Environ Dev Sustain (2010) 12:745–762 DOI 10.1007/s10668-009-9222-3

A new model for sustainable development: a case study of The Great Bear Rainforest regional plan Gordon McGee • Andrea Cullen • Thomas Gunton

Received: 5 May 2009 / Accepted: 9 November 2009 / Published online: 26 November 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This paper describes a new model of sustainable development planning based on a case study of a successful planning process for the Great Bear Rainforest on Canada’s west coast. The planning region is an area of international ecological significance that contains one-quarter of the world’s remaining ancient coastal temperate rainforest. An innovative collaborative planning process was initiated in 1996 to develop a plan for the region that balances social, economic, and environmental values. The plan, which was accepted by consensus agreement of all stakeholders in 2006, uses a new model for sustainable regional development that is based on collaborative planning, collaborative implementation, informal conflict resolution, contextual adaptation incorporating comanagement with indigenous peoples (First Nations), joint fact finding, ecosystem-based management, and integration of social, economic, and environmental objectives. Keywords Sustainable development
Land use planning
Regional planning
Collaborative planning

1 Introduction With the publication of the Brundland Report (WCED) in 1987, sustainable development emerged as a central theme in public policy. However, despite a succession of commitments to sustainability at the Earth Summit in 1992 and the Johannesburg Summit in 2002, achieving sustainable development remains an elusive and challenging goal. The recent Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) by the United Nations, for example, concludes that two-thirds of the ecosystems in the world are in decline, and evaluations of sustainable development planning shows that most countries have still not prepared adequate plans to Research for this paper was supported by a grant from the Canadian Social Sciences and Research Council. Readers should send their comments on this paper to [email protected] within 3 months of publication of this issue. G. McGee
A. Cullen
T. Gunton (&) Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada e-mail: [email protected]

123

746

G. McGee et al.

achieve sustainability (IISD 2004). The search for new solutions to achieve sustainable development is therefore urgent. A new approach to achieve sustainable regional development that shows considerable promise is the recently completed plan for the North and Central Coast of British Columbia (BC), Canada. The planning region, which is also known as the Great Bear Rainforest,1 is an internationally significant area twice the size of Belgium and representing one-quarter of the world’s remaining ancient coastal temperate rainforest. During the 1990s, conflict intensified among stakeholders over the fate of the region. Conventional planning models based on expert decision making with limited public consultation that were being used for planning in BC were strongly criticized for excluding important values such as environmental sustainability. The province of BC responded to the conflict by developing an innovative planning model that brought together environmental groups, forestry industry representatives, First Nations, local governments, and other stakeholders from the region to find a consensus solution. The path toward a solution was far from smooth: international boycott campaigns launched by environmental groups against forestry corporations brought planning discussions to a halt, First Nations demanded a level of involvement representative of their constitutional right to the land, and numerous agreements were required to keep key stakeholders at the planning tables. In spite of these challenges, a plan based on consensus recommendations was announced by the province and First Nations governments in 2006 that protects over 28% of the region. The plan also includes an innovative ecosystem-based management system for the remaining land area, and an economic development plan compatible with environmental protection. The decision was greeted with international acclaim and was covered by more then 350 media outlets around the world (BC MAL 2007a). The Great Bear Rainforest planning process is a landmark environmental planning initiative that provides a new approach for achieving sustainable development with worldwide applicability. The purpose of this paper is to identify and assess the features of this new model. The methodology for the analysis is based on a review of all relevant planning documents and interviews with the staff and stakeholders involved in the planning process. The paper also relies on findings from a longer-term research initiative evaluating regional environmental planning in BC (Gunton et al. 1998, 2003a, b; Frame et al. 2004). The paper begins with a brief description of the natural and social characteristics of the region, the planning process, and the plan. Then, an assessment is made of the innovative resource features of the plan, the challenges it face, and its prospects for successful implementation. The paper concludes by identifying the key features of a new regional planning model based on the Great Bear Rainforests experience.

2 The Great Bear Rainforest The Great Bear Rainforest (GBR), stretching from Bute Inlet to the Alaskan border, covers 6.4 million hectares of coastal temperate rainforest along the central and northern coasts of BC, Canada (Fig. 1). The region comprises approximately one-quarter of the world’s 1

The term Great Bear Rainforest was a name developed for the North and Central Coast of BC by environmental groups for an international campaign to protect the region. The term is based on the presence of ‘‘Spirit Bears’’ in the region, which are rare white bears. We use the Great Bear Rainforest label in this paper because it may be better recognized internationally.

123

A new model for sustainable development

747

Fig. 1 Great Bear Rainforest land use plan

remaining ancient coastal temperate rainforest (Rainforest Solutions Project 2007). The islands, forests, mountains and coastal terrain of GBR support towering 1000-year-old western red cedars, Grizzly and black bears (including the rare white spirit bears), and over 500 known salmon stocks. The biological richness of the GBR also includes over 10, 000 species of invertebrates, 34 fish species, 248 bird species, and 62 species of mammals (BC MSRM 2005). Approximately 22,060 people live in the GBR area, with the largest populations located in two major centers: Prince Rupert (13,600) and Bella Coola (2,530). The remaining

123

748

G. McGee et al.

residents are dispersed through numerous small coastal communities most of which are only accessible by air or water. Local residents maintain a close connection with the ocean and the natural environment that provides much of their sustenance, livelihood, and recreational opportunities (BC MSRM 2005; CCLRMP 2004). The region includes the traditional territories of 26 First Nations (indigenous peoples) and roughly half of the population of the plan area is of First Nation ancestry. Most of the communities outside of Prince Rupert and Bella Coola are First Nations’ villages. The GBR economy is based on resource industries such as fishing, forestry, tourism, and the public sector (BC MSRM 2005; CCLRMP 2004). Reliance on primary resource extraction makes the GBR economy very sensitive to economic cycles and in recent years the economy was negatively affected by severe reductions in fishing, forestry, and related transportation industries (BC MSRM 2005). Unemployment rates and other social measures such as health, education, and children at risk are at levels of significant concern, especially among First Nation communities (BC MSRM 2005; CCLRMP 2004).

