the great majority of Islanders cannot help but be aware of where they are from. This awareness is not unbounded, however, and changing patterns of Iife are having an impact on the quality, and vitality, of many rural communities. Past patterns of urbanization, lack of employment opportunities at home, changes in the ability of residents to live off primary resources, and recent trends of new movement to rural communities al1 combine to make a renewed sense of community (one that includes new and old residents) a growing concern and a real priority for government and community groups alike.
In July 1999, the Government of Prince Edward Island launched a new community development initiative called the Community Development Bureau, whose mandate was to help rural communities in the province reach higher levels of self-reliance and sustainability. Given the government's position that rural communities were central to the Island's economy and sense of place, the new program was designed to foster a local, 1 community-driven process of issue-identification and project developrnent. Enhancing local leadership, supporting local strengths, and motivating action at the community level, it was thought, could counter local challenges such as de-population in some communities, loss of traditional means of employment, a lack of local control, and environmental issues. Meanwhile, the Province of Prince Edward Island does have a Planning & Inspection Services division responsible for planning at the provincial level and for overseeing municipal-level planning. The Government distinguishes between planning, which it places under the Department of Community Affairs & Cultural Affairs, and community development, located within the Department of Development & Technology.
Only five years before the founding of the Community Development Bureau, the Mount Allison University Rural & Small Town Programme in Sackville, New Brunswick, published a community guide to preparing "a strategic plan based on principles of sustainable community develoPment."~eStepping Forward kit was designed to walk community members through the process of getting started, collecting information, and creating a community plan. One year after the Community Development Bureau was established, the Cities & Environment Unit at Dalhousie University developed the First Nation Contmrtniy Planning Mo&, which was created in order to provide First Nation communities on the East Coast with the tools necessary to undertake community-based planning.
A quick comparison of the PEI Community Development Bureau, the Stepping Forward kit, and the First Nations Model revealed many similarities in terms of principles, objectives, and elements in the process. All three are concerned with enabling communities to take the future of their area into their own hands, finding solutions to local challenges that reflect local concems, values, and strengths. All three are interested in a democratic process that is accountable to al1 members of the community, in finding solutions that are sustainable and that enhance local self-reliance. All three speak of developing a community vision - a direction for the future - and designing strategies or projects that will realize that vision. Indeed, at first glance, differences between the three processes appear to be superficial.
The question that mises from an examination of the various government community development and planning programs, as well as the two planning models, has to do with the relationship between planning and community development in Prince Edward Island and elsewhere. If the province is already engaged in planning, why has it established another process that bears many similarities to two community planning models? 1s the Community Development Bureau facilitating a forrn of community planning ar.d if so, how does this planning relate to provincial planning efforts? How does planning as it exists in PEI compare to the processes described in the two models?
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to explore planning and community development in Prince Edward Island in order to understand how they relate to each other in that province and elsewhere, if and how they are linked, and the impact they have, jointly or separately, on Island communities. The two planning models will be used to establish criteria and characteristics of the planning process to aid in the analysis.
In order to understand the place of the Cornmunity Development Bureau and planning in the workings of the province, a context will first be established. This profile (Chapter 1) will provide an overview of the Island's history, demographic make-up, and current debates. In the following chapter, the world of rural planning will be explored, as it exists in theory and in practice on the Island. This practice will be compared with the two planning models to determine how they are related. After this, the study will turn to the question of community development and the PEI Community Development Bureau in order to demonstrate how that process fits into the Island landscape. And finally, the relationship between planning and community development on PEI will be explored in Chapter 5, where links and gaps will be highlighted as well as the consequences of these gaps. It is not the goal of this study to establish which of the processes is more useful or important, rather, it is aimed at understanding how they relate to each other as well as how they meet the needs of rural Island communities. 1.2 Terms and Concepts Used To clarify the various processes examined in this study. the concepts require some definition. The first of these concepts that will be used extensively throughout this study is that of planning, defined by the Canadian lnstitute of Planners as "the planning of the scienti fic. aesthetic, and orderly disposition of land, resources, facilities and services with a view to securing the physical, economic, and social efficiency, health and well-being of urban and rural comm~nities."~Edge Land, an Australian planning fim interested in questions of rural planning, adds that rural planning is essentially concerned with the issue of growth management."
Planning can be broken further into various categories, however. The most common understanding of planning is that of land use planning, or the organization of different land uses and the built environment in order to minimize conflict and prevents problems relating to public health and safety. Another category of planning might be social planning, which concerns itself with the social service design and delivery. Comprchensive or strategic planning is an attempt to bring together the consideration of al1 aspects of a comrnunity, including social, physical, and economic, in an integrated fashion, in order to develop strategies and solutions that will realize the community's vision. This is also sometimes called communiîy planning. Communiîy-based planning, on the other hand, is not a category of planning, but rather an understanding of the process of planning where the process comes frorn the community, is owned by the community, and motivates the comm~nit~.~This is in opposition to planning that is done for the community - often despite the community - and handed to the community at the end. Community-building is facilitated through the process and provides for local control while inspiring local solutions.
The other part of the study revolves around the concepts of community development and communiîy economic development. Community development (CD) m igh t be understood as a process of getting a particular comrnunity (social or geographic) to act together to build self-reliance and overcome social, physical, and sometimes economic, challenges, often through projects and programs. Community economic development (CED), according to one study, is a form of regional development based on local resources, which has as an objective "self-reliance and the fulfillment, through local control, of long-term cornmunity social, cultural, economic and political need~."~The emphasis here is on economic development and CED has in the past has relied heavily on financial or economic indicators to measure and evaluate success, with a resulting leaning toward job creation and retraining.
It is often hard to draw the line between planning and community development. Some would argue that community development can be achieved through community-based planning, as is suggested in the Slepping Fornard kit. Others would Say that the difference between the two is the emphasis placed on end products and physical change in planning, and on the process in comrnunity development. It is also difficult to generalize, as the comrnon understanding of both planning and community development has changed over the years and is often very different depending on the specific delivery program. Taking Prince Edward Island as a case study provides an opportunity to look at the two processes together with the goal of developing a better understanding of how they relate to each other. The study relies on a review of existing literature, govenment reports and Iegislation, attendance at public and cornmittee meetings, and interviews with community development officers, planners, and others interested in questions of community in Prince Edward Island.
In any sense, it is now time to look more closely at the specific examples at hand and determine how they, as living, breathing processes, relate to each other. Endnotes
1 Susan Berlin, Ways We Live: Exploring Community (Gabriola Island: New Society Pubiishers, 1997), 21. 'Stepping FO~YQrd: Discovering Community Potert tial, Acting on Challenges, vol. 1 (1994; Sackville: Rural and Small Town Programme, 19981, copyright page. 3 "What Planners Do," Canadian Institute of Planners, January 17,2001 chttp://www.cip-icu.ca>. 4 "Australian Rural Planning," Edge Land Planning, January 15, 2001 2.1 Provincial Profile 2.1.1 Major characteristics Figure 2.1: Map of Prince Edward Island One of the most unique features of Prince Edward lsland is the distribution of the population in that province. PEI is the most densely populated province in the country (lacking the vast interiors or northern reaches) and yet rernains mostly rural - the populations of Island municipalities range from 2,000 to 72 people (not including the four largest m~nici~alities).'The population is by far the smallest of al1 Canadian provinces at 137,800.' Of these, 57,216 people are located in the four largest cities and towns, Charlottetown, Summerside, Stratford and Cornwall. The remaining 77,341 people are spread out among small towns, villages and rural communities, some of which, though not al], are incorporated as muni~i~alities.~Population growth is modest and is expected to slow and eventually reverse in the absence of a concerted govemment program to encourage small amounts of immigration. Currently, the province receives only 0.07% of al1 immigration to Canada, with a net international migration of +80 people per year and a net intra-provincial migration of - 40 to -70 people per year! The majority of Islanders are of British descent (42%), with a small but vibrant Acadian community (9.6% of population), a small Mi'kmaq population (2.9%), and an even smaller number of visible minorities, most notably the Lebanese cornm~nit~.~ Island comrnunity life is a close-knit one that draws heavily on personal connections, traditions, and community support networks. It has builr up a rnyth of isolation, an island outside of mainstrearn Canadian society, and yet it has both a strong tradition of seasonal migration to other parts of the country and some 47,500 Islanders living "away," with resulting strong links to other provinces and countriesO6 The Island is a province that enjoys its politics and rnany clairn that "who you know" can go much farther in determining eligibility for employment or funding than what you know. The Island resembles many rural places in its ciose links between residents and their political representatives. Perhaps due to the scale of the province, questions of funding, patronage and the role of the government appear almost daily in newspapers and local conversations. This relationship between residents and representatives is quite infhential in the distribution of funding programs, as the former approach the latter to access funding armed with ideas for projects. This process replaces, in many instances, community organisations or government structures as forums for determining funding allocation. The rural nature of the province, as well as the distribution of population within the province, has an important impact on education and training levels - 55.4% of Islanders have received no more than elementary or secondary schooling, compared to the 52.8% nation-wide. Levels achieved differ within the province as well, with Queens County (with the bulk of the urban population) showing more residents with post-secondary training than the other two counties. This provincial variation has much to do with access to post-secondary schooling, as well as employment opportunities after graduation - many rural Islanders have to move to Charlottetown to attend university or college and subsequently remain to seek employment. Moreover, the availability of employment opportunities affects the number of trained or educated Islanders who are able to remain in the province to work after attending university or college. In turn, this migration pattern means that rural cornrnunities often face great difficulty in maintaining population levels, and individuals frequently have to make hard choices about whether to stay in their community or pursue education and training goals. A cycle is created, where trained individuals locate in or close to urban areas to find employment, and businesses then locate in these areas, confident of a source of trained employees. It soon becomes even harder to find work or services in the more remote areasa7 The resulting urban-rural split has implications for income levels, job satisfaction, community investment, and in some cases, the very viability of the continued existence of the community. At the same time, the hard-to-quantify 'sense of place' is a quality many new or returning Islanders cite as a drawing feature of the Island, and is linked to the strong sense of community spirit that still exists in rnost parts of PEI. It is a quality that some believe is presently threatened by population issues in rural areas throughout the province.8 Religion has also been a defining influence in Island community life. Churches have been and continue to be central to the social networks, often providing the only public places available for gatherings, meetings, and social events.' While there has been inter- denominational tension in some instances, there is also an Island tradition of CO-operation and many church functions are attended and supported by rnembers from other denorninations." Social networks remain important and it is not unusual to hear of dances or concerts being held in support of individuals or families facing hard times or critical situations such as the loss of a home.' ' The Island is also small in terms of its land base. With a total of 5,660 square kilometres, the province stretches out 224 kilometres, with a width of between 6 and 64 kilometres." The topography is characterized by low level, soft rolling hills that reach 142 metres above sea level at their highest point of elevation.I3 Famous for its red soil, the Island is often called the 'million acre farm' in reference to the large proportion of Island land dedicated to agricultural activities and the rural quality of the province has therefore always prompted much discussion." Prince Edward Island is unique in Canada for its legislation restricting the amount of land that may be held by non-resident, resideni or corporate landowners, although local ownership and land use is less regulated. This emphasis on local control and ownership is often said to date back to the colonisation of the province, where the entire Island was deeded to foreign landowners in a lot system. Land use and local control continue to be hot topics on the Island: and are influential in restricting the amount and level of debate over government control or regulation. As an lsland planner pointed out, Premier Alex Campbell attributed a near defeat in 1979 to his government's attempts to regulate land use? As mentioned earlier, more than half of the Island's population is currently located outside of the four largest communities, and there has been a recent trend of increased rates of growth in the non-farm rural population.'6 With the decreasing number of individuals involved in the traditional primary agricultural and fishing sectors, more people are finding it necessary to travel or move to the urban centres where jobs can be found. Urban and suburban sprawl are large concems in the province, prompting the creation of buffer zones around Charlottetown, Stratford and Cornwall between 1993 and 1995, allowing for more careful control of land subdivision and development patterns by the province.'7 The Island has an ageing transportation infrastructure that includes no element of public transportation. Most of the roads are underused, although the Island is tied with Saskatchewan for the highest number of metres of pavement per capita.'' Indeed, the paving of the roads is cited by Island historian, Edward MacDonald, as one of the most influential events in terms of the development of Island society: The philosophy behind hard-surfacing was simple: to make Me easier for rural Islanders. And all-weather roads clearly did that. But they also helped to undermine rural communities. The coming of the pavement completed the transportation revolution begun by the advent of the motor car. For generations, the limitations imposed by technology and topography had dictated that the necessaries of rural life be located within the distance that could be covered in one day by a horse and buggy on a clay road. Most rural people worked, played, worshipped, politicked, shopped, gossiped, courted, and were educated alrnost entirely within the borders of the horse-drawn kingdom. Cars and pavement changed al1 that. It was the Pavement that made school consolidation at last practical. It was the Pavement that ensured that farrners who wanted to increase their acreage could travel to more distant fields and get their larger crops hmfield to shipping point. The Pavement meant a person could live in the country, but not work there. The Pavement allowed shoppers to seek lower prices in town, that the local general store could never hope to match. The Pavement mixed people from different communities more often and more easily. The Pavement broadened the playing field of romance. The Pavement brought people to dances and concerts and hockey matches and baseball games half a county away and more. Pavement made life larger.I9 This great change in the way lslanders live their lives is al1 the more significant because of the relatively short period of time over which it has occurred - within the past 40-50 years. These changes to daily life continue to affect communities today as they struggle with questions of survival, sustainability, and self-reliance. The Island is connected to New Brunswick by the Confederation Bridge (compIeted in 2997), as well as a ferry service to Nova Scotia that closes for the winter months. Services such as fire protection, garbage collection, and streetlights are municipal responsibilities, as are sewage collection and treatment, recreation services, police protection and the maintenance of local streets in the case of towns and communities incorporated as villages.'0 The entire province depends on groundwater for its drinking water." The traditional sources of income on PEI have been agriculture and fishing, with tourism a close third. While in the past farming in PEI has been practised in a mostly small family farm setting, the size of farms has been growing in recent years and the number of individuals involved in the industry has been steadily decreasing, despite growing annual cash receipts. This trend is cause for concern for many farmers as they see fewer and fewer people from the next generation willing to continue on the tradition." Recently, tourism has become even more important to the Island's economy, as has the manufacturing sector, due in part to the growing aeronautics industry located in Summerside's Slemon Park. The province is also presently striving to develop its knowledge-based sectors and is encouraging al1 information technology-related endeavours, including cal 1- centre^.'^ Unemployment in the province has dropped from 14.9% in 1997 to 11.7% in February 2001, and many Islanders, especially those who do not wish to leave their community, rely on seasonal employment insurance benefits to supplement income from the sumrner." Child poverty affects more than one in seven Island children (14.9%) and the minimum wage is among the lowest in the country at $5.60 an ho~r.~The economy appears to be one of the main motivators for out-migration, especially for lslanders with higher or more specialized levels of training. A recent panel established to design a population strategy for the Island identified other factors, however, that add to the 'cost' of being or becoming an Islander, which included openness of society, housing, public transportation, access to health services. and quality of ed~cation.'