ETD4665

NEW SPACES, ANCIENT PLACES:
COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT IN CANADA‟S COASTAL REGIONS
By
Kelly M. Vodden
H.B.A. University of Western Ontario, 1993
M.A. Simon Fraser University, 1999
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Department of Geography
© Kelly M. Vodden
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Summer 2009
All rights reserved. This work may not be

reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.
Approval
Name: Kelly Vodden
Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
Title of Research Project: New Spaces, Ancient Places: Collaborative Governance and
Sustainable Development in Canada‘s Coastal Regions
Examining Committee:
Dr. Nicholas Blomley

Chair, Examining Committee
Professor, Department of Geography,
Simon Fraser University
Dr. John Pierce

Senior Supervisor
Dr. Mark Roseland

Supervisor
Dr. Doug House

Supervisor
Professor, Department of Sociology, Memorial University
Dr. Michael Howlett

Internal Examiner
Professor, Department of Political Science,
Dr. Derek Armitage

External Examiner
Associate Professor, Department of Geography and
Environmental Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University
Date Defended/Approved: December 17, 2008
ii
Abstract
The concept of collaborative, multi-level governance has garnered increasing attention in

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

and leave the world a better place.
Lawrence, Bert, Pat, Ron, Gilbert, Bill, Grand Keptin Denny, Herb,
may we honour your memory by striving to do the same.
"We are nearing a point when the word partnership is

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

President Herb Brett, Partnerships in Progress Conference
Marystown, NL June 1, 2005
iv
Acknowledgements
After so many years of patience and support thank you hardly seems enough. Thanks to
John, and to Doug and Mark for your guidance and confidence that I would finally reach
this point. Thanks to everyone that participated in this research for your generous gift of
time and knowledge and to each of the case study organizations for sharing your
experiences. To everyone who provided accommodation and other logistical support,
especially Mike and Maureen, Kim, Christina, Charlie, Slawa, Albert and Murdena, Cape
Breton University, Winse, Tina and Barry, Bill and Mary, your kindness will not be
forgotten. Thanks to Dick, John, Rosemary and the Coasts Under Stress (CUS) team for
providing an avenue to explore interconnections between this research and that of others
focused on the well-being of our coasts and coastal communities. This research would not
have been possible without financial support from CUS, Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council, Simon Fraser University (Dr. John Pierce), Ocean Management
Research Network and Coastal Zone Canada. Thanks to Sarah Breen, Ahmed Khan,
Mostaem Billah, Ange Hounsell, Cindy Wicks, Jenessa Button and Cathy King for
important research assistance. Thanks always to Pat for your mentorship and for
providing one opportunity after another, all of which brought me to where I am today.
Finally, thanks to my family for your sacrifices of time spent together to see this
document and all that it represents become a reality. I can never properly express my
gratitude for your understanding and never-ending support. Shane, I have gained much
from this journey, most importantly us.
v
Table of Contents
Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii
Dedication ...........................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. v
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures .....................................................................................................................xi
Glossary of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... xii
1 - The Challenge of Sustainability in Canada‘s Coastal Regions ...................................... 1
1.1. Coastal Systems at Risk ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 A Question of Governance? ...................................................................................... 4
1.3 Research Approach ................................................................................................... 7
2 – Resilience, Adaptation and Sustainability in Complex Social-Ecological Systems .... 13
2.1 The Complex Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems (CASES) Framework ............. 13
2.1.1 Multi-layered and Multi-scale.......................................................................... 16
2.1.2 Dynamic Interactions within CASES .............................................................. 27
2.1.3 Change, Resilience and Adaptation ................................................................. 29
2.1.4 Initial Reflections on the CASES Framework .................................................. 35
2.2 Contributions from Development Geography ......................................................... 37
2.2.1 Dependency and Uneven Development ............................................................ 37
2.2.2 Staples Theory and Rural Canada ..................................................................... 40
2.2.3 Regulation Theory ............................................................................................ 41
2.2.4 New Developments and CASES Contributions ................................................ 44
3 – Collaborative Governance in the Coastal Zone ........................................................... 49
3.1 Complexity and Coastal Zone Governance ............................................................ 49
3.2 Redefining Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships in Governance Systems ..... 54
3.2.1 Changing Role of the Nation State .................................................................. 54
3.2.2 International Policy Actors .............................................................................. 58
3.2.3 Recognizing Aboriginal Rights and Title ........................................................ 58
3.2.4 The Local State ................................................................................................ 59
3.2.5 Civil Society..................................................................................................... 63
3.2.6 The Private Sector ............................................................................................ 65
3.3 Collaborative Governance....................................................................................... 66
3.3.1 Power ............................................................................................................... 73
3.3.2 Structure and Process ....................................................................................... 75
3.3.3 Territory and Function ...................................................................................... 78
3.4 Learning Systems and the Adaptive Dimension of Collaborative Governance ...... 79
4 – Research Framework and Methodology ...................................................................... 87
4.1 Research Paradigm, Epistemology and Methodological Approach......................... 87
4.2 Analytical Framework - Theory and Practice .......................................................... 88
4.2.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes ............................................................... 90
4.2.2 Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable Development
.................................................................................................................................... 93
4.2.3 Actors and their Relationships ......................................................................... 96
4.2.4 Operationalizing Mechanisms: Processes, Tools and Structures ..................... 98
vi
4.2.5 Resistors and Enablers ................................................................................... 100
4.2.6 Scale Considerations ..................................................................................... 102
4.2.7 Context ......................................................................................................... 103
4.3 Case Study and Policy Literature Review............................................................. 103
4.4 Case Study Design, Selection and Relationship Building .................................... 104
4.5 Data Collection..................................................................................................... 107
4.6 Data Organization and Analysis ........................................................................... 111
4.7 Finalizing and Communicating Results ............................................................... 112
5 – Case Study Area Descriptions and Sustainability Overview ..................................... 114
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 114
5.1.1 Island Geography ........................................................................................... 114
5.1.2 Provincial Populations ................................................................................... 116
5.1.3 Original Peoples and Settlement History ....................................................... 116
5.1.4 Social Values, Politics and the Environment ................................................. 118
5.1.5 Provincial Well-being Indicators ................................................................... 121
5.2. Kittiwake Region, NL .......................................................................................... 125
5.2.1 Communities and Local Government ............................................................. 125
5.2.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being ......................................................... 126
5.2.3 Economic Indicators ...................................................................................... 130
5.2.4 Individual and Social Well-being ................................................................... 132
5.2.5 Culture and Way of Life ................................................................................. 133
5.3 Bras d‘Or Lakes/Strait-Highlands, NS.................................................................. 135
5.3.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being .......................................................... 137
5.3.4 Social Well-being and Human Health ........................................................... 142
5.3.5 Culture and Way of Life ................................................................................ 144
5.4 Mount Waddington/Central Coast region, BC ....................................................... 146
5.4.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being ......................................................... 148
5.4.4 Social Well-being and Human Health ........................................................... 155
5.4.5 Culture and Way of Life ................................................................................ 157
5.5 Summary and Case Study Region Comparison .................................................... 158
6 – Regional Economic Development Redefined ............................................................ 163
6.1 Scaling Up Community Economic Development ................................................. 164
6.2 Regional Development in Canada......................................................................... 167
6.3 Provincial Policies and Programs ......................................................................... 171
6.3.1 British Columbia ............................................................................................. 172
6.3.2 Nova Scotia ..................................................................................................... 174
6.3.3 Newfoundland and Labrador .......................................................................... 177
6.4 Regional Development From the Bottom-up ........................................................ 181
6.5 Collaborative Regional Economic Development (RED): a Balanced Approach? 182
6.5.1 Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation ............................................. 183
6.5.2 Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency .......................................... 188
6.5.3 Community Futures Development Corp. Mount Waddington ....................... 194
6.6 Case Study Similarities and Differences ............................................................... 200
vii
7 – Watershed Management: Experiments in Bioregional Governance .......................... 204
7.1 Watershed Management and the Watershed as a Bioregion ................................. 204
7.2 Watershed Management in Canada ...................................................................... 207
7.3 Canada‘s International Commitments................................................................... 208
7.4 The Federal Policy Framework ............................................................................. 210
7.5 Federal-Provincial Agreements............................................................................. 212
7.6 Provincial Jurisdiction, Policies and Programs ..................................................... 214
7.6.1 Newfoundland and Labrador ......................................................................... 214
7.6.2 Nova Scotia .................................................................................................... 216
7.6.3 British Columbia ............................................................................................. 217
7.7 Case Study Watershed Management Initiatives..................................................... 219
7.7.1 Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp........................................................................... 220
7.7.2 Bras d‘Or Lakes Watershed Management ..................................................... 227
7.7.3 Nimpkish Resource Management Board ....................................................... 234
7.8 Summary of Model Similarities and Differences ................................................. 243
8 – Outcomes, Resistors and Enablers: Research Findings and Cross-case Analysis ..... 246
8.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes ..................................................................... 246
8.1.1 Enhancing Governance System Capacity ....................................................... 248
8.1.2 Contributions to Social Well-being ................................................................ 249
8.1.3 Enhancing Individual Well-being and Human Capital ................................... 252
8.1.4 Preservation and Renewal of Coastal Cultures ............................................... 253
8.1.5 Economic Benefits .......................................................................................... 255
8.1.6 Ecological Benefits ......................................................................................... 257
8.1.7 Summary ......................................................................................................... 260
8.2. Enablers and Resistors .......................................................................................... 262
8.2.1 The Influence of Individuals ........................................................................... 263
8.2.2 Relationships with Government ...................................................................... 267
8.2.3 Time – Balance in Temporal Scale ................................................................. 280
8.2.4 Local Conflict and Capacity ........................................................................... 282
8.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 286
9 – Reflections on Collaborative Governance and Complex Adaptive Systems ............. 289
9.1 The Multiple Scales of Collaborative Governance ............................................... 289
9.1.1 Nested Systems and Expanded Discretionary Reach ...................................... 289
9.1.2 Region as a Focal Scale .................................................................................. 291
9.2 Processes of Change, Adaptation and Resilience .................................................. 294
9.2.1 Destabilizing Feedback Loops ........................................................................ 294
9.2.2 Responding to Sudden or Significant Events .................................................. 295
9.2.3 Learning and Adaptation................................................................................ 298
9.3 Balance and Sustainable CASES ........................................................................... 314
9.3.1 Flexibility and Stability................................................................................... 314
9.3.2 Complexity and Governability ........................................................................ 316
9.3.3 Diversity, Autonomy, and Common Ground .................................................. 320
9.4 Collaborative Governance as a Complex Adaptive System: Contributions to the
CASES Literature ........................................................................................................ 330
10 – Conclusion: the Promise and Challenge of Collaborative Governance ................... 336
10.2 Recommendations and Future Directions ........................................................ 347
Reference List .................................................................................................................. 353
viii
CD-ROM Appendices ...................................................................................................... 409
Appendix 1 – Case Study Outcomes ........................................................................... 409

Appendix 2 - Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable
Development ................................................................................................................ 416
Appendix 3 – Case Study Principles ............................................................................ 429
Appendix 4 – RED Case Study Actors and Relationships .......................................... 442
Appendix 5 – Mechanisms Used ................................................................................. 473
Appendix 6 - Factors in Collaborative Governance Success: Resistors and Enablers 483
Appendix 7 - Respondent Profile ................................................................................. 486
Appendix 8 - Interview Topics .................................................................................... 487
Appendix 9 - Regional Descriptions and Well-being/Sustainability Indicators .......... 488
Appendix 10 - Regional Economic Development Models .......................................... 514
Appendix 11 - RED Policies and Programs in Canada ................................................ 519
Appendix 12 - Watershed Management Models.......................................................... 531
Appendix 13 - Watershed Management Legislation, Policies and Programs .............. 537
Appendix 14 – Success Factors (Enablers) and Barriers (Resistors) ........................... 548
Appendix 15 – Overall Case Study Comparison ......................................................... 558
Note on CD-ROM Appendices
The CD-ROM attached forms a part of this work. All thesis appendices are included in
one PDF document included on this CD-ROM. The PDF file was created with Adobe
Acrobat, but may be opened in any PDF program.
NOTE from SFU Library:

The above-mentioned separate appendix PDF
has been included in this PDF and in the bound copies
in the University Library and Archives collections.
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Characteristics of collaborative governance ........................................................... 6

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

Figure 2 Collaborative governance ...................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 CASES framework .............................................................................................. 13
Figure 4 Region as middle ground and human scale ......................................................... 21
Figure 5 The adaptive renewal cycle ................................................................................. 31
Figure 6 Seeking a balance of power ................................................................................. 48
Figure 7 Relationship continuum ...................................................................................... 68
Figure 8 Orders of outcomes evaluation framework ........................................................ 91
Figure 9 Case study locations ......................................................................................... 106
Figure 10 Kittiwake region (Zone 14) ............................................................................ 125
Figure 11 Bras d'Or Lakes and Strait-Highlands regions ................................................ 135
Figure 12 Mount Waddington Regional District ............................................................. 146
Figure 13 Upper mid-coast planning region .................................................................... 148
Figure 14 Nimpkish watershed ........................................................................................ 151
Figure 15 Southern Central Coast Plan Area .................................................................. 241
Figure 16 Collaborative governance outcomes ............................................................... 247
Figure 17 NL case study outcomes and sustainability gaps............................................. 260
Figure 18 BC case study outcomes and sustainability gaps............................................. 261
Figure 19 NS case study outcomes and sustainability gaps ............................................. 261
Figure 20 Relationship factors ......................................................................................... 268
Figure 21 Degree of power sharing within the collaborative governance network ........ 272
Figure 22 Comparing capacities and outcomes .............................................................. 285
Figure 23 The adaptive renewal cycle (2005/06) ........................................................... 297
Figure 24 Learning, adaptive governance framework .................................................... 299
Figure 25 Knowledge systems incorporated ................................................................... 302
Figure 26 Nested planning processes .............................................................................. 310
Figure 27 Processes of learning and adaptation .............................................................. 313
Figure 28 "Compliance" with collaborative governance principles ............................... 323
Figure 29 Seeking common ground ................................................................................ 328
Figure 30 Comparison of case study characteristics and outcomes ................................ 329
xi
Glossary of Acronyms
Acronym Meaning
ACAP Atlantic Canada Action Program
ACOA Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
ANT Actor-Network Theory
ARDA Agricultural Rehabilitation and Rural Development Act
BC British Columbia
BC-E Community Futures Mount Waddington
BC-W Nimpkish Watershed Management Board
BDC Business Development Centres
CA Census Agglomerations
CASES Complex adaptive social-ecological systems
CASE/C Cooperation Agreement for Salmonid Enhancement/Conservation
CBDCs Independent Community Business Development Corporations
CBU Cape Breton University, formerly University College of Cape Breton
CCRD Central Coast Regional District
CEAI Community Economic Adjustment Initiative
CED Community economic development
CEPI Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative
CFDCs Community Futures Development Corporation
CFDCMW Community Futures Development Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E)
CMA Census Metropolitan Areas (statistical area designation)
COST European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research
CRRF Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation
CSA Canadian Standards Association‗s
CWT Centreville-Wareham-Trinity
DEVCO Cape Breton Development Corporation
DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada
DITT Department of Industry, Trade and Technology
DREE Department of Regional Economic Expansion
ECBC Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation
EDOs Economic Development Officer
EFWC Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission
EI Employment Insurance
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ENL Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador
ERC Economic Recovery Commission
FedNor Federal regional development organization in Ontario
FIA Forest Investment Account
FRBC Forest Renewal BC program
FsRBC Fisheries Renewal BC
FRCC Fisheries Resource Conservation Council
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GONGO Government Organized NGOs
HRSD Human Resources and Social Development Canada, formerly HRDC
HRDC Human Resources Development Canada
IBEC Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. (NL-W)
xii
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
IT Information Technology
IM Integrated Management
KEDC Kittiwake Economic Development Corp. (NL-E)
LCRMP Central Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan
LEK Local Ecological Knowledge
LHA Local Health Area
LK Local knowledge
LMDA Labour Market Development Agreement
LOMA Large Ocean Management Area
LSDs Local Service Districts
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MPA Marine Protected Area
MPs Members of Parliament
MRC Mekong River Commission
MSC Marine Stewardship Council
MTTC Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council
MOUs Memoranda of Understanding
MWRD Mount Waddington Regional District
NAFO Northwest Atlantic Fishery Organization
NB New Brunswick
NDP New Democratic Party
NDPB Non-Departmental Public Bodies
NGO Non-Government Organization
NL Newfoundland and Labrador
NL-E Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation
NLREDA Newfoundland Regional Economic Development Boards
NL-W Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp.
NPA National Programme of Action for Protection of the Marine Environment from
Land-Based Activities
NPM New Public Management
NRMB Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W)
NS Nova Scotia
NS – E Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E)
NS–W Bras d‘Or watershed management network
NSARDA Nova Scotia Association of Regional Development Authorities
OAGC Office of the Auditor General of Canada
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OED Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development
OKNTC Oweekeno-Kitasoo-Nuxalk Tribal Council
PC Progressive Conservatives
PEI Prince Edward Island
PFAR Pacific Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring
QUANGO QUasi or quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations
RCAP Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
RDAs Regional Development Authorities
RED Regional Economic Development
REDBs Regional Economic Development Boards
RUPRI Rural Policy Research Institute
xiii
SARA Species at Risk Act
SCI Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative
SEP Strategic Economic Plan
SES Social-Ecological Systems
SFM Sustainable Forest Management
SSP Strategic Social Plan
SYSCO Sydney Steel Corporation
TAGS The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy
TEK Traditional ecological knowledge
TFL Tree Farm Licence
TK Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge
UCCB University College of Cape Breton‗s
UI Unemployment Insurance
UINR Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources
UN United Nations
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
US United States
VIHA Vancouver Island Health Authority
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WD Western Diversification (federal agency)
xiv
1 - The Challenge of Sustainability in Canada‟s Coastal Regions
1.1. Coastal Systems at Risk
Rural, resource-dependent regions around the world have faced extensive social,
economic, environmental and political restructuring in recent decades. Resource
dependency and core-periphery relationships have challenged rural Canada since the
nation‘s inception (Innis 1933; Watkins 1982; Hayter and Barnes 1990). Modern forces
of globalization, technological change, resource depletion, environmental degradation,
government retrenchment, increasing influence of a widening range of social actors, and
dominant market-based development approaches have exacerbated the situation.
Canada‘s rural communities are in the midst of stressful transformation and, for many, a
social, economic and environmental crisis (Ommer and Sinclair 1999; Reimer 2005;
Ommer et al. 2007). This research focuses on the particular challenges of rural
communities within Canada‘s Atlantic and Pacific coastal zones.
Figure 1.Canada's coastlines

© 2008, The Map Room, Memorial University of Newfoundland, by permission
While coastlines globally become increasingly urbanized, Canada‘s remain
1
predominantly rural and remote (see Figure 1). Urban centres such as Vancouver,
Victoria, St. John‘s and Halifax continue to expand, but the majority of our nation‘s
250,000 km coastline (the longest in the world) is home to small communities and
dispersed rural populations. Rural is defined for the purposes of this study as the
population living outside the labour force commuting zone of larger centres (population
10,000 or more) (Reimer 2005). The growth of Canadian cities has been fuelled in part by
rural communities, as their young people migrate to larger centres in search of
opportunity. Even Newfoundland and Labrador, the only province where rural and small
town residents still outnumber urban, has experienced this urbanization trend (see Chapter
5).
Despite significant diversity in circumstances and, often, an amazing resilience
and commitment to place, in many locales community survival is a constant concern.
Coastal Canada is burdened not only with problems typical of rural regions but also with
those particular to its unique setting. Issues include fisheries dependency, centralized
resource management decision-making, uncertainty and vulnerability associated with
changing ocean conditions, and legal disputes over coastal jurisdiction. Canada‘s coasts,
the peripheries of the nation, have been subject to periods of social and economic
restructuring along with both gradual decline and rapid regime shifts within coastal and
marine ecosystems (Ommer et al. 2007). The result has too often been population and job
loss, threatened local and indigenous cultures, growing economic inequity, a sense of
disempowerment and fear for the future, with consequent negative health impacts
(Gislason et al. 1996; BC Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs 1991).
Social and economic challenges are closely linked to declines in interconnected
marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecological systems, particularly in resource-dependent
coastal communities (Adger 2000). Many coastal residents are intimately connected with
the oceans on their doorsteps, but also with the lower reaches and estuaries of thousands
of river systems, small and large. These freshwater systems provide drinking water,
recreation and other human benefits while playing a significant role in the health of the
marine and coastal environment. Terrestrial environments, linked through watersheds to
freshwater systems, provide further livelihood and quality-of-life services. Evidence of
ecological decline can be found in each of these habitats as British Columbians struggle,
2
for example, with the depletion of old growth forests and competition among users
(including species other than humans) over freshwater supplies. Moving from freshwater
into the marine environment, the stories of the northern cod fishery and, more recently,
British Columbia salmon are all too well known (Hamilton et al. 2004; Lackey 2008).
Internationally, the majority of fish species harvested are fully or overexploited. Human-
induced ecosystem change has been more rapid and extensive over the past fifty years
than in any comparable period in history (MEA 2005; Vodden et al. 2006).
Depletion of fish, forest and mineral stocks has led to a desire to restore and
manage these resources more sustainably, and to search for new opportunities for natural
resource-dependent economies. Alternatives such as ―new fisheries,‖ aquaculture and oil
and gas production, however, have raised further ecological concerns, particularly when
considered from a cumulative impact perspective. Ommer et al. (2007) observe that our
social responses often exacerbate environmental and social degradation, further reducing
resilience and ability to respond to future change. Coastal systems are suffering from a
legacy of multiple policy failures, unsustainable behaviours and increasing pressures,
local to global.
In the midst of this restructuring, a tug-of-war is taking place between opposing
trajectories of change - sustainable and unsustainable, with many variations of policies
and actions in between. The odds seemingly lie in favour of the latter trend. The
International Task Force on Environmental Sustainability (UN Millennium Project 2005,
12) points out that ―since the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment
first focused international attention on environmental degradation, most environmental
trends have worsened, despite three decades of political arrangements, high-level
pronouncements, public exhortations, and over a dozen major multi-lateral environmental
agreements.‖ In Canada, initiatives such as community and regional development
programs, regulations to restrict pollution and the creation of protected areas have been
taken in an attempt to halt degradation of rural communities and ecological systems. Yet
declines continue. Why? An increasing number of authors point toward the role of
governance and governing institutions.
3
1.2 A Question of Governance?
―Good governance is recognized around the world as the core of effective and
sustainable coastal management … effective governance systems create the essential
preconditions for achieving environmental and social benefits.‖
- Coastal Resources Centre, University of Rhode Island (2002)
Evidence is mounting that we are experiencing large-scale governance failures with

respect to the sustainable development of coastal regions in Canada and across the globe.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) identified inappropriate institutional and
governance arrangements as a barrier to sustainable ecosystem management. A United
Kingdom Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) called for profound
policy changes to reverse the priority put on commercial fishing and to recognize the
wider functions and complexity of the marine environment. Two US Commissions had
similar findings (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003 and US Commission on Oceans Policy,
2004). In Canada policy failures in coastal forestry and fisheries are well documented
(Markey et al. 2000). Hutchings (2005) and others attribute the collapse of the northern
Atlantic cod in Newfoundland and Labrador to ―a disassociation between public policy
and science,‖ including fishers‘ knowledge. Ommer et al. (2007; 23) observe, ―Fisheries
and Oceans managers are now facing a serious legitimacy crisis.‖ Once highly respected
and still seeking a leadership role on the international stage, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
(DFO) is being called upon both at home and abroad to live up to its sustainable
development commitments (OAGC 1999a; OECD 2004).
Governance innovations can lead not only to environmental stewardship but also
to social and economic development (Abdellatif 2003; House 2001; UNDP 1997; RUPRI
2006). World Bank representatives argue that governance has a strong causal impact on
income, poverty alleviation and competitiveness. They suggest that a broad consensus
exists among academics, policymakers and the international aid community that good
governance increases economic development and the effectiveness of development
assistance (Kaufmann 2005). Yet a recent review of global governance trends found no
evidence of notable improvement, with deterioration in several key dimensions despite
significant investments in governance and anti-corruption programs (Kaufmann et al.
4
2005). In Canada, researchers suggest that institutional capacity is undermined in rural
areas by low education levels, out-migration, and weak leadership (Hodge and Qadeer
1983; Briscoe and Burns 2004), while senior government effectiveness is also threatened
by fiscal pressures, erosion of trust and autonomy, competition and an inability to deal
with complex problems (Reimer 2005).
Significant changes in policies, institutions and practices of governance are
therefore a necessary, although perhaps not sufficient, condition to mitigate escalating
pressures on ecosystems and rural communities (MEA 2005; Locke and Tomblin 2003).
Reversing unsustainable development trends must involve new ways of governing the
coastal zone in a manner that protects ecosystem, community and individual well-being.
Typical of periods of political and policy failure, calls for governance reform are
widespread (Hall 1993; Tomblin 2005). But what kinds of reforms are needed?
An increasing number of authors in the fields of resource management and rural
and regional development suggest the importance of bottom-up development and
decision-making as an integral strategy for enhancing the sustainability of rural
communities and regions (Pierce 1998; Gill and Reed 1997; Roseland 1998; Bryant 1995,
Higgins and Savoie 1995). There is some evidence of a shift in this direction through the
application of subsidiarity as a guiding principle in Europe (Backhaus 1999). The
subsidiarity principle states that a central authority should perform ―only those tasks
which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level‖ (Buttimer
2001, xxii). In Canada, recognition of the rights of Aboriginal peoples to govern their
lands, resources and communities has led to the negotiation of modern treaty and self-
government arrangements. Municipalities have also taken on greater responsibilities. A
growing number of international agencies, agreements, networks and corporate actors
further influence new governance models. At the same time, the need for a continuing
role for senior (in Canada provincial and federal) governments in the support of local
actors and protection of broader societal interests is acknowledged (Savoie 2000;
Buttimer 2001). Haughton and Counsell (2004) and Jessop (2000) refer to this as the
‗government of governance‘.
5
Involving multiple actors Table 1 Characteristics of Collaborative Governance
at multiple scales in setting the
• Multiple actors sharing power, planning and
course for society(ies) has decision-making in complex structures and processes
made up of formal and informal relationships
become a collective effort of • Vertical, horizontal and temporal integration
many rather than the sole domain • Multi-scale (nested), recognizing the importance of
the ―local‖
of the state. Coined ―collaborative  Holistic vs. siloed approach (multi-objective, multi-
sector)
governance‖ (among other terms) • An ongoing process of dialogue, struggle, learning
this approach is neither bottom-up and adaptation
nor top-down, but seeks to balance both, involving vertical, temporal and horizontal
integration (Table 1, Figure 2). Like co-management, its longer-standing counterpart in
natural resources, collaborative governance arrangements may lie at varying locations on
the top-down/bottom-up continuum. Collaborative governance responds to the suggestion
Figure 2 Collaborative governance
of Armitage et al. (2007), Folke et al. (2002) and others that the notion of co-management
evolve to adaptive co-management, placing emphasis on adaptation and resilience, and
that its application be extended beyond natural resources. Despite enthusiasm for such
new approaches, others raise concern about fragmentation, power differences and other
challenges associated with collaborative or networked, multi-level governance systems
(COST 2003; OAGC 1999b). Varying definitions and perspectives within the study and
practice of governance are discussed further in Chapter 3 of this thesis.
6
1.3 Research Approach
Given the current state of coastal systems and governance in Canada and the broader
global challenges of rural and coastal sustainability described above, the central purpose
of this research is to better explain the concept of collaborative, multi-level governance
and examine how it has been applied to the complex and overarching goal of sustainable
development in Canada‘s coastal zones. There have been various attempts to construct
new collaborative governance arrangements on Canada‘s coasts in the sustainable
development era, often at the scale of the sub-provincial region. The increasing
importance of the regional scale within collaborative governance networks is discussed
further in Chapters 2 and 3. These experiments represent a wealth of learning potential
but to date there has been only limited analysis of these experiences.
Through comparative case study analysis, the research seeks to increase
understanding of the processes of social and policy change in which the struggle over
sustainable development takes place; the degree to which these models have been able to
move the development paths of their respective regions on to more sustainable
trajectories; factors that influence these outcomes; and opportunities for improvement and
innovation/adaptation. This purpose was set out recognizing that more than one model of
collaborative governance exists. Rather than seeking to derive one best or most
appropriate model the goal was to explore the characteristics of various collaborative
governance models in differing situations and circumstances and possible causal
relationships between governance contexts, characteristics and outcomes.
The research for this thesis was conducted and is reported on within a sustainable
development paradigm1 that recognizes there are real limits to ecosystems and their uses
by human beings as sinks for waste and sources of goods and services that must be
1
Within the sustainable development paradigm there are many variations. Worldviews known as
ecocentric, strong or pessimistic sustainability emphasize ecological values and the need to reduce human-
induced pressures on the environment while weak, shallow or optimistic/technocentric views sustainability
argue that ecological resources can be expanded to meet socio-economic demands. Moderates argue for a
balance of these two approaches while ‗just sustainability‘ argues for the redistribution of environmental
goods and services to address disparities (Williams and Millington 2004). Despite these variations, there is
a common acceptance that ecological, social and economic considerations must be integrated and future
options protected. Kates et al (2005) argue that sufficient commonality and agreement on basic principles
and values has been reached for sustainable development to have become a social movement. The author
takes a strong to moderate view of sustainability.
7
respected if human development is to meet the needs of current and future generations,
the most commonly accepted definition of sustainability (WCED 1987). Sustainable
development is about creating and maintaining options for social and economic
development not only today but in the future (Folke et al. 2002). Environmental
protection must be an integral part of the development process, maintaining the ecological
capacity to support both social and ecological systems by ensuring that economic
throughput does not exceed environmental regenerative and absorptive capacity. New
developments in sustainability research stress the need to move from a sole focus on
maintaining current levels of natural capital to reversal and restoration of past damage as
well (Gann and Lamb 2006).
Sustainable development also requires attention to social equity, including equity
in the distribution of the costs and benefits of natural resource use and ensuring that
people with an interest in the issue(s) being addressed are involved in the decision-
making process (Marshall 2005; WCED 1987). Uneven economic and power
relationships are, therefore, another important sustainability issue (Leslie 2004).
Recognizing that both the practices that are in need of sustaining and the threats to
sustainability emerge from specific social and ecological contexts, the involvement of
local, place-based actors is considered critical (Kates 2000). This study examines the
claim that collaborative governance can assist in meeting these objectives.
Kates et al. (2005) suggest that it is the social dimension of sustainable
development that is now most debated, with three major variants emphasizing 1) social
development, 2) human development or 3) social justice and poverty alleviation.
Research and practice have demonstrated that without meeting basic conditions such as
the elimination of extreme poverty, provision of housing and safe, clean drinking water,
human nature dictates that immediate/short-term survival will remain the imperative, with
heightened costs to social-ecological systems (Grainger 2004). For those families and
locales already possessing the material necessities of life, demand management and forms
of non-material development, such as the often ignored cultural dimension, must be
considered (Roseland 1998; Williams and Millington 2004; Vodden 1999a). The ultimate
challenge of sustainable development is to provide for the needs and, ideally, ‗quality of
life‘ of the world‘s citizens, including those living on Canada‘s coasts, while not adding
8
further pressure to already stressed ecological systems. It is this integration of ecological,
social and economic concerns that leads to the description of the study of sustainability as
a holistic science, one that shares many core issues with geography and to which
geographers can make a significant contribution (Williams and Millington 2004; Purvis
and Grainger 2004).
Recent works emphasize continual interactions between social and ecological
systems, better described as interdependent social-ecological systems, as well as the
evolutionary or adaptive nature of sustainability (Holling et al. 2002, Iyer-Raniga and
Trelor 2000; Scoones 1999) seeking to increase resilience rather than stability, which is
described as an unrealistic and even ill-advised goal (Markey et al. 2005). Processes of
planning for sustainability should involve an appreciation of the unpredictable nature of
complex social-ecological systems (SES) and an effort to build the capacity to adjust
(adapt) to unexpected external shocks or disturbances (Holling and Gunderson 2001). A
growing literature on complex adaptive systems, discussed further in Chapter 2, argues
that sustainability problems are typically complex systems problems, often uncertain and
ill-defined with multiple, diverse and dispersed causes (Berkes et al. 2003; Paquet 1999).
Ommer et al. (2007, 6) observe that ―an inadequate understanding of the highly complex
links between social and environmental restructuring, and how they interact with the
health of people and places‖ is the fundamental sustainability problem.
Addressing this common deficiency of research and practice, the structure and
process of collaborative governance is viewed here within a holistic, complex, adaptive
social-ecological systems (CASES) framework. From this perspective, Bunnell (2002)
defines sustainable development as the combined capacity to create and maintain adaptive
capability (sustainability) and opportunities (development) over time. Sustainable
development is itself ―an open, dynamic, and evolving idea,‖ both criticized and praised
for its ambiguity. Kates et al. (2005, 19) suggest that it is ambiguity and ability to adapt to
context that adds ―resonance, power and creativity‖ to the term and the dialogue it
generates. Chapter 2 provides additional clarification on CASES, resilience and
sustainable development.
Coastal settings involving many issues, players, scales and processes of change
appear appropriately conceptualized within a CASES framework. Governance systems,
9
including the resource management and economic development subsystems that are the
focus of this study, operate within these interacting social-ecological systems.
Collaborative governance systems and institutions offer the potential to better reflect the
complexity of the social-ecological interactions they attempt to manage than centralized,
linear, ―siloed‖ alternatives.
Many authors have written about the problems associated with policies and
practices of the past within the realms of regional economic development and resource
management in Canada, a subset of the host of policy issues that impact coastal
communities and ecosystems. Over the past decade, integrated marine and coastal area
management has become part of both the academic literature on sustainable development
and the national and international policy agendas. Success at implementation, however,
remains weak. This research aims to advance conceptualizations of collaborative,
integrated coastal governance and contribute knowledge that can inform its
implementation in Canada. Following on this overall goal, the specific questions
addressed by the research are:
1) Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable development in

Canada‘s coastal regions? If so, how?
2) What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in
collaborative governance for sustainable coastal development?
 What are the characteristics of effective government-community

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

sustainable development through this governance approach?
4) How might these barriers/resistors be overcome?
10
The research builds on the candidate‘s previous research on community economic
development (CED), community involvement in natural resource management and
Canadian resource policy (Vodden 2002; Vodden 1999a; Markey et al. 2005; Markey et
al. 2000). The author‘s Master of Arts research examined local capacity for CED and
fisheries co-management in a BC fishing community. It served as a springboard for this
enquiry. The research findings indicated that local sustainability outcomes were
dependent not only on local conditions and actions, but also on senior policy-makers and
relationships between decision-makers at the local, provincial and national levels. Such
relationships are examined in this study.
This research has contributed directly to the Coasts Under Stress project, a five-
year experiment in interdisciplinary research that aimed to achieve an integrated analysis
of the long- and short-term impacts of restructuring on the health of coastal people, their
communities and the environment. The project involved 70 natural and social scientists
and 167 trainees together with local communities in British Columbia and Newfoundland
and Labrador (CUS 2003). This research contributed to the overall project findings on
governance in Canada‘s coastal zones (Ommer et al. 2007). The research is also linked
with and supported by the Ocean Management Research Network, in particular the
Linking Science and Local Knowledge Research Node and former Sustainability Node.
This thesis attempts to integrate theory and practice and to make an original
contribution to the literature in the fields of community and regional development, rural
and resource geography and public policy. The research has been an exploratory
investigation of attempts at implementing sustainable development through collaborative
governance in coastal Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. The research
involves an embedded, multi-case study design, including collaborative governance cases
in three selected case study regions: the Indian Bay/Kittiwake region of Newfoundland,
the Bras D‘Or Lakes region, Cape Breton Nova Scotia, and Northern Vancouver Island,
British Columbia. These applications have been analyzed using a framework developed
by drawing together common threads from a range of geographical, policy and
development theories related to sustainability and governance within complex social-
ecological systems. These theoretical foundations are elaborated upon in Chapters 2 and
3, followed by an explanation of research methods employed in Chapter 4 and an
11
introduction to the case study regions in Chapter 5. Chapters 6 and 7 describe the
evolution and current status of regional economic development (RED) and watershed
management policy subsystems in Canada and the case study regions. An analysis of the
findings of the comparative case studies is presented in Chapters 8 and 9. Chapter 8
focuses on interview response data and Chapter 9 on the application of the CASES
framework, with a discussion of the significance of the research and possible future
directions. Final conclusions are offered in Chapter 10.
12
2 – Resilience, Adaptation and Sustainability in Complex Social-Ecological Systems
This chapter reviews several related lines of academic inquiry that this study draws from
and is designed to contribute to. Each is considered within an overarching complex,
adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) perspective, a unifying framework within
which the related arenas of regional development, watershed management, governance
and sustainable development are situated (see Figure 3). Alternative theories with
potential to enhance the explanatory power of the CASES framework are also presented,
in particular regulation and dependency theories and the more recent variations, real
regulation and post-dependency. Staples theory further contributes to an understanding of
the Canadian rural context.
2.1 The Complex Adaptive Social-Ecological Systems (CASES) Framework
Two major recent developments in the evolution of what Kates et al. (2001) and others
refer to as ―sustainability science‖ include the recognition that sustainable development
may require not only more sustainable current and future development paths but also
restoration, where possible, of linked social, cultural and ecological systems that have
been damaged by past activities (Haggan 2000). The second major development is the
introduction of the concepts of complexity and resiliency to sustainability research and
Overarching Framework - CASES discourse. The emerging fields of

complexity and sustainability share ―a
RED W.M. focus on the integrated study of ecosystems
and social institutions across the full range
Alternative governance models of scales from local to global‖ (Warren
2005, 450).
Development paths
The CASES framework allows for
the study of ecological, economic, and
Resilience, Rigidity, social systems, how these systems are
adaptation, catastrophic
renewal, and collapse, interconnected and sustained, and how they
sustainability unsustainable organize and change (Zimmerman et al.
Figure 3 CASES framework

1998). The CASES framework adopted and
13
applied in this research, and in the Coasts Under Stress project, is drawn from the work of
Gunderson and Holling (2001). Together with Walker et al (2006) and other Resilience
Alliance colleagues these authors have sought to develop an integrative theory of
evolutionary change and resilience in human, natural and combined social-ecological
systems.
While recognition of interactions between and interdependence of social and
ecological systems is key to the CASES framework (see Table 2), it draws from a broader
literature on complexity theory, nonlinear dynamics, and complex system science
(Morgan 2005; Protevi 2005; Thrift 1999; White 2006). While rooted in fields such as
mathematics, physics and biology the exploration of complex adaptive systems has
become a truly multi-disciplinary endeavour, characterized by a recognition that a variety
of human and natural systems exhibit Table 2 Key features of CASES
dynamic patterns of self-organization and - Coupled social and ecological systems
adaptation, are linked to one another, and - Large number of interacting, semi-
autonomous elements/actors, both
include many-levelled networks of interdependent and pursuing their own
interests
elements whose interactions create - Multi-directional, multi-layered and multi-
capabilities that the elements, on their scale interactions
- Non-linear dynamics
own, do not have. While contributing to - Emergent properties of the whole
- Self-organization through feedbacks,
the development of the total system,
adaptation and co-evolution
natural and human systems and agents - Key controlling variables and observable
patterns of interaction and change with
operating within them are all also multiple possible outcomes
constantly acting and reacting to the - Creative tensions vs. dichotomies
actions of others in pursuit of their own interests, balancing ongoing creative tensions,
such as cooperation and competition, independence and interdependence (Bossel 2001;
Waldrop 1992; Creech 2001). Shared patterns of behaviour within CASES ―provide
insights into sustainability, viability, health, and innovation‖ (Zimmerman et al. 1998, 1).
Gunderson and Holling (2001) propose that the complexity of living systems
emerges not merely from a random association of a large number of interacting factors,
but rather from a smaller number of controlling variables and processes that allow order
and self-organization to emerge from interactions among system components,
differentiating complex from chaotic systems (Gatrell 2003; Holling 2001; Walker et al.
14
2006). Bossel (2001) highlights the role of environmental properties as controlling
variables, constraining development possibilities and, for human societies, management
opportunity and capacity.
Bossel suggests that seven fundamental system interests, or basic orientors,
emerge from these constraints, including the ability to exist in the ―normal‖
environmental state with required information, energy, and material inputs available, to
be effective and efficient over the long term. This involves securing required scarce
resources and, when necessary, the ability of a system to exert influence on its
environment. The system must also be able to cope with environmental variety,
variability and change through freedom of action, security, and adaptability respectively.
The system must be compatible with and able to modify its behavior to respond to the
behavior of other systems in its environment (co-existence) and, finally, for sentient
beings, psychological needs must be met. Glaser (2006) suggests that this latter
requirement includes cultural compatibility. An often-ignored aspect of sustainability,
culture is in turn linked to values, which Bossel (1999, 37) describes as ―basic system
requirements emerging from a system‘s interaction with its environment.‖
To be viable, Bossel (2001) suggests, a system must devote attention to satisfying
these basic orientors to at least some minimum level. Without this minimum level of
satisfaction in each of the seven areas a system is not viable and must focus its attention
on this deficit. Only once these levels are met can further satisfaction or ―development‖
be pursued and preference demonstrated to one or more of these orientors. He concludes
that once basic orientors are satisfied to minimum requirements sustainable development
is possible along many different paths. Much of the recent work of Holling (2001) and
other members of the Resilience Alliance2 has focused on developing a theory of change
and resilience within CASES that addresses most of Bossel‘s basic orientors, although the
role of psychological needs has received little attention.
The complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework may still
2
www.resalliance.org
15
lack the coherence required to be called a meta-theory (Stewart 2001; Richardson 2004)3.
Its attractiveness, however, is that it provides an alternative to reductionism and binary
divides. It seeks to address the complexity repeatedly observed of sustainability problems,
and provides a platform for dialogue and even integration among scientific disciplines
and sustainable development actors (Urry 2003; Byrne 1998). More specifically, the
study of CASES informs three key aspects of the sustainable development concerns of
this study, each discussed further below: 1) the multi-layered and multi-scale nature of
social-ecological systems, 2) the importance of relationships (within and between systems
and scales) and 3) processes of system change, with a focus on resilience and adaptation.
2.1.1 Multi-layered and Multi-scale

The word ‗scale‘ has many different meanings, including technical or ecological
meanings and meanings used to reflect on the human experience (Vodden et al. 2006).
According to the Oxford English Dictionary it means ―relative size or extent‖ (in Lovell
et al. 2002, 2). Buttimer (2001) describes interrelated spatial, temporal and functional
dimensions, as well as the principle of comparative scale, which demonstrates the
dynamic nature of scale across both time and space. Buttimer (1995; 2001) further argues
the importance of discretionary reach -- ―the spatio-temporal and institutional realm
where people have access to resources, information, decision-making and responsibility
over landscape and life.‖
The concept of scale is receiving increasing attention in both social and physical/
biological science considerations of sustainability and in social-ecological analysis, which
attempts to integrate the divide between micro and macro approaches and conceptually
relate social, institutional and ecological processes at varying scales (Harrington 2005,
Warren 2005, MEA 2005, Lovell et al. 2002). The sense of scale coined ―home place‖ or
―community,‖ to which we as humans feel a sense of belonging and relatedness, is
significant in this study, in its linkages to the geographer‘s concept of genre de vie or
lifeworld, and to notions of stewardship and relations between the natural environment
3
Richardson (2004, 1), drawing from Ostrom (1999) distinguishes between a framework, which identifies
―the elements and relationships among elements that should guide the analysis‖ of institutional
arrangements and a theory, which ―makes assumptions and identifies the elements of the framework that
have particular relevance for answering questions focused on diagnosing phenomena, explaining processes
and predicting outcomes.‖
16
and human society (Rose 1993). Reimer (2005) notes that in Canada rural citizens tend to
distinguish their ―home place‖ by their culture or way of life, thus linked to Bossel‘s final
fundamental system requirement.
2.1.1a In Defence of Place
A recent relational turn in geography suggests that a lifeworld is both a home and a site of
struggle, much more complex than a line drawn on a map indicates. While embedded in
place it is ―constructed and reconstructed by forces larger than itself,‖ a complex,
unstable, ideological entity (Mitchell 2001, 271; Lippard 1997; Amin and Thrift 2000).
Holling (2001) observes that the scale of human influence has increased significantly over
time due to technological change. While scalar reach has increased for many and
connectivity is no longer as directly related to proximity as it once was, issues of spatial
scale continue to impact relationships and provide both constraints and opportunities.
CASES and other bodies of literature counter the suggestion that flows and
function have replaced territory and place4 in importance (Webber 1964; Amin 2004;
Castells 1989). Morgan (2007, 33) dismisses this ―debilitating binary division,‖ making
the important point that relational and territorial interpretations of space need not be seen
as mutually exclusive. While Amin (2004, 33) suggests place politics can no longer be
conceptualized as a set of spatially bound processes and institutions, less than a decade
earlier Amin and Thrift (1995, 33) observed that, ―space is one of the controlling factors
for institutional influences.‖ Morgan and Nauwealers (1999) add that this is true for
formal and informal institutions. Lebel (2005) counters Amin with current examples of
spatially bound place politics, and decision-making influence, access to resources,
interests, capacities, and beliefs that are scale and place-dependent.
Massey (2004) suggests that places are themselves agents of change. The current
European focus on territorial cohesion and the significance of territory in local
development, quality of life and environmental sustainability suggests that space and,
particularly, place, still matter from a policy and development perspective (Davoudi et al.
2004). RUPRI (2006) suggest similar findings in the United States. Davoudi et al. (2004,
4
A ―place‖ is a portion of space with which a person or thing has a relationship. Cattan et al (2004, 12)
describe territory as a space shaped by history, institutions, collective logics, or by all of these elements
together, adding that ―it implies a notion of identity, authority and, increasingly, a notion of planning.‖
17
14) argue that as capital becomes ever more stretched and mobile, place-specific qualities
are becoming ―defining factors in its search for profitable production sites.‖ Territories
are increasingly perceived as an environment for industry, entrepreneurialism, quality of
life, relationships of complementarity and trust as well as opportunities for planning and
organizing. Cattan et al. (2004) observe territories reappearing ―stronger than ever as
elements resisting standardization and asserting their necessary rooting‖ rather than as a
passive framework for the exploitation of their assets.
The degree to which localities are impacted by and able to respond to change
processes also varies significantly from place to place (Davoudi et al. 2004). Research
into the ―digital divide‖ suggests that increasing connectivity through technology is
unevenly distributed, leaving some communities and societal groups heavily reliant on
relationships to place. Even in contexts of widely available information and technology,
research has demonstrated that physical proximity, and the relationships it fosters, is of
growing importance to competitive advantage innovation and economic growth (Buenza
and Stark 2003; Baptista 2000; Cowan et al. 2003; Wolfe 2003). Proximity between
communities can also facilitate forms of co-operation such as shared infrastructure or
common development strategies (Vodden 2005).
The CASES approach further considers important ecological territories, such as
watershed catchments, which have a fundamental impact on ecosystem structure and
function and tend to be more stable over time relative to social components of social-
ecological systems. Characterizations of ecological boundaries such as watersheds or eco-
regions are, however, also based on evolving, culturally influenced human understanding
and are therefore subject to change (Lebel et al. 2005). Social and technological systems
and system components are intimately connected to specific natural environments
(Protevi 2005). Processes of self-organization are embedded in a territory and often
incorporate representations of culture such as beliefs, media, art and rituals that in turn
further connect people to place (Walesh and Henton 2001).
Doubleday et al. (2004) observe that in sustainable development both the practices
that pose threats and those that are in need of sustaining happen in particular communities
and geographic contexts. Spatial scales provide a focus for integrating sustainable
development imperatives. Spatial planning has traditionally provided a key tool for
18
integration of economic, social and environmental considerations in land use and
development (Healy 1999). The European Spatial Development Perspective promotes
‗territory‘ as a new dimension of European policy with the intent of achieving a better
integration of sectoral policies and reconciling ―the social and economic claims for spatial
development with the area‘s ecological and cultural functions,‖ thus contributing to
sustainable, balanced territorial development (ESDP 1999, 10). Authors such as Partridge
and Rickman (2008), Andrew (2005) and Maxwell (2005) call for more place-based
policy-making. While sense of place may be evolving, often threatened and increasingly
made up of a multiplicity of sense of places, it remains nonetheless important for
understanding and intervening in CASES (Bonta and Provetti 2004).
2.1.1b Scaling Up Community: the Sub-provincial Region
In considering the scale (or scales) at which governance and development efforts should
be focused, the importance of the local and of a shift to development and policy-making
at smaller scales arises in literature related to these fields of enquiry and CASES more
generally (Berkes and Folke 2001). Clapp (1998), for example, suggests that
industrialization needs to be scaled back for sustainability. Nozick (1999) discuss an
emerging localization paradigm, or ―the lure of the local‖ (Lippard 1997; Mitchell 2001).
Research on First Nations socio-economic development suggests the importance of
increased local control and self-government (Anderson 1999; McBride 2001), while
many public policy researchers support the concept of local development as an
application of the subsidiarity principle (Backhaus 1999; Schilling 1997).
Walker and Abel (2001) suggest, while not ignoring other scales, that the local
and regional scales are most appropriate for consideration of resilience and human
management. Yorque et al. (2001, 434) select the regional scale as the appropriate focal
scale for their study of CASES, defining region as a catchment or sub-catchment ―the
scale at which ecosystems and people are tightly connected.‖ A new regionalist project,
with a ―(re)emphasis on the regional scale as the focus for knowledge creation, learning
and innovation,‖ decision-making and policy implementation (Tomblin 2002; Welch
2002, 445; Harrison 2006), has emerged as a sort of compromise between
local/community as single settlement and broader scales (Chapter 6). The concept of the
―learning region‖ (Asheim 2007; Florida 1995) and ―regional innovation systems‖
19
(Cooke 2001; Wolfe 2005), with capacity to learn, adapt and innovate, has relevance
within a CASES framework.
That the term ―region‖ means different things to different people and has long
been considered a problem plaguing regional discourse (Allen et al. 2000; Bickerton and
Gagnon 2008). Marquardt and Crumley (1987) suggest that no ―place on the face of the
earth be considered to be a part of or to comprise only a single region.‖ Defining region
and regionalism remains a political endeavour, each definition with its own set of
assumptions and implications. Theorists argue over definitions of ―region‖ that are formal
vs. relational (Brodie 1990), functional vs. territorial (Hodge and Robinson 2001),
focused on economic (Porter 1990; 2003), cultural (Marquardt and Crumley 1987),
political, social or ecological (Sale 2000) factors. Exercises in establishing regional
boundaries often combine these criteria. Gunnarsson (2000,185) defines a region as, ―an
interplay between actors and institutions within a given geographical area.‖ Regions can
be constructed from above (top-down), below (bottom-up) or through dialogue and
negotiation among actors at multiple scales. Holling et al. (2002) adds that scaling up,
from community to region for example, is not a simple matter of aggregating scales,
describing nonlinear processes involved in the shift from one scale to another.
Complicating the definitional debate in the literature on regionalism is the
emergent dualism between multinational and sub-provincial conceptualizations
(Edgington 1995; Baldacchino and Milne 2000). In the fields of international trade and
environmental affairs, continental regions are recognized as spaces of harmonization and
integration (Juillet 2000; Tomblin 2000b; Cicin-Sain and Knect 1998; Haas 1958). At the
same time demands for increased local responsibility, in part due to the sustainable
development agenda and failures of past approaches, call for development at a smaller
―human scale‖ (Kemmis 1995; Filion 1998). Considering concepts of home place and
discretionary reach, for many citizens their lifeworld or human scale does not extend
beyond the sub-provincial region (see Figure 4). Sub-provincial regions are variously
defined within Canada but refer to a scale that includes multiple communities but is
smaller than a province. Human and nature/society interactions beyond this scale are
mediated by technology and/or formal institutions.
The sub-provincial region provides a spatial middle ground between community
20
and senior levels of government but also tends to reflect connections with language,
culture and the land (e.g. watersheds, tribal boundaries).5 It is argued that these regional
structures are more accessible and responsive to local communities than those at
provincial and federal levels, yet more affordable and effective at instigating significant
Global Provincial Community