3 The GBR planning process Planning for the Great Bear Rainforest was initiated by the BC government as part of the province’s strategic regional land use planning policy (BC MSRM 2005) that was instituted in the early 1990s in response to growing conflict over land and resource use. Prior to the 1990s, resource plans in BC were prepared by experts working for the BC government with limited public consultation. This type of planning, which has been referred to as technocratic planning (Susskind et al. 2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), assumes that appropriate management policies can be derived from objective scientific analysis. In the 1990s, this technocratic approach to planning was increasingly criticized in BC for failure to acknowledge the role of values, particularly environmental values, in decision-making process (Gunton et al. 2003a, b). Growing opposition from stakeholders in the form of blockades and international boycott campaigns forced the government to adopt a new approach to planning that we term collaborative planning. The new collaborative planning policy requires preparation of regional plans, called Land and Resource Management plans (LRMP), to guide development for each region of the province (BC MSRM 2005; CCLRMP 2004; Frame et al. 2004; Jackson and Curry 2002). Recommendations for each LRMP are prepared by a stakeholder table representing all major interests including resource development, conservation, tourism, government, and First Nations who used interest-based negotiations to reach a consensus agreement that is then submitted to the BC government for final approval. As of September 2009, BC has completed twenty-five regional land use plans covering 85% of the provincial land base (BC MAL 2009a). The first four planning processes initiated under this new collaborative framework in the early 1990s did not reach consensus agreement. In these four cases, the government had to finalize the plan after the stakeholder tables disbanded. The subsequent twenty-one planning processes, however, all reached consensus or near consensus agreements that were accepted by government. The collaborative planning model therefore has effectively delegated the management of the planning process to stakeholders. BC represents the only large jurisdiction that we are aware of that has successfully used this new collaborative model on as systematic basis to prepare plans for virtually the entire land base.

123

A new model for sustainable development

749

CENTRAL COAST REGION

NORTH COAST REGION

LRMP Phase I

Framework Agreement

LRMP Phase I

LRMP Phase II

TIER I

Draft LRMP Plan

First Nations Land Use Plans

Draft LRMP Plan

LRMP Phase III (G2G)

TIER II

LRMP Phase II (G2G)

First Nations Agreements Implementation Fig. 2 Great Bear Rainforest Planning process

The GBR plan is one of the most recent regional plans completed in BC under the new planning policy. The GBR planning process incorporates improvements based on over a decade of experience with collaborative planning and is therefore the most advanced example of the innovative planning model used in BC. Consequently, the GBR planning process provides an excellent case study of the new collaborative regional planning model for sustainable development. Due to its large geographic size, the GBR was divided into two separate regions: the Central Coast and the North Coast, each of which has its own separate planning process (Fig. 2). Planning for the Central Coast and the North Coast region of the GBR commenced in 1996 and 2002, respectively. Both processes reached consensus agreements in 2005 and were announced jointly after being approved by the government in 2006. We will begin with a description of the Central Coast regional planning process.

4 Central coast land and resource management plan (CCLRMP) The Central Coast LRMP developed in three phases over 10 years (Fig. 3). The process ‘‘learned by doing’’ and incorporated changes to mitigate issues and problems that emerged during plan preparation. The evolution of the process therefore provides a living laboratory in which the new model of planning was refined and adapted in response to challenges and problems.

123

750

G. McGee et al.

Fig. 3 Central Coast planning process organizational chart

4.1 Phase 1 Phase 1 began in 1996 and finished in 2001. The goal of phase 1 was to produce a regional land and coastal resource management plan. Three forums (north, south, and plan area) were established to facilitate dialogue among 40 different sectors involved. The north and south forums involved representatives from organizations and interest groups located within the respective geographic boundaries. These representatives were tasked with negotiating detailed planning recommendations specific to their area. The plan area forum included representatives from both the north and south forums and was responsible for (1) defining the broad vision and objectives for the entire Central Coast Region, (2) resolving any issues that arose within the forums, and, (3) combining and ensuring consistency of contributions from the north and south forum (BC 1999). The interagency planning team, made up of local, provincial, and federal government agencies, along with First Nations, provided technical analysis for the table (CCLRMP 2004). After 3 years of discussions, escalating disagreement between environmental groups and forestry corporations over timber harvesting brought phase I discussions to a halt. Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) felt that the forestry companies and the provincial government were jeopardizing the ecology of the region by continuing to log during the planning process. To counteract what they called a ‘talk and log’ practice, BC ENGOs initiated the Great Bear Rainforest campaign, which included direct action marketing campaigns to promote boycotts of BC timber. The marketing campaigns were successful in encouraging forest companies to respond to ENGO concerns. To resolve the conflict and get the planning process back on track, the Joint Solutions Project (JSP) was established by ENGOs and the forestry industry. The JSP was made up of representatives of forestry companies and representatives from prominent environmental organizations. The JSP generated an agreement in principle (AIP) that required forestry companies to accept a temporary moratorium on harvesting in large intact valleys of concern to ENGOs. In turn, ENGOs agreed to stop their direct action marketing campaigns (Rainforest Solutions Project 2007). The agreement also required