~ 2.1.2 History of programs and finding Issues of regional underdevelopment on Prince Edward Island and in the Atlantic Region as a whole have long been a concern to both local and federal govemments, resulting in a long list of federal prograrns and departments designed to 'solve the problem' (see further discussion in Chapter 4). These efforts have resulted in the creation of the Local Initiative Program (LIP), Local Employment Assistance Program (LEAP), Local Initiative Development Association (LIDA), Community Employment Strategies, Community Futures programs, Department of Regionrit Economic Expansion (DREE), and most recently, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), not to overlook other partnerships, funds, and projects designed to reduce regional disparity. Sorne of these programs focused on job training, others on initiatives and community projects that would provide temporary employrnent to youth and others. In many cases, the programs were designed to provide individuals with enough work that they could qualify for unemployment benefits, or 'pogey.' Critics of past efforts insist that the majority of these programs did little to address structural problems that led to cycles of dependency and that they relied heavily on (and thus were designed around) economic indicators such as total income figures that did not necessarily reflect the ability of individuals to sustain themselves without subsidies, or the ability of comrnunities to cultivate local solutions. Others insisted that these prograrns in fact resulted in unfair competition for individuals accessing funding, while doing little to build community nehuorks that rnight take over. Many of these programs were short-lived, others were intended only to last a year or two. ACOA, which was launched in the late 1980s, still exists. Community development and econom ic development also sprang up through the grassroots over the years. There was a strong CO-operative and adult education movement that received a lot of its inspiration from Father Coady and his Antigonish Movement. The Island Acadian community is still cited as being one of the stronger examples of community-driven change, as credit unions, farming CO-operatives and fish CO-operatives were established to lend support to a faltering francophone community in an anglophone province. While these movements were strongest in the 1930s through to the 1960s, they created a base and a tradition of rallying the community in times of trouble, a tradition that counters in part the increased dependency on government transfers, subsidies, and benefits. In ternis of lasting impact and legacy, however, there is one program unique to PEI that overshadows al1 the rest - the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan. 2.2 PEI Comprehensive Development Plan 2.2.1 The development of the Comprehensive Development Plan (1970-1985) The Comprehensive Developrnent Plan (the Plan) was an initiative unique in scate and objectives in the country. When it finally fizzled out in 1985, it had left very little of the Island untouched in one form or another - it is likely that some Island families would not even be presently living on PEI had it not been for one elemeni or another of the plan." Indeed, the present concern over the decreasing number of families engaged in small- scale agriculture can be linked back to policies developed under the Plan, only one example of the rnany impacts the Plan had in changing the face of the province.'s Even Island attitudes regarding the value and impact of planning activity in the province today can be linked back to the role planning played for fi fteen years. Arnong al1 the government programs developed over the years, the Plan was interesting in tenns of its comprehensiveness. Planners recognised that job creation or hurnan resource development would only be successful if al1 parts of the equation were considered in tandem. Change would not happen if designed in a piecemeal fashion. The result was the Comprehensive Development Plan, initiated in 1969 and presented in 1970. The Plan represented a partnership between the federal and provincial govemments, and a team of planners from Ottawa was sent down to study PEI'S situation and suggest a long-term strategy to improve the lot of Islanders. In true fashion of the day, Island culture and structure were analysed, compared to other, more 'successful' places, and solutions were prescribed.2g The plan was both a strategy for development and a mechanism for distributing funding to community groups and other organisations. Thus began the heyday of planning in PEI. As stated above, the Development Plan was designed to restructure the entire province on a multi-sectoral basis in order to achieve lasting change based on modernization and efficiency. No element of lsland life was ignored, and public services especially were reconsidered. There were four main program areas: resource development and adjustment, social development, resource-supporting and commercial services, and implementations. The list of elements to be refonned or rebuilt included agriculture, fisheries, education, tourism, forestry, manufacturing, public service, health and welfare services, housing, and infrastructure." School consolidation, long considered but rarely attempted, was one of the major undertakings. Mechanization of farming and the attraction of rnanufacturing endeavours were envisioned, planned for, and sought after. Many of the programs and initiatives under which a whole generation of Islanders grew up can be traced back to the Development Plan. Public participation was intended to play a large role in the process, although it was often expressed in terrns of making "the population in generdl aware of the opportunities and provisions of the Comprehensive Development Plan" so that the public could in tum access funding or other programs.3' The planners sought CO drag the lsland away from its rnythological past of the subsistence farmer into a present characterized by large-scale industry and shiny machinery." 2.2.2 The Plan, the planners, and community development The Plan symbolized a great time for planners in PEI. The provincial government created the Land Use Services Centre (LUSC), and later two regional planning boards (1974-1988), as a way of CO-ordinating planning efforts, and the LUSC was abuzz with activity. Different departments were responsible for such aspects of planning as community planning, subdivision and development, business parks, and so on. There was very little that planning could not achieve. Planners had access to personnel, equipment, and resources as have not been seen since on the ~sland." Community development as it is being explored in this study also has its roots in the days of the Comprehensive Development Plan, through the link to the Rural Development Council (RDC). The RDC formed slowly and unofficially in the 1960s as a grassroots group of individuals concerned with rural development and community life on the Island. Over the years, it developed as a thorn in the side of the provincial government, challenging top-down policies wherever it could.-"' It was interested in training community members in the leadership skills required to build community from the ground up, without depending on traditional links to political representatives - a goal not appreciated by many politicians.35 When the Plan was launched, the element of public participation - deemed so central to the success of the Plan - was debated, and the RDC was approached as a vehicle for sharing information with communities. The RDC, with some trepidation, agreed to take on the role, and signed a contract to undertake four projects including voluntary institute support services, community development and program planning for the Lennox Island First Nation, community resource development, and counselling on behalf of Government. This act would eventually lead to the demise of the group as its independence from government came into question.36 Of interest to the research question at hand, though, was the concept of cornmunity development embodied in the RDC's efforts. A program was designed where communities would identify local leaders, who would then guide the community through a process of information collection, issue- identification, and strategic community planning.37 7ot incidentally, many of those involved in the present Community Development Bureau, community development commi ttees, and non-governmental organisations, were active in one way or another with the RDC or the Comprehensive Developrnent Plan, including the present premier of Prince Edward Island. 2.2.3 The legacy of the Comprehensive Developmenr Plan The Development Plan was both a success and a failure. It provided an opportunity to think about the Island in a cornprehensive, integrated fashion, with solutions that went beyond the interest of a single government department. The Plan provided a mechanism, for 15 years at least, for support for community planning. The Plan created several business parks, with varying degrees of on-going success. The Plan created a vision for the future of the Island and linked everything back to that. It talked about attracting new businesses and entrepreneurs when government decision-makers were still learning how to evaluate proposals and determine strategically the best solution for a community. Unfortunately, the Plan also attempted to mould the Island like putty. Eventually, the co- ordination began to break down and departmental interests began to regain importance. 38 Central control could only last so long. 2.2.4 PEI post-Plan - the Island today Prince Edward Island is a province very much aware of itself. Questions of local governance, distribution of services, and resource land stewardship are al1 being discussed and studied, although not always to the satisfaction of al1 Islanders. In many ways, though, these topics are being considered in parallel to, and not always in co- ordination with, each other. Government is still the largest single employer in the province, and represents the 'good' jobs. In many ways, not much has changed since the end of the Development Plan. Communities continue to suffer out-migration for education and employment, and questions of seasonal employment, access to services, and ecological integrity are only gainhg more urgency. Endnotes I J. A. Cousins, Geography of Governance: An Overview of Boundaries, Powers and Responsibilities on Prince Edward Island, (Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 1999), "A~pendix1: Prince Edward Municipalities: Plans and Major Services," 27-29. 'A Pface to Stay ? The Report of the Prince Edward Island Population Strategy '99 Panel, (Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 2000), 18. (population figures are for 1999). Cousins, 27-29 (As these figures are based upon the 1996 census, it is difficult to Say how the subsequent population growth has been distributed.) 4 A Place to Stay ? 18. 5 "Population by Ethnic Origin," Statistics Canada, March 12, 2001 chttp://www.statcan.ca/English/census96/febl7/eo2pei.htm~. 6 A Place to Stay ? 16. 7 A Place to Stay? 134. 8 A Place to Stay ? 7-8. 9 Edward MacDonald, If You 're Stonghearted: Prince Edward Island in the Twentieth Century, (Charlottetown: Prince Edward Island Museum and Heritage Foundation, 2000). Melody Beck (Community Development Bureau), persona1 interview, January 29, 2001. 1 O MacDonald. Il While the researcher was attending a public meeting in Cardigan on January 30, 2001, flyers were handed out regarding a benefit to be held for a local resident who was ill. " Cousins, 1. 13 "Principal Height by Range or Region," Statistics Canada, April 2,2001 3.1 Rural Planning - Theory and Practice 3.1.1 Rural planning described In most obvious terms, rural planning is planning for small towns and rural areas. Rural planning is about small towns or rural communities coming together to develop strategies for future action in response to issues, to build on local strengths, and to move the community closer to the vision and direction established. In rnany instances, this process is centred on the concept of growth management, as small communities debate the amount and type of development desirable, how to resolve conflicts over different land uses, and how to respond to the most pressing situations in the area.' Figure 3.1: Rural Planning ~heel' The various elements of rural life that corne into play during the rural planning process, or that impact "the density of development, character and environmental attributes of the rural area" have been documented in a Rural Planning Wheel and include rural residential, town, villages and the metropolitan fnnge, preservation of agricultural land, rural land use conflict, catchment/watershed planning, landscape preservation, community consultation and communication, economic development, resource management, and environmental impact (see Figure 3.1).~ One Maritime government, New Brunswick, instructs its communities that land use planning is beneficial for rurat communities because it can prornote acceptable land uses, manage renewable resources, protect land resources and features of special value, and encourage appropriate communit y development.' The Province of New Brunswick, as in the case of the Rural Planning Wheel, discusses participation, growth management, and conflicting land uses, as well as the enhancernent of community character. What these descriptions suggest is that rural planning is the CO-ordinationof a variety of land uses (which at times appear to be compietely chaotic in organisation), in order to manage the nature and rate of change so that rural character is protected, quality of life is maintained for those who live in rural areas, the environment is protected and the human needs of residents, including access to services, livelihood, and recreational opportunities are enhanced.' 3.1.2 Goals and objectives of rural planning What is clear is that rural planning is a completely different creature from urban or city planning. Big city understandings of planning do not speak to rural residents, in part due to the fact that the needs are different - most rural areas do not require the massive infrastructure and servicing systems associated with urban areas. While the majority of urbanites might accept the need for planning and associated controls, services, and costs, rural residents are often less excited by the idea and in many cases consider planning to be a process whereby consultants come from the city and tell residents what they should do with their land, with little or no regard for local traditions, aspirations, values or costs. Often the question is a matter of scale. In a rural community where little changes, a process in which al1 land uses are documented and çategorised often seems superfluous. The other aspect is that of perception - for many rural residents, especially in places like Prince Edward Island, planning is equated with zoning, nothing more and nothing less. William Lassey blamed the poor state of rural planning on two missing ingredients, namely "1) adequate undersianding and appreciation of planning as an approach to solving problems and realizing opportunities, and 2) the resources - both human and financial - to undertake needed adaptations."6 While Lassey was writing in 1977, many of his observations about the state of rural planning in North America remain accurate today. For him, the basic rationale for planning is "to facilitate the systematic application of knowledge to establishing and achieving publicly defined goals."7 To better achieve this, Lassey advocated placing emphasis on "public values focused on the long-term suitability of land, resources, and rural institutions" rather than on economic growth in rural areas. 8 Eight goals that might lead to this new focus, which were also desirable end goals for rural residents, were: Preservation of ecological integrity so as to provide a continuing supply of l ife-supporting resources. Efficient and appropriate land use. Healthy living conditions. Aesthetically pleasing environment. Effective social, economic, and governmental institutions. Improved human welfare. Physical structures and adapted landscape of pleasing design. cornpre hensiveness.' The public exploration of these goals rnight contribute in some part to a higher level of acceptance of planning in rural cornmunities. Lassey also listed a variety of issues that affect rural planning, most of which remain relevant today: Urbanization of land and society. Industrializing agriculture. US national farm programs (Canadian programs are also relevant). Subsidies, revenue sharing, and rural development Agricultural land-use changes. Problems of the small rural town Inadequacies of local government Obsolescence of rural institutions Natural resource depletion Social and economic costs of space (service levels, costs, etc.) Leisure and recreation Transportation systems Functional specialization of activities and towns in rural areas Legislative and legal activities Financing Education for rural planning.'o Given these issues, which continue to haunt rural comrnunities and which, in some cases, are more urgent than ever, there is very little reason for rural communities not to plan in one way or another. It is unlikely that many would disagree with the goals identified by Lassey, and yet many rural residents remain unconvinced about the need for planning. The problem then might be, in part, the way planning is discussed and undertaken in rural areas. For many of the reasons discussed above, rural planning is said to be very difficult to do. Residents can be very distrustful of the process and land use conflicts are sometimes very bitter. The goals of economic development and resource management are often seen to be at odds with each other. There are also other more general reasons, tied directly to the nature of rural communities, which make rural planning a challenge. Traditional sources of income are waning as primary or resource industries mechanize, slow down, or cease to be profitable - in PEI, for example, it is becoming more and more diftïcult to farm in the old, small-scale fashion. Deveiopment pressures are being felt in some areas as the sprawling growth of urbanisation eats up the countryside. Many rural communities do not have a town or municipal staff, and when they do, either do not include a planner on staff or cannot spare the planner for such a large and time-consuming task. The limited resources available to rural communities, moreover, are sometimes seen to impose constraints on solutions to local issues. Despite these challenges, rural planning can provide communities with the opportunity to identify a common vision for the future, while also recognizing strengths and challenges that enhance or stand in way of achieving that future. It is often a question of public education about the benefits and possibilities represented by the planning process. 3.1.3 The rural planning process In general terms, rural planning is undertaken in order to allow a community or region to manage growth and change in their area - it can be a forum for empowerment and building local unity. It is an opportunity for residents to corne together to discuss common goals and vision and to anticipate conflicts over uses of land. It allows residents to create an inventory of their resources, to revisit or discuss local character, traditions and values. Where increased growth is a community goal, planning becomes a means for guiding that change. While planning is not always as complex in rural areas, given srnaller populations, different servicing needs and fewer land pressures, it often entails a great deal of creativity when identifying solutions to very real issues in situations of limited resources. In many cases, any development, especially commercial, in a rural area can have a rnuch greater proportional effect, and planning provides the forum in which to anticipate development or changes in use of land and determine how best to accommodate or negotiate such change. While some of the planning tools used in rural planning are similar to those used in urban planning, some are limited in their effectiveness, and some are more possible. Kitchen table interviews, for example, might be much more effective in a small community, as are other direct methods of collecting and sharing information. Complex zoning systems, on the other hand, rnight not be necessary, especially in the most rural areas, although some simple zoning or design controls are sometirnes useful. The traditional process of rurai planning in Prince Edward Island (except during the Plan years) is for a planning board to be established, or a consultant brought in, to survey the area, hold a few public consultation meetings, do a resource inventory and prescribe a few solutions that would follow standard guidelines for srnall town and rural developrnent in vogue at any given moment in time. In the example of PEI, as in many other cases, the srnall size of cornrncnities and limited resources available meant that consultation was often cursory and superficial and solutions did not always reflect the values or priorities of the communities in question. While there was a period under the Comprehensive Development Plan, described in Chapter 2, where resources and planners were made available to communities to assist in the planning process, this has not been the case for much of the Island's recent history. There is always a debate around the question of top-down decisions versus grass-roots processes. The question becornes even starker when the community is a small one where everyone feels impacts fairly immediately. If consultation and participation have not been sufficient, it becornes much more difficult to obtain the support of those who have the most to gain or lose. A case in point was the proposed plan to transforrn the eastern end of Prince Edward Island into a national park, a plan developed during the Development Plan years. As the public, who after al1 would see their communities transformed into something completely new, had not been consulted and invotved in the actual design of the park, the backlash was enough to derail the entire plan, which, according to some planners, did contain some valuable ideas." The plan for the entire Island, the Comprehensive Development Plan, was often regarded with distrust, given the major adjustments it asked of Islanders. Again, the small amount of consultation affected the image residents were given of themselves. Nor did it work in the Plan's favour that it was designed, and funded, by Ottawa and many of the planners were 'from away.'12 Community or rural planning does not have to follow the traditional top-down rnethodology, however. More and more, communities and planners are seeing a need for a process that is more community-based, a need that has prompted the development of models such as the Stepping Fonvatd kit from Mount Allison in New Brunswick, and the Firsf Nations Community Planning Model from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, two methodologies that will be discussed in detail a little later on. These two methodologies both embrace a grassroots, community-based understanding of the rural planning process. In fact, the two methodologies are very similar, although the Stepping Fonvard kit has been around longer and has been used by small town and rural communities in the Maritimes, while the First Nations Community Planning Model has only recently been completed and is being piloted in three communities as this study is being written. Both methodologies assume a community-driven process, one where the community is willing and able to participate and run the process rather than relying on outside experts. This does not mean that outside help is never needed, but that planners or other professionals are not running the show. Nor are these methodologies the only examples of comrnunity-based planning models. 3.2 New Models for Community-Based Rural Planning 3.2.1 The need for new models In Canada and elsewhere, planners and research groups were beginning to respond to the lack of resources and tools for communities wishing to plan on their own. In British Columbia, Peter Boothroyd developed a 7-step program for community planning in 1991." The Rural and Small Town Programme at Mount Allison University also noticed the need for tools, and in 1994 published the Stepping Fonuard: Discovering Community Potential, Acting on Challenges self-help resource kit in order to provide an alternative mode1 of community planning. In 1999, the Cities and Environment Unit, at the request of a Mi'kmaq band in Cape Breton, began a similar process in a First Nations context, resulting in the First Nations Community Planning Model, the first edition of which was printed in 2000. It is these latter two that will be used here to develop an understanding of alternative forms of planning. 3.2.2 Using the models Both the kit and the Model are designed to be used by small or rural communities that decide to undertake planning and wish to follow a community-based approach. Both are set up in a step-by-step format, with clear instructions on what should take place at any given point, why steps are taken, and how to adapt these steps to the local situation, if so desired. These methodologies are written, for the most part, in a jargon-free way, and attempt to take the mystery out of planning. 3.2.3 Stepping Forward kit (Rural and Sma Il Town Programme, Mount A llison) nie Stepping Forward: Discovering Community Potential, Acting on Challenges self- help resource kit is intended to show community leaders how to prepare a strategic plan based on principles of sustainable community development. The basic premise of the kit is that rural and small communities must take the future into their own hands, that plans created by consultants and govemment representatives will never be sufficient to make the changes necessary to ensure survival of these cornmunitie~.'