Federal Regional Family/Individual
Local, ―human scale‖

Figure 4 Region as middle ground and human scale
change than smaller-scale community efforts (Markey et al. 2005; RCEUN 1986). Recent
literature suggests that cooperation among neighbouring communities is an important
contributor to CED success (Young and Charland 1992), suggesting there is a need to add
this new sub-provincial level to existing models of political economy and alternative
development. Yet another imperative bringing focus to the sub-provincial region in
Canada is the legal requirement for recognition of Aboriginal rights and title. First
Nations territories often closely resemble watershed and other bioregional boundaries.
Treaty negotiations, Aboriginal economic development and co-management arrangements
tend to focus on the regional or territorial6 scale rather than a single settlement.
Another of Walker et al.‘s (2006) propositions regarding social-ecological
systems change is that transformation involves change in the ―state space of the system‖
and the scales of the panarchy. Renewed interest in regional scales since the 1990s
reflects such a change. Examples of recent initiatives and institutions adopting a sub-
provincial, multi-community regional model can be found in health, education, coastal
and land use planning, resource management and economic development, not only in
Canada but in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and throughout the European Union
5
See Brodie for further discussion, also Sale (2000) for a description of bioregion and Hessing and Howlett
(1997) on ecologically based boundaries.
6
Territorial refers here to First Nations territories. First Nations are both local (in territory) and, politically
and legally, senior levels of government in Canada because they have a nation-to-nation relationship within
the federal government rather than being subordinate to the provinces.
21
(Gibbs and Jonas 2001; Alder and Ward 2001; Davoudi et al. 2004; Ward and Jonas
2004). Regional boundaries and ―sense of region,‖ may therefore shift over time, the
concept of region both dynamic and disputed in what Lebel (2005) and others (Brenner
2001; Cox 1998; Swyngedouw 2000; Mitchell 2001) refer to as the politics of scale.
These ―new spaces‖ of ever-shifting regions are reflected in the title of this dissertation.
2.1.1c Cross-Scale Relationships, Analysis and Decision-making
Bossel (2001) observes that the viability and performance of any system of concern
depend on the viability and performance of several component systems, each of which is
again dependent on the viability and performance of a number of subsystems. These
cross-scale interactions are critical to CASES and a topic of particular interest to
geographers preoccupied with a recent ‗relational turn‘ (Sheppard 2002; Boggs and
Rantisi 2003).
Cross-scale influences and interdependencies in CASES are multi-directional.
Short-range or local interactions, for example, influence actors and/or processes at much
larger scales due to rich interactions across networks while local circumstances are
simultaneously influenced by events occurring across the globe (Gatrell 2003). As each
actor or agent is both a component and a system itself, the CASES framework breaches
the structure-agency dichotomy by observing that individual actions can produce changes
in large-scale structure while at the same time being shaped by that structure (Warren
2005). Individual actors may also ―jump‖ between scales (Smith 1984).
Holling (2001) suggests that the nested hierarchies described by Bossel along with
their adaptive cycles comprise the basis of social-ecological systems. Applying the notion
of hierarchies allows us to organize concepts and interpret complexity through the
examination of scale, levels of organization, observation, and explanation in systems
characterized by interactions across levels (Ahl and Allen 1996; Yuan 2000). Simon
(1973) and Holling et al. (2002) argue that hierarchical structures are key to the
sustainability of complex systems, allowing efficient and successful evolution and
providing both innovation and some stability in a consistently changing world.
The term hierarchy is problematic, however, even when conceptualized as nested
and dynamic. A CASES is not a simple hierarchy of systems and subsystems, one
22
emerging from the other. Components at any given level may also interact horizontally or
‗transversally‘ with different systems and their components (Protevi 2005). Thrift (1999)
suggests that complexity theory is therefore ‗heterarchical‘ rather than hierarchical.
Eoyang and Berkas (1998) explain that systems in heterarchy are not completely
contained within another and may be sub-systems of more than one larger scale system
(e.g. a child within a school system but also within extended networks of family or
friends, a scouting troop etc., each with its own set of scales).
Network terminology is also often used to reflect the ―architecture‖ of complexity
(Barabási 2002). Like Thrift‘s heterarchies, a network is typically thought of as non-
hierarchical, a web of connections among equals with the understanding that more can be
accomplished working together (Meadows et al. 1992). Smith (2003) explains that
network analysis, popular among positivist human geographers in the 1960s and 1970s,
was displaced by a dominant Marxist critique of political economy in the 1980s, but
became fashionable again in the late-1990s with the rapid pace of globalization and
information technology growth. Network analysts believe that an individual‘s life is tied
to the linkages they have to others in a larger web of social connection and that the
success or failure of societies and organizations depends on these patterns of relations
(Freeman 2004). Network terminology and analysis have also been applied in political
science (Howlett and Ramesh 1995), local development (Marsden 1998) and many other
fields.
The organizations examined in this case study can be conceptualized as nodes in
their respective policy and development networks. Nodes in network theory are places
where resources are concentrated and where functional units connect (Latour 1987).
Examples include: a place on a plant stem where a leaf is attached, connecting these parts
to others; a point of information transfer in telecommunications; or a device used to
connect a computer and/or its user(s) with others in computer networking. A node
combines one or more network elements, administered as a single entity, and provides
network-related functions. Network analyses focus on these nodes as well as the relations,
flows and connections between nodes (Smith 2003). Taylor et al. (2006) emphasize the
concept of multi-nodal systems, arguing that traditional centre-periphery development
characterizations are being challenged by a more complex multi-centred spatial order.
23
Nodes and concentrations of flows provide some degree of self-organized structure within
networks, a role played by spatial organization in hierarchies.
Networks and hierarchies are both useful as heuristic devices and reflect some
important aspects of complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) while, on their
own, missing others. While hierarchies imply oversimplified ―top-down‖ and concentric
(one level neatly contained within the other) relationships, network theory can be
criticized for lacking scalar dimensions and for ignoring important relationships that exist
between spatial scales (Kim 2006). Authors such as Bryant (1999); Harrison (2006) and
Protevi (2005) integrate scalar and network models to aid in understanding complexity.
Protevi (2005) describes a multiplicity of overlapping agents and levels, often competing
with one another, as ―meshworks of hierarchies and hierarchies of meshworks,‖ while
Harrison (2006) refers to a ―complex tangled hierarchy of scales‖.
Actor-Network Theory (ANT) also brings an aspect of nested structure to network
theory. ANT suggests that each actor is also a network composed of actors and examines
actors, organizations, institutions and networks (formal and informal) as both agents of
change and components of a broader context, including social structure, which is present
at various scales. Actors acquire attributes through their relations. ANT seeks to better
understand these interactions between systems and how they impact structure in an
ongoing evolution. ANT also includes ―complex entanglements‖ of actors, both human
and non-human, sharing much in common with the CASES framework (Leslie 2004; Law
1992; Law 1999; Coe and Yeung 2001).
In their attempt to address the limitations of hierarchy theory, Holling et al. (2002)
coined the term ―panarchy,‖ without the ―top-down‖ implication and with added
emphasis on patchiness, uncertainty, experimentation and adaptive evolution (Warren
2005; Bunnell 2002). Panarchies can be thought of as a combination of network and
hierarchy organizational models, a complex web of CASES interacting within and across
scales, some nested and some overlapping (Pritchard and Sanderson 2001). Structure in a
panarchy both constrains and empowers actors. Lower level persistence and innovation
are seen as essential to the higher levels, which in turn limit the ―behavioural flexibility‖
of lower levels through ‗freedom within constraint‘ and bring stability to the system
(Warren 2005).
24
Warren‘s (2005) reference to ‗freedom with constraint‘ raises the importance of
temporal scale in CASES. While much emphasis is placed on future adaptation and
resilience, it is also recognized that complex systems have a history, explains Gatrell
(2003), which is ‗co-responsible‘ for present activities and practices. Many authors across
a range of disciplines recognize path dependency as a powerful force in change processes,
the history of past decisions and experiences impacting current behaviours, values,
relationships, and structures (Pierson 2000; Mahoney 2000; Krugman 1994). The
importance of history is characterized by Holling et al.‘s (2002) description of the role of
―memory,‖ particularly accumulated memory of successful innovations and responses to
disturbances in complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES).
Constraints are introduced within CASES due to the interaction of temporal and
spatial scales and varying process rates, which are said to be slower as one ascends the
hierarchy, thus constraining and at the same time protecting lower levels (referred to as
―hierarchical confinement‖). While abrupt changes can and do occur at all levels, Walker
et al. (2006) explain that in ecosystems the variables that control regime shifts, such as
soil, sediment concentrations, or long-lived organisms tend to change slowly. Similarly,
risk avoiding central, or higher level, governments are often slow to respond and change
(Morgan 2007). Higher levels provide stability and a conserving function while change,
creativity and innovation in faster, smaller cycles at lower (or more local) levels
invigorate the system as a whole (Bunnell 2002). Small, varied populations lead to more
flexible responses to environmental change and are more likely to invent, experiment and
test. In social systems, however, controlling variables may change rapidly, as in fads or
technology, or slowly, as in the case of culture (Ommer et al. 2007).
Another important point regarding time-space interactions is that change is often
staggered, occurring at different levels at different times thus preserving the system as a
whole. Change can more readily move up the system, occurring at multiple levels, at
times when there are weaknesses or low resilience in higher levels or when learning
occurs simultaneously across scales (Holling et al. 2002).
Selecting the appropriate scales for analysis or governance of CASES is an
important and challenging task, exemplified by the challenges of defining ―region‖
discussed above. A scale is a unit of analysis relative to the whole, ranking things
25
progressively according to a specific criteria such as size, amount or extent (Encarta
2007). We create descriptions of scale and boundaries between scales for the sake of
understanding or for decision-making and administration. Ostrom (2005) points out that
we have found throughout history that the complexity of the world requires us to address
big questions in small bits for the sake of comprehension. From there we build our
understanding to multiple scales and increasing levels of complexity, often with the help
of models.
Boundaries between places, systems and scales are largely artificial divisions of
the physical or institutional landscape, separating a part of the world from its context
(Marquardt and Crumley 1987). Boundaries are often drawn with clarity when a more
accurate reflection would be porous, shifting or ―fuzzy‖ (Barlow-Irick 1997, Epstein
1999). Davoudi (2005) describes spatial scales as an interpretation, in either maps or
words, of the structure of a territory.
Phenomena at one level do not necessarily occur at others. Analysis at one scale
often will not yield the same results as that at another and solutions appropriate for one
scale may be not be appropriate and may even have disastrous results when applied to
another without attention to these distinctions (Cocklin et al. 1997). Scale mismatches
may occur, therefore, in analysis, decision-making and governance. Glaser (2006) adds
that mismatch in temporal scale can occur if learning and adaptation processes are slower
than the pace of system change, threatening system viability.
Yet CASES authors question the search for a ―right scale‖ and static assignments
of responsibility given the dynamic, cross-scale nature of system interactions (Pritchard
and Sanderson 2001). Issues of sustainable development are typically multi-scale.
Problems occur when actions are taken or decisions/policies made at one level without
considering impacts on other levels, often local, or other systems. Cross-scale policy
impacts in coastal SES are of particular concern in this study. Clapp (1998) and others
suggest that the link between policy and local impacts remains poorly understood, despite
existing literature discussing the implications of provincial and federal resource policies
in Canada on rural communities and on other policy arenas (Ommer et al. 2007).
Research involving analysis at multiple scales can illuminate and help address
problems associated with defining and examining any one scale. Cross-scale research has
26
the potential to address scalar binaries such as the global/local opposition in conventional
geographical accounts, demonstrating that many actors are global, national and local
(Gibson-Graham 2002; 2003). Kim (2006) emphasizes the dynamic interrelations
between scales, an important characteristic of the CASES framework.
2.1.2 Dynamic Interactions within CASES
A focus on relationships and processes of interaction is characteristic of all systems

theory (Gatrell 2003). Eoyang (1996) suggests that interaction is a key factor shaping
patterns of group behaviour in a complex adaptive system. In complex adaptive social-
ecological systems (CASES) interactions represent flows or transfers of information,
ideas and resources such as capital, natural resources, energy or materials between large
numbers of actors and systems. As discussed above, cross-scale (vertical) interactions are
critical categories of dynamic interaction in CASES, combining learning and innovation
with continuity. Also significant are cross-system, sector or issue (horizontal) interactions
as well as internal system relationships.
Flows, the nodes through which they pass and the system components that
generate and receive them are ―massively entangled‖ (Kontopolous 1993), yet Castells
(1989; 2000) points out that flows within a system or network tend to concentrate across
space and time. While processes of self-organization in CASES produce similar overall
patterns, such as those described by Holling and Gunderson (2001) as lumps or
concentrations and gaps ―within a patchy landscape‖, their exact details depend on
precise histories and sequences of events unique to particular systems and contexts
(White 2006).
Patterns in flows between elements of self-organizing systems create stability
domains, otherwise referred to as basins or domains of attraction. CASES tend to
organize at any one time around several possible states, rather than one equilibrium.
Systems can change to one of a number of possible new regimes in what is referred to as
a regime shift. Such processes occur at varying speeds and frequencies in different
systems over time. Interactions within CASES tend to be non-linear, which implies for
example that small causes can have large results, or vice versa, and create change within
27
the system at a range of speeds (e.g. gradual or sudden as in punctuated equilibrium
models).
Conscious agents (or actors) within CASES develop ―schema‖ or interpretive and
action rules based on assessments of their environment and appropriate responses to
current conditions. Walker et al. (2006) observe that these mental models drive change in
social-ecological systems, while Westley et al. (2001) and others refer to the role of
―sense-making,‖ expressed through communication, language and symbols, in
interpreting, inventing and reinventing order and action. Olsson et al. (2004) point out
that values and vision, linked to Bossel‘s psychological needs, are essential components
in the process of sense-making in the management of complex systems. These schema
change and evolve over time, define how actors interact with others, how information and
resources flow and thus determine alternative possible futures (Dooley 1997). Westley et
al. (2001) point out that groups of people in social systems create shared understandings,
norms, and action routines, as well as patterns of dominance and resource allocation as
they interact over time.
The sustainability of each component within a complex system is tied to others.
The interactions, subsequent reactions and influences of one component over another are
referred to as feedback. In an arrangement of networked relationships, when one element
affects others this in turn can, ultimately, affect the original element (a feedback loop).
Destabilizing positive feedbacks exacerbate a trend. Scheffer et al. (2001) provide the
example of loss of confidence, falling currencies and rising interest rates after a stock
market crash. Gatrell (2003) provides the example of vehicle exhaust emissions, which
increase air pollution and in turn increase incidences of asthma. If a control mechanism
(negative feedback) is put in place to reduce traffic levels exhaust emissions and asthma
occurrence may be cut. Feedback loops play an essential role as stabilizing mechanisms.
A regime shift occurs within a system when a threshold level of a controlling
variable is passed, causing the nature and extent of feedbacks to change, in turn changing
the trajectory of the system itself. The dynamics of the system shift from one state or
basin of attraction to another (Walker and Meyers 2004). Crossing a threshold may bring
about a sudden, dramatic or more gradual change in responding variables. Relationships
28
between system components may also change and new structures and processes emerge
(Cilliers 1998).
Within the CASES framework development is a co-evolutionary process
involving interacting systems that follow their own path of self-organization yet affect
and interact with other systems (Bossel 2001). Complex adaptive systems will adapt to
changes in their environment, self-organizing into new processes and structures that allow
the system to cope with and/or benefit from environmental changes. Berkes and Folke
(1995) provide examples of co-evolution in traditional societies where local communities
and their institutions adapt and become 'in tune' over time with the natural process of the
particular ecosystem of which they are a part. In linked social-ecological systems changes
in one system may feed back as drivers to alter and even cause a regime shift in the other
(Walker and Meyers 2004; Bonta and Protevi 2004). How these dynamics influence the
ongoing viability of CASES is a third major theme in this literature.
2.1.3 Change, Resilience and Adaptation
In ecosystems ―the essential constant is change‖ (Levin 1999, 1). Population growth and
movement, new ideas and technology ensure that social systems are also never fully
stable. In 1973 biologist C.S. (―Buzz‖) Holling began a discussion about the notion of
―constancy‖ in ecological systems, suggesting that what really matters in terms of system
survival and viability is the persistence of internal relationships when a system is
―profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the
unexpected‖ (1973, 1). Holling‘s argument began to shift from equilibrium to resilience
as a feature of healthy ecosystems (Ommer et al. 2007). Increasing recognition of low
predictability and high incidence of surprise has furthered the emphasis on adaptability
and resilience as characteristics in ―healthy‖ systems (Glaser 2006).
Folke et al. (2002, 22) define resilience as ―the capacity to buffer perturbations,
self-organize, learn and adapt.‖ In contrast, vulnerability is the propensity of social and
ecological systems to suffer harm from exposure to the same external stresses and shocks
that resilient systems are able to withstand (Folke et al. 2002). Some describe
vulnerability as the antonym of resilience while others see resilience and adaptive
29
capacity as determinants of vulnerability, along with sensitivity and, for some, exposure
(Gallopin 2006).
Walker et al. (2006, 13) suggest that resilient systems retain essentially the same
―function, structure, feedbacks, and therefore identity,‖ avoiding shifts to an alternate
regime after a perturbation, and often not one but multiple, interacting perturbations
(Holling 1973; Gallopin 2006). Other recent works on CASES explain, however, that
restructuring is a natural part of a dynamic system (Perry and Ommer 2003). In resilient
systems, particularly for human systems with the capability to anticipate and plan for the
future, periods of change provide an opportunity for transformation into an improved or
more desired state, including changes to system structure and/or function that enhance
capacity for learning and adaptation, and thus resiliency (Folke et al. 2005; Resilience
Alliance 2007). Easterling et al. (2004) suggest that rather than returning to the initial
state, it is preferable that systems engage in ―proactive adaptation,‖ reorganizing based on
their experiences to become something ‗new‘ with increased ability to accommodate
present or expected change and improve their conditions. The notion of proactive
adaptation addresses Gallopin‘s (2006) caution that resilience, as defined by Walker et al.
(2006), can inhibit positive change, while vulnerability can lead to positive
transformation. Homer-Dixon (2000) points out, for example, that system resiliency can
prevent actors from recognizing long-term trends that threaten the system and thus from
adapting or otherwise dealing with the problem. Gallopin (2006) suggests the term
robustness may be more appropriate for structural stability rather than resilience.
Gallopin adds that ‗triggers‘ for adaptation may be internal or external. Holling
(2001) concurs that sustainability depends on a suite of internal and external factors,
including the nature of the stresses encountered and the ability of actors within the system
to open themselves to, influence and manage change and to move into more rather than
less desirable states when change occurs. The appropriate terminology for these processes
is the subject of continuing debate.
2.1.3a The Adaptive Renewal Cycle
Gunderson and Holling (2001) suggest that complex adaptive systems go through regular
cycles of organization and collapse, referred to as the adaptive renewal cycle (Figure 5).
The cycle includes four key phases:
30
Growth/Foreloop:
1) Rapid growth and exploitation (r):
characterized by readily available resources, entrepreneurial competition and high

resilience. Structure and
connections among
components increase,
requiring increasing
resources and energy to
maintain them,
leading to a longer phase of:
Figure 5 The adaptive renewal cycle
2) Accumulation and © Resilience Alliance, cited as Bunnell (2002)
conservation (K): characterized by contest competition for resources and

bureaucratic management, net growth slows to a plateau and the system becomes
increasingly interconnected, less flexible, and more vulnerable to external
disturbances.
Fore loop phases correspond to ecological succession in ecosystems and a development

mode in organizations and societies. Disturbances lead to the next phase.
Backloop:
3) Rapid breakdown, ‗release‘ or ‗creative destruction‘ (): system is fragile, over-

connected until sudden release of bound-up resources and structure collapse.
4) Renewal and re-organization (ά): pioneers capture new opportunity and novelty
can take hold, leading to another growth phase and a new cycle which may be
similar or quite different from the last.
31
The adaptive cycle model suggests that there is a relatively high degree of control
by inward relations during slow periods of conservation and release, and a higher degree
of control by external variables/outward relations in rapid growth and renewal phases.
Complex systems are open systems. Processes within a system cannot be understood
without examining outside influences, sometimes referred to as driving variables. Bossel
(2001) suggests that fundamental system interests arise from environmental constraints
and the dependence of all systems on the resources provided and waste-absorbing
capacities of their environments. These driving forces can provide opportunities for
growth and renewal, but they may also push systems over the edge from the threshold of
collapse, particularly when multiple stresses converge (Homer-Dixon 2006). Protevi‘s
(2005) work on complex systems suggests that in quickly recuperating systems, external
events are merely corrected for. Internal system resources translate the sense of events or
‗triggers‘ into a pre-patterned feedback response. Fluctuations of a magnitude beyond the
recuperative power of negative feedback loops, however, can push the system past a
threshold to another pattern or even into a ‗death zone,‘ Protevi‘s version of a
catastrophic collapse.
Holling (2001) argues that three factors shape the adaptive cycle and responses to
crisis: 1) adaptive capacity, coupled with the concepts of resilience and vulnerability; 2)
the amount of potential or ―wealth‖ available to a system, referring broadly to all forms of
capital; and 3) the amount of connectedness within a system. These factors influence the
cycle but are also changed by it, connectedness and wealth increasing during the foreloop
while adaptive capacity decreases. Holling (2001) adds that connectedness between
internal variables and processes determine the degree to which a system can minimize
variability, relying heavily on negative feedbacks, and increase the likelihood and speed
of return to a ―normal‖ state after small disturbances. Yet, as connectedness increases
through the K phase, systems ultimately become not only more efficient but also more
rigid or ‗brittle‘ and vulnerable as shocks travel quickly through the system. Additional
investments in the already high costs of organization and complexity, often in the form of
new layers of bureaucracy and institutions, yield diminishing returns, governance
structures become highly specialized, hierarchical and slow moving. Discontent increases
32
in a ―complexity averse‖ world, ultimately reaching a crisis or threshold level that leads
to system breakdown (Homer-Dixon 2006; Tainter 1998; 1996).
The notion of absorptive capacity suggests an important role not only for
disturbance but also information in creating resilient and adaptive systems (Cohen and
Levinthal 1990). The capacity to not only adapt and survive, but also to innovate and seek
opportunities to thrive, is enhanced when an actor, system and/or subsystem has the
ability to recognize, value, assimilate and apply new information, including information
about future harm which can allow for preventative measures (Torjman 2006; Folke et al.
2002). Walker and Meyers (2004) conclude that having the wrong ―mental model‖ about
thresholds (e.g. not recognizing them or ignoring them) is the most serious threat to
social-ecological systems. The collapse of the Newfoundland cod fisheries is an excellent
example. The ability and willingness to recognize and act on threshold information is an
important resilience factor.
Because these cycles are underway at each semi-autonomous level of nested
systems the adaptive cycle is itself nested (see Figure 5), resulting in co-evolutionary
adaptations (Gallopin et al. 2001, Holling 2001). Walker et al. (2006) explain that cross-
scale interactions determine the form of subsequent adaptive cycles at any particular focal
scale. Connections between levels can stabilize or destabilize (Bunnell 2002). The
stabilizing memory of higher levels may be disrupted when they are themselves in a back
loop or even early growth phase, allowing change originating at smaller scales to move to
broader spatial or temporal scales. Small cycles of failure and recovery can help to avoid
the occurrence of large-scale failures, enhancing innovation and capacity for self-
organization, experimentation, and evolution. However, when lower and higher-level
cycles are synchronized or when systems are tightly interconnected a back-loop at lower
levels may trigger a transition that moves up the panarchy, described as a ―revolt.‖
Breakdown phases occurring across multiple scales can precipitate catastrophic collapse,
particularly when the system has been degraded to the point that restructuring and
renewal is either unlikely or very slow (Gunderson and Holling 2001).
2.1.3b Diversity, Redundancy and Resilience
Folke et al. (2002, 3) suggest that a variety of functional groups and keystone processes
that interact in an overlapping, apparently redundant manner are important resilience
33
attributes. System diversity ―provides the basic foundation on which social and economic
development depends.‖ Conserving diversity, including species performing critical
functions, knowledge, institutions, human opportunities and economic supports maintains
and encourages learning and adaptive capabilities. Diversity and apparent redundancy of
system components or processes with overlapping functions can help absorb disturbances
and provide insurance against uncertainty and surprise.
With different histories and accumulated experience, various actors may respond
differently to change, providing response diversity and alternatives for reorganizing and
recovery following disturbance. Eoyang (2001) suggests difference is a key factor
shaping group behaviour, the source of creativity and learning through interaction within
a given context. Diversity at larger spatial scales ensures that appropriate key species or
actors for system functioning are recruited to local systems after disturbance or changes
in conditions. Diversity provides, therefore, not only insurance and flexibility but also
risk spreading within and across scales.
The loss of functional groups can severely affect the ability of systems to
reorganize and recover, as can the number of species or actors within a functional group
or the overlapping functions among them. Rigid systems focused on efficiency and
specialization seek to eliminate redundancy, yet redundancy reinforces functions and
provides an ability to offload responsibilities from damaged to undamaged nodes. Buenza
and Stark (2003) observe that redundancy, seen not as duplication but as difference, was a
contributor to resilience in the September 11th disaster, along with planning and
spontaneity, self-organization, social bonds, different forms of knowledge and porous
organizational boundaries.
Eoyang (2001) adds that while difference is a necessary condition for self-
organizing there is a maximum and a minimum threshold. If differences within the system
are too great then the system will not be able to sustain connectivity among its agents and
will split. Diversity, like resilience, does not come without problems and challenges.
Janssen and Anderies (2007) suggest that robustness and resilience, enhanced through
system features such as diversity, come with tradeoffs. Increasing robustness to one set of
disturbances may reduce it in the face of another, reduce short-term system performance
or increase chances of failure at other levels. Further, undesirable characteristics can also
34
be robust. Thus, resilience and a degree of robustness may be necessary but not sufficient
for sustainability. Appropriate values, or mental models, compatible with the limits of the
natural world and principles of sustainable development are also required (Homer-Dixon
2006). Berkes (2004) describes societal rules and norms, which are often principles or
values-based, as formal and informal constraints on CASESs. Connor and Dovers (2004,
209) argue that ―sustainability can only be viable when socially held values become
aligned with those implicit in a sustainability ethic.‖ Given their importance, principles of
sustainability, collaboration and good governance (discussed further in Chapter Three)
are incorporated into the analytical framework employed in this research, as described in
Chapter Four.
2.1.4 Initial Reflections on the CASES Framework
A report of the National Science Foundation (2000, 20 in Warren 2005) predicts that
―interdisciplinary research will represent one of the frontiers of the scientific inquiry in
the 21st century, as scientists elucidate the dynamics of complex and interdependent social
and natural systems …‖ The CASES framework lies on this frontier. Glaser (2006) and
Walker et al. (2006) provide examples of authors who have applied the adaptive renewal
cycle in ecological and social systems, including studies of ecology, economic change,
institutions and development and destruction in human civilizations. Systems theory
frameworks such as CASES, and in particular Holling and Gunderson‘s panarchy
Table 3 CASES criticisms and limitations

interpretation, allow for
integration of the findings of
1. Overly focused on external change stimulus
2. Built largely from ecosystem study, missing human various disciplines (Banathy
voice and understandings of social dynamics
3. Positivist aspects 1997). Complexity theory also
4. Missing gender perspective provides a way of relating
5. Uncritical, guru-like usage
6. Limited ability to predict sudden system change macro and micro, agency and
7. Not unique/new, missing links to similar approaches
8. High level meta-theory, too abstract, difficulty structure, human and natural
translating into policies and plans for change systems (Gatrell 2004),
9. Premature, need for empirical evidence
10. Need for alternative meta-models, does not apply in contributing to understandings
all cases, similar patterns observed in systems that
and a world-view more in tune
are not complex
with the complex and pressing
35
challenges of sustainable development and dynamic, interconnected systems than
conventional scientific approaches.
Despite these strengths Gatrell (2004); Glaser (2006), Thrift (1999); Stewart
(2001); Dent (1999) and others identify several concerns and limitations of complex
systems approaches (see Table 3). While some of these are arguably unjustified or
exaggerated, others point to the need, and opportunity, for further development or even
reconsideration.
Glaser (2006) suggests that the model is well suited to explaining long-term
patterns of change but is limited in its ability to predict sudden system change. While a
CASES framework may not be capable of predicting external influences that will push a
system over a threshold, observation of increasing complexity and rigidity does suggest
periods of vulnerability to sudden change. Further, complex systems thinking questions
the idea of prediction and control. Instead it emphasizes explanation and understanding
(Gatrell 2004). Despite the proposition that general patterns can often be observed,
Holling (2001) and others acknowledge that the CASES approach applies only in some
systems. Walker et al. (2006, 13) concede that ―the pathways and mechanisms that drive
transformations are not well understood.‖ Clearly, the project of CASES theory-building
is a work in progress.
This research responds to critics who suggest that further empirical and theoretical
justification of the CASES framework is required, particularly in its application of natural
sciences concepts and metaphors to social systems (Stewart 2001; Sokal and Bricmont
1998). The body of work on social science applications and, more appropriately,
interdisciplinary studies with a strong social science component, continues to grow (e.g.
Buenza and Stark 2003, Westley et al. 2001, Rowles 2000, Wallace et al. 1999). A
related criticism, particularly of those that remain closer to direct systems and earlier
chaos theory concepts, is an emphasis on quantitative/mathematical methods and
approaches. Qualitative methods and approaches can help uncover unexpected results and
add significant depth of understanding to complex systems enquiry. Holling et al. (2002)
begin to address this limitation by including both quantitative and qualitative
representations of panarchies. Gattrell (2004) concludes that, while complex adaptive
systems provide a refreshing and possibly fruitful line of theoretical debate in geography,
36
further empirical work is needed. For now she suggests we review the emerging literature
seriously, though sceptically, also asking if other alternative approaches might provide
the same tools.
Research questions focused on the role of collaborative governance subsystems in
enhancing the long-term sustainability of linked social and ecological coastal systems led
to the selection of CASES as an overall conceptual framework for this study. The
complex nature of coastal social-ecological systems, with demonstrated characteristics of
the systems described in the developing CASES theory, suggests that the framework
offers promise for understanding governance subsystems that exist within and seek to
intervene in these systems. Perry and Ommer (2003) suggest most CAS work has been
either theoretical or micro-scale to date. This study contributes to more recent regional
and comparative work (Walker and Lawson 2006, Ommer et al. 2007). Gatrell‘s (2003,
21) question of how useful and necessary complexity theory is in helping us describe,
understand or analyse the world‘s complexity remains the subject of debate. Reflections
on the relevance of the CASES framework for the questions and systems studied as well
contributions to its ongoing development will be provided in Chapter 9.
2.2 Contributions from Development Geography
CASES researchers have yet to fully explore opportunities for synergies with, and further
elaboration of the CASES framework through related theories such as Actor Network
Theory (ANT), but also from other theoretical frameworks employed by economic and
development geographers7. Two of these - dependency and regulation theory - provide
particular insight into the challenge of sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal zones
and into processes of change in social-ecological systems more generally.
2.2.1 Dependency and Uneven Development
Since the times of the classical economic thinkers, theorists have postulated and later
demonstrated that uneven development is a characteristic of capitalist economies. Patterns
7
As in Coe et al. (2007) the distinction between economic and development geography are seen here as
blurred. Both seek to understand economic processes and their implications, development geography and
recent perspectives on economic geography both concerning themselves with issues such as environmental
sustainability, poverty and inequity.
37
of development and resource distribution across space and time have resulted in higher
levels of economic well-being in some areas than others. The Canadian economy
provides a cogent example. The Atlantic provinces, particularly Newfoundland and
Labrador, have been consistently economically underprivileged (see Chapter 5), while
Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia have enjoyed higher than average income levels
and population growth8. Despite historically higher than average income, BC has also
suffered from high unemployment and employment instability as a consequence of the
province‘s boom and bust, commodity-based resource extraction economy. Savoie (1992)
points out, however, that despite poorer performance on traditional economic indicators
―have not‖ provinces tend to score highest on informal economy and quality of life
considerations often ignored in the literature on regional disparities, demonstrating that
there are costs as well as benefits from economic growth and urbanization (Ommer and
Sinclair 1999).
Disparities also exist within provinces, both rich and poor, due in part to a
southern concentration of population, power and economic activity in urban centres such
as St. John‘s, Halifax and BC‘s Lower Mainland. Over 90% of the Canadian population
lives within a 350 km strip along the US border (Jackson and Jackson 1990). Peripheral
areas have suffered job losses and unemployment due to centralization of government and
industrial processing activity, resource decline, and migration to urban areas. In both
Newfoundland and BC, urban-rural health differentials are persistently high (Dolan et al.
2005). Urbanization has added pressures of amenity and preservation demands on rural
areas, impacting rural ways of life and limiting resource access for traditional sectors,
while urban areas push for an even greater share of political and financial resources under
a recent cities agenda (Lefebre and Brender 2006).
Brodie (1990) categorizes the causes of economic discrepancies under two
opposing theoretical streams: a) self-balance and b) imbalance, described by Barnes and
Hayter (1994) as optimistic and pessimistic. The former ―blame the local‖ stream
identifies a market deficiency in the region of concern that can be addressed through
agency and state intervention, while theories of imbalance along the Marxist vein,
8
Ontario will receive equalization payments as a ―have not province‖ for the first time in 2009 while
Newfoundland and Labrador became a ―have‖ province in 2008 (Antle 2008, Howlett and Carmichael
2008).
38
including political economy, dependency and regulation theories, emphasize structural
factors that create disadvantage in the process of capitalist production and exchange
(Markey et al. 2005; Lawson 2007). Unequal relationships between dominant classes and
capitalist powers, including the state, and those who are dominated and marginalized
perpetuate capitalist tendencies (Peet 1975; Black 1999). Urban-rural divides are
explained using core-periphery and heartland-hinterland versions of dependency theory.
While the advent of the ―knowledge-based economy‖ presents opportunities for
participation by rural communities, Panitch (1993), Petrella (2000) and others suggest the
divide between locales is growing based not only on access to capital and political power
but also technology and knowledge. Canadian researchers such as Polese and Shearmur
(2002) describe rising levels of inequality and further economic disadvantages for rural
areas. Recent research highlights the heterogeneity of rural Canada, however, cautioning
against overgeneralization of rural circumstances. In particular, some communities in the
rural-urban fringe, the North and elsewhere have experienced growth, benefiting from
proximity to urban centres and/or natural amenities (Reimer 2005).
Uneven development is expressed not only in spatial terms, but also across
segments of society, such as class, occupation, education, gender, age and race (Hessing
and Howlett 1997). Spatial and social divisions often overlap in pockets of poverty. The
state of the majority of First Nation‘s reserve economies is a clear example, a
consequence of social change and political economy and an arena where marginalization
based on space, ethnicity and culture overlap (Canada 1996a). Market tendencies toward
social inequalities are exacerbated during periods of economic and environmental change
(Lee 2007; Brody et al. 2008). In CASES terms, some actors are better able to protect
themselves in times of collapse and to capture the opportunities provided by times of
renewal and re-organisation and into the growth phase. Complex systems literature refers
to economic inequity as an example of the patchy and uneven nature of social-ecological
landscapes. Inequity is an emergent property of wealth generation and accumulation, and
of positive feedbacks that further advantage the wealthy and disadvantage the poor
(Byrne 1998, Homer-Dixon 2006). The potential for societal unrest and even breakdown
without measures to mitigate these inequities provided a justification for early regional
development programs in Canada (Savoie 1992).
39
2.2.2 Staples Theory and Rural Canada
Staples theory deserves special note for its explanatory power in rural Canadian contexts.
Staples theory as described by its most famous proponent, Harold Innis (1933; 1956), is
grounded in Canada‘s unique history and circumstances. It reflects on how the triad of
geography, institutions and technology have shaped the Canadian economy through
patterns of international trade and investment, political relationships, and cycles of natural
resource exploitation (Randall and Ironside 1996).
Canada‘s large-scale, resource extraction economy has required huge investments,
resulting high levels of outside ownership and dependence. According to early growth
theories of development, Canada‘s resource-intensive, export focused economy was to be
a temporary stage on the way to a more advanced and diversified economy (Rostow
1960). Industrial diversification was expected to occur through backward and forward
linkages from the core staple activity. Yet, rural areas have had only limited success in
secondary production and even this has been jeopardized by centralization, facilitated by
technological and transportation developments (Howlett and Brownsey 2008). Markey et
al. (2005), Williamson and Annamraju (1996), Barnes and Hayter (1994), Pierce and
Dale (1999) and others have discussed the lack of locally controlled, diversified industries
and thus vulnerability and instability in these economies.
Staples theory suggests reasons for the continuing focus on export-oriented
resource extraction and lack of diversification and reinvestment at community and
regional levels. These include difficulties of transport over a vast geography, lack of
information access and infrastructure, and dependence on fluctuating external markets,
supplies and sources of capital, a situation that is difficult to reverse when the majority of
the revenues from resource extraction leave rural areas for centers of ownership and
control (Laxer 1991; Hayter and Barnes 1990).
Markey et al. (2000) describe the attitudinal and human resource consequences of
staples development, which include low levels of education and entrepreneurial abilities
and resistance to change linked to the addiction to resource dependence (Freudenburg
1992), and the protective custody under which the state has held communities and regions
(Markey 2003). Both recent regional economic development models (Porter 2001; Cooke
40
2001) and the CASES framework emphasize the importance of information, innovation,
adaptation, and entrepreneurial capabilities, leaving rural regions at a distinct
disadvantage. Watkins (1982) describes this phenomenon as the ‗staples trap‘.
Finally, staples theory introduces the concept of the resource cycle all too familiar
in Canadian development history. Innis (1956) and, more recently, Clapp (1998) describe
a cycle of discovery, exploitation and then exhaustion of a resource, at which point a new
resource is located and the cycle continues. Lack of economic diversity and reduced
potential for pursuing alternatives intensifies pressure on primary production (Hayter and
Barnes 1990).
Each of these theories provides a useful lens through which to examine problems
of unsustainable development, illustrating a societal bias toward capitalist production and
resource depletion along with factors reducing resilience and adaptive capacity in rural
regions. Each has some application to the Canadian situation but cannot explain it in its
entirety. While staples and core-periphery dependency theories shed important light on
the circumstances of Canadian rural regions, and have some utility in assessing impacts of
the information age on resource communities, new drivers of change such as post-
productivist values call for theories of change and development that reach beyond
resource extraction and staples growth (Drache and Clement 1985).
2.2.3 Regulation Theory
Profound global changes of recent decades include increased mobility, access to

information, expansion of the capitalist enterprise, deindustrialization and the rise of the
service sector, new technologies, growth in newly industrializing countries, escalating
costs of production and changing trading patterns (Dicken 2007). While Canada‘s rural,
resource dependent communities are diverse, a number of trends can be discerned that
parallel economic restructuring on broader national and global scales. Grouped under the
term rural restructuring, these trends include increased reliance on the service and
information economy, job insecurity, loss of resource access, continued urbanization and
reductions in support from the welfare state. The cumulative ―layered effect‖ of these
multiple reinforcing changes has made the problem more engrained, complex and
difficult to address.
41
Theorists attempting to understand these processes of economic and societal
change have explored the role of the market, state, society and ecology in restructuring,
its forms and impacts. Regulation theory focuses on processes of capitalist growth, crisis,
and reproduction as well as the relationships that shape these processes, describing long-
term cycles of stability followed by crisis. Social and economic systems co-evolve,
ensuring survival and reproduction through an ongoing process of struggle and periodic
adjustment to sustain accumulation and mediate the tendency of capitalist economies
toward crisis. Regulation theory is popular with geographers due to its emphasis on
jurisdiction and the geographic (often macro) scale at which change occurs.
The French regulation school further developed Marxist ideas by identifying three
dimensions about capitalist development: the labour and production process (techno-
industrial paradigm), the circulation/growth cycle of capital supported by social norms,
relations and exchange (regime of accumulation) and the social and political institutional
framework (mode of regulation). Modes of regulation are made up of principles,
processes, norms, laws, and forms of organization, particularly of the state (Lipietz 1992;
Tickell and Peck 1995). All three dimensions combine at each stage of capitalist
development to produce a specific 'mode of development' (Amin 1994). Although each
dimension is semi-autonomous (as in components and sub-systems within CASES
models), in the long term the techno-industrial paradigm is viewed as having the most
influence. Crisis occurs if one or more of these three dimensions breaks the cohesion of
the production-accumulation-regulation triad, leading to a new regime (Jessop 1990;
Cocklin et al. 1998).
Regulation theorists suggest that the current period reflects a regime shift, often
characterized as a shift from Fordism and Keynesianism to a ―flexible‖ post-Fordist,
globalized economic system (Hayter 2000). Observations of such a shift began in the
mid-seventies. The Fordist model of sustained growth and massive investments in mass
production and the welfare state, supported by large, centralized and powerful actors in
industry, labour and government and by natural resource depletion, began to break down
(Markey et al. 2005). By the late 1980s a transition to a new system labelled ―post-
Fordism‖ has been declared (Harvey 1989; Amin 1994). Other categorizations for this
new era include globalization, flexible specialization, flexible accumulation or the
42
information and communication age (Dicken 2007; Hayter 2000). National economies
became more open and vulnerable and new technologies such as computers and
telecommunications revolutionized the workplace. All of these factors called for
flexibility in order to adapt and survive in a changing business environment.
Theories of regulation and CASES both provide a picture of the interdependence
of private, public and civil society sectors, but for regulation theorists the position of the
state is described as one of relative autonomy, not independent from the forces of capital
accumulation but capable of autonomous decisions and actions. The degree of state
autonomy remains a subject of much debate. Demand for flexibility in industrial
production systems but also in regulatory processes and policy reform is associated with
changes that include a shift from government to governance (Hayter 2000; Jessop 1997),
discussed further in Chapter 3, and the new public management (NPM) paradigm ushered
in by Margaret Thatcher (Aucoin 1995) and Osbourne and Gaebler‘s (1992) Reinventing
Government. Osbourne and Gaebler (1992) argued that ―rowing‖ (service delivery and
administration) should be separated from ―steering‖ (policy/decision-making).
Government should retain steering control but let others do the rowing, under close
regulation and supervision. New management ideas from the private sector were
incorporated, including cost-cutting, a focus on results rather than process, alternative
service delivery mechanisms, privatization, competitive relationships, defining citizens as
public service customers, fee-for-service and strengthened central management control
(Aucoin 1995; Kernaghan and Langford 1990; Graham and Phillips 1997). The intended
result was increased effectiveness, efficiency and accountability.
The application of NPM tools and philosophies has had notable impacts in
Canada, including cutbacks in areas such as education, infrastructure, and social services
in rural and small town communities. Cuts have forced a preoccupation with the bottom
line and, for local governments, choices between deals made with senior levels of
government for access to new dollars in exchange for service delivery responsibilities
(that often cost more than increased revenues), joint agreements, amalgamations with
other local governments, new fees or service cuts. Downloading has provided more
administrative responsibility but, arguably, less political voice. Reductions in public
participation, a central tenant of sustainable development, have led to a ―democratic
43
deficit‖, with voice and equity traded for efficiency (Jenson and Phillips 1996; Phillips
and Graham 2000). Non-government organizations (NGOs) asked to take on new
responsibilities under NPM have also felt the pressure of meeting both the demands of
government funding agencies and those whose interests they were set up to represent or
safeguard.
Sabel (2004) points out that it has proven impossible to separate steering
(conception) and rowing (execution). Further, the requirements of accountability and
demonstrating results under NPM result in a tendency for clear but narrow, easy-to-
measure goals that are ill-suited for complex sustainability problems. Massam and
Dickinson (1999, 221) argue that viewed merely as consumers, ―citizens begin to lose
their sense of obligation to society and community.‖
2.2.4 New Developments and CASES Contributions
Both dependency and regulation theories have been criticized for paying inadequate
attention to agency and the political dimension of social and economic change, for being
too generalized and focused on the macro-scale, ignoring place-specific outcomes and
contributing factors (Brodie 1990). There are three key difficulties with suggesting policy
changes such as NPM are a direct result of a shift to post-Fordism: 1) it assumes that the
market and trends in capitalist production are the primary drivers in policy change, 2) it
assumes a single predominant accumulation and regulation regime and widespread
applicability of the Fordism to post-Fordism explanation, and 3) it assumes that the policy
requirements of post-Fordism are clear, and for that matter the characteristics of post-
Fordism itself. NPM, for example, could be described as characteristic of post-Fordism
or, alternatively, as a continuation of the accumulation and conservation phase of the
adaptive cycle of the Fordist age, adding further specialization and rigidity.
Macro-level political economy theories that focus on large scale shifts in
economic power or modes of production may fail to recognize independent processes
occurring at smaller and even parallel scales that may result in different and varied
patterns. Sunstein (1990) argues that restructuring is differentiated in character,
complementing literature that describes various forms of organization within local
44
economies (Cameron and Gibson 2005). Neither ―the market‖ nor the public sector is
homogeneous (Davidson 2001; Sniderman et al. 1998).
Fragmentation of the state, civil society and even the private sector in Canada is
said to weaken each of these actors, who are thus able to influence but not control one
another (Pal 1992). Despite the obvious influence of the market throughout all aspects of
human society and the natural world of which society is a part, the market is not all-
powerful. Policy, society and ecology also constrain and shape economy. Grand theories
tend to downplay the role of struggle in social change. Power struggles continue between
those who still operate under and benefit from highly centralized systems such as forest
and fisheries management or are negatively impacted by changes associated with flexible
accumulation, and others who support a more diversified approach to development that
incorporates a broader set of values.
Canada‘s coastal forest and fishing economies demonstrate that the market
remains a particularly powerful social force. Regulation theory suggests that society,
inclusive of the state, has a pro-capitalist bias that accounts for unsustainable practices in
the forest and fishing industries despite pressure from social/cultural and ecological
arenas (Markey et al. 2000; Clapp 1998). Moran et al. (1996) point out that, as a result,
sustainability has tended to be conceived in a manner that suits the dominant market
ideology.
The success of the environmental movement in breaking the long-established
business-labour-government coalition in British Columbia‘s forest sector is but one
illustration that both the state and civil society are capable of independent influence
(Hayter 2000). Ecological dimensions of policy and the imperatives of sustainable
development more broadly are increasingly recognized, albeit while privatization of
natural resources and new public management strategies associated with neo-liberalism
are also promoted. The crash of the northern cod stocks and the disappearance of British
Columbia‘s old growth forest, creating uncertainty and change to which the market, civil
society and policy-makers must adapt, illustrate environmental constraints on economic
systems, as described by Bossel (2001). Ecology also creates human opportunity through
its resources and amenities. Thus financial, natural, social/cultural and political capitals
45
are interrelated and each influence development decisions and outcomes within various
spaces and scales (Birner and Wittmer 2001).
Increasing attention to local, micro-level processes has necessitated recognition of
the importance of context, and factors such as history, beliefs and experience that shape
processes of change and account for variety among locales (Cocklin et al. 1998). In what
Clark (1992) refers to as ‗real regulation‘ a plurality of interpretations is recognized and
valued. Addressing many of the concerns raised above, real regulation interprets the
process of regulation as a multiscalar social practice played out in distinct geographical
and economic contexts, albeit with a capitalist bias (Clark 1992; Hudson 2005). The
notion of struggle (agency) and patterns, which become institutionalized as structure, are
acknowledged. ―Structure‖ is subject to change in the process of social and economic
reproduction. Local actors and organizations are among those capable of exerting
influence on the restructuring and policy process (Markey 2003). Real regulation is less
deterministic, recognizing change as a product of debate and integrated social and
economic processes that are both top-down and bottom-up, combine formal and informal
actors and processes, and involve diverse stakeholders constantly negotiating subjects
such as stewardship and sustainability (Blunden et al. 1995; Cocklin et al. 1998; Pierce
1998).
Recent real regulation interpretations recognize the role of the state as a
coordinator and mediator of a wide range of participants in a contested governance
process, including divisions within levels of the state (Little 2001). Moran et al. (1996)
provide the relevant example of sustainable development legislation in New Zealand,
interpreted differently by various state actors. The state is made up of institutions,
individuals, relationships, strategies and practices, shaped by layers of institutional,
economic and social-cultural histories and played out at multiple nested scales (Clark
1992; Painter and Goodwin 1995; Tickell and Peck 1995). Moran et al. (1996) make an
important distinction between ideology, rhetoric and reality in regulation. Harrison (2006)
and MacLeod (2001) emphasize the potential of ‗regional regulation‘ within regulatory
networks.
Similarly, post-dependency theory suggests that the causes of underdevelopment
are both internal and external, rooted in the marketplace and in policy communities,
46
shaped by structure, agency and history. Post-dependency permits different, co-existing
modes of production while observing a tendency to promote capitalist development and
resist redistribution of benefits (Hessing and Howlett 1997).
Despite their apparent fit with the rural Canadian context, even real regulation and
post-dependency perspectives remain subject to criticism for under-emphasizing the role
of individual change agents in communities and individuals within the state bureaucracy,
as well as informal, non-state bottom-up forms of organization in social relations
(Blunden et al. 1995). Barnes and Hayter (1994) suggest that, in Canada, the current era
is shaped by a combination of structural forces, individual agency and geographical
context, each with varying degrees of influence over outcomes in different circumstances.
A strengthened emphasis on the influence of ecology, more in line with a political
ecology interpretation of restructuring, is also required (Armitage 2008; Zimmerer and
Basset 2003, 18; Gibbs and Jonas 2001; Gale and M‘Gonigle 2000).
The study of CASES involves inevitable links to other interdisciplinary fields of
scientific investigation such as actor network theory (ANT) and political ecology but can
also benefit from the depth of insights provided by fields focused on the study of
human/social systems and new, more nuanced versions of theories of social and economic
development such as real regulation and post-dependency. Common recognition of
multiple, ongoing processes of change occurring over multiple time scales and shaped by
a variety of actors, suggests a degree of convergence among these theoretical approaches
Regulation and dependency theories enhance our understanding of the processes and, in
particular, the structures that influence collaborative governance and community
resilience within CASES.
Current processes of governance and development are embroiled in a constant
tug-of-war between alternative visions and possible future directions: between trends
toward increased market dominance, bureaucratic rigidity, and community vulnerability,
and an alternative more balanced approach that promises to create conditions of
sustainability and resilience. While its influence is significant, extreme views that all
government policy is a reflection of the capitalist enterprise are not fully supported by the
Canadian experience. Vodden and Kennedy (2006), Berkes et al. (2005) and others
document cases where power relationships are being altered, to varying degrees, in favour
47
of approaches that balance socio-cultural, ecological, and economic imperatives and
increase the power of society and ecology relative to the state and the market. Dent
(1999) suggests that growing interest in complexity science is indicative of a broad shift
to a more holistic worldview. Kates et al. (2005) describe a sustainability movement; a
movement, however, that is not clear or consistent. Others identify evidence of an
increasingly market-based approach. Trajectories of development shift back and forth on
a sustainability continuum within and between long-term cycles of change. Multiple
interdependent parties, with interests as depicted in each quadrant of Figure 6, are
influenced by the past and vie for power and influence over the future.
Market Civil Society

Balance,
resilience,
sustainability
State Ecology
Figure 6 Seeking a balance of power
Resolution of these conflicts calls for the identification of varying perspectives, dialogue,
learning and a search for balance, characteristics of resilient complex adaptive systems
and collaborative governance models, discussed further in the next chapter.
48
3 – Collaborative Governance in the Coastal Zone
3.1 Complexity and Coastal Zone Governance
Coastal social-ecological systems are generally highly complex. Coastal development

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

Aquatic Terrestrial Social/Other
Fisheries Forestry Social services
Wildlife Wildlife Arts and culture
Offshore oil and gas Minerals Economic development
Ocean energy - other Land-based pollution Trade
Marine plants Urban development Jurisdictional disputes
Water Supply, quality Habitat protection Air pollution
Aquaculture Erosion Climate change
Marine transport Tourism and recreation Health care
Habitat protection Land use planning Education/human resources
Tourism and recreation Aboriginal rights
Marine planning Institutional capacity building
Related to this wide range of issues is the significant and growing number of
actors with a stake in the coastal policy process. Within the federal government alone
over twenty departments or agencies are involved in the oceans sector (Canada 2007a).
Identifying the interests of these various actors, reaching agreement on their respective
roles and attempting to understand the cross-scale impacts of policymaking and
implementation in this setting are a formidable challenge. Actors and institutions at all
levels, from the international to the individual, have an impact on local economic
development, resource management and policies that govern these activities (see Table
5).
49
Table 5 Roles in coastal governance
Examples of Related Areas of Jurisdiction/Responsibility
International - Trade and Environment Trade agreements
Federal - Fisheries, international relations
First Nations - Aboriginal rights and title
Provincial - Forestry, tourism, fish processing
Regional - Economic development and land use planning
Local/Municipal - Waterfront development, harbours and wharves, water supply and
waste water treatment
Individual/Family - Voters, taxpayers, consumers, harvesters, leaders, volunteers
The concept of governance subsystems is an extension of Howlett and Ramesh‘s

(1995) policy subsystems notion. Howlett (1998, 2) explains that a policy subsystem is ―a
flexible concept designed to capture the complex interplay between actors and
institutions, and knowledge and interests, in the policy-making process.‖ Howlett and
Ramesh (1995), Bryant (1999), Sabatier (1999), Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) and
others identify and attempt to explain the actors involved in policy-making and
implementation, the networks that connect them and their influence on the policy process.
These theories of policy systems and change fit well within a broader complexity theory
framework and, like theories such as staples and real regulation discussed in Chapter 2,
help enrich our understanding of social change within complex, adaptive social-
ecological systems (CASES).
Anderson (1984, 3) defines a policy as ―a purposive course of action followed by
an actor or a set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern.‖ Typically,
governments, formal, hierarchical public sector agencies with bureaucratic procedures
and state authority, have been responsible for making and implementing public policy
(Davoudi et al. 2004). It is argued, however, that a broader, more distributed form of
policy-making has been emerging that recognizes the role of individuals and groups
outside of government not only in ‗rowing‘ but also in ‗steering‘ societies as part of
public policy networks (Chapter 2).
Rosell (1992 in Paquet 1999, 23) defines governance as ―the process whereby an
organization or society steers itself,‖ including the goals, institutional processes and
structures that form the basis of planning, making decisions and carrying out those
decisions (Olsen 2003). Governance is distinct from management, the more limited
process of harnessing resources to achieve a known goal within a known institutional
50
structure (Coastal Resources Centre 2001). Tremblay and Rousseau (2005) describe
governance as a new mode of regulation emerging from the failure of former modes and
three major changes in society: increasingly complex, differentiated difficult to govern
societies, the exhaustion of traditional forms of public action associated with government,
and the demand for a new form of governance better suited to context and to influencing
government action through coalitions, collective action, and compromise among
sometimes divergent and even conflicting interests and goals (Zartman 1996). Jessop
(2000, 15) describes governance as an alternative model for managing collective affairs
that involves ―horizontal self-organisation among mutually interdependent actors,‖
―achieving collective action… in conditions where it is not possible to rest on recourse to
the authority of the state‖ (Stoker 2000, 93). Interactive governance theory argues that
governing systems and the systems they govern (systems-to-be-governed) should be
equally diverse, complex, and dynamic (Kooiman and Bavinck 2005).
Policy, in this context, is a tool used by all those collectively responsible for
governance to address specific problems or issues such as resource management or local
and regional economic development, areas of primary focus in this study. Howlett and
Ramesh (1995) introduce the policy cycle as a basic framework for policy analysis. The
cycle simplifies the process of policy-making into discrete phases that parallel stages of
applied problem solving (see Table 6). The function of such a model is to provide a
heuristic device for dealing with the complexities of reality rather than to precisely reflect
reality, which rarely follows such an orderly, linear sequence (Bendavid-Val 1991).
Instead, decisions may be reactive or ad hoc, steps combined, skipped or undertaken in a
different order. Weick (1995) suggests, for example, that acting should (and does)
precede planning.
Table 6 Stages of problem solving and the policy cycle