123

A new model for sustainable development

751

ENGOs to participate in the phase I planning process, which previously they had boycotted (Rainforest Solutions Project 2007; Wilson et al. 2001). In the end, no agreement on a final land use plan was reached in phase 1. However, consensus agreement among stakeholders was reached on key recommendations including the following: commitment to ecosystem-based management (EBM), creation of the Coast Sustainability Trust (CST), creation of the Coast Information Team (CIT), and proposed land use zones including 21.2% proposed protected area and a further 11.3% set aside as potential protected area subject to more discussion (BC 2001a, b, e). 4.2 Phase 2 Phase 2 of the Central Coast planning process incorporated several major changes relative to phase 1. First, the number of stakeholders was significantly reduced from the 40 plus in phase 1 to only 14 sector representatives in phase 2 (Table 1). This reduction was achieved by restricting each sector to one representative instead of the multiple representatives used in the phase 1 process. This reduction achieved a more manageable-sized planning table while still ensuring that all interests were represented. Second, phase 2 replaced the three separate planning tables in phase 1 with one table covering the entire Central Coast to achieve a more integrated plan. Additional changes included the adoption of a two-tier table process and creation of the two new entities: the Coast Information Team (CIT) and the Coast Sustainability Trust (CST). These changes are discussed in more detail below. 4.3 First Nations and the two-tier process The most significant change in the second phase of the Central Coast process was the adoption of a two-tier table model to address the unique position of First Nations in BC. The unique position of First Nations stems from two characteristics. First, although First Nations represent a small proportion of the BC population, they are a large portion of the population in more isolated and resource rich parts of the province such as the GBR. As such, they are more heavily impacted by planning decisions than other stakeholders. Second, only a few treaties between Canadian governments and First Nations have been signed in BC. In the absence of treaties, the courts have established that First Nations have aboriginal rights and titles to the land that require governments to consult and Table 1 Stakeholders groups participating in planning process

Stakeholder representatives Small business forestry Labor Conservation and environment Major forest companies Tourism Recreation Fish and wildlife Energy and mining Local governments Community economic development First Nations (multiple representatives) Provincial government

123

752

G. McGee et al.

accommodate First Nations interests when considering any development that may impact on First Nation territories (Donovan and Griffith 2003). The special role of First Nations creates a complex planning environment characterized by cultural differences and legal uncertainty over the roles of First Nations in resource development. To address this uncertainty, the provincial and federal governments initiated a process in the 1990s to negotiate treaties and interim agreements with First Nations to define rights. In the 1990s, the BC government also invited First Nations to participate in regional planning by sitting as stakeholders at planning tables along with non-First Nation stakeholders. However, participation of First Nations has been low and the process largely failed to address First Nation interests (Frame et al. 2004). In recognition of the important role of First Nations, the government and First Nations agreed to adopt a two-tier table process for phase 2 of the Central Coast. The first tier table, which was comprised of all stakeholders plus First Nations, was asked to prepare a draft plan that would then be submitted to a second tier table comprised of only First Nations and government that would finalize the plan in what was termed a government to government negotiation, or phase 3 of the Central Coast process. 4.4 Other innovations In previous regional planning processes, information was provided by government experts to the planning tables. Some stakeholders were concerned that the information supplied by government may be biased because the government had specific interests that may differ from other stakeholders. To address this concern, an independent body, known as the Coast Information Team (CIT), was created in phase 2 of the Central Coast process to provide science-based information and analysis (CIT 2004). The CIT was set up by the province, First Nations of the region, environmental groups, and forest products companies. It brought together scientific, traditional, and local knowledge, environmental expertise, and community experience and was overseen by a management committee comprised on members from the stakeholder planning table (CIT 2004) and jointly funded by the major stakeholder groups. CIT’s work started in January 2002 and completed in March 2004. CIT’s primary tasks were to (1) recommend a framework for ecosystem-based management, (2) provide a regional and subregional ecological and socioeconomic context for planning, and (3) support implementation of EBM pilot projects (BC 2002b). Another important innovation in phase 2 was the establishment of the Coast Sustainability Trust. The Coast Sustainability Trust’s goal was to mitigate economic impacts to the forest sector resulting from land use decisions (BC 2002a, 2003). The $35 million Coast Sustainability Trust fund ensured that the impacts on those affected by land use decisions would be fairly mitigated (BC 2002b). 4.5 Phase 2 negotiations Over the course of phase 2 negotiations, the stakeholders met for 1 to 3 days every 6 weeks. In addition to these meetings, more than forty working group meetings occurred (CCLRMP 2004). Although First Nations representatives participated in phase 2 planning process meetings, they abstained from decision making in favor of participation in phase 3 of government to government negotiations to follow the release of the phase 2 recommendations (CCLRMP 2004). During the initial stages, stakeholders reviewed and analyzed background information, took field trips to study values and resources, prepared a vision statement, identified key