~The kit is designed to help communities consider al1 aspects together, including environmental, social, economic, and organisational qualities. Sf epping Forward breaks the planning process down into three main stages, which are 1) getting started, II) examining information, and III) comrnunity strategic planning. These three main stages are then broken down further into 22 steps, most of which fall into the second and third stages. Essential l y, the process is based on getting organized, collecting and analysing information, developing a community vision, defining strengths, issues, threats and opportunities, and developing the action plan, which is followed by impiementaiion and monitoring. 2. Orientation meeting 3. Prcparing a çdiedulc II. Ewniinirig, Inf'ormtion 4. Unkrstanding the importana of information 5. Idçntifying rhc information to bc collwtcd 6. Dcciding on trtsks, tcarn, and timing 7. Using thc knowlcdge around the bblc 1 8. Lmking for information uithin the mrnunity 9. Secking information outside your cornrnunity 1 1 1. Exploring your cornrnunity's dohl~mnneaions 12. Surnrnanzing facts & findings 13. Othcroptions for information galherui 1 14. Manqjng & updating airnmunity in formation m. simt~ejc 15. Deciding on tasks, team & timing 1 16. Clwtinp your cornrnunify vision 17. Dcfining your Strrn~~#caknessedOppoRuniti~reais 18. Ideniifying & nnking stntcgic issucs 19. Dcvcloping Action Plans I 20. Writing your Plan 1 21. Implcmeniing purPlan 1 22. Stcpping back io move fomrd(monitoring) I Figure 3.2: Sfepping Forward Kit - Stages and Steps of the Planning Process The Stepping Fonvard kit is presented in six volumes, three of which descnbe the stages of preparing a plan, and three dealing with running meetings, gamering and maintaining community interest, and developing leadership and decision-making. It is designed to be as user-friendly as possible and strives to help communities through the process on their own, with consultants and "experts" acting as resources rather than leaders. Each part of the kit explains not only what is involved at every stage, but also how to go about doing it, complete with examples from real communities. The Stepping Fonvard kit is well-designed in terms of explaining how to go about planning to communities not accustomed to doing it for themselves. It is careful to incorporate concepts of community-building, participation, and self-reliance. It deliberatel y includes al1 aspects of community, not being content with simply planning for land usage and developrnent. It considers community development to be a goal and end product of the strategic planning process. 3.2.4 First Nations Community Planning Model (Cities di Environment Unit, Dalhousie) nie Comrnuniiy Planning Model was developed at the request of a partnership of First Nation bands from the East Coast and various government departments, the Joint Community Planning Cornmittee. It was recognised that in the past, First Nation communities interested in planning had often been given a plan by a consulting firm that did not truly reflect community issues, values, or priorities and that these plans therefore were rarely successful. The communities did not, however, generally have the training or experience to plan for themselves. The Model was developed as a guide for these communities who wish to undertake planning at the community level. Designed to be explanatory for communities groups without prior experience in planning, the Community Planning Model also works through the stages of the planning process. The process is deliberately cornmunity-based; any participation on the part of consultants, engineers, govemment officials and others from outside the community is on the basis of assistance only - planners do not run the process. While the Model does include some "how to" aspects, it does not yet contain the in-depth workbook element included in the Sfepping Forward kit (this will come in the form of a Workbook to be completed during the next stage of the First Nations Community Planning Project, when the Mudel is piloted in three communities). The Model's planning process is organized in eight main stages (see Figure 3.3). The process puts as much emphasis on developing the details and action plans of the projects as it does on the selection of projects in the framework (what would traditionally be called the strategic plan). The process does not spend as much time on determining readiness as the Stepping Forward process does, but does acknowledge i ts importance. - 1 1. Giihering backpund information 1 4. Euahlihing a vision I 1 5. Building a framcwork I 8. Monitoring Figure 33: First Nations Community Planning Modef - Stages of the Planning Process While the Comrnunig Pfanning Model is designed for First Nation communities and stresses traditional forms of knowledge and decision-making, it is based on a concept of flexibility and bottom-up planning work. nie explanations provided about the rationale for each stage in the process, as well as tips for doing the work, get to the heart of why communities choose to plan - principles just as useful for non-native as for First Nation communities, and could very well prove to be an appropriate guide for many rural communities in the region. 3.2.5 Anafysis of methohfogies Both of the planning methodologies under consideration are guided by the concept of community-based planning. In this paradigm, the research, analysis, and development of the strategic plan are guided, run, and received by the community in general. This would mean, for example, that the community undertakes the collection and analysis of information (ideally guided by a community planning committee of some sort) and interested individuals can participate at any point. This would contrast with what is often done, where the planner(s) consult with the public, go away to prepare the report and maps, and retum to present when al1 is finished. Where experience is lacking and necessary, and where training is not an option, outside help is brought in, but only as a resource. By its very nature, the community-based approach to planning involves an aspect of training and development of skills, as community members learn how to work through the process. Steppiig Foma~dkit Rrsi Natioo Communiîy Pli- M& Emphasiscs thc Siag of prcparingto plan Assumcs mmmunity is &y IO plan Expcrrs as rcç0urc.c~ Experts as resourccs Projccls arc designcd during thc dcvclopmnt of thc Plan Projccts arc dcsigicd in dctail aftcr thc Fnmework (plan) is dcvelopcd Vision is dcvelopcd hforc the idcntificaiionofstrcngths Sltcngths and issues arc idcniificd bcforc the Vision is and issues atablishcd Figure 3.4: Comparing the Planning Methodologies - Similarities & Differences Both methodologies assume that a strategic plan / framework is necessary for real change to occur, although the First Nations Model develops each project described in the Framework individually. And whiie the order of the stages are slightly different in the two methodologies, and an additional information gathering / analysis stage is included in the Model, bot h processes include essentiall y the same elements. One significant difference, however, is the inclusion of very deliberate decision points in the Model, which were included to ensure that the band council was continuously aware and committed to the planning efforts going on in the community. While this element was included as a conscious response to the concem about continuity in policy with a two- year council rotation period, even this aspect might be relevant in incorporated communities, where in PEI, for example, municipal council elections are held every three years. One major aspect of both methodologies that must be considered in terms of rural planning in Prince Edward Island is the scale of community discussed. While neither methodology specifically sets size limits, both seem to be directed at clear, self-contained communities. In the case of the Model, the client / audience was First Nation communities, which are, under the reserve system, very clearly defined communities (despite the complexities caused by questions of on- and off-reserve members). Given the size and scale of municipalities in PEI, planning might more efficiently take place in community clusters or regions. It is likely, however, given the flexibility written into both methodologies, that they would continue to be useful to very small communities or rural regions, provided the regions fom larger communities with which residents are able to identi fy. Both models appear to encourage community empowerment and self-determination over the prescription of solutions by an outside source or local govemment that assumes it knows best. In ternis of community planning as is outlined by the two models described in this chapter, it is clear that the government of PEI is not presently engaged in this form of comprehensive rural planning - any planning that cccurs at the provincial level is restricted to questions of land use. Municipal councils in rural areas are often interested in little more than fire and other services, with the exception of a few of the larger municipalities (which could at any rate be described as urban and not rural), and a few special planning areas. Even those municipali ties that do undertake comprehensive planning rarely do so in a community-based fashion represented by the two models. It is common to hear people state that Prince Edward Island is over-governed, especially given the size of the population, and yet this heavy hand is generally noticed for its negative aspects (or its uneven overlapping of jurisdictions), rather than its cornmunity- building capabilities. The essential steps of a community-based process can be summarised here for future cornparison against planning practice in Prince Edward Island: These stages, and how they are undertaken, go far in determining the extent to which the community itself owns the process and believes in its value. 33 Rural Planning in Prince Edward Island 3.3.I Statutos, conditions for planning in PEI Planning in Prince Edward Island is govemed, for the most part, by two main statutes, the PEI Piunning Act and Municipalities Act. The Planning Act outlines the rather broad powen of the province - and those to whom it may delegate responsibility - to control and regulate land use and human activities as they relate to the physical environment, both natural and built. The Municipalities Act sets out the parameters in which local communities rnay becorne incorporated in order to govem themselves, and includes the list of powers and responsibilities that a municipality may or are required to assume. In Prince Edward Island, planning is undertaken by two levels of govemment, the province and the rnunicipality, and seems to be primarily focused only on questions of iand use. There is no regional or county authority as there are in many other Canadian provinces. For that reason, if an area is not incorporated (or, if incorporated, has not assumed the responsibility for planning), al1 authority falls to the province (Figure 3.6). However, as only a rnunicipality is allowed to have an officiai plan and bylaws, it can safely be said that community-specific planning by the province is next to non-existent at the moment. There are a few 'special planning areas' that have been provided for under the Planning Act, namely Greenwich, the buffer zones surrounding Charlottetown, Stratford and Cornwall, and the Borden-Cariton area but these are generally only created under the most special circumstances. &iIM irrb'ngphx? 1 Ail unimmqmatcâ a- 46 municipalities spccial planning airas 1 1 envinnimental protedion 27 munmpalities(of 75 MuniiipllUicsAcr, Ploming 1 Fire, log1 1 bnd use, somf signage / tocal) wtio have decidcd io AaCharlanctmn Arca services, watert undertake planning Mwiiciplütks Act City of 6 % of land in pince kt,fi@bswy iaieathpokq 100- i5,OOO~k TmscAc4 Reol Pmpcrry hssmeril Act, Rcul P-rry Figure 3.6: Regulatory Aspects of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island 3.3.2 Role of Province The involvement of the Province in planning has been, in practice, generally restricted to regulations regarding public health and safety, as well as some environmental protections, despite the broad range of powers permitted under the Planning Act. The province does have a Lands Protection Act that govems, in a general way, how land may be developed, restricting how much land might be owned by residents, non-residents or corporations. Beyond that, the province does not get into specific area planning, with the aforernentioned exception of the 'speciat planning areas.' On the other hand, the Provincial Planning Division does participate with other govemment divisions to develop policy and regulations regarding planning aspects such as signage regulations (currently under review). Planning In Prince Edward Island All unincorporated Municipalities that assume communities planning responsibiIities (27 48 municipalities of 75) - no zoning Municipalitiescanbe - regulations pertain to cities(2), towns (7) or public health & Communities (66) safety, environment, - Empowered to create or landscape plan and by-laws management - 9 municipalities are - vast powers overdue for 5- year permitted under the review Planning Act Figure 3.7: Planning In Prince Edward Island - Separation of Jurisdiction 3.3.3 LOC'LIIgo17C'l'nul?L'~ Incorporated communities in Prince Edward Island fall into three categorics: Communities (as opposed to unincorporatcd ommunities). Towns. and Cities (Charlottrtown and summerside). " The main di ftérence between thc tlirec catcgorics appears to be range of powers. the nature of thc conimunity at the tinic o 1- incorporation. and. in the case of the Cities. size - al1 arc muni~i~alities.'"At prcsent. there arc 75 municipalities in the province. 30 of which are members of the Fedcrrition 01' Prince Edward Island Municipalities. represcnting roughly 54% of the population of the lsland (see Appendis for detai 1s). ' ' In 1996. there were approximately 92.944 people living in inçorporated areas. 69% of the lsland population at the time.IR Many of the Communities startrd out in the latc 1960s and 1970's as Community Improvenicnt Comniittces (CICs). whicti wcrc creatcd as a structure to replace the community void created by the consolidation of lsland sçhools. as well as to provide a format for collecting community fire dues. IV These ClCs wcrc Iatcr incorporated and given the right to govern in 1982. with the hopc tliat tliey would eventually grow into their role and assume municipal responsibilitics such as planning.'" 1t is not clear that these comrnunities havc in fact fully embraced the role of govcrnance. Moreover. it appears that some ClCs continue to exist as inlbrmd coiiitiiunity cornmittees, despite the fact that government does not necessarily know of' thcir existence." Local govemance appears to be quitc weak in many parts of the province. Many municipalities do not have the critical mass to have effective power and tku crin aftord to be vcry active. The Regional Planning Boards set up under the Developnicnt Plan wax cancelled in 1988 and the Land Use Service Centre was cut in 1979. rcnioving thesc con~munitysupports. Meanwhile. there is a great deal of overlap in tcrnis 01' service boundaries for different types of govemment activity. On the one hand. thcrc is no formatised structure for any fonn of regional planning. while on the othcr hünd. other government or social service programs do function on a regional basis. A reccnt revicw of local govemance on the lsland referred to the whole question of service delivery, stating that: ...[ a]n ernbarrassment of administrative units, each with its own set of boundaries, responsibilities, and powers, divide up the landscape and the populace. In many instances, these units grew up independently of one another, with little regard for the possibilities of overlap or duplication. The amount and variety of governance fuels a perception that Prince Edward Island is 'over-govemed.' Whether or not the perception is accurate, the multiplicity of administrative units do complicate the business of goveming.'2 These administrative units include everything from education, health and social services, to utilities, waste management, police services, the court system, and fire services. As suggested in the jurisdictional chart above (Figure 3.7), not ail municipalities undertake ail aspects of pennitted govemance. Only 27 have created plans and by-laws. Municipalities that provide services to outlying areas do so on a fee per service basis. Amalgamation of communities is generally met with fear and resistance, with the general assumptions being that the pre-existing municipality is motivated by a desire to increase its tax base. While there is plenty of room outside of the official municipal or governing structure for informal projects such as the creation of regional skating rinks, there are many gaps in the system. dirw? RwhdPl Public hcalth and Undctemid Rovincial nic pan of ihe Division of Province PLvrlg safiry, proidon elatiocis, IRAC mandate - vq Provincial of the appcals littk ex- in Planning envimmcn~ sprcifi examples (masive ma in landscapc 198ûsam.î managcmenl 1%) M- Lucal land use - hussis ohen llWC appcals. drpcnds on Municipal municipal m mflia rcsolution, drivcn by budga municipal mmunicy, oftcn Affairs - lax6 subdivision of and amsultan&, elcctions cvery 3 unlikely dur: IO dimaand provincial land, spntionof panicipatim in ycars mmandfor planw~.vcry gant. ACOA. ~=s the fomi of understandingof littk rcsairpcs HRDC envimmental umsuliation and planning process IO guide @n,jod- pmrnion public heanngs municipality specifn) thnxighpnrrss Figure 3.8: Capacity Building Aspects of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island 3.3.4 Creating Oficial Plans Rc By-La ws The Municipal Affairs office, located within the provincial Department of Community and Cultural Affairs, oversees municipal planning efforts (Figure 3.9). This department helps municipalities apply the Planning Act and the MunicipaliNes Act. Any community that wishes to create an official plan and/or by-laws must, under the Planning Act, be incorporated. After incorporation as a municipality, the community must then undertake to create an official plan that meets prescribed technical requirernents and must meet minimum standards set by the Province. The plan is then either approved or retumed for revision. There is, however, no staff currently allocaied by the province to assist communities through this process - the office comprises two employees, one of whom is the manager, and the other, who is required to review plans, may not participate in their development. This factor makes the creation of a plan a challenge for many small Communities and Towns, which have very limited budgets and often no more than one part-time staff member. Those that do have the resources hire consultants to write the plan for the community, those without the resources often do not have the tools to do any planning on their ~wn.'~ 1 1 Department of Community 1 and Cultural ARairs Planning and i Inspection Services Branch Provincial Planning Branch Adrninistniion and enforcernent of The designated policy center for land standards for building and developrnent, use and devclopment on Prince Edward on-site scwage disposal and the Island. responsiblc for the Land Use subdivision of land Coordinating Cornrnitice. 1I Municipal Affairs Figure 3.9: Division of provincial and municipal planning at the provincial level of government. On the other hand, many municipalities do not even chose to assume the responsibility for planning, as they lack the resources to administer regulations. In fact, of the 75 municipalities, 27 have plans and at least 9 of these are overdue for their five-year review, in some cases by many years (Figure 3.10). Indeed, one planner suggested that even some of the municipalities with plans and by-laws lack a complete understanding of the role of planning and lack the will to fully administer or update the plan or by-laws when one or the other are adjusted or revised. Enforcement of municipal reviews by the province has not been a priority recently.'" To become an incorporated municipality, only 25 people are required to start the process. There is no minimum size, however, for the incorporated area - the smallest municipality has a population of 72 people.26 As a result, many Comrnunities are quite small, both geographically and in population, a fact that makes undertaking larger projects such as planning, and provision of services very difficult. 3.3.5 Unincorporated areas in Prince Edward Island Unincorporated areas in Prince Edward Island, comprising 31% of the population, faIl under the jurisdiction of the province. In 1997, the Round Table on Resource Land Use and Stewardship found the amount of land covered by official zoning plans to be 6% and callcd for an increase to 25% by 2000 and 50% by 2003, although it is not clear how close the government is to reaching this goal at the moment." The Report on the implementation of the Recommendations Made By the Round Table on Resource Land Use & Stewardship, released in December 1998, suggested that the completion of planning for the Greenwich and Kensington Special Planning Areas would bring the total amount of land covered to 22%." The Provincial Planning Branch is not presently in a position to be doing much comprehensive planning, with the result that there are few controls or restrictions on the use of land, provided new developments meet health, environmental, and safety regulations. subdivisiom, some (mal economy), population action with buffer nwia nmem&al zc& dcvelq>ment controis, no stntcgy has implicationsfor ansf special planning mning planning am\ 1998 mndciibk on Iand use MqRPaaiig Offial plan, by-la- 9 of 27 have miss4 iheir5 varying, &p& on Innt use. smsacial somc projtns and ycar review so quaions of ~wunxs,bdh humn in mosl cnscs stmiegies, municipal effi.divr.ncs, whem it woiks, and fimMal scrviccs tool for local direciion Figure 3.11: Long Term Change Through Community Planning in Prince Edward Island 3.3.6 Major issues / challenges for rural planning in PEI One of the first issues to arise in discussions surrounding rural planning in the province is the question of what size of community is most effective for local governance. Given the fact that there is no minimum size for municipalities, should there be another mechanism for planning in rural areas where municipalities are too small to undertake the process? What size is optimal for processes such as planning and service delivery? As we shall see in the following chapter, PEI can be organized into a series of community clusters of more or less 32 'regional communities,' which have in the past tended to cluster "along the lines of consolidated school districts, which in turn are founded on the building blocks of the old one-room school di~tricts."'~ Provincial and municipal planning does not reflect these larger 'regional communities; instead, planning is left up to municipal governments, 82 % of which represent small populations of under 1,000 people. One of the strongest arguments for increased levels of planning in the province is the dependence of the economy on rural land uses. Provincial government policy points to a continued reliance of the economy on such uses of land, leaving the province vulnerable to land use conflicts and environmental cri si^?