Phases of Applied Problem-Solving Stages in the Policy Cycle
1. Problem Recognition 1. Agenda-Setting
2. Proposal of Solutions 2. Policy Formulation
3. Choice of Solution 3. Decision-Making
4. Putting Solution into Effect 4. Policy Implementation
5. Monitoring Results 5. Policy Evaluation
Feedback – begin the cycle again
Source: Howlett and Ramesh (1995); Hoberg (2001)
51
Despite their often rational/analytical and historically agency-based approach,
Davoudi et al. (2004) suggest that planning approaches are extensively employed in new
multi-level governance arrangements, including strategic, spatial, regional economic
development (RED) and coastal land use planning. Hoberg (2001) argues that the model
remains a useful analytical tool provided its limitations are understood, adding that each
cycle should be understood as one of multiple cycles, placed within its historical context
in an ongoing process of policy evolution. Janssen (2001) integrates the general CASES
adaptive renewal cycle with the policy cycle, moving from surprise and sometimes crisis
to presentation of alternatives, policy formation, implementation and, if successful,
institutionalization.
Howlett and Ramesh (1995) add that the policy cycle can be elaborated upon by
examining the role of various actors and the institutions they are part of in the policy
cycle. Various actors, structures and the legacy of past policies shape outcomes at each
stage. These actors may have very different ideas about the problem being addressed and
appropriate responses, the process often resembling a ―weaving‖ of various stages as they
search for a mutually acceptable outcome (Colebatch 2006). Scheffer et al. (2001)
describe moving through the policy or adaptive cycle as moving from scattered (few
actors recognize problem), to mobilized (recognition grows), to polarization
(disagreement), and institutionalized policies or management systems. Howlett and
Ramesh (1995) describe actors participating directly in the policy process as members of
policy networks. Policy community members share some knowledge of and interest in the
issue but policy networks share a more material interest that encourages regular
participation. It is through policy networks that the state and other societal actors are
linked in the policy process.
Policy issues are discussed and negotiated within the context of established
institutional arrangements that impact actor behaviour and positions. Constitutional and
legal authority, power and knowledge influence membership in a policy subsystem.
Howlett and Ramesh (1995) describe ministers and bureaucrats (elected and appointed
officials), interest groups, research organizations and the media as key actors in a policy
subsystem, each with their own objectives. Janssen (2001) suggests that different actors
are influential during certain phases of the policy or adaptive renewal cycle (e.g.
52
bureaucrats in implementation, activists in agenda setting, catalysts in identifying
alternatives and decision-makers in policy).
Policy scientists have advanced and integrated understandings of policy actors,
networks, cycles and subsystems into concepts such as punctuated equilibrium, which
explains how sudden shifts in policy can occur after long periods of ―equilibrium‖ or
incremental change (Baumgartner and Jones 1993). The advocacy coalition framework
describes coalitions of actors attempting to influence policy and ―brokers‖ who mediate
conflict between coalitions over time, all influenced by other systems that constrain or
provide resources (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993). Hoberg (2001) describes the policy
regime approach as one that brings these various developments together, recognizing that
subsystems act within and are influenced by other systems and therefore, that
explanations of change are multicausal. Policy change is related to interactions of
background conditions, actors, institutions and ideas (together forming a regime) as well
as the outcomes these interactions produce. Like Bryant (1999), Hoberg (2001)
recognizes that actors have different interests, resources, and strategies and are situated in
webs or networks of typically uneven, changing relationships. Policy outcomes have
feedbacks that influence subsystem components. Further, the ability of actors to interpret
these outcomes and feedbacks provides the opportunity for policy learning.
Howlett and Ramesh‘s conceptualization of policy subsystems and the policy
cycle, Hoberg‘s policy regime approach and Bryant‘s seven-component model of the
political economy of sustainable community development (described further in Chapter 4)
contribute to our understanding of the governance components of broader systems and
complexity theories. The notion of policy subsystems suggests that each policy issue is
part of a larger more holistic policy system, each part of and connected to various
CASES. Both policies and appropriate forms of governance are likely to shift over time,
particularly in the breakdown and renewal phases of the adaptive cycle. CASES literature
suggests major system change is possible when systems at multiple scales simultaneously
experience periods of breakdown or reorganization. Similarly, political scientists observe
that new governance frameworks are possible when external conditions change, policy
failures occur and/or existing policy systems are weak (Hall 1989, Tomblin 2004, Hoberg
2001). The current degree of change and uncertainty and continuing redefinition of the
53
roles of various actors in policy networks at spatial scales from local9 to global, suggests
we are currently in this ―backloop‖ of the adaptive cycle.
3.2 Redefining Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships in Governance Systems
The 20th century tenant of centralized decision-making has come under severe scrutiny as
we begin the 21st, resulting in a debate about appropriate degrees of centralization and
decentralization in virtually all policy areas (Proulx 1997). Sabel (2004) suggests that
since the 1980s hierarchical, closed organizations and the breaking down of complex
problems into simpler, separated parts has given way to more federated, open and holistic
governance structures and processes. Debates over the dangers and opportunities of
government retrenchment, driven by both government and citizens, have resulted in a
number of opposing perspectives (Abrams 2003). All agree, however, that fundamental
and rapid changes are occurring in relations between the market, the state and civil
society, the three principal participants in and mechanisms through which processes of
governance are expressed (Juda 1999; Juda and Hennessey 2001).
3.2.1 Changing Role of the Nation State
A state is defined as a geographic territory governed by an authority structure with

effective control over its resident population(s) and externally recognized sovereignty
over its territory (Taylor 1994; Dicken 2007). According to Dicken (2007), states have
four key roles: containers of distinctive institutions and practices, regulators of economic
activities, competitors and collaborators with other states. In a democracy, citizens
provide the state with its power and legitimacy. In the Fordist era described in Chapter 2
the nation-state was the dominant state level (federal in Canada).
A body of recent literature focuses on declining state power at this scale and
reduced dominance of the state in managing social and economic relationships (Ohmae
1995; Dicken 1994; 2007; Young 1994). Government is now one of many interdependent
actors with only ‗imperfect control‘ (Rhodes 1997, 8; D‘Aoust 2000). Jessop (1994)
describes a ―hollowing-out‖ of the nation state due to a variety of restructuring conditions
9
Changes at the individual and household level are also occurring which are not discussed in this study but
are nonetheless significant. See, for example, Jackson et al (2006) and MacDonald et al (2006).
54
that have redistributed authority to the global and local scales. Significant debate
continues, however, over the degree to which the role of government, particularly the
nation state, has declined and, further, whether it should decline given implications for
sustainable development and the need for ―good governance‖ described in Chapter 1.
A state may surrender or assign its authority to others. Those who describe the
new governance regime suggest that this is increasingly common, resulting in cooperative
or shared statehood. In Canada the provinces, territories and federal government have
divided powers in Confederation, with neither subordinate to the other.
Proponents of decentralization and reduced central government control come from
at least two distinct, although not necessarily diametrically opposed, perspectives. Some,
under the New Public Management (NPM) agenda, are proponents of measures such as
downloading, privatization, and contracting out as a means of reducing the size and
influence of government bureaucracy which, centralized and enlarged with the
development of the welfare state, has gotten too big and is in danger of system overload
(Jackson and Jackson 1998). ―Big government‖ is seen as inconsistent with the new
flexible accumulation production regime. These authors emphasize sharing of
administrative and service delivery responsibility (rowing) rather than decision-making
power (steering). This model is described as deconcentration, meaning that still-
centralized power is relocated or dispersed without transferring authority (Yuliani 2007).
Others suggest that managing or steering complex, fragmented and often competing
societal interests such as those outlined in Table 4 above is beyond the capacity of the
state. From this perspective, existing provincial and federal governments are too small to
address big problems such as the ability of multinational corporations to shift resources to
other parts of the globe yet too big, slow and distant to respond appropriately to diverse
local problems and opportunities (Dicken 2007; Plumptre and Graham 1999).
Others point out that decentralizing responsibilities without power renders local
institutions, whether local governments or non-government organizations, little more than
local agents of higher level states and does little to address these deficiencies (Morgan
2007). A more dispersed policy process is necessary to ―democratize‖ government
(Allemand 2000). Openly sharing decision-making with those who have an interest in and
are directly impacted by a policy matter, they argue, will result in better decisions that are
55
more readily accepted in their implementation. Yet another argument is that opening up
the process may restore lost confidence in Canadian policy makers, and thus legitimacy, a
cornerstone of governance. Canadians are demanding more information on policy issues
and more involvement in decisions. As a result, agencies such as Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO) have sought to improve relationships with the public and sector
stakeholders (DFO 1999; Smith 2000).
More radical proponents see decentralization as a form of resistance to current
urban-industrial development patterns and a tool for empowerment. Still others counter
that the state has and should retain a pre-eminent and important role. Concentration on the
collapse of the central state, they suggest, neglects both its continued significance and
relation to both international and other sub-national (and internal) governance systems.
Stone (1986, 87) suggests that, ―as complexity asserts itself government becomes … more
visible as a mobilizer and co-ordinator of resources.‖ Problems of inconsistency and
blurred lines of accountability are also concerns, along with questions about capacity at
the local level to take on new roles. Alex Sim (1988), a proponent of bottom-up rural
development, explains that sudden decentralization would lead to chaos. He suggests that
a period of learning to manage one‘s own affairs is required as a first step.
Opponents of decentralization point out that negotiations between a rising number
of policy actors is a costly and time-consuming process (Carr et al. 1998). This is
particularly problematic when coupled with the high cost of implementing programs to
address regional disparities or manage resources in sectors as complex as the fishery
(Savoie 1992, Shrank 1997). Centralized control, they argue, has efficiency benefits.
Others have concerns about suspect motives when senior governments propose
decentralization, such as to ―soften resistance‖ or co-opt opponents. They describe
offloading as a product of the neoconservative agenda, resulting in an inability of society
to meet people‘s basic needs – a dismantling of the welfare state (Campfens 1997).
Keynesians worry about lost ability to redistribute wealth and argue that strong
governments are needed to play a mediating function, offseting the process of unfettered
capital accumulation and domination by the privileged (Midlarsky 1999; Sassen 1996;
Pierce 1999). Strong senior governments also have a role to play in promoting the best
interests of localities within their jurisdictions in the international arena. Dicken (1994)
56
argues, for example, that national are more effective than local governments in bargaining
with trans-national corporations. Finally, there is ample evidence that in some cases
domination of ―bottom-up‖ processes by local elites can be equally or more oppressive
than top-down governing (Bryant 1995). Others express concern that local actors are self-
interested and will not necessarily protect the interests of the broader society and
environment. Thus, senior governments have a continuing role to play as guardian of
broadly agreed upon principles and our collective futures.
Even proponents of a bottom-up approach to development agree there is a role for
senior governments to play in local development, albeit a supportive rather than a
directive one (Savoie 2000; Vodden 1999). The ability of senior levels of governments to
play a new more flexible, collaborative, facilitative role is framed by Knill (1999) as
administrative reform capacity. He suggests that capacity for reform in Canada is
medium-weak, a function of institutional entrenchment, influence of the bureaucracy and
capacity for executive leadership. In Canada the federalist structure and the Canadian
Constitution (1867) are key determinants of responsibility (Steytler 2002). The federation
is multi-party and primarily competitive, particularly since the 1980s, but with a
significant amount of pragmatic cooperation and compromise between levels (Asselin
2001; Hueglin and Fenna 2005). The distribution of state power looks very different in
different places. Asselin (2001) observes that in Canada the federal government exercises
considerable influence in public policy development, largely due to its financial resources
as well as the size and expertise of the federal bureaucracy. Both federal and provincial
governments in Canada retain significant influence over coastal resource management
and economic development in their respective jurisdictions (Ommer et al. 2007), but the
state is a changing, evolving entity (or more accurately network of embedded entities). A
trend called ―glocalization‖ is observed, referring to the contested, simultaneous
restructuring from the national scale upward to the global and downward to the local and
to strategies of localization in key forms such as the location of industry, services, and
financial capital (Swyngedouw 1997). The distribution of state power in a governance
system is likely to vary in different contexts and over time.
In summary, the literature suggests that the role of the state is changing, its powers
and responsibilities being redistributed. ―The state‖ is increasingly complex, including
57
multiple vertical and horizontal dimensions. Finally, the state, particularly the nation-
state, remains influential but is limited in its control over society and its functions due to
both its internal divisions and increasing power and relevance of sub-national and
international scales and actors from private and civil society spheres.
3.2.2 International Policy Actors
In the search for a new governance regime(s) numerous authors advocate an increasing
role for structures and processes at the multi-national (trans-border) region and/or global
scale in the governance of sustainable development (Najam et al. 2007). Nation states
have limited ability, it is suggested, to manage supra and transnational flows of
information, capital, pollution or natural resources (Ohmae 1995; Porter and Brown
1996). Geographers have emphasised the need for oppressed groups to forge links across
borders, mobilising a global resistance to combat the forces of transnational capital. The
Brundtland Commission (WCED 1987) and subsequent Rio Earth Summit (1992) drew
national governments worldwide into the sustainable development agenda, albeit not
moving beyond the early phases of the policy cycle (Bantjes 2004).
Various justifications are made for imposing international laws or standards on
lower (smaller scale) levels for the good of the global population. Knect (1994) suggests
that the multinational regional scale may be the most appropriate for many ocean
governance regimes. Yet the extent to which national sovereignty and self-determination
should be eroded or shared through international governance arrangements is hotly
contested (Hurtig 1991).
3.2.3 Recognizing Aboriginal Rights and Title
Yet another significant change in Canadian policy-making is the increasing recognition of

unextinguished Aboriginal rights, including rights of self-government, and title to
traditional lands that were never surrendered or lost despite the ―empty lands‖ thesis
(Tennant 1989; Vodden and Kennedy 2006). After centuries of economic marginalization
and denial of power (Notzke 1994) Aboriginal rights and title have been negotiated and
strengthened in recent years under Canadian law and in international declarations.
Resulting changes in federal Aboriginal policy and modern treaty negotiations have had
58
spill-over effects in federal and provincial policy arenas relevant to coastal planning and
management, such as fisheries, forestry and economic development, and in relationships
with local governments (Cashore et al. 2001). As recommended by the Royal
Commission of Aboriginal Peoples, First Nations are acknowledged as an order of
government with nation-to-nation bargaining power with the Government of Canada
(Canada 1996a).
Despite these changes, First Nations communities and their populations are
predominantly marginalized from rural Canadian economies (Reimer and Apedaile 2000).
Financial dependency on the federal government and on social assistance remains a
reality for many Aboriginal people (Wien 1997). Wuttenee (2006, 138-142) points out
that although a new partnership with Canadians is emerging, ―in many cases, Aboriginal
peoples do not hold title to their traditional lands, or do not have their rights recognized‖
and therefore have little say over development and governance. Many Aboriginal people
and communities remain marginalized, struggling with significant economic, social,
cultural and ecological challenges and a legacy of federal and provincial policies intended
to remove Aboriginal peoples from their lands and suppress their unique governments,
cultures and identities (Canada 1996a; Vodden and Kennedy 2006; Newhouse 2006).
While recognizing generalizations cannot be made about any people (First Nations
are themselves diverse) and that values are dynamic and complex, Wuttenee suggests that
there is a set of core values that guide some First Nations people, which include honour
and respect for all living things, knowledge as wisdom (with a holistic view that
encompasses spirituality), caring, sharing, harmony and cooperation, honesty and
humility along with the responsibility to protect the earth and the cycle of creation and the
recognition that all things are interconnected, including politics, economy, land and
culture. Increasing inclusion of First Nations in Canadian governance, therefore, has
resulted, in some cases, in these values being brought into the governance process
(Ommer et al. 2007).
3.2.4 The Local State
According to Steytler (2002) local governments are an important part of the state in most
federal countries, with an increasing breadth of powers and services provided both
59
through the formal transfer of responsibilities or by default when higher orders of
government fail to meet their mandates. Distinctions are often made between rural and
large urban municipalities. Nearly two thirds of Canada‘s population lives in 27
municipalities, contributing to the growing ―cities agenda‖ and demands for even greater
powers for city governments. Relied upon for an increasing number of service delivery
functions and as engines of growth and development, local governments face
considerable stress in financing increased expenditures. In Canada, despite expanded
autonomy and responsibilities, the municipal percentage of total government spending
remains lower than in most industrialized nations. An estimated 4000 local authorities
undertake their responsibilities with the help of approximately 250,000 employees, nearly
75% of the number employed by the federal government but with only 45% of its budget
(Steytler 2002).
Jessop (1994) suggests that new opportunities for local level institutions are
permitted or necessitated by the inability of higher levels of the state to design solutions
that are diverse and contextually sensitive enough to tackle problems that are often faced
at the local level, consistent with the subsidiarity principle described in Chapter 2. The
suggestion that the state has been weakened or ―hollowed out‖ by processes of
globalization, discussed above, has led to calls for a stronger role for the local to offset
the global. Ash (2003) adds that infrastructure providers (often local governments) are
key drivers of change. Rather than being rooted in a commitment to culture and place this
notion focuses on the necessity for localities to actively position themselves within
international trading systems and markets, suggesting that local diversity creates
economic and political opportunities in an increasingly dynamic world.
Taylor (1993), Massam (2000) and others argue that the power of the local state is
devolved from higher levels. Local government is a responsibility of the provinces under
the Constitution. Provincial governments determine the powers and functions of
municipalities, which, therefore, vary considerably. Federal dealings with municipalities
have been limited, although a trend to develop formal agreements among the three levels
of government has been observed (Steytler 2002).
British Columbia (BC) has 424 local government local authorities, including 157
incorporated municipalities, 27 regional districts and 240 improvement districts. Each
60
municipality belongs to a regional district (Brunnen 2006). British Columbia legislation
provides municipalities with broad powers that include 18 spheres of regulatory authority
(16 municipal two concurrent), facilitation of public-private partnerships and flexibility in
revenue-generation. The move toward a more flexible approach to provincial-municipal
relations took place over 15 years, culminating with the 2003 Community Charter
legislation (Wall 2005). A 1996 protocol between the Province and Union of British
Columbia Municipalities explicitly recognized local government as an independent and
accountable order of government and began to set out principles governing the
relationship between the two orders of government, including a clear division of
responsibilities that leaves each level accountable for specific policies and gives them the
necessary authority, independence and financial capacity to perform these roles (UBCM
1996). These principles were legislated in the 2003 Charter, which provides for public
accountability and transparency through strategic municipal planning, decision-making
and progress reporting. New responsibilities are not to be allocated to municipalities by
the Province without discussions about required funding, and significant changes in
legislation, policy or programs impacting municipalities are not to be made without
consultation (Steytler 2002).
Other provinces followed the BC example. In 2005 a memorandum-of-
understanding was signed between the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities and the
Province, which established guiding principles and a basis for the relationship between
the two orders of government. Nova Scotia (NS) includes three kinds of municipalities
within its 77 local authorities: three regional municipalities; 21 county or district (rural)
municipalities; and 53 towns and villages (as of December 2003), which are independent
of the rural municipalities except in the case of joint expenditures, governed by a village
commission (the equivalent of a council) and have the same powers as municipalities to
collect taxes. A few special commissions also exist for service provision such as rural fire
districts (Nova Scotia 2003).
Municipal government was slow to develop in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL).
At the time of Confederation (1949) there were an estimated 19-20 incorporated
municipalities in the new province, a small portion of its approximately 1300 settlements,
primarily outport fishing villages (Baker and Pitt 1988; Dunn 2003). Today, encouraged
61
by financial incentives, the number of local government authorities has grown to 466,
including 283 municipalities (three cities and 280 towns) and 183 local service districts,
elected committees with more limited authority and financial capacity than towns and
cities (NLFM 2005). Provisions also exist for the formation of regional bodies such as
Regional Councils or Services Boards under the Municipal Act, although only two such
legislated bodies exist. Approximately 168 communities remain without local government
and are referred to as unincorporated areas. The Newfoundland Cities Act gives the
province‘s three cities broader powers to provide government and services and greater
autonomy than their smaller counterparts (Steytler 2002).
Local government at the level of the sub-provincial region is formalized and
widespread in BC, through regional districts, and in NS through counties and regional
municipalities. All areas not incorporated as towns or villages in either province are,
therefore, represented by a level of local government. Formalization of a regional level of
local government has been resisted to date in NL. However, the majority of local
governments in the province are engaged in some form of service sharing arrangement
with one or more neighbouring communities (Vodden et al. 2008). For struggling
communities, service sharing arrangements can provide economic benefits, whether
through reduced costs or increased revenues, new ideas, mutual support or improved
environmental management (Vodden 2006). Municipalities NL (NLFM 2005) notes that
regional approaches, whether through service sharing or regional government, are
growing across the province, the country and internationally.
Sancton (2001) discusses the trend towards amalgamations and regional local
governments in Canada as largely based on arguments of economies of scale. Bish (2001)
questions the benefits of amalgamation and centralization in large local (regional)
government structures. Flexibility, he suggests, is the key to successful multi-community
(sub-provincial) arrangements among local governments. BC‘s regional district model,
for example, provides flexibility in choosing the scope and degree of services delivered
and allows local governments to partner with neighbouring jurisdictions or deliver
services directly, as the situation requires. Such regional administrative structures, he
adds, encourage cooperation rather than competition within their boundaries. Davoudi et
al. (2004, 4) suggest that local and regional governments ―are situated at the junction
62
between the traditional vertical axis of public administration, and the emerging horizontal
axis of partnership between state, market and civil society,‖ and have important roles to
play in promoting new forms of governance and enhanced local institutional capacities.
Despite devolution measures, however, real power differences remain between sub-
national and national governments (Sanford 2004). Actors at the local level are needed to
implement policies devised at multiple scales, but devolution to the local level does not
necessarily result in greater public engagement, nor does it eliminate oppressive or self-
interested behaviour by public representatives. The result has been calls for devolution
not only to the local (―town hall‖) level but also from the local to the citizen (―double
devolution‖) (Miliband 2006). Canadian authors Bryant (1999), Clutterbuck and Novick
(2003) and others concur that no single person, organization or perspective can be taken
to represent a local area. Morgan (2007) suggests that some local government may be
more responsive to senior levels of government, whose priorities and requirements they
are being asked to meet, than to their citizens. Horizontal partnerships with civil society
organizations can help address this concern, although the increasing role of this ―third
sector‖ brings with it its own set of concerns along with opportunities.
3.2.5 Civil Society
While not a panacea or replacement for democratic institutions (Bourgon 1998), civil
society in its various forms (leaders and ―ordinary citizens,‖ formal and informal
organizations) can play an important role in community and regional development, and in
governance generally. Dahrendorf (1995, 23) defines civil society as ―the associations in
which we conduct our lives, and that owe their existence to our needs and initiatives,
rather than to the state.‖ Swift (1999, 4-5) defines it as involving ―the activity of citizens
in free association who lack the authority of the state‖ and are ―motivated by objectives
other than profit-making.‖ Associations may be formal, non-government (NGO), non-
profit, voluntary or third sector organizations (Hall and Banting 2000), or may consist of
more informal networks among citizens. For some the term includes not just associations
but individuals with a sense of citizenship and voluntarism or even those who engage in
activities of the ―informal economy‖ (outside of the market or the state) (Abzug 1999).
Gramsci (in Chandoke 1995), for example, describes civil society broadly as a space
63
―between the economic structure and the state.‖ Common-pool-resource theory describes
the ability of citizens, despite self-interest, to self-organize outside of the scope of the
government and the market to manage ―the commons‖ for collective benefit (Wang
2002).
The lines between government and non-government or civil society sectors are,
however, blurrier than such definitions suggest. To varying extents the non-government
sector is an extension of the state. Literature on the NGO sector highlights this challenge
in particular for QUANGOs (quasi or quasi-autonomous non-governmental
organisations), GONGOs (government organized NGOs) or NDPBs (non-departmental
public bodies), which are organized and/or used by central government to devolve
responsibility for what have traditionally been government functions. In exchange for this
role they are often provided with funding or other support and have only relative
autonomy from the state (Wettenhall 1981; Flinders and Smith 1999). Wolch (1990)
refers to this segment of the NGO sector as theshadow state. While NGOs may be
influenced by the public sector, the reverse is true as well. New policy-making processes,
sometimes referred to as 'soft law,' increasingly allow non-government actors and citizens
to participate beyond voting in periodic elections. Christensen (2004) argues that formal
authority is becoming decreasingly relevant as the informal sector, primarily through
NGOs, gains access and power within policy networks.
The concept of social capital has gained recognition over the past decade as a
significant contributor to social, ecological and economic well-being (Longo 2000;
Savitch and Kantor 2003; Wilson 1996). The existence of civil society networks and
organizations is seen as an indicator of the presence of social capital (World Bank 2007).
Amin and Thrift (1995) refer to ‗institutional thickness,‘ including a ―plethora of civic
associations,‖ as a significant factor in the economic and social health of localities.
Snowadsky‘s (2005) research findings illustrate the importance of institutional thickness
within the context of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. This social capital is undermined
in many Canadian rural communities by small and declining populations and, in
particular, youth out-migration (Halseth et al. 2004).
The benefits and challenges of the explosion in the non-government organization
(NGO) sector are multifaceted and the subject of a growing literature (Salamon 1994;
64
Brock and Banting 2001; Massam 2000). Literature on social capital credits civil society
organizations for linking residents and the political system, providing access to power,
voice and resources, building interpersonal bonds, mobilizing collective action, and
engaging people in activities that contribute to various aspects of well-being (Putnam
1993; Roman and Moore 2004). Non-government organizations (NGOs) fill gaps in our
society and act as part of a system of checks and balances within governance systems.
Along with benefits, the sector also comes with problems of lack of accountability,
dependency on and possible cooptation by the state or the market (described by Dekker
and van den Broek 1998) and, often, exclusion of those whose voices most need an
avenue to be heard (Swift 1999; Massam 2000). Lack of public support and legitimacy
are also raised as concerns. However, a recent study indicates that Canadians have higher
levels of confidence in voluntary organizations than government, and believe that
voluntary organizations have a better understanding of the needs of average citizens
(EKOS 2002). Like the market and the state the ―third sector‖ is represented at scales
from the local to the global.
3.2.6 The Private Sector
The appropriate role for the private sector in governance is also a subject of current
debate. Trends such as new public management support a role for the private sector in the
delivery of public services (Richards 1998). Others advocate for a seat for the private
sector at the planning table (Gallaugher et al. 2005) and private-public partnerships that
bring private sector resources into the governance process. At the same time, concerns
exist about too much private sector involvement and influence in development planning
and policy-making (Vodden 1999; Markey et al. 2000) and about how to ―level the
playing field‖ when some participants, particularly large externally controlled
corporations, have greater access to power and resources than others. Thrift (1995) refers
to the power of the phantom or nomad state of transient international money that is not
tied to a particular territory, government or group of citizens, but often demands a say in
decision-making in return for investment in domestic economies. Massam (2000) points
out, however, that the nomad state can be, and is, ―trapped in‖ nation-states with rules
about currency flow or about other aspects of the production process. Hoberg (2001)
65
suggests links between business and policy cycles. When profitability is low, for
example, policy-makers become more responsive to threats of job loss and less likely to
introduce new regulatory constraints. Movements such as fair trade and environmental
certification suggest that, while powerful, the private sector is influenced not only by the
state but also by civil society and resulting consumer movements. Like government and
non-government actors, the private sector is diverse and operates at local through global
scales. The sector represents not only Thrift‘s nomad dollars, but also individuals who are
not only entrepreneurs but also citizens, volunteers, voters and even elected
representatives.
The notion of collaborative governance recognizes the interconnectedness and
decision-making influence of each of these spheres. Recognizing that the causes of social
disparity and resource depletion are rooted in private, public and civil society sectors, all
three of these sectors must be involved in the creation of integrated, collaborative
solutions. Jessop (1997, 96) suggests that governance capacity today depends on the
―effective co-ordination of interdependent forces within and beyond the state.‖
3.3 Collaborative governance
There are many terms used to describe people or organizations working together, in this
case in governance. Each term means different things to different people, including the
term collaboration (see Table 7). Schneider (2007) suggests that actors in collaboration
are often not immediately connected (with prior relationships for example) but affect one
another, their collaboration based on self-interest rather than commonality, but in the end
potentially transformative. Through collaboration, often starting with activities of low risk
and obvious benefit, actors start to trust each other and build relationships (Baker 1993).
66
While collaboration is often used as a synonym for cooperation (Schneider 2007),
collaboration is generally longer term and reflects a greater degree of interdependency
and sharing of resources, rewards, and risks (Winer and Ray 1994). Cooperation is
defined by Patchell (1996, 481 in Broadbent 2006) as ―a voluntary agreement entered into
for mutual benefit‖ and by Taylor-Powell et al. (1998, 4) as ―a relationship in which
parties with similar interests plan together, negotiate mutual roles and share resources to
achieve joint goals.‖ These joint goals may not necessarily be self-serving. Research by
Silk (2006 in Schuman 2006) suggests that humans will cooperate even when they don‘t
benefit themselves. Winer and Ray
Table 7 Definitions of collaboration
(1994) suggest that cooperation
 ―a process through which parties who see different
tends to be shorter term, consist of aspects of a problem can explore constructively their
actors with separate goals, differences and search for (and implement) solutions
that go beyond their own limited vision of what is
resources, and structures and is possible,‖ the collaborative has authority (Taylor-
Powell et al. 1998, 4)
often informal, while collaboration
 ―to co-labor, to cooperate to achieve common goals
and partnerships tend to entail working across boundaries in multi-sector
more formal arrangements. relationships‖ Henton et al (2005, 3)
Partnerships are a formal  a firm commitment to reciprocal support and an

agreed upon participatory, democratic approach to
version of cooperation (Taylor- decision-making (Baker 1993)
Powell et al. 1998) also used in  typically involves a jointly developed structure,
relatively long term relationships, shared
collaboration.10 In Canada, responsibility, authority and accountability for
partnerships involving multiple success, sharing of resources, risks, and rewards
(Lukas and Andrews 2007)
levels of government, community
groups, individuals, businesses and business groups ―are increasingly seen as the primary
vehicle for bringing about community development‖ (Freshwater et al. 1993, 3).
Partnerships tend to be involved in the management of change, including the formation
and implementation of policy and/or development projects and programs, and involve a
limited number of actors (often expanded in collaboration) working towards one or more
common objectives. They often focus on only a portion of the policy cycle. Coordination
implies deliberate joint relations, often formal, involving joint planning and assignment of
10
Baker (1993) suggests partnerships, as formal, often legal arrangements are further along the relationship
continuum than collaboration. This is not the interpretation used here.
67
roles, some sharing of information, resources and/or risks and complementary goals.
Authority and responsibilities remain, however, with the individual actors. Networking
typically involves sharing of information and ideas (communication) without shared
commitment, planning or common goals (Baker 1993).
The level of integration and intensity associated with relationships between actors
can be described on a continuum between competition and merger or full integration (see
Figure 7). The involvement of a set of actors in one type of relationship does not preclude
the same set of actors from involvement in another. Relationships may also evolve over
time, moving along the continuum in either direction but often toward greater degrees of
integration. RUPRI (2006, 10) describes collaboration as ―the highest and most difficult
level of working with others.‖
Comm'n Coop-
Conflict or Coord- Collab- Merger/
Networking eration/
Competition ination oration Full integration
Dialogue Partnership
Figure 7 Relationship continuum

Source: Modified from Taylor-Powell et al (1998)
If governance is the process of steering society and is to involve an increasingly

wide variety of interdependent actors in this process, collaboration among these actors
will be required in establishing the direction in which society should be steered and
methods and techniques for getting there. Competition among diverse, self-interested
actors is a key characteristic of a CASES and its self-organizing behaviour. While
competition can generate innovation it can also stall or prevent significant reform
(Homer-Dixon 2000). Waldrop (1992) points out that competition and cooperation are
required to create coherency and stability (robustness) within a system. Broadbent (2006,
18) suggests that, ―in a competitive environment, cooperation is the process of mediating
competition to create desirable effects for the parties involved‖ (Smith et al. 1995, 10).
Many advocates of the ‗subsidiarity principle,‘ particularly in Europe, have shifted
focus to the need for multi-level governance, with networks of all levels working together
more effectively, and to the ‗partnership principle‘ (Schilling 1997; Leygues 2001; Ansell
2000; Working Group on Multi-level Governance 2001). Sabel (2004, 3-9) points out that
advocates for either top-down or bottom-up approaches are assuming there is a particular
68
actor or group of actors at a particular level who knows best what should be done, rather
than multiple actors discovering together ―what they need to do, and how to do it,‖
benefiting from both a local and ―more panoramic‖ view. Just as multi-level analysis is
recommended for CASES, Levin (1999) suggests that multi-level governance is
appropriate ―because a priori, ‗the‘ appropriate spatial level is not known.‖
This thesis employs the term ‗collaborative governance‘ (Armstrong and Lenihan
1999), introduced in Chapter 1. Collaborative governance is an approach within the
centralization/decentralization divide that recognizes the increasing complexity and
interconnectedness of policy networks and communities, and integrates actors both
vertically and horizontally (horizontal referring to issues and objectives as well as actors
at any given scale). Buttimer (2001) points out strengths at both local and higher levels
through the concept of ―discretionary reach‖. Top-down governments have managerial
abilities, access to information and influence that cannot be matched at the local level,
despite expansions in local reach due to technology and changing power relationships.
Local communities, by contrast, have strengths related to their way of life, familiarity
with local issues and connections to livelihood, social and cultural traditions, and local
ecosystems.
Henton et al. (2005) observe that collaborative governance is itself a complex
adaptive system that emerges to meet new requirements for solving public problems.
Taylor-Powell et al. (1998, p.1) suggest that collaborative approaches respond to complex
problems, resource shortages, social fragmentation, disengaged citizens and rapid,
sweeping change. Collaborative governance represents a holistic approach to public
engagement and participation that provides an opportunity to embed governance systems
with greater transparency, accountability, and legitimacy. This holistic approach has the
potential to address society‘s needs more effectively than any individual sector(s) has
been able to achieve. Henton et al. (2005) suggest that collaborative governance can be
both characterized and evaluated on the degree to which it is representative, deliberative,
offers concrete ideas, is taken seriously by decision-makers, sustainable (vs. occasional)
and tied to implementation.
Other related terms include: multi-level (Armitage 2008; Environment Canada
1999), shared (Brown 1999), mixed, partnership-based, joint (Tremblay and Rousseau
69
2005), distributed (Paquet 1999) or multicentric governance (Wolfish and Smith 2000),
each adding emphasis to a particular aspect or suggesting a particular governance
approach. Within the coastal context, integrated coastal management (ICM) incorporates
a broad range of coastal values, uses and stakeholders in a planning and management
framework. Other associated terms include coastal planning, coastal zone planning,
coastal zone management, and integrated coastal zone management (Meltzer 1998;
Vodden et al. 2003). The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (1998)
suggests that the multifaceted character of coastal issues and the need for a holistic
management approach is now widely recognized. Examples of actors included in the
coastal management policy community are shown in Table 8 below, each category itself
diverse, acting at multiple scales ranging and within multiple policy subsystems
addressing multiple policy issues (shown above in Tables 4 and 5), all of which are
interconnected.
Table 8 The coastal development policy community
 Governments: international, national, provincial, First Nations, regional, municipal

 Business/industry interests: fishing, aquaculture, tourism, forestry, mining/petroleum,
arts etc. (small and large, local and global)
 Civil society: communities of interest (environmental NGOs, groups by gender, age,
ethnicity, income, labour – typically grouped by industry sector in many cases, e.g.
fishing unions) and of place (diverse and not fully represented by local government)
 Public at large/individual citizens
Given this complexity, it is appropriate to examine the concept of coastal governance

from both a complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) and a collaborative
governance perspective.
The literature on CASES reviewed in Chapter 2 suggests that, for significant
policy shifts to occur, change must be multi-level, cascading throughout the system.
Coalitions must be built, mutual dependency recognized and values aligned (Bryson and
Crosby, 1992). Whatever the specific form of collective action leading to this
transformation, both opportunities and challenges will surely arise. Opportunities and
challenges discussed in the literature are presented in Table 9.
Both opportunities and challenges are related to the recognition and management
of conflict among diverse interests. Constructive conflict management is facilitated by
70
Table 9 Challenges and opportunities of collaborative governance
Benefits/Opportunities
 decision-making is better informed with more diverse information
 increased regional problem-solving capacity, including the ability to solve problems in
conditions of uncertainty
 more options for testing policies
 more flexibility to address new issues in a timely manner
 programs more sensitive to local conditions and more likely to achieve their objectives
 higher levels of acceptance and compliance due to stakeholder involvement in matters
involving management and legislation
 increased transparency in decision-making, providing checks and balances on authority
and holding multiple stakeholders mutually accountable
 enhanced trust and relationships between residents and government
 enhanced sense of common purpose, cultural norms and values, including values of
cooperation, public civicness or civic engagement
 potential to re-energize and reconnect fragmented systems
 empowerment of participating actors, a broadened notion of democracy
 opportunities to create economies of scale, share costs, reduce duplication and access a
wider range of resources
Disadvantages/Challenges
 confusion of institutions, an unruly process
 conflict and unsuccessful collaboration can reduce social capital, disempower participants
 difficulty of creating the conditions for collective action to emerge from a diverse group
of interests each with its own, often divergent goals
 attempts to build consensus may minimize or delegitimize conflict and difference,
features that support diversity and system resilience
 balancing the benefits of diversity and redundancy with practicality and limited
capabilities for dealing with complexity
 time and resource intensive process
 little evidence that collaborative governance is better able to avoid implementation failure
than traditional policy approaches
 limited ability to modify behaviour or improve ecological or socio-economic conditions
at national or broader scales
 challenges long-cherished Canadian institutions and assumptions about effective
governance, such as democratic definitions of legitimacy, public interest determined by
elected officials and expressed through policy decisions and laws
 lack of accountability in a system of many nested layers, including organizations whose
leaders may not be elected
Sources: Gunderson and Holling (2001); Savoie (1992); Sabel (2004); Roman and Moore (2004);
Scheffer et al. (2001); Coe (2006); Taylor-Powell et al. (1998); Vodden (2005); Dicken (2007);
Hayter (2000); Le Gales (1998); Tremblay and Rousseau (2005); Meltzer (1998); Welch (2002);
Kernaghan and Langford (1990); Poncelet (2001); Bickers and Williams (2001)
trust and an ability to recognize, understand and learn from difference (Taylor-Powell
1998). Echoing Hale and Robadue‘s (2002) statement that effective and committed
leadership is considered essential to sustainable coastal management, Folke et al. (2005,
71
441) suggest the importance of leaders or ―key persons‖ that ―provide leadership, trust,
vision, meaning, and help transform management organizations toward a learning
environment.‖ When present within a collaborative governance system these
characteristics can contribute to learning and group confidence. However, when conflict
management capacity is lacking, collaborative governance systems are vulnerable to
breakdown.
Recent research on governance and interactive governance theory has investigated
the governability of various systems and impacts of governability on the ability of
governance systems to address urgent concerns within these systems (Johnson and
Kooiman 2008; Jentoft 2007; Galaz et al. 2007, Meydani and Doron 2007; Cárdenas
2008). These authors suggest that the ability to govern is a function of governing systems
but also of the systems-to-be-governed and interactions between the two, similar to
Bossel (2001)‘s notion of an "affecting" (governance) system and its contribution to and
relationships with "affected" systems (systems-to-be governed).
Complexity, vulnerability, conflict and dynamism are key system features that
impact governability. It is has been argued above that complexity exists and must be
further understood. Authors such as Homer-Dixon (2000) and Holling and Gunderson
(2001) suggest that management institutions must become more complex to adjust to
increasingly coupled and complex nature-society systems. However, research on
governability suggests that careful consideration is needed when adding complexity to
governing systems, such as adding new ―regions‖ to the multiple scales of collaborative
governance. The benefits of diversity and even redundancy, described in Chapter 2, must
be balanced with the practicality and limited capabilities of governance systems to deal
with complexity.
Jentoft (2007, 8) suggests that ―coastal systems may be too diverse, complex,
dynamic and vulnerable to be fully controlled‖ by governing systems. Wescott (2002)
advises that the complexity of coastal management can confuse and deter important
capacity building efforts. He advocates staying ―to the simple side of complex,‖ at least
until after capacity is built. Jentoft (2007) adds that governability can be enhanced
through improvements in the governing system, adjustments in the systems-to-be-
governed to make them easier to control, or by altering interactions between the two
72
systems so that they are more constructive and less difficult and costly. The adaptive
cycle reminds us that there is a threshold of complexity that, if surpassed, can push a
system into a breakdown. At the same time, degradation of coastal systems illustrates the
implications of governance systems that ignore or oversimplify complex social-ecological
interconnections.
Finally, there is little evidence to date that collaborative governance is better able
to avoid implementation failure than traditional policy approaches, in part due to the
range of challenges described above. Meltzer (1998) reports that, although local impacts
have been achieved, few such initiatives have become functioning management systems
or changed conditions at national or broader scales. Like the notion of pluralism criticized
since the 1960s, collaborative governance is accused of underestimating structural power
relationships, particularly pro-capitalist bias, within social systems, and for being
unrealistic about the ability of new governance configurations to mediate among
competing interests given these power imbalances.
3.3.1 Power
Power relationships have a significant impact on collaborative governance processes. For

many, changing power relations is a fundamental aim of collaboration. Stoker (2000 in
ESPON 2005) identifies four types of power:
1. Systemic power which is ―a matter of context… or ‗logic‘ of the situation‖ (Stone

1980, 979), including the position of actors in society and socio-economic structures;
2. Power of command and control and mobilisation of resources, including
information, finances, reputation, and knowledge;
3. Coalition power, providing the capacity to bargain rather than control; and
4. Pre-emptive power, which requires leadership and the bringing together of group
interests to solve collective action problems, build capacity, and guide policy
responses.
Powerful actors can shape the rules of self-organization and suppress differences
and conflict by silencing certain voices (Scheffer et al. 2001). Lebel (2005) observes
relationships between scale and power. The nation-state, for example, has greater access
to resources and information than local actors. Power is also unevenly distributed within a
given scale. Those with systemic and command power (typically at higher levels of
73
geographic scale and authority) have an advantage in governance relations. However, this
advantage can ultimately only be used if this power is turned into pre-emptive power –
achieving results through collective action (ESPON 2005; Pritchard and Sanderson 2001).
In ―a shared-power world,‖ Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) argue that tackling major public
issues requires sharing objectives, resources and authority. Thus power does not depend
wholly on material control, such as legal authority or financial resources. Stone (1986)
emphasizes the role of strategic knowledge and a capacity to act on that knowledge as
additional components of the ‗political capital‘ that makes an actor an attractive partner or
policy network member.
Abrams et al. (2003) describe six key powers of governance: 1) regulatory and
planning, 2) spending, 3) revenue generation, 4) access to information, 5) ability to enter
into agreements, and 6) enforcement of decisions, rules and regulations. Although policy
implementation usually depends upon more powerful actors, weaker institutions can play
an important role as mediators between different interests or can gain influence through
their ability to communicate their goals and strategies to a wider public (Davoudi et al.
2004). Non-government actors can increase their influence by positioning themselves in
strategic roles, such as that of a bridging organization, within policy networks (Stoker
1995). "Bridging organizations" can lower the costs of collaboration and conflict
resolution, thus influencing decision-making processes through all but the first of Stoker‘s
power types (Folke et al. 2005). Systemic power can also be gained over time. Power is
contested and dynamic, changing at multiple spatial scales (Gill and Reed 1999).
Many CASES literature sources pay little attention to the subject of power
relations. Scheffer et al. (2001), however, discuss the superiority of certain actors,
creating political bias and impacting the domains of attraction within systems. Levin
(1999) suggests that shifting to multi-level assessment and decision-making can be
expected to empower participants who can work effectively at multiple levels, favouring
wealthy, better-educated, and more mobile participants such as international scientists and
diplomats. Special assistance or channels for minorities and vulnerable people to
participate are needed. Pritchard and Sanderson (2001) describe the ‗faces of power‘ in
political systems, explaining that actors seeking to gain power and influence change use
the notion of impending crisis in the adaptive cycle as a political tool. Power is also used
74
to question the knowledge of those who challenge the status quo, to resist change through
the imposition of an excessive burden of proof and to influence the public consciousness
(Pritchard and Sanderson 2001).
Who has the power to determine consensus and how that consensus is achieved
and presented to wider communities significantly influences policy outcomes. Moving
from a traditional model of hierarchical, government-controlled power to a system where
power is distributed more evenly between a variety of stakeholders and spatial scales has
the potential to encourage self-organization, moving from ―power over‖ to ―power to‖
(Douglas 2006). Clearly, both forms of power exist and create tension within CASES. If
power is truly to be shared, collaborative governance must move beyond the
administrative devolution of new public management to democratic devolution, involving
non-government actors in the steering and the rowing aspects of the policy process
(Morgan 2007). The challenge of uneven distribution of power among actors is
paramount in attempting to move toward a collaborative governance model. Options for
power sharing through process, structure and collaborative learning are discussed in the
sections to follow.
3.3.2 Structure and Process
Changes in governance require new organizational forms and processes to structure and
facilitate new relationships. Shifting from government to governance disrupts established
decision-making channels, networks and alliances. New arenas and forms of
representation within collaborative governance arrangements are being established, but
many questions remain about if, and how, a coherent, alternative approach can be formed
out of the fragmentation and inconsistency of the current era of experimentation (Stoker
2000; Stoker and Young 1993). What roles and responsibilities are to be played by
various actors? What specific models of decision-making should be employed? Under
what circumstances? Should governance relationships be long-term (e.g. constitutional or
legislated) or short-term and issue specific (e.g. polycentric, contingent)? How can open,
inclusive networks be created and sustained?
Partnerships operate through both structure and process (Moore and Pierre 1988).
Structure is the partnership‘s organisational form, such as a committee or development
75
corporation, while process involves the development of formal and informal linkages
between actors. A combination of both is required for multiple actors to collectively
formulate and implement policy objectives. Both structure and process or flows and more
fluid forms of organization, such as task or problem and learning-oriented networks, must
be considered along with formal organizations and institutions as potential governance
mechanisms.
Davoudi et al. (2005) suggest that mechanisms for interdepartmental coordination
are crucial for horizontal integration within government. While vertical coordination
mechanisms are dominated by actors with a traditional ―top-down‖ character there is also
increasing interest in the creation of partnerships and ‗bottom-up‘ initiatives that can
create institutional capacity at the regional level (OECD 2006). The importance of an
appropriate organizational and institutional framework to facilitate the undertaking of
increased responsibilities at the local and regional level is emphasized by a number of
authors (RCEU 1986; Cernea 1993; Massam 2000; Bryant 1999; Markey 2005).
Bryant (1999) questions whether formal government structures are capable of
handling complex, dynamic situations. Researchers such as Jessop (1995) and Stoker
(1997) suggest that governance within complex systems must involve a change from
hierarchical structures to more flexible, ‗flatter‘ partnership and networking forms. While
a hierarchy implies more power at higher levels (larger scales), a heterarchy is a network
of elements sharing power and responsibility with no one person, group or element
dominating (Fairtlough 2005). While hierarchy represents a system with centralized
power, a heterarchy is described as decentralized, pluralistic and flexible (Reihlin 1996).
Power and responsibility are shared on an equal basis but also in a problem-specific
manner, valuing different types of skills, knowledge and styles and their applicability to a
given situation. Formal organizational design is minimal, relying on cultural integration
more than supervision from above, competition and autonomy balanced with cooperation
and collective norms. Buenza and Stark (2003) argue that heterarchical structures
contribute to responsiveness and resilience.
Advocates of heterarchical structures emphasize a functional approach to
governance. Brunnenn (2006), for example, refers to governance as the harnessing of
existing institutions and administrative units ―in new ways on a fluid, voluntary basis.‖
76
Agreements related to specific objectives and tasks are used as key tools. Governance
arrangements may include, for example, higher and lower levels of government reaching
agreements on specific objectives or independent administrative regions making decisions
―through multiple, overlapping webs of interlocal agreements,‖ a complex networks
approach (Savitch and Kantor 2003, 1018).
Coe (2006, 6) suggests that traditional territorial divisions are specialized
jurisdictions, with minimal overlap of policy responsibilities, ―generally stable, rigid
institutions structured in hierarchies‖ with ―a clear division between the governance
network and private and not-for-profit sectors.‖ By contrast, functional governance
includes narrowly focused governance arrangements which may overlap multiple
territorial jurisdictions, characterized by interactions between actors that may include
both the private and not-for-profit sectors in the governance framework. Coe (2006)
suggests that regional cooperation is more likely when the focus is on sectors such as
transportation, communication, and the environment, which cut across particular
territorial regions and creates a common interest in outcomes.
Brunnenn (2006) suggests that new forms of functional governance are fluid and
adaptable, actors and their positions within governance systems, including the level of
decentralization, determined by context (time, place and issue) (Tremblay and Rousseau
2005). Broad-based community involvement may not be effective for issues that are not
considered urgent by the general public, for example. Instead, a stakeholder-based
network may be most appropriate. Creech (2001) suggests that members in networks
must be carefully selected with clear criteria such as shared commitment to goals,
complementary mandates, expertise, access to decision-makers (‗connectors‘),
communications capacity, sectoral or regional representation, collaborative work culture,
size and cost considerations. Eoyang (1999) suggests that different actors and/or different
levels and types of interaction between actors may be required at different times in a
problem-solving or policy cycle. The needs of the network may also change as it moves
through the four phases of forming, organizing, formalizing and institutionalizing (Creech
2001).
Forms of structure and process in collaborative governance may also be fluid and
context dependent. Scheffer et al. (2001) suggest that, without changes in structures over
77
time, rigid patterns may be established that inhibit resilience and adaptive capacity,
creating a need to destroy, deinstitutionalize or open up the process (e.g. to new players or
rules), thus returning to the forming phase in the case of networks. Howlett and Ramesh
(1995) describe decision-making models and a network taxonomy dependent on factors
such as state capacity, complexity and influence of actors. Reihlen (1996) acknowledges
that heterarchies work best in certain circumstances, including where actors have high
levels of education, self-esteem and autonomy.
3.3.3 Territory and Function
Bickers and Williams (2001, 93) introduce the notion of polycentrism as a nested
governance structure made up of ―multiple, overlapping jurisdictions of varying
geographic scope‖ that include local organizations such as neighbourhood associations
right up to international bodies. Polycentric governance, they suggest, tends to be more
responsive and provides the ability to size governance structures according to the scale of
the problem being addressed. Zdravko (2002) cites literature dating back to the mid 1950s
arguing that polycentric order increases efficiency and allows citizens to choose among
different public goods at different scales of organization. Others use the term polycentric
governance to refer to distributed, multi-centred control rather than focusing on service
delivery. McGinnis (1999), for example, suggests that community-based natural resource
management works best within a polycentric governance context with multiple
overlapping centers of authority and responsibility, from local to global, formal and
informal. This interpretation of polycentricity combines notions of territory and function
and is compatible with the collaborative governance and complex systems approach
described above.
Overlapping, multi-level governance systems provide flexibility but also stability
and recognition of territory. Pritchard and Sanderson (2001) suggest that determining the
most appropriate scale for decision-making in a given situation depends on who has the
best information, the scale of externalities and the capacity for collective action. Levin
(1999) suggests that scale choices may have to be modified as understanding and
perceptions change over time. While flexibility is important, Stoker (2000 in ESPON
2005) suggests that governing coalitions must also provide stability, with access to
78
institutional resources and a sustained role in decision-making. Further, forming new
alliances and structures as each new problem arises is a resource and time-consuming
process.
Holistic approaches such as integrated coastal management recognize and account
for real-world system complexity, in part by combining multiple issues and functions.
Increased attention to local and place-based territorial development runs counter to the
historic dominance of sector-based development strategies (Buttimer 2001; OECD 2006).
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)‘s ―new rural
paradigm,‖ for example, seeks to integrate sectoral policies and improve policy
coherence. Particularly where local boundaries are defined in accordance with
ecosystems, place-based governance is compatible with the ecosystem-based approach
recommended in sustainable resource management literature (Prescott Allen 2005).
Morgan (2007, 3) suggests territorial politics is becoming more rather than less important,
with debates about ―how it is constituted, by whom and in whose interests.‖
In contemplating a governance approach that is both vertically and horizontally
integrated, both area and issue or sector-based (territorial and functional) patterns of
human activity must be taken into account, including considerations of conflicts between
them. Territorial governance is not necessarily rigid or hierarchical. It was argued in
Chapter 2 that local and regional territories are the ideal context for integration and offer
opportunities for innovation and change. Functional approaches do not preclude territorial
ones. Experiences in watershed management, which will be described in Chapter 7, for
example, often start by addressing specific issues and then build to more integrated
approaches. Governance approaches that propose to be either territorial or functional,
hierarchical or heterarchical do not fully reflect the reality of CASES, which involve a
constant negotiation of balance between such dichotomies.
3.4 Learning Systems and the Adaptive Dimension of Collaborative Governance
Complexity theory suggests that, for communities and other systems to survive, prosper,
and be sustainable, they must create and maintain adaptive capability as well as resilience
(Bunnell 2002). The temporal dimension of governance is critical here. Governance is a
dynamic process drawing resilience from knowledge, skills and experience gained from
79
the past and from the capacity to anticipate and plan for the future (Tremblay and
Rousseau 2005). In resilient systems, when a system is pushed beyond its threshold of
tolerance new patterns of behaviour (‗learning‘) result. These new patterns may repeat
those of other systems of its kind (‗development‘) or produce new patterns and thresholds
of behaviour (‗evolution‘).
Folke et al. (2005), Walker et al. (2006) and others suggests that it is through
adaptive, collaborative governance that resilient systems are made possible, and through
the benefit of experience that social-ecological systems are able to renew and reorganize
during periods of abrupt change (crisis). Building on the learning characteristics of
adaptive management (Holling 1978), collaborative governance involves a diverse set of
stakeholders, often at multiple levels, self-organizing in social networks, drawing on
diverse knowledge systems and experiences to develop common understandings and
policies, and makes use of times of crisis to transition to a more desired state (Folke et al.
2005).
Authors such as Schon (1973; 1983) have argued that ‗change‘ is a fundamental
feature of modern life and that it is necessary to develop social systems that can learn and
adapt through ―reflection-in-action‖. Lee (1999, 1) notes that the idea of social learning
through adaptive management has been weak to date in its practical application, but ―is
likely to be of strategic importance in governing ecosystems as humanity searches for a
sustainable economy.‖ Adaptive management and social learning approaches to policy-
making, within the broader context of complexity theory, recognize uncertainty and
limitations in information and understanding. The monitoring and evaluation phase of the
policy cycle provides important opportunities for learning (Hoberg 2001). In adaptive
governance, management plans include experimental design and encourage learning and
novelty. Through monitoring and evaluation actors ―learn about the consequences of
policies as they are implemented,‖ linking these lessons to subsequent stages of the cycle
(Hoberg 2001, 7).
Argyris and Schon (1974) emphasize the importance of learning strategies that
involve not just corrective action in a specific situation (single loop learning) but a re-
evaluation of governing goals, policies, values, ‗mental maps‘ and doctrines (double loop
learning). ESPON (2005) observes that the motivation for participation in partnerships
80
often changes as relationships develop, the economic and political climate changes and/or
policy goals are achieved. Motivations as well as methods are reassessed and evaluated
over time, with the potential to lead not only to knowledge but also to wisdom.11
Routinely questioning ends as well as means institutionalizes social learning. Authors
such as Howlett and Ramesh (1995) and Paquet (1999) suggest that social learning
requires collective changes in understanding related to values, moral reasoning and
perceptions, theories or images of reality. This more fundamental learning, they suggest,
is made possible through collective practice.
Scheffer et al. (2001) suggest that the emergence of common value sets over time,
facilitated by collaboration, is a prerequisite for increasing resilience and reducing
uncertainty. One of these values is respect for ecological limits. Bossel (2001) suggests
that a system can be viable and sustainable only if the constraints imposed by
fundamental environmental properties are recognized and respected. This requires an
understanding of these constraints that is in its infancy. The Resilience Alliance and Santa
Fe Institute (2004), for example, have only begun to gather evidence of thresholds in
ecological and linked social-ecological systems. Knowledge of appropriate values is
required within governance systems for sustainable development to occur, recognizing,
for example, that resilience can be degraded by subsidies that encourage unsustainable
use of natural resources or policies that exacerbate inequity (Ommer et al. 2007).
Sabel (2004, 4) suggests that in ―networked, experimentalist organizations‖
monitoring is more concerned with information for improvement than measuring
outcomes or judging effectiveness. Improvement-based evaluation is most likely to result
in single loop learning and incremental changes in strategy or technique. However, when
evaluation results are used to shed light on goals, ways of thinking and worldviews
underlying governance structure and processes, they also offer potential for social
learning and transformative rather than incremental change (Howlett and Ramesh 1995,
Argyris and Schon 1978; Holling et al. 2002). Hodge and Robinson (2001) suggest that
re-evaluation of ideology over time has resulted in cyclical characteristics in regional
11
Wisdom is defined as ―the capacity of judging rightly in matters relating to life and conduct‖ (Simpson
and Weiner eds. 1989, Oxford Dictionary).
81
planning, moving from territorial to functional approaches, changes in ideology changing
practice, in turn changing ideology and so on.
Evaluation requires information12 throughout the policy cycle as a key input to the
subsystem. Learning is dependent on the generation and sharing of information and, more
importantly, knowledge (Lutz and Neis 2008). Acceptance of incomplete knowledge is
required in CASES governance (Holling 1994). Information can, however, reduce
uncertainty through assessment of the present situation, possible futures (e.g. forecasting/
scenarios) and lessons from the past (GESAMP 2001). Information used as knowledge
brings information/data together with understanding based on theory and/or practical
experience. Lutz and Neis (2004, 1) describe knowledge as a product of history and social
processes, ―the culmination of the effort to conceptualize a problem … to some degree
partial and situated…‖ Knowledge combines information with critical abilities,
experiences and worldviews, all components of knowledge systems.
An adaptive, collaborative governance approach acknowledges multiple forms of
knowledge, from theoretical or abstract to detailed landscape knowledge from a range of
sources. The ‗feedback loops‘ that operate throughout these networks of actors, described
in Chapter 2, are critical (Smith 2001), allowing learning to be converted into adaptation.
Feedback loops in adaptive governance occur based on inputs from the full range of
available knowledge sources, including, among others: a) ―western‖ scientific knowledge
(natural and social sciences), b) local knowledge (LK), c) traditional aboriginal
knowledge (TK) 13 and d) experiential knowledge of policy and decision making
processes (Dobell and Bunton 2001).
Making room for a plurality of knowledge systems requires acknowledgement of
the role of science in addressing uncertainty in complex systems, but also the role of the
scientist/professional in the largely unsuccessful linear, deterministic management models
of the past (Dobell and Bunton 2001). Roth (2001) suggests, ―we need to get away from
seeing scientific knowledge as a sort of standard, against which all other knowledge
12
―Data gathered from any source organized so it has some relationship to a question or problem‖ (Lutz
and Neis 2004, 1).
13
TK is an extension of the more common term TEK. While TEK refers to traditional ―ecological‖
knowledge, TK is intended to recognize the broad, holistic nature of this knowledge – including ecological,
but also economic, political, cultural, social aspects. LK is distinguished from TK to acknowledge the
unique multi-generational nature of traditional knowledge held by First Nations peoples about their
territories. LK/TK is not just ―data‖ but a set of values and a way of seeing the world.
82
systems must be judged.‖ Civil society is no longer willing to take government or
corporate information at face value or as its sole information input in decision-making
processes. Citizens have their own expert opinions to contribute, whether based on lived
experiences, ‗scientific‘ research or their own professional advisors. As their involvement
in decision-making has grown, stakeholders such as local communities and conservation
groups have become more sophisticated and often more powerful, forcing conventional
powerbrokers, who are often information poor, to acknowledge that other sources and
forms of knowledge deserve recognition and have validity and that even the most
sophisticated science can be proven wrong.
Each kind of knowledge has strengths and weaknesses, similarities and
differences. By triangulating among them knowledge is enhanced. Differences exist in
scale and specificity, for example. Western science may look at a very specific
characteristic of larger systems where local knowledge has a more holistic understanding
of a smaller-scale local area. TEK is endangered as elders pass on and young people rely
on and use the land less. Natural resource-related science is also be endangered by
government cutbacks. All types of knowledge rely on methods of repeated observation
and adaptation based on learning over time, and have values embedded in them, including
the value of objectivity in western science.
Identified advantages of incorporating local knowledge in land and resource use
planning include: increased observation scope and depth (e.g. over long time periods),
tendency to take an integrated, holistic view, cost savings by pointing researchers ―in the
right direction,‖ maximizing local involvement and buy-in, and capturing vulnerable
historical knowledge. In some cases the incentives are also legal, as is the case with
recognizing First Nations, interests, values and traditions within their traditional
territories. No one is better able to bring information about the needs of local citizens and
what, for them, constitutes quality of life than residents themselves. Case studies in
cooperative resource management demonstrate that community members are likely to
bring quality of life objectives forward in planning processes and to represent a more
complex suite of values than other interests. Sims (1988, 188-189) points out, however,
that local actors can also benefit from conventional science not only in improving their
83
understanding of the specific but also from the more theoretical or abstract knowledge
and perspectives often brought to the development process by actors at broader scales:
There is a system of cause and effect. If all people feel is the effect, without
understanding the cause, they are powerless. It is no accident that the
centralization of power is accomplished by controlling access to information,
which is one of the sources of knowledge…the exercise of citizenship calls for a
deeper understanding of the workings of human society.
McLaren (2008) suggests that knowledge-sharing combined with stewardship can