123

A new model for sustainable development

753

issues, and confirmed the goals and principles of the table. As the process progressed, the participants began to develop land use scenarios capable of achieving the plan’s goals. A number of contentious issues required extensive attention of the table during the scenario development and evaluation stage. Contentious issues included the amount of protected areas to be designated in the region and their economic implications, design of ecosystembased management for issues such as old growth habitat retention, riparian management and wildlife management, and recognition of Aboriginal rights and title in the planning process. As with phase 1, the Joint Solutions Project played an important role in helping the phase 2 reach agreement. The JSP developed recommendations on how to define, implement, and monitor an effective transition to ecosystem-based management (CFCI 2004, 2005). EBM was a key issue for forestry and ENGOs as the EBM definition and framework had significant implications for forestry operations and protected areas. Phase 2 reached a consensus agreement in late 2003 that was formally ratified in June 2004 and sent to phase 3 negotiations between First Nations and the provincial government. 4.6 Phase 3: First Nations and the government negotiations Prior to the commencement of phase 3, individual First Nations had already reached agreements with the government that specified that government to government negotiations would occur between the provincial government and First Nations groups. These agreements also clarified that the GBR plan would not infringe or restrict aboriginal rights nor prejudice present or future treaty negotiations (BC 2001c). Some of the agreements also established important interim measures that provide First Nations access to cultural and economic benefits arising from land use decisions that hold a specific emphasis on involvement in forestry and tourism (BC 2001d). Phase 3 negotiations between First Nations and the government began when the Central Coast phase 2 negotiations were complete in June 2004 and concluded with a final agreement announced in February 2006. The phase 3 government to government negotiations resulted in several changes from the recommendations of phase 2 including an increase in protected areas from 21.2% to 29% of the Central Coast region and more specificity regarding plan implementation (Cullen 2006). 4.7 North Coast LRMP The North Coast LRMP process commenced in 2002 and was completed in 2005. The consensus recommendations for the North Coast LRMP were combined with those of the Central Coast to form the Great Bear Rainforest land use decision announced in February 2006. The North Coast LRMP used an identical structure to the Central Coast phase 2 and phase 3 planning model (BC MSRM 2005). By utilizing lessons from the Central Coast process, the North Coast process was able to complete a final plan in a relatively short period of time.

5 The Great Bear Rainforest decision The GBR land use decision was announced by Provincial and First Nations governments on February 7, 2006 (BC MAL 2006). Unlike previous LRMP decisions, the GBR decision was not contained in an official government approved land use planning document.

123

754

G. McGee et al.

Instead, the elements of the final decision were compiled within multiple First Nations Agreements that resulted from phase 3 negotiations. The agreements include both broadlevel protocols and individual First Nations strategic land use planning agreements that designate land use zones, management objectives, an ecosystem-based management strategy, and a governance structure for implementation. 5.1 Land use zoning The GBR regional plan created three land use designations for the plan area: protected areas, biodiversity areas, and ecosystem-based management operating areas (Fig. 1). Protected areas prohibit resource extraction and emphasize habitat conservation, maintenance of biodiversity, and preservation of special landscape, recreation, and cultural heritage features (BC MAL 2006). The GBR decision includes 107 new protected areas, increasing the protected areas from 9% to 28% of the land base (BC MAL 2006). Biodiversity areas allow mining, First Nations traditional uses, and tourism activities while maintaining ecological diversity and function. More intensive industrial activities such as commercial forestry and major hydroelectric activities are not permitted in these zones. Biodiversity areas comprise 7% of the GBR (BC MAL 2006). Ecosystem-based management operating areas make up the remaining 65% of the land base (BC MAL 2006). These areas are available for the full range of economic uses in a manner consistent with the application of an innovative new approach to resource management and land use planning called ecosystem-based management. 5.2 Ecosystem-based management Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is defined in the GBR plan as ‘‘an adaptive, systematic approach to managing human activities that seeks to ensure the co-existence of healthy, fully functioning ecosystems and human communities. The intent is to maintain those spatial and temporal characteristics of ecosystems such that component species and ecological processes can be sustained and human well-being supported and improved’’ (BC MSRM 2005). EBM is set apart from other development paradigms by its emphasis on both ecosystems and human communities, and its recognition of the fundamental importance of maintaining ecological integrity in order to sustain healthy communities and economies over the long term (BC MSRM 2005). Ecosystem-based management as it is applied in the GBR includes a number of key elements. First, it involves establishment of a system of protected areas and reserves of various sizes to protect ecological and cultural heritage values. For the remaining area, known as EBM operating area, it sets standards for three key EBM values: ecological integrity, First Nations’ cultural heritage, and traditional resources; and, human well-being and community viability. Each of these values is expressed in management objectives that involve measurable desired conditions or thresholds for particular aspects of each value. The management objectives are contained within the First Nations’ agreements and will be implemented through the use of legal designated land use objectives. Under EBM, more rigorous standards are established for ecological values such as old growth forests, riparian areas, biodiversity, grizzly and black bear habitat, salmon habitat. EBM also establishes new standards for First Nations’ cultural heritage and traditional resource objectives such as the conservation of monumental cedar for First Nations’ cultural use and cultural modified tree management areas. In addition, a series of social and economic management