^ In a sense, there are three categories of provincial interest; land ownership, land use, and land use management (the practices associated with various types of land use) and al1 three have an impact on the ability of the Island to continue to provide the resources necessary to suppon its population.3' Land ownership has been addressed in tems of restrictions on non-residents, although there has been less discussion regarding resident ownership. Land use is the most difficult of the three interest areas to resolve with the public. Panel after panel, forum after forum, those who study or investigate the topic refer to the reluctance of lslanders to accept restrictions or controls over their use of the land. The 1999 Population Strategy Panel noted sorne broadly held values and attitudes regarding land use that were noted at a Government Research Workshop, most notably: - a very strongly held feeling that "it's mine"; that ownership confers rights to use the land in whatever way one wants; and - an emphasis on equality of development opportunity. If land is zoned, this choice is removed for some. This issue was tested in the buffer zone consultations, that is, the importance attached to everyone having the sarne right to subdivide their land. Overwhelmingly, the response was that it was very The report on the Round Table on Resource Land Use and Stewardship, released in 1997, also noted a strong public reluctance to undertake rural zoning, and stated in its background to regulating the use of resource lands that "...in the minds of many who own farmland and woodland, the deed carries with it an inviolate right to decide how the land will be used and under what circumstances it can be s01d.'~~~At the same time, the Round Table found that there were three major land use challenges on the Island; retaining resource lands, reducing conflicts between neighbours, and "building rural communities where people both live and work, not one or the ~ther."~~It is clear that to change current trends in the province will require a great amount of political will and a willingness to work in good faith with the public. As rnentioned earlier, one of the key constraints to municipal planning in PEI is the access to resources. While the provincial government does provide some funding to municipalities, the majority of municipal budgets are determined by the local tax base, which in the 56% of the municipalities with populations under 400 does not provide much in ternis of resources. With resources (provincial planners designated to work with communities) so scarce, municipal planning is unlikely to be the answer any time soon for increasing the amount of resource lands covered by officia1 zoning plans. At the same tirne, the Province has not given its Provincial Planning Branch a strong mandate to plan either, which suggests that the Province may not be prepared to fil1 the void created by the lack of municipal planning. A second constraint for planning is the availability of data for land use categorisation. At a public forum on land use held in 1988, one speaker declared that "[olne of the most serious problems in attempting to discuss land use issues is the lack of data, in a readily accessible form, on land use and ownership trends."3s This lack of information has not abated in the years since, according to an Island planner. It appears that PEI does not have sufficient micro level information in order to justify land use categorizations, although changes in technology mean that the storing and analysis of such information has become easier over time, in part due to partnerships with other provincial departrnents with a land use mandate. Cost was cited as being one of the strongest reasons for this slow collection of data? For those who argue against the need for regulatory planning, one might counter that the hesitation to plan is leaving communities more and more vulnerable over time, especially due to the fact that globalization will restrict the informal regulatory system that used to exist in many small PEI communities. Community pressure and family ties are less effective when those who are developing are not from the community itself, or who owe loyalty to an outside ~r~anisation.~'Scale, too, is changing with the advent of big-box retail and the effects have the potential to be bigger and longer lasting. As comrnunities become increasingly affected by the marketing strategies of corporations (in which communities begin to resemble each other more and more), public health and safety regulations might not be enough to protect the sense of place that still exists in Prince Edward Island. CMen noc donc (9 of 27 plans are werdue) Figure 3.12: Elements of Community Planning in Prince Edward Island Only six per cent of Prince Edward Island land falls under a plan and by-laws. This fact alone suggests that planning has not yet struck a chord with Islanders. Fifty-five per cent of Islanders live in areas that are unregulated. Fifty-five per cent of Islanders live in a community that has not officially identified the direction it would like to take and the regulations or guidelines to achieve that goal. These communities lack, in essence, any protection of community rights in the face of individual rights. While it is true that part of the problem is a lack of resources, human and financial, were there a true public and collective will for cornmunity planning, it is likely that the political will would be discovered rather quickly. One of the reasons that residents continue to distrust planning, some Say, is that their experiences, be it with the Comprehensive Development Plan or other events, have left a bad taste in their mouths. Many past efforts have had a built-in reliance on govemment that could not be guaranteed in the long term. Many did not reflect the true needs, values, or solutions of the community in question. Regardless of the reasons, the type of planning in Prince Edward lsland does not compare well with the planning described in the two models examined earlier, especially at the municipal level. Endnotes I "Australian Rural Planning," Edge Land Planning, January 15,201 4.1 Community Development - Theory and Practice 4.1.1 Communiiy development and regional inequality in Canada In order to understand the role of community development in Prince Edward Island, the Atlantic region and the country in general, it is first important to understand the context of regional inequality that has defined many govemment prograrns and policies over the past 30 years. Regional planners, community developers, and policy analysts - the number of groups who have, over the years, concemed themselves with questions of regional dispanty and communities struggling to meet basic needs is beyond counting. In the words of Da1 Brodhead et al: Most often, Canadian regional disparities are expressed in statistical fom: as a percentage of the work force unemployed; as a variation from national income levels; or as a proportion of the total number of families living in poverty. But regional disparities are not just numbers. To fully appreciate their significance, it is important to go beyond the numbers and see what they mean in hurnan terms. When we do that, we see that regional economic disparities mean wasted lives, missed investment opportunities, and depopulated small towns and rural areas.' What Brodhead and others have argued is that past regional development efforts (designed to decrease regional disparities in income and opportunities) have done little to change the structure of so-called 'underdeveloped communities' in such as a way that they are able to increase their levels of self-reliance and sustainability: .. .socio-economic underdevelopment is more than just low incorne and high unemployment. It is above al1 a cycle of dependency characterized by a lack of local decision-making regarding econornic investment and social development, which may lead either to extensive out-migration of the working age population or to an increasing dependency on transfer payrnents.' Although there has been a great deal of federal money directed towards the Atlantic region over the past 25 years and longer, with an apparent reduction in total personal income per capita disparities? "...a significant proportion of this reduction in income disparity is the result of an increase in transfer payrnenis. Consequently, there was no appreciable reduction in disparities in eamed incorne per capita except in the case of 45 Nova Scotia [between 1976 and 19861."~Essentially, the funding was doing little to change the cycle of dependency described above - rather, the cycles were being hidden by top-down, government run programs. There have been several reasons identified for this lack of long-term change in the sustainability of cornmunities. The first was that the cycle of dependency described above required integrated change for real improvement to take place - it would not be enough to simply focus programs on one or two negative indicators and hope that the problems would go away. Rather, comprehensive or integrated policies would have to be developed.' Secondly, the true needs of communities had to be considered, and these involved the development of both capital and organizational skills. While many communities had one or the other, few of those in the areas of greatest need had both and some had little of either? Moreover, the focus on economic measures was too narrow to truly create a change that would be lasting6 It should be noted, though, that in PEI, the percentage of Federal expenditures as a percentage of GDP has been shrinking over the past decade, decreasing from 51% in 1992 to 43.5% in 1997. This has been linked to growth in the private sector, as well as restricted expenditure by the Federal government.7 Future trends are hard to predict, given the present government's interest in tax cuts and a predicted slow-down of the economy. Several theories have been developed to explain the reasons for regional inequality, including the staples theory, the t heory of modemization/underdevelopment, and the dependency theory. The first of these, the staptes theory, suggests that there is one or more products that a region is best suited to produce, which over time become less important in the markets. As their importance declines, if there is not an adequate replacement, the region begins to decline. It is argued that this has occurred in the Atlantic region, where fishing and farming, the staple products, are less central to the nation's economy than they were in the past. Modemization theory focuses on a region's ability to develop according to standards established by the most developed nations and is primarily used to explain the comparatively low levels of development in Third World countries. Modernization theory is often linked to the capitalist free market and the movement away from "traditional" practices. Dependency theory takes the opposite stance and identifies oppression and exploitation by the centre or dominant state as the reason for inequality. While none of these theories appear to answer the question fully, together they provide an understanding of the debate surrounding regional inequality and possible solution^.^ Out of this debate, ii becomes possible to identify various characteristics of underdeveloped communities that are shared fully or in part in this country, including: Lack of local control of economic activity Lower than average income and employment levels lnadequate and / or low-quality infrastructure Narrow economic base Poor access to information and capital Stagnant population growth or net out-migration.' As we have seen in Chapter 2, and will see later on, many Island communities display some or al1 of these characteristics, as do many communities in Canada, suggesting the relevance of community development and strategic planning in the province. At the same time, this list of characteristics does not apply to al1 rural comrnunities, nor does it capture al1 challenges faced by rural Island communities. Community development officers and othcrs working at the community level have observed a great amount of informal economic activity and a vibrant small business sector, even in rural communities. The lower income levels often seen in rural communities are changing, according to a Statistics Canada study, and are often linked to a lower cost of living or lower quality of life cost~.'~And while the rate of population growth in rural communities might not be as high as in urban areas, many of the smallest comrnunities in PEI are actually growing." Where there is growth in very small places, the task becomes to create a sense of community that makes room for newcomers and to ensure that population growth does not affect the community in adverse ways - even where the characteristics listed above do not exist, communities continue to face challenges regarding quality of li fe and local sel f-reliance." Pursuing change in the underdeveloped regions of the country, especially in the Atlantic region, has taken two major forms, public policy through the various levels of governrnent and community-based action. 4.1.2 Public policy and regional developrnent The role of government and public policy has been a large one over the past 30 years and more and has been rooted largely in a recognition of the increasing gap between Canada's regions.13 The govemment response, at least at the federal level, has taken the form of five different approaches to regional development, with varied levels of success. These approaches include infrastructure investments, hurnan resource development, industrial assistance, resource and sectoral development, and compensatory and transfer programs. 14 Covernment initiatives Govemmcnt Programlûepartment FRED, WDA,Canada~PEl Labour Market Devclopmnt Agrccmnt (LMDA) DREE DRlE FRED. Tm Abütemcnt Agcemcnt. ARED 4 Resource and çcaonl dcvctoprncni ARDG FRED, DREE ACOG ARED. LMDA 5 Compensatory and tnnsfer program unemploymeni insunna, CAP, CHST Figure 4.1 : Federal Government Development Initiatives and Corresponding Programs and Departrnents These programs followed each other, often quite rapidly, over the years in a dizzying array of acronyms. In some cases, departments were renamed, in others they were replaced with new programs or approach philosophies.'5 Some of the earlier efforts have since been criticized for actually decreasing long-term development due to the suppon of inefficient industries and the promotion of inappropriate locations for new plants, as in the case of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act AR DA).'^ Others were seen to be ineffectual due to their focus on economic factors and individuals. After the 1970s, the government began to focus more on the needs of the community, tuming away from the previous emphasis on ad hoc, make-work projects.17 While many of the federal govemment's efforts were focused specifically on regional development, community circumstances were also affected by broader government policies, especially in the areas of trade. This fact has led some to argue that the short lifespan of many of the development programs is actually a positive quality, providing an increased degree of flexibility in the face of frequently changing circumstances, locally, nationally and internationa~l~.'~ One author pointed to the great stability of patterns of regional inequality over the past 30 years. 19 Overall, however, many reviews of past govemment forays into the area of regional development have concluded that the results have been mixed, that in many cases the programs have at least maintained existing levels of quality of life of the communities in need and have even improved their circumstances in a few situations." The role of the federal government in the realm of regional development is changing, however. Constraints cited incIude the current fiscal position of the government (in the early 1990s), restrictions caused by the Free Trade agreement with the United States, the rapid Pace of technological change that makes it difficult for many communities to keep up, the small size of many local markets in "disadvantaged" regions, and a vulnerability with regards to international fluctuations in trade and commodity prices." Despite the more positive fiscal position of the Federal government these days, the emphasis has been placed on tax cuts and the possibility of an economic slow-down, which may affect the amount of money and effort to be spent on regional development in the near future. On the other hand, opportunities for regional development still exist, especially with regards to the recent fast growth of small businesses in Canada, which bodes well for job creation." At any rate, the federal government has maintained a presence in the Atlantic region in the form of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), which continues to supply funding for community and economic development projects. The review of pub1 ic pol icy programs suggests several things regarding their potential for change. To begin with, the ability of cornmunities to meet their own needs, as represented in indicators such as per capita income outside of transfers, has not improved. Moreover, media discussion of urgent phenomena such as child poverty, levels of education and literacy, and unemployment figures in the less-developed regions of the country suggest that top-down programs have not been able to get at thz roots of many of these problems. On the other hand, many are recognizing that local level efforts, in conjunction with government programs, are able in some cases to make a difference: ... over time, small groups of citizens, working together, can transform their communities into better places in which to live and work. In a number of instances, we have found situations where local residents, with some help from government have initiated their own development strategies and activities. Rather than relying on transfer payments or allowing their communities to become ghost towns, they have sought to assume greater control over developing their local e~onomies.~ Governments, non-governmental organizations and community organizations have al1 begun to tum to community-based strategies as an alternative form of regional development, one in which communities have more of a role in defining the problems and the solutions. 4.1.3 Cornmunity-based action Community development (CD) and community economic development (CED) are two terms frequently used to described community-based action. While the two are not always taken to be one and the same, they often share the same goals and have been described as: .. .a distinct set of strategies for addressing community issues, shared needs, and interests. These strategies include a range of techniques aimed at involving local interest groups in the process of cultural and community change. The methods of process-oriented CD tend to emphasize knowledge of group processes, social learning, social rnobilization, and formal and informal organizations, as well as strategies for planned change at the grass roots of ~ociet~.'~ This understanding of CD and CED also identifies two different perspectives or approaches to CD: Humanitarian CD (the search for community, mutual aid, social support and human liberation in an aiienating, oppressive, cornpetitive and individualistic society) and Institutional CD (a means of mobilizing communities to join state or institutional initiatives that are aimed at alleviating poverty, solving social problems, strengthening families, fostering democracy, and achieving modernization and socio- economic development).15 In either of these approaches, CD can take the form of "social movements, a process of change, or a concrete program."26 - Activities should be organized to empower marginal or excluded populations by linking them with progressive forces in different social sectors and classes in the search for economic, social and political alternatives. - Essential tools should be given to the marginalized, excluded or oppressed to enable critical analysis and consciousness of their situation in structural ternis, so as to envisage possibilities for change.3' A further principle, one could argue, is the idea that CD and CED must involve and be guided by those who are affected by the process and results - by the community members themse~ves.~~ Community development has taken many foms in the past and its goals can include integration, pressure, self-management, and politicization?4 Some of the better-known forrns of CD/CED in the Atlantic region in recent years include CO-operatives, adult education and Father Coady's Antigonish Movement, and the various manifestations of local deveiopment. Co-operatives go back quite far in the history of CD, best known for their financial (caisse populaires / credit unions) and retail (Co-op Atlantic) activities, but can be as large or as small as necessary. In the case of one Cape Breton community, a CO-opwas created for the purpose of establishing a community Pasture for ive stock.^^ Co-ops are designed to meet the needs of mernbers and are based on a principle of one member, one vote. One of the first instances of a cooperative in Prince Edward Island was the creation of the Prince Edward Island Co-operative Egg and Poultry Association, founded in 1913, followed later by the Tignish Fisherrnen's Union in 1924. These associations were crucial in allowing individuals to come together The Antigonish Movement sought to "integrate economic and community development through adult education, with an eye to promoting self-help and community o~nershi~."~~Growing up out of the 1920's in Antigonish, the Antigonish Movement attempted to broaden the potential represented by CO-operatives by adding a "philosophical underpinning.. . [where CO-operatives were exalted] far beyond the role of economic strategy. .. [becoming instead] a way of life, the means by which the poor could become, in [Father Coady's] famous phrase, 'masters of their own de~tin~."~' Adult education was joined with CO-operative action, and study groups, CO-operatives, and credit unions were founded, on the principle that the people had to take over their own futures." In terms of concrete change, by the time the Movement's representative in PEI, J. T. Croteau left the province in 1946, "... the Antigonish Movement did not revolutionize the participants' lives, though it occasionally revolutionized their thinking. And, for those who took its message deeply to heart, it restored something that years of Depression had stripped away: h~~e."~' Another form of community development, the local development organization, has been seen in many of the most successful recent experiences in the region. As it provides an important context for understanding the Community Development Bureau in Prince Edward Island, it deserves a greater exploration. 4.1.4 Loca I development organizations As we have seen, rnuch of the criticism levelled at past govemment programs has to do with the ability of these programs to reflect the true needs of individual comrnunities and to engage community members in the structural changes necessary to break cycles of dependency. Co-operatives were one answer to these criticisms rooted in the communities themselves, local development organizations (LDOs) were another: "Airned at promoting community as well as individuai self-help and self- reliance and long-term increases in communities' institutional capacities, the local development approach has of late increasingly been considered as a possible solution to many of the country's regional problems. What is different about this approach is its attempt to combine social and econornic objectives within a coherent long-term development framework which builds on the entrepreneurial potential of both individuals and cornmunitie~.'