have significant social and environmental outcomes: ―Stewardship is succinctly
summarized as empowering community members to act directly on their local knowledge,
values and motivations to protect the natural environment… At all levels, when
stewardship is in place, knowledge quality improves over legislated sanctions, and
knowledge flow is increased… we create much-needed trust and goodwill by sharing our
information and knowledge in an appropriate manner.‖
Information and knowledge are clearly matters of dialogue and negotiation in the
collaborative governance process. Collaborative governance involves collaborative
knowledge generation and management. The degree to which knowledge is shared and
integrated into decision-making will depend on capacities, values and relationships within
the policy network along with network structure and history. Andersson and Hoskins
(2004) suggest that ―the right information, flowing to all major actors and being used for
decision making, can make a difference,‖ but that ―traditional, top-down project decision
making often induces information-for-control rather than information-for-learning.‖
Further, different knowledge systems employ different languages that can be difficult to
reconcile (Pritchard and Sanderson 2001) while trust issues and information ―hoarding‖
must also be addressed. Hassink (2005) in Brunenn (2006) suggests that learning regions
can help alleviate ―political lock-ins‖ and destructive path dependencies. However, these
same path dependencies, combined with political and economic motivations, often block
the open flow of information, knowledge and learning (Gibson et al. 2008), resulting in
lost opportunities for building resilience and adaptive capability.
Authors such as Diamond (2005; 1997), Tainter (1988; 1996) and Wright (2004)
provide historical examples of societies where the mechanisms required to generate, share
84
and apply knowledge and thus avoid destructive behaviour have failed, leading to societal
collapse. Hutchings (2005) and Gallaugher (2005) provide modern examples of the
Northern cod fishery in NL and salmon aquaculture in BC. Barriers or ‗resistors‘ to the
integration of science and policymaking include failure to acknowledge and communicate
scientific uncertainty, unwillingness to acknowledge alternative hypotheses, interference
and misrepresentation in the communication of science (Hutchings 2005). Disagreement
among scientists and within coastal communities, conflict of interest within the Fisheries
and Oceans Canada‘s mandate, lack of transparency and open, transparent dialogue, lack
of coordination at institutional and industry levels, lack of funding and science capacity
are additional factors. Despite these challenges, alternative examples exist where sharing
of knowledge among a range of stakeholders is integrated into decision-making and
adaptive management (Gallaugher 2005; Gibson et al. 2008). Enabling factors in these
cases include local leadership, supportive political leaders and policy frameworks, multi-
level communications and partnerships, appropriate incentives, education,
implementation and enforcement.
Overall participants in a global ―Changing Currents‖ dialogue observe that
widespread institutional failure to protect the future of marine ecosystems and
biodiversity prevails at all levels, in part due to ineffective incorporation of knowledge
into decision-making processes and in particular lack of transparency and clear
communication (Gallaugher et al. 2005). Adaptive management challenges actors at all
levels: the research community to experiment with management and research of whole
systems rather than system components, the management community to develop policies
that embrace uncertainty by being adaptive and flexible, and the policy development
community to better integrate stakeholder insights and more holistic, careful analyses into
policy recommendations (UW 2005). Gallaugher (2005) and Hutchings (2005) emphasize
the importance of communicating broadly the results of each of these efforts to spread
learning as widely as possible and avoid knowledge blockages through policy networks
and communities.
In summary, the need to balance top-down and bottom-up approaches to
development is a challenge raised repeatedly in the literature on sustainability.
Collaborative, multi-level, adaptive governance may provide a workable alternative to the
85
rigid, top down structures that have led to current unsustainable development paths, but
considerably more work is required to define how this broad concept can be applied in
practice. Despite the arguments presented above and in Chapter 2 that the sub-provincial
region may hold particular promise in bridging the community-provincial/federal divide
in Canada, this suggestion has yet to be fully evaluated. Boundaries and scale are only
one aspect of the new approach to regional and local development called for by the
sustainable development agenda. Equally important are the actors that play a part at each
of these levels, their roles, the scope of issues to be addressed and structures and
processes to be employed. Partnerships with public, private and civil society sectors in
developing and implementing policy decisions are already in place worldwide, resulting
in an array of new governance institutions and practices. This era of governance
experimentation offers a valuable opportunity for learning that has not been taken full
advantage of. Drawing from cases in coastal British Columbia, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland and Labrador this research helps capture this potential for social learning
and adaptation.
86
4 – Research Framework and Methodology
4.1 Research Paradigm, Epistemology and Methodological Approach
As discussed in previous chapters, this research has been conducted within a sustainable
development paradigm using an overarching complex adaptive social-ecological systems
(CASES) approach. Within this overall systems approach particular attention has been
paid to policy systems, in particular regional economic development (RED) and
watershed management sub-systems, and to the scale of the sub-provincial region,
recognized as one level in a nested hierarchy of interrelated scales. The methodological
approach employed is primarily exploratory and qualitative.
Like the theoretical framework upon which it is based, the research methodology
seeks to balance rather than position itself within dichotomies such as inductive versus
deductive, or positivist versus interpretivist. While positivism emphasizes certainty,
emerging complex adaptive systems theory embraces contingency, openness, and
surprise. The research is designed to ensure the most accurate picture of ―reality‖
possible, seeking conclusions that may have wider application (e.g. to other regions)
while at the same time recognizing limits to objectivity and certainty. Other
methodological underpinnings include: awareness of my own role in the research process,
reflection on the potential and probable influence of personal and respondent values,
recognition of limitations in my ability to understand the case study situations and
broader systems of which they are part, along with an action research orientation (seeking
to explore a complex problem but also to facilitate change).
A research framework based on an interdisciplinary body of literature was
developed to guide the research. While the research does not ―test‖ a predetermined
model of collaborative coastal governance, potential themes and outcomes of the research
were anticipated based on literature review. With care not to restrict data collection and
analysis, the research framework served as a guide throughout the research process.
The research utilizes a comparative case study research design to understand how
theoretical models are applied in practice and to draw lessons from their application for
both practice and theory. Wolfe (2000) and others describe this as grounded theory
building, the use of higher level theories or concepts in specific contexts to determine if
87
such general theories have empirical relevance and practical usefulness (Gephart 1999).
Eisenhardt (1989) suggests that case studies are an appropriate tool for use in grounded or
mid-level theory building. Yin (2002) adds that case studies are appropriate for the
exploratory study of complex social phenomena and offer the advantage of a holistic
perspective on real-life events. Demetrion (2004) elaborates, stating that, where we seek
to understand, not just describe, the behaviour of agents and where causal attribution may
be susceptible to multiple explanations, as is the case in CASESs, the ―thick‖ description
of case study analysis may be required. Given the complexity of coastal governance and
the relative infancy of governance studies (Paquet 2000) and the CASES approach, an
exploratory case study approach was adopted for this study.
Use of a comparative rather than single case study method provided an
opportunity to explore multiple collaborative governance approaches and possible causes
of and paths to positive, sustainable development outcomes (Ragin 2000; Eisenhardt
1989), and to contribute to the elaboration of evolving CASES theory (Aus 2005). The
comparative approach addresses in part criticisms that case study methodology is limited
in scope to specific unique situations. Comparative analysis between cases, coupled with
findings from literature review, provided insight into the broader applicability of research
findings, including potential for application in different social-ecological settings and
policy fields.
4.2 Analytical Framework - Theory and Practice
The literature review in the related fields of community and regional development, rural
and resource geography, sustainable development, integrated coastal zone management
(ICM) and public management presented above formed the basis of the research
questions, collaborative governance approach and analytical framework. The analytical
framework includes the following seven components: a) sustainable development
outcomes, b) principles, c) actors and their relationships, d) operationalizing mechanisms
(structure and process), e) barriers/resistors and facilitators/enablers of change, f) scale
and g) context. Each of the seven elements relates to one or more of the research
questions described in Chapter 1 (see Table 10) and is described further below.
88
Table 10 Research questions and accompanying framework components
Research Question Framework Component
1. Have collaborative governance experiments • Sustainable development outcomes

14
advanced sustainable development in • Principles (defines parameters for evaluation
Canada‘s coastal regions? If so, how? (What • Described further in 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 below
benefits have been demonstrated?)
2. What governance and contextual  Compliance with principles

characteristics contribute to success in  Actors and their relationships
collaborative governance for sustainable  Operationalizing mechanisms (structures,
coastal development? processes, tools/procedures)
 Role of the sub-provincial region/
appropriate scale
 Context
 Links to outcomes
 See 4.2.1 to 4.2.7 below
3. What barriers and resistors exist to a shift  Barriers and resistors to change (see 4.2.5
toward collaborative governance and how below)
might these be overcome?  Links to other components (e.g. outcomes,
absence of principles, relationship or scale-
related issues, context)
The study‘s seven-component analytical framework is informed by Bryant‘s (1999)

seven-component model of community transformation, which includes actors, interests,
actions, networks, organizational structures (formal and informal), orientations (latent or
revealed) and context. In this research, elements related to actors, their interests and
relationships are grouped together as one component, while additional elements of
systems change are added. Bryant‘s structures element, for example, is broadened to
consider both the structures and processes that operationalize management and/or
development aims. Emphasis was also added on principles (overlapping with actor
interests), outcomes and governance scale.
14
Determined by examining positive changes in condition with one or more of the four areas of community
capital described below in section 3.2.1d.
89
4.2.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes
Key to progress in sustainable development and enhancing system resilience is social,

organizational and policy learning, requiring evaluation of the ―success‖ of collaborative
governance systems and initiatives (Paquet and Wilkins 2002; Gertler and Wolfe 2002).
Well-managed organizations want to know if their efforts are making a difference. Public
demands for accountability also call for monitoring and reporting of the results of public
policies and programs involving investments of public dollars (Mayne 2004).
Evaluating governance outcomes from a sustainable development perspective is
an important but difficult task (Savoie 1992). Given varying interpretations and the
complexity of sustainability problems, sustainable development goals are often
ambiguous and are continuously being redefined. The first evaluation challenge,
therefore, is establishing the results to be achieved and monitored. Lack of baseline data,
varied contexts, and the multidimensional, non-linear nature of the problems addressed
and resulting difficulty in making causal connections are additional challenges
(Armstrong et al. 2002). Further, there may be significant time lags in responses to
governance process and, thus, ―return on investment‖ (Jessop 1990). Olsen (2003)
suggests that the process of integrated coastal management (ICM), for example, requires
eight to fifteen years.
Collaborative efforts add additional challenges for evaluation practices based largely
on discrete programs or agencies. Like other sustainable development strategies
collaborative governance efforts, Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) explain, are often long-term,
evolving and dependent on many factors. Their goals are often broad, imprecise and may
be politically or emotionally charged. Individual collaborators may seek to identify their
contributions while the collaboration as a whole struggles to demonstrate synergies.
Taylor-Powell et al. (1998) suggest that evaluation within a collaborative setting is a
shared process, providing feedback and learning for continuous improvement and
adaptation. This requires a new way of thinking in contrast to the traditional evaluation-
programming separation.
Monitoring and evaluation, particularly indicators for assessing performance, is an
area of rich discussion in academia, civil society, public and private sectors. Indicators
provide a simplified view of complex phenomena and insight into trends that cannot be
90
directly observed (Rickaver et al. 2004). Examples of sustainable development indicator
initiatives have been developed worldwide at community, watershed, provincial/state,
national and international levels. Difficulties have been encountered in both
implementation and measurement. While indicators of ecological, social and economic
health are essential to track trends and issues over time, their utility is limited in
evaluating efforts that are difficult to link directly to these trends, particularly in the short
term. Researchers have thus turned their attention to measuring the processes or projects
put in place to pursue sustainability, tracking activities to outputs, immediate and where
possible longer term outcomes (or impacts) in logic models such as in the World Bank‘s
Input-Output-Outcome-Impact model (Segnestam 2002). Others, such as Markey et al.
(2005) and the Centre for Community Enterprise (1999), have proposed frameworks for
monitoring changes in community capacity and resilience. Olsen (2003) presents
outcomes of ICM initiatives in an ―orders of outcomes‖ framework (see Figure 8), which
Scale
National
Regional
Local Intermediate Outcomes End Outcomes
1st ORDER: 2nd ORDER: 3rd ORDER: 4th ORDER:

Enabling Changes in The Harvest Sustainable
Conditions Behaviour Coastal
Formalized Institutions, Some social Development
mandate stakeholder and/or
environment A desirable
Authority groups and dynamic
qualities
Management Directly maintained, balance
plan affecting restored or between
resources improved social and
Funding environment
Infrastructure
Local and Investment conditions is
national achieved
constituencies
Time
Figure 8 Orders of outcomes evaluation framework

Source: Adapted from Olsen (2003)
offers a sequence of outcomes that, if pursued successfully over long time periods, move
towards increasingly sustainable development.
91
This research entails what evaluation practitioners call an academic or theory-
based investigation, studying the links between objectives, values, principles activities,
outcomes, and contexts of an initiative (Connell and Kubisch 1998). Connell and Kubisch
(1998, 18) add that theory-based investigations can use several different methodologies -
―quantitative and qualitative, impact and process oriented, traditional and non-
traditional…‖ Outcome/impact, objective and process indicators were each used in
evaluating the case study governance models. Evidence of collaborative governance
outcomes in five areas of community sustainability (ecological, social, economic, cultural
and individual/human capital) was sought. Improvements in human and organizational
capacity that enhance governance capabilities were also considered as ―governance
system capacity‖ impacts. Indicators common to multiple cases were chosen where
possible, such as fish population trends in watershed cases (ecological), jobs and
businesses created (economic), relationships established (social) and protection of options
for the practice of traditional activities and ways of life (cultural). Relevant outcome
indicators were, however, dependent on contextual issues such as priority issues and
available data.
Observed outcomes were classified as either system capacity improvements
(orders one and two in Figure 8) or third order outcomes, ―physical evidence of progress
towards sustainable forms of coastal development‖ (Olsen 2003, 349). Both intended and
unintended outcomes were examined by comparing outcomes with stated goals and
objectives. Principles indicators, including both objectives and process measures, are
described further below. Outcomes from each case study are described in Chapter 8 and
Appendix 1.
Because causality is often difficult to clearly establish in a CASES (Eoyang and
Berkas 1998), the establishment of a counterfactual (―what would have happened in the
absence of the program‖) is complex (Hollister and Hill 1995, 127). Reflexive controls (a
comparison of target groups/conditions prior to and after an intervention) and shadow
controls (experience or expert opinion regarding what might have occurred without the
intervention) were employed (Rossi and Freeman 1993), in addition to Olsen‘s orders of
outcome model, to assist in addressing this concern. Comparative analysis provided
additional insight. The study is also influenced by other evaluation theories, including
92
empowerment evaluation (Fetterman et al. 1996) and needs assessment (Farrell et al.
2002). The empowerment model requires the involvement of members of the case study
initiatives throughout the research process. This research is not fully participatory but
does include aspects of participatory methodology (see data collection below), including
consultation with key contacts in each region throughout the research. Perhaps most
importantly this study is improvement and learning oriented.
The research draws upon recent and parallel evaluation processes underway in
each of the three regional economic development case studies, including an
Organizational Capacity Assessment of the Newfoundland Regional Economic
Development Boards (NLREDA 2005), a systematic impact assessment of Community
Futures organizations across Western Canada (Ference Weicker & Company 2002), and
the application of a logic model/performance story framework for analyzing contributions
of Regional Development Authorities in Nova Scotia15 (Chayter Consulting 2004; Mayne
2004). Evaluation models used in the case studies were themselves assessed, particularly
for proximity to an improvement and social learning-oriented model, as discussed in
Chapter 3. Howlett and Ramesh (1995) distinguish social learning from lesson-drawing,
formal and informal approaches to evaluation. They suggest that social learning is most
likely when state (or governance system) capacity and expertise, along with the level of
societal actor involvement in the policy subsystem, are high and that social learning takes
place outside of the formal policy process. Evidence was also sought to demonstrate that
evaluation results were incorporated into policy, adaptive or learning cycles, as discussed
in Chapter 9.
4.2.2 Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable Development
Principles shape actor behaviour and governance processes and outcomes. Societies,
organizations and individuals set forth principles as either rules or standards of
appropriate behaviour or what are considered basic laws/essential qualities of a natural
phenomena or process.16 The literature reviewed in Chapters Two and Three suggests that
15
Nova Scotia RDAs have since turned to a ―Performance Base‖ model with key performance indicators
that influence funding levels for each RDA.
16
Derived from definitions of the terms principle listed at dictionary.com.
93
principles of three kinds are relevant to collaborative governance: principles of good
governance, collaboration and sustainable development. Within each of these three
categories a number of important principles have been laid out by previous research and
practice. This research examines which of these principles appear to have been put into
practice in the case studies and how the application of these principles has impacted
governance processes and outcomes.
Clearly these three categories are not mutually exclusive, with considerable
overlap in the principles associated with each (as illustrated by the shading in Table 11).
Collaboration is seen as essential to good governance (RUPRI 2006), for example, and
enhances the likelihood that sustainable development efforts will succeed (Massam and
Dickinson 1999). By considering each of the three categories, it is possible to consider
whether an initiative is particularly focused on one or more of the principle sets, which in
turn may contribute to operational choices and/or sustainable development outcomes.
Principle-based decision-making involves trade-offs. Principles often conflict with one
another in a given situation (e.g. stability/robustness vs. flexibility). Governance must
involve discussion of common operating principles and a process for resolving such
conflicts, variables examined within the cases studied. Seeking balance and integration
between apparently conflicting principles is the essence of sustainable development.
Table 11 Principles of collaborative, sustainable coastal governance

Good Governance Collaboration Sustainable Development
Effectiveness Commitment to collaboration Living within ecological limits
Transparency/openness Trust/honesty Stewardship
Accountability Accountability mechanisms Diversity
Legitimacy/authority Common objectives/purpose Qualitative development
Inclusive public Mutual respect and understanding Broad-based/inclusive
engagement/participation (including respect for multiple participation, collaboration
sources and forms of knowledge)
Conflict resolution and Mechanisms for decision-making, Value of community, role of
consensus-building conflict resolution and consensus- local and global (multi-level)
building
Efficiency Two-way information flow, Economic viability/vitality
effective listening and
communication
Equity/fairness Fair sharing of benefits, costs, Social justice/equity
responsibilities/decision-making
Integration/fullness/coherence Integration/balance
Stability/robustness Time - long-term view Long-term, ongoing process
Flexibility/adaptation Open to change Good governance
94
Principles, as rules or standards, are closely related to social values, ideals and
norms (usual or expected patterns or behaviours). Various authors have commented on
the significance of values and norms as behavioural influences. Mental maps, ―theories in
use‖ or actor ―schemas‖, as described in Chapter 2, often determine people‘s views and
action to a greater degree than theories they explicitly espouse (Argyris and Schon 1974).
Bryant (1999) suggests both the explicit and implicit values that influence actor
orientations should be investigated, as does Ostrom‘s (2005) institutional analysis. Taking
these points into consideration the research investigated evidence of both stated or explicit
and unstated or implicit principles demonstrated through the actions or behaviours of
actors.
Principles, values and the societal rules that develop as a result are not stagnant
but evolve over time in complex learning systems (Sabel 2004). Emphasizing this
temporal dimension, Matlock et al. (2005) found in an extensive study of watershed
management experiences in the United States, for example, that watershed partnerships
affect the belief systems of stakeholders and, in doing so, increase the likelihood of
further collaborative action. Therefore data evidence of changes in principles over time
was also sought.
See Appendix 2 for a description of each of the principles listed in Table 11 and
indicators used to assess if these principles were put into action. Each case was examined
for evidence of the presence or absence of these indicators. Indicators used varied to some
extent for each case depending on factors such as relevance and information availability.
Based on these indicators, to the extent possible given available information, case studies
were ranked in high, medium or low compliance with the principles outlined in Table 11
by assigning ―compliance‖ scores to each case using various indicators and deriving an
index that illustrates overall compliance with each set of principles (sustainable
development, good governance and collaboration) in each case. These indices were used
to assist in comparative analysis but involve a degree of judgement and thus subjectivity
in the interpretation of available data and assigning of scores for each indicator. They
should therefore be considered a guide for comparative analysis rather than a set of
95
precise numerical values. Similarly indices were derived for outcomes and the presence
of various types of capacity within the case studies (see Chapters 8 and 9).
See Appendix 3 for data and findings outlining principles demonstrated by each
case study initiative/organization. Comparative analysis is provided in Chapter 8.
4.2.3 Actors and their Relationships
Bryant (1999) points to the importance of understanding who the actors are in a
collaborative governance arrangement, their interests, values and orientations as well as
their linkages with others and roles within the overall governance system. Actors may be
individuals and/or organizations, members of a policy network or community. All are part
of the broader systems described in Chapters One and Two. Like Bryant, Howlett and
Ramesh (1995), Pierce (1992), Gill and Reed (1999) and others suggest that policy
analysis can be improved by identifying and describing policy actors at each level in
policy subsystems. Interview questions linked to the principles described above assisted
in a comparative analysis of actor orientations. Consideration was given to the degree to
which there were conflicts and/or commonalities between their worldviews and motives
for participation, and how these similarities and differences impact collaborative
governance arrangements and outcomes.
Particular attention was paid to the role of senior government actors. Much of the
literature discussed in Chapters One through Three suggests that, from a collaborative
governance perspective, the appropriate role for government is one of negotiating, rather
than imposing, policy development and implementation with public, private and
voluntary sector partners, based less on decision-making authority and more on creating
conditions for partnership and effective collective action (Stoker 2000). The research
investigated the degree to which this was the approach taken in each case study.
Social network analysis attempts to uncover patterns in interactions among human
actors. Network analysts believe that the success or failure of societies and organizations
depends on these patterns of relations and that actors within social networks
simultaneously shape social structure. Structure and agency are recognized as
interdependent and continually reshaping one another. Howlett (1998) describes the
policy subsystems approach as a form of social network analysis. Social network analysts
96
vary in their approaches, some involving large societies, whole networks and complex
quantitative modelling, others using descriptive techniques and focusing on a smaller set
of relationships associated with a single actor (Freeman 2004). The latter type of analysis
is employed in this research. Social network data collected includes information on the
backgrounds and characteristics of actors as well as on their relationships with others,
particularly with the case study organizations. Attributes among actors contributing to
both strong and weak relationships are examined, along with relationship types and
network attributes such as diversity, density and closure.
The number of links within a network and frequency of interaction are considered
measures of network connectivity or density (Taylor et al. 2006). The number of actors,
the variety of societal sectors they represent and the variety of relationship types between
actors were used as indicators of network diversity. The presence (or absence) of key,
well-connected leaders was also considered. In network analysis the connections of a
particular actor, may in turn connect the individual, organization or network with other
actors and networks. The nature of these links represents a possible factor in the outcomes
of these interactions. Reimer (2002) and Geepu Nah Tiepoh and Reimer (2004) suggest
that relationships are based on four different ―modes of relating,‖ or types of social
capital: 1) market relations (exchange of goods and services), 2) bureaucratic relations
(based on power and control, formal principles and rules), 3) associative relations (based
on common goals and interests) and 4) communal relations (based on shared identity).
Based on the most common modes of relating described by interview respondents,
relationships were characterized according to the following types: information exchange,
advisory and other forms of support (lending people/technical expertise or equipment for
example), membership on committees or boards, financial support/transactions, project
partnerships or provision of training and education. These categories encompass Reimer‘s
market and bureaucratic relations while also acknowledging the role of information as a
critical input to complex systems (Battram 1988). Shared identities, goals and interests
were also examined.
Howlett and Ramesh (1995) suggest that other important considerations in
describing policy networks include: stability of membership, rules for member
behaviour/interaction, member interdependence/shared interest and access to and
97
distribution of resources among members. Each of these factors (summarized in Table 12)
helps determine the nature of the network overall as well as the individual relationships
within it and were incorporated into all aspects of data collection and in analysis.
Table 12 Actors and networks - characteristics examined

Actors -
- who (identification of actors)
- position/role/mandate
- interests
- values
- power
- background and experience that may contribute to the above
- ways the above influence actor actions/practices and relationships
Relationships/Networks (linkages among actors)

- who interacts with whom
- external vs. internal to the immediate policy subsystem (links with other networks)
- with how many
- nature of the relationship
- reasons for the relationship
- avenues and frequency of interaction
- stability of relationships
- equality of power, resources
- definable groups of relationships
- rules for behaviour/interaction among network members
- inclusiveness and closure of networks
- key nodes/leaders within networks
Relationships of each of the regional case study initiatives with other actors in their
respective policy networks are depicted as relationship maps and in table format
describing key characteristics in Appendix 4.
4.2.4 Operationalizing Mechanisms: Processes, Tools and Structures
The fourth analytical framework element is mechanisms for implementing the principles
of collaborative governance, including processes, structures and tools (policy instruments
and procedures). Processes underway in each of the case studies were examined using
Howlett and Ramesh‘s policy cycle (1995). Several questions were asked. Are all steps in
the policy cycle pursued in an initiative or governance arrangement? Are the principles
applied at all stages? Who is involved and how at each stage? As governance initiatives
98
move through iterations of the policy cycle, do they demonstrate characteristics of the
adaptive renewal cycle described by Gunderson and Holling (2001)?
Organizing structures are also examined and characterized according to their
degree of formality, longevity and the range of issues addressed. Literature suggests that
the level of formality has implications for effectiveness (outcomes) and barriers (e.g.
funding and administrative requirements of formal structures), resulting in advantages
and disadvantages associated with varying levels of formality and organizational/network
forms. Changes in the degree of formality over time and throughout the policy cycle were
also considered. Structure longevity was characterized according to the number of years
in operation. Baker (1993) suggests other important features include: origin (may be
imposed by central government or organic/voluntary), mandate, geography, funding and
leadership development. Each of these aspects of each of the case study structures and
their significance for sustainable development outcomes was considered.
Finally, operating procedures and tools used to implement agreed-upon principles
and development strategies were identified, including compulsory/regulatory, voluntary,
market or mixed policy instruments (Howlett and Ramesh 1995). Howlett and Ramesh
(1995) suggest that state capacity and the complexity of the actors involved impact the
mechanisms chosen. Mechanisms for implementation may also reflect the degree of
power sharing within collaborative governance arrangements. Measures such as
legislation, regulation, some forms of planning, research and information, financing,
service agreements and evaluation are considered ―top-down‖ in nature, for example,
while tools such as bottom-up planning, community-driven pilot projects, coalition
building, informal regulation and customary practice represent more ―bottom-up‖
approaches (Jackson and Jackson 1998).
Stoker (2000, 99-104) identifies five tools used by government to both influence
and support governance, along with associated tensions and contradictions:
1) Cultural persuasion: using ‗moral‘ authority to promote and persuade;
2) Communication: providing for an environment to facilitate and encourage
learning
3) Finance: subsidising partnerships, providing financial incentives (competition
encourages short-term self-interested behaviour which undermines co-
operation)
4) Monitoring: monitoring procedures to ensure protection of broader system
interests, building strategic capacity, cross-institutional learning by identifying
99
and disseminating best practice (can create over-rigid procedures, stifle
innovation and undermine social capital)
5) Structural reform: appoint new agencies consisting of multiple stakeholders
Additional roles for government include mediation (e.g. when conflicts cannot be
resolved at lower levels), advice and assistance, including support for capacity building
through information, funding, and training (Vodden 1999). Linking this fourth framework
component to those already discussed, Bryant points out that the mechanisms and
strategies employed are indicative of actor orientations, interests and values. Intervention
types can be, at best, mutually supportive and, at worst, contradictory – hindering or even
negating the outcomes of one another. Eoyang (1999) notes that methods may change as
actors and relationships change. Mix, coherence and consistency of the mechanisms were
considered. Mechanisms used in each case study are compared in table format in
Appendix 5.
4.2.5 Resistors and Enablers
Many of the ideas within the collaborative governance framework for sustainable
development presented above are not new. Concepts such as sustainable development and
advancements in sustainable development through participatory democracy have been
discussed since the 1980s, with arguably little real change. Many pilot projects have been
implemented without larger-scale implementation. Despite growth in collaborative
approaches to ecosystem management, the ideals of public involvement have not been
fully achieved (Koontz et al. 2004). Marshall (2005) adds that, despite countless local
initiatives and global agreements, institutional change in support of sustainable
development has been largely superficial. Why? What are the major barriers to change?
There is much to be learned from the growing literature on cooperative and co-
management, where collaborative governance in resource management has been
discussed for more than two decades (Pinkerton and Weinstein 1995; Pinkerton 1989).
Also instructive are experiences from fields such as organizational and community
development and ICM, which is now underway in more than 98 coastal nations and states
(Hale and Robadue 2002). Major barriers (also called obstacles or resistors, as in
Gallaugher et al. 2005) raised in the literature include capacity issues at all levels, value
100
conflicts and resistance to change. Factors that facilitate cooperation or increase
likelihood of success can also be examined. The absence of these same factors may also
be described as a resistor. Lack of communication may be a resistor for example and
regular communication an enabler of success in collaborative initiatives.
Innes et al. (1994) suggest that the capacity of governance initiatives to achieve a
common goal depends on three forms of capital and the ways in which they interact,
including:
• Intellectual capital (knowledge resources)
• Social capital (trust, reciprocity and social understanding)
• Political capital (the capacity to act collectively)
ESPON (2005) adds material capital (financial and other tangible resources), as a fourth
category. As discussed in Chapter 3, collaborative governance arrangements can involve
considerable resources. Davoudi et al. (2004) suggest that creating and enhancing new
forms of governance will require progress towards all four forms of capital. Other authors
add factors related to process, structure, purpose, values, willingness, capacity and
understanding (Winer and Ray 1994; Vodden 1999, Gallopin 2002).
Table 13 Factors in the success of collaborative coastal governance
Intellectual/knowledge capital: information, understanding, learning, evaluation, training

and education
Social capital/collaborative spirit: mutual respect and trust, reciprocity and social
understanding, history of cooperation or collaboration, established relationships and
communication, community, shared recognized interdependence, sense of community
Political capital: leadership, legitimacy, political climate, commitment
Material capital/resources: money and staff/human resources, resource access, sound,
diverse funding base
Structure: Supportive policy and/or legislative framework, flexibility, adaptability,
mechanisms for recognizing First Nations rights and title
Process: communication, participation, clear roles, agreed boundaries, equity,
persistence/time, external support, evidence of progress
Purpose: clear, shared, attainable goals, benefits/need appreciated by all
Values: adjacency, stewardship
Table 13 summarizes key factors raised in the literature (see Appendix 6 for a
more detailed list of factors under each of these categories). Supporting Healey‘s (1998)
observation that the conditions affecting governance capacity vary among different
101
localities and sets of relationships, case study results reveal additional resistors and
enablers, indicate those that are most pressing, provide a more detailed understanding of
these issues, and, in some cases, suggest how barriers and resistors might be overcome.
Because each of the components of the analytical framework are interconnected many
important barriers/resistors and enablers are also captured in other components of the
analytical framework.
4.2.6 Scale Considerations
The question of appropriate scale(s), particularly the role of the sub-provincial region as a
spatial scale for development and governance initiatives, is a theme that cuts across all
other elements. Scale was added as a sixth framework component due to its importance in
defining the case study structures and processes and the importance of scale-related
factors and cross-scale interactions described in Chapters 2 and 3. Region is by definition
an ―in between‖ scale made up of smaller units, multiple regions comprising a larger
whole. A regional focus allows for an analysis of cross-scale linkages appropriate within
a CASES framework. This research considers the scales involved in the case study
initiatives and the willingness and capacity of actors at various scales, territorial, temporal
and functional, to engage in collaborative governance systems. Following on Ostrom‘s
(2005) suggestion that an attempt at understanding a focal level should also consider at
least one or two levels above and below the focal scale, community, provincial and
federal levels and their relationship with the sub-provincial region receive particular
attention. Changes in Buttimer (2001)‘s discretionary reach, explained in Chapter 2, were
considered along with resident attitudes toward ―their region.‖
The challenge of clearly defining boundaries of ―community‖ and ―region‖ in
either time or space for purposes of governance was examined within this research
component. Several questions pertaining to scale were addressed. How, for example, have
the various case study regions been defined? How have these delineations related to and
impacted actors‘ sense of place? Their orientations? Have the boundaries or
conceptualization of ―region‖ changed over time? How has the definition of region
impacted actor relations, interpretations of governance, collaboration and sustainable
development or the outcomes of collaborative governance processes? To what degree is
102
scale an enabler or resistor in the collaborative governance process? To what extent do
actors recognize scale issues?
4.2.7 Context
As in Bryant‘s (1999) model, an understanding of the social-ecological and policy context

in each of the three case study regions is considered critical to the research. Context (the
surrounding conditions or broader systems of which the case study subsystems are a part)
was therefore added as a seventh framework element. Context considerations included the
settlement, political, institutional, socio-cultural, ecological and economic histories as
well as current conditions (2001-2005) in each of the case study regions. Current
conditions are described in Chapter 5 according to the five categories of sustainability
indicators referred to above. Sustainability indicator data were used to assign
―sustainability gap‖ values indicating the extent of sustainability concerns in each of these
five categories. These values were then depicted in radial diagrams. Wall and Marzall
(2006) and Robinson et al (2006) recommend radial diagrams as a useful tool for
presenting the results of holistic (multiple-objective) analysis. These diagrams, presented
in Chapter 8, were used as a tool to compare areas where case study outcomes were
achieved with those where improvements were most needed according to the
sustainability gap analysis.
Like scale, context is a theme that cuts across all others. By their very nature,
collaborative governance systems are interconnected with their environments and other
systems and, therefore, cannot be neatly separated from their contexts. Particular attention
was paid to changes over time in regional economic development and watershed and
coastal management policy. Following on Taylor-Powell et al.‘s (1998) suggestion both
milestones and critical events, which may identify key changes in the context and/or
collaborative governance system, were also identified within both of the sub-systems
studied and their contexts (as in the case of the ―revolution‖ in the IBEC Board of
Directors described in Chapter 9 or the 1987 Brundtland Commission, for example).
4.3 Case Study and Policy Literature Review
In addition to a review of the literature for the purposes of research design, academic and
103
other literature sources were also reviewed for information pertinent to the selected case
studies. In order to better understand the range of programs, policies and tools employed
by senior levels of government in the case study regions, literature related to the historical
development of resource management and RED policy in British Columbia, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland and Labrador and nationally was examined (described further in Chapters
6 and 7). Previous research by the author and colleagues provided a foundation for this
piece (see, for example, Markey et al. 2000). This historical review was based primarily
on a review of academic, government and community literature sources, supplemented by
information gained through interviews and participation in national and international
conferences. The review demonstrates links among cases (e.g. international and federal
policies and programs influencing local organizations and initiatives), helps illustrate
government actor orientations, and provides evidence of broader trends that influence
collaborative governance arrangements.
Perspectives on collaborative governance in practice gained through intensive
case study research were supplemented by a review of existing case study literature.
Additional examples of collaborative governance arrangements in the coastal zone
reviewed are provided in table format in Chapters 6 and 7. Lessons learned from resource
management and regional economic development initiatives in the case study provinces,
elsewhere in Canada and internationally, were gathered through literature review, national
and international conferences and dialogue with other members of Coasts Under Stress
and Ocean Management Research Networks who provided access to their own related
case study findings.
4.4 Case Study Design, Selection and Relationship Building
The research involves an embedded/multi-level, multi-case study design (Yin 2002). Case
studies were selected within both economic development and resource and environmental
management spheres of the overall policy system. These two policy sub-systems were
chosen because of their significance to sustainable development, particularly on Canada‘s
rural coasts. Further, the two are closely interrelated in terms of their impacts on social-
ecological systems, yet are often dealt with as independent policy fields. Investigating
relationships between actors in each policy sub-system provided an opportunity to
104
examine challenges of horizontal integration in coastal management and collaborative
governance.
The geographic focus on Canadian coastal social-ecological systems, discussed in
Chapter 1, was further narrowed to three specific sub-provincial coastal regions from both
east (Atlantic) and west (Pacific) coasts. The significance, and thus motivation for
selection, of the regional scale as a focal point for analysis has been discussed in Chapters
2 and 3. The three selected case study regions are: the Indian Bay/Kittiwake region of
Newfoundland, the Bras D‘Or Lakes region, Cape Breton Nova Scotia, and Northern
Vancouver Island, British Columbia. These regions were selected based on a number of
criteria. First, through previous research, experience and contacts in academia,
government and community each of the areas was known to be experimenting with
collaborative approaches to governance in coastal development. Each was described as
having a degree of success in their efforts. Additional information was gathered on these
areas through literature/document review, further discussion with key informants,
observation and field visits to finalize case study selection. Each region exhibited a
variety of approaches and circumstances thought to be of potential significance, including
the level and nature of government and community involvement, formally and informally
structured relationships, issues addressed (scope), and scale.
Despite differences, the case study regions exhibited sufficient similarities to
allow for comparative analysis. All three regions shared watershed management as a
common form of collaborative governance in resource and environmental management.
Each had a regional economic development institution in place involving actors from
multiple scales and backgrounds, fitting the collaborative governance criteria laid out in
Chapter 1. Two regions, one from each coast, had sizable First Nations populations
playing a leadership role in collaborative watershed governance, a factor expected to
influence case study findings. Further, all three areas were predominantly rural and
experiencing sustainable development challenges, including both resource depletion and
economic decline. Practical considerations for selection included willingness of the case
study populations to participate in the research, availability of travel support, and the
ability to contribute to larger research programs such as Coasts Under Stress and the
Ocean Management Research Network.
105
Within each case study region two governance models, one in economic
development and one in resource management, were selected as sub-cases (Figure 9 and
Table 14). See Chapter 5 for a description of each of the case study region and Chapters 6
and 7 for the sub-cases of collaborative governance within them.
Figure 9 Case study locations
106
Table 14 Six collaborative governance sub-cases
Regional Economic Watershed Management

Development Cases Cases
Northeast Newfoundland Kittiwake Economic Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp.
Development Corporation (NL-E) (NL-W)
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia Strait-Highlands Regional Network of Bras d‘Or
Development Authority (NS-E) watershed initiatives (NS-W)
Northern Vancouver Community Futures Mount Nimpkish Watershed
Island, British Columbia Waddington (BC-E) Management Board (BC-W)
4.5 Data Collection
The seven-part research framework outlined in section 4.2 above, guided data collection.
Data were gathered relating to each component. Sufficient flexibility was provided so that
additional themes could emerge. As described above, for each component of the
analytical framework a list of questions and ―things to look for‖ was developed, assisting
with the identification of appropriate information sources, development of interview
questions and later analysis. These lists were used as a guide rather than a coherent model
to be tested.
A range of data sources and collection techniques was used, including observation,
interviews and secondary documentation. Using a variety of methods captured the
advantages and helped address the weaknesses of each individual source, enhancing
research validity (Yin 2002; Tellis 1997). Triangulation also allowed the researcher to
seek corroboration or inconsistencies in the data obtained through each individual source.
Potential for skewed data due to respondent or researcher bias was also reduced in this
manner.
Secondary documentation about policy and program initiatives in the case study
regions was a key information source. Sources included: web sites, organization and
program literature, policy and scientific papers, workshop proceedings and newspaper
articles, meeting minutes, annual reports, as well as previously published theses and other
academic works relating to the case studies. Statistics and background information about
the status of, and trends in, the health and resilience of social-ecological systems in the
regions provided context and comparative data. Secondary data collection assisted in
developing relevant questions, identifying interview respondents and avoiding duplication
107
of effort in data collection. Collection of secondary documentation was a major focus of
the first field visit to each region conducted in 2003 (see Table 15).
Opinions and insights of citizens, community leaders, government officials and
other stakeholders regarding the development and governance processes taking place in
the case study regions were documented, with a focus on state and civil society actors as
principal governance participants. This was accomplished in two ways: through
observation and through formal, semi-structured interviews with a cross section of
participants in the collaborative governance process.
Table 15 Community contact

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

(Babbie 1986) and included informal interviews and communications as well as
participation in events and activities related to the case study organizations. In each case
the researcher engaged in some way in the development process, ensuring the research
had applied benefits for communities as well as meeting academic and knowledge
generation objectives. Ensuring mutual benefit is a requirement of responsible,
community-based research (Vodden and Bannister 2008). It is also a local requirement in
two of the three regions. Guidelines for Visiting Researchers have been developed by the
‗Namgis First Nation and Research Principles and Protocols by the Mi‘kmaq of
Unama‘ki/Cape Breton. These Guidelines and Protocols must be followed if research is to
be conducted within their traditional territories. The researcher sought and received
formal approval from these Nations. In accordance with protocols and best practices for
community-based research, each case study organization was consulted prior to and
during the field work and was included in discussions on research results and progress
108
throughout the study. Contributions of the researcher to case study organizations included
providing background materials on other communities, regions and issues of concern,
advice where requested, opportunities to ―tell their story‖ and network with others at
national conferences and workshops. The researcher also participated as a volunteer in
meetings and activities during fieldwork periods.
Involvement was more extensive in the BC case in the early years of the research
(2000-2004) and in Newfoundland after June 2004. The researcher resided in the regions
during these periods. Contact and involvement with the Unama‘ki case study region was
limited to four field visits, which ranged from two days to three weeks. The implications
of this difference have been considered in the analysis, but it should be noted that reduced
familiarity with the Nova Scotia case studies may have masked underlying challenges. In
all cases, relationship-building was a critical stage early in the research, accomplished
through field visits and subsequent communications with key contacts prior to field data
collection.
Observations were not limited to the case study organizations and their activities
but rather extended to general observations about the regions‘ social-ecological systems,
shedding light on the governance arrangements studied. According to Babbie‘s (1986)
suggestions for "ruling out the observer effects," the researcher adopted an overt (but not
obtrusive) observer role, addressing potential ethical concerns such as deception, making
efforts to be aware of and minimize the effects of personal biases and preconceptions, and
revealing these efforts when reporting research findings. The researcher was conscious of
the consequences of her role in the processes observed and recorded observations with
frequent field notes as well as photographs.
Two types of interviews were conducted: formal, semi-structured and informal
(part of the observation process). Between 30 and 55 formal, semi-structured interviews
were conducted in each of the three case study regions, totalling 141 interviews overall:
55 in Newfoundland, 52 in Nova Scotia, and 34 in British Columbia (BC). Fewer
interviews were conducted in BC due to the significantly lower number of actors involved
in the BC governance networks examined, coupled with the researcher`s already
extensive research background in the case study region (Northern Vancouver Island).
109
Interview respondents were selected based on a key informant approach, rather
than a representative sample of relevant policy networks in each region and province.
Potential interviewees were sought who had the knowledge and ability to represent the
views of key interests and, to a lesser extent, the perspectives of a wide range of
participating organizations. This sampling methodology is consistent with the
exploratory, grounded theory building approach taken in this thesis, which does not
attempt to prove a hypothesis or claim results that can be widely generalized.
Respondents included: organizational representatives from local sustainable development
initiatives (staff and Board level); all levels of government; including First Nations
representatives; environmental, economic development, social and cultural organizations;
and industry and university partners (see Appendix 7 for respondent profiles).
Respondents from provincial and federal levels of government (44%) included junior and
senior level officials and politicians familiar and/or involved in some way in the case
study regional initiatives. Interviewees were selected based on secondary documentation,
key contact recommendations and other interview respondents (snowball technique).
An interview schedule was prepared based on the analytical framework
components. After testing the schedule in question format it was determined that, given
the unique nature of each case and the respondent‘s involvement in it, set questions were
ineffective. A topic list format was employed instead (see Appendix 8). Opportunities
were provided throughout the interview for respondents to discuss additional topics they
considered relevant and/or important. While topics were kept consistent, specific
questions were tailored to each case study and the respondent‘s position/background. Test
interviews were conducted to seek feedback on appropriate language, nature of the
questions and interview length, and changes were made accordingly. Interviews were
tape-recorded wherever possible and permitted by respondents, and lasted approximately
one hour on average. Backup notes were taken during the interview and field notes were
taken immediately after the interview to record interviewer thoughts such as respondent
comfort, frankness, and issues raised to look into further. Ethics requirements for
adequate information, consent, and confidentiality were followed during the process of
contacting interview respondents and during the interview process itself.
110
Formal interviews provided an ―expert‖ perspective on the initiatives examined. The
majority of individuals interviewed were directly involved in the initiatives, and may
therefore have represented a positively biased perspective on the accomplishments of the
organization or process. Formal interviews were, therefore, supplemented by informal
interviews/discussions with individuals in the community. Recognizing the important
perspective of ―uninvolved‖ community members, informal interview respondents in each
region helped balance the perspectives gained through formal interviews by ensuring
broader representation. These discussions were more general in nature although probing
questions were asked related to each of the seven components. Respondents tended to
raise potentially controversial issues such as illegal fish and wildlife harvesting or cross-
cultural relations not discussed in formal interviews. Informal interviews were not tape-
recorded but relied instead on field notes prepared immediately upon interview
completion. Informal and formal interviews were also conducted with identified
academic/practitioner experts familiar with the case study region (e.g. academics that had
previously completed research in the regions, consultants or retired government officials).
4.6 Data Organization and Analysis
Upon completion of each field visit phase, data were assembled and organized by region
and sub-case. Field notes were typed (converted to electronic format), then assigned a
respondent code and grouped by sub-case for review. Interviews were also transcribed,
assigned a respondent code and grouped by sub-case. Data were organized and analyzed
independently by sub-case, followed by comparative analysis between regions and policy
fields. Similarities and differences in the application of collaborative governance models
in watershed management and regional economic development in British Columbia, Nova
Scotia and Newfoundland contexts were considered, along with possible explanations.
Comparative analysis among each of these six sub-cases and three case study regions was
aided by the use of a common analytical framework and approach to data collection and
analysis.
Content analysis of sub-case data was conducted based on each of the seven research
framework components. Materials were reviewed subsequent to each field season and
again after all the data had been gathered and interviews transcribed. Data were organized
111
in separate files according to theme and then again by sub-themes based on patterns in the
data and pattern-matching. Pattern-matching compares an empirical pattern with a
predicted one and enhances internal validity when the patterns coincide (Tellis 1997). In
this instance patterns in the data were compared to the checklists presented in Tables 11
to 13 above (Chapters 2 and 3). Relationships between themes were examined, along with
inconsistencies in the data. A qualitative form of social network analysis was used to
describe relationships and networks among actors. Relationship maps were constructed to
create a visual picture, aiding in the analysis of each case and in comparisons between
them (see Appendix 4) and, as discussed above, in the case of outcomes, principles and
forms of capacity (as a barrier and/or enabler) indices were derived based on outlined
indicators to assist in comparative analysis. Every attempt was made to follow Yin‘s
(2002) four principles for high quality analysis: 1) ensure analysis relies on all the
relevant evidence; 2) consider all major rival interpretations; 3) address the most
significant aspect of the case study; and 4) use the researcher's prior, expert knowledge to
further the analysis.
4.7 Finalizing and Communicating Results
Research methods and findings have been refined based on feedback from research
participants and academic peers, particularly the supervisory committee. To date,
seventeen presentations have been made on interim findings at various stages, including
six in the case study regions, three to international conferences of researchers and policy-
makers, five to Canadian academic and practitioner groups and three provincial public
sessions in Newfoundland and Labrador. Each of these venues has provided an
opportunity for feedback from various audience types. Draft presentations and book
chapters have been distributed to key community contacts for their review and comment
throughout the analysis and writing process (member checking). Final field visits were
also made to each case study region to present results prior to the thesis defence.
After defence both the thesis and a practitioner-oriented summary document will
be made available on-line. All interview participants and participating organizations will
be informed of their availability. Further presentations will be made upon request,
particularly in the case study regions, to relevant government agencies and academic
112
conferences. Several peer reviewed book chapters have been published, including
contributions to three separate volumes associated with the Coasts Under Stress research
project and a fourth international edited volume (Vodden, in press; Gibson et al. 2008;
Vodden and Bannister 2008; Ommer et al. 2007; Vodden and Kennedy 2006; Vodden et
al. 2006). Academic journal articles are also planned.
113
5 – Case Study Area Descriptions and Sustainability Overview
5.1 Introduction
Understanding the factors that influence the characteristics and outcomes of collaborative
governance efforts requires an understanding of the particular combinations of
geographical and historical, ecological, economic, cultural, and social forces that have
shaped each of the case study regions and, for the purposes of comparative analysis, of
the similarities and differences in the contexts within which the analysis take place. This
chapter introduces characteristics of the case study regions using a framework of
ecological, economic, social, individual (health and education) and cultural sustainability
indicators. The institutional and governance dimensions of sustainability are the subject
of Chapters 6 through 8.
5.1.1 Island Geography
All three case study regions involve primarily island populations living on Canada‘s
coastal periphery, including the island of Newfoundland; Cape Breton (Unama‘ki) island
in Nova Scotia (NS); and northern Vancouver Island and an archipelago of smaller
adjacent islands in British Columbia (BC). These islands are each divided into a number
of ecological and economic development regions for governance purposes, described
further below. Unlike the other two regions, the Mount Waddington/Central Coast
regional economic development (RED) case study (BC-E) also includes a large area of
the BC mainland coast. Though they share an island geography and consequently an
ecological, economic and cultural connection to the marine and coastal environment, each
region is distinct in many ways, including its history, culture, ecology, size (see Tables 16
and 17) and remoteness from decision-making centres.
All three regions are primarily rural and small town by various definitions (du
Plessis et al. 2002)17, with the exception of the southeastern portion of the Bras d‘Or
Lakes watershed that includes Cape Breton Regional Municipality (pop. 105,928). The
Regional Municipality, including Sydney and surrounding area, is Nova Scotia‘s second
17
“Rural and small town” is the population living in towns and municipalities outside the commuting zone
of larger urban centres (i.e. outside the commuting zone of centres with population of 10,000 or more)‖.
114
largest municipality. The Strait Highlands RED region is less than 150 km from the
Regional Municipality and 275 km from Nova Scotia`s capital city of Halifax. Next to
Cape Breton Regional Municipality the largest case study communities are Gander, NL
(9,951), Port Hardy, BC (4,574) and Port Hawkesbury, NS (3,517). The Newfoundland
case study region is located approximately 300 km north of the provincial capital city of
St. John‘s. Northern Vancouver Island, BC, 500 km from the provincial capital of
Victoria, is the most remote of the case study regions from provincial population centres.
Several communities in this region can be accessed only by boat or plane.
The Bras d‘Or watershed case (NS-W) is distinct in that it includes more than one
economic region. Communities within the western portion of the watershed participate in
the Strait-Highlands Regional Development Authority (NS-E), while the Cape Breton
County Economic Development Authority serves those in the southeast. The Bras d‘Or
watershed and Strait Highlands regions are similar in size (see Table 16), unlike the BC
and NL case study regions where case study watersheds lie within significantly larger
economic regions.
Each of the case study regions is also part of a unique ecosystem, described
further below. They include three of Canada‘s fifteen terrestrial ecozones: the boreal
shield (NL), Atlantic Maritime (Cape Breton) and Pacific Maritime (BC) and three of five
marine ecozones: Pacific (BC), Northwest Atlantic and Atlantic Marine (Cape Breton and
NL18) (Canada 2007c).
Table 16 Case study region size
Province Size of province Island size (sqr. km) RED region Watershed region
(sqr. km) (sqr. km) size (sqr. km19)
NL 405,212 111,390 (island of 13,167 1,000
Newfoundland)
NS 55,284 10,311 (Unama‘ki/ 5,082 3,600
Cape Breton Island)
BC 944,735 31,285 (Vancouver 40,231 2,226
Island)
18
The case study area of NL includes only the Atlantic Marine marine ecozone. Cape Breton‘s shores lie on
the edge of both Atlantic marine ecozones.
19
Land and freshwater/inland sea areas included.
115
5.1.2 Provincial Populations
The total population of the three provinces the case study regions are located within vary
considerably, as do the populations of the regions themselves, with implications for their
political power and governance relationships. As illustrated in Table 17, NL has the
smallest total population followed by NS and BC. NL has experienced continual
population decline since the early 1990s while NS has seen slow and BC more rapid
population growth.
Table 17 Settlement history and population change