123

A new model for sustainable development

755

objectives are established that will be used to measure the goal of enhancing community viability and human well-being. 5.3 Sustainable economic development The Great Bear Rainforest regional plan will result in a reduction in resource extraction, especially timber harvesting. To address economic issues, the agreement contains two important initiatives. One initiative is the Coast Sustainability Trust that was established under phase 2 of the Central Coast negotiations to provide $35 million to compensate stakeholders made worse off as a result of potential land use decisions and to provide funding to assist in the transition to EBM. A second and larger initiative is the Coast Investment and Incentives Initiative, which consists of $120 million, with $60 million from private sources conditional on matching public funding of $30 million each from the provincial and federal governments and finalization of the protected areas (Paul Richardson 2006). The purpose of the fund is to promote First Nations’ sustainable industries such as ecotourism, shellfish aquaculture, and community-managed forestry. 5.4 Governance framework for plan implementation Provincial government, First Nations, and stakeholder representatives are currently engaged in implementing the GBR plan through a complex co-management framework established in First Nations and provincial land use agreements. The framework creates several management committees comprised of stakeholders who participated in the development of the plan to manage implementation, undertake required analysis and monitoring, and resolve ongoing conflicts and issues (BC MAL 2007b).

6 Success and challenges The GBR planning process has been successful based on several criteria. First, the planning process was able to achieve a consensus agreement among all stakeholders. Given the failure of previous processes to achieve agreement and the level of conflict that existed among stakeholders, achieving a consensus agreement is a major achievement. Second, the plan has resulted in major changes that will further sustainable development objectives. Although the success of the plan in achieving sustainability awaits future evaluation based on monitoring outcomes, it is reasonable to conclude that increasing full protected area status from 9% to 28% of the land base and applying EBM to the remaining land base will achieve improved environmental sustainability, and economic development funding will improve social and economic sustainability. Third, the planning process has improved social capital in the region. According to a survey of participants, 94% of participants agree that the process improved relationships with other stakeholders and improved their knowledge and understanding of planning issues in the region. The survey was based on responses from 31 of the 36 members of the Central Coast and North Coast LRMP planning tables (Cullen 2006; McGee 2006). While the process was relatively successful, challenges remain. First, some aspects of EBM, such as ecological land use objectives, and the adaptive management framework are not clearly defined and await further definition through the implementation process. As a result, implementation of the GBR plan requires further negotiation over unresolved aspects of EBM components. This creates a number of challenges for the timely

123

756

G. McGee et al.

implementation of EBM, which relies upon the support of provincial and First Nations’ governments, along with powerful and often conflicting stakeholder groups such as ENGOs and the forestry industry. The complex, stakeholder implementation structure is a second challenge to efficient implementation of the GBR decision. The implementation structure is designed to ensure collaborative participation of stakeholders of the region in a manner that recognizes the unique rights and interests of First Nations. As a result, the framework requires that implementation recommendations occur through consensus agreement among different committees that require time for deliberation on complex issues (BC MAL 2007b). A third challenge for implementation is the high demand on First Nations governments’ resources and capacity to participate in the management of the planning and implementation process. If First Nations governments’ financial and governance capacity needs are not properly addressed during the implementation process, there is considerable potential for them to be overburdened by the process which, in turn, will threaten implementation of the GBR decision. A fourth challenge is the potential for opposition to implementation of the GBR plan from those suffering negative consequences due to reductions in resource extraction industries such as forestry. For example, EBM is more expensive than current harvesting methods and will result in reduced timber harvests, which may potentially result in lower employment levels. At the same time, it is anticipated that logging operations will become more flexible and mobile, focusing on the value of the stand to be harvested ahead of the potential volume to be removed. It will take time for forestry companies to shift their approach to more flexible and value-based procedures as well as for new alternative employment initiatives to come to fruition. If the process of transition is not carefully planned for and if timely compensation, training, and alternative employment opportunities are not secured, members of the local population may experience significant negative consequences from poor plan implementation, resulting in lower support for its future survival. In spite of the challenges, prospects appear positive for successful implementation of the GBR decision. The province, First Nations governments, and stakeholders are demonstrating strong commitment to implementation, and key milestones have been reached on the path to full implementation including: legal enactment of new land use objectives that establish higher standards of resource management direction in EBM operating areas; legal protection of the recommended 1.8 million hectares of protected areas; legal designation of new biodiversity zones; enactment of new logging regulations to preserve 50% of old growth timber; signed agreements with 20 First Nations; and completion of a comprehensive EBM planning guide (BC MAL 2009b).

7 A new model of sustainable development The Great Bear Rainforest regional planning process displays important innovations that collectively represent a new model of sustainable development that has been successfully applied to reach a consensus agreement for a region characterized by intense stakeholder conflict. The features of the new model summarized in Table 2 are discussed below. 7.1 Collaborative plan development A fundamental feature of the GBR model is delegating responsibility for planning to stakeholders who engage in face-to-face negotiation to reach a consensus agreement on a

123

A new model for sustainable development

757

Table 2 Great Bear Rainforest model of sustainable development Component

Principle

Rationale

Collaborative plan development

Delegate responsibility for preparing plan to stakeholders who engage in face-to-face negotiations to reach consensus agreement on plan

Engaging stakeholders in collaborative planning will result in better plan, higher probability of successful implementation, and building of social capital

Collaborative plan implementation

Delegate responsibility for plan implementation to stakeholders who developed plan

Engaging stakeholders in implementation will result in higher probability of successful implementation by increasing support, ensuring consistency with plan objectives, and resolving implementation conflicts and challenges