~~ Within the local development paradigm, organizations are established in cornmunities to provide a focus for change that is directed by those affected. tt would appear that the approacti is not always adopted as a conscious methodology, as might have been the case in many CO-operatives,but often springs up out of a local need for a community group to take on a broad range of local issues. Indeed, many individuals involved in LDOs might not even recognize the term were it presented to them. LDOs are often rooted in the CO-operativeconcept of self-help, but do not always take on the single focus of many CO-ops. An LDO has been defined in one study as an "organization sharing characteristics of public and private sectors which is designed to bring long-term benefits to a community as a whole with a mixture of socio-cultural and economic goals.'944 LDOs are generally created with the intention of creating an environment supportive of local initiatives and aim to achieve increased benefits for the community as a whole, often including either business ventures or partnerships. An LDO *'does not generally engage in short-tenn job creation as its primary objective. Its aim, rather, is the much broadrr one of helping to build (or rebuild) the community's capacity to plan, design, control, implement, and assess its own f~tures.''~' In contrast to local volunteer organizations established to deal with specific issues or circumstances, LDOs often have a full-time paid staff. LDOs are generally be characterized by the following concepts; community self-help, development from within, partnerships, community- based initiatives, and capacity building? According to Brodhead, there are three types of LDOs, including community development corporations (CDCs, also known as community business corporations, or CBCs), local financial institutions (LFIs), and local training institutions (LTIs). in some instances the LDO actually fits into more than one category.'" These LDOs, it is argued, base their efforts on developing the three key pillars of community described earlier by improving education and training base, mobilizing capital funds, and developing information, ideas and new technology. LDOs, needless to Say, have both strengths and weaknesses. ?'bey do represent local empowerment and have strengths based on a paid staff with a stake in the success and survival of the organization, their ability to mobilize local resources, the signifiant economic contribution of unpaid labour, and the increases in community action that arise from the demonstration of leadership by a group or individual.JS They also face several constraints, namely the lack of long-term funding, the question of risk sharing, the difficulty in tinding locai capital, and the lack of established tools to measure success."9 Moreover, the frequent changes in the type of funding available through government, the dependence on the existence of local leadership and the difficulty of combining social and economic objectives in the same strategy al1 contribute to making the work of LDOs a challenge.s0 Some would argue, further, that local action is not always sufficient to change the larger structural conditions that go beyond the borders of the community and instead becomes an excuse for governments to download costs and services. Despite these challenges, however, a study focused on local development experiences concluded that: Overall, given its relative merits and shortcomings, it is probably accurate to Say that with the presence of a LDO, the chances for success of cornmunity development initiatives are greater, but only if local socio- econornic conditions and resource endowments are adequate, and extemal economic and political circumstances do not pose insuperable barriers. Without such an organization, underdeveloped communities will likely have a more difficult time mobilizing their own underutilized resources, attracting an y necessary additional human and material resources from outside, and building long-term local institutional capacity. The challenges facing Canadian policy-makers will be recognize (sic) and build on the value of the organizations and to support their growth once they have demonstrated their potential to tackle economic decline and underdevelopment. These local organizations warrant particular attention at this time, given their potential for enabling communities to assume sorne of the responsibilities previously assumed by or left to the governments.5 ' Indeed, a close look at existing LDOs in the Atlantic region offers hope for change, however restricted. One of the more famous examples of local development experiments is the case of the New Dawn Enterprises, a CBC based in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. New Dawn was incorporated in 1976 and has focused on community development through real estate and community care initiatives, often developing on a for-profit basis in sectors where the open market has been unwilling to enter, such as affordable housing and provision of space for service centres such as dental clinics. Profits are re-invested into other projects and the Company is founded on teamwork, not the hierarchy that would be anticipated given the company's emphasis on profits and corporate structure. The Company has continued strong since its incorporation, despite a few struggles, and has relied almost completely on its own finances." Although New Dawn has been categorized as a CDC by Brodhead et al., its founder, Greg MacLeod prefers the term community business corporation (CBC) and describes a corporation as "entity that is a combination of capital and human resources organized so as to achieve goals laid down by a board of directors through efficient management of economic wealth.. . CBCs aim for the improvement of local cornmunity, not the enrichment of non-resident ~hareholders."~~ In another instance, an LDO was established through a long process rather than through a focused and conscious effort - the case of Development Isle Madame (DIMA) refiects more the process the entire community went through in coming to terms with the fact that its future, given the decline of the fishery, was in its own hands. The community undertook many programs, participated in the Federal Community Futures program, and attempted training programs to provide residents with alternate forms of employment opportunities. In 1995, the group that grew up through these efforts incorporated as DIMA and has enjoyed a few successes in terms of community-based change. It has faced challenges involving people, dealing with social tensions, addressing the attitude that someone else shouId fix the situation, fear of formal training, and a lirnited view of the future." One of the benefits of the local development approach to community development is the aspect of local leadership, as opposed to the appointment of leaders by those who mn or administer programs (government), which has led in some cases to problems of inadequate representation of community, inadequate skiils, or inappropriate motives of ihose in charge of working with communities. There are always questions of formal/governmental versus unofficial structure, as well as questions of funding and independence - the Rural Development Council in PEI avoided formalizing for many years in order to evade criticisrn or attack from government mernbers jealous of their influence. In the end, the Council's entrance into an agreement with the provincial government and its acceptance of funding for its services proved to be instrumental in its demi~e.'~The successes of the various LDOs in the Atlantic region, however, suggest that formalization is often actually quite useful in guaranteeing results, as they provide a focus for community activity and often undertake financial endeavours that represent community needs rather than those of individuals. 4.2 The Prince Edward Island Community Development Bureau 4.2.I Mandate for the PEI Communiy Development Bureau The Prince Edward Island Community Development Bureau was created in July 1999 with the mandate to help rural communities sustain themselves through a citizen-led process of development. The provincial govemment recognized that the economy of the province is defined by the rural communities, which have been faced with declining or small population bases, economic hardship, and in some cases, social issues such as low rates of functional literacy?' In the context of a province with an increasing population and a high rate of urbanisation in spite of an economy defined by the primary resource sector, the government deerned it necessary to facilitate the building or rebuilding of rural communities, recognising that "[s]mall, vibrant, and prosperous communities contribute perhaps more than anything else to that intangible called the 'Island way of ~ife'.'"~ Many government tools and services existed to help Island communities bring about change, but what appeared to be lacking was a focused mechanism for identifying the client and presenting a process. That is not to Say that the Community Development Bureau (CDB) was created out of a vacuum. Prior to the establishment of the CDB, there were four government sponsored community development corporations on the Island, including the Western Developrnent Corporation (West Prince), the Central Development Corporation (East Prince), Opportunities East Inc. (Kings), and the Baie Acadienne Development Corporation (~ellin~ton).~'Conference proceedings from the First Annual Conference of Community Development Lead Organizations, held in Charlottetown in December of 2000 indicate that many of the groups presenting had actually formed pnor to the founding of the CDB or were building on previous activity in the c~rnmunities.~~ According to sorne, however, traditional methods of development left a lot to be desired, as in many cases they involved individuals or small groups going to either their political representative or a funding agency to request resources for specific projects that often did not have the support of the community. In other instances, cornmunity-based prograrns had been replaced with very large top-down regional development agencies with which fewer people identified and which inspired less volunteerism or commitment from community members. In these situations, community initiatives were seen as a distraction from the efforts of the officia1 ~r~anisations.~'The Comrnunity Development Bureau (CDB)was created, instead, with an eye to creating an overall structure within communities through which to plan for the future and an improved quality of life for local residents - to help communities "hamess their own possibilities" in order to develop sustainabl y.61 Rather than depending on municipalities (where they existed) to run the process for their own, often small, area, it was deterrnined that it would make more sense to take a broader definition of "community" and to look at community development areas (CDAs), based upon the old rural school system. These CDAs would then be re-defined or refined by the community to reflect the commonly understood community boundary (Figure 4.2). These CDAs can bring together up to 8,000 people. In fact, the CDAs bear a striking resemblance to the Community lmprovement Committee (CIC) boundaries from the days of communicy planning, as well as the community areas targeted by the Rural Development Council (RDC) and the Cornprehensive Development Plan. A Community Development Areas Wcsi Princc 1. Tigiiish & Arca Southcm Kings and Quccns 2. SI. Louis-Mimincçah & Arca 25. Sc. Tcrcsa Arca 3. Albcrton & Arco 26. Cludigan & A~CÛ Ci cnM--Quecns 4. O'Lcûn & Arca 27. Georgetown 5. Tyne Vallq & hca 14I. Gulf Shore Arca n 11 @cens 28. Rivcrvicw Arca 15.. cenui 29. Vernon River Arca 16. Arp4c Shorc Arca 30. Bclfasi Arca 17. cornvvdl Arca 3 1. Wood Islands Arca If6. "North ' Shorc Arco ...... - 32. Northumbcrland Arca 19. Hiilsborough. Arca East Pnncc 8. Kensington-MalpcqucArc 9. Kinkora iYt Arca 2 1. MarcIl& Arca 10. Bcdcquc Area 22. SI. Petcrs iYr Area I 1. Bordcn iYr Am 23. Easicm Kings 12. Emcrdd 24. Central Kings Figure 4.2: Prince Edward Island Community Development Areas as presently defined? Leadership is a central component of the CDB mode1 - leadership is seen to be the driving factor for successful community-driven development and must be, in this process, defined by the community. There is a deliberate attempt to move the process away frorn the tradition of having leaders appointed by government or agencies. Here, leaders must be identified, and accepted by the community and must willingly be involved as volunteers. The CDB falls under the provincial Department of Development & Technology, although it reports to four provincial ministers (Figure 4.3). These four ministers work with the deputy ministers and the CDB chief, who in turn directs the six community development officers (CDOs). The inter-departmental structure was conceived to ensure that a comprehensive approach was taken, as community projects that emerge from the process range from health to education to economic development. The director and CDOs function as coordinators, facilitating community efforts, rather than directing from a central location. Healtti & Social & Technology Aquaculture & Environment Interdepartmental Deputy Cornmittee Staff Working Group Chief, Community Development Bureau Community Development Ofticers Figure 43: Organizational chan of the Community Development Bureau 4.2.2 Steps in the community development process The CDB community development process is not imposed on Island cornmunities. It is, out of necessity, a flexible process, responding as necessary to individual situations. The steps described below, therefore, outline the process as it is envisioned, but it is not always, in reality, a linear process. After making presentations about the service to local organisations and municipal councils, the community development officer retreats and waits for a forma1 invitation from the community. If the community is not ready or interested in participating, it is not involved. Once the CD0 is invited to work with a community, the first step is to define a preliminary CDA and to get people within that area to begin working together to identify and define their community. This is a process of developing interest. To help with this, extensive 'kitchen table' interviews are held to identify local issues and concerns, as well as opportunities and strengths. These interviews are held with individuals representing as many aspects of the community as possible to ensure that al1 perspectives are caught. At this point, the presence of the neutral, outside CD0 is seen to be a positive one, as individuals have shared thoughts and concerns with a directness that may not have been present had they been interviewed by a fellow community member. In the Gulf Shore area, where the year-round population is approximately 4000, about 70 interviews were condu~ted.~~In the Cardigan area, 45-50 interviews were held for a population of 535 households (or approximately 1,800 people).64 The second step is to identify community leaders. Names of respected or trusted community members emerge through the interviews and other interaction with the community. These individuals are approached and asked to join the process. While information does not exist for the demographics of al1 leadership groups on the Island, some observations might be made about the two committees who held meetings during the research period. While it might be expected that community committees would be mostly made up of older or retired individuals with extra time and experience, it was interesting to note that many of the committee members were in fact younger or middle- aged, although there were no youth present. Moreover, committee members represent in many cases a wide range of community sectors, including local business people, fishers, farrners, environmental activists, health care workers, and tourism operators. After leaders are identified, a body is created to work with the facilitator, the CDO. This body will eventually become the place where decisions are made, efforts are directed, and projects selected. The body (a community development committee) conducts surveys based on the results of the interviews to further establish community priorities and may also undertake preliminary projects such as the creation of business or organizational directories. Eventually, the committee is asked to hold an open meeting for the whole CDA to deterrnine whether or not the process will continue. The community is asked to affirm or redefine the CDA, to accept or reject the leadership, and to provide a mandate for the community development committee. This meeting is an opportunity to review the findings from the initial steps, to discuss vision and direction for the comrnunity and to identify major issue areas to be addressed and worked through in the community. The committee then becomes a forum through which community decisions are made. As the CDA is generally made up of more than one cornmunity, many of which are unincorporated, any village or community councils may participate but hold no veto power over decisions (Figure 4.4). Activities that come out of the process must not interfere with areas of local jurisdiction, however; a CDA is not meant to give a larger, regional communi ty control over local municipal activities. ent Area I Unincorporated community 1 Unincorporated \ Ar- -. \ community --+, u nincorporated \ Unincorporated 1 1-1 \ comrnunity 1 Unincorporated / Figure 4.4: Make-up of Community Development Areas The open community meeting is seen to be a major milestone, according to the director of the program. By this point, enough consensus has been reached for the people to corne together and agree to work together. Momentum is important in order to ensure continuation of the process. Of the roughly 30 CDAs initially identified, over 20 have now established leadership groups, many of which have or are in the process of becoming in~orporated.~~These committees then set up by-laws to govem their activities and to ensure accountability to the community as a whole. An annual general meeting is a key aspect, as is the annual election of the committee by al1 residents, and while al1 incorporated committees do not presently include this in their by-laws, it is anticipated that those that do not will be revising to include it. The coinmittee also sets up sub-cornmittees to work on special projects that are identified in the open meeting, and while as much of the community as possible is encouraged to participate, continuity is maintained by ensuring that at least one member of the sub- committee sits on the general committee. Decisions made by the sub-committee or general committee must be approved by the community. An example of this was a public meeting held on January 30th, 2001 by the Cardigan Communities Development Corporation. This cornmittee has been working on a concept plan for a new waterfront development and was asking the comrnunity to decide whether or not to take the project beyond the concept stage. A presentation of the concept plan was followed by a question and answer period, after which the community voted unanimously to continue developing the project. Once the leadership committee has been established and an open meeting held, a community vision is developed and projects are identified to address the vision and issues identified in the first stage of the process. These projects are developed by the sub- cornmittees and then brought back to the community for comments, approval or disapproval, after which funding is sought. A maximum of 30% of the funding will be provided by the Community Development Fund allocated to the CDB, with the remainder coming from the community and/or any other source, including Human Resource Development Canada (HRDC), and ACOA (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agencies). The Community Development Fund is a pool of funds from the four departments that oversee the CDB. In many cases, negotiations are held with various departments together, including those Iisted above, due to the system of checks and balances that exists between federal, regional, and provincial funding sources. While the projects are an important part of the process - yielding tangible results for the cornmunity to see - it is the process of community-building itself that is key to developing sustainable and self- reliant communities in the eyes of the community development officers. 4.2.3 Role of the Community Development Oficer (ai Government) The role of the CD0 is to function as a coordinator or facilitator in the community building process. While the CD0 is instrumental in jump-starting the process and providing the guidance often necessary to focus comrnunity efforts, the CD0 does not run the process. Rather, the CD0 assists in gaining the tools, knowledge and direction needed by community members. During the initial months, the CDOs conduct interviews to assess leadership and community issues. The intricacies of incorporation are navigated, and the process of building community consensus facilitated. Later on, the main role of the CD0 is to act as a resource regarding programs and funding that might be of assistance to the cornmunity and to maintain momentum and keep the community on track. As opposed to programs in the past, the Community Development Bureau (CDB) is designed to CO-ordinateefforts on the ground rather than direct and control projects from one central location. Moreover, the goal is not to fund as many projects or create as many jobs as possible, but rather to facilitate true community improvements that increase the ability of the rural community to sustain itself. 4.2.4 Challertges for the CDB There are many challenges for the CDB. The first of these is achieving consensus in a community to act as a concerted unit. While there is a history in many of these community areas of cooperation through schools or fire services, in other cases the presence of one or more incorporated communities along with unincorporated communities creates initial tension or insecurities about loss of jurisdiction or potential amalgamations. Any individual community that does not wish to join is free to abstain and municipal councils are simply one partner in the process; the first task is to convince the cornmunities that this will not change. Another challenge is to identify local leadership that is trusted and respected by al1 and that is willing to work for the entire community. There is always the possibility that such people are already overly involved in other projects. In other instances, the leadership pool in a particular area is small due to disinterest, diminishing population or other factors. Without these people, however, the process is unable to function as it is intended. One of the strongest obstacles to the implementation or initiation of the process is the existence in some communities of other organizations with similar goals or intentions. In Kensington, for example, a local organization formed prior to the founding of the CDB found itself splintering into 104 single-objective groups, which then had to be pulled back into a development corporation in 1997.