Province 2006 2001-2006 % of pop in % of pop in Earliest Year entered
Population (% change) CMA20 or CMA or CA European Confederation
CA (2001) (2006) settlement
NL 505,469 - 1.5 43.5 45.9 1000 AD 1949
NS 913,462 + 0.6 63.3 64.2 1604 1867
BC 4,113,487 + 5.3 86.6 87.2 1849 1871
Source: Statistics Canada 2007; Smithsonian 2007; CCFS 2005; Johnston 1996
All three provinces have experienced an aging trend, NS having the oldest population in
Canada. The populations of all three provinces are primarily coastal and increasingly
urbanized, BC having a significantly higher proportion of its population concentrated in
metropolitan areas. While still the most rural province, urbanization occurred at the
highest rate in NL from 2001-2006.
5.1.3 Original Peoples and Settlement History
While the spaces of governance continue to change within the case study regions the roots
of place extend back centuries and even millennia in the case of Aboriginal peoples. NL
has the longest history of European settlement but the shortest as a member of the
Canadian federation (see Table 17). Archaeological evidence suggests that Norse Vikings
first settled in the northwestern portion of the island in approximately 1000 AD, the
earliest European settlement known in North America (Smithsonian 2007). Permanent
European settlement, primarily by the English and Irish, began in the early 1600s,
20
Statistics Canada classifies metropolitan areas as census metropolitan areas (CMA) or census
agglomerations (CA), formed by one or more adjacent municipalities centred on an urban core. The
population count of the urban core of a CA is at least 10,000 and a CMA at least 100,000. To be included in
the CMA or CA, neighbouring municipalities must be highly integrated with the urban core, determined by
commuting flows and census place of work data (Statistics Canada 2007b).
116
although not widespread until the early 1800s. With subsequent low levels of
immigration, NL has the most homogeneous population in Canada (NL 2005c).
The history and current legal and political circumstance of First Nations on the
island of Newfoundland are significantly different than those of BC and NS. The
Aboriginal population of what is now NL includes the Inuit, Innu and Metis of Labrador.
The Beothuk people of the island portion of the province were killed, lost to disease and
starvation, integrated with Mi‘kmaw21 communities and/or displaced from their territories
during the first two hundred years of permanent European settlement (Pastore 1997;
Baker 2003; Marshall 2004). The Mi'kmaq also occupied southern and central areas of
the island, acting as middlemen in the fur trade and allies to the French in the 17th and 18th
centuries. No treaties were signed with Aboriginal peoples of NL. Even after the province
joined Confederation responsibility for Aboriginal peoples remained unclear, left out of
the 1949 Terms of the Union with Canada (Vodden and Kennedy 2006). Conne River
(Miawpukek) on the island's south coast is the only reserve on the island with recognized
federal Aboriginal status. Approximately 4,500 other Mi‘kmaq in central and western
Newfoundland are represented by the Federation of Newfoundland Indians. An
Agreement-In-Principle signed by the Government of Canada in 2007 will see
Newfoundland Mi‘kmaq receive Aboriginal status as a ―landless band‖ and designated
health, post-secondary education, economic development and administration funding
(FNI 2007).
The territory of the Mi‘kmaq (Mi‘kma‘ki) stretches across parts of New
Brunswick, Maine and the Gaspé, as well as Newfoundland. Cape Breton (Unama‘kik) is
one of seven Mi‘kmaw districts (Johnson 1996; Christmas 1977). Dissimilar to NL is
NS‘s diversity of ethnic backgrounds, including residents of Aboriginal, Acadian,
African, and Scottish descent. Many Island residents are descended from Highlands and
Islands Scots that arrived in the 1800s (CCFS 2005). Following Portuguese fishermen in
the early 1500s, French merchant Nicolas Denys established Cape Breton‘s first
permanent European settlement in the mid-1600s. The English gained control of the
island in 1758, having signed the first of a series of ―Peace and Friendship‖ treaties with
21
According to Native Council of Nova Scotia (2007) ―Mi‘kmaw‖ is the singular of Mi‘kmaq and an
adjective when it precedes a noun (e.g. Mi‘kmaw people or Mi‘kmaw treaties).
117
the Mi‘kmaq. The Acadians were expelled and did not return until hostilities between
England and France ended. While early treaties are still recognized, in 2002 Nova Scotia's
thirteen Mi'kmaq chiefs, provincial and federal governments signed an agreement to
engage in tripartite discussions on outstanding issues (Tota 2002). In 2007 the three
parties put in place a five-stage process to resolve issues pertaining to Mi'kmaq treaties,
rights and title (NS 2007).
Trade began in the 1700s but it has been less than 200 years since European fur
traders permanently occupied the lands that are now BC. The British established the
colony of Vancouver Island in 1849, handing property rights to Hudson‘s Bay Company.
As in other provinces Aboriginal peoples played a critical role in trade, despite
populations decimated by conflict and disease associated with European contact. Unlike
the east coast many unique tribes existed. Today BC remains home to 198 distinct First
Nations (ATBC 2008).
Settlement exploded with the late 1850s gold rush, coupled with growth in fishing
and logging. The rush brought with it people of many ethnicities (Johnston 1996). With
continued immigration, BC has the country‘s highest proportion of visible minorities and
the highest percentage of its population reporting Aboriginal identity among the case
study provinces (Statistics Canada 2001). As in NL, treaties were not established in most
of what is now the province of BC during the colonial era. A modern day treaty process
was launched in 1993 after the BC Court of Appeal recognized the Gitxan and
Wet‘suwet‘en peoples‘ unextinguished Aboriginal rights and strongly recommended that
these rights be defined through negotiation rather than litigation. The Province of BC
agreed to participate in land claims negotiation (BC 1998) and, as of 2007, there were 58
First Nations participating in the BC treaty process (BC Treaty Commission 2007).
5.1.4 Social Values, Politics and the Environment
Interview respondents describe significant differences in social values, political culture

and environmental ethics among the three provinces and their residents. One NL
government official observes, ―There are massive cultural differences between
Newfoundland and the rest of Canada.‖ A Cape Breton respondent added ―the only
commonality is we‘re Canadian and on the ocean.‖ Social ethic was among the
118
differences noted. Newfoundlanders feel their willingness to ―look after one another and
outsiders‖ is unique. Social capital indicators discussed below, including engagement in
child and elder care, sense of community and social support networks, support the
reputation and claims by interviewees that being helpful to others is part of east coast culture.
Respondents describe an associated expectation that governments will consider social
responsibility along with economic objectives.
NL is described as having a very political culture (―more political than anywhere
else‖), with a conflicted relationship with authority. Residents are often dependent on and
have respect for the institutions of the church and the state yet ―despise‖ outside
interference in their lives, particularly in areas remote from population centres. Because
of dependency on government funds, respondents report a capacity to employ a discourse
of need and a tendency for groups to shape projects to suit government funding
requirements. Because of the province‘s small population, residents are closely connected
with their politicians. One respondent explains, ―everyone is related to a politician in
some way,‖ adding that in NL politics ―how much fish you can catch and wood you can
cut is key.‖ The result has been a long history of political favours and vote-buying
through project funding, natural resource allocations and granting of fish plant licenses,
contributing to today‘s social-ecological circumstances.
Both NL and NS are considered politically conservative, typically with several
consecutive election periods under either Progressive Conservative or Liberal party
leadership. In contrast, BC has seen more radical shifts between, until the recent election
of a Liberal party premier, the New Democratic Party (NDP) and BC Social Credit Party
(Socred) rule. Distrust of expert-led centralized planning combined with a relatively
strong economy and political representation has bolstered demands for devolution of
government authority in BC (Ommer et al. 2007). With 36 of 308 seats in the House of
Commons, in contrast to seven in NL and 11 in NS, BC has considerably more bargaining
power with which to make such demands. Both Cape Breton and NL have a history,
however, of independence movements, with portions of their populations advocating
separation: Cape Breton from NS22 and NL from Canada (Locke and Tomblin 2003).
22
In a survey completed by Locke and Tomblin (2003), only 17% of respondents from Cape Breton mostly
or completely supported the concept of independent provincial status for Cape Breton.
119
Also contrasted are the strength and history of the environmental movements in
the three provinces. The impact of BC environmentalists on the logging sector over the
past two decades provides a vivid example. Their reaction to policies and practices
deemed destructive to BC‘s wilderness areas has played out in the policy arena and in the
marketplace, significantly impacting the industry and forest policy (Hayter 2000; Cashore
et al. 2001; Markey et al. 2000). One Cape Bretoner, ignoring a history of Mi‘kmaw
environmental protests and court cases (Hipwell 2001), suggests that the ―enviros here are
from away,‖ including remnants of a Vietnam era movement into the Cape Breton
highlands. A NL provincial employee suggested ―the environmental movement is
juvenile here, unfocused, uncoordinated and foreign to the NL system.‖ The NL folk song
‗Ten little turrs in the freezer is better than a hundred in the bay‘ expresses the sentiment
(Bishop 1994). Opposition to offshore oil and gas in both BC and NS can also be
contrasted to NL, where there has been little opposition to offshore development except
on the grounds that local economic benefits would be insufficient. Others caution against
overgeneralization, however, speaking of the conservation ethic of an older, pre-
industrialized generation of NL residents who lived off the resources of the land and sea
with a conservation ethic very different from the world of protests and legal battles. The
environmental sentiments and generally more radical political context of BC are linked by
some to the relatively recent development of the Pacific coast, compared to the more
conservative, long established Atlantic. A strong private sector along with well-organized
environmental and Aboriginal interests in BC, rather than being a collaborative
environment ―leads to very polarized views and ultimately a great deal of insensitivity to
rural lifestyles and dependencies whether it‘s on lumbering, fish harvesting or seal
hunting.‖
Finally, respondents note that the province of NL is in the midst of a ―massive
social transition.‖ Although the degree of change at the provincial scale may arguably be
greater in NL, analysis at the regional scale suggests that significant changes are
occurring within each of these Canadian coastal regions.
120
5.1.5 Provincial Well-being Indicators
Diversity and population trends discussed above indicate BC has the highest level of
―demographic well-being‖, followed by NS and NL. Economic, health and education
indicators suggest similar results (see Appendix 9). As of 2005, for example, NL
continues to have the lowest after tax family income in Canada, BC the third highest after
Alberta and Ontario. Incidence of low-income23 in 2001 was highest in NL, followed by
BC and NS (Sorenson et al. 2005). In both BC and NS incidence of low income is higher
in urban areas while in NL a higher percentage of rural and small town than urban
residents live below the low-income cut-off line. The percentage of total income from
social transfers24 in 2001 was lowest in BC and highest in NL, higher in all cases in rural
and small town areas (Sorenson et al. 2005a, b and c). Over one-third (37%) of transfer
income dependency in NL is derived from Employment Insurance (vs. 14% in Canada,
19% in NS, and 13% in BC) and dependence on social assistance is nearly twice the
Canadian average (Statistics Canada 2004). Unemployment rates also demonstrate
disparities, with a recent rate of 13% in NL, 8% in NS, 4% in BC (Statistics Canada
2007b).
In all three provinces, including rural and urban areas, service sectors are the
primary employment generators and self-employment is more prevalent in rural and small
town than urban areas (Sorenson et al. 2005 a, b and c). Dependency on natural resource
industries is highest in NL, followed by NS and BC, although equal in rural and small
town BC and NL (13%) and only slightly lower in rural and small town NS (12%). In NL
the majority of primary sector employment is in the fishery, in BC forestry. In NS,
employment levels are similar in fishing and forestry sectors. In all three provinces,
employment benefits per cubic metre of timber harvested are declining (Wilson et al.
2001), with forestry employment also declining overall in NL and BC (Canada 2008b).
NL is the most dependent on mining, oil and gas (2% of employment), the benefits of oil
23
Measured by the percentage of earners below the low income cut-off, a statistical measure of the income
thresholds below which Canadians are likely devote a larger than average share of income to necessities
(food, shelter and clothing).
24
‗Social transfer income refers to all government transfer payments to individuals including Old Age
Security, Canadian/Quebec Pension Plans, Unemployment Insurance and Child Tax Credits and is
expressed as a ratio of the amount of government transfer payments to the total average income among the
population 15 years and older‖ (Sorenson et al 2005a, 51).
121
development concentrated in St. John‘s and surrounding area (House 2006). BC,
however, employs more total individuals in the mining, oil and gas sector and tops NL
production in absolute terms (Statistics Canada 2006).
NS seafood exports exceed both NL and BC in value while the volume is the
highest in NL (NS 2007). Approximately one-third of Canadian fish harvesters reside in
NL, a similar number in NS and only 5% in BC.25 Throughout the late 1990s fisheries
diversification occurred within all three provinces, with an expansion in the high value
shellfish segment in the east coast, groundfish, shellfish and aquaculture in BC. By 2005,
salmon made up just 10% of the total catch value in BC (compared to 55% in 1990), cod
4% in NL in 2003 (vs. 63% in 1989) (O‘Reilly 2004). In NL and NS this has meant a
shift into a much less labour intensive industry. The 1992 Northern Cod moratorium and
subsequent closures has been called ―the largest single layoff in Canadian history‖
(Dunne 2003, 20). The fisheries sector has also suffered in BC, as changes in the salmon
fishery devastating many traditionally fishing-based coastal communities (Vodden 1999,
Gislason et al. 1996). Cutbacks in the federal government‘s UI (now EI) program and in
government services have been ―a double hit to the rural economy‖ (House 2006).
The importance of the third sector economy is also worthy of note, raising over $1
billion annually in each of NS and NL (an amount equivalent to seafood exports) and
almost 11 billion in BC (Statistics Canada 2004). Cash incomes in rural areas are also
supplemented with the harvest of local products such as berries, seafood, wild game and
firewood and through people building and maintaining their own houses. Studies suggest
that household provision activities and unrecorded cash exchanges comprise as much as
42% of part-time fishermen‘s incomes in rural Newfoundland (Hamilton and Butler
2001).
Turning to health indicators, BC fares better than the Atlantic provinces and NS
better than NL, with higher life expectancies and better rankings on risk factors associated
with chronic illness (NL 2002). Self-rated health, however, is highest in NL, followed by
NS and BC (Statistics Canada 2002)26. Suicide rates and self-reported stress levels are
25
Fishing employment is estimated at close to 15,000 in NL by O‘Reilly (2004), 14,500 core and non-core
in NS by Gardner Pinfold (2005) and 2100 in BC (BC 2005).
26
For a more detailed comparison of health indicators within Atlantic Canada and in comparison to national
levels see May (2005).
122
also low in NL (May 2005). Educational attainment measures paint, once again, a picture
of decreasing well-being moving west to east.
Results differ, however, when assessing social capital (Armstrong 2002). The
findings on political culture discussed above suggest there are greater social divisions in
BC than in NS and in turn NL. NL also has the lowest homicides and overall crime rates
in Canada, followed by NS and BC among the three provinces (NL 2002), although one
survey suggests violent crime rates are higher in NS than BC (Statistics Canada 2005).
The number of voluntary organizations per capita and ―volunteer rate‖ (% of residents
who volunteer) is highest in NS, followed by BC and NL (Statistics Canada 2004). NL
residents are the most likely to donate to a charitable cause and help others (e.g. child or
elder care), followed by NS and BC (Statistics Canada 2001).
Steeped in the history described above, NS, and in particular Cape Breton, has a
rich culture and unique mix of language and tradition. The Gaelic, Acadian and Mi‘kmaw
cultures of Cape Breton are a source of provincial pride, despite difficult periods in the
province‘s history when their practice was discouraged, even forbidden by authorities. An
estimated one-third of Mi‘kmaw people are able to speak and/or write in Mi‘kmaq. While
still threatened, there is a sharp contrast with BC‘s many small, diverse and endangered
Aboriginal languages (Norris and Jantzen 2002). BC is rich in ethnic diversity, however,
and many of its Aboriginal peoples are experiencing a cultural revival. While less diverse,
NL is also known for its diversity of dialects, unique folk entertainments and material
culture. This ―traditional‖ NL culture is increasingly mixed with external influences and
―older and suppressed ethnic and cultural realities of the French and Aboriginal peoples‖
(MUN 1997). All three provinces, therefore, have strong cultures linked to their history
and way of life to draw from that are both threatened and increasingly commoditized,
largely due to growing tourism industries.
Resident satisfaction measures suggest that important quality of life factors are
masked by commonly used indicators. Rural and small town coastal residents on both
coasts express a high level of satisfaction with their community despite the population
loss and economic stress, valuing characteristics such as quietness, the people, small town
living and proximity to nature (Ommer et al. 2007; Barrington 2005). The majority of
rural youth desire to leave their communities despite this attachment to place, often for
123
work or education (Ommer et al. 2007; Palmer and Sinclair 2000), their ability to return
impaired by lack of economic opportunity.
Ecosystem well-being has a significant influence on economic, social and cultural
activity and quality of life in the rural regions of all three provinces. Literature review
findings suggest forest ecosystems are particularly stressed in NS but poorly protected in
NL compared to NS and, especially, BC. Biodiversity is highest in BC, followed by NS
and NL. The health of fish stocks and populations is mixed in all cases. Sources suggest a
higher percentage of species are below average levels in BC than NL. Cod and capelin
abundance remain low (DFO 2007b), however, and catch levels the NL lobster fishery are
described as unsustainable (Ennis 2006). Charles et al. (2001) suggest that, like NL, in
NS many species, especially groundfish and other finfish, declined through the 1990s
while shellfish biomass either increased (shrimp) or remained stable (lobster). ―We‘ve
blown it on the fish, no question‖ says one federal official. Concerns are expressed about
the impacts of fishing gear on marine habitats, bycatch and discards, along with other
threats such as invasive species, oil and gas discharges and disturbance from seismic
activity (DFO 2001b). Three other provincial indicators of ecosystem well-being: waste
disposal per capita, drinking water quality and municipal sewage treatment, suggest NL
performs poorly in all three areas within the ecological dimension of well-being.
Overall, of 12 ecological indicators reviewed BC rates ―most sustainable‖ on
eight, NL lowest on seven (see Appendix 9). Yet, it is difficult to draw a simple
conclusion about the current state of ecological sustainability in these three provinces.
This is particularly true given their complexity for the state of fisheries and marine
environments (Charles et al. 2001), but also of other areas. One province, such as NS,
may score highest in some indicators (such as waste generation) but lowest in others
(such as old growth forest protection). For some indicators there is no clear trend,
insufficient information or mixed results (as in the case of drinking water quality).
Charles et al. (2001, 10) suggests that this ―reinforces the need to use multiple indicators
and to look at each indicator individually, to understand its particular nuances, rather than
merely adding up the results.‖
124
5.2. Kittiwake Region, NL
5.2.1 Communities and Local Government
Kittiwake zone is the area of the island of Newfoundland‘s northeast coast defined as an
economic zone for planning purposes (Economic Zone 14, Fig. 10). The Kittiwake Zone
had a 2006 population of an estimated 46,431 people living in approximately27 120
communities (Bennett 2006). The Kittiwake zone has experienced population decline
over the past three census periods, peaking at 10% decline from 1996 to 2001 and
slowing to an estimated 3% decline from 2001 to 2006. One community leader explains
―The population is moving more towards St. John‘s``.28 Adding to declines from
outmigration, rural NL has gone from having one of the highest birth rates in the western
world to the lowest, deaths now surpassing births. Given relatively low immigrant
attraction and retention rates, low fertility rates, and out-migration, population decline is
expected to continue (NL 2007a).
Six communities
of greater than 2000
residents make-up
“Road to the Shore” nearly 50% of the
region‘s population,
Indian Bay
Watershed including the service
centre of Gander. The
zone includes three
communities accessible
only by boat. The
Kittiwake economic
zone is sub-divided into
seven sub-regions for
purposes of economic
Figure 10 Kittiwake region (Zone 14)

27
Unincorporated communities and community mergers make it difficult to identify a specific number.
KEDC official estimates vary from 102 (KEDC 1997) to 120 (Bennett 2006).
28
―For the first time ever, the majority of the population in Newfoundland and Labrador is urban, if you
take urban to be 5000 or more‖ (NL 2001 from Dunn 2003).
125
planning/representation and four tourism areas. The Indian Bay watershed lies within the
Bonavista North (Gambo to Gander Bay) sub-zone and tourism area, also known as the
―Road to the Shore.‖
There are approximately 20 communities in this sub-zone. Community
governance in the Kittiwake region is largely through 39 municipalities and, in smaller
settlements, 31 local service districts (LSDs). The only Regional Council in the province
is also present, on Fogo Island. Two of nine Newfoundland Mi‘kmaw bands are located
within the Kittiwake zone (Gander Bay and Glenwood). Both have their own councils and
continue to fight for official recognition as status Indians and band councils. There are an
estimated 575 Aboriginal residents in the region (1% of the total population).
Only the communities of Indian Bay and Centreville-Wareham-Trinity (CWT, an
amalgamated municipality of three former towns) are located directly within the Indian
Bay watershed, Indian Bay lat the River mouth and CWT on the marine/estuarine
component. However, residents throughout Bonavista North have a tradition of
recreational fishing in the Indian Bay system, along with visitors from Gander, the
Avalon Peninsula (St. John‘s) and out-of-province. Indian Bay‘s population remained
relatively stable from 1991-2001 but declined by 8% over the last census period (pop
196). CWT declined by 14% from 1996 to 2001, slowing to a 2% decline in the last
census period (pop 1122). At 3%, watershed population decline was, therefore, on par
with the remainder of the KEDC region (Statistics Canada 2006).
5.2.2 Ecosystem Description and Well-being
Crossing Cabot Strait from Cape Breton to Newfoundland one enters the eastern boreal
shield ecozone, with its long cold winters and short warm summers modified by maritime
conditions, a land of spruce, balsam fir, and tamarack, wetlands, lakes, bedrock scoured
by glaciation, shallow, acidic, poorly-drained soils and slow rates of nutrient cycling (NL
2003). The Kittiwake economic zone includes three distinct eco-regions: the interior
central Newfoundland forest (north-central subregion), coastal north shore forests and
eastern hyper-oceanic barrens (NL 2006b). The central forest ecoregion is dominated by
relatively dense balsam fir and black spruce forests on a landscape of rolling hills
interspersed with bogs. Rugged, rocky higher elevations are also found. Birch and aspen
126
are common, particularly on disturbed sites. Exposure to wind and poor soil conditions
inhibits forest growth in some areas but much of the region is forest-covered. Common
wildlife include black bear, caribou, moose, lynx, and red fox (Bell 2002). Summers are
the warmest and winters the coldest on the island with less rain than other coastal areas of
the province (PAA 2000b; Bell 2002; PAA2000c).
Bordering the north shore forest and Northwest Atlantic marine ecozone is the
eastern hyper-oceanic barrens, where several types of berries, stunted conifers, low shrubs
and mosses are common. Summers are cool on this exposed shore but winters are the
mildest in the province (PAA 2000). The region‘s steep, rocky cliffs and islands provide
habitats for some of the largest seabird colonies in the world. Much of the coastline is
characterized by fjords, cliffs, and rock created by glacier movements about 10,000 years
ago. Like the Pacific Marine ecozone of BC, the Northwest Atlantic forms a transition
between cold northern waters and more temperate southern waters. The Labrador current
brings less saline arctic waters, which freeze more easily in the winter, along with pack-
ice and icebergs in the spring. Waters over the continental shelf are known for their
prolific marine life, including the once abundant Northern Cod. Twenty-two whale and
six seal species occur in the ecozone (Canada 2007c). Productive coastal intertidal zones
also support a diverse community of marine life including mussels, lobsters and crabs.
The Indian Bay watershed drains an area of 700-750 square kilometres29 and
covers approximately 1000 km2 including waterbodies. Indian Bay is a small river
compared to others in the province, but with a watershed system that includes 16 major
lakes (locally referred to as ponds), several relatively deep and accessible by
interconnected former logging roads, along with smaller feeder ponds and gullies, 15
main tributaries and a large number of sub-tributaries (Norris 1997). The watershed is
well-known for producing some of the largest brook trout on the island of Newfoundland
and is highly productive both in terms of fisheries species diversity and growth rates
(Gibson 2004). At least eight species: three-spine stickleback, land locked salmon
(ounaniche), Atlantic salmon, banded killfish, Eastern brook trout (including a sea run
component), American eel, rainbow smelt and Arctic charr in one deep lake, a glacial
29
Norris (1997) Stream Survey Report reports a drainage area of 700 square km while Wells (2002) cites
Damman (1983) and suggests 750 square km.
127
relic, are present as well as freshwater molluscs. Non-native freshwater species have been
avoided (unlike in the terrestrial component of the system where moose, red squirrel,
coyote and other species have been introduced). The watershed is also home to many
other species including furbearers such as lynx, otter and beaver, loons, grouse and other
birds. The Eastern brook trout is the primary recreational fishing species in the Indian
Bay system (followed by Atlantic salmon). A survey of local residents suggests fishing is
the most common use of the watershed, followed by snowmobiling, visiting a friend‘s
cabin, hunting, camping and other recreational activities (Buffinga 2001). Many local
families have cabins in the watershed, now numbering approximately 350. The watershed
is also used for cutting firewood, berry picking and trapping, commercial forestry and
blueberry farming.
Indicators on the status of ecosystem well-being in the region are limited and
relevant information scattered. Although State of the Environment reporting began in the
Atlantic region in the 1970s, NL has no state of the environment or environmental
indicators program (Bond et al. 2005)30. Forest District 5, covering much of the Kittiwake
zone and Indian Bay watershed, has extensive bogs, barrens and freshwater systems,
including only 37% productive forest land. Forest management plans refer to a high level
of recent (2001-05) forest harvest (NL 2006b). Only 10% of District 5 productive forest is
81 or more years of age, lower than the provincial target of 15% or greater. Other
concerns include the need for greater buffer zones to protect water quality and fish habitat
(#1 forestry-related concern cited by interview respondents), increased road access to
remote areas (#2), reduced forest diversity and impacts on species dependent on old and
diverse forest types, increased run-off and water temperatures, decreased water levels,
spraying/pesticides, compaction, erosion, siltation, and limited forest regeneration.
Forest habitat change is linked to declines in species of concern such as pine
marten and the red crossbill. Recent forest management plans include measures to
provide appropriate habitats for these species and for species popular for hunting and
trapping. Recreational development is thought to have played a role in the demise of the
piping plover, which appears to be extirpated from the region, while hunting pressure,
30
A 2007 Sustainable Development Act requires that natural resources indicators and sustainability
reporting be developed (NL 2007f).
128
including illegal harvesting, has contributed to declines in populations of common eider
and other wildlife. Species such as the great auk and NL wolf are now extinct, while
others such as bear, loon, beaver, and lynx populations are considered healthy or
increasing (see also Appendix 9). Overall the region‘s terrestrial and freshwater systems
remain largely undeveloped with the exception of logging, some mining activity and
scattered, relatively low density cottage areas. An estimated 5% of the Kittiwake region is
designated as protected (including two marine areas). There are no protected areas in the
Indian Bay watershed.
Despite some recent improvements, evidence suggests that Atlantic salmon
returns remain low relative to historic levels and trout populations have declined in the
Kittiwake region overall, although stabilized with evidence of recovery in the Indian Bay
watershed. Offshore cod stocks have not recovered while inshore stocks are thought to be
slowly improving but still vulnerable due to renewed harvest pressure. Concerns also
exist about the status of capelin, crab and lobster stocks, now critical to fishing incomes.
Fishing pressure and overharvesting (marine freshwater) was the number one ecological
concern noted by NL respondents.
Respondents also describe lack of financial resources for stewardship and
management of resource use as a significant barrier to sustainability in the Indian Bay
watershed, along with a resident attitude/ethic that favours resource exploitation over
conservation. Respondents suggest this attitude is changing, albeit slowly. A study by
Buffinga (2001, 112) concludes that ―the cultural context of the Indian Bay area could be
characterized as being supportive of controls, concerned about industrial development,‖
in contrast to the traditional open access attitude. Harvest pressure, industrial
development, including forestry and the threat of gold mining activity, illegal harvesting,
cabin development and associated water quality, habitat and aesthetic/experiential
impacts followed in a list of ecological concerns related to the watershed. Water quality is
rated good for protection of aquatic life and drinking water in both Gander and Indian
Bay watersheds, although eleven municipalities or LSDs elsewhere in the Kittiwake
region (16%) were on boil water advisory in June 2007, and 24 communities (34%)
experience high incidence of Trihalomethane levels in drinking water supplies (NL
2007b; c).
129
5.2.3 Economic Indicators
As in many primarily rural regions in NL, the Kittiwake Zone has lower than average
income compared to the rest of the province, as well as higher rates of unemployment
(29% in May 2001) and dependency on government transfers (see Appendix 9). Fishing
was the largest single occupation in 2000, followed by childcare and home support
workers. By industry, education, health care and social assistance lead employment in the
Zone, followed by manufacturing, retail, fishing, forestry and agriculture, construction
and public administration (Community Accounts 2001). While retail operators such as
small grocers and gas stations are spread throughout the region, large retail outlets are
concentrated in the service centres of Lewisporte and Gander (Rural Secretariat 2005).
Gander (pop. 10,364) is within a one hour commute of most towns in the region and
provides a regional hospital, government services and an international airport.
The primary sector employed 11% of the Kittiwake region labour force in 2000.
Together fishing and fish processing comprised 16% of total employment. There are 18
fish plants in the region, a decline from 30 in 1990 (KEDC 2002). Beothic Fisheries, the
region‘s largest employer, is located in Valleyfield (now part of New-Wes-Valley) and
employed 1200 plant workers and 1000 fishermen during the peak season in 1999.
―Anyone in this area who wants to work has a job,‖ remarked a company representative at
this time. Other seafood-related enterprises in the area include Wood-Pick Industries and
Crimson Tide in Dover, the latter employing approximately 200 workers and 200
fishermen seasonally. Area fish plants have survived the cod moratoria through
adaptation, innovation and diversification, with assistance from both provincial and
federal governments. Beothic processes 21 different species, including snow crab, turbot
(Greenland Halibut), lump roe, capelin, rock crab, toad crab, shrimp, squid, and
grenadier. Wood-Pick has concentrated on the developing sea urchin fishery and on
smoked Atlantic salmon, with the benefit of a steady and reliable supply of farmed
salmon product. Interview respondents expressed concerns, however, about the current
reliance of the fishing fleet and processors on snow crab, the impacts of crab quota cuts,
price wars, income inequities and technological change. ―They‘re the largest employer in
the whole zone. Without it we would be in trouble,‖ says one federal official of Beothic
Fisheries. By 2005 the number of plant workers at Beothic had fallen from 1200 to 500,
130
working an average of 14-16 weeks per year (Parsons 2005). In 2001 processing workers
in the region relied on EI for 41% of their average $16,400 annual income (Dunne 2003).
The lobster fishery remains important to the region‘s small boat fishermen despite a 35%
decline in lobster licenses within the region (management areas 4 and 5) from 1995 to
2005 (DFO 2006b; c). Only 510 of 905 current licenses are considered active.
Despite significant reliance on the fishery, Zone 14 is well diversified in the
manufacturing sector (ACOA 1999). A NL-E representative reports that the zone has the
second highest number of manufacturers in the province, found in both larger and smaller
centers. The Town of CWT on Indian Bay, for example, is home to seven manufacturing
firms, including Wood-Pick, a processor of wild berries, a fibreglass boat manufacturer, a
wood products company and others. The region also has a well-developed business
services sector (ACOA 1999) and is a test area for blueberry and cranberry farming.
Lynch and Locke (2005) observe that the Kittiwake region was the third highest producer
of new economy firms from 1997 to 2001 in NL. Many residents also travel seasonally to
other provinces for work. Four census subdivisions in the zone are deemed forestry-
dependent. While it began as the home of salmon harvesting operations in the 1700s,
forestry was the most significant economic activity (logging) within the Indian Bay
watershed from 1921 until the 1961 forest fire, now replaced by recreation (fishing and
cabin development), blueberry farming and manufacturing within CWT.
Economic well-being varies considerably within the zone. While the Town of
Gander has one of the highest average incomes in the province, for example, the Town of
Horwood has some of the lowest. With Beothic and CWT, known according to one local
respondent as ―the entrepreneurial capital of Newfoundland‖, the Bonavista North sub-
zone is relatively prosperous. Given its reliance on the fishery, however, the area has a
high rate of seasonal unemployment, reliance on EI, and a declining population.
Unemployment is high and wages significantly lower within pockets of the sub-zone.
Many workers from the southern portion of the sub-zone commute to Gander for
minimum wage positions.
Lack of economic opportunity, job loss due to technology change and the need for
job creation were identified by respondents as important sustainability issues in the region
along with the need for greater value-added and full utilization of natural resources.
131
Governments services (including education and health care), the region‘s top employer,
has suffered from cutbacks and, like the fishery, is vulnerable to future declines. As of
2005 the Province had identified: manufacturing, forestry, agrifoods and fishery,
aerospace, mining, tourism and ecosystem management as priority sectors for
development in the region. Peat development, an antimony deposit, high-school and
university preparation for international students, experience-based tourism, aircraft repair
and the use of the Gander international airport for shipping safe, ethical, fresh, specialty
products were identified as specific economic opportunities (Meisen 2005; ACOA 1999).
5.2.4 Individual and Social Well-being
Kittiwake respondents refer to increasing inequity in the forest and fishing sectors and
thus in their communities. Small logging and sawmilling operations have lost access to
forest resources, as have communities with encroachment in the former three-mile coastal
domestic harvesting area. Forest lands throughout the province are controlled by two
large pulp and paper companies. While attempts have been made to increase public
involvement in forest planning, cynicism exists about the opportunity for meaningful
input and participation has been limited. Changes in the fishery creating inequity are
described, with stories of fishermen ―with the quarter of a million dollar house‖ who
―want the quality of life, but they‘re not willing to support it‖ and ―don‘t mix in the
community the same way.‖ More money is being generated but being put in the hands of
fewer people. Fish harvesters who were not allocated crab or shrimp licenses and plant
workers are not sharing in the gains of increased value in the fishery. One respondent
gave the example of the sea urchin fishery, where traditional fishermen were given
licenses to the new fishery, hiring divers to do the work for a fraction of the profit.
Resulting resentment, divisions, and charges of individualism and greed challenge
community cohesion. Across the region, with changes in fishing and the EI program,
there are pockets of communities within the region that are doing very well and others
that are not.
The Canadian Community Health Survey (2001) indicates a higher level of social
support in the region than provincial or national averages, based on indicators such as the
percentage of residents who feel that there is someone they can count on to listen to them
132
and to provide advice, love and affection. The Health Survey also suggests that a large,
and increasing, percentage of Kittiwake residents have a very strong sense of belonging to
their community (41% in 2005). One respondent explains, ―you ask someone what they
like about their community, we have one young girl that said you can go next door for a
cup of sugar. If you lived in Toronto you wouldn‘t do that.‖ The percentage of residents
who volunteer and number of non-profit organizations is not available at the regional
scale. However, the Community Services Council (2004) reports that the Central portion
of the province (which includes Kittiwake), along with Labrador, has higher numbers of
volunteer organizations per capita than other regions. Research by Municipalities NL
(2003) demonstrates that Central region municipalities are also more likely than others in
the province to share services with a neighbouring community. Overall, indicators show
high levels of social capital in the region.
Kittiwake education indicators remain below provincial and national averages,
with lower rates of highschool and post-secondary completion, rates that increased only
slightly from 1996 to 2001. There is one public and one private college, four hospitals
and a number of community health clinics operating within the region. Life expectancy is
on par with NL but below the national average. Self-rated health lies above both the
provincial and national average (NL 2005a). Despite economic conditions, the percentage
of residents who feel ―quite a bit‖ or ―extremely‖ stressed in their lives is lower than for
either NL or Canada, the percentage of residents who felt ―happy and interested in life‖
higher (82% vs. 81% in NL and 76% in Canada). One respondent explained the apparent
discrepancy between self-described happiness and economic well-being: ―wealth is not
what is important.... There is a major lesson to be learned in rural Newfoundland, where
you can live on $10,000 if you have to.‖
5.2.5 Culture and Way of Life
Cultural diversity is limited in the Kittiwake region. There has been some renewed
interest in and recognition of Mi‘kmaw culture, along with heritage sites and
interpretation centres dedicated to the Beothuk, but most organized cultural activities
centre on the built and artistic heritage and way of life of European settler communities.
Towns throughout the region are working to restore and maintain stages, stores, merchant
133
houses and other buildings that reflect their fishing heritage. Buoyed by the tourist
industry, theatre troupes have sprung up offering traditional meals and performances
filled with Newfoundland humour and history, building on a still-alive tradition of skits
performed at community events. Newfoundland and Irish folk songs remain an important
part of many social gatherings and mummering, an outport tradition, is still practiced at
Christmas. Artists, writers and musicians celebrate their homeland with word, brush and
instrument; quilters and knitters still practice their traditional craft.
Beings outdoors, hunting, fishing and spending time at the cabin with family and
friends are all important aspects of local culture, identity and way of life in the region
(Sutton 1997). Respondents state that, while the spoils of a fishing or hunting trip are
usually kept for food, the experience is increasingly valued primarily for recreational and
cultural purposes. Outdoor recreational activities are very important to residents and
contribute to a high reported quality of life. A seasonal pattern is described that includes
activities such as moose hunting in the fall; wood cutting in the fall and winter;
snowmobiling, ice fishing and seabird hunting in the winter; trout, salmon and cod fishing
in the spring and summer; and berry picking in the summer and fall. Several respondents
described a change from an emphasis on hunting and fishing to non-extractive outdoor
recreation:
―You go out to Glovertown or any small community last Friday night and where were all the
young people? They were on their skidoos in the woods going through trails… I mean
gosh, we‘ve got to go to the cabin, it‘s like my peace to go to the cabin and be outdoors and
we‘re on the salt water and I mean I just love it… But you won‘t catch me out there in the
boat catching fish or shooting moose…‖
―The way I look at it is that if I‘m going in there, I don‘t really care if I get a fish or not.
Summertime I goes in the cabin, and to be honest with you, I know for sure the last five
years I haven‘t brought out hardly nothing… I eat and sleep there winter time, but
sometimes I barely sleep there because we go over to some of the other boys and we‘re
back up to the cabins just visiting friends...‖
Sutton (1997) found that the first and second most important reason for fishing in a
Bonavista North pond was ―to be outdoors‖ and ―to enjoy or observe nature.‖ Despite this
shift, Newfoundlander‘s remain protective of their open access rights to resources and
wilderness areas and are concerned that commercial development not impose on their
way of life. One respondent expresses concern, for example, about foreign interests
134
buying recreational property in traditional cabin areas and berry farms proposed on local
berry picking grounds. To date residents of the region have largely been able to protect
their way of life but changes such as encroachment on the traditional three-mile coastal
domestic wood cutting ribbon and, until 2006, closure of the recreational/food fishery for
cod have limited access, giving priority to conservation and commercial over sustenance,
recreational and cultural uses. When coupled with broader societal changes the culture of
this ―outdoor people‖ is vulnerable.
5.3 Bras d‘Or Lakes/Strait-Highlands, NS
The Strait-Highlands economic development region includes two counties in western

Cape Breton: Richmond and
Inverness (see Figure 11). With a
population of 28,776, the region
is part of the traditional territory
of the Mi‘kmaw First Nations
and is composed of an estimated
300 small settlements, 104 in
Richmond County and 196 in
Inverness (NS Community
Counts 2007). These include two
reserve communities: Chapel
Island/Potlotek (pop. 444-48131)
and Waycobah (or We'koqma'q,
pop. 623), and the Town of Port
Hawkesbury (3,517), a regional
service centre (Statistics Canada
2006). Figure 11 Bras d'Or Lakes and Strait-Highlands regions
31
Statistics Canada (2006) provides the lower population figures. Higher estimates are from First Nations.
Paul (2006) cites the Chapel Island population as 481, Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife Commission cites
Eskasoni‘s as 3500, for example.
135
The region has experienced a steady population decline of 5% over each of the
last two census periods, up from a 3% loss from 1991-1996. Richmond County has seen a
more severe decrease than Inverness, although this gap was largely closed in the last
census period. While the proportion of youth in the Strait-Highlands region is on par with
the Canadian average, youth employment and out-migration remains a concern in some
areas. Varying considerably, the median age ranges from 20 in Potlotek to 42 in
Richmond County (Statistics Canada 2001).
Over 20032 communities occupy the Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed (―the Bras
d‘Or``), which includes parts of all four Cape Breton counties and the territories of five
Mi‘kmaw First Nations to whom the watershed is central to their livelihood and culture33.
An estimated 22,000 residents live in the Bras d‘Or, approximately 25% of whom are
Mi‘kmaq (vs. 3% in Strait-Highlands). The largest community in the watershed is
Eskasoni (pop. 3,000-3,500). Baddeck and St. Peter‘s are service centres in the north and
the west, Baddeck a tourist destination and St. Peter‘s the location of one of three
passages from the Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean, a man-made canal constructed in the mid-
1800s. ―They‘re spread out,‖ says one respondent of the population, ―it‘s very sparse but
we do have some out migration from the cities.‖ The eastern portion of the watershed is
the most populated, 50% living within Cape Breton Regional Municipality.
RED and watershed management institutions within the region are discussed
further in subsequent chapters. The foundation of these collaborative initiatives is the
governments of the five First Nations and five municipalities (four counties and the Town
of Port Hawkesbury) of Cape Breton and the partnerships they have formed. Unama‘ki
First Nations are guided by the Mi‘kmaq Grand Council, the Mi‘kmaw traditional
government, and the Unama‘ki Council of Elders. Unama‘kik is considered the ―head
district‖ of the Mi‘kmaq and is typically home of the Grand Chief of the Mi‘kmaq Grand
Council (Berneshawi 1993).
32
87 communities are included in the Bras d‘Or Lakes Scenic Drive. This does not include all of the upland
communities (Bruleigh and MacKinnin 1994). This estimate includes 59 in Victoria County (listed in
Community Accounts in the Baddeck and Little Narrows areas), 16 in the St. Peter‘s area, 16 in Dundee
and 34 in the L‘Ardoise areas of Richmond County, Glendale (53), Whycocomagh area (18), East Bay (18)
CBRM, Bouladerie Isl. (22), Florence (6), Mi‘kmaq (5) = 247 communities. .
33
The community of Membertou is not situated on Bras d‘Or shoreline but has a significant connection
with the Lake. Malagawatach, for example, is an area set aside in 1958 for joint use by each of the five
Nations.
136
Cape Breton lies within the Atlantic Maritime ecozone, characterized by a cool, moist
maritime climate, rolling hills and fertile lowland soils. Except for the fir-dominated
boreal-like Cape Breton highland plateau the island is primarily within the Acadian Forest
region (Eaton et al 1994). Cape Breton is known as Unama‘kik or ‗land of fog‘ by the
Mi‘kmaq and is one of seven districts or ecological zones of the Mi‘kmaq territory
(Mi‘kmaki), each with unique ecological characteristics (NS-W respondent). Within Cape
Breton, the Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed includes three different provincial ecoregions: the
Strait-Highlands and two others.34 Forest products company Store Enso (2005) identifies
three ecological planning units on the island: Cape Breton Highlands, Lowlands and
Atlantic Shore. The forests of Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed are traditionally mixed
hardwood and coniferous stands, all of which had already been ―severely culled‖ by the
early 1900s (Fernow 1912). Red spruce is the characteristic tree of the forest region along
with balsam fir. The Acadian forest is also characterized by a variety of spring
wildflowers, blueberry, speckled alder and ostrich fern and is physically and biologically
diverse despite its relatively small area (Environment Canada 2005).
A growing number of scientific studies and overview documents (Barrington
2005; Kenchington 1998; Westhead and Parker 2005) along with traditional ecological
knowledge documentation (CEPI 2006) have been undertaken. Forests cover an estimated
80% of the watershed (excluding the Lakes, which comprise approximately 30% of the
total watershed area). Westhead and Parker (2005, iii) refer to the Lakes as ―a series of
estuarine bodies,‖ actually one large body of connected bays and channels that were
freshwater until about 4-5,000 years ago when they were connected to the Atlantic Ocean
by rising sea levels. Today the Bras d‘Or, referred to as the heart of Cape Breton, is a
semi-enclosed saltwater system, open to the ocean through two small channels (St.
Andrews and Great Bras d‘Or/Seal Island) and St. Peter‘s Canal, which are too narrow to
allow full flushing and mixing. These conditions limit tidal range, intertidal habitat,
nutrients and phytoplankton production as well as the influence of marine water
temperature. This makes the Lakes warmer than other NS coastal waters. Mixed with
34
Northumberland Bras d‘Or, Cape Breton Highlands and NS Lowlands in Bras d‘Or, along with Atlantic
Coastal and Cape Breton Taiga.
137
freshwater flows from rivers and streams, they also have lower salinity than the
surrounding Atlantic. Low salinity limits the distribution of lobster, crab, oyster, scallops
and other invertebrates. Ten distinct bays/basins with varied temperatures, salinities,
physical habitats and other characteristics support species diversity (Parker et al. 2007).
With a 1,000 km shoreline the Bras d‘Or is the largest inland sea in North
America (Westhead and Parker 2005), and is considered ―a huge fish hatchery‖ as a
spawning ground and nursery for a range of species. The literature and interview results
suggest that the status of Bras d‘Or fisheries is mixed. Overview studies describe an
overall increase in abundance, conflicting with public and respondent concern about
fisheries declines. Of 23 species for which information is available, 70% are at low or
declining levels. Overfishing, pollution, predation, habitat loss and degradation through
dragging and siltation, introduced parasites and disease along with changing
environmental conditions are factors in fisheries declines. TEK and other studies show
mixed trends in the region‘s bird and wildlife populations, some increasing (17 referenced
in literature reviewed), others rare and/or declining (10), and 15 rare and/or listed species.
Hunting was a significant contributor in the extirpation of caribou, wolves and possibly
the eastern cougar,35 along with climate change and predation. Deer populations have
suffered from harsh winters while threats to listed species include forestry-related habitat
loss, degradation and fragmentation, urban and beachfront development, atmospheric
pollutants and acid precipitation, unregulated trapping, competition from introduced and
native species, and disease.
Forestry is a significant activity in the Strait-Highlands region and Bras d‘Or
watershed. Forestry-related concerns include loss of forest diversity (replacement with
monoculture and mixed woods with softwood), unsustainable cutting rates, impacts of
clearcutting and intensive harvesting, including loss of culturally significant trees such as
black ash and maple, berries and medicinal plants. Disease and insect infestation are also
significant factors in forest health. Denys Basin residents believe the main cause of
sedimentation in the Lakes is clearcutting near streams and on steep hillsides, coupled
with the removal of riparian vegetation on private properties. While supportive of the
forest industry, most feel that responsible practices, including selective cutting, should be
35
The continued presence of the cougar is suggested but unconfirmed (Glavin 2006).
138
used (Barrington 2005). StoraEnso is responsible for the management and harvesting of
30% of forest lands and holds several certifications for sustainable forestry with policies
and targets in place relating to protected areas, old forest, diversity, clearcutting and
wildlife habitat protection. Concerns remain, however, and private lands, representing
62% of the watershed, are considered poorly monitored and protected.
Ecological priorities vary at the local scale but sewage-related contamination of
the Lakes, leading to shellfish closures and human health concerns was the number one
ecological concern of respondents in both Strait-Highlands (NS-E) and the Bras d‘Or
(NS-W). In the Denys Basin high levels of aluminum and bacteria and the limited supply
of drinking water is a top concern (Barrington 2005). Some respondents, although
significantly fewer than in Kittiwake, also raised the issue of attitudes and greed: ―People
are still trying to take the last oyster.‖
The unemployment rate in Cape Breton is significantly higher than in any other NS
region, nearly triple the rate in Halifax in 2000 (Statistics Canada 2000). After a century
of coal mining and steel making, which made it an economic centre in Atlantic Canada,
more than 20,000 jobs (24% of the workforce) were lost when foreign-owned coal mines
began closing in the 1960s due to the high costs of extraction. The Sydney coke ovens
stopped firing in 1998 and Cape Breton‘s last coal mine shut down in 2001. Bras d‘Or
watershed communities also saw the loss of the Marble Mountain limestone quarry in
1991, which had operated since 1869 and once employed over 700 (Westhead and Parker
2005). Despite these economic shocks, after bottoming-out in 1993 Cape Breton‘s
economy has been diversifying, creating ―hundreds of small businesses‖ and significant
increases in services, tourism and information technology (IT). Its unemployment rate fell
from 17.5% in 2000 to 14.5% in Dec. 2005 (CBCEDA 2008; Locke and Tomblin 2003).
While deemed an ―economic miracle‖ significant problems remain (Byrne 2002). Labour
force participation rates are low and therefore the unofficial unemployment rate is
significantly higher than the official one, with 25% of island residents below the low
income cut-off (Gurnstein 1998; MacIntyre 2004). Victoria County (2000) describes
139
changes to social assistance (1990s) and EI policies (1980s) that have encouraged
dependency and poverty.
Economic well-being on the island is unevenly distributed. The Strait-Highlands
region performs worse on virtually all economic indicators than the island average.
Inverness, which includes Port Hawkesbury, traditionally outperforms Richmond County.
Port Hawkesbury, on the eastern shore of the Strait of Canso, and the adjacent ―Straits
region‖ is a commercial centre located adjacent to the causeway connecting Cape Breton
to mainland NS. The Strait has a deepwater, ice-free port (Strait of Canso Superport) and
Bear Head Point Tupper industrial complex, making it a growth centre on the island and
distinguishing it from the more rural areas of the region such as the Denys Basin, where
outmigration of youth, unemployment and limited economic opportunities are identified
as key socio-economic weaknesses (Barrington 2005). Mi‘kmaw communities also suffer
from higher than average unemployment and dependency, although Membertou First
Nation is noted for its economic success.
The majority (74%) of business enterprises in Strait-Highlands are located in
Inverness County. Retail and fishing and trapping operations are most common, followed
by accommodation, food and beverage (SHRDA 2006). Natural resource industries have
been weakened by a high Canadian dollar, remain critical (see Table 18). Primary sector
employment represents 12% of the labour force (14% in Inverness County), rising
significantly when processing of minerals, pulp and paper and seafood is considered.
Manufacturing and construction constitute 22% of employment, followed by ―other
service,‖ health and education, wholesale and retail and the primary sectors. Sales and
service is the number one occupation in the region, followed by trades, transport and
equipment operation, while fish and fish products, forest products and natural gas are
leading exports (SHRDA 2007).
StoraEnso pulp and paper mill alone accounts for 7-8% of direct total
employment. Employment security is uncertain after a ten-month shutdown in 2005/2006.
Citing ―profitability challenges,‖ the mill re-opened after receiving a wage rollback,
voluntary retirement, and a new utility and municipal tax structure (Stora Enso 2006b). In
September 2008 the company announced the sale of its North American paper mills
140
(King 2008). Other forestry-related businesses include sawmills and value-added
enterprises such as a flooring company, Christmas trees and maple syrup.
The region is relatively diversified in its primary industries. Although
significantly impacted by the cod closure, the fishery remains an important part of the
Strait-Highlands economy (providing a comparable level of employment to the forestry
sector). Most fishing activity takes place beyond the shores of Cape Breton. Commercial
fishing activity in the Lakes has been reduced from an estimated 169 fishermen in 1990 to
less than 30 (Westhead 2006). Aquaculture is a growing industry in the region, including
Atlantic salmon, steelhead, mussels, scallops, rainbow trout and oysters, although only 77
hectares (19%) of shellfish aquaculture lease area in the Lakes reported any activity from
2000 to 2004 (oysters). Mussel farms began in the Lakes in 1988 but were no longer
active as of 2002.
Table 18 Major primary sector-related employers