Encouraging informal collaboration will Informal collaborative Encourage conflicted stakeholders to help resolve stakeholder conflicts that conflict resolution resolve conflicts through self-initiated may jeopardize success of formal informal collaboration stakeholder planning table Contextual adaptation Design processes to adapt to unique aspects of the planning environment (in the GBR this meant addressing unique interests of First Nations by using two-tier table)

Adapting design of process to meet unique circumstances of planning environment will increase probability of success

Joint fact finding

Ensure that information collection and Providing information under direction of stakeholders to increase credibility and analytical support is undertaken by relevance of the information and make independent professional staff under planning more acceptable to direction of stakeholders and that stakeholders information includes different sources such as traditional knowledge as well as western scientific knowledge

Ecosystem-based management

Ecosystem-based management helps Use an ecosystem-based management achieve overall ecosystem health by approach that considers the overall health of entire ecosystems by using a integrated, adaptive management that recognizes the interdependence and process of adaptive management uncertainties in planning

Integration of social, economic, and environmental factors

Ensure that plan addresses and integrates Addressing social, economic, and environmental components in a plan social, economic, and environmental increases the probability of public considerations acceptance by minimizing conflict between competing objectives that could undermine successful implementation

plan. This is in sharp contrast to more conventional models of planning that rely on government experts to develop plans with limited public consultation. Collaborative planning, which emerged as a distinct planning paradigm in the 1990s, is founded on the notion that planning is an inherently value-based process that should be directly managed by stakeholders, instead of governments. Advocates cite many advantages of the collaborative planning model including the following: better plans that are more likely to meet the interests of all stakeholders and the public; higher probability of successful plan implementation due to higher stakeholder support; and building of social capital such as improved relationships among stakeholders and improved stakeholders knowledge and skills (Frame et al. 2004; Gray 1989; Gunton and Day 2003; Innes and Booher 1999;

123

758

G. McGee et al.

Innes 2005; Selin and Chavez 1995; Susskind et al. 2003; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Advocates and critics (Gregory et al. 2001; Gunton and Day 2003; Innes 2005; Steele et al. 2007) also cite potential limitations of collaborative planning including the following: inability to reach agreements in the large proportion of planning environments characterized by major value differences among stakeholders; reaching poor agreements based on inadequate scientific analysis; reaching agreements that are vague in order to achieve consensus; and abdicating legislative or broader public accountability. The GBR experience lends strong support for the benefits of collaborative planning. British Columbia had tried conventional technocratic planning models based on central government management by experts with limited public consultation and expert panels to develop regional land use plans. These models generated strong opposition from stakeholders and the public and were criticized for ignoring important public goals such as environmental protection. Relative to the failures of previous planning models, the success of the collaborative planning model in reaching consensus agreements with specific land use recommendations in a complex environment characterized by intense stakeholder conflict and value differences illustrates the benefits of collaborative planning. Indeed, a survey of the 36 stakeholders sitting at the planning tables in the GBR planning process shows that three-quarters of respondents agree that the plan outcomes are successful and in the public interest, and 78% agree that the collaborative model is superior to other models of planning (McGee 2006; Cullen 2006). The inclusion of experts as stakeholders negotiating agreements and provision of extensive independent scientific analysis to inform stakeholder deliberations ensures that decisions are based on sound science. The retention of ultimate decision-making authority by government based on stakeholder recommendations ensures accountability. The BC experience also provides some lessons for successful use of collaborative planning (Gunton and Day 2003). First, collaborative planning takes time to reach a consensus. Time requirements will vary depending on the process. The Central Coast process took 10 years and several phases in which adjustments were made in the process to address challenges, while the North Coast process, which built on the experience of the Central Coast process, took only 3 years. The previous BC collaborative planning processes that did not reach consensus were given unrealistic deadlines of less than 2 years. Allowing insufficient time or trying to apply the same inflexible time constraints to all processes regardless of their unique dynamics will result in failure. Second, stakeholder tables need to be kept to a manageable size. The first Central Coast table of over 40 participants was too large and had to be reduced to a more manageable size of 14 participants chosen on a sectoral basis to ensure that all interests were represented. Other lessons from the BC experience are discussed below in separate sections.

7.2 Collaborative plan implementation The GBR model includes a collaborative implementation governance structure based on stakeholder involvement. Engaging stakeholders who collaboratively developed the plan in managing implementation is the key to successful implementation because stakeholders who developed the plan have a strong commitment to implementation and a sound understanding of the plan objectives (Joseph et al. 2008; Burby 2003). Engaging stakeholders in implementation also provides a forum for resolving future conflicts in resource management.