~~Many of these organizations are local, and are generally project- or issue-specific, lacking the CO-ordinated quality of the CDB process. However, it is difficult and perhaps unwise for CDOs to enter communities and ask the people to start over - compromising on the process or joining forces is in many cases the most effective answer. CDOs in these situations, therefore, are encouraged either to join up with existing cornmittees or find opportunities to identify gaps that might be filled in by the CDB process. Obviously, if the community is sufficiently organized to be running its own process, there is sometimes no need even for the CDB process to be brought in, although in many instances, the processes are incomplete or are not mandated by the public at large. The challenge is often, however, to identify who speaks for the community and to bring together diverse groups with specific interests. Outside organizations working in the communities are another challenge, as they often also carry the voice of govemrnent and yet are running parallel programs that diffuse or contradict the CDB process. This seems to be a result of political decisions or pre- existing policies. Communication and compromise would appear to be the solution in this instance, in order to ensure clarity for the CDOs and the community members who are participating in any of the programs. A final challenge for the program is the traditional form of development in the province, where individuals or groups approached political representatives or funding agencies for project-specific funding. This understanding of development has led in some cases to a disinterest in process and a focus on immediate funding opportunities - building consensus and finding community-supported projects is often a much more difficult task. This tradition exists as much on the part of the politicians as with the residents, moreover, and the program director acknowiedged that there is a potential for some to see the process as expensive and untargeted, and to pressure for projects rather than process. 4.2.5 Resiilts One of the main results of the process, from the testimony of the CDOs and committee members, as well as indications from turnout to public meetings, is a new sense of hope or empowerment. Community members are being given a voice in determining how change is going to happen and how their community will be protected and enhanced. While in one CDA, turnout for a local municipal hearing on a municipal-specific project generated interest in only a few individuals, a project in the same area that was shared by the entire CDA prompted such interest that there was standing room only in the bingo hall. This is an indication that the decision to work with larger regional communities, the CDAs, promotes a level of effort that better or effectively reflects community needs and desires. A second benefit of the process, according to the program director, is the level of investment at the community level. Of the $10 million spent altogether since the program started in 1999, $3 million has come directly from the community, in the form of project shares from community members, fundraising, corporate sponsorship, and in kind donations, and $1.7 million has come from the Community Development und.^' Communities are willing and committed to work on ensuring the success of these projects, and the concept of sustainability returns time and tirne again at public meetings and in the development of projects. According to the Bureau chief, ACOA has never seen such high levels of financial commitment from communities in the province.68 The two communities with the highest success rates in the process to date are the Gulf Shore area and the Cardigan area. Along the Gulf Shore, which includes North Rustico and 16 other smaller communities, the community development committee is in the process of becoming incorporated and has begun in-depth work on a variety of projects, included a new community health resource centre, a waterfront marina developrnent, harbour improvements, and eco-tourism cons ide ration^.'^ A night clinic designed to serve the community during the development of the health centre was launched on February 28, 2001 and involved the location of a building, equipment, start up funds, doctors willing to come for an evening every week, and negotiations with the PEI Physician Resource Cornmittee. While the initial building will only be open once a week on a walk-in basis, service will be increased according to dernand and plans for a future centre are underway that include a greater variety of services and potentially more physicians. Post-natal and immunization services will also be offered out of the chic beginning March 20, 2001. Community support and interest has been tremendous, and the committee has had offers of donated buildings and/or buildings leased at cost, discounted equiprnent, and other instances of in kind support. A delegation from the committee recently traveled to McAdam, New Brunswick to learn about their community health centre and to undentand challenges and lessons leamed." In the Cardigan area, community members were waiting for the CD0 to be hired in order to invite her in, anxious for an opportunity to get involved. The Cardigan Communities DeveIopment Association was formed and incorporated and has set up several sub- committees dealing wi th projects such as waterfront marina development, an Information Technology centre, local heritage, and a newsletter, and the general comrnittee works closely with a pre-existing recreation committee. Involvement is quite high, such that 25 people came to help write the terms of reference for the marina project and 35 came out to assist in the writing of the community sur~e~.~' Not al1 communities fo11ow the process so carefully, however. In some of the Southem Kings CDAs, the CD0 has been asked in for the sole purpose of helping out with applications for funding or other programs. Another CDA in Southem Kings, St. Teresa, is interested in creating a community that draws new families and its efforts pre-date the CDB. The CD0 helps out from time to time and provides guidance when requested, so the process there is partial and modified to fit existing efforts. The community's efforts have been paying off, however, as a recent 'Meet Your Neighbour' night drew 225 people from a community of 290 households.'' Other priority areas for the St. Teresa and Area Development Corporation include eco-tourism, economic development, recreation, and a community news~etter.'~ It is possible to compare this process with the planning processes seen in the previous chapter. The following chart outlines how the processes compare to each other. Overall, it would appear that the new mode1 represented by the Community Development Bureau is having an impact on Island comrnunities. The fact that committee members from several of the CDAs presented at the Community Development Conference, held last December, as represen tatives of lead organisations, rather than being represented by government staff demonstrates the degree to which the process has been internalized and embraced by the communities involved. Community development is not being done for or to the communities, but by them. Moreover, despite the lack of action on the part of many municipalities, there is an evident will among cornmunity members for local governance and action, as seen by level of participation in CDA process in many areas. The Community Development Bureau helps communities to establish local development organizations, and these organizations have struck a chord in many Island communities. One of the ubiquitous questions when it comes to comrnunity development projects is the ability of the prograrn to survive through time, burnout, and changes in govemment policy. The fact that many of the participants in the present process had been involved in past community action, either through the Rural Development Council, the Cornprehensive Development Plan, or other community development initiatives, points to an argument that people do continue to participate over time. The emphasis on process in the CDB mode1 is designed to provide communities with tools, experience, and a forum for continuing on their own - the momentum that comes from seeing reat change in a community, as well as the emphasis on sustainability throughout the process, may be enough to ensure that positive results will continue to be seen, even should the program ceases to exist officially. Moreover, once a tradition of leadership is established, it becomes easier to encourage the nurturing of leadership skills in the younger generations, ensuring a longer process. All communities may not embrace the CDB process and it may not last forever, but while it is present, it will continue to build a legacy that might just be strong enough to lead into other types of community action. Endnotes 1 Da1 Brodhead, Francois Lamontagne, and Jon Peirce, "Regional Development in Canada: The Local Development Experience," Regional Development /rom the Bottom Up: Sefected Papers of the Local Development Series, ed. Mike Lewis (Vancouver: Westcoast Development Group, 1993), 244. ' Brodhead, 249. 3 Brodhead, 25 1. J Brodhead, 261. ' Brodhead, 262. 6 Fred Wien, "Regional Inequality: Explanations and Policy Issues," Social Inequality in Canada: Patterns, Problems ond Policies, ed. J. Curtis, E. Grabb, and N. Guppy, 3" ed. (Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1999), 283. Prince Edward Island, Bridging Tmdition and Technology, Economic Development Strategy for Prince Edward Island, (Charlottetown, 2000), 6. Wien, 273-277. 9 Brodhead, 249. IO Statistics Canada, "Measuring Economic Well-Being of Rural Canadians Using Income Indicators," Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin. Vo1.2, No. 5 (March, 200 1). II Prince Edward Island, Department of the Provincial Treasury, "Table 7 - Population of Cities, Towns, Villages and Indian Reserves of Prince Edward Island," Twenty-Sixth Annual Stutistical Review 1999, (Charlottetown, 2ûûû), 18. Increases were noted from 1991 to 1996; it will be interesting to see how the trend continues with the 2001 census. Figures were for incorporated areas only. 12 Nancy Murphy (Community Development Bureau), personal interview, March 10, 2001. See also Mt. Allison's Rural and Small Towns Programme for study of quality of Me in rural communities. 13 Wien, 277. 14 Wien, 278. 15 Wien, 279. 16 Brodhead, 256. Also, Edward MacDonald, If You 're Stonghearted: Prince Edward Island in the Twentieth Century, (Charlottetown: Prince Edward Island Museum and Heritage Foundation, 20ûû), 268-271. 17 Brodhead, 292. l8 Wien, 279. l9 Wien, 282. 'O Wien, 282. " Brodhead, 246. Also Ken Banks and Helen Ball, "Education and Training," Community Development Around the World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training, ed. Hubert Campfens, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 105-106. While Canada's economy had actually tumed around somewhat since the writing of this article in 1993, the current talk of an upcoming recession suggests that there may not be much change in the government's willingness to spend money. As well, the recent problem in PEI with the much-discussed potato wart and the subsequent closure of the US border indicates the vulnerability of local communities to international markets and trading relationships, although some would also lay the blame on an increased dependence on monoculture agriculture. --7 7 Brodhead, 246. Again, the talk of a recession or econornic slow-down might impact on the growth in the area of small businesses. " Brodhead, 257. '"Banks, 107. " Hubert Carnpfens, ed., Community Development Around the World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 25. '' Campfens, 25. " Brodhead, 26 1. '8 Brodhead, 263. 29 Brodhead, 262. 30 Brodhead, 262. 3 1 Rankin MacSween, "New Dawn Enterprises Limited: A Comrnunity Economic Development Experiment," Perspectives on Cornmunifies: A Community Economic Development Roundtable, ed. Gertrude Anne MacIntyre, (Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998), 87. 32 Campfens, 24. 33 Scott MacAulay "Community Economic Development and Persons with Disabilities: A Case Study of Critical Issues for Organisations," Perspectives on Communities: A Community Economic Develcrpment Roundtable, ed. Gertrude Anne MacIn tyre, (Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998), 184. Here, MacAulay is speaking of CED designed for persons with disabilities by persons with disabilities, and he uses the term consumer movement. This concept is a~s~capturedin the term community based and could, one might argue, be a plied to any community, including geographic ones. 3PGeraId Dore, "Case Study: Conscientization as a Specific Form of Community Practice and Training in Quebec," Community Development Around the World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training, ed. Hubert Campfens, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 94 35 Charles MacDonald, "The Mira Pasture Cooperative," Perspectives on Communities: A Community Economic Development ~oundtabfe,ed. ~ertnideAnne MacIntyre, (Sydney: UCCB Press, l998), 105-116. 36 Edward MacDonald, 70, 172- 178. 37 Edward MacDonald, 177. 38 Greg MacLeod, "The Community Business Corporation: La Empresa Social," Perspectives on Communities: A Community Economic ~evelo~mentRoundrable, ed. Gertrude Anne MacIntyre, (Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998), 57. 39 Brodhead, 292. 40 Edward MacDonald, 175. 4' Edward MacDonald. 173. Edward MacDonald, 178. 43 Brodhead, 245. 44 Brodhead, 293. 45 Brodhead, 294. - - - - 46 Brodhead, 3 14. 47 Brodhead, 293. 48 Brodhead, 313. 49 Brodhead, 3 17-319. 'O Brodhead, 31 1. 5' Brodhead, 320. 5 2 MacSween. 5 3 MacLeod, 52-53. 54 Karen Malcolm, "Suwival of a Small Community," Perspectives on Comrnunities: A Community Economic Development Roundtable, ed. Gertrude Anne Maclntyre, (Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998), 1 17- 134. 55 Michael O'Grad y, From Grassroots to Grim Reapings: A History of the Prince Edward Island Rural Development Council, (Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 1997), 9. 56 Prince Edward Island, "Introduction," Bridging Traditions and Technology: An Economic Development Strategy, (Charlottetown, 20ûû), 1. 57 Bridging Tradition and Technology, 13. 513 J. A. Cousins, Geography of Governance: An Overview of Boundaries, Powers and Responsibilities on Prince Edward Island, (Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 1999), 18. 59 Learning From Each Other: First Annual Conference of Cornmunity Development Lead Organizations, December 2,2000, University of Prince Edward Island. 60 Bill Buell (Community Development Bureau), persona1 interview, January 29,2001. 6 1 Bill Buell, personal interview, January 29,2001 62 Community Development Areas, map (Charlottetown: Cornmunity Development Bureau, 2000). Boundaries are not exact and change periodically. 63 Norman Gallant, Gulf Shore Community Corporation, "Notes from a presentation," Learning from Each Other: First Annual Conference of Community Development Lead Organizations, December 2,2000, University of Prince Edward Island, 9. Also: Case Study: GulfShore Communities, (Charlottetown: Community Development Bureau and the Gulf Shore Community Corporation, 2000), 1. 64 Melody Beck (Community Development Bureau), persona1 interview, January 29, 2001. 65 Bill Buell (Comrnunity Development Bureau), persona1 interview, January 29,2001. It is not clear how rnany of the CDAs or the leadership comrnittees have developed through the process and how many were pre-existing. 66 Wes Sheridan, Kensington Rural Development Partners, "Notes from a presentation" Learning from Each Other: First Annual Conference of Cmnmunity Development Lead Organizutions, December 2,200, University of Prince Edward Island, 11- 13. 67 Nancy Murphy (Community Development Bureau), persona1 interview, March 10, 2001. 68 Bill Buell (Community Development Bureau), personal interview, January 29,2001. 69 Gallant, 9. 'O Cornmittee Meeting, Gulf Shore Community Corporation, January 29, 2001. 7' Melody Beck (Comrnunity Development Bureau), personal interview, January 29, 2001. 72 Melody Beck (Community Development Bureau), persona1 interview, January 29, 2001. 73 Mary Myers, St. Teresa and Area Development Corporation, "Notes from a presen ta tion," Learning from Each Other: First Annuul Conference of Communiry Development Lead Organizations, December 2, 2000, University of Prince Edward Island, 8. Chapter 5 - Linking Planning and Community Development 5.1 Comparing the two processes As noted at the beginning of this study, Prince Edward Island is not a large province. Community development and planning processes, as well as other Provincial undertakings, are al1 happening in the same small communities. Despite the temptation to look at the different processes as stand-alone programs, the fact that they are at times occumng simultaneously is reason enough to examine how and if they overlap. 5.1.1 Sirnila ri fies between the CDB process and PEI planning practices In practice, the relat ionsh ip between the Communi ty Development Bureau process and PEI planning practices is a distant one, despite the fact that many of the projects resulting from the CDB process are similar to those one would expect to see from a planning process. Many CDAs have focused on the development or enhancement of public places and environmental restoration, projects of a communal nature. This aspect is essentially where the similarities end. As we have seen, current planning in PEI is essentially land- use related and there are presently no government mechanisms in place to undertake community based planning, especiaily in any comprehensive fashion. The hiring of a planning consultant by a municipality rnight yield a similar set of projects, but the process generally differs substantially from that of the CDB and is not always owned so completely by the public (Figure 5.1). This lack of ownership may, at the end of the day, result in a decreased level of self- reliance and local problem-solving. By having a plan designed for a community based on limited or restricted public involvement, the potential for capacity-building and organizational training is missed, again bringing us back to the question of self-reliance. In these cases, moreover, the planning is being done for a very specific community, the incorporated area, and is not required or permitted to refer to the larger area surrounding that municipality. Very few municipalities in PEI have the tesources or inclination to run a planning process as described by the two modets explored in Chapter 3. .. lrqnrgar ~Muir-t/wmtin IS rhir pryar- A tt.rurr j~r Hlnv muct< .diil 1ç7wi pnrmwum fimicil nw~iiiurnwf ir &*m? ~~mmwi,~~-luuïl? pmci~im 5.1.2 Similarifies beîwccn ihe CDB process and the two models In theory, however, the relationship between the Community Development Bureau's process and rural planning could be a much closer one, as demonstrated by the community-based planning models. The most striking level of similarity between the two processes is the belief expressed that community-building and self-reliance is key to sustained improvements in the quality of life for residents in those cornmunities. Change must come through and from the community and must be driven by its members. Both processes are premised on a belief that without a process that is run and guided by the community itself, change is less likely to truly represent community needs, to be accepted by community mernbers, and to result in sustainable structural improvements in the way the community functions. The two processes also bear many resemblances in terms of their goal; to create a direction and plan for the future of the comrnunity that will result in lasting change to promote the survival of the community as a whole in a holistic and sustainable way. Sectoral approaches, such as job creation or infrastructure developrnent, are integrated into a broad-ranging strategic view of the future that is not focused only on short-term benefits. Research into the basic qualities and characteristics of the community is undertaken and residents come together to discuss the need for planning/community development and to identify strengths and issues. These findings translate into a vision for the future, which in turn leads to the formation of project committees who research various possible projects, which are later brought back to the community for endorsement. In these two processes, also, the role of the planner / community development officer is that of facilitator. The CDB takes the attitude that most communities in PEI require a more officia1 facilitator to guide them through the process, assist in the development of skills and provide a link to tools and funding programs, whereas the planning models impIy that facilitators /resource people might only have to be brought in at certain points as necessary. In both cases, however, the facilitator does not make decisions for the community but rather guides thern through and helps them to achieve their own goals. This difference might not be so significant, moreover, when one considers the fact that many first nation communities already have some form of governance structure set up to help with these challenges, as well as the fact that a future goal of the First Nation Community Planning Project includes the establishment of a planning resource centre that would partially fiIl the role of the government community development officer / facilitator. Another aspect, which despite appearances, is actually a similarity, is the amount of emphasis placed on physical or land use planning. While, on the surface, the planning models pay m uch more attention to ph ysical settlement considerations, what tends to occur in PEI is a linking of many aspects of community with questions of settlement and land use. This is in many cases inevitable due to the history and culture of rural land uses in Prince Edward Island. For example, both the Gulf Shore and Cardigan areas have at least two projects that are land use or settlement-based linked to public or community spaces. In other instances, land use conflicts are being resolved through means other than regulation. Where activities are having negative impacts on watersheds, for example, a focus on eco-tourism developrnent is causing resistance to change to fade and people who otherwise would not have paid attention are becoming interested. It appears that even community development cannot avoid issues that are sometimes dismissed as more "planning" related, but the distrust of regulatory tools is leading to innovative strategies to achieve the same ends.' The processes do differ slightly in ternis of the emphasis placed on a Plan/Framework in the planning models. The community development process does look at creating plans for the future, but also recognizes that working through projects is one way of developing skills early on and is not unwilling to work initially at that level if it is a way of bringing the community into the process. Al1 projects, though, are CO-ordinated through the community development cornmittee and thus are seen in relation to each other - they are not developed in isolation. One major difference with the two models and the CDB process is the regulatory aspect of planning. The two models do consider reguiations such as Official Plans and by-laws (including zoning) where necessary. In the First Nations model, such regulations might become one of the projects outlined in the Framework stage. In the CDB process, however, CDOs do not generally enter any areas in which Planning and Municipal Affairs might have jurisdiction, namely the creation of plans and by-laws. Thus, there is currently no fomalized mechanism for implementing regulations in the CDB process, even were it permitted. It can safely be said, therefore, that the community development process is indeed a forrn of at least preliminary planning. Indeed, al1 interviewees involved in the CDB process acknowledged that what they were doing could be labelled community based planning.' The major differences between the two processes are, as just mentioned, the separation between planning process and planning regulations in the design of the two types of programs, and the emphasis placed on a long term plan. 5.1.3 The relationship between communiiy development and planning in PEI The above comparison between the CDB process and community based planning indicates that there is a great potential for a very strong retationship between the two processes, one that would benefit communities both in terms of planning and community development. Indeed, the integration of long term planning into the CDB process would make the two processes virtually indistinguishable. Essentially, the models as they exist are tools for the implementation of a process that is already underway, with the aforementioned exception of the regulatory aspects and the focus on long term goals. As we shall see, this link is an important one. In theory, then, the two processes could meet up nicely (Figure 5.2). Given the lack of resources in the planning division to facilitate the community planning process, the community development process could even be used to fil1 its role. One could even suggest that at any point in the process where the community might wish to incorporate regulations and by-laws into their projects, the planners could be brought in to help with that aspect. Or, as the planner who deals with official plans and by-laws is not permitted, for approval reasons, to help the community develop the plan, provincial planning staff could provide the CDOs with the tools and knowledge to guide this part of the process. Later on, if and when the community decides it would like to supplement projects with regulatory tools, the Planning Division would take over as necessary. There are, though, systematic and statutory obstacles to creating such a link. CdscYaJArialyB By-kvs Fcxusfiw &nul - ma-== a-ry d#$mNrirm DirmLmfir Smric~~ I-mnf Ph~~~ÙrnofmL. Caandiy Y= Yes somcîimcs somecimes, Yes m DHéopnmi gemrally phcau I 1 1 1 shori lem I I 1 Figure 5.2: Similarities in Process - Community Developrnent & Municipal Planning 5.2 Impediments to a linked pmcess 5.2.1 Communication benveen the two eristing processes Given the potential for a strong relationship between community development and planning, in theory, and the lack of relationship in practice, it then becomes necessary to identify the reasons for this difference. One contributing aspect that came out of the study was the nature of communication between the two disciplines in the province. There appears to be a varying degree of awareness of provincial planning efforts on the part of the community development officers. While al1 interviewed knew that planning existed in the province, their responses to questions regarding overlap of processes seemed to be mostly related to not getting in the way of Municipal Affairs, with less of a sense of how the two might or could meet or complement each other. Indeed, none of the development officers have any formal "planning" training, although they have certainly been acquiring or possess skills shared with professional planners. It is possible that there is a higher degree of awareness of the detailed efforts of both groups on the part of more senior members such as program/department directors or deputy ministers. The Municipal Affairs planner most directly linked with municipal or community planning also appeared largely unfamiliar with the details of the community development process as it is presently underway, and comments about the relationship between the two groups was more related to a lack of communication than to linking efforts. Rcpon / clustcr Sinde body Pmjcas Pmjecfs No land use planning Land uxplanning No mxation powcrs Taxaiion powcrs No siatutory protection Planning Act, Municiplitics Act Govemrnent sisiancc for planning No pvcmmcnt assisiana: for planning I I I Figure 53: Comparison of Community Development & Municipal Planning 5.2.2 Attitudes and history The systemic obstacles to change referred to earlier are closely linked to Island attitudes regarding controls over the use of land. The system of complete ownership by absentee landlords at the point of colonization is often referred to in order to explain present-day resistance to relinquishing any control over land use. While rural areas everywhere tend to resent land use regulations, PEI is the only province in Canada to currently have a Land Protections Act which limits the amount of land any resident, non-resident or corporation might hold.' Only rnunicipaliiy or provincc anhavc an Official Plan Pcmption of mrnmunity-owncd vs political ~IUCCSXS Fcars of "trix gabs" Would rcquire amalemation, or partial incorpotaiion and a joint plan 1 Would rcquire a planner to sis1in ihc planning aspect - lack of rcsuurccs, ~mvcmrnenlmisiance for municipal planning l Figure 5.4: Impediments to Linking Community Development & Municipal Planning The almost complete dependence of PEI'S economy on rural land uses has also created tensions between legislators and rural landowners. Newly required buffers zones around waterways, for example, prompted the PEI Federation of Agriculture to pass a motion asking for compensation for lost revenues in these buffer zones, regardless of the fact that the use of buffer zones are generally considered an integral part of healthy farming practices4 On the other hand, these tensions suggest that compromise and negotiation might be the most effective way to change the system, making compensation less problematic. Politicians, however, are extremely conscious of attitudes and opinions among their constituents, and the debate over land use, land ownership, and land management has been very slow to get off the ground. 5.2.3 Departmental areas of jurisdiction A Land Use Control Commission exists for provincial departments having any form of land use mandate. Despite this forum for discussion of common interests, however, there still appears to be a hesitation to get in the way of another department. At the same time, it is not clear that there is much discussion even within a single govemment department regarding projects and goals, and that can lead to contradictions and competing interests. The reasons for this may range from changes in staff to personal differences among senior management or simply a lack of communication between departments and through the ranks. As the CDB is not centred in Municipal Affairs, there has been avoidance of that division, and a resulting lack of information regarding activities. This has most likely kept the CDOs from initiating CO-operation between the two groups. Moreover, most efforts presently seem to be directed at initiating the community development process in areas that have been slower to organize; an initial stage in the process that has not yet brought the need for regulation into focus. 5.2.4 Local governance system Even were attitudes to change and departmental quirks worked out, there remains a serious impediment to changing and improving links between community development and planning efforts. This impediment is the local govemance structure (Figure 5.5). Provincial planning is organized around incorporated areas, unincorporated areas, and a few special planning areas. Community development is organized around comrnunity development areas, which are generally made up of anywhere from 2 to 20 small communities, which may or may not include some incorporated areas. The traditional use of these larger communities formats for resolving community issues, notably the district school board, means that there is a history and memory of working through this forum. Should the two departments wish to CO-ordinateand complement each other's efforts, this difference in geographic areas of interest is significant. For a local community wishing to have its own plan and by-laws, as we have seen, it must be incorporated. Therefore, if the two programs were to Iink up and an officia1 plan and by-laws were to be a product that would corne out of this partnership, the Community Development Area would have to be incorporated as a municipality. At present, no community development area has been willing to amalgamate into a single municipality. Indeed, reassurance that amalgamation is not a goal of the process has been key to ensuring the participation of many small communities in the cornmunity development process. Thus, a locally-created Official Plan and by-laws cannot be produced by the community development areas in their present state. I I cmnUnyr 1 Communiiy clustcrs (mny 1 nonc - it is a program 1 No cntrcnched or 1 noi prmind io udcnakc b1pisma1 Buani inclde some higned IO impl~mni pdecicd powcn- some n!gulatory acîivities, municipalitics)and nngc provincial policy legal prutation thmgh althgh municipaliiits from 1 to 2)cmmuniti~s thc incorporation of the indudcrl in the CDA miid amed thcir own I I rcgulatiomto teflect CDA Figure 5.5: ~egulator~Aspects of ~ommunit~lannin~in Prince Edward Island Could a plan be created under the jurisdiction of the province instead? With the exception of a few special planning areas, the province does not presently create plans and by-laws for local areas. Rather, the province has a set of development regulations that are concerned with issues of public health and safety, with a few environmental considerations thrown in. To link up the community development process and provincial planning to formalize community efforts into a plan and by-law would essentially be creating new special planning areas, and it is unlikely that the province would be willing to create off-hand a set of these for the entire province - the result would be, in reality, a new layer of planning that would be made up of regional planning districts, and tensions over the relationship between these and municipal planning would form immediately. Moreover, the creation of a set of special planning areas in addition to those that already exist would result in a province of exceptions, rather than a well-thought out strategy for local governance and planning. In practice, then, the two processes do not presently meet. This might in part be due to the relatively short life to date of the community developrnent process. Participating communities have not been involved long enough to get to the reguiatory stage. Many of the comrnunities, as well as the community development areas, have not had extensive experience with the process of self- or local governance and thus are probably less likely to be concerned or interested in formalized or regulatory planning at this tirne. For that reason, the CDOs have not had a reason to consider how such tools might enter the process. It is clear, however, that the age of the community development process is not the only obstacle to a more CO-ordinated effort. The result of having two independent processes is that community development is occurring on the one hand, and municipalities are, where interested, hiring planners to create official plans and by-laws on the other, with little or no CO-ordinationbetween the NO. 5.3 Consequences of Existing Conditions - Arguments for Change 5.3.1 Duplication by different organizaiions As things presently stand, there is great potential for duplication in the community- planning arena of PEI. A municipality could, theoretically, go ahead and commission a plan that might have nothing to do with community efforts in the greater community development area. Municipalities often try to put their own stamp on their area to demonstrate jurisdiction, and often deal with concerns that might not appear to be related to community development activities. Municipalities are not the only form of organization that could potentially duplicate the cornmunity development process. Local1y initiated cornmittees that either pre-date or have formed independently of the process often confuse the issue by making it diffiçult to determine who speaks for the community. While local organisations are one of the objectives of the CDB process, such organisations are intended to be comprehensive and representative to avoid such confusion and duplication. At the moment, however, many of these community groups are run by individuals with a specific area of interest or that only speak for some residents, which counters the concept of a group that is the focus for al1 comrnunity efforts. Even efforts from within government have the potential for duplication, as previous development corporations continue to function or new projects are developed to address specific situation. At these times, it is the lack of inter- and intra-departmental communication that creates the potential for duplication and confusion as to who and what is a community-driven activity. 5.3.2 Incomplete processes - protecting the process The question often arises of how much rural comrnunities actuaIly need planning and regulations (Figure 5.6). The Cardigan Communities Development Association is one example of how more regulations might actually be desirable. The community cornmittee's vision statement includes a reference to preserving the natural beauty of the area, and yet there are no regulations in the area to restrict or control new development to prevent a project such as a large waterslide park - exactly the type of project community members do not wish to see - from going in? While timing should always be considered - and plans and by-laws might not be the priority for community development areas just embarking on the process - the potential for frustration as community efforts are contradicted by i nappropriate development might counter some of the hope and empowerment that has been coming from the process to date. In essence, although communities are clearly embracing the process and the ideas behind it, they are not being given the powers and tools to take the process to its highest Ievel. ~ff~21? Regulatiomrc land Eanwnny is drivcn by vcry littk political will, Land uy: planning, umw: subdivisions, somc land use (nint eamomyr somc action wiih buffcr cuastal aine dcvclopmcnc contmis, no population stratcgy Ln zones and spfcial ming 1 irnplicaiions for planning 1 planning a- 1998 1 1 1 roundtable on land use Offial plan, by-la- 1 90f 27 have missal iheir [ varying, dcpcnds on land use, çomc salai in somc pmjccis and 5 yar~vicw thc~'fm bah humin mostcasa stmiegics municipl ql~dorrsof and financial scnices effective^ wkn: it woilrs. cool for 1-1 1 aintml and di~ion 1 Cmrnunitv-ideniifid 1 no reaulations. 1 dcpcnds on arca - some social, public sparxs. pmjçds (oiten çocial or ~m~tad aivey &y, bui it is up somc environmental. infmslniduml) I mobilization of l io the community to cxxinomk fairiy mmuniiyneiworks, annmunity. fams for unlcnake thc p&s ncmidiers. vision mmunity dccisions ihat l h't fall into muniripal 7igut-e 5.6: Long Term Change Through Community Planning in Prince Edward Island There are four major ways in which an incomplete process (through the lack of a link with planning) could jeopardize the success of the community development process. The first of these is the fact that cornmunity development without a plan does not necessarily provide a framework for the community to deal with future change, either in response to the community developrnent process or in spite of it. Secondly, despite the great amount of training and leadership development that results from the process, there is no protection of the process or the communities should the process burn itself out over time. Further, the lack of a link between community development and planning means that cornmunity development officers do not always bring up planning issues such as questions of land use. The final aspect that results from the distance between the two departments is the fact that tools, techniques, and in some cases, an understanding of implications of actions, might be overlooked due to a lack of communication between departments and disciplines. After all, Island planners, community development officers, and community volunteers possess among themselves a great deat of knowledge and experience, and show an active interest in the state of Island communities, but this knowledge and experience is not being shared and built upon as much as they could be. 5.3.3 Potential for conJlict / contradicting goals As we have seen with the duplication of effort that currently exists, there is also much room for resulting conflict and contradictory activities. Should various groups attempt to speak for the cornmunity, not only is there a wasted effort in time and resources, but resentments might build up as perceptions that people or groups are only interested in their own activities develop. Lack of communication is the greatest single danger, as it creates the potential for different groups to perceive each other as blocking efforts rather than linking up projects and processes. 5.4 Recommendations 5.4.1 Connecting the processes - Enhanced communication It is recommended that the Community Development Bureau and Island planners promote incmsed communication and CO-ordinationbetween the two processes and those responsible for implementing them in Prince Edward Island. niere are many reasons not to leave the two processes to continue on in disconnected parallel, including missed opportunities for even stronger results in the communities and increased potential for future problems. Moreover, as the life span of any government project is hard to predict, the form of planning that exists in the CDB might be jeopardized. Higher levels of communication rnight lead provincial planning or even provincial development efforts to fil1 in the void with a similarly comprehensive program. Meanwhile, even when the CDB prograrn is present, the lack of cornprehensive, location-sensitive development regulations means that community efforts might be undermined by the initiation of land uses or development projects that are not in keeping with community goals or priorities. Regular discussion of community activities, projects, and events would allow everyone to be aware of and anticipate activity or development throughout the province. 5.4.2 Consideration ofJoint Oflcial Plans There is also room for some strategies that do not involve structural reform for the entire province. Where appropriate, cornmunities should consider the creation of Joint OfTicial Plans for the community development area, as a way of pmtecting and enhancing their activities through a strategic plan and planning regulations. This is actually pemitted through a provision in the PEI Planning Act that describes how jointly held plans and by-Iaws might be created. This would require, however, the remaining communities in a CDA to either form one large municipality or for each to become incorporated on their own and then work together to create an official plan and by-laws.6 In effect, a single planning board would be created to plan for the group of communities that makes up a CDA. This would be one way to get around the reluctance of member comrnunities in CDAs to join existing municipalities, while still offering formal regulatory protection of their efforts. It would require, however, a willingness or awareness of the benefits and advantages of regulatory planning on the part of the CDA, as weli as negotiations regarding overlap of existing by-laws in the incorporated communities with new by-laws from the jointly held plan. There is definitely room for such negotiation. 5.4.3 Status of the Communiiy Development Bureau Despite the tendency for government programs and initiatives to be changed with each new government, the results frorn the Community Development Bureau to date suggest that the CDB should be maintained until such time as communities are willing and able to run the process fully themselves. The role played by the CDOs, that of facilitator, is one that should not be underestimated. It is also important that the Community Development Fund is maintained, as it appears to be influential in convincing other funding sources to contribute. 5.4.4 Status of provincial planriing Planning by the Province, as well as provincial support for community planning, should be increased. While planners working for the province are not currently in the position to provide much assistance to municipalities wishing to plan, lsiand communities could benefit more from their interest, knowledge, and experience. This could be better achieved by permitting Municipal Affairs and the Provincial Planning Division to acquire more staff, who would be mandated to promote community based planning as represented by the two planning models. A larger provincial staff would answer, to some degree, the challenge of limited resources on the part of most Island municipalities. This planning should be CO-ordinated with CBD efforts, as discussed in the first recomrnendation, to ensure that duplication and contradiction is avoided as much as possible. 5.4.5 Local governance in Prince Edward Island A final, more complicated, challenging, and long-term strategy to improve the impact of community based planning in Prince Edward Island is that of structural reform; changing the ways communities are governed. The whole question of planning and development in PEI is characterized by contradictions. People claim that they are over-govemed and yet feel that the province does not do enough to protect the environment and the future ability of the province to sustain its residents. People daim that they do not have enough local control, and yet either resist joining incorporated communities or reject the right to govem that goes along with incorporation. People resist controls over their use of land, and yet insist that government do more to protect them from inappropriate use of land on the part of others. However, at least two recent studies, the Report of the Roundtable on Resource Land Use and Stewardship and the report from the 1999 Population Strategy Panel have commended the community development mode1 in place, while simultaneously indicating that there is a growing need for further planning in the province. Both acknowledge public resistance to planning, and yet both insist that strong leadership and political will is necessary to change this. What appears to be necessary in the long term is a re-evaluation of how local governance takes place. Should there be so many different levels of governance and administration in such a small province? Are municipalities the best vehicle for planning and other activities, given their very small size in so many instances? These questions are not simple, and given their implications for local jurisdiction, would require focused study at much greater depth than is possible here, as well as careful negotiation between al1 Islanders. This question of local governance is not completely ignored in PEI. A forum was held in 1999 to discuss questions of local governance, and the Institute of Island Studies (UPEI), which has explored the concept in vanous formats over the past few years, prepared a report outlining issues and ideas.' Whatever the details of a new structure, which might include some form of regional planning or larger municipal units, the developrnent of the new structure would require a great deal of patience, time, and non-partisan political wi11.' Despite these rather large pre-condi tions, however, changing the way local areas govern themselves is worthy of much more discussion. Endnotes ' Nancy Murphy (Community Development Bureau), persona1 interview, March 10, 2001. ' Melody Beck, Bill Buell, Nancy Murphy (Community Development Bureau), persona1 interviews, January - March, 2001. Edward MacDonald, If You 're Srronghearted: Prince Edward Island in the Twentieth Century, (Charlottetown: Prince Edward Island Museum and Heritage, 20), 28. 4 Island planner, personal interview, January 3 1, 2001. Melody Beck, persona1 interview, January 29, 2001. 6 "Joint Planning Board," Prince Edward Island Planning Act, 1988, c.4, s.22. 7 "Workshop on Local Govemance," Institute of Island Studies, March 29, 1999. Also, J. A. Cousins, Geogruphy of Governance: An Overview of Boundaries, Powers and Responsibilities on Prince Edward Island, (Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 1999). Hamy Baglole (Institute of Island Studies), persona1 interview, February 1, 2001. Chapter 6 - Conclusion 6.1 Implications of Study 6.1.1 Overview of findings Exarnining community development and rural planning in Prince Edward Island has provided an opportunity for several considerations of relevance to planners and community developers, both in that province and in the broader community. The first consideration is that of how Island communities are served and supported by their government, as well as to what degree they are able to take their futures into their own hands. This involves an understanding of how powers and responsibilities are distributed in the province, of how past and present community development programs are designed, and how community members react and respond. The second consideration is a broader one, that of the relationship between community development and planning. Despite the uniqueness of the Island in ternis of scale, or perhaps because of it, it is possible to arrive at several conclusions about the general link between community developrnent and planning and the implications of the label we place on programs and processes. 6.1.2 Lessons for Prince Edward Island Prince Edward Island is a province of farmers and fishers, of teachers and doctors, of tourism operators and website developers. It is a small province, in size and in population, with a fierce sense of identity. The size of the province is in fact one of the advantages of this study, as it pemits a close look at various levels of govemment simultaneously. PEI today is of course defined by its history, one that has been in turn largely defined by the size of the Island. The Comprehensive Development Plan ("The Plan" 1970-1985) was possible only because of the scale at which it could work. The Plan was an experiment in restructuring an entire province in a comprehensive and wide- reaching fashion. It was also the manifestation of the recognition that changes in communities would only be successful if they integrated social, economic and physical considerations in concert with each other. The Plan was an opportunity to push for modemization and restructuring, as well as a vehicle of involvement for many Islanders, new and old, who truly wished to make the Island a better place. It represented a time 9 1 where planning took place in al1 of its various incarnations, as community planning, as development planning, and as social planning. The Plan was also a lesson, however, about the need to work with communities rather than for communities, and the dangers of controlling change from the centre rather than encouraging and coordinating change on the ground. For rnost Islanders, the Plan has faded into the dark recesses of mernory, while for others, it left behind an abiding distrust of planning and regulatory controls. It also left a legacy, however, of community action (both through the Plan and in reaction to it) that can still be seen in the community members participating in a whole range of cornrnunity endeavours today - many can trace their participation back to the Rural Development Council and other organizat ions that formed to permit grassroots change going as far back as the 1960s. The subsequent phasing out of community planning support and large-scale planning efforts in the years after the Plan has also had a great influence on the Island of today. The lack of active planning on the part of the Province, as well as the lack of support for municipalities wishing to plan has left a void in many communities that is now being filled by the Cornmunity Development Bureau and other community developrnent and economic development efforts. Moreover, the years since the Plan have likely had a large impact on the willingness of Islanders to accept planning, as there have not been powerfu1 exarnples of alternative foms of planning, leading to misunderstandings or a lack of understanding of what planning could be and could do for PEI communities. Meanwhile, Prince Edward Island is facing many challenges for the future, including the prospect of a slowing rate of population growth and growing education needs in the face of a newly emerging 'knowledge economy,' one that is not separate but that permeates al1 other sectors of the economy. It is the intention of the present Government to encourage the continued existence of the Island's rural comrnunities - and indeed, many are growing - but access to education, health care, and other services are issues that determine the ability of individuals to live and work in their community. Comrnunities are thus faced with the potentiai for out-migration or foms of growth that actually undermine the sense of place that is so crucial to healthy communities that provide a good quality of life to al1 their members. As has been noted in this study, these challenges are not going unnoticed. A population strategy for the Province was released in March of 2000. In 1997, a Roundtable on Resource Land Use and Stewardship prepared a report that identified many land use and planning issues that are, and will continue to, affecting the province as a whole. Special Planning Areas have been established by the Provincial Govemment in response to specific areas that either cannot plan for themselves due to lack of status as municipality or that require a broader level of planning due to the impacts on the province as a whole. The Community Development Bureau was formed in 1999 in a renewed attempt to provide Island communities with the tools and resources necessary to organize and identify local issues and solutions, with an eye to increasing self-reliance and sustainability in rural areas. There is no question, therefore, about whether or not the Province is thinking about the future, the needs of Island communities, and what actions need to be taken. The interesting thing, however, is how projects. programs and strategies directed at the needs of lslanders and future conditions relate to each other. What has become clear is that there is not always a clear and coherent strategy that links the various government strategies together. Provincial planning, as it presently exists, is il1 equipped to respond to the needs unincorporated or non-planning incorporated communities. The fact that 48 of the 75 municipalities have not chosen to plan indicates that there is in many cases either a lack of understanding of the advantages of planning, insufficient resources to undertake the process, or an inappropriate structure for planning (namely municipalities lacking the critical mass necessary for real change). The Ccmmunity Development Bureau has undertaken a process of community-building that incorporates a holistic view of comrnunity transformation but whose organizational structure, while it is one with which most Islanders willingly identify - regional communities - does not permit more formalized planning. Community development cannot readily, therefore, link up with municipalities in a tag-team planning process. Overlap of boundaries, goals, and jurisdiction end up hindering the ability of the Govemment and its various departments and agencies to fully integrate and build on what occurring in different areas. Duplication and missed opportunities then become a clear danger, even given great potential for comprehensive and integrated action. Despite the lack of action on the part of many municipalities, there is an evident will among community members for local action and governance, as seen by the level of participation in the Communi ty Development Bureau process in many areas. This observation leads to the conclusion that Islanders do in fact wish to plan for the future of their community, given an environment of support in terrns of facilitators and funding, when that planning involves empowerment and an emphasis on solutions and cooperation rather than control and regulations. Given that early and partial planning is promoted through the CDB process, several recommendations might be made about future strategies for the Province. 6.1.3 Summary of recommendations The first recommendation ties in with the observation regarding the similarities between the CDB process and community planning. It is recornmended that the Community Development Bureau and Island planners promote increased communication and CO-ordinationbetween the two processes and those responsible for implementing them in Prince Edward Island. In order to take advantage of these similarities described in Chapter 5, and to ensure as complete a community development process as possible, a planner should be designated by the Province to work with the CDB to manage overlap or areas of common concem, as well as to explore misconceptions of what planning can be. The second recommendation is that a framework for the creation of jointly-held Plans in Community Development Areas should be developed (as permitted by the PEI Planning Act), as CDAs begin to see a need or opportunity for more comprehensive planning. Where appropriate, communities should consider the creation of Joint Official Plans for the community development area, as a way of pmtectiting and enhancing their activities through a strntegic plan and planning regulations. To further support this recommendation, it would be beneficial for staff of the Community Development Bureau to explore, in collaboration with provincial planners, the implications of planning issues and tools on their process and vice versa. While many CDAs are beginning to deal with land use issues in their communities through project development, planning might in fact be beneficial and should not be equated only with regulations and land use controls. The third recommendation is that, given the positive results to date and the enthusiasrn shown by community members, the CDB should be maintained until such time as communities are willing and able to run the process fully themselves. Following that, the fourth recommendation is that the Department of Community & Cultural Affairs should be permitted to acquire staff to facilitate local planning initiatives in order to ensure that the benefits of the community-building process are not lost. Planning by the Province, as well as provincial support for community planning, should be increased. And finally, the very question of the structure of local governance in Prince Edward Island requires some serious, in depth attention to determine if municipalities as they now exist are the best or most suitable vehicle for planning and service delivery. To increase the impact of community based planning in Prince Edward Island, structural reform - changing the ways communities are governed - should be given serious consideration. 6.1.4 Lessons regarding the relationship between planning and cornrnunity development Based on the observations about community development and rural planning in the case of Prince Edward Island, it becomes possible to draw some conclusions about the relationship between the two in general, in terms of how and if they are different and the effect of calling a process one term or the other. Community development is a term used quite frequently, and there appear to be as many definitions as there are practitioners. As was noted in the first part of Chapter 3, many so-called govemment community development programs were in fact directed at speci fic parts of communi ty (industry, social services, resource use, etc.) and were in most cases implemented in specific communities through the funding of projects. These programs were criticized for failing to create the structural transformation necessary to stop cycles of dependency. These criticisms, as well as case studies (such as the example of Isle Madame in Cape Breton) and the exploration of the Community Development Bureau in Prince Edward Island suggest that community development is not a project in this or that community. Community development is, in fact, defined by a process that involves an aspect of empowennent of the community as a whole and that develops leadership and problem- solving skills, builds on local resources, and nurtures innovation. There is a second aspect of community development, moreover, which relates to the concept of planning. For community development to be complete, it must incorporate by necessity some consideration of the future, of desirable results of the process, and of strategies for achieving these goals. This consideration of the future should, to ensure full benefits, be comprehensive, where projects are not developed in isolation frorn each other. In other words, community development should include planning. This planning can be formal or informal, rnight include some regulations or no regulations, but should be comprehensive. Without planning, community development is not complete. Ideally, al1 planning would involve community development - al1 planning would be community driven, especially in rural areas. It is possible, however, to plan without developing or building community, as we have seen in the case of municipal planning in Prince Edward Island. What is suggested by publications such as the Stepping Forwurd kit and the First Nation Community Planning Modef is that for the best results and where community development is a goal, planning rnust be community-based, incorporating concepts of community development. These observations are not always reflected in the public perception of the two processes. In Prince Edward Island, planning is often a dirty word, while community development is eagerly sought after. On the other hand, planning is accompanied by a sense of permanence, while community development is often, based on the history of programs in PEI and elsewhere, short-term or limited in lifespan. Planning, of course, is one way to ensure a longer life span for community development. One way to avoid the distrust associated with planning is to include it in a community developrnent process. One does not have to cal1 it planning to plan and unfortunately, due to misconceptions about what planning can be, it is often necessary to avoid using the term. The Community Development Bureau is a good example of a community development process that is designed to be more than the development of projects. The design of the process is bringing many Island communities closer to planning and holds the promise of true community empowerment. Only time will tell whether or not the final step toward integrated planning will be taken. Appendix 1- Prince Edward Island Municipalities 1 Municipality 1 19% Pop 1 Plan? 1 Fed? ( Community 1 Charlottetown 32,531 1 1 City Summerside 14,525 1 1 City Stratford 5.869 1 1 Town 1 Cornwall 1 4,291 1 11 1 1 Town 1 Montaque 1,995 1 1 Town Belfast 1,839 O O Community Kensington 1,383 1 1 1 ~own Souris 1,293 1 1 Town Eastern Kinqs 1,272 1 O Community Miltonvale Park 1,242 1 O Community Malpeque Bay 1,238 O O Community Alberton 1,084 1 1 Town Lady Slipper 1,076 O O Community O'Leary 877 1 1 Community Tignish 839 1 1 Community ord den-carleton 1 829 [ 11 1 1 Community 1 Aiton 826 O O Community Lot 11 and Area 780 O O Communitv North shore 737 1 O 1 O 1 Community 1 Georqetown 732 1 1 Town Kinaston 685 O O Communitv 1 Miscouche 679 1 1 Community North Rustico 650 1 1 Community Valleyfield 648 O O Community Clyde River 601 O O Community New Haven-Riverdale 600 1 1 Community Central Kings 565 O O Community Grand Tracadie 543 O O Community Ellerslie-Bideford 470 O O Community Lower Montaque 450 1 O Community Wellington 427 1 1 Community Murray River 420 O O Community Crapaud 378 O 1 Communrty Cardigan 371 O 1 Community Annandale-Little Pond - Howe Bay 370 O O Community St. Felix 359 O O Community BrudeneIl 358 1 1 Community Murray Harbour 356 O 1 Community Meadowbank 354 O O Community t-tunter River 354 O O Community Brackley 347 O O Community : Morell 336 1 O 1 Community 1 Abrams Villaqe 1 328 1 O 1 1 1 Community 1 Hampshire 327 O O Community Souris West 327 O O Community Greenmount-Montrose 323 O O Community Kinkora 321 1 1 Community Mt. Stewart 310 O O Community Linkletter 304 1 O Community West River 296 O O Community York 296 O O Community Warren Grove 295 1 O Community St. Peters Bay 283 O 1 Community Alexandra 280 O O Community Resort Mun icipality 255 1 1 Community Bonshaw 250 O O Community Richmond 248 O O Community Tyne Valley 231 O 1 Community Hazelbrooke 216 O O Community Union Road 216 1 O Community Miminegash 210 O O Community i Northport 21 0 O O Community . North Wiltshire 208 O O Community Winsloe South 207 1 1 Community Pleasant Grove 194 O O Community Central Bedeque 182 O 1 Communrty Breadalbane 171 O O Community Sherbrooke 160 1 O Communitv Victoria 158 O 1 Community Bedeque 148 O O Community St. Louis 100 O 1 Communitv Lorne Valley 9 1 O O Community Darlington 78 O O Community Tianish Shore 72 O O Communitv St. Nicholas ? O O Community Total population 92,874 27 30 Source: The Geography of Governance, Appendix 1. (O = no, l=yes) Bi bliography A Place to Stay ? The Report of the Prince Edward Island Population Strategy '99 Panel. Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 2000. Baglole, Harry, Institute of Island Studies. Persona1 interview. February 1, 2001. Banks, Ken, and Helen Ball. "Education and Training." Communify Development Around the World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training. Ed. Hubert Campfens. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Beck, Melody, Community Development Bureau. Persona1 interview. January 29, 2001. Berlin, Susan. Ways We Live: Exploring Cornrnunity. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers, 1997. Boothroyd, Peter. "Developing Community Planning Skills: Applications of a Seven Step Model." Vancouver: Centre for Human Settlement Publications, 1991. Brodhead, Dal, Francois Lamontagne, and Jon Peirce. "Regional Development in Canada: The Local Developmen t Experience." Regional Development from the Bortom Up: Selected Papers of the Local Development Series. Mi ke Lewis, ed. Vancouver: Westcoast Development Group, 1993. 244-326. Buell, Bill, Community Development Bureau. Persona1 interview. January 29,2001. Campfens, Hubert, ed. Communiv Development A round the World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Canadian Institute of Planners. "What Ptanners Do." January 17, 2001 Community Devehpment Areas. Map. Charlottetown: Community Development Bureau, 20. Cousins, J. A. Geography of Governance. Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 1999. Dore, GeraId. "Case Study: Conscientization as a Specific Form of Community Practice and Training in Québec.'' Community Development Around the World: Practice, Theory, Research, Training. Ed. Hubert Campfens. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. Edge Land Planning. "Australian Rural Planning." January 15, 2001 Gallant, Norman. "Notes from a Presentation." Learning From Each Other: First Annrtal Conference of Community Deveiopment L ead Organiration. Decem be r 2, 2000. University of Prince Edward Island. 8-10. Gulf Shore Communi ty Corporation. Case Study: Gulf Shore Communities. Gulf Shore, 2000. Gulf Shore Community Corporation. Cornmittee Meeting. January 29, 2001. Hayer, Fred. "Preserving Rural Character." APA, 1990. Human Resource Development Canada. "Minimum Wage Rates by Province." March 12, 2001 ~http://www.pe.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/common/wage.htrn~. lnstitute of Island Studies. "Workshop on Local Govemance." Charlottetown, March 29, 1999. Island Planner. Personal interview. January 31,2001. Lassey, William R. Planning in Rural Environments. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1977. MacAulay, Scott. "Community Economic Development and Persons with Disabilities: A Case Study of Critical Issues for Organisations." Perspectives on Communiiies: A Community Econornic Development Roundtable. Ed. Gertrude Anne Maclntyre. Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998. MacDonald, CharIes. "The Mira Pasture Cooperative." Perspectives on Communities: A Community Economic Development Roundtable. Ed. Gertrude Anne Maclntyre. Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998. 105-1 16. MacDonald, Edw ard . If You 're Stronghearted: Prince Edward Island in the Twentieth Century. Charlottetown: Prince Edward Island Museum and Heritage Foundation, 2000. MacDonald, Edward. Personal interview. February 1, 2001. MacDonald, Edward. Preface. Geography of Covernance. By J. A. Cousins. Charlottetown: Insti tute of Island Studies, 1999. MacLeod, Greg. "The Community Business Corporation: La Empresa Social." Perspectives on Communities: A Community Economic Development Roundtable. Ed. Gertrude Anne Maclntyre. Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998. 43-66. MacSween, Rankin. "New Dawn Enterprises Limited: A Community Economic Developmen t Experimen t." Perspectives on Communities: A Community Economic Development Roundtable. Ed. Gertrude Anne MacIn tyre. Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998. Malcolm, Karen. "Survival of a Small Community." Perspectives on Communities: A Community Economic Development Roimdtable. Ed. Gertrude Anne Machtyre. Sydney: UCCB Press, 1998. 79-98. McClellan, John. "Presentation." Rules of the Carne: Land Use & Ownership on PEI. Open Forum at the University of Prince Edward Island, Novernber 10, 1998. Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 1990. Myers, Mary. "Notes from a Presentation." Learning From Each Other: First Annual Conference of Communiîy Development L ead Organization. Decem ber 2, 2000, University of Prince Edward Island. 8. Nancy Murphy, Cornmunity Development Bureau. Persona1 interview. March 10, 2001. National Research Council. Lighting the Way: Knowledge Assessment in Prince Edward Island. Washington: National Academ y Press, 1999. New Brunswick. "Land Use Planning - Municipalities and Housing." January 15, 2001 O'Grady, Michael. From Grassroots to Grim Reapings: A History of rhe Prince Edward Island Rural Development Council. Charlottetown: Institute of lsl and Studies, 1997. Prince Edward Island Land Protection Act. R.S.P.E. 1.. 1982. Prince Edward Island Municipalities Act. R.S. P.EI. 1983. Prince Edward Island Municipalities. Ma p. Geography of Governance. B y J . A. Cousins. Charlottetown: Institute of Island Studies, 1999. Prince Edward Island Planning Act. R.S.PE.1. 1988. Prince Edward Island. Bridging Tradition and Technology.' Economic Development Strategy for Prince Edward Island. Charlottetown, 2000. Prince Edward Island. Cultivating Island Solutions: Report of the Round Table on Resource Land Use & Stewardship. Charlottetown, 1997. January 2001 ~http://www2.gov.pe.ca/roundtable/index.asp~. Prince Edward Island. Dept. of the Provincial Treasury. Twenty-Sixth Annual Statistical Review 1999. Charlottetown, 2000. Prince Edward Island. Report on the Implementation of the Recommendations Made By the Round Table on Resource Land Use & Stewardship. Charlottetown, 1998. Rhodenizer, Darlene, PEI Municipal Affairs. Persona1 interview. January 30, 2001. Sheridan, Wed. "Notes from a Presentation." Lcarning From Each Other: Firsr Annual Conference of Comrnunity Developmcnt Lead Organization. December 2, 2000, University of Prince Edward Island. 11-13. Statistics Canada. "Economic Indicators - Prince Edward Island." March 12, 2001 Statistics Canada. "Measuring Economic Well-Being of Rural Canadians Using lncome Indicators." Rural and Small Town Canada Analysis Bulletin. Vo1.2, No. 5 March, 2001. Statistics Canada. "Population by Ethnic Origin." March 12, 2001 Statistics Canada. "Principal Height by Range or Region." April 2, 2001 Stepping Forward: Discovering Community Potential, Acting on Challenges. 6 vols. Sackville: Rural and Small Town Programme, 1998. Wien, Fred. "Regional Inequali ty: Explanations and Pol icy Issues." Social Inequality in Canada: Patterns, Problems and Policies. Ed. J. Curtis, E. Grabb and N. Guppy. 3'' 3'' ed. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1999.