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

Both located within the Bras d‘Or watershed, gypsum from Little Narrows Gypsum is
shipped via the Lakes while G-P Gypsum crushes on site and ships from Point Tupper
36
Stora Enso announced in September 2008 that it was selling its North American paper mills to Ohio-based NewPage
Holding Company (King 2008).
141
industrial area. A small mine in the Denys Basin produces rare and valuable marble.
Petroleum exploration activity has taken place on land, in the Lakes and offshore but has
been inactive for several years. Sable Offshore Energy processes natural gas liquids at
Point Tupper into butane and propane. Finally, extensive coal remains, which could be
exploited if clean burning technology is developed. Providing an estimated 250 jobs
agriculture also remains significant in some rural areas. Strait-Highlands products include
beef, dairy, poultry, blueberries and strawberries. Agriculture accounts for approximately
2% of total income in the region, mining for 4% and fishing 10%.
Approximately one million tourist trips are made annually to Cape Breton
(including trips by island residents), many visiting Bras d‘Or Lakes. One politician
expressed a belief that while coal was the major ―mover and shaker‖ for the island in the
1900s, the Bras d‘Or Lakes would be for this century, not just for tourism but also for
aquaculture and ecological protection. Others point out that tourism may be jeopardized
by pollution in the Lakes, which are ―perceived as a pristine environment, and relative to
some areas it probably is.‖ Tourism generates an estimated $75 million annually in the
Strait-Highlands region, providing seasonal employment for 800-1,000 individuals (S-
HRDA 2007). Impacted by a weak US economy, strong Canadian dollar and high fuel
costs, the industry has seen reductions of 5-7% in recent years (S-HRDA 2006). Finally,
over 3000 individuals are employed in call centres in Cape Breton, including centres in
Cheticamp and Port Hawkesbury (NS 2005).
5.3.4 Social Well-being and Human Health
As in NL, issues of inequity in the fishery were raised in the Strait-Highlands and Bras
d‘Or region(s), particularly with respect to it being hard to enter the fishery. Due to their
high cost, many licenses are now purchased by investors rather than those seeking to fish
as an occupation. One fisherman reports that a lobster license worth as little as 25 cents in
the 1960s is now worth $250,000. Some attempts have been made to address equity issues
in the region‘s fishery, including increased access for First Nations and a 1996 co-
management agreement for snow crab in Area 19 to facilitate resource sharing and ―even
out the income gap between fishers.‖ Local residents also refer to the rising cost of
properties, particularly summer residences, and competition from off-island buyers.
142
One respondent suggested that a loyal workforce with a low turnover rate is a
selling feature and social characteristic of the region, citing call centres with less than 2%
turnover (vs. 80+% in the U.S.) and a lower than average number of strike days. Sense of
community belonging and unpaid time spent looking after seniors are also significantly
stronger than provincial and national averages. Barrington (2005) describes how residents
frequently visit neighbours and attend community events. Facilities such as the River
Denys Friendship Hall provide venues for summer fairs, dances, card games and other
events. Speaking of the Hall (Farrell 1993, 396) says ―its importance in our community
cannot be overstated.‖ Lower than the provincial average, 85-88% of residents report high
levels of social support.
Despite strong community bonds significant divisions between communities were
also described and observed. Cooperative efforts take place within a historical context of
minimal interaction, racism and mistrust, particularly between Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal communities. As industrial Cape Breton was developed ―no one even knew
First Nations existed,‖ recounts one respondent, adding that the Membertou Nation used
to be located on Sydney Harbour but was moved from this prime real estate to make way
for a castle belonging to the steel plant builder. Although recent examples of racism and
displacement exist, there is now increased interaction and respect at official levels.
Malcolm (2003) explains that a climate of suspicion between Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal communities was an initial barrier when establishing a collaborative process
to address sewage in the Lakes, but over time ―a deep basis of co-operation and support
has been built between these two cultures and attendance from both has been strong at the
monthly meetings.‖ The name Pitu‘paq was chosen for the new cooperative venture, a
Mi‘kmaw word for the Bras d‘Or meaning ‗flowing into oneness.‘ Cross-cultural efforts
are described further in Chapters 7 and 8. A 2006 protest over the food fishery by St.
Peter‘s lobster fishermen demonstrates there is still much work to be done (Denny 2006).
However, the level of cooperation between First Nations, and between First Nations and
neighbouring communities, on Unama‘ki is considered unique in NS, where
―collaborative arrangements between First Nation bands and local municipalities are rare‖
(Tota 2002, 26). Tensions also exist between organizations, rural, urban and semi-urban
communities, and according to traditional religious and cultural separations. Distrust of
143
and frustration with top-down approaches of senior levels of government ―from away‖ is
also prevalent. Finally, crime is seen to be increasing in areas with summer residences
(Barrington 2005).
Life expectancy in Strait-Highlands is on par with the average for NS and just
below the national average. Self-rated health in the region, however, is below the NS
average. Self-reported life stress is similar to provincial levels. Deaths due to cancer,
cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, suicides and self-inflicted injuries,
unintentional injuries, and HIV/AIDS, as well as exposure to second hand smoke, are
higher within the health district than elsewhere in the province (GASHA 2005). Concerns
also exist about human health risks associated with sewage-based bacteria, viruses and
pathogens in the Bras d‘Or Lakes. First Nations representatives draw attention to the four
dimensions of health: emotional, spiritual, mental and physical (Paul 2006; Marshall
2006). There is one hospital in the region.
Highschool and university completion rates in the region are lower than the
provincial average, but other post-secondary education is higher. Limited educational
opportunities are described as a barrier to community sustainability in one rural sub-
region (Barrington 2005), while the Straits area boasts three school boards and several
news schools with programs in both French and English, specialized courses in Mi‘kmaw
and Gaelic languages, Nova Scotia Community College, Strait Area Campus, Université
Sainte Anne, Campus Petit de Grat, and a Nautical Institute. Two universities (St. Francis
Xavier University and Cape Breton University) are within a one and a half hour drive
from Port Hawkesbury (S-HRDA 2007). Bras d‘Or First Nations are actively involved in
curriculum design at the secondary and post-secondary levels in an effort to increase
Mi‘kmaw education levels. Educational attainment remains below provincial levels on-
reserve, but above average among Aboriginal Canadians.
Unama‘ki is home to vibrant Acadian, Mi‘kmaw and Gaelic cultures. The Port
Hawkesbury Area Profile (2007) refers to the region‘s diverse and distinct ―cultural
resources,‖ including its immigrant population (3% of total). One respondent explains
how the coal and steel industry brought ―25 different ethnic groups, scores of language
144
and hard-working immigrants‖ along with their unique cultural backgrounds to the island.
The Acadian communities of Isle Madame and Cheticamp areas, known for their rug
hooking, Acadian dance and song, make up 23% of the Strait-Highlands population.
A resurgence of cultural identity and pride has been observed of the Mi‘kmaw
Nations. The Eskasoni powwow is the largest event of its kind in the Atlantic provinces,
with storytelling, drumming and dancing, talking circles, competitions and traditional
Mi‘kmaw games. Wagmatcook Culture and Heritage Centre, opened in 2001, is dedicated
to the revival of Mi‘kmaw culture. Annual gatherings have taken place at Chapel Island
(Potlotek) since the 1700s and continue today (St. Ann‘s Mission Retreat) and
Malagawatch, a sacred burial ground, traditional trading, gathering and annual ceremonial
mass site is visited in August by each of the five Unama‘ki First Nations (CEPI 2006).
The Unama‘ki Council of Elders ensures that knowledge about the culture is
appropriately relayed. The Mi‘kmaw language is also strong, spoken by about 3,400
people in the Bras d‘Or Lakes area (70% of the aboriginal population) (Malcolm 2003).
According to Statistics Canada (2001), 58% of Aboriginal people in the Strait-Highlands
region report using a language other than French or English at work, rising to 79% in the
Bras d‘Or watershed.
Loss of plants and traditional knowledge about their use has negatively impacted
cultural practices. Changes of activity due to loss of ice and birch trees large enough to
make canoes and basket making species, along with lack of recognition and
understanding of Aboriginal rights and title are also among the threats to Mi‘kmaw
culture described. Mi‘kmaw respondents suggest that access to resources is limited by
small reserve sizes and restrictions to access Crown lands and those controlled by forest
companies.
The 1800s immigration of the Scots to NS saw whole communities replant their
roots along the shores of Bras d‘Or Lakes. With them they brought their language, songs,
stories and religious practices and the ancestors of today‘s famous Cape Breton
entertainers. In the early 1900s there were 100,000 Gaelic-speakers in Cape Breton.
Church services were conducted in Gaelic, members of parliament were Gaelic-speaking
and Sydney boasted the world‘s only Gaelic newspaper. Today, only an estimated 500-
1,000 Gaelic-speakers remain in NS. There has been a resurgence of interest in preserving
145
Gaelic language and culture and a series of initiatives, programs and policies launched to
protect it, including the Highland Village Living History Museum overlooking Bras d‘Or
Lakes.
As in NL, rural residents value their rural landscape, open spaces and quiet rural
lifestyle very highly. Activities such as walking outdoors, berry picking, swimming and
bird /wildlife watching were the most common outdoor recreation activities and an
important part of the way of life in the River Denys area (Barrington 2005).
5.4 Mount Waddington/Central Coast region, BC
In addition to federal, provincial and First Nations governments, there are three main
forms of local government in BC: municipalities, Regional Districts and improvement
districts (legislated special purpose arrangements). Regional Districts are governed by a
board of directors composed of representatives from both municipalities and electoral
(non-municipal) areas. Original Community Futures (BC-E) boundaries generally
followed those of
the Mount
Waddington
Regional District
(MWRD), which
includes the
northern third of
Vancouver Island,
the adjacent
mainland and
islands between.
There are
approximately 23
Figure 12 Mount Waddington Regional District
settlements within © 2001, BC Stats, by permission
146
this landscape, including five municipalities,37 eight Kwakwaka‘wakw communities38 and
a number of unincorporated areas39 (see Figure 12 and Appendix 9). Seven of these
communities are within the Nimpkish watershed (including the estuary), with a
population totalling 5,061 in 2006. Since 2001 the CFDC‘s service area has expanded to
include the communities of Bella Bella/Waglisla, Rivers Inlet/Oweekano, Klemtu and
Ocean Falls, all but the Bella Coola and area portion of the Central Coast Regional
District (CCRD).40 The change virtually doubled the organization‘s service area and
added 1,396 people, primarily First Nations, to its service population. Despite growth in
several First Nations communities, the area‘s population fell by 10% from 1996 to 2001.
Linked to resource sector declines, this trend continued from to 2006, MWRD losing 11%
of its population in the most recent census period and CCRD 16% (Statistics Canada
2001; 2006; Wilson 2004).
First Nations within the majority of the case study region are Kwakwaka‘wakw,
or Kwak‘wala speaking peoples. Fourteen Kwakwaka‘wakw tribes are registered under
the federal Indian Act. Others have amalgamated with neighbouring nations, are not
registered or have been lost due to factors such as disease or warfare during European
settlement. Eleven of these tribes are within the region.41 Seven are engaged in treaty
negotiations and six are in Stage Four (Negotiation of an Agreement In Principle). Two of
the three Central Coast First Nations, Heiltsuk and Wuikinuxv (Oweekeno), are also in
Stage Four. The total self-reported Aboriginal population in the Mount Waddington
Regional District was 2,570 in 2001 (20% of the total population), 1,722 living on-
reserve. In the Central Coast portion of the Community Futures service area 1,450
residents report Aboriginal identity, bringing the total estimated Aboriginal population to
4,020 (27% of the total population) (Statistics Canada 2001). Three North Island
Kwakwaka‘wakw Nations are affiliated with the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal
37
Alert Bay, Port Alice, Port Hardy, Port McNeill and Woss
38
Fort Rupert, Tsulquate, and Quatsino, Kingcome/Quaee, Gilford/Gwa‘yasdams, Hopetown, Hope Island
and ‗Namgis/Alert Bay.
39
Including Coal Harbour, Quatsino, Winter Harbour, Holberg, Hyde Creek, Beaver Cove/Alder Bay,
Telegraph Cove, Sointula and Echo Bay
40
Area A, Bella Bella and Kitasoo Census statistical areas, electoral area A and B.
41
Including the Da'naxda'xw/Awaetlala, Gwa‘Sala-Nakwaxda‘xw, Gwawaenuk, Kwakiutl,
Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwaw-ahmish, Mamalilikulla-Qwe‘Qwa‘Sot‘Em, Namgis, Quatsino, Tlatsikwala,
Tlowitsis and Tswataineuk
147
Council (MTTC).42 Offices of the MTTC, Da'naxda'xw/Awaetlala First Nation and
U‘Mista Cultural Centre, serving all Kwakwaka‘wakw peoples, are located in Alert Bay.
Six Nations belong to the Kwakiutl District Council, based in the Port Hardy/Fort Rupert
area. The majority of Central Coast area residents belong to the Heiltsuk Nation and
reside in the growing community of Waglisla or Bella Bella (pop. 1,253). Wuikinuxv and
Kitasoo Nations belong to the Oweekeno-Kitasoo-Nuxalk Tribal Council (OKNTC). The
majority of non-Aboriginal services and retail shopping enterprises are located in either
the District of Port Hardy or Town of Port McNeill.
The Pacific maritime ecozone is known for warm, wet climatic conditions, lush temperate
coastal rainforests and mountainous topography. Organic matter and soils accumulate
quickly, making BC‘s
rainforests one of world‘s
most productive
ecosystems (Gilkeson et
al. 2006). The ecozone is
home to abundant plant
and wildlife and rapidly
growing human
populations. Its narrow
continental shelf and
slope are the leading edge
of the westward-shifting
North American tectonic
plate, folding under the
Pacific tectonic plate
Figure 13 Upper mid-coast planning region
and causing undersea
2005, R. Prescott Allen, by permission
42
Rohner (1967) refers to the Musgamagw as the cluster of four neighbouring tribes
(Gwawaenuk/Gwawa'enux, Hahuamis, Kwikwasutinux and Dzawada'enux/Tsawataineuk, from the
Broughton/Mainland Inlets villages of Kingcome, Gilford and Hopetown. Today MTTC members include
the ‗Namgis, Tsawataineuk and Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-mish (incorporating the Hahuamis and
Kwikwasutinux of Gilford/Gwa‘yasdams).
148
volcanoes and earthquakes as they meet. Sea ice is generally absent and the Alaskan
peninsula largely prevents cold water currents and exchange between the Arctic and
Pacific ecozones, creating relatively stable ocean temperatures and a transition zone
between Arctic and temperate Pacific waters.
Under the recent north and central coast planning process the majority of the BC-
E region is classified as the Upper Mid-Coast (see Figure 13). A large portion of the
Upper Mid-Coast is further classified as the Queen Charlotte Strait Ecosection. The
majority of the region‘s population lives on the shores of this shallow marine area, which
is interspersed with many islands and reefs. Strong currents mix oceanic and freshwaters
to create highly productive marine environments. The region is home to highly diverse
habitats and significant aquatic and terrestrial resources, including ancient forests,
fjords/inlets and rivers fed by rainfall and mountain glaciers supporting all six species of
Pacific salmon. The land base is approximately 50% mountain, lakes and glaciers and
50% forest, less than 1% urban. Within the Nimpkish watershed forest cover rises to
78%. Most of the region‘s forested lands lie within the Coastal Western Hemlock
biogeoclimatic zone, considered the most productive forest ecosystem in Canada. The
Upper Mid-Coast contains some of the world‘s largest tracts of intact temperate rain
forest, much of the world‘s yellow-cedar and Sitka spruce, and significant amounts of the
valuable and culturally significant western red cedar (Prescott Allen 2005). Rivers, lakes
and streams support both resident and ocean-run trout. Nutrient-rich estuaries and
sheltered waters provide rearing grounds for salmon and over-wintering habitat for
waterfowl, gulls, pelagic species, loons, grebes and other bird species (Walden 1999).
Raptors feed in near-shore wetlands and rivers while a variety of marine and terrestrial
mammal populations occupy their respective habitats. Queen Charlotte Strait marine
ecosection attributes include: winter winds and swells, with turbulent mixing of water
masses resulting in significant upwelling of nutrients and increased phytoplankton
productivity; high concentrations of bald eagles and waterbirds; important breeding
grounds and colonies of several birds species; high capability for orcas, porpoises and
dolphins; herring spawning areas, and salmon bearing rivers. Habitat diversity of the
ocean shelf and slope is enhanced by large corals, benthic complexity (changes in slope
149
on the sea bottom), channels and passages with fast currents that sustain distinctive
assemblages of species (Prescott Allen 2005).
Despite these still relatively high levels of natural capital, ecosystems in the region
are degraded and threatened. DFO (2005) and Gilkeson et al. (2006) describe BC‘s
central and northern ecosystems as intact relative to the southern portions. However,
salmon species in the central coast are considered to be in the worst condition of the
central and north coast planning area (Rumsey et al. 2003). A review of the Upper Mid-
Coast‘s ecological integrity suggests an overall poor Ecological Integrity Index,
considering ecosystem diversity (rated poor), species and genetic diversity (bad), land,
water and air quality (good), and provisioning and cultural services (bad). The
proportions of land and coast converted to structures and cultivation are relatively small,
old growth presence high (50% of the forested area) and 11% of the total area protected.
Ecosystem diversity is poorly maintained and protected, however, damaged or reduced by
logging and fishing in the most productive and diverse ecosystems. Many of the region‘s
species are under threat and habitat protection for focal and at-risk species is either
lacking or inadequate. Freshwater ecosystems are moderately underrepresented in
protected areas, land ecosystems extremely underrepresented, and protection virtually
absent for marine ecosystems. In 2006, land area protected rose to 20% of the Central
Coast, addressing to some degree major concerns about habitat alteration and loss. Sharp
declines in fish and timber populations have reduced sources of provisioning and cultural
services. Of the fish populations examined by the Coast Information Team in the Upper
Mid-Coast, 71% are declining. High-grading of old-growth red cedar remains a
significant concern, although 50% of the region‘s forests remain old-growth. While the
region may be regarded as pristine on a national or global scale, relative to historic levels
and considering vulnerability to a combination of intensive logging, fishing, salmon
farming and other resource developments, there are significant conservation concerns in
the region (Prescott Allen 2005).
The health of the Nimpkish watershed (Fig. 14), the largest on Vancouver Island,
reflects these broader regional concerns, with a higher level of past forest harvest than
other more remote central coast areas. The watershed has historically been rich in natural
abundance, supporting salmon and other fisheries, giant Douglas fir and red cedar, ferns,
150
mosses, devil‘s club, salal and other plants along with wild game. Nimpkish forests were
logged throughout the 1900s, moving from the coast, lakes and riverbanks to increasing
Nimpkish
watershed
Figure 14 Nimpkish watershed

© 2005, Canfor Corporation
elevations. Most of the area‘s old growth has been harvested. Tree diversity has been
reduced through replanting and the presence of old-growth-dependent threatened and
endangered species suggests resulting ecosystem decline, despite the major tenure-holder
(Canfor, now Western Forest Products) being considered a leader in wildlife research and
habitat management within the forest sector.
The story of Nimpkish River, once one of BC‘s top four sockeye producers and
lifeblood of the Nimpkish people is one of continuing decline in salmon returns since
1948. Once numbering as many as one million sockeye, the run diminished to an
estimated 5,800 returning sockeye in 2000 (with periods of relative strength in between).
A highly valued early run is thought to be virtually extinct. Chinook, coho, steelhead and
pink salmon runs are also endangered despite significant investments in enhancement,
restoration and conservation since the 1970s (see Chapter 7). Habitat damage from
151
logging practices and ocean survival are thought to be significant contributors to salmon
population declines. Other factors may include harvest (directed or as bycatch) in
commercial, sport and illegal fisheries, lack of freshwater nutrients, stocking, pollution,
disease, ecosystem effects of fishing disrupting the food chain, predation and climate
change. The impacts of pesticides used in forestry are unknown, although DDT spraying
by BC Hydro in the late 1950‘s is known to have killed thousands of juvenile salmon
(McCorquodale 2006; Eklund 2004). Although only 6% of the watershed is protected (in
nine parks and ecological reserves), and old growth and low elevation forests have been
heavily logged, given its size and low level of urban and other industrial development the
watershed is still considered relatively healthy overall, with significant potential for
recovery.
Much of rural BC experienced economic declines in the late 1990s due to poor market
conditions and trade disputes in the logging and wood processing industries, coupled with
depleted stocks and policy changes in the fisheries. Mount Waddington Regional District
experienced an 8% decline in employment from 1996 to 2001: 89% decline in the mining
sector with the closure of the Island Copper Mine in 1995/1996, 44% in fishing
employment, 15% in forestry, 42% in construction, and 15% in education. Despite
increases in transportation and communication (42%), health and social services (39%)
and accommodation, food and beverage (8%), new industries such as tourism and
aquaculture were unable to fully compensate for declines in traditional sectors,
contributing to population losses (Synergy Group 2003; Ommer et al. 2007).
World commodity prices have risen and unemployment rates declined since 2003
(BCBC 2007), but Young and Matthews (2005; 2007), Markey et al. (2005) and others
suggest that the problems evident during the late 1990s remain, including resource
dependency and resulting vulnerability. In response to concerns about sustainable forest
management practices, annual allowable cuts have been reduced and labour continues to
be replaced with technology in an effort to increase productivity and international
competitiveness. Prescott Allen (2005) reports that logging and wood production,
fisheries and food production, and tourism combined provide 56% of income in the Upper
152
Mid Coast region. An estimated 23% of the Mount Waddington/Central Coast labour
force works in the primary resource sectors. The region has the lowest economic diversity
index and highest level of forestry vulnerability/dependency of all regions in the province
(Synergy Group 2003). Forestry is also the main employment generator within the
Nimpkish watershed (Canfor 2005).
Overall forestry-related income dependency in 2000 was 45% in Mount
Waddington (13% in the Central Coast), dependence on fishing and trapping 5% (11%
Central), mining and agriculture 3%, and tourism 8%. Both fisheries and tourism
dependence has remained stable in Mount Waddington since 1996, while public sector
dependence rose to 21% from 16%. In the Central Coast, this has risen to 35% (BC Stats
2007; Synergy Group 2003; Wilson 2004). Demand for wilderness and cultural
experiences are among the highest growth segments in BC tourism,43 but to date the
region attracts only 2% of total visitors to Vancouver Island. The vulnerability of the
tourism economy is highlighted by events such as the increasing value of the Canadian
Dollar, 9/11 and the sinking of the BC Ferries vessel Queen of the North, which disrupted
ferry service on the Inside Passage route, a major tourist draw in this region (UBC 2006;
Salter et al. 2004).
Falling prices and revenues in the BC salmon fishery, mid-1990s policy changes,
particularly the Pacific Salmon Revitalization Strategy or ―Mifflin Plan‖ to reduce the
size of the salmon fleet, coupled with depleted resources and conservation measures,
downsizing in the processing sector that began before the Second World War, other
policies favouring centralization, intense competition and fishing pressure have combined
to reduce fishing opportunities and encourage operators to sell their licenses in a late
1990s buy-back program. The number of commercial and recreational salmon industry
jobs has declined from approximately 26,000 to 13,000 along the BC coast. Several
communities within the case study region are among the most severely impacted
(Gislason and Lam 2000). Ecotrust (2004) report that the number of fishing licenses
(excluding clam and herring gillnet) in five of the region‘s largest fishing communities
fell by 40% (to 277 in 2002). Yet fishing still plays a key role in some community
economies, both commercial and subsistence (Prescott Allen 2005). In the Central Coast
43
Saturation in other areas is also expected to be a factor in future tourism growth for northern areas.
153
region fishing and fish processing provide 19% of employment (vs. 15% in forestry) and
11% of income (vs. 13%).
Over 50 salmon farms operate in the southern central coast region (Wilson 2004).
Coastal planning efforts have identified areas for potential expansion of the salmon
aquaculture industry, but opposition due to concerns about impacts on human health,
ecological integrity and infringement on Aboriginal rights and title creates considerable
uncertainty. Opportunities in shellfish aquaculture have also been identified but
development has been slow, hindered by unresolved negotiations over First Nations
treaties and protocols for development within traditional territories and harvest areas.
Quatsino First Nation is working to establish shellfish aquaculture facilities along with
Band-run local processing facilities for salmon and shellfish products and to balance
aquaculture with shellfish subsistence activities (UBC 2006).
With relatively high forestry wages, median incomes in the region are similar to
the provincial average. Participation rates are high. Rates of both employment and
unemployment are therefore higher than elsewhere in the province (although, like
incomes, lower in the Central Coast). Significant discrepancies exist within the region.
For example, unemployment was only 11% in 2001 in Mount Waddington (employment
67%), compared to 23% in the Central Coast Regional District. Dependence on transfer
payments (the majority received by First Nations communities) rose from 1996 to 2001,
but was still below the provincial average in Mount Waddington at 10%, rising to 18% in
the Central Coast. Overall, economic opportunities are hampered by ―remoteness, limited
infrastructure, lack of capacity, and inadequate access to capital and markets‖ (Prescott
Allen 2005). Changes in government policy in areas such as employment insurance and
social assistance have made economic circumstances worse for the region‘s poor,
reducing benefits and making it more difficult to qualify (Ommer et al. 2007).
Penfold et al. (2004) identify several areas of need for infrastructure development
to maintain and support businesses in the region, including harbour and port development,
roads, broadband connectivity and airport improvements. Some of these gaps have been
filled or plans are underway to do so, including harbour development plans in Alert Bay
and improvements to Port Hardy airport. Orca Sand and Gravel Ltd. was launched in
2006 to export construction aggregates to coastal California, generating up to 100 new
154
jobs. Small-scale run-of-the-river hydroelectric and wind energy projects are proposed.
Oil and gas opportunities have been identified but are constrained by regulatory barriers,
price fluctuations and concern over associated risks, which has led to opposition.
Significant mineral potential has been identified and opportunities are being investigated
in community forestry, underutilized species, cedar salvage, value-added production and
botanical forest products (Penfold et al. 2004).
5.4.4 Social Well-being and Human Health
Social capital varies throughout the Mount Waddington/Central Coast region. Interview
respondents and other researchers refer to significant inter-community competition and
conflict. Bass (2007) describes, for example, conflict around the construction of a tourist
development based on the historical site of ‗Fort Rupert‘, built by the Hudson's Bay
Company in the 1800's and located within the reserve community of the Kwakiutl First
Nation. Yet on Cormorant Island, Vodden et al. (2006) describe the precedent-setting
Alert Bay Accord, signed by the ‗Namgis First Nation and Village of Alert Bay in
recognition that the two governments ―have historically worked together to promote a
better standard of living for all the residents of Cormorant Island.‖ Even here a degree of
underlying tension exists, but the community is seen as a model of cooperation between
Native and non-Native communities.
Communities in the region share a commitment to the land base and natural
resources of the area and thus a sense of common identity and connectedness with their
environment. Inequity in access to natural resources and related decision-making and
economic benefits is, however, a concern. A relatively small proportion of natural
resource benefits flow to First Nations and local communities, although fair and
sustainable allocation and management of resources and treaties with First Nations are
considered key to regional well-being (CIT 2004). Rights to forest harvesting in the
Mount Waddington region are held primarily by two major companies, along with a
number of smaller licenses, private holdings and timber sales. Some areas have been hit
harder than others by difficult economic circumstances. First Nations coastal
communities, already experiencing lower levels of economic well-being, were
disproportionately impacted by 1990s fisheries declines (Vodden 1999). After a
155
provincial government ―clawback‖ of 20% of major licensed tenures in 2004/2005,
however, new annual allowable cut allocations were made to First Nations. Some
measures have also been taken to increase First Nations access to the commercial fishery.
Geographic isolation from the rest of the province and kinship ties contribute to a
sense of interdependence among communities in the region. Sense of community
belonging and time spent on child care are strong compared to the remainder of BC
(corresponding with a higher proportion of youth population). BC Stats (2007) indicates
high rates of serious and juvenile crime relative to the BC average and the second highest
rate of spousal assault in the province in Mount Waddington.
An Upper Mid Coast Well-being Assessment indicates a poor population and
health index for the region. Statistics are not available for the Central Coast Local Health
Area (LHA) due its small population, therefore health indicators are reflective of only the
Vancouver Island North LHA and Mount Waddington Region. The region performs
poorly relative to the rest of BC on numerous health indicators, including the lowest life
expectancy (2002-2006 average) and highest rates of teen pregnancy, suicide/homicide
and years of life lost to natural causes in BC. Rates of infant mortality are more than four
times the provincial average and life expectancy in the region fell from 1997 to 2005 (BC
Stats 2007). The Health Area‘s Aboriginal population experiences higher mortality rates
than the population as a whole, although decreasing significantly over the past decade.
Despite these indicators 61% of the populations rate their general health as excellent or
very good (vs. 60% in BC).
Social services such as Child and Family Services and Women‘s Centres designed
to support families are being cut back on Northern Vancouver Island despite economic
pressures and associated needs (Ommer et al. 2007). ‗Namgis First Nation in Alert Bay
has taken a community-wide approach to health service delivery and provides a range of
services to all Island residents. There are four hospitals within the Mount Waddington
region, as well as addiction and mental health services and two senior care facilities.
Concerns are expressed about the need to travel for specialized health care services. In the
Central Coast, there is a Health Centre in Bella Bella and nursing/health stations in
Klemtu and River‘s Inlet.
As is the case with health indicators, the region underperforms compared to the
156
remainder of the province in highschool and post-secondary completion. Mount
Waddington rates 23rd of 26 of Regional Districts in BC on education indices. With all
socio-economic indices considered, the region is ranked 21st of 26 in well-being (BC Stats
2005).
―The culture of the Kwakwaka‘wakw has survived for thousands of years, but now is in
jeopardy…‖ U‘mista Cultural Society 1997, 19-20
―To the Kwakwaka‘wakw First Nations, language and history are one. As fewer and
fewer Elders speak Kwak‘wala, history and its oral traditions are lost.‖
U‘mista Cultural Society 2005, 7
While the Mount Waddington population includes a higher proportion of

immigrants and visible minorities than other case study regions, celebration of cultural
diversity is limited primarily to Aboriginal cultures and the Finish settlement of Sointula.
Strength and pride in culture are important factors in health and well-being in the
community of Alert Bay, contributing to self-esteem and mental health, a spirit of helping
one another and, increasingly, to economic activities such as Aboriginal tourism and
artworks (Vodden 1999). Language is critical to the survival of Aboriginal cultures, yet a
study done by U‘mista Cultural Society demonstrated that less than 9% of
Kwakwaka‘wakw speak their language fluently (Vodden 2006). Only 30 individuals in
the region report using a language other than French or English at work. Assuming all 30
reside within Aboriginal communities, less than 1% of Aboriginal people in the region
use a language other than French or English at work. Kwak‘waka‘wakw language and
culture remains threatened despite strong leadership over many generations and the
efforts of organizations such as U‘mista Cultural Society, elders and other committed
individuals who have helped sustain and nourish this important aspect of community
pride and well-being. Indicators related to culture (activities, practices and places
secured) are poor in the mid-Coast region, in large part due to ecosystem decline and
vulnerability, with resulting threats to culture and way of life (CIT 2004).
157
5.5 Summary and Case Study Region Comparison
All three case study areas are experiencing sustainability challenges, including the loss of
their populations at varying rates. Populations are declining to a significantly greater
extent in the BC case study region, followed by Strait Highlands. The Mount
Waddington/Central Coast region exhibits very different demographic trend than the
province of BC. Population decline is increasing in this region while slowing or steadying
in the Atlantic regions. With a high proportion of Aboriginal residents and young working
families, the BC region has the highest number of youth and lowest number of seniors.
Kittiwake zone has the lowest percentage of youth and Strait-Highlands the highest
proportion of retirees. Two of the three areas have significant Aboriginal populations (BC
and NS). Similar to provincial trends, resident diversity is greatest in Mount
Waddington/Central Coast, followed by Strait-Highlands and Kittiwake.
Mount Waddington/Central Coast economic indicators generally mirror the
findings of the provincial comparative analyses, faring better on all economic indicators
than the Atlantic case study regions with the exception of primary sector dependence.
Dependence on export-led primary resource sectors is highest in BC, followed by NS
(with the most diversified primary sector) and then NL cases.44 Primary sector
dependence has been declining in all three regions in recent decades, the decline most
pronounced in BC-E. Kittiwake zone‘s (NL) dependence on government transfers is
nearly triple that of Mount Waddington/Central Coast (BC), unemployment nearly 2.5
times higher. Mount Waddington/Central Coast also has a higher number of businesses
relative to its population than the other regions, followed by Kittiwake and Strait-
Highlands.45 There is considerable variation in economic well-being both within and
between the case study regions. While overall incomes are highest in the BC case, for
44
Both BC and NS regions meet Clemenson‘s (1992) definition of economic reliance as a state when 30%
or more of the local labour force is employed in the industry or sector in question, including indirect and
processing employment. Kittiwake region‘s level of dependency is 27% of employment if a multiplier of
one is used for the fishery (as per Mandale et al 2000) but exceeds 30% if a multiplier for fish harvesting of
1.3 or greater is used (as in BC 2007). The latter approach is taken in assuming all three are resource-
dependent regions.
45
602 businesses in Strait-Highlands (2002, one business per 48 people), 1,628 in Kittiwake (2004, one
business per 29 people), 576 in Mount Waddington and 97 in Central Coast (2005, one business per 25
residents in MW/CC).
158
example, at $13,072 in 2001, median Central Coast individual incomes are lower than in
either east coast region.
While rating positively on most economic well-being indicators, Mount
Waddington/Central Coast rates poorly within BC on education and health indicators and
thus on socio-economic indices overall. The region rates lower than Kittiwake (NL-E) but
higher than Strait-Highlands (NS-E) on self-rated health and mental health indicators
such as stress and suicide rates, equal to Strait-Highlands in life expectancy (both higher
than Kittiwake, NL). Mount Waddington/ Central Coast and Kittiwake regions have a
comparable number of medical facilities, Strait-Highlands fewer. Reflecting on the link
between health and governance one elder explains, ―we need to be healthy to have the
governance we once had.‖ High school and university completion rates are significantly
lower in all three regions than provincial averages, lowest in Kittiwake, followed by
Mount Waddington/ Central Coast. Rates of participation in other post-secondary
education is, however, higher in Strait Highlands and Mount Waddington/Central Coast
regions than provincial averages. Overall, Strait Highlands residents are most educated,
Kittiwake the least. All three regions have access to a community college, Strait
Highlands the closest to university facilities.
Social and cultural capital are more difficult to measure and compare than the
other dimensions of well-being discussed above. According to interview respondents, all
three cases are among the most difficult regions in their provinces for regional
development and collaboration. Competition between communities was the most
commonly noted barrier in both Mount Waddington (81%) and Strait Highlands cases
(67%). Yet all three regions are considered leaders in their respective provinces in
watershed management, Bras d‘Or and Indian Bay particularly. The collaborative
governance initiatives described in the chapters to follow have been undertaken despite
varying degrees of conflict and mistrust among communities and between local actors and
external agencies (Ommer et al. 2007; Hipwell 2001). Overall, indicators suggest social
capital is strongest in Kittiwake, followed by Strait-Highlands. While cultural well-being
is difficult to measure and apparently strong but threatened in all regions, results suggest
that Aboriginal languages are significantly stronger in NS than in the BC case study
region.
159
As with cultural capital, ecosystem indicators are not readily available in each of
the case study regions, particularly within NL, where state-of-the-environment reporting
is weak. Sustainability concerns raised in each region, many of them ecological, are
discussed further in Appendix 9. Mount Waddington/Central Coast is rich in ecological
diversity and natural resources relative to Strait Highlands/Bras d‘Or, which is in turn
more diverse than Kittiwake/Indian Bay. Significant concerns related to the
overharvesting and habitat impacts of forestry and fishing are common to all three
regions, as well as issues related to tourism and recreational property development. With
the exception of the terrestrial areas of the Central Coast and Cape Breton Highlands,
ecosystem types and regions are underrepresented in protected area networks in all three
areas. The majority of fish species are in decline or at low population levels, forest
diversity has declined and old-growth dependent species are threatened. Forestry
concerns were greatest in BC, fisheries in NL and water quality/pollution in the Bras d‘Or
watershed region. Ecological pressures are connected to the high level of dependence on
forestry and fishing industries as well as more recent tourism and urban development,
particularly in the Bras d‘Or. Drinking water quality concerns exist in both the Kittiwake
and Bras d‘Or regions, while changing climate and ecological conditions are noted as a
concern in all cases. Introduced species are a particular concern in the Bras d‘Or but also
noted in the Kittiwake zone.
Table 19 Regional comparison of well-being indicators

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

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

Human/individual 3 2 3
Economic 3 3 2
Social 1 2 3
Cultural 2 1 2
Ecological 3 3 2
Finally, key similarities and differences in the biophysical and socio-economic

characteristics of these regions are summarized in Table 20. One notable similarity is the
economic contributions these regions make to their provinces and to the country.
Respondents express frustration that Central Canada points to government dependency in
these regions without sufficient analysis of what their regions in turn contribute to the
federation, ecologically, culturally and socially, but also economically. A Mount
Waddington Net Wealth Balance sheet study demonstrated, for example, that the region
was an income generator for the Province of BC, outflows to government exceeding
161
inflows by over $100 million annually (Synergy 2003). Tomblin and Locke (2003)
similarly find that Cape Breton contributes over $12 million more to the provincial
coffers each year than it receives. Also similar is that each of these are regions ―on the
edge,‖ far from the Nation‘s capital and subject to largely absentee management. All also
have a long history intertwined with the ecosystems of which they are part, a history that
is continually being rewritten as these socio-ecological systems change and adapt.
Table 21 Similarities and differences between the case study regions

Similarities Differences
• Islands/coastal (connection to and • Island and region size (spatial)
dependence on land and sea) • Settlement history (timeline, settler diversity
• Settlement history (colonization and and origin)
resource exploitation) • Population size (provincial vs. region)
• Remote from national capital • Degree of population decline
• Under-recognized economic contributions • Proximity to urban centres
• Population aging and declining • Ecosystem characteristics, diversity and
• Threats to fisheries (ecological + labour complexity
force, licensing/access) • Degree of ecosystem pressure/use
• Rich but threatened cultures based on • Population and cultural diversity
ecosystems and way of life • Political influence within the province
• Large-scale forestry, increasing tourism/ • Provincial political characteristics
seasonal/absentee residents • Regional government structures
• Satisfaction with lifestyle/communities • Recognition of Aboriginal rights and
• Lower than average performance on title/stage of treaty negotiations
education and health indicators • Levels of wealth and employment
• Loss of government services, pressures on • Levels of social capital
local governments
• Desire for local involvement in governance,
collaborative governance initiatives
• Diversity of local circumstances within
regions
The complexities of the local and regional contexts described above highlight the
value and necessity of a holistic, integrated approach to regional analysis and
development. Despite significant differences, patterns of past decision-making, which
have often favoured the economic imperative, have degraded coastal ecosystems and the
cultures and ways of life that are intimately connected to them. The chapters that follow
trace the development of RED and watershed management policies nationally,
provincially and within the case study regions, where multiple actors are attempting to
work together to capitalize on the strengths and address the challenges to sustainability
raised above.
162
6 – Regional Economic Development Redefined
This chapter introduces the three regional economic development (RED) case studies,
including a brief history, introduction to their mandates, activities, organizational
structure, resources, major actors and their relationships (see also Appendix 10). To
begin, an overview is provided of the theoretical and policy traditions that have lead up to
and accompany the current, renewed interest in regions as a focal scale for development
in Canada and, particularly, in the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia
and British Columbia.
Despite the developments in the new regionalism introduced in Chapter 2 and a
history dating back to the 1920s (Friedmann and Weaver 1979), regional development
theory remains a project in progress. Savoie (1992) points out that there is no single
theory to explain or aid in the analysis of regional disparity and competitiveness. Kitson
et al. (2004) contend that regional development policy has jumped ahead of
understanding and empirical analysis.
As described in Chapter 2, Brodie (1990) presents two fundamental perspectives
on the factors that lead to development, or underdevelopment: one that focuses on internal
factors (self-balance) and the other on external and structural constraints to local
development (imbalance). Aligned with the structural or imbalance perspective,
alternative development is a mid-level theory that provides principles, values, strategies
and tools that: recognize and have faith in people as actors; value community; focus on
assets rather than deficiencies; are holistic and prioritize basic needs. Alternative
development calls for a redistribution of power through decentralization and genuine,
bottom-up participation in development approaches that are rooted in culture and territory
(Friedmann and Weaver 1979; Todaro 1997; Anderson 1999; Brohman 1996; Black
1999). Within the family of alternative development approaches, sustainable community
economic development (CED) aims to promote ecosystem and community health and
incorporates ecological along with human-centered values such as social justice, self-
reliance and the elimination of poverty (Vodden 1997; Bryant 1999). Community
involvement in natural resource management, often through co-management
163
arrangements, is a key strategy for sustainable CED in resource-dependent regions
(Vodden 1999; Malenfant 1997; Pinkerton 1989).
Within the realm of alternative development is an emerging literature on
integrated, balanced development, a holistic yet goal-oriented approach that calls for
integration of all aspects of development, spatial (vertical), temporal and sectoral
(horizontal). Integrated development is presented as an alternative to dualist debates over
centralization and decentralization, top-down vs. bottom-up, environment vs. economy,
large vs. small scale enterprise, formal vs. informal economies, rural vs. urban, traditional
vs. ―new economy‖ sectors, structure vs. agency and so on (RCEU 1986). It addresses
multiple issues and objectives, including economic, ecological, and socio-cultural
imperatives and utilizes multiple strategies and tools. The evolving concept (Nozick
1999; Brown 1999; House 2001) draws from a growing and now extensive literature on
integrated resource and environmental management, including integrated coastal zone
management (Margerum 1999; Meltzer 1998; Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998). Due to its
multi-stakeholder/multi-scale approach integrated development is complementary to
emerging multi-level forms of governance and with complexity theory, which advocates a
―both/and‖ rather than ―either/or‖ view of the world.
6.1 Scaling Up Community Economic Development
While alternative development theory offers solutions that recognize the importance of
empowerment, sustainability, context and diversity, an evolving body of regional
development literature discusses how to accommodate these principles at scales beyond a
single settlement. This new regional development takes place within a sub-provincial
geographic area composed of a number of communities with a boundary defined by
ecological, political, cultural and/or socio-economic criteria (Chapters 2 and 3). Baker
(1993) refers to these multi-community clusters as a micro-region. Arguments for the
local sub-provincial as a focal scale include observations that economic issues and assets
overflow community boundaries, and that there are economies of scale in regional
learning systems and regional provision of infrastructure and services. Recognizing that
local development efforts must be examined within larger global, national and provincial
164
contexts, it is further suggested that combining community resources increases
discretionary reach and political power beyond the local scale (RUPRI 2006).
Early theories of regional development focused on growth poles or centres
(Chapman 2005; Perroux 1969). Associated policies and programs focused on developing
regional centres, with the belief that spread effects would distribute benefits throughout
the rest of the region (Hodge and Robinson, 2001). This approach favoured urban
settlements. The anticipated spread effects often did not materialize, instead furthering
tendencies toward agglomeration. Chapman (2005) and others argue that regional
development policies have shifted from growth centres to clusters that build on local
strengths, including local skills, knowledge, technology and sectors (Porter 2001). By
building on areas of local strength, clusters of interconnected businesses and support
organizations develop. New regionalist literature emphasizes the role of social capital and
‗relational assets‘ (MacLeod 2001; Scott 1998; Cook and Morgan 1998; Storper 1997;
1999), knowledge and innovation. Coffey and Bailly (1996) introduce the concept of
‗innovative milieu‘, as a ‗created space‘ that is both a result of and a precondition for
learning and innovation (Malmberg and Maskell 1997). A ‗milieu‘ is described as a
coherent territorial production system and set of linked actors, firms and institutions.
Ideally, cultural norms and relationships within these networks, or innovation systems,
are characterized by high levels of trust, reciprocity and institutions that nurture creativity
and innovation (Goldstein 2005). Regions with an innovative milieu develop learning
capacity and resilience.
Once again spread effects are promised as innovation occurs and clusters develop
and expand into new areas, creating region-wide competitive advantage. In many cases,
however, cluster development has led instead to increased specialization and rigidity
(Chapman 2005). Markey et al. (2006) suggest that the application of the cluster concept
in the rural context is poorly reflected in the literature, although offering potential to
motivate cooperation and provide a compromise between sector-based and more
territorial approaches. Similarities are drawn between new regionalism and earlier
centralization and growth pole theories, particularly given the emphasis placed on city
regions as clusters of growth and innovation (Baptista 2000; Cowan et al. 2003; Wolfe
2003; Tremblay and Rousseau 2005). Rural communities are often disadvantaged in the
165
knowledge economy and unconvinced of the notion that knowledge will replace natural
resources and labour as critical sources of economic growth (Tremblay 2005; Gertler et
al. 2002).
Savitch and Kantor (2003, 1012-1014) advocate for continued emphasis on
development at the community scale. Economic performance, they suggest, depends on
strong social capital, to which community ties and local business ownership are important
contributors. Community development can be facilitated by rescaling downward to the
community organization level and rescaling the influence of community organizations
upward to broader levels. A regional organization can assist in this process as a linking
organization that ―represents the collective interests of community organizations‖ and can
―build civic cooperation around broad issues…balancing local interests with those of the
broader region.‖
Regional development is often more widely accepted than CED among
governments as a policy approach. Dealing with single communities is seen as too time-
and resource-intensive. Individual municipalities are often viewed as financially and
politically ill-equipped to deal with today‘s complex problems (Diamant 1997). Regional
structures that encourage cooperation can help minimize damages to regional
development potential caused by competitive behaviour between communities within a
region (Brunnen 2006). Further, Greenwood (2005) points out that while market forces
may be largely sufficient for large urban centres to provide the infrastructure needed to
support development, this is often not true for smaller, more remote communities. These
communities can benefit from regional support.
In a recent review of rural and regional development policies and programs,
Goldenburg (2008) concludes that traditional approaches are insufficient for meeting
today‘s challenges. Programs to support economic development, job creation and
business development, he suggests, must be combined with more holistic community- and
place-based approaches that involve local actors creating and building on local assets in
partnership with other levels that provide support, including strategic investments. While
a range of policy instruments is needed, effective partnerships, participatory strategic
planning, and effective governance, including multi-sector consultation, planning,
monitoring and evaluation are considered critical.
166
6.2 Regional Development in Canada
Economic disparities exist both across and within Canadian provinces. Responses to
these disparities have occurred at multiple levels, but are often focused on interprovincial
inequities. The traditional connotation of the Canadian region has been multi-provincial,
including: Western Canada (or British Columbia and the Prairies, consisting of Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba), Central Canada (or Ontario and Quebec), Atlantic region
(Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick)
and the North (Hodge and Robinson 2001; Ali et al. 2007).
A brief overview of efforts to address regional disparity and support economic
development in regions with low income and employment levels is provided in Table 22
below, many of them drawing on theories of self-balance such as modernization and
growth poles rather than alternative, integrated perspectives. Additional details, including
a summary of these past approaches and what Desjardins et al. (2004) refer to as the
―alphabet soup‖ of federal programs in Canada, are provided in Appendix 11.
Table 22 National approaches to RED

Regional development Dominant approach
policy era
1940s and early 1950 Passive (focus on revenue transfers to the provinces) and initiatives
to address sector-specific problems
Late 1950s – 1960s Capital investment in rural areas and support for migration of
displaced workers
Late 1960s – 1970s Training, building social and economic infrastructure, growth poles,
federal-provincial agreements
1980s Mega-projects, free trade and competitive federalism but with a
constitutional commitment to reduce disparity – leads to federally
controlled but regionally located development agencies
1990s – 2000s Move to a wider variety of approaches, including support for
innovation and commercialization, CED, the social economy, and
community capacity building, adjustment programs. infrastructure
and strategic support to sub-provincial regions
Sources: RCEUN (1986); Savoie (1992); Roy and Wong (1998); Baker (2003); Desjardins et al.
(2004); Goldenburg (2008)
Past policies and programs have left a legacy that significantly influences RED
today. Development agencies established in the mid 1980s in the Atlantic (Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency – ACOA, with ACOA programs delivered by Enterprise
Cape Breton - ECBC on Cape Breton Island and the neighbouring portion of mainland
167
Nova Scotia), Northern Ontario (FedNor) and Western Canada (Western Diversification -
WD), for example, remain active and instrumental in their regions after more than 20
years. They are criticized for lack of clear results and allocating dollars in exchange for
votes, but these agencies became a voice for their regions in the federal system, and
delivered both national and tailor-made programs and services targeted to their regions.
While federally funded and controlled the agencies work with local and provincial
levels as development partners, as illustrated by the case studies described below and by
interview responses indicating that these agencies (ACOA, ECBC and WD) are among
the most influential actors in RED within the case study regions. The approaches taken by
each of the agencies differs significantly despite common federal priorities and a
consistent role as important sources of financial support for both business and community
economic development initiatives. Both local and federal respondents explain the WD
has taken a hands-off role in BC-E and in the region, for example; to the point where both
feel more direct involvement and non-financial support is needed. In NL-E, however, one
federal respondent explains: ―There‘s very few economic development meetings that will
actually happen in the region unless there‘s an ACOA official in the room.‖
Headquartered in Cape Breton, ECBC representatives suggest ―a lot of our work is in
hand holding.‖ As a Table 23 Federal agencies active in RED
Crown corporation the Federal Agency # of respondents that refer to the

agency has a agency as an RED actor
BC-E NS-E NL-E All
considerable degree of N = 23 n =27 n = 34 n = 84
WD/ECBC/ACOA 10 15 20 45
independence from HRSDC/Service 14 10 13 37
Ottawa relative to Canada
Fisheries and 4 4 4 12
ACOA and WD. Oceans
Notably, this Indian and Northern 6 2 8
Affairs
autonomy and relative Rural Secretariat/ 2 5 7
Partnership
proximity does not Industry Canada 1 1 2
appear to have Canadian. Tourism 1 1
Commission
translated into stronger
relationships with other actors in the NS-E network than in the BC case, in part because
of a perception that the Corporation‘s ―focus has been mostly on Cape Breton County,‖
168
and to a lesser extent Port Hawkesbury, and on support for private sector and larger
projects rather than small-scale community development initiatives. One representative
suggests alternatively that, in BC, WD is moving increasingly into rural and community
development. Although support for this direction is mixed within the agency, supportive
leadership is deemed instrumental in positive WD relationships within the BC case:
There are people here who still honestly believe that rural communities
should be left up to the whims of the market, whether we do anything
with them or not if they can‘t survive on their own they shouldn‘t be
there. There‘s one guy. For him these programs for rural communities are
just meaningless. For him what is meaningful are biomedical research,
fuel cells and the big stuff. So we have dissention within our own office.
BC-E federal respondent
There‘s also a very positive guy at the helm of the initiative at WD …

he‘s an exceptional guy...the epitome of what‘s best of bureaucracy,
right. He‘s sensitive, he‘s got experience working in the field, he‘s
intelligent, he‘s got a good sense of humour, you know he‘s just a super
guy… if you‘ve got somebody in that position that has all the right
skills, then it works better than other places.
BC-E CFDC respondent
The significant role of individual leaders within government is discussed further in

Chapters 8 through 10.
Other federal agencies considered to be important actors in RED policy networks
include HRSDC/Service Canada (also a major partner of all three case study
organizations), Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs (see Table
2346). Through the initiation of the Community Futures Program in 1986, Employment
and Immigration Canada (now Service Canada) became a ―pioneer‖ in Canadian CED.
But by the early 1990s its approach had changed to what is described as the Employment
Insurance Regime, focused on individual workers, their return to work and savings to the
Employment Insurance (EI) account (Roy and Wong 1998). As a result, cuts were made
46
Relationships maps provided in Appendix 5 provide additional detail on the federal role in case study
networks. Federal agencies noted in Appendix 5 include those referred to by respondents and in documents
reviewed. Table 22 reflects interview results only.
169
to longer term CED programs and the agency ―pulled out of economic development.‖
Responsibility for the Community Futures program was transferred to the federal regional
development agencies. WD and FedNor continued to operate the program while ACOA
chose a different approach, separating development and small business lending
components. As a result regional economic development boards (REDBs) were formed in
NL and Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) in NS (described below). The new
organizations were to act as planners and development facilitators while independent
Community Business Development Corporations (CBDCs) continued to offer technical
and financial services for small businesses; roles that had been combined under
Community Futures.
Regulations and procedures associated with Service Canada funding became
significantly more rigid after a 1999 internal audit and October 2000 Report of the Office
of the Auditor General found ―serious and widespread problems in HRDC's systems and
practices for managing grants and contributions.‖ Many interview respondents consider
these changes a barrier to program effectiveness and to partnerships with the agency.
―HRDC is so frightened now,‖ says one community leader, ―it‘s hard to get support.‖ An
employee of the agency adds, ―Our Department has made a decision to be safe at all
costs… but I think the ways we‘re getting accountability is at the cost of programming
and the needs of the community and the clientele… what we used to be able to do in
maybe a couple days turn around now takes us at least a month… as a department we‘ve
stopped listening…‖ Despite these concerns the department has played a significant role
in transition programs, including fisheries restructuring, programs to help unemployed
workers become self-employed and projects in new and growing sectors such as tourism.
In the Kittiwake region, rural development associations have been contracted to provide
employment assistance services, working with clients to develop back-to-work action
plans, and with non-profit groups or employers to create employment opportunities.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has contributed to fisheries adjustment
programs and incorporated economic considerations in coastal planning, involving RED
actors in related projects and planning processes (see also Chapter 7). While not widely
discussed, Industry Canada has provided important communications infrastructure
support to rural and northern regions, including all three case study areas, through its
170
Broadband for Rural and Northern Development and Community Access Programs. The
efforts of both departments are consistent with the Federal Framework for Action in Rural
Canada and Canadian Rural Partnership. The Framework, launched in 1998, provides an
overall federal approach to supporting rural development. Annual reports to Parliament
on progress in meeting rural and remote Canadians‘ needs and priorities are required and
Rural Teams have been established, an example of horizontal governance. In BC, one
member explains, the Team includes an array of provincial ministries, is Co-Chaired by
provincial and WD representatives and has a staff member funded half time by
Agriculture Canada and half time by Service Canada. The Team has sponsored rural
dialogues throughout the province, with various departments contributing. Baker (2003)
and others are sceptical however, that these initiatives will lead to significant change.
Baker‘s concerns are enforced by the limited recognition of the Rural Teams or related
structures and programs by interviewees. Five of six respondents that referred to the
Teams were federal, one suggesting the Teams are ―strong on research‖ but ―the link is
not very strong to existing organizations.‖ A provincial representative adds, ―Ottawa has
very tight grip on Rural Partnership.‖
6.3 Provincial Policies and Programs
Canada‘s provincial governments have also grown and developed programs to address
intra-provincial inequity, including rural poverty and job loss. They have demanded a
greater say in regional development despite greater federal financial power. Relationships
between the two levels of government are often characterized, at best, by lack of
coordination and, at worst, outright conflict.
Greenwood (2005) observes that only Saskatchewan has a dedicated rural
development department, while other provincial governments have branches within
agriculture (Alberta, Manitoba), municipal affairs (Ontario, Quebec), economic
development (NS, NB, NL), or community development (BC, PEI) departments. Alberta,
Saskatchewan and NL also have provincially-sponsored Regional Councils, task forces or
action committees with appointed members devoted to rural and/or regional development.
Most provinces have rural strategies or economic development strategies with rural
components. Many also have specific strategies for northern or peripheral regions and
171
have created lending agencies, business and investment attraction programs and
supported the establishment of RED bodies (see Appendix 11). A brief overview of
policies and programs in BC, NS and NL is provided below.
6.3.1 British Columbia
BC experienced a period of economic prosperity from the 1950s to the 1970s referred to
as the long boom (Markey et al. 2005), supported by resource extraction and provincial
infrastructure investment. Regional Districts were put in place in 1965 but otherwise there
was little focus on regional development before an early 1980s recession (Hayter and
Barnes 1997; Markey et al. 2005) and the placement of provincially funded Regional
Development Officers in eight regional offices, including Northern Vancouver Island, in
the late 1980s.
The early 1990s saw the election of a New Democratic Party (NDP) government
and a shift towards a more community-based approach. One provincial representative
describes programs that included community visioning and charettes, business programs
and funding for economic development commissions. The number of regions was reduced
from eight to five, but with sub-regions identified in each. The Vancouver Island-Coast
region, for example, had seven sub-regions, each with economic development specialists
―working closely with the federal government and CED organizations‖ with the mandate
―to do all elements of the economic development work: strategic planning, business
development planning, trouble shooting.‖ The Crown corporation Forest Renewal BC
(FRBC) was formed in 1994 to reinvest forest stumpage revenues into forests, forest
industry and forest-dependent communities, followed by Fisheries Renewal BC in 1997.
After a change in leadership and subsequent budget cuts, the RED Officer program was
cancelled, leaving FRBC to fill the vacuum ―because the demand was still there at the
community level and there was no vehicle within government to address to the need.‖
Provincial CED programs were disbanded with the election of Liberal Premier
Gordon Campbell in 2001. The new government turned its attention to increasing
provincial competitiveness by ―cleaning up the regulatory side and getting… the
industrial and business taxes more in line with competitive jurisdictions.‖ The economic
development ministry was reduced from 220 to 90 employees, with minimal field staff in
172
each development region and no formal RED programs (BC-E provincial representative).
―We really don‘t get anything from the province‖ one BC-E representative suggests,
another adding that ―they‘re not involved in much at all to do with non-profit, and they‘re
basically cutting their ties to us.‖
The new government introduced their Heartlands Strategy to ―open up new
opportunities‖ outside Vancouver and Victoria, facilitating resource-based development
by providing ―flexibility in meeting environmental standards‖ and ―results-based‖
policies (Young and Matthews 2005). One community leader remarks: ―I don‘t see them
here, it‘s heartless not heartland.‖ One aspect of the Strategy that had significant benefits
for some BC communities however, including some in the North Island region, was a
requirement for forest license holders to return 20% of tenure to the Crown. Consistent
with a provincial commitment to forming a new relationship with First Nations to reduce
uncertainty, litigation and conflict, tenures were redistributed to First Nations,
Community Forests and private woodlots.
As of 2004 one representative remarked ―three years into the government‘s
mandate… the communities in the rural part of the province have been suffering through
government cutbacks and rationalization of services... I think they are gradually coming
around to the view that they need to do more.‖ Since the field research period a number of
policy measures have been taken, including a move toward a model of regional trusts to
focus investment on specific regional economies (Coe 2006). The Ministry of Economic
Development also established three new regional integrated economic development
partnerships or alliances under a Regional Economic Alliance pilot program (East
Kootenay, Vancouver Island/Coast and the South Peace River) with involvement from
local governments, economic development practitioners, educational institutions, First
Nations, health and social services and the private sector (Coe 2006). These initiatives are
meant to be consistent with ―natural regional economies,‖ delineated by trade linkages
and/or other flows of commodities and people rather than administrative boundaries
(TFOCO 2006, 26; Brunnen 2006). Vancouver Island-wide connections in North Island
RED initiatives are, however, limited. Only two government respondents referred to
North Island participation in a Vancouver Island-wide initiative (Vancouver Island
Economic Developers Association) within the interviews conducted for this study.
173
Further, the new trust initiative for North Island-Coast (established 2005) includes south-
central Vancouver Island and Sunshine coast communities with whom the region has not
had a history of working and excludes the central coast, where connections have been
built, continuing to redefine the term ―region,‖ as well as the planning boundaries and
funding opportunities within the development landscape.
6.3.2 Nova Scotia
Several interview respondents suggest that the Province of Nova Scotia (NS) has not had
a strong track record of rural and regional development, suggesting a gap between policy
intentions and problems of successful implementation. Some argue that the Province has
focused its efforts primarily on the capital region as a growth pole (Johnson 1998). One
regional representative explains ―They‘ve had a long history of pretending to dabble in
economic development but when the feds formed ECBC the province figured they didn‘t
have to think about development in Cape Breton. Halifax as a growth centre was the
provincial strategy, which was very successful, but what about us?‖
Blake (2003) recounts, however, efforts to address inequities within the province
dating back to the late 1950s and early 1960s, including the establishment of a lending
program for entrepreneurs in resource-dependent rural communities and a provincial
crown corporation (Industrial Estates Limited), which helped to establish industrial parks.
Small textile, hardboard, and fish-processing plants were launched and millions spent
trying to lure companies to the province, ―with mixed success.‖ Cape Breton was an area
of both provincial and federal concern as it struggled with coal mine and steel industry
closures. When Sydney‘s Dominion Steel Corporation announced that its steel plant
would close in 1967, the Province opted to take it over, renaming the corporation Sydney
Steel Corporation (SYSCO). Two decades of major industrial operations operated as
crown corporations would follow in Cape Breton. Despite provincial ownership and
subsidies the facility, once employing 4000 residents, closed in 2001 and left behind the
the hazardous waste site known as the Sydney Tar Ponds.
Support was provided from the 1960s through to the early 1980s for local groups
to form Industrial Commissions, encouraging local responsibility for economic
development. Voluntary Planning, a provincially funded non-government organization,
174
produced Creating Our Own Future, a Nova Scotia economic strategy in 1991. In
response, the provincial Economic Development Department issued a discussion paper
suggesting four principles for CED policy: a flexible approach; local leadership; a
supportive but non-directive role for the Province and results-oriented. The paper
identified 14 specific proposals, including ―a network of 10-15 local economic
development authorities to stimulate and coordinate CED efforts in sub-areas of the
province‖ (Bryant 1997).With the election of a new Liberal administration in 1993,
community development became a feature of planning across departments. Key
responsibility for CED was placed with the Economic Renewal Agency, later the Office
of Economic Development (OED) and now Nova Scotia Economic Development. Newly
elected Premier John Savage, himself ―very deeply committed to community
development models,‖ became the Minister of Economic Development. One senior
provincial official recalls ―when that government came in, not only did we have the
ground prepared, but... the political interest was there.‖ The new government put in place
a CED support system that included: planning support; funding for CED coordination,
waterfront development and community projects; small business loans program and
community based business financing; one-stop information and service centres; and
community-level training opportunities (Bryant 1997).
Community Futures Committees and Community Business Development Centres
had been established in many areas of the province, two of them forming regional
development agencies (Colchester Regional Development Agency and Cumberland
Development Agency). Building on this approach, the province unveiled a 1994 plan to
create 12 new Economic Renewal Areas, each with a Regional Development Authority
charged with advancing CED activities in their regions. The Authorities were to
encourage communities, all three levels of government and CED groups to come together
to make the best use of government resources in a coordinated fashion (see NS-E below).
Since 2000 the Province of Nova Scotia has worked toward an overarching goal
of ―sustainable competitiveness‖, recognizing five ―building blocks of productive
capacity:‖ financial, natural, built, human and social capital. Nova Scotia Business Inc.
was established as a business-development agency and lending arm in 2001, working to
attract new businesses to the province and help existing businesses expand through trade
175
development, business advisory services, financing, and investment attraction. Nova
Scotia Economic Development has collaborated with the agency on initiatives such as a
business, retention and expansion program. The department also has its own financing
vehicle that provides loan guarantees, loans, incentives and share purchases in areas of
strategic investment.
Incorporating economic but also other quality of life objectives, the Province
developed a sustainability-based Nova Scotia Community Development Policy, endorsed
in December 2004, as ―a framework for building stronger, healthier, more prosperous
communities in Nova Scotia…to guide us in our efforts to promote and support
community development projects province wide.‖ The policy sets out roles for
community and government and promotes increased ―collaboration, capacity building and
accountability at every level.‖ As a companion to the Policy the Community
Development Lens is to be applied to departmental business plans, raising awareness and
consideration of the possible impacts of decisions on communities (NS 2005). Policy
consultations in NS have revealed that ―communities want more local control... And they
want more resources...‖ One provincial representative responds ―if we could get more
resources and have one CED worker in some of the major communities that have a board
structure and could really prepare to go to work and roll up their sleeves, and use the
RDA as a way of coordinating the activities...‖ Another explains that there is a
willingness to support CED, ―We‘ve had 15-18 years of CED. Politicians like it.‖
Lack of coordination is, however, considered a challenge, with ―self-interested
divisions‖ at both the provincial and federal-provincial levels (Johnson 1998). Overlap
between the Sustainable Communities Initiative (Chapter 7) and Community
Development Policy is provided by ―probably half a dozen members‖ that sit on
coordinating committees for both initiatives. Federal-provincial coordination has suffered
since the end of federal-provincial economic development agreements. Respondents in
both NS and NL comment on political tensions over perceived lack of recognition for
federal ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) for federal spending in projects
funded under federal-provincial agreements. This led to the loss of the federal/provincial
agreements, which respondents argue has reduced provincial development capacity in both
Atlantic provinces.
176
6.3.3 Newfoundland and Labrador
The 1950s brought confederation to Newfoundland (1949), the end of WWII and the birth
of the Keynesian era. Federal funding built new infrastructure, such as roads, schools and
electricity generation and transmission, and provided personal transfer and equalization
payments that brought new wealth to the province and its rural outports. As in BC,
government agencies focused on supporting large-scale resource and industrial
developments, including foreign-owned and export-oriented forestry, mining and the
Churchill Falls hydroelectric development project. Rapid expansion in the industrialized
offshore fishery was encouraged through subsidies while the small-scale fishery and dual
economy that had long supported outport economies were ignored. Attempts were also
made to establish small-scale manufacturing facilities and to relocate outport residents to
growth centres through controversial resettlement programs that provided incentives for
relocation to urban growth centers (Copes 1972; RCUE 1986). In response to
resettlement, some remaining outport communities began to develop a system of local
governance that would form a foundation for bottom-up development in the province
(Greenwood 1991). Committees formed to address basic infrastructure such as roads and
water, by the 1960s evolving into Rural Development Associations and municipalities.
With the election of Frank Moores‘ PC government in 1972 the ―Smallwood era47‖
ended. Responding to the political failure of the resettlement program, the Province
established a Department of Rural Development. Core funding was given to development
associations to hire development coordinators and the number of associations rose from
15 in 1974 to 59 in 1994 (Connections Research 1993, 3). Native political organizations
and Band Councils were also formed (Vodden and Kennedy 2006). Although the
Province‘s approach conflicted with DREE‘s emphasis on urbanization and
centralization, the two governments formed a crown corporation (Newfoundland and
Labrador Development Corporation) to support economic development through debt and
equity investments, information and advisory services to business.
As cod stocks declined, the1980s recession hit and the province‘s economic
picture deteriorated, the need for a new approach became apparent. The NL rural
economy had become based, in part, on make-work projects and the ―ten week
47
Coined after the province‘s first Premier, Joey Smallwood (1949-1972).
177
syndrome‖ (working to reach the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits). Oil
and gas had been discovered but it was questionable if the twin pillars of resource
industries and government spending would suffice. Small-scale rural development had
received limited encouragement, but lacked the financial and human resources, expertise
and political clout. Development associations had been undermined by their use as a
delivery mechanism for short-term job creation programs, inhibiting long-term planning
and objectives, while not being consulted on the design of such programs (RCEU 1986).
Frustration resulted from ―a plethora of non-integrated, largely uncoordinated programs
and projects‖ (Monitoring and Evaluation Subcommittee 1997, 5) and lack of success at
all levels (Greenwood 1997; Task Force on CED 1995).
A 1986 Royal Commission suggested a new regional approach to development,
with regions that ―form fairly distinct social and cultural entities, and which would benefit
from being considered as a unit for development and employment purposes‖ (RCEU
1986, 364). A stronger institutional framework would include the proposed creation of
(tentatively five) Regional Development Boards with a highly qualified Executive
Director and broad-based board. The Boards would foster cooperation among sectors and
identify and pursue long-term employment options. Strengthening of the provincial rural
development department was also suggested, along with increased funding to RDAs, the
creation of a Rural and Regional Development Act to affirm the responsibilities and
mandates of various players, and more government services delivered in regional service
centres. The Commission Report had support from labour, industry, RDAs (with the
exception of the Regional Development Boards recommendation) and, despite poor
federal-provincial relations, from the federal government. However, it met resistance
from provincial officials who appeared to be concerned about implications for power,
control and job maintenance (House 1999; 2003). Only some recommendations were
implemented. Those not acted upon included the recommendation to establish Regional
Development Boards.
With the 1989 election of Liberal Clyde Wells, the Economic Recovery
Commission (ERC) was established to support the development of small and medium
sized businesses, develop an economic strategy for the province and assist with
implementing the Royal Commission recommendations. Enterprise Newfoundland and
178
Labrador (ENL) was formed as the province‘s business and economic development arm.
A 1992 Strategic Economic Plan for the Province outlined a direction for the province
that included diversification through a number of growth industries. The Plan once again
referred to a regional approach and called for the creation of locally-driven plans for each
of 17 proposed economic zones within the province‘s five administrative regions (NL
1992). The Plan also referred to the importance of sustainable development and
monitoring and evaluation of implementation. Despite consultation with over 300
individuals and organizations (Aradottir 2003), according to one provincial representative
the Plan did not have strong involvement or buy-in from non-governmental, business and
labour interests. Again only some recommendations were implemented but the Plan
resulted in added pressure for a more coordinated approach to regional development
(Dunn 2003; Greenwood 2006).
The need for action became more urgent with the closure of the groundfish
fishery. The Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) Task Force on CED, including both
federal and provincial government and non-government organizations, was struck in
1994. Again a key recommendation was the establishment of 18 RED Boards (REDBs)
across the province (reshaped over a period of discussion into 20), linking top-down
government support with bottom-up community planning and decision-making. Their
establishment was to be guided by a set of key principles ranging from valuing the role of
volunteers to stewardship, entrepreneurialism, global outlook, partnerships and a new
supportive role for government (Task Force on CED 1995). Following on earlier
documents, the Task Force called for a balanced, integrated approach. A provincial-
federal Economic Zone Unit was established to support the setting up of the new Boards,
funded through a 70/30 federal-provincial cost sharing agreement (Canada/Newfoundland
Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement). Three successive five year federal-
provincial agreements had been in place from 1978 to 1993, often with 70-30 project
cost-sharing, which had a significant influence on provincial programs and financial
capacity.
REDB architects argued that community and regional organizations should
complement one another, distinguishing between the role of development associations
and community-level organizations as project implementers, and the REDBs as planners.
179
According to one former ERC employee smaller-scale associations were intended to have
a role but with their funding flowing through the REDBs. Jealousy and lack of political
will, they suggest, prevented this from happening. The subsequent elimination of
development association funding created tensions in the new system (discussed further
below).
In 15 of the 17 NL Community Futures committee regions in operation at the
time, federally funded Business Development Centres had already been established to
provide business and lending services (Greenwood 2005). The Task Force recommended
that these be reconfigured as the funding arm of the REDBs but, provincially, ―the people
at Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation wanted to maintain their programs
and support for small business.‖ Thus, the suggestion that REDBs should have a business
financing arm was dismissed. A 1996 election, held shortly after the REDBs were
formed, resulted in the ERC, ENL and the Economic Zone Unit being disbanded and the
loss of key REDB advocates within the provincial system.
In 1998 a Strategic Social Plan (SSP) for NL was developed under a Premier‘s
Council on Social Development and through Steering Committees in six regions across
the province (Randall 2002). The mandate of the committees included a coordinated
approach to social and economic development in each region. The committees included
representation from existing Boards, including REDBs, and regional government staff.
Many REDB representatives saw the setting up of these committees as a message from
the provincial government that they should focus more on economic objectives, despite
an early mandate and workplans that included social initiatives in support of economic
development. Also significant during this time was a 2000 amendment to the
Municipalities Act that would allow municipalities to become actively involved in
economic development, along with new programs to increase municipal CED capacity.
In June 2003 a Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in
Canada called for the Province to develop a rural strategy based on dialogue with the
people of the province (Young et al. 2003). October 2003 brought a change of
government under new Premier Danny Williams. Williams committed to ―chart a new
course to prosperity and self reliance,‖ including measures such as retaining 100 percent
of oil revenues and investing in economic development, diversification and job creation,
180
particularly in small and medium size businesses (Williams 2004). While the new
government committed to continued financial support for the REDBs, it also opted to
review the RED process. The Williams government also formed a new Rural Secretariat
in place of the Strategic Social Plan (SSP) and its coordinating committees. The Rural
Secretariat was tasked with working towards an integrated approach to social, economic,
cultural and ecological well-being, providing a focal point for government to work with
local and regional partners, conducting research and analysis, and building on the work of
the SSP. Nine new Rural Secretariat regions were established, each with a staff member
and Council of government-appointed volunteers. The nine regions were also used in the
creation of a new Regional Diversification Strategy. Economic strategies were developed
for each region by the Province and a Committee of Cabinet in consultation with REDBs
and other stakeholders (a top-down approach relative to the REDB planning process).
Without a designated seat at the Rural Secretariat table, REDBs were left uncertain about
their relationship with this latest form of regionalization and about their futures.
6.4 Regional Development From the Bottom-up
Although a myriad of rural and regional development programs have been implemented
in Canada in the past, they have generally been designed and delivered in a top-down
fashion, particularly in BC and in recent years in NL (Savoie 1992; Barnes and Hayter
1994). Savoie (1992) and others suggest that the federal and provincial government track
record in RED is poor. Difficulties coordinating efforts across departments and provincial
and federal levels, financial failures of publicly funded enterprises, scandals, political
favours, resistance to change and lack of coherent planning are among the reasons cited.
In need of solutions, communities and regions have pursued their own responses
to economic disparity. Their efforts are varied and range from traditional economic
boosterism to radical alternative approaches, from small business development and
industrial attraction under the oversight of local business and political elites to broad-
based community and cooperative initiatives (Galaway and Hudson 1994). First Nations
have pursued avenues as diverse as legal challenge, protest, business and community
development to regain some measure of control over Aboriginal economies, governments
and territories. Municipalities have also increased their efforts in economic and
181
community development. With the scaling back of the welfare state, recession, the threat
of free trade, and resource depletion, CED efforts in Canada stepped up to a new level in
the 1980s and 90s.
A growing community economic development (CED) movement has developed in
the country, sharing stories of successes that are small and dispersed but locally
significant and seeking strategies for ―scaling up‖ the impact of this alternative approach.
One such strategy has been to form a national network of community groups and CED
practitioners. The Canadian CED Network was formed in 1999, growing from 16 to more
than 750 members across the country (CEDNet 2008). Within the case study regions
alone approximately 193 local and regional non-government community-based
organizations involved in RED have been identified (123+ in Cape Breton), in addition to
82 local government bodies active in RED to varying degrees (see Appendix 4).
As a result of these local efforts, provincial and federal governments have been
forced to recognize that commitment to land and communities is a barrier to market-based
strategies of mobility and exploitation in the name of short-term growth. Coupled with the
desire to download costs and responsibilities and a frustration with failed past attempts,
this realization has contributed to increased interest in bottom-up and place-based
development approaches at senior levels. Development agencies at the sub-provincial
scale offer an attractive compromise between traditional top-down approaches and the
―unruliness‖ but potential of community-based development (Markey et al. 2005).
6.5 Collaborative Regional Economic Development (RED): a Balanced Approach?
As a compromise solution multi-level, collaborative governance can result in a significant

shift toward increased control at local and regional levels while also recognizing a role for
senior levels of government. Collaborative governance requires that senior governments
take on a supportive and developmental role, distinct from offloading responsibility
without associated power or capacity. It often requires a period of transition and a
willingness to ―let go‖ in areas best addressed within, but in genuine partnership with,
localities (Greenwood 2005). While this enabling role is a new one for governments in
Canada (House 1999), regional development began to experience a resurgence during the
1990s as existing institutions came into question and alternatives such as Community
182
Futures organizations demonstrated their promise. New institutions often involve
increasing attention to horizontality and a focus on the sub-provincial region. This thesis
examines examples of three of these new collaborative models for RED.
6.5.1 Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation
Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E) is one of twenty REDBs formed

in NL in 1995/96. The organization began as an interim provisional board to establish
what stakeholders were present in the region, determine appropriate representation,
develop bylaws and initiate the process, with guidance and support from the federal-
provincial Economic Zone Unit, a provincial Cabinet Directive on RED and federal-
provincial Management Committee (Greenwood 2005).
Respondents explain that NL-E is a potential partner in initiatives, a lobbyist for
the region, an advisory and informational resource, a capacity builder and a link between
local initiatives and local and external resources. All REDBs, including NL-E, were given
five core functions when they were established. In recent years this mandate has been
revised to reflect the results of 2003-2006 evaluation processes, which included
stakeholders from the Boards and municipalities as well as federal and provincial
governments, and changes in funding agency priorities. Significant recent changes
include the removal of coordination of social initiatives and business development
support from the five-part REDB mandate, along with greater emphasis on forming
partnerships with other actors, particularly with municipalities (see Table 24).
Among the range of activities undertaken by NL-E, planning is emphasized most by
respondents, followed by capacity building. In addition to their own planning efforts NL-
E assists municipalities and community groups and provides input into provincial
planning processes. NL-E‘s capacity building efforts include delivery of CED workshops
for municipalities and community groups on topics such as meeting management, board
governance, communications, strategic planning, leadership and motivation. Sessions
targeted to meet the needs of specific industries are also offered.
183
Table 24 REDB mandate changes
1995-2006 2007
1. Develop and implement the strategic 1. Develop and coordinate the implementation of
economic plan (SEP) for the region; strategic economic plans (SEPs), supported by
2. Coordinate business development an integrated business plan
support in each region; 2. Develop a strong partnership with
3. Provide support to organizations and municipalities that incorporates the strategies
communities within the region for and priorities of municipalities in the economic
specific development activities planning process
consistent with the region‘s strategic 3. Develop partnerships in planning and
economic plan; implementation with Chambers of Commerce,
4. Coordinate social and economic Industry Associations, labour organizations,
initiatives relating to regional post secondary institutions, Canadian Business
economic development in each region; Development Corporations (CBDCs), and
and other zones that advance and support the
5. Promote public participation and economic and entrepreneurial environment of a
community education related to RED zone
4. Undertake capacity building and provide
support to stakeholders to strengthen the
economic environment of the zone
5. Coordinate and facilitate linkages with federal
/provincial/municipal government departments
and agencies in support of the SEP
Source: KEDC 2003; 2007
In NL-E‘s early years, in accordance with their broader mandate, initiatives

addressed social and ecological as well as economic objectives. Examples include adult
education programs, eider duck habitat restoration and the establishment of marine
protected areas. NL-E‘s recent workplans have concentrated on initiatives in business
development and manufacturing, tourism, and natural resources. Ensuring the region has
adequate infrastructure to support economic development has been a major focus. The
organization has played a lead role in expanding broadband access in the region, working
with local partners on the establishment of the Lewisporte Port Authority, pursuing fresh
seafood exporting opportunities associated with Gander International Airport,
maintaining and improving ferry services and lobbying for road improvements,
particularly in areas of high tourism traffic. NL-E has also worked to foster the birch sap,
blueberry and other agriculture industries
Debate continues about whether REDBs should also be funding or lending
agencies. Proponents argue this would give the Boards more power to influence
184
development and reduce inefficiencies in senior staffing of REDBs and CBDCs.
Integration of the two agencies now ―in separate worlds‖ is seen as the ―logical next step‖
by some, but others disagree. Some REDBs feel the influence they currently have over
funding decisions, through letters of support and funding agency requirements that
projects align with REDB strategic plans, is sufficient. By staying out of direct funding
decisions REDBs are ―always the nice guy,‖ reducing competition among Board
members and their communities. Others suggest that REDBs are afraid of the political
pressure that would result and don‘t want to make ―tough choices‖ over funding. Finally,
there is the reality that ―CBDCs don‘t want to give it up.‖ Any change in lending
responsibilities would, therefore, be controversial.
While not governed by specific RED legislation, NL-E and other REDBs are
incorporated as non-profit corporations under the Corporations Act. A system of
performance contracts with both governments was put in place, along with Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) and a monitoring and evaluation framework (M&E
Subcommittee 1997). Three year Strategic Economic Plans are prepared by REDBs in
consultation with federal, provincial and local stakeholders, focusing on key strategic
sectors. The plans are then further broken down into annual workplans. The plans are the
basis of performance contracts, with MOUs developed with government partners to
implement sectoral strategies (Greenwood 2005). Plans and annual reports are reviewed
by the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development (INTRD) and then by the
provincial House of Assembly and by senior ACOA officials. NL-E representatives
describe the plans as the way the organization generates its own mandate, sets out
activities and provides leadership for the region. The plans have been criticized, however,
for being strong on long-term vision but weak on prioritization and implementation
strategies. This may be because REDBs have neither the mandate nor the resources for
project implementation. Additional concerns relate to a lack of realistic targets and
measureable outcomes and a need for greater influence on provincial-level economic and
social planning.
NL-E‘s Board of Directors plays a critical role in organizational governance and
as a vehicle for public participation. When the Boards were established funding agencies
suggested that business, labour, municipalities, community development groups, and
185
education and training sectors be represented. NL-E‘s 14-member volunteer board
includes representatives of each of seven sub-zones, existing development groups, Gander
Area Development Corporation (the region‘s Community Business Development Corp.),
education (vacant), large municipalities, small municipalities, labour, youth (vacant),
disabilities, and tourism (KEDC 2006). Representatives are elected at an open annual
general meeting. The Kittiwake region is broken down into seven sub-zones. A Board
representative of each is elected by constituents from their respective sub-zones.
Challenges associated with the Board, according to some interviewees, include over-
representation by retired teachers and cases where the Boards are ―too political‖ and
looking out for their own interests rather than the needs of the whole.
NL-E participates in the provincial REDB association (NL Regional Economic
Development Association). The Association represents the REDBs on policy issues and
provides opportunities for networking, information sharing and professional development.
Within the association four regional groupings have been formed. NL-E belongs to the
Central Caucus. Several models for monitoring and evaluation of REDBs have been
proposed and implemented to varying degrees. An Evaluation Framework drafted shortly
after the Boards were established was never fully implemented. A process of annual
performance contract renewal became more regulatory than developmental, as originally
intended (Baird Planning 2001). Monitoring and evaluation received limited attention
until 2003 when a Board-led Monitoring and Evaluation program was launched under the
leadership of the provincial association. ACOA undertook a review of the REDBs in
2004/2005. The Province led another in 2005 through a multi-stakeholder Ministerial
Committee on Regional Renewal. A series of recommendations for the Boards were made
in 2006, leading to changes both within the NL-E and in the broader REDB system. The
Boards are now working to make improvements in areas such as stakeholder relations and
communications, human resources, initiative and research quality, strategic economic and
integrated work planning.
NL-E went through ―radical change,‖ including a complete turnover in staff in
2006 (KEDC 2006b). As of 2006 the organization had five employees: three core staff
members and two short-term project employees (a decline from seven employees in
2003). Reflecting reduced funding from Service Canada, revenues fell from $500,000 in
186
2002/03 to $300,000 by 2004/05 (Appendix 10). In 2002/03, 60% of NL-E‘s budget came
from federal project contracts and 27% from ACOA core funding, totalling 87% federal
contributions. Provincial core funding accounted for 11% of revenues (2% other). Core
funding is relatively consistent for all REDBs regardless of factors such as strategic plans,
performance or region size. Three-year performance contracts for core funding were
signed until 2004. One year agreements were signed at that time, with longer term support
pending the evaluations described above.
In total, an estimated 148 different organizations and agencies as well as 1628
businesses in the region interact within NL-E‘s collaborative governance network (see
Appendix 4 for additional details). Federal and provincial economic development
agencies are considered the most influential actors in this network by interview
respondents, followed by the Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E).
Provincial respondents feel they have little influence relative to ACOA, explaining: ―we
don‘t have any programs anymore, we don‘t have any money.‖ A community
representative adds ―they‘re going to have a lesser role than, say ACOA, because ACOA
has all this money.‖ Since this time, the Province has established two funds to support
economic development in the regions and is once again ―at the table,‖ although still a
smaller financial contributor than ACOA.
These results suggest that financial resources and relationships lead to greater
influence within the RED network. Relationship maps presented in Appendix 4 illustrate
that information sharing is the most common type of relationship in NL-E‘s RED
network, followed by project partnerships. Among NL-E‘s relationships financial
interactions are the least common, involving only federal and provincial actors along with
the NL-E.
NL-E‘s relationships with other network actors are considered mixed at best.
Federal and provincial partners have provided ongoing funding, along with an initial
operating framework and assistance with capacity building in the Board‘s early years.
Yet, provincial support for the REDBs has declined since their inception and varies
among departments and individuals within government. More stringent Service Canada
guidelines and a more directive approach from ACOA are sources of federal-regional
tensions. Many (38%) NL-E respondents suggest that the tightened, inflexible rules and
187
procedures are the number one resistor to collaborative governance in their RED network,
followed by lack of financial resources and local capacity (each noted by 36% of
interviewees). Greenwood (2005) suggests that the Boards have not been given the
control they need to achieve their objectives and that the vision of a shared development
process based on shared priorities has not materialized. Instead, the process is more top-
down than originally envisioned. Government representatives contend that NL-E and
other Boards have not fulfilled their responsibilities for strategic planning or been as
effective as they had hoped. Acknowledging their role in REDB outcomes, based on their
2004/05 review, ACOA has promised a closer relationship, more honest feedback,
consideration of regional plans in ACOA‘s funding decisions, and partnerships with the
Province in their relationship with the Boards (NLREDA 2005b).
Poor communications is a criticism made of the NL-E and other REDBs that
weakens their relationships, particularly with other local actors. Recognizing this issue,
―the KEDC (ed. NL-E) acknowledges it has to work harder and in synergy with the key
stakeholders in the Kittiwake Region‖ (KEDC 2001). Many community representatives
feel there is little connection between the REDB and their efforts. Reporting that the
Board‘s community presence had declined in the early 2000s, they question NL-E‘s
effectiveness and continue to point to its role in weakening the region‘s rural
development associations. Public awareness is generally poor (Smith 2003), although
higher among business and community leaders.
6.5.2 Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency
As in the formation of REDBs in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), the Province of

Nova Scotia played a lead role in founding Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) to
facilitate and lead CED across the province, in partnership with federal and local actors.
In many cases the RDAs, initially formed in 1994, replaced or merged with their
predecessors, including industrial commissions and the planning and community
development arm of CFDC committees. One of the founding principles of the RDAs was
that municipal governments would be engaged in the process as funding partners with
federal and provincial governments. As in NL, Community Business Development
188
Centres (CBDCs) continue to operate as independent lending and business development
organizations.
One RDA representative explains that the Authorities were created ―for the purpose of
best utilization of government resources, federally, provincially and municipally‖ and that
their ―mandate is facilitators and coordinators of community and economic development
in the province.‖ A federal respondent adds that ―RDAs really were a provincial response
to trying to deal with a gazillion development agencies… folded into one organization
taking on the whole social and economic development of an area… a collective
supporting mechanism. That‘s been the strength of RDAs...‖ Another adds that ―every
little place wants a development association or strategy,‖ describing the RDA as a hub to
provide support and coordination for the region‘s many communities and community
organizations. ―Every wheel needs a hub, including the development wheel.‖ S-HRDA
(2008) described itself as the ―coordinating organization charged with leading economic
development at the regional level.‖
According to Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E)‘s 2004/05
Business Plan, ―as the integrating force in developing sustainable regional economies and
communities‖ the organization takes a lead role on research, analysis and reporting for
municipalities; economic development planning and coordination of planning efforts,
including inter-RDA collaboration where appropriate; local engagement of citizens and
community groups; and economic related lobbying and advocacy (S-HRDA 2004). As a
voice for the region the RDA will ―promote and defend the rural interests of the other
counties (about 30,000 people), as well as the industrial/political interests of Port
Hawkesbury‖ (Locke and Tomblin 2003, 23). The RDA also plays a role in mentoring
and building community capacity and collaborates on a range of activities with partner
organizations. RDA representatives suggest that other levels of government ―have pulled
back from their direct relationship with community organizations and are expecting us to
play that role.‖
NS-E activities fall within nine identified strategic directions (see Table 2548). Of
these, planning was the one most commonly referred to by respondents, followed by
communication and partnerships, particularly dialogue and information sharing. The
48
As of 2008 these had evolved into eight Service Areas.
189
organization prepared its first formal strategic plan in 1994 and is beginning the process
of creating a second. NS-E has also assisted community groups in conducting asset
mapping, strategic planning and project planning and management (S-HRDA 2006).
While they are not
Table 25 NS-E strategic directions
a funding agency,
1. Business development;
respondents suggest 2. Sector initiatives (actions to develop and diversify the resource
based, tourism and information technology);
that agencies such as 3. Community development and strengthening CED capacity;
Service Canada look 4. Communication and marketing;
5. Infrastructure;
for the RDA‘s ―stamp 6. Partnerships;
7. Special initiatives (responding to special conditions, new
of approval‖ from opportunities, facilitating large community projects);
project proponents. 8. Strategic planning; and
9. Human resource development
Assistance with
Source: S-HRDA 2007, 11-12
funding proposals,
business plans and the formation of new community organizations have also been
important activities. One example is the Strait of Canso Superport Corporation, set up in
response to federal port divestiture with leadership from NS-E. ―We will take on that
role,‖ one representative explains, ―until other community champions take it on.‖
Interview respondents report that the Agency has assisted community associations that
are considering coming together in sub-regional organizations to increase their
effectiveness and has played an important role, working with the private sector and senior
levels of government, in developing the region‘s energy, call centre/information
technology and mineral sectors. The Agency recently launched a Green Action Planning
Project and sustainable energy framework and has worked to increase and retain
immigration in the region as one response to anticipated labour shortages. Another
response has to address housing needs (S-HRDA 2006).
Unlike the REDBs of NL, the 13 Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) were
formed under enabling legislation. Provincial and federal governments agreed to support
the Authorities through the Canada/Nova Scotia Cooperation Agreement on Economic
Diversification, and through the provincial "Act to Encourage and Facilitate Community-
based Planning for Economic, Social and Institutional Change‖ (Bill 10) or ―Regional
Community Development Act‖, which came into effect in 1997 (Nova Scotia 1996).
190
Under the Act municipal partners were invited to approach the Province with a request to
be recognized as the RDA for their area. RDAs were then established by ministerial
order. The Act outlines the powers and structures of RDAS, enabling the RDAs to
undertake a wide range of development activities. It also outlines the requirement for
RDAs to annually submit a report detailing their progress in achieving regional work plan
strategy objectives. Reports must be submitted to the Council of each participating
Municipality and to the provincial Minister of Economic Development.
According to NS-E bylaws, each municipality approves three Board
representatives, one of whom must be a sitting member of Council and the others non-
elected representatives of business and community interests within their municipality. At
the discretion of the Board three additional voting members may be approved to represent
interests such as gender, sector or minority groups (S-HRDA 2003). The Authority has
not taken advantage of this option, its Board consisting of nine representatives appointed
by the three participating municipalities: Municipality of Inverness County, Town of Port
Hawkesbury and the Municipality of Richmond County. Enterprise Cape Breton Corp
(ECBC), Nova Scotia Office of Economic Development, Service Canada, and three post-
secondary institutions (Nova Scotia Community College, Conseil de développement
économique de la Nouvelle-Écosse and Universite Sainte Anne) may approve one non-
voting ex-officio member. The ex-officio role has proven to be an important mechanism
for information sharing and collaboration, as explained by one federal representative:
we sit ex-officio and really for informational purposes for both sides...
for us to get a sense of what‘s going on and what‘s the development
pace in the area and make sure, or get a sense of what the RDA is
working on, what seems to be appropriate to support community wise
and the work they‘ve already done. We can pick up on that in our
assessments and recommendations because they‘ve already done a lot
of good base work and we can hear that, and as well to provide
information on the possibilities around some of the programming and
how we might be able to fit it into not just their specific RDA work, but
the work of organizations that they‘re dealing with..
Finally, committees of the Board include an Executive, Human Resources, and Policy and
Procedures. Staff and Board members also contribute to project and sector advisory
committees.
191
In recent years the boards have sought to balance consistency and application of
―best practices‖ with the autonomy and flexibility needed to account for local conditions.
The dynamic of the boards, including their by-laws, differ for each RDA. Some have
mayors and wardens as board members, others appoint senior municipal staff as more
stable representatives. Levels of funding and records of success also vary. On Cape
Breton Island the NS-E model, addressing the needs of a larger, more rural region, is
described ―dramatically different‖ than that of the neighbouring Cape Breton Community
Development Authority. NS-E representatives acknowledge that as circumstances evolve,
―the S-HRDA (ed. NS-E)‘s role will have to adapt to ever changing circumstances‖ (S-
HRDA 2007, 5).
The Nova Scotia Association of Regional Development Authorities (NSARDA)
has worked to strengthen the linkages among the province‘s 13 RDAs. One of its recent
initiatives has been to assist the RDAs in securing International Standards Organization
(ISO) 9001:2000 certification, implementing organizational management standards in
areas such as efficiency, operating, accounting and service quality. Other initiatives of the
provincial association include support for training and certification of RDA members and
staff, inter-organizational information sharing and the development of a common
evaluation framework. With assistance from NSARDA, Strait-Highlands RDA (NS-E)
and their counterparts have been working to link short-term activities and outputs to
longer term outcomes and agreed upon objectives through the use of a logic model and
other evaluation tools such as a client feedback surveys and contribution analysis.
Government partners have been involved in developing the evaluation framework, with
plans to utilize it themselves to report on outcomes, creating some consistency across the
RED policy sub-system.
Nova Scotia RDAs are funded by a unique three level partnership among federal,
provincial and municipal governments. NS-E‘s core funding rose from approximately
$300,000 in 2002/03 to $396,000 in 2004/05, with further increases expected. Each level
of government makes a contribution of approximately one-third. The provincial portion is
shared by Economic Development and Community Services departments. Federal funds
flow through Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation (ECBC). Initial provincial and federal
core funding came from the Canada/Nova Scotia Cooperation Agreement, now provided
192
through separate contracts. An additional $175,000 in project funding brought the RDA‘s
total budget to $570,800 in 2004/05. While numbers of core staff have remained at three
to five despite funding increases, project staff increased the RDA‘s total number of
employees to 22 plus one summer student in 2006/07, from an average of nine employees
from 2002/03 to 2005/06.
The region served by NS-E includes the greatest number of communities and
development organizations within the cases studied. The Strait-Highlands region is
described as a ―‘hodge podge‘ of county-level initiatives, municipal EDOs, community
development associations and other NGOs, including Chambers of Commerce and other
business organizations, Lions Clubs… colleges and First Nations business support
centres, development corporations, ECBC and UCCB.‖ The regional development
network includes 174 organizations and government agencies and 1,315 firms (Appendix
4). The majority of respondents suggest NS-E has a significant influence on economic
development in the region, followed by communities (municipalities, First Nations and
community organizations), provincial and federal agencies and private enterprise. One
federal representative explains of the Agency, ―that‘s the one that we deal with most and
that‘s the one that seems to have penetrated most of the community.‖ Public recognition
of the impact of RDAs is limited, however, compared to that of financial contributors
such as ECBC.
Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency‘s (NS-E) municipal partners are
key players in the organization and its activities, providing funding support, direction and
a connection to the region‘s hundreds of small settlements, CED associations and
community organizations (S-HRDA 2006; 2007). The Agency has struggled to maintain
strong municipal relations. Both Victoria and Richmond Counties have pulled out as
members in the past, Richmond County deciding to rejoin in 2003/04. One respondent
suggests that in some instances the agenda of municipal and other levels of government
conflict, causing difficulties for the RDA. Local capacity and competitive, territorial
behaviour of some municipalities and CED groups are also considered barriers to
productive relationships, along with differences in perspective. Improving
communications and understanding of municipal priorities has been a major focus for the
RDA since 2004. S-HRDA‘s assistance with Port Hawkesbury‘s new Civic Centre and
193
Richmond County‘s energy initiatives have also contributed to strengthened relationships.
An RDA representative explains ―this RDA is getting itself refocused, back on its feet.‖
As in NL there are also concerns about the need for RDAs and CBDCs to
collaborate more49. Giving preference to viable projects of strategic importance to the
region is one example of the potential for increased cooperation. Respondents suggest
that with greater collaboration ―separation makes a lot of sense‖ because people are
comfortable going to the RDA for assistance and advice before ―the people with the
money.‖
Representatives report strong working relationships with provincial and federal
governments, particularly with their regional staff members. Despite these relationships
and a relatively flexible mandate, the majority (52%) of respondents cite a top-down
senior government approach as a barrier to increased NS-E outcomes. Service Canada‘s
rigid guidelines and difficult application process is an important example. One NS-E
respondent explains, ―our relationship with this office was very good. The problem is that
they don‘t make the decisions anymore.‖ A benefit of the three-way cost-sharing formula
is that it limits the ability of any one level to impose its priorities on the others. ACOA
representatives explain, for example, that community and provincial Community Services
representatives bring social sustainability issues into the process despite ACOA‘s
economic focus.
Overall, NS-E‘s relationships are strongest with business and business
organizations and the provincial government and weakest with First Nations. Information
exchange and project partnerships are the common form of relationships, training and
financing the least common (Appendix 4). While the organization is not a funding agency
it has provided limited financial support to special projects as well as in-kind
contributions (S-HRDA 2006).
6.5.3 Community Futures Development Corp. Mount Waddington
When the Community Futures Program was established, representatives from a

community or set of communities within a labour market area were encouraged to
establish Community Futures Committees and apply for funding to undertake activities
49
As of October 2008 S-HRDA had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ―InRich‖, a
CBDC, for ―joint collaboration, communication and support‖ (S-HRDA 2008).
194
such as strategic planning, identification of opportunities, establishing business
development centres, and providing self-employment assistance. In BC, CFDC
Committees generally formed within Regional Districts or Canadian Employment Centre
service area boundaries. In the case study region of northern Vancouver Island the
committee corresponded with the Mount Waddington Regional District.
To participate, communities had to have high levels of unemployment and
dependence upon social assistance and/or low workforce participation and educational
levels relative to national or regional averages. The ability to organize and carry out the
program was also considered. One respondent recalls that Community Futures
Development Corporation of Mount Waddington (BC-E) was among the country‘s
earliest CFDCs: ―they signed an agreement in late ‘86 and then they spent 1987 putting
the initial group together.‖
The initial Mount Waddington Community Futures Committee had six members,
a three-person office above a local restaurant and a limited number of programs during its
first three years. The self-employment program began at this time and is still offered
today. In most participating communities, funding was provided for the establishment of
Business Development Centres (BDCs), which would provide capital, usually in the form
of loans, and counseling advice to new and existing small businesses. Each BDC operated
under the direction of its own Board of Directors, some of whom were also members of
the Community Futures Committee (Ference Weicker & Co. 2002). One original Mount
Waddington committee member recalls that the Committee incorporated as Mount
Waddington Community Futures Society and formed a BDC in 1991. The two
components were joined together as Community Futures Development Corporations
(CDFCs) in 1995.
As of 2002 there were 34 active CFDCs in BC, 90 in Western Canada (Ference
Weicker & Co. 2002). The broad objectives of the CFDC program are to create
diversified, competitive and sustainable rural economies and to empower community
members and build local capacity to deal with economic change. According to terms and
conditions approved by Treasury Board of Canada the objectives of the program are to
assist communities to develop and diversify in three key ways: 1) strategic community
planning; 2) business services; 3) access to capital (Ference Weicker & Co. 2002). CFDC
195
Mount Waddington (BC-E)‘s mission is to foster responsible economic growth in the
North Island region. The organization‘s mandate includes leadership in: community-
based strategic planning; small enterprise training, development, and financial support;
coordinating, targeting and designing employment training; and partnerships for creative
economic diversification solutions. Within this mandate, strategic priorities (with italics
added by the author for emphasis) include:
1. Economic development guided by a plan that is created and updated through

citizen participation, supported by the majority of residents, and reflects their
ecological and social values and concerns;
2. Healthy, growing business ventures that sustain and increase employment and
diversify the economy;
3. Educational and social development programs to eliminate barriers; and
4. All North Island economic development organizations working in partnership to
use resources effectively (CFDCMW 2004).
With a broad mandate and stakeholder base, the activities of CFDCs vary considerably
over time, in different communities, and according to board membership (Ference
Weicker 2002). BC-E (2008) offers three distinct programs: small business lending, the
North Island self-employment program and CED. CED projects, events and services have
received increasing emphasis by many CFDCS. One BC-E representative suggests that
their focus in 2003/04 was 70% on CED (including delivery of the softwood lumber
adjustment program) and 30% lending, compared to ―probably 90% lending and 10%
economic development‖ in southern Vancouver Island (Nanaimo), and on average 70%
spending on lending and 30% on CED across Western Canada (Ference Weicker 2002).
Within the category of CED, strategic planning has not received the same
emphasis by BC-E as in other cases. The organization conducts annual work planning and
has participated in planning exercises conducted by the Regional District (e.g. Penfold et
al. 2004), but has not taken a leadership role in strategic regional planning. One exception
is a one-time 2003 planning exercise undertaken to prioritize projects for softwood
lumber funding. Respondents identify a need for further RED planning. CED activities
have included: assistance with launching new NGOs, such as the North Island Skills
Centre and Women‘s Employment and Training Coalition; funding contributions to non-
profit organizations and priority community projects; assistance with developing funding
proposals and the development of new and growing industries; providing information
196
sharing and networking opportunities for local development practitioners; providing
internet access and information on the regional economy to the public; and building
bridges between communities.
On the business services side
Table 26 BC-E loan funds 2003/04
BC-E helps Employment Insurance 1. Investment ($150,000)
2. Disabled ($200,000)
(and, formerly, Social Assistance) 3. Youth Fund ($200,000)
recipients work towards establishing a 4. Forestry ($500,000)
5. FRBC Community Business Program
business through the North Island self- ($500,000 – no longer listed in 2004)
6. Fishing Legacy Fund ($420,000)
employment program. Investment funds 7. Recreational salmon fishing ($575,000)
assist entrepreneurs and social 8. Growth Start ($100,000)
9. CEAI loans ($1,100,000)
enterprises through repayable financial
assistance in the form of loans, loan guarantees, or equity. As of 2004 the organization
had seven operating loan funds along with five repayable projects under the Community
Economic Adjustment Initiative (CEAI) Program, established to assist with restructuring
in the BC salmon fishery and, as of 2002, the forest sector (see Table 26).
Provincial CFDC representatives and evaluations suggest that combining lending
and CED functions within CFDCs has been an effective model. The joined structure has
helped bring two perspectives together ―your conservative business types, your more
socially oriented culturally minded project people... to sit at the table, talk to each other,
understand each others‘ perspectives and work together, ‗cause that‘s what Community
Economic Development is about.‖ However, opinions from North Island representatives
on this issue are mixed. Some suggest that negativity surrounding lending decisions is a
barrier to CED work, others that the CFDC Board wants to have too much involvement in
lending decisions - poor lending decisions have been made in the past. These results
suggest that barriers such as local conflict and lack of capacity in this particular region
have made combining these two functions more difficult than in other areas of the
province and Western Canada.
CFDCs are incorporated, locally-based non-profit organizations. Initial
Community Futures Committees ranged in size from eight to 15 volunteers (six in Mount
Waddington) and consisted of representatives from various business, labour, community
development organizations, educational institutions, social agencies, municipalities and
197
First Nations band councils. Current Boards range from seven to 20 members (Ference &
Weicker 2002). BC-E‘s Board size has declined in recent years from 12 in 2003 to seven
in 2007.
There are no formal requirements related to Board make-up. However, one of BC-
E‘s strategic priorities is to have a broad-based Board, including a balance in gender,
labour, small and large business and First Nations representation. A BC-E representative
explains that finding this balance has not been easy: ―We try hard to represent
communities and sectors with our Board members. But it‘s been harder and harder … I
don‘t want to lose my volunteers. They‘re very, very valuable and I‘m feeling like I am
because of the time, the commitment, and the distance. In the last meeting I used speaker
phone for the first time…‖ Volunteer Board members bring expertise in business, finance,
education, and social policy to the organization (CFDCMW 2008a; b). Members may be
nominated and elected from the general assembly of the annual general meeting but
―generally they come with a letter as a government representative… There is a spot on the
Board for each municipality...‖ Travel funding is provided for board participation in all
three cases. BC-E has two ongoing committees (self-employment and loan review) along
with special purpose committees as required. Committees include Board members as well
as other appointed representatives.
The primary document that establishes CFDC goals, objectives and priorities and
leads to core funding from WD is the contribution agreement (Grant Thornton 2003).
Five year core funding commitments are contingent on the submission of annual
operating plans and performance reports with specific one-year targets-based annual
plans. However, respondents suggest that there is a need for more tangible goals and
targets along with refined, standardized reporting procedures. Quarterly statistical reports
and independent annual audits are the basis for ensuring compliance with funding
agreements. Service Canada also conducts quarterly financial audits on the self-
employment program. WD commissioned an evaluation in 2002 (Ference & Weicker
2002) and an audit of the CFDC program in 2003 (Grant Thornton 2003). However, these
procedures do not result in regular, improvement-oriented feedback. Respondents report
that evaluation and reporting ―was one of the things that got neglected at the start.‖
BC-E revenues reached $3.4 million in 2001/2002, falling to $1.1-1.2 million in
198
2002/03 and 2003/04. Excluding investment funds and Self Employment Assistance
Program participant wages, revenues were $680,275; 34% from WD core funding and the
remainder from softwood lumber adjustment program administration and other WD-
funded projects (Appendix 10). Ference & Weicker (2002) report that the average CFDC
investment fund in BC is worth $1.9 million. BC-E‘s investment funds totaled over $3.7
million in 2003, including fishing and forestry-related lending programs (see Table 26).
Significant project and investment funds were available to the CFDC and North Island
communities from 1997 to 2005 through fisheries and forestry adjustment initiatives.
Becoming self-sustaining by generating income from capital pool investments and service
provision is a strategic priority for the organization, although as of 2002/03 the
organization received over $475,000 in government grants in addition to project and
investment revenues. BC-E operates with six core staff members, along with summer
students and occasional project employees.
CFDC Mount Waddington (BC-E) serves approximately 27 communities,
including ten First Nations settlements and six municipalities. The Mount Waddington
RED network includes at least 80 organizations and agencies and 641 firms (Appendix 4).
Interview respondents consider BC-E an influential actor within this network, along with
the region‘s two Regional Districts and their leaders, First Nations, municipal, provincial
and federal governments, particularly WD and Service Canada. Overall, relationships
between BC-E and other actors are mixed; strong with other regional development NGOs
but weak with the Province and much of the general public, although recovering in the
latter case (Appendix 4). As a lending and granting agency, financial relationships are
more common in this case than in the others, second only to information exchange.
WD serves as one example of mixed relations with the federal government. The
agency offers strong financial and policy support to CFDCs, but limited advisory and
non-financial support. WD‘s ―hands-off‖ approach to CFDC program management
provides regional organizations with flexibility but has also led to calls for a closer
partnership, with more feedback and dialogue. By contrast, respondents express concern
about Service Canada‘s increasing rigidity as well as distance as an arm‘s length
purchaser of CFDCs services as SEP contractors. CFDC respondents describe little
interaction with the provincial government after cuts to support for self-employment
199
assistance for social assistance recipients. While the Province has collaborated with
CFDCs on fisheries programs, regional resource planning and development consultations
have taken place largely through Regional Districts.
More problematic for BC-E than its relationships with senior levels of government
are its relationships with local actors. Conflict within and between North Island
communities is the primary challenge faced by CFDCMW according to 81% of interview
respondents, followed by the organization‘s own poor but recovering local reputation and,
therefore, low levels of community support (cited as a barrier by 67% of respondents, as
compared to 10% in NL-E and 38% in NS-E cases). The period of this study is described
as ―a recognizable low point‖ for the organization. Public awareness of the CFDC is high
relative to the other cases, but a lawsuit (unsuccessful) and associated bad press due to a
disgruntled loan applicant, in addition to lack of support from some local political leaders,
have caused significant public relations damage and diverted attention from CED
activities. Achievements are difficult, one CFDC representative explains, ―when you go
to a three hour meeting and two and a half hours is damage control.‖ A federal official
adds, ―It‘s rancorous… The current manager and last two to three managers have spent I
would think 60% of their time putting out fires.‖ Some suggest the organization did not
respond adequately to the criticisms: ―there was steady negative publicity and we did not
respond in any significant way to it… You can‘t have the constant finger pointing and
people complaining about what we do and most people not hearing the other side of it...
we‘ve got a lot of room to improve in the communications area.‖ However, the
organization also has strong relationships with many local development groups and with
elements of the private and municipal sectors that recognize CFDC‘s important role as a
source of project and business financing in the region. The organization has also had
recent success in strengthening its relationships with, and the involvement of, First
Nations.
6.6 Case Study Similarities and Differences
In summary, there are a number of similarities and differences in these three models.
They share a history based on the mid-1980s creation of Community Futures Committees
in rural areas across Canada, support from federal regional development agencies and
200
declining relationships with Service Canada. Yet they have also evolved differently in
each region. Provincial governments have played an important role in the Atlantic but not
in BC, where CFDCs also differ substantially due to their combination of CED and
lending functions. NS-E benefits from hands-on yet not directive involvement of
government representatives as ex-officio Board members. All three models were
government-organized, although with stakeholder input and community-initiative
required to initiate CFDCs. NL-E is the most dependent on federal funds and least
autonomous of the three RED case study organizations.
All three cases involve municipal representation but municipal partnerships are
strongest in NS (NS-E). Members of the Board are elected by the membership in NL-E,
through a mix of general membership election and municipal appointment in BC-E, and
are appointed by municipalities in NS-E. There is no apparent impact of this difference on
community relationships, except that appointments by all municipalities in NS-E and BC-
E provide stronger connections with constituent municipalities than in the NL-E case,
where only a small number of municipalities are directly involved. Only BC-E includes
First Nations representatives on its Board. Connections with First Nations are considered
to be weak in the other two regions.
CFDCs (BC-E) and RDAs (NS-E) have broader, more flexible mandates than the
REDBs (NL-E) of Newfoundland and Labrador, which are now akin to what are referred
to in the literature as quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations. The result has
been a move away from a more holistic development approach in the NL-E case, while
the other two cases have moved towards a more integrated development approach.
With greater autonomy and federal support, CFDC Mount Waddington (BC-E)
has had limited experience with formal evaluation compared to the other two cases.
Increasing emphasis is being placed on evaluation and developing effective, realistic
evaluation methods in all cases, with a common need to ensure that evaluation processes
are collaborative and improvement-oriented. The case studies have been slow to develop
agreed upon monitoring and evaluation procedures and reporting guidelines, a resistor to
current relationships in all cases that is currently being addressed.
Although this study has focused on the role of CFDC Mount Waddington (BC-E)
in the North Island, RED in this region represents a multi-centred regional network
201
model, with regional levels of government (Regional Districts and First Nations) also
engaged independently in economic planning and development. The Atlantic cases (NS-E
and NL-E) represent more centralized hub models, where case study organizations have
played a key role in regional coordination and RED planning. All cases experience
significant challenges in fostering support at the local level, developing communications
programs and working more closely with local partners in an attempt to strengthen and fix
the ―broken spokes‖ of relationships between regional organizations, communities and
other partners in what has been conceptualized, particularly in the Atlantic, as a hub and
spoke development wheel model. Even in the BC case, for WD, BC-E is ―the conduit.
They are the way to network and form partnerships and flow funds out‖ in a region
covering more than 40,000 square km (three times the NL-E and 15 times NS-E region
size). While region size is larger in the BC case, NS-E is charged with reaching nearly
three times the number of communities as in the Kittiwake region and 11 times the
number of communities served by BC-E. NL-E‘s area has more than triple Mount
Waddington‘s population. Each organization, therefore, faces unique challenges in
communications and building local relationships.
NL-E has a larger Board of Directors and fewer, more unstable financial resources
than the other two cases. NS-E‘s budget stabilized after a period of restructuring and then
increased to $571,000 in 2004/05 while NL-E‘s declined to $300,000. With a dual
CED/lending mandate, BC-E has access to the most significant resources at $680,000
excluding investment funds and self-employment program participant wages. Both NL-E
and BC-E are primarily federally funded while NS-E benefits from a more diversified
funding mix. According to 37% of RED interview respondents lack of financial resources
remains a resistor to collaboration and enhanced governance outcomes, although the
presence of core funding is also cited as an enabler (by 13%).
Whether or not the resources provided are adequate to fulfill the varying mandates
that have been set out for these organizations, a willingness by senior levels of
government to provide core operating funding and planning responsibilities illustrates a
shift in the policy environment since the mid-1980s. While notions of the multi-province
region have far from disappeared, emphasis on, and involvement of, the sub-provincial
region in economic development has clearly increased in the case study areas since the
202
creation of Community Futures organizations in 1986. The varied structures,
relationships, and activities that have resulted from this change and implications for rural
livelihoods and regional disparities are explored further in Chapters 8 through 10.
203
7 – Watershed Management: Experiments in Bioregional Governance
Natural resources represent fundamental components of coastal ecosystems, economies

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

Sale (1985, 43) defines a bioregion as ―a place defined by its life forms, its topography
and its biota, rather than by human dictates; a region governed by nature, not legislature.‖
Bioregions, shaped but not wholly defined by nature, also incorporate local and regional
cultures and relationships between people and place. Complementary to actor network
approaches, bioregionalists include all life, land and water forms within the citizenry of a
bioregion (Alexander 1990). Watersheds are commonly described as bioregions,
reflecting natural land divisions that have been used in traditional First Nations land and
resource rights and management systems (Thayer 2003).
A watershed is ―a geographic area consisting of all land that water flows across,
under and through on its way to a particular body of water‖ (www.riversmart.org).
Watersheds are bounded by topographic and height of land features. Water from a
watershed drains into a system of streams, lakes and other water bodies and then into a
common stream, river, lake, or, as in each of these cases, a coastal estuary. Watershed
204
scales are nested and varied. For example, the River Denys sub-watershed is only 300
square km but is part of the 3600 square km Bras d‘Or watershed system.
Watershed management is one of the oldest and most widespread forms of
resource co-management and collaborative governance in North America. While the most
time-tested lessons for collaborative watershed management lie within the realm of
traditional Aboriginal knowledge and First Nations‘ traditional territories, organizations
such as The Miami Conservancy District in the United States have been established for
nearly a century. By 2002, at least 958 watershed partnerships existed in the lower 48
states; 91% of these formed in the 1980s and 90s (Lubell et al. 2002). International
examples are also abundant. The International Network of Basin Organizations, created in
1994, has member organizations from 51 countries, including Canada. Watershed
management, therefore, represents an important arena for the study of alternative forms of
planning and decision–making with historic and current relevance and opportunities for
exploring the potential of ecosystem-based boundaries as spaces of social interaction and
social-ecological governance.
Recent research on watershed management points to several key themes,
including the complexity and power sharing, temporal and capacity challenges of relating
nested scales; themes that arise again in this research as well. Sneddon (2002) points out
that while boundaries that respect biophysical realities help ―put a cap on dreams of ever-
expanding supplies‖ of water and other ecosystem services, deciding on the appropriate
levels or sub-systems in basin-based management can be difficult given the complexity of
human interventions in watershed systems. Wittayapak and Dearden‘s (1999) findings on
community-based watershed management suggest that management of small-scale
watersheds with fewer users and clearer boundaries is most effective.
Shrubsole (2004, 5) suggests that watershed planning ―pursues multiple goals
through multiple means, and relies on effective participation of all stakeholders‖ yet
Watershed planning in North America has been largely top-down; informing, involving
and then ignoring the public (Shindler 1999), and often technically-oriented, seeking
engineering-based solutions to watershed concerns. Lovell et al. (2002) suggest that
watershed scale influences management structure and approach and that top-down
management is more common in systems exceeding 5000 square km, while community-
205
driven initiatives prevail in micro-catchments up to 50 square km. Each of the three case
studies examined in this research fall between these categories of micro- and large-scale
systems. Lovell et al. (2002, 2) describe a ―disjunction between current top-down
(primarily technical) national programs and bottom-up (predominantly social/
institutional) community-level projects‖ in the US. Similar challenges in linking large and
smaller-scale watershed initiatives also exist in Canada (Vodden and Panek 1998).
Matlock et al. (2005) suggest that formalized organizational structures typically result in
the formation of a ―hub‖ or node for linking watershed activities. They identify long-term
partnership processes dealing with multiple issues, and ―super-agencies‖ as two common
ways of organizing collaboration.
Another scale-related challenge has been a lack of understanding of and
attempting to account for interactions among watershed, coastal and marine ecosystems
and moving coastal governance upstream through watershed approaches (Scavia 1994).
Recent research and practice suggest the importance of acknowledging the influences of
watershed management on coastal regions. Australia provides a cogent example, where
catchment (watershed) basins discharge affects significant coastal resources such as the
Great Barrier Reef and resource management planning has been devolved to the
catchment level, led by community and user groups but endorsed by senior governments
(Turner 2005).
Decisions regarding watershed management scale are inherently political. They
may arise, at least in part, because of the failure of state-based arrangements (Dore 2003).
Singh (1972, 263) observes that, with information required on physical, biological,
economic and social aspects of a region, ―planning and implementation of a watershed
management program is complex‖ and that social and cultural factors are often
underestimated. Interrelationships between the components of watershed systems are
often poorly understood (Matlock et al. 2005) and watershed management cases exhibit
varying degree of integration in their activities and objectives. Initiatives often broaden
their focus over time, as in the Columbia Basin (Cohen et al. 2002), but others such as the
Tennessee Valley Watershed Authority become narrower. The Authority was launched in
1933 with an integrated management vision but later focused on hydro power provision.
Leuven et al. (2000) observe that watershed management institutions and processes often
206
espouse sustainable development, but pursue ecological objectives that are weak relative
to economic ones.
Research and experience indicate that watershed management requires a long-
term view. Slaney and Martin (1994) suggest that it may require more than ten years for
the benefits of watershed restoration to be detectable in fisheries returns, pointing out, for
example, that it requires from 100 to 200 years before large woody debris will be
naturally recovered as mature windfalls in BC watersheds. O‘Grady (2004) concurs from
his experience with Ontario Conservation Authorities that watershed management success
must be measured in decades not years.
7.2 Watershed Management in Canada
In Canada, as in the United States, collaborative approaches to watershed management

have mushroomed since the late-80s/early 90s. Although no comprehensive inventory
exists in Canada, Canadian watershed partnerships number in the hundreds. There are two
basic types of watershed management initiatives in Canada: large scale efforts to manage
large scale systems and smaller, more community-based initiatives. Examples of large
scale initiatives include the Fraser Basin Council and Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiatives
(now Georgia Basin Action Plan), St. Lawrence Action Plan, Great Lakes Program,
Hudson Bay Ocean Working Group, Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy program and Northern
Rivers Ecosystem Initiative.
The case study watersheds are significantly smaller than these major ecosystems.
In addition, many of these larger-scale initiatives deal with systems on Canada‘s southern
boundary, where issues of urban and industrial concentration are major threats. The
Fraser Basin, for example, is 240,000 square km, with a population of 2.4 million people.
The five Great Lakes represent the world's largest freshwater system and have a
population of over 35 million. By contrast, the Nimpkish case study watershed is 2,226
square km, with only 5,100 human residents. While scale differences must be considered
when applying lessons learned in different social-ecological systems, Bras d‘Or
watershed informants say that Great Lakes management actors have provided information
on their scientific work and governance systems that have been useful in Bras d‘Or
efforts. Within each of these watershed types there are smaller sub-basins with individual
207
research and planning initiatives underway, although the scale and jurisdictional
complexity of large, cross-border watersheds such as the Great Lakes makes community-
based coordination is exceedingly difficult. Because watersheds span many jurisdictional
boundaries, a National Watershed Stewardship Report argues that coordinated
governance that involves collaboration among communities, all levels of government and
watershed organizations at all scales is required (LEPS et al. 2003).
Developed
Table 27 Multi-level policy framework for watershed management
by a National
Municipal/ Municipal, zoning, economic and zoning/land use
Watershed Regional plans, local government legislation
Stewardship Provincial Community Watershed Management (NL)
Watershed Restoration/Recovery, WUPs (BC)
Coalition launched Forestry and protected areas policies
First Nations Resource co-management and treaty agreements
in 2002, the National Stewardship and Community Involvement Program,
National Watershed Green Plan, Atlantic Canada Action Program, NPA,
Oceans Strategy
Stewardship Report Provincial- Canada Water Act agreements, CASE/C, C-/NL
Federal Water Quality Monitoring, Watershed-based Fish
outlined several
Sustainability Planning (BC),
benefits of Sustainable Communities Initiative (NS)
International U.S. Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, Agenda 21,
community-based GPA, Commission for Environmental Co-operation,
watershed Ramsar Convention
stewardship in Canada, including: effective monitoring of ecological integrity; greater

financial efficiency than direct government delivery; a long-term, proactive approach
focused on conservation rather than restoration; improved ability to address complex
social-ecological problems through collaborative governance; and enhanced commitment
to and compliance with international conventions and agreements (LEPS et al. 2003).
While there is no specific policy for watershed management in Canada, watershed
stewardship contributes to the implementation of numerous national, provincial and
territorial policies. Thus, the policy framework is diverse and multi-level (Table 27).
7.3 Canada‘s International Commitments
Canada is a party to numerous international agreements and conventions, many linked to

the concept of sustainable development, to which watershed initiatives contribute and
which in turn support watershed management efforts (see Appendix 13). For example,
208
Canada established its Green Plan in response to the 1987 World Commission on
Environment and Development. Green Plan dollars were instrumental in the
establishment of the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W), the Skeena Watershed
Committee in BC and others across the country.
The Species at Risk Act (SARA), proclaimed in 2003, fulfills a key national
commitment under the Convention on Biological Diversity and makes Environment
Canada and DFO responsible for protection and recovery of species and distinct
populations of species at risk and their habitats. Both Indian Bay and Bras d‘Or watershed
initiatives have assisted in this task, contributing to Species At Risk initiatives. The UINR
Forestry division has been involved in monitoring lynx movements and habitat
requirements, and developing a protection plan for the endangered predator. Research in
Indian Bay has contributed significantly to understanding the status of the banded killifish
populations in Newfoundland and Labrador, which are considered to be
biogeographically isolated from mainland populations and a Species of Special Concern
under the Species at Risk Act.
Agenda 21, Chapter 17 commits coastal nations to ―integrated management and
sustainable development of coastal areas and the marine environment under their national
jurisdiction‖ (UN 1992). The United Nations (UN) Global Programme of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA), signed by 108
governments including Canada, further requires the development of a National
Programme of Action with targets, timelines and political commitment to implementation
(Osbourne 2004). Canada‘s National Programme of Action (NPA) is to involve ―a basin
or watershed ICZM approach‖ and ―harmonization of integrated coastal management,
river basin management and land-use planning‖ (Canada 2000). While the NPA has had
little impact to date on local watershed management efforts to date, the two may intersect
in the future as Canada realizes the potential of watershed groups to help meet NPA
objectives. High priority areas for NPA in the Pacific, for example, include sewage,
agricultural inputs, habitat losses from shoreline construction and watershed alteration; all
issues that have been addressed by watershed management initiatives (BC 2006b).
Gautier (2004) explains that implementation of the NPA provides a window to integrated
209
coastal management if the ―structural divide between oceans and freshwater institutions‖
can broken down.
Fisheries agreements such as the Pacific Salmon Treaty and Pacific Salmon
Agreement also impact migratory fish species of concern in watershed management.
Local efforts such as those of the Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) can in
turn contribute to international fisheries objectives. Sharing of the responsibility for
meeting the requirements of a Canada-U.S. shellfish monitoring protocol by Environment
Canada and UINR in the Bras d‘Or watershed is yet another example of contributions by
case study watershed management institutions to meeting Canada‘s international
commitments.
7.4 The Federal Policy Framework
Overlapping jurisdiction is a dominant feature of water and watershed management

within the Canadian federalist model (Fenety 1981). Under the Canadian Constitution
relevant federal responsibilities include water surveys, navigation, fisheries, and
international affairs (Parkes and Bruce 1977). In the absence of a national policy
framework for watershed management, a suite of related policies and programs exist (see
Appendix 13). A total of 18 different federal agencies are noted as playing a role in the
three case study watershed management networks (see Appendix 4). All of these 18
agencies are active in Bras d‘Or watershed efforts, falling to nine in the NL case (NL-W)
and only two in BC-W. The most commonly noted federal actor is Fisheries and Oceans
Canada (DFO).
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) is responsible for protecting fish habitat
under the Fisheries Act. However, a 1986 policy states that development must not result
in net loss of fisheries habitat (No Net Loss Policy) has a poor track record of
implementation in freshwater systems (Quadra Planning Consultants 1997, Peterson et al.
2005). Forest industry-related habitat damage implies both federal and provincial
responsibility (Harper and Quigley 2000). Among the problems noted is the need for:
consistency of regulatory approach; watershed level planning that addresses cumulative
impacts; and improved information and coordination with provincial and local authorities;
210
(Quadra Planning Consultants 1997; Werring and Chapman 2002; Office of the Auditor-
General 2004, ii).
Recent fisheries frameworks call for increased Aboriginal, resource user and
public participation in fisheries management (Canada 2004a; 2005b and c). Recognition
of Aboriginal rights and title in the courts and by both levels of government in the 1990s
(as discussed in Chapter 3) has led to increased First Nations involvement in resource
decision-making and modern-day treaty negotiations. Canada‘s Policy for Conservation
of Wild Salmon (Canada 2005c) calls for a linked, collaborative system to increase access
to information on fish habitat status that describes watersheds and habitat conditions. In
NL, DFO has joined forces with community watershed groups to protect and rebuild
Atlantic salmon populations in several regions.
Relationships between DFO and community-based watershed actors are relatively
strong in the Atlantic, although not without disagreements and differing points of view,
and mixed in the BC case. One federal official describes the relationship between DFO
officials and other BC-W actors, particularly First Nations representatives, as ―extremely
variable,‖ although another suggests that the relationship are ―has improved over the
years.‖ For one ‗Namgis First Nation representative, ―it‘s been a little bit bumpy for me,
watching, listening to other people talk about what are their concerns for the
Nimpkish…What‘s happened over the years is we‘ve had different people move in…
Eventually we‘ll get some kind of understanding.‖
Canada‘s Oceans Act (1996), subsequent Oceans Strategy (2002) and Ocean
Action Plan (2005) promise governance reform in three areas: 1) the establishment of
governance mechanisms to enhance coordinated, collaborative oceans management, 2)
integrated management planning, and 3) promotion of oceans stewardship and public
awareness. Integrated Management plans are to be established for all of Canada‘s oceans,
starting with priority large ocean management areas and local coastal management areas
within them. Plans are to be guided by the principles of sustainable development,
integrated management and an ecosystem perspective. Integrated management is a
collaborative approach to decision-making that aims to balance the various interests in
marine and coastal environments, including conservation requirements. The Strategy
―encourages the direct involvement of resource users and coastal communities ... through
211
integrated management planning‖ (Canada 2005b, 18), with particular attention to
developing ―proactive means for First Nations involvement‖ (Canada 2002). Two of three
case study watersheds lie within large ocean management areas where IM planning is
underway: Bras d‘Or watershed is a coastal management area within the Eastern Scotian
Shelf Integrated Management area, and the Nimpkish watershed within the Pacific North
Coast Integrated Management Area. The role of watershed planning in IM is very
different in the two cases; central in the Bras d‘Or and with only limited connection in the
BC case. One BC-W federal representative explains:
the longer term objective I think is to make sure that our watershed
planning and our coastal planning link. One of the places where they‘re
not necessarily matched right now is because the province kind of took on
coastal planning and I would say it probably was driven by areas where
there were either current or potential issues, so a lot of the places where
they chose to do coastal planning, they picked geographically the
boundaries which wouldn‘t be the same sort of boundaries that would be
existing because of a watershed planning process… We have some
provincial work that‘s been done, we have some federal work that‘s been
done, but we can‘t really go yet to established groups like the NRMB and
say. . . Here‘s even what we see coastal planning being - how do you want
to fit in? In the meantime they are expanding, they‘re acknowledging that
our fish are impacted by a lot of things other than what‘s in our watershed,
so they‘re doing things like studies on ocean survival.
7.5 Federal-Provincial Agreements
Due to the multi-jurisdictional nature of watersheds and the desire to access expertise and
funding from both levels of government, provincial-federal agreements have been
common in watershed programs in Canada. Since 1970 the Canada Water Act, for
example, has resulted in federal-provincial agreements and committees to collect data,
cost-share studies and develop plans for major river basins. In NL, with the closure of the
commercial salmon fishery in 1992, federal and provincial governments signed the
Cooperation Agreement for Salmonid Enhancement/Conservation (CASE/C). The
Salmonid Agreement, along with federal-provincial economic diversification agreements,
provided support for several fledging community-based watershed management
organizations such as the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W). Although federal-
212
provincial agreements have been discontinued, the two levels of government continue to
cooperate in areas such as inland fisheries enforcement. In most provinces, provincial
governments have taken on responsibility for ensuring that inland recreational anglers
comply with conservation and management measures, while in NL these responsibilities
are shared. The Province has legislative authority over access, including licence sales,
tagging and guiding requirements, while the federal government has authority over
management measures such as gear type, bag limits and openings. Since the mid-1990s
provincial conservation officers have been designated as fishery officers, while DFO
fishery officers and guardians are designated as provincial wildlife officers, facilitating
collaborative enforcement of regulations.
Federal and provincial governments in BC have also entered into agreements for
coordination and shared responsibility for fisheries habitat protection. For example,
Fisheries and Oceans Canada and two BC ministries, in collaboration with non-
government organizations, developed a watershed-based fish sustainability planning
framework under a 1997 Agreement on the Management of Pacific Salmon Fishery
Issues. Several projects were initiated under the framework, one in the Nimpkish
watershed. While fisheries-focused, the framework recommended some level of
integration with other watershed uses and values later in the process (Watershed-based
Fish Sustainability Planning Steering Committee 2000). Other federal-provincial actors
noted by BC-W interview respondents include the Pacific Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council and the Pacific and Canadian Councils of Fisheries and
Aquaculture Ministers. Finally, Water Quality Monitoring Agreements in NL and BC
provide a cooperative framework and formal, joint commitment to long-term monitoring
of water quality and aquatic ecosystem health.
In Nova Scotia, the most prevalent example of federal-provincial cooperation in
Bras d‘Or watershed stewardship is the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI),
described further below. Three other intergovernmental actors noted by respondents are
the Federal Council‘s Federal Economic Development Committee - Provincial Deputy
Ministers (FEDC–DM), a forum of senior provincial and federal officials that has
supported and sponsored SCI, the Nova Scotia Rural Team and the Mi'kmaq-Nova
Scotia-Canada Tripartite Forum. The Forum was formed in 1997 as a partnership between
213
the Province, Government of Canada and Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq, to address issues of
mutual concern that affect Mi'kmaw communities.
7.6 Provincial Jurisdiction, Policies and Programs
Watersheds have received considerably more attention at the provincial than the national
scale in Canada, with the development of several watershed management policies and
programs. This is in large part due to the provinces‘ constitutional responsibility for
issues such as forestry, land use, freshwater fisheries (in most provinces) and water
supply (Canada 2003a; Parkes and Bruce 1977). Each of these key issues of provincial
jurisdiction is addressed in both Atlantic watershed management initiatives, while the
Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) has a narrower fishery focus.
Approximately 25 provincial departments are directly responsible for managing fresh
water in their respective provinces, in partnership with municipalities and First Nations
(Canada 2003a). With both provincial and municipal governments deemed responsible
for the May 2000 EColi outbreak in Walkerton, Ontario that killed seven residents, water
management has become a high priority across the country (O'Connor 2004).
7.6.1 Newfoundland and Labrador
In addition to joint federal-provincial water quality monitoring efforts, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador (NL) manages a separate program aimed at protecting
drinking water sources. The NL Department of Environment and Conservation manages
surface water and groundwater under the NL Water Resources Act, which provides
regulations for private well construction, the installation of sewage works, and protection
of public water supplies. The Department uses environmental impact assessments to help
ensure that new developments do not harm water systems, and has developed a
framework for drinking water safety involving monitoring, written approval for any
activity in a source water area, public availability of data, infrastructure upgrades and
training for treatment plant operators. Cameron (2006) reports that despite its relatively
small population, NL has ―very broad and sweeping protection measures‖ for water
supply areas and a strong regulatory role.
214
The Economic Recovery Commission (ERC), formed in 1989, saw the rivers in
Newfoundland and Labrador as an undeveloped resource and the recreational fishery as
an area of economic opportunity. The Commission released a paper in 1991 suggesting
that some areas (pools) of salmon rivers be leased to outfitters. The ERC also advocated
for community watershed management pilot projects and provided support for several
fledging community-based watershed management organizations, beginning with Indian
Bay and Bay St. George in 1994. Sandwich Bay in Labrador, Humber, Exploits and
Gander systems were later added with the goal of facilitating recreational fisheries
development. The ERC chaired an interdepartmental provincial working group mandated
to negotiate an MOU with the federal government that would create a framework for
community watershed management and delegate management responsibilities. The result
was support within government (largely among politicians rather than the bureaucracy)
for an expanded recreational fishery and community watershed management. But
backlash also resulted from residents who feared that community watershed management
would lead to privatization of freshwater fisheries resources. A 1996 election resulted in
the closure of the ERC and reduced political support for the community-based watershed
management.
Limited funding for fisheries-oriented watershed management activities, and a
requirement for community involvement in forestry planning, through a 1990 revision to
the Forestry Act and 2003 Sustainable Forest Management Strategy, continues to provide
some support for remaining watershed management groups. Including special areas, the
development of five-year forestry plans and municipal plans in some communities, land
use planning policy and programs in the Province of NL are ―a piecemeal attempt by
various departments to stake out their own turf‖ (NL 1999). The need for integrated land
use planning has been acknowledged in numerous documents (NL 1994; 1999; NL Round
Table on the Environment and the Economy 1995; Sierra Club 2003; NL 2003) yet never
addressed. A Sustainable Development Act and Strategic Environmental Management
Plan process proposed by the current government do not make reference to land use
planning (NL 2006d; 2007f). Provincial agencies noted as actors within the Indian Bay
(NL-W) watershed management network include Department of Innovation, Trade and
215
Rural Development, Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Forest Resources and
Agrifoods.
7.6.2 Nova Scotia
Timmer (2002) explains that in Nova Scotia the Department of Environment and Labour
has the authority to manage watercourses, and is the agency with the lead responsibility
for water management under the Environment Act. Municipal governments also have
land use jurisdiction, authority to protect surface waters through zoning bylaws and
responsibility for water supply. As in NL, the Province may designate an area
surrounding a municipal water supply as a protected watershed area, adding a higher level
of protection and management requirements. An area may also be designated a
Wastewater Management District, giving the municipality the authority to monitor and
manage sewage systems within the District, and to repair or replace malfunctioning septic
systems using funds collected from area property owners. The Bras d‘Or watershed has
been identified as a potential area for this program (Barrington 2005; CBRM 2004).
A 1991 Minister‘s Task Force on Clean Water called for a watershed-based
approach to water management in Nova Scotia. This approach has not been widely
adopted, although two watershed planners have been hired and the commitment to
watershed management was restated in a Drinking Water Strategy for Nova Scotia (NS
2002). Nova Scotia Environment and Labour is currently developing a comprehensive
provincial water resources management strategy.
The Province of Nova Scotia, in cooperation with federal and local partners, has
taken a pilot project approach to watershed management, implementing Sustainable
Communities Initiatives in two major watersheds, the Annapolis Valley (also an ACAP
site) and the Bras d‘Or Lakes. The initiatives bring together both a local and a senior-
level governmental working team, consisting of multiple agencies with relevant
jurisdictions ranging from justice to pollution, to address priority sustainable development
issues in these systems. The Bras d‘Or initiative is discussed further below.
Tota (2002) reports that there is a growing interest in land use planning in Nova
Scotia. To date integrated land use planning has consisted of municipal level zoning plans
(in less than 50% of municipalities), First Nations community planning and planning for
216
the establishment of a protected areas network. The Department of Natural Resources
began an Integrated Resource Management Plan process in 2000 to determine long-term
objectives for a portion of Nova Scotia‘s publicly owned Crown lands. After a 2002
consultation process, the Province created three planning regions (Western, Central and
Eastern) and appointed a staff team to produce a land use plan for each. The high level of
private land ownership in the province is a constraint for land protection, but measures on
private lands have also been taken, including acquisitions, donations for tax relief and
voluntary stewardship agreements.
Through the ―New Nova Scotia: A Path to 2020‖ and an Environmental Goals and
Sustainable Prosperity Act (2007), Nova Scotia is committed ―to have one of the cleanest
and most sustainable environments in the world by 2020‖ (NS 2008). To help reach that
goal, new strategies are being developed for water, natural resources, energy, climate
change and coastal management. An Adopt-A-Stream program provides community
groups with funding to improve inland fisheries habitats, and a new Framework for the
Implementation of Sustainable Forest Management is under development.
As of the period of this study Nova Scotia Department of Environment and
Labour (DoEL) was described as the most instrumental provincial agency in the Bras
d‘Or watershed management network. Ten others are also noted, including the
Department of Natural Resources (see Appendix 4). Once again results point to the
importance of local staff. One former DoEL regional employee devoted to Bras d‘Or
initiatives is described as ―the glue that holds us all together.‖ Institutional attitudes
towards Aboriginal rights and title, on the other hand, have been a source of tension
between Mi‘kmaw and provincial partners: ―Natural Resources gets really upset over
First Nations issues, because they‘ve got a whole history of litigation‖ and debate over
who owns the resource.‖
7.6.3 British Columbia
The Province of British Columbia (BC) has engaged in planning along watershed
boundaries since the 1970s, when planning units according to river basin boundaries or
combinations of smaller watersheds were established with the intent of developing sub-
unit plans and resource management actions for each (O‘Riordon 1983). It was not until
217
the 1990s, however, that the role of other stakeholders in watershed management gained
recognition, beginning with systems of particular interest such as the Georgia Basin and
Skeena River. Collaborative watershed management processes were put in place in both
regions in 1992-1993.
BC water management policy is guided by a Drinking Water Protection Act and
an MOU signed by seven provincial ministries. The MOU establishes a protocol for
integrated water management. There has been some success in BC with stakeholder
involvement in watershed planning processes, including improved information on which
to base water management decisions. In 1998, the Province ordered a major watershed
user, BC Hydro, to come up with plans for operating its hydro-electric facilities in a
manner that better balanced competing water uses and includes consultation with a wide
range of stakeholders (BC Hydro 2004; Watershed Watch 2004). Provincial
representative Valerie Cameron (2006) also describes some problems that have been
encountered. In at least one case, after considerable study and investment, process leaders
could not get community support and the plan was not implemented. Cameron further
questions the appropriateness of processes focused on surface watersheds as a basis for
source water protection in regions where aquifers are the principal water source.
The forests of BC have been ―a battleground over sustainable resource
development‖ (Hoberg 2001, 3; Young and Mathews 2005b). Profound changes in land
use practices took place across B.C. in the 1990s, including changes in forest
management under a new Forest Practices Code, implementation of a Protected Areas
Strategy (1993) and a series of comprehensive land use planning processes. Watershed-
level planning for forestry and land use is applied increasingly in these processes, led by a
Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in the Clayoquot Sound that
recommended ―the watershed as the basic unit for planning and management‖ (Scientific
Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound 1994). Considered a model for
sustainable forest practices provincially and globally, watershed plans in the Clayoquot
region are developed by a Board of First Nations and community representatives and
reviewed in public fora.
In 1996 the Province announced the beginning of the Central Coast Land and Coastal
Resource Management Plan (CCLCRMP) process, covering the remaining archipelago
218
and mainland portions of the Mount Waddington and Central Coast Regional District
areas. The process was intended to allow provincial and First Nations governments, and a
variety of stakeholders to reach agreement on protection and development of lands and
resources within the 4.6 million hectare region. Ten years later the central coast land use
decision was announced, designating areas for protection and establishing Ecosystem
Based Management (EBM) as a framework for future management. EBM is described as
―a new adaptive approach to managing human activities that ensures the coexistence of
healthy ecosystems and communities‖ (BC 2006). Additional planning processes within
the case study region are discussed further below.
Planning related to salmon in BC occurs at various scales. By the early 1990s,
recognition that industrialized forest practices had played a key role in habitat losses for
fisheries (and other species) led the BC government to create the Forest Practices Code
and Watershed Restoration Program. The Program, funded through logging stumpage
fees, focused on restoring and protecting fisheries, aquatic and forest resources adversely
impacted by past practices, as well as providing community employment and stewardship
opportunities (Slaney and Zaldokas 1997). Complaints about the administrative costs and
rigidity of the Code led to a new results-based management approach and Forest and
Range Practices Act (2004) after the election of a Liberal government in 2001. A 2004
provincial Auditor-General report pointed to concerns that the new regime may increase
the risk to fish and fish habitat by eliminating previous planning and due diligence
requirements (BC 2004; Peterson et al. 2005).
Mike Romaine (2004) of the BC Watershed Stewardship Alliance argues that
enough has been learned about the do‘s and don‘ts of watershed management in BC and
that what is now missing is the necessary supporting policies and delivery systems to
make integrated watershed management through community-government partnerships a
reality. He adds that genuine commitment and community-driven initiatives that take into
account concerns beyond the local scale are also required.
7.7 Case Study Watershed Management Initiatives
There is significant variation in how watershed management is being practiced across the
country, in part due to the policy and legal context described above and in part due to
219
varied local characteristics such as watershed and population size, sense of urgency,
culture, values, history of cooperation, and levels of development. Major characteristics
of the three case study watershed management models are outlined in Appendix 12 and in
a brief description of each provided below. Outcomes related to these initiatives are
described in Chapter 8.
7.7.1 Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp.
Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W) began when community members became
concerned about pollution, habitat degradation and the depletion of socially, culturally
and economically valuable recreational fisheries in the Indian Bay watershed. After years
of decline in the watershed‘s renowned trout populations, locals decided to take matters
into their own hands and launched the Corporation in 1988 to conserve and protect the
ecosystem. Gambo-Indian Bay and Cape Freels Development Associations were founding
organizations (Chapter 6).
An original member described the history ―Everyone, from here and elsewhere in
Canada, knew Indian Bay‘s famous trout. The place was getting destroyed and the fish
were so scarce they were hardly worth it. The pollution was terrible. Bowaters pulled out
after the fire and left dams, camps and old roads. Everything was a mess. Those of us who
lived here felt something should be done about it. There were about 12 people involved.
We had a meeting at Indian Bay town hall in 1988 that brought in different ministries and
developers to make them aware of what was being done. It was a full day session and
there was so much interest shown that it gave us the encouragement to carry on. Then
there was so much expected of us, we couldn‘t give up. The pressure was put on us. Then
more people got involved. The cod decreased and local people didn‘t want that to happen
to the trout, and they didn‘t want the government to do it. They wanted it to be locally
driven.‖
Community-based resource management and attempts by community groups to
assume this kind of control over lands and natural resources were uncommon in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Trout presented a particular opportunity because neither
federal nor provincial governments were devoting significant resources or attention to
trout management. A provincial official explains, ―trout are in a never-never land. They
220
were last researched by DFO in the 70‘s. The federal government has a constitutional
obligation, but the reality is they don‘t and can‘t manage trout… they don‘t have any
stock assessment. It‘s a matter of allocating resources. They stopped that probably 20
years ago.‖ The group met with DFO and other government agencies seeking support. A
DFO representative explains, ―I remember Winston and other board members that came
in here and sat down with DFO and said ‗Something‘s got to be done. This resource is
being fished down, there‘s apparently no respect for regulations‘‖.
A federal employee and fishing enthusiast attended these early meetings, and
those of other community groups in the region concerned about their area‘s fish stocks.
He became aware of a program for environmental clean up through Environment
Canada‘s Green Plan and helped the organization launch a clean-up of the watershed.
Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. supporters successfully advocated for the inclusion
of Indian Bay under the provincial watershed management pilot program and for trout as
well as salmon projects to be eligible for funding under the Cooperation Agreement for
Salmonid Enhancement/Conservation (Power 1997). Despite the 1996 election and
closure of the Economic Recovery Commission described above, a five year MOU that
took over three years to negotiate ―with two Prime Ministers, two DFO Ministers, and
teams of lawyers‖ was signed later that year. The three-party MOU stated that ―the
Parties wish to provide long term economic, educational and recreational benefits to the
public from sport fisheries and to maintain and enhance self-sustaining populations of
native fish species.‖ But it made no commitment of resources.
The stated mission of the Corporation (NL-W) is: "We believe that all of us
together have a shared responsibility to conserve and enhance our wilderness heritage,
that our forests, rivers and streams form the life blood of our cultural and economic
identity, and that this priceless gift must be preserved, protected and passed on as our own
legacy to generations yet unborn." In practice the organization has focused its mandate on
freshwater fisheries, in particular brook trout and to a lesser extent salmon, ounaniche and
other species as a key component of this ―wilderness heritage.‖ A 1996 Business Plan
states that the goal is ―sustainable economic development from a revitalized recreational
fishery,‖ its guiding principles including conservation and equality of access, along with
user management and self-financing (Wicks 1996; Norris 1997). It soon became apparent
221
that, of greater importance locally than economic development in the watershed, was an
unstated community objective to protect trout fishing opportunities as an important part of
local culture and way-of-life. One former provincial official explains, ―in the middle of
this they found gold. It was amazing. They said this was a nuisance, the gold had gone
and messed up their plan, the troutin‘. It shows their priorities.‖
One concern about watershed management in NL is that ―watershed management
right now is counting fish,‖ although ―Indian Bay does a little more than that.‖ NL-W‘s
main priorities have shifted over time from habitat clean-up and enhancement, restocking
and tourism development to a current focus on post-secondary research and education,
followed by fisheries management and regulation. Clean-up and anti-litter campaigns
were viewed as a safe place to start in the 1980s. ―Nobody could argue with removing
garbage from the woods.‖ Realizing that trout management measures required additional
knowledge, the Corporation partnered with researchers from Memorial University and
with provincial and federal governments to launch a science and stock assessment
program, contributing in turn to the development and implementation of management
measures such as reduced bag limits, shorter fishing seasons and pond closures, instituted
cooperatively by DFO and NL-W. New bridges have been constructed to reduce the
impact of vehicle traffic on streams, erosion control structures built and NL-W land use
planning efforts have restricted sensitive habitat areas from cabin and forestry
development. At the request of community representatives, NL-W has periodically
extended its work outside the watershed into neighbouring systems within the Bonavista
North region.
Building on a long history of cooperation between NL-W and Memorial
University, as well as other universities, the organization has been working for nearly a
decade to establish the Indian Bay Biological Centre. NL-W has hosted undergraduate
and graduate students conducting field research on topics as diverse as ecological and
social modelling, salmonid population genetics, threatened and endangered species,
amphibians, aquatic vegetation, forestry and governance. Local students have gone on to
careers in provincial resource management agencies since completing their degrees.
Looking to build on these successes, funding was acquired for a feasibility analysis and
business plan and subsequently for building the facilities required for a field research and
222
education centre. A diverse range of services is envisioned, including field courses,
research projects, training programs, kids‘ camps, school programs, educational
adventure tourism and consulting.
The Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation began as the Indian Bay Ecosystem
Committee, with representatives from each of two participating Rural Development
Associations. The group incorporated as an independent non-profit society in 1995, a
requirement to take advantage of
Table 28 Indian Bay watershed user communities
CASE/C funds (Power 1997). Anyone
Community Population Legal Status
with an interest in the watershed can (2001)
Gambo 2084 Municipality
become a member and attend an annual
Hare Bay 1065 Municipality
general meeting to vote or run for the Dover 730 Municipality
Centreville- 1146 Municipality (3
Board of Directors of the society. The Wareham- former Towns)
Indian Bay watershed spans the area Trinity
Indian Bay 215 Municipality
covered by Gambo-Indian Bay and Cape Greenspond 383 Municipality
Freels Development Associations. New-Wes- 2832 Municipality (5
Valley former Towns)
Winter 2004 creel survey results suggest Lumsden 653 Municipality
Musgrave 1294 Municipality
that 34% of individuals fishing in the Harbour
watershed lived in the communities of Cape Freels 161 LSD
Deadman‘s Bay 220 LSD
Indian Bay and Centreville-Wareham- Total pop. 10783
Trinity and 32% were from the Gander 9651 Municipality
Source: Statistics Canada Community Profiles
remaining area communities listed in (2001)
Table 28. An additional 21% travel from the Avalon Peninsula and 6% from Gander. A
report from summer 1992 shows similar results but also reports 10% of users from out-of-
province. The nine member Board includes: three representatives from each of the
founding development association areas, three from the communities within the
watershed (Indian Bay and Centreville-Wareham-Trinity) and three members-at-large.
Government representatives do not sit on the Board, nor do major industrial users
(primarily logging and blueberry farming), although they are involved to varying degrees
as partners and advisors. Sub-committees of the Board include members of the Board as
well as outside experts where needed. Recent committees include forestry, research and
education centre development, and human resources. NL-W is a concentrated model with
223
one incorporated body and membership-elected board of directors through which most
decisions related to development in the watershed pass, albeit as advisors to senior levels
of government.
Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. (NL-W) conducted several planning exercises during
the early to mid-1990s, including a business plan for the organization, an Economic
Development Plan for the Indian Bay Watershed (Wicks 1996) and a land use plan
(1995). Since this time the organization has engaged primarily in project or issue-based
rather than strategic, long-term planning. NL-W has, however, had significant input into
five year forestry management plans, arranging specific regulations and restrictions
related to the watershed. The organization also successfully lobbied for the formation of a
DFO-led Trout Working Group and has been instrumental in developing five year trout
management plans in the province. Finally, a business plan for the new Centre for
Biological Studies, a division of NL-W, has been developed.
Early fisheries management efforts exhibited a higher degree of evaluation and
active adaptive management than current practices. Evaluation of results in recent years
has been primarily informal and through the collection of creel survey data, periodic
habitat assessments and informal evaluation of an enforcement pilot project. Evaluation
methods are neither consistent nor clearly documented. Discussion of evaluation results
with community stakeholders is limited and there is significant debate among
stakeholders regarding reported fish stock improvements. Despite these limitations recent
attempts to generate revenue through a research and education centre suggest that
messages from government funding agencies and lessons from past successes attracting
students to conduct research within the ecosystem have been incorporated into the current
research and education centre focus. Thus, informal evaluation has led to organizational
adaptation. The group has been recognized for its efforts provincially, nationally and even
internationally, winning the 1997 Canada Recreational Fisheries Award.
Initial financing for the Indian Bay Ecosystem Committee came from the
partnering development associations. Gambo-Indian Bay Development Association made
the committee a loan, ―until they got on their own.‖ Early 1990s clean-up work was
funded by Environment Canada, followed by CASE/C support until 1996.50 The group‘s
50
One respondent suggests 1998.
224
mid-1990s vision for financial sustainability included revenue generation through
fundraising and users fees. Possible revenue sources included a toll booth on the road into
the watershed and special licenses or outfitting operations, with a 3% royalty on private
ventures once the stocks recovered. Facilities for nature lovers, memberships, donations,
special events and merchandise sales were also suggested (Paddock 1996; Wicks 1996).
Cabinet submissions emphasized there would be no new financial costs to the Province
associated with participating in watershed management pilot projects. ―Anglers would be
required to contribute to the costs,‖ and the organizations would become self-sustaining.
However, questions such as how anglers would contribute and how much were never
answered and subsequent attempts to pursue revenue-generating options such as special
fishing licenses or allocations of cabin license fees have met with resistance from senior
levels of government. The Indian Bay Biological Station, in addition to its research and
education benefits, is NL-W‘s most recent attempt to develop a revenue source.
Since the end of CASE/C the Corporation has relied on applications to ACOA,
Service Canada and provincial economic development departments for project funds.
Staff spend a considerable amount of their time applying for funding and reporting to
funding agencies, detracting from their focus on community development and
conservation priorities. IBEC‘s budget has ranged from $300,000 in 2001 to $437,000 in
2005, approximately $200,000-$225,000 per year for operating costs and the remainder
for research centre construction. ACOA, with its economic development mandate, has
provided most of the organization‘s funding, contributing over $2 million to the
organization since 1997. Without additional economic outcomes, the feasibility of
continued ACOA funding is questionable. DFO contributes $10,000 annually for
transportation costs associated with NL-W‘s enforcement program (2% of their total
budget). Service Canada and the Province each contributed an additional $23-45,000 per
year in 2005 and 2006. NL-W staff members include a General Manager, Officer
Manager, two seasonal creel survey technicians and two seasonal compliance monitors,
as well as part-time students, research associates and construction employees. On
average, approximately 20 people are employed per year with the organization.
While run by a grassroots community Board, the organization has limited formal
interaction with local municipal councils and mixed relationships with local groups and
225
citizens, many of whom suggest they are unaware of the full range of NL-W‘s activities.
During the study period relationships between NL-W and provincial and federal
governments, as well as academic institutions, were considered stronger than with the
communities that initiated and, through the Board of Directors, still govern the
organization (see Appendix 4). These external (to the region) relationships are ongoing
and diverse, including all types of relationships examined except Board membership and,
for post-secondary institutions, financial support.
Relationships with senior levels of government have not always been strong,
however, and are not consistent across, or even within, departments and agencies.
Relationships with senior levels of government are described as the most significant
barrier, or resistor, to NL-W efforts, noted by 63% of interview respondents. As with
other cases, strong government relationships were typically associated with particular
individuals within government, at both political and staff levels, and their personal
relationships with NL-W representatives and Indian Bay watershed efforts. Since it
began, NL-W has faced ―the resistance of authorities to hand out any power, whether over
land, forestry, tourism, wildlife, or fish,‖ particularly within the bureaucracy. One
respondent claims that in the early years ―Premier Wells got involved and said ‗Let‘s do
it‘ through a Cabinet directive… despite bureaucratic resistance.‖ A 1994 proposal to
Cabinet argued that provincial acts and regulations did not allow for local management or
delegation of Ministerial authority without legislative approval, but after advice from the
Department of Justice a 1996 memo stated that community watershed pilots could be
implemented without legislative or regulatory changes. The legal barriers may have been
removed, but the political ones had not. After a 1996 election, a Committee on Use of
Outdoor Resources was struck. The Committee‘s 1999 report stated that the provincial
government would consult but not delegate decision-making power, including decisions
related to licenses and fees, to stakeholder groups and that outdoor resources exist for the
use and enjoyment of all citizens and would not be privatized (NL 1999).
With responsibility for freshwater fisheries and habitat conservation, but few
resources to devote to this mandate, DFO has provided largely advisory and policy
support to the Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W). The Department has provided
the flexibility required to implement special management regulations, subject to public
226
consultation, and in 2003 partnered with the Corporation to increase monitoring and
surveillance activities. A Joint Project Agreement allows two local compliance monitors
to undertake ―routine patrols and low-risk monitoring and surveillance duties.‖ This
program is ongoing. Combined with significant financial support from ACOA and
Service Canada, relationships between the federal government and NL-W are therefore
considered strong overall (Appendix 4).
Other major NL-W actors include universities, which have provided significant
scientific support, and two forest companies operating within the watershed. Both
companies have been influential in recent years as forests have re-grown and logging
operations been re-established. Differences in corporate culture are apparent, with one
firm (Corner Book Pulp and Paper) adopting a more collaborative approach. The power
of forestry interests has created challenges for NL-W and those that have supported a
research, education and conservation agenda in the watershed and seek to restrict some
areas of the watershed from logging activity. Improvements to forestry practices such as
increased buffer zones have, however, been achieved through collaborative planning.
7.7.2 Bras d‘Or Lakes Watershed Management
In the Bras D‘Or Lakes region of Nova Scotia, through a suite of related initiatives,
several organizations and committees are working together in pursuit of sustainability in
response to threats such as sewage contamination, fish stock declines, invasive species
and high rural unemployment (Chapter 5). Residents have seen the quality of the lakes
continually decline, and with them the quality of life in communities that rely on them.
These concerns have lead to five key collaborative initiatives:
 Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR), representing five First Nations

Communities in Cape Breton/Unama‘ki;
 Pitu‘paq Committee, composed of the Mayors and Wardens of Unama‘ki/Cape
Breton‘s five municipalities and five Mi‘kmaw First Nations Chiefs;
 Bras d‘Or Partnership Committee, including First Nations, federal and provincial
governments, industry and some community groups;
 Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI) Bras d‘Or Lakes field team,
composed of First Nations, federal, provincial and municipal government
representatives; and
 Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative, multi-stakeholder initiative with
leadership from UINR as secretariat and DFO under the Oceans Act.
227
Together these initiatives form what one federal official refers to as a ―collaboratory,‖
offering significant potential to monitor and learn about collaboration in integrated
watershed management. While still developing and not without challenges, relationships
within the Bras d‘Or system are strong and diverse compared to the other cases studied
(see Appendix 4).
The Mik‘maq Nation‘s history of resource stewardship dates back millennia,
families arranged according to bays and river systems (Hoffman 1955). Collaborative
initiatives involving settler and First Nations governments and communities in Cape
Breton are reported to have begun with 1970s aquaculture initiatives, which involved
federal, provincial and Mi‘kmaw governments, along with a conference and early
integrated coastal management proposals led by University College of Cape Breton‘s
(UCCB) Bras d‘Or Institute (Arseneau 1975, Bras d‘Or Institute 1975). In 1985 the
Grand Narrows and District Board of Trade made a presentation to the federal Crown
agency Cape Breton Development Corporation (DEVCo) and provincial fisheries
department, urging for a five year plan to measure and control activities around the Lakes.
Studies on integrated management planning were conducted (UMA Group 1989;
Cressman 1987) and conferences on the state and the future of the Bras d‘Or Lakes were
held in 1986 and 1991. Mi‘kmaw leaders advocated for changes throughout this period,
including a successful lobby to ban fishing draggers in the Lakes.
Following the 1991 conference, a Bras d‘Or Lakes Working Group was formed
with leadership from the Bras d‘Or Institute, funding from Enterprise Cape Breton
Corporation (ECBC) and strong involvement from First Nations. A 1995 report by the 15
member Working Group, ―Taking Care of the Bras d‘Or,‖ proposed-wide ranging
governance changes: ―they basically proposed a new governance model as a structure for
the Bras d‘Or with certain representation… so they could dictate the management on the
regulation of the lake and from my understanding what had happened was, the province
was asked first to do that, and they said they couldn‘t.‖
The breakdown in this 1995 process caused a considerable rift between local and
senior, particularly provincial, government actors. Both Mik‘maq and non-First Nations
residents were left to pursue new strategies for governance reform. While preferring the
partnership route, a federal court order was requested by the Union of Nova Scotia
228
Indians to halt a channel dredging project (DFO 1997). The Mi‘kmaw communities of
Unama‘kik formed the Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR) to take a lead
role in environmental planning and stewardship, building on the success of the Eskasoni
Fish and Wildlife Commission established by Eskasoni First Nation in 1991. UINR
concentrated on partnerships with the federal government, particularly with Environment
Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and created the Bras d‘Or
Partnership (2002) and education and awareness program. Other concerned citizens
launched the Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society and Bras d‘Or Preservation Foundation,
raising public awareness and securing lands for conservation largely without government
collaboration.
In 1999, the Province of Nova Scotia launched the Sustainable Communities
Initiative (SCI) and set out to rebuild collaborative relationships in the Bras d‘Or Lakes,
selecting the region as one of two pilot project areas. A Bras d‘Or SCI field team was
formed in 2000, involving federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations organizations.
SCI was followed by the formation of the Pitu‘paq Committee in 2001 and the
Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (CEPI) in 2003. A multi-stakeholder
Committee has since been struck to explore and promote the idea of UN Biosphere
designating the Bras d‘Or, or a portion of the Bras d‘Or system, as a UN Biosphere
Reserve.
While the overall goal of the network of Bras d‘Or actors is to restore the health of the
Bras d‘Or Lakes and the communities that depend on them, each group has its own set of
goals and responsibilities. The mandate of Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources
(UINR), for example, is to: promote and contribute to the understanding and protection of
the Bras d‘Or Lakes marine system and its watershed; assist in the development of
monitoring programs, data collection, analysis and other matters essential to the
protection of the natural resources; and to enter into arrangements with others that will aid
in achieving these objectives. The Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative
(CEPI) was initiated by UINR, its member First Nations, and DFO to bring all partners
together to work collaboratively on solving environmental challenges and to develop a
management plan for Bras d'Or Lakes within the framework of the Oceans Act and
Oceans Strategy introduced above (UINR 2008).
229
Pollution from sewage has been identified as the number one issue of concern.
Therefore, Pitu‘paq and to a lesser extent the Sustainable Communities Initiative (SCI)
have concentrated their efforts on addressing this problem. The Pitu‘paq Committee has
made ten commitments to address the sewage issue and secured ten reciprocal
commitments from provincial and federal government departments. The long-term vision
of this collaboration of neighbouring First Nations and non-First Nations communities is
to restore the Bras d‘Or Lakes to their former pristine state and manage the watershed so
it will support aquaculture, wild fisheries and tourism (Pitu‘paq 2008). SCI‘s broad
mandate is to coordinate and improve citizen-centred programs and service-delivery
across all governments, to forge new partnerships and collaborate with local citizens in
their efforts to build strong, sustainable communities, supporting communities through a
collaborative approach which integrates social, cultural, economic and environmental
policies and programs. SCI offers single window access to government for community
groups wishing to obtain support or information about programs and services. One
community representative describes it as ―pathfinding,‖ explaining in the case of the
designation of Bras d‘Or as a non-discharge zone, for example, that ―it‘s a very
demanding process. I don‘t know how a community that didn‘t have SCI would ever
move it.‖ SCI also presents an opportunity for a more holistic understanding of
community issues within government. Since the formation of CEPI in 2003, SCI and
CEPI actors have discussed their respective roles, determining that CEPI will focus
primarily on environmental issues and SCI on a broader sustainability approach within an
expanded region (all of Cape Breton). SCI has also differentiated itself as being ―more
about coordination and dialogue than planning.‖
Activities in the watershed to date have focused on planning, training and
education, communications and partnership building, research and monitoring, and, in
recent years, reducing sewage pollution. Ecosystem studies in the Bras d‘Or Lakes
include studies of water quality, sediment dynamics, sensitive habitat areas, benthic
habitat classification, water flow, population studies for multiple species, distribution of
invasive species and more. Science for the Integrated Management of the Bras d‘Or
Lakes is a joint research effort between scientists at UINR and DFO initiated in 1999,
supported by Memoranda of Understanding committing both parties to conduct and foster
230
collaborative research on the ecology of the Lakes and to exchange information and
expertise. UINR has also been involved in the collection and mapping of traditional
ecological knowledge on coastal and plant resources.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on identification and remediation of
pollution sources. Pitu‘paq and SCI successfully pursued the designation of the Lakes as a
No Discharge Zone for boaters under the Canada Shipping Act. The Bras d‘Or Youth
Internship /Bras d‘Or Lake Cleanup Project, with one youth intern from each
municipality and First Nation, mapped discharge sources and developed a proposal to the
Canada-Nova Scotia Municipal Infrastructure Program for financial support to address
on-site sewage issues. A new sewage treatment facility has been built in Baddeck, one of
the largest communities in the watershed, and numerous private systems have been
upgraded.
Training and capacity building has also been an area of focus. Through the Cape
Breton University (CBU, formerly University College of Cape Breton) Mi‘kmaq College
Institute and Resource Centre, the University has worked with the Mi‘kmaq to develop
programs that meet the needs of their communities and students (CBU 2008). One such
development is a new science program that brings together Western and Aboriginal
knowledge and worldviews. The MSIT ("everything together" in Mi'kmaw language)
program is housed within CBU‘s Bachelor of Science Community Studies degree
program. It is the only ‗Integrative Science‘/Toqwa‘tu‘kl Kjijitaqnn program in the
country, blending 21st Century science, Aboriginal knowledge, cultural, social and
environmental issues into a course of study (CBU 2006). CBU also participates in the
Mi‘kmaq Science Advantage Program, providing post-secondary science courses to
Mi‘kmaw students as preparation for science degree programs (CBU 2008).
Other issues being addressed include establishing a sound governance process,
increasing communications, education and awareness, integrating traditional ecological
knowledge in planning and decision-making, and ensuring broad participation from a
diversity of stakeholders. Local groups have collaborated on habitat restoration and
entered into agreements with government to provide job opportunities and scholarship
funds for students in the fields of science, environment and technology. Management
recommendations related to fisheries and wildlife have also been made. These activities
231
have expanded and evolved over time as challenges and circumstances change (see
Appendix 12 for a chronology of Bras d‘Or activities).
Speaking of the range of groups discussed above, Naug (2003b) points out that
―Together they form a loose network with similar objectives and many overlaps,
including participants‖ (Naug 2003b). Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR)
acts as a central node for many but not all initiatives and is a First Nations-led, rather than
fully collaborative structure. Thus the network is polycentric. Workshops, joint projects,
overlapping memberships and informal communications represent key strategies for
connecting and coordinating these various initiatives and structures. The unique and
complex structure allows for integration across and within all levels of government and
for addressing a greater range of issues than in either of the other two cases. However,
there is now a desire to develop a more formal governance structure to increase
coordination and facilitate integrated planning. No decision-making model has been
decided upon to date. Respondents stress the need for flexibility, with the possibility of
expanding initiative boundaries to all of Cape Breton and beyond when dealing with such
issues as migratory fish stocks and climate change. Kenchington (1997, 2) points to the
example of Bras d‘Or mackerel. Access can be managed locally, he suggests, but
conservation ―must be addressed on a much wider basis.‖
The vision is that ―collaborative planning will become the norm in the Bras d‘Or‖
in the future. Despite the presence of a Cape Breton Rural District Planning Commission
and involvement of community and Mi‘kmaw representatives in forestry planning,
respondents suggest there is little by way of rural land use planning on the island. An
important development has been the designation of the Bras d‘Or Lakes and surrounding
watershed as a Coastal Management Area as part of the Eastern Scotian Shelf ocean
management area, one of the five priority areas for Integrated Oceans Management
described in Canada‘s Oceans Action Plan (2005). Integrated management is envisioned
as a multistep process that will build on existing activities and initiatives. One of the first
steps in the process has been the development of an Ecosystem Overview and Assessment
Report summarizing existing environmental and socio-economic information, evaluating
key interactions and issues, and identifying Ecologically and Biologically Significant
Areas. Sub-watershed planning has been undertaken in the River Denys basin. A series of
232
workshops has been held to discuss how the many groups involved can best work
together, beginning with an all-government session followed by others that have brought
in community groups, industry and the broader public.
Outside of stock assessment, evaluation activities in the Bras d‘Or have been
largely informal. Individual SCI members report to their respective agencies, for example,
―on what‘s happening at meetings... what the teams are involved with and how their
departments can play a role or how they‘re involved.‖ An internal, provincial evaluation
has also been undertaken. Representatives report that the Initiative is in the process of
clarifying its objectives and expectations and developing sustainability-based
performance indicators. Community feedback and commitment have been used as
informal measures of success.
CEPI, Pitu‘paq and SCI are cost-shared by federal and provincial governments,
contributions totalling approximately $600,000 per year. This excludes provincial and
federal funding to Mi‘kmaw resource management organizations. First Nations resource
royalties and harvesting activities, including forestry, mining and fisheries, contribute
over 50% of an estimated $3 million in total annual spending. Municipal governments
contribute financially to the Pitu‘paq initiative and private sector actors sponsor three
annual scholarships awarded to Unamaki science, technology and natural resources
students (see Appendix 12).
Cape Breton Island‘s five First Nations communities (Chapel Island, Eskasoni,
Membertou, Wagmatcook and Waycobah) have been instrumental in the collaborative
planning process and are recognized as the most influential actor (collectively, including
the Chiefs and UINR) in Bras d‘Or watershed management and stewardship activities.
The Mi‘kmaq of Unama‘ki have developed innovative ways of building community
capacity, recognizing traditional knowledge and working cooperatively for watershed
protection. Through UINR they have worked with non-government organizations, federal,
provincial and municipal governments, and industry, all of which have also made
important contributions, to expand system knowledge, manage human activities and
pursue common objectives. Ongoing work will be needed to create and maintain links
between these various partners and activities underway in the Bras d‘Or ―collaboratory‖.
233
7.7.3 Nimpkish Resource Management Board
The Nimpkish Watershed has a drainage area of 1780km2 and is divided into 65 sub-
watersheds that include the important fish-bearing tributaries to the Nimpkish River
(ICNRC 2002). Within the Nimpkish watershed ―the NRMB and its associated public,
corporate and government representatives, comprises a rather complex web of
stakeholder inter-relationships …. at the centre of the web is the NRMB‖ (see Appendix
4). Nimpkish Resource Management Board (NRMB or BC-W)‘s efforts are rooted in the
commitment of the ‗Namgis First Nation to their territory and 1970s efforts to halt the
alarming decline in Nimpkish River salmon stocks. Nimpkish Band Council (later
changed to ‗Namgis First Nation) formed a Land Claims Committee and declared
sovereignty over the Nimpkish Valley as the ―rightful owner and custodian of the
watershed and its resources‖ (Weinstein 1991,10). The Council called for a freeze on all
development until land claims were settled, not only because of their rightful ownership,
but also in recognition that the waters of the Nimpkish River, Lake and estuaries are
"essential to the survival of the Nimpkish people" (Speck 1987, 92). The Band lobbied for
the closure of seine fisheries targeted at Nimpkish stocks and, in 1979, voluntarily
terminated all food fishing on the River.
In 1987 ‗Namgis First Nation, with encouragement from DFO, initiated a
Nimpkish Technical Working Group and a Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-
W). The Technical Working Group addressed ―non-political fisheries concerns‖ related to
the management of Nimpkish stocks. The Working Group met two to three times a year
to discuss return expectations, fishing plans, enumeration, lake fertilization and
enhancement plans but the two related groups also discussed wildlife, forestry (e.g.
pesticide use, five-year plan reviews) and other issues. The mandate of the Board was to
coordinate all the various resource use initiatives (including but not exclusively fishery
resource values) through a central ‗clearing house‘. Representation included Band
Councilors, a salmon enhancement program representative and support biologist from
‗Namgis First Nation, along with Kwakuitl Territorial Fisheries Commission, Musgamaw
Tsawataineuk Tribal Council, the forest tenure holder (Canfor), provincial Ministries of
Environment and Forestry, and DFO.
234
One participant recalls that ―unfortunately, both the NRMB and Nimpkish
Technical Working Group were virtually inactive from ‘93 to ‘97.‖ ‗Namgis First Nation
and Canfor continued to partner on enhancement (Cheslakee hatchery site) and forestry
operational planning but relationships between ‗Namgis First Nation and DFO had
broken down. While the Technical Working Group had been co-chaired with government
‗Namgis representatives lacked experience and felt the process had become heavily
weighted towards federal priorities, with reduced attention to sockeye enhancement and
discontinuation of lake fertilization.‘ One ‗Namgis representative explains, ―There was no
autonomy. They dictated what species you did and for what reasons.‖ A government
representative concurs ―It was Co-Chaired with government but the ‗Namgis had no
power.‖ Some respondents feel ―It‘s sort of went back that way again.‖
With numerous fish and watershed restoration activities underway, renewed
interest in lake fertilization, the creation of Forest Renewal BC and funding for the
Watershed Restoration program in 1994, the need for communication, coordination and
awareness of all fish-related activities again became apparent. To coordinate proposals for
funding and avoid duplication and possible conflict, ‗Namgis First Nation proposed the
re-establishment of the Board. A meeting of the ‗new‘ Board was held in April 1997,
sixteen participants describing projects proposed, funding commitments and
requirements. Membership, a prioritized list of projects and lines of responsibility and
communication were devised.
All Board members are focused on the re-establishment and rebuilding of the
watershed‘s six species of Pacific salmon and rehabilitation of habitats impacted by forest
harvesting activities, with varying local, corporate and funding agency priorities.
Nimpkish River salmon recovery efforts led by BC-W and its partners have included: the
Gwa‘ni Hatchery operation, out-planting sockeye and lake fertilization, and restoration of
logging habitat damages (Weinstein 2007). Habitat restoration and monitoring efforts are
often carried out by the Gwa‘ni Hatchery crew, together with contractors and government
agencies.
235
Respondents emphasize the importance of monitoring and stock assessment
activities, along with habitat restoration, research and planning, enhancement and public
education and outreach. BC-W stock assessment activities include both juvenile and adult
assessment, upstream, in-lake and downstream monitoring, tagging, assessments of
different species in different seasons and experimentation with techniques such as genetic
fingerprinting, acoustic methods and thermal marking in partnership with DFO (Pacific
Biological Station) and university researchers. In 2003, a team of outside experts in
salmonid enumeration techniques was struck to review the past program and make
recommendations on the development of a standard enumeration program for the future to
monitor recovery efforts (PSF 2004). Tagging data help answer questions such as what
percentage of the returning stock is hatchery production.
This information contributes to valuable dialogue about enhancement strategies
and their respective merits. Over 45 million salmon have been released by the ‗Namgis
enhancement program since 1979, 5.5 million smolts released in 2002/2003 alone (Berry
2002). There is little evidence that these investments enhancement increase production
and concerns that hatchery fish may even have negative impacts on wild salmon returns
(Wood 2002). According to one DFO representative, hatcheries are now being looked at
as tools for gathering information and for sustaining populations that are at critical levels,
as in the Nimpkish. Gw‘ani staff and BC-W partners now outplant eggs to cassettes and
place them in the environments where adults were caught, working to preserve stock
diversity.
Since the Board was re-instated in 1997, habitat restoration has been conducted in
55 impacted sections of 13 drainages within the watershed, with over 800 individual in-
stream treatments completed (NRMB 2003). The potential of stream and lake fertilization
has been a recent focus, considered a promising strategy for replacing marine-derived
nutrients historically provided by spawning salmon (Larkin and Slaney 1996). Gresh et
al. (2000) suggest that only 6-7% of historic levels of marine-derived nutrients are now
available in Pacific Northwest streams. A chronology of BC-W activities is provided in
Appendix 12.
The Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) is an informal,
unincorporated committee with representation from all groups deemed to have an interest
236
in Nimpkish fish stocks and a willingness to participate. BC-W representatives suggest
that an incorporated body is ―a bureaucracy that nobody‘s felt we‘ve needed to go to yet‖.
However, the structure has recently become more formalized with the creation of a four
tier committee structure (general Board, Technical Working Group, Expert Advisory
Group and Management Committee). The Board has no formal terms of reference, bylaws
or protocols for working together, but is guided by several planning processes, discussed
further below. ‗Namgis First Nation (legal signatory and financial manager) and, when
funding is available, contracted Coordinators, act as a Secretariat to the Board. Project
Table 29 Nimpkish watershed staff and contractors are hired according to need.
communities
Community Population There is a tri-partite voting (or consensus)
(2001) arrangement, with votes held by the ‗Namgis First
Alert Bay 1275
Port McNeill51 2821 Nation, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and
Hyde Creek 564 the TFL 37 forest tenure holder (formerly Canfor, now
Alder Bay, Beaver 401
Cove/Telegraph (Area D) Western Forest Products). Each of these core partners
Cove, Nimpkish
Woss appoints representatives to a Management Committee.
TOTAL 5,061 When originally reformed the Management Committee
included just ‗Namgis and Canfor representatives, but with Pacific salmon restructuring
and associated federal funding, including financial support for Stewardship Coordinators,
DFO was invited to join the Management Committee. Technical representatives of the
‗Namgis staff and the Gwa‘ni hatchery, federal and provincial agencies, and some public
fisheries organizations sit on a Technical Advisory Committee. The Committee brings
recommendations about detailed operations forward to the broader Board, which includes
enhancement groups and other interests, annually. Overall, the arrangement allows for
strategic thinking about how to use available resources for the common goal of local
salmon stock rehabilitation (Weinstein 2007). Municipal and Regional District
participation has been minimal, the Towns of Port McNeill and Alert Bay located on the
boundaries of the watershed. The others listed in Table 29 are located within the system.
Enhancement groups from Port McNeill, Beaver Cove and Woss participate on the Board.
51
Berry (2007) advises that the Orca Sand and Gravel project, north of Port McNeill, is geologically part of
the Nimpkish system. The Nimpkish watershed can therefore be considered bounded in the north by the
Cluxewe system.
237
Government policies and programs are seen as ―windows of opportunity‖ by BC-W
representatives. Forest Renewal BC Watershed Restoration funding was a key motivation
for the Board‘s renewal, but also an opportunity to act on long-term community goals.
The Nimpkish Watershed Restoration Project, sponsored by Canadian Forest Products
(Canfor) in partnership with the ‗Namgis First Nation and the IWA, began in 1995 with
survey and assessment activities. Four sub-basins were chosen as priority watersheds for
restoration activities. Additional funding was provided through Fisheries Renewal BC
and