123

A new model for sustainable development

759

7.3 Informal collaborative conflict resolution The role of the Joint Solutions Project in the GBR planning process shows that external collaboration outside of the formal planning process can play a crucial role in reaching consensus agreements. When the formal planning process reached an impasse, collaboration of forestry companies and ENGOs that was developed outside of the formal governmental stakeholder planning table was instrumental in resolving conflict. Utilizing a new, less formal negotiating environment can ease tension and allow stakeholders to overcome an impasse. An essential feature of the success of the informal process is that it the results must ultimately be integrated back into the formal process and not replace or undermine the integrity of the formal process. 7.4 Contextual adaptation: the two-tier model A key to success of the GBR process was successful adaptation of collaborative planning to the unique circumstances of the planning area. The unique characteristics that needed to be addressed in the GBR were the distinct cultural characteristics and legal status of First Nations in BC and the dominance of environmental and economic development conflicts. Previous attempts to engage First Nations as a stakeholder in collaborative planning efforts had not been successful. To address the unique circumstances, the planning process was structured as an innovative two-tier process that provided First Nations with the opportunity to engage in government to government negotiations to finalize the plan by assessing and revising recommendations submitted by the stakeholder table. If the process had not been adapted to the unique circumstances of First Nations, it would not have succeeded in reaching a consensus agreement. The process also incorporated new environmental management models based on EBM and community-based sustainable investment initiatives to address the conflict between environmental and economic objectives. The characteristics of planning environments vary significantly. The BC experience shows that the structure of the collaborative process has to be tailored to the unique requirements of each planning environment. 7.5 Joint fact finding Providing information that is trusted by decision makers is essential for effective planning. The Coast Information Team, an independent body of scientific experts, was tasked with providing information to both GBR planning tables. The Coast Information Team was created to provide sound scientific information for decision making, mitigate concerns over potential bias of the provincial government who supplied all necessary scientific and social information for past regional planning initiatives, and to ensure that information collection met the needs of the planning tables (BC 2003). The Coast Information Team’s mandate was to provide information and analyses under the direction of the GBR planning tables (BC MSRM 2005). The Coast Information Team was also mandated to combine western science, traditional and local knowledge, environmental expertise, and community experience to develop its information and analyses. From the stakeholder perspective, the Coast Information Team did not fully accomplish its mandate as information was often late and not in a form suitable for table deliberations (McGee 2006; Cullen 2006). Nonetheless, the principle of providing information to the stakeholder planning table by an independent entity under direction of the table instead of under direction of a third party such as government or a specific stakeholder sector is an important feature of successful planning.

123

760

G. McGee et al.

7.6 EBM A key component of the GBR decision was the adoption of ecosystem-based management (EBM) framework that sets measurable environmental targets and monitoring systems to ensure that targets are met and plans are adjusted as required. As stated above, EBM is based upon the concept that a healthy community and viable economy are dependent upon the maintenance of the biological richness and ecosystem services of the surrounding natural environment. In order to maintain ecological integrity, the GBR decision protected 28% of the land base and developed a comprehensive system of sustainable resource management for the remaining 72%. Measurable standards and thresholds for both ecological and socioeconomic objectives were established. Those standards and thresholds continue to be refined during implementation and through the establishment of an adaptive management framework designed to sustain a mix of social, economic, and ecological values. 7.7 Social, economic, and environmental integration Achieving the environmental objectives of the GBR plan entails a reduction in traditional resource development in a region that already suffers from economic problems. As a result, achieving environmental objectives can create conflict between the environment and the economy that can jeopardize sustainable development by creating opposition from those suffering negative economic consequences. The GBR plan addresses declines in traditional resource extraction by providing compensation to those negatively affected and developing alternative sustainable employment initiatives to provide the foundation for a healthy economy. Social, economic, and environmental objectives are integrated in the plan in an effort to achieve a balance that increases the likelihood of resilient, diversified local economies and communities and minimizes the likelihood of any specific group being worse off as a result of the plan.

8 Conclusion The search for sustainability requires new approaches to planning. The GBR planning process represents an innovative approach to planning for sustainable development that shows considerable promise. The elements of the model include collaborative planning, collaborative implementation, informal conflict resolution, contextual adaptation (in the case of BC this involved comanagement with First Nations and a focus on environmentaleconomic conflicts), joint fact finding, ecosystem-based management, and integration of social, economic, and environmental objectives. The GBR planning model has been successful based on several criteria. The model achieved a consensus agreement among diverse stakeholders in an environment characterized by intense conflict, an outcome which other planning models were unable to achieve. Further, the model resulted in a plan that involved significant changes in land use and management practices that will improve environmental and economic sustainability. The model has also achieved success in meeting all the major implementation milestones to date including legal designation of all the land use changes and recommended management practices. Despite these successes, several caveats remain. The plan is still in its early stages and the impacts need to be carefully monitored over the coming decades to assess fully its strengths and weaknesses. The applicability of the planning model to other jurisdictions remains unproven and adaption and implementation will be challenging. Even

123

A new model for sustainable development

761

in BC, the development and implementation of the GBR model faced significant obstacles. The collaborative planning process was only successfully adopted after over a decade of experience and pressure generated by various forms of strong political actions such as boycotts, blockades, and successful legal challenges that enshrined the rights of First Nations. However, while the obstacles should not be underestimated and the long run effectiveness of the GBR model requires ongoing assessment, the experience and accomplishments to date indicate that the GBR planning model merits serious international consideration as an effective for achieving sustainable development.

References British Columbia. (1999). CCLRMP backgrounder. Online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/ cr/resource_mgmt/ lrmp/cencoast/news.htm. Accessed 27 January 2006. British Columbia. (2001a). CCLRMP phase 1 framework agreement. Online: http://www.citbc.org/ Framework-Agreement.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2007. British Columbia. (2001b). Central coast coastal zone strategic plan. Online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cr/ resource_mgmt/lrmp/cencoast/docs/ AIP%20Coastal%20Zone%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2005. British Columbia. (2001c). ‘‘Enabling process’’ for Central Coast LRMP: MOU with KDC/MTTC/TM First Nations and the government of British Columbia. In an analysis of First Nation participation in the Central Coast Land and resource management plan. Lynn Wilson. Master’s Project. Faculty of graduate studies, school of community and regional planning, University of British Columbia. British Columbia. (2001d). Turning point general protocol agreement on land use planning and interim agreements. Online: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/FinalProtocol.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2005. British Columbia. (2001e). CCLRMP phase 1 framework agreement: Socioeconomic and environmental assessment final report. Online: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/lrmp/coast/cencoast/docs/central_ assessment_SEfinal.pdf. Accessed 21 August 2006. British Columbia. (2002a). Coast sustainability trust: Results-based assessment framework. Online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/coaststrategy/susttrust.htm. Accessed 22 February 2005. British Columbia. (2002b). BC coast strategy progress report. Online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/coast strategy/docs/ProgressReport.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2005. British Columbia. (2003). What is the coast sustainability strategy? Online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/ coaststrategy/whatis.htm. Accessed 20 July 2005. British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL). (2006). Backgrounder: Province announces a new vision for coastal BC. Online: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2006AL 0002-000066-Attachment1.htm. Accessed 25 February 2007. British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL). (2007a). News release: Central and north coast-one year later. Online: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2007AL0003000103.htm. Accessed 25 February 2007. British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL). (2007b). Central coast plan and implementation monitoring committee terms of reference. Online: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/lup/lrmp/coast/ cencoast/docs/CCPIMC_TOR_Signed_March_08_07.f. Accessed 20 May 2007. British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL). (2009a). Land and Coastal Marine Plans in British Columbia. Online: http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/slrp/index.html. Accessed 20 September 2009. British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL). (2009b). EBM protects coastal jobs, culture, and environment. Online: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2009AL0007-0005 88.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2009. British Columbia. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). (2005). North coast land and resource management plan: Final recommendations. Online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/ske/lrmp/ ncoast/index.htm. Accessed 28 August 2006. Burby, R. J. (2003). Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(1), 33–49. Central Coast LRMP (CCLMRP). (2004). Report of consensus recommendations to provincial government and first nations. Online: http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cr/resource_mgmt/lrmp/cencoast.htm. Accessed 19 July 2005. Coast Forest Conservation Initiative (CFCI). (2004). New thinking about forest conservation. Newsletter. Online: http://www.coastforestconservationinitiative.com/pdf3/CFCI_news_June2004.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2005.

123

762

G. McGee et al.

Coast Forest Conservation Initiative (CFCI). (2005). Joint Solutions Project. Online: http://www.coast forestconservationinitiative.com/about_us/joint_solutions.html. Accessed 20 July 2005. Coast Information Team (CIT). (2004). About the coast information team. Online: http://www.citbc. org/abo.html. Accessed on 20 July 2005. For CIT Reports see: http://www.citbc.org/pubpcit.html. Accessed on 13 December 2005. Cullen, A. (2006). The central coast land and resource management plan: An evaluation of collaborative planning in British Columbia. MRM report 397. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University, School of Resource and Environmental Management. Donovan, A. & Griffith, J. (2003). Duty of business to consult with and accommodate first nations. the continuing legal education society of British Columbia. Online at: http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/ Practice?Desk/Practice?Articles/Collection/02-app-dutytoconsult.htm. Accessed 14 January 2006. Frame, T. M., Gunton, T. I., & Day, J. C. (2004). The role of collaboration in environmental management: An evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(1), 59–82. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(3), 415–432. Gunton, T. I., & Day, J. C. (2003). The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management. Environments, 31(2), 31–45. Gunton, T. I., Day, J.C. & Peter, W. W. (eds). (2003a). Evaluating collaborative planning: The British Columbia experience (special issue). Environments 31(3). Gunton, T. I., Day, J.C. & Peter, W. W. (eds). (2003b). Evaluating collaborative planning: The North American experience (Special Issue). Environments 31(2). Gunton, T. I., Day, J. C., & Williams, Peter. (1998). Land and water planning in BC in the 1990s: Lessons on more inclusive approaches. Environments, 25(2 and 3), 1–7. Innes, J. E. (2005). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423. International Institute of Sustainable Development (IISD). (2004). National strategies for sustainable development: Challenges, approaches and innovations in strategic and co-ordinated action. Winnipeg: IISD. Jackson, T., & Curry, J. (2002). Regional development and land use planning in rural British Columbia: Peace in the woods? Regional Studies, 36(4), 439–443. Joseph, C., Gunton, T., & Day, J. C. (2008). Implementation of resource management plans: Identifying keys to success. Environmental Management, 88(42), 594–606. McGee, G. J. (2006). Evaluating collaborative planning: A case study of the North Coast land and resource management plan. MRM Report 399. Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University, School of Resource and Environmental Management. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystem and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Rainforest solutions project. (2007). The roadmap to change: A 2006 progress report on the Great Bear Rainforest agreements. Online: http://www.savethegreatbear.org/files/finalreport.pdf. Accessed 25 February 2007. Richardson, P. (2006). Personal communication. Vancouver: Vice President at Renewal Partners, responsible for Coast Opportunities Funds Project. Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management, 19(2), 189–195. Steele, K., Regan, H., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, M. (2007). Right decisions or happy decision-makers? Social Epistemology, 21(4), 349–368. Susskind, L., van der Wansem, M., & Ciccareli, A. (2003). Mediating land use disputes: Pros and cons. Environments, 31(2), 39–59. Wilson, J., Cashore, B., Hoberg, G., Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2001). In search of sustainability: British Columbia forest policy in the 1990s. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovations in natural resource management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. World Commission of Environment, Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Toronto: Oxford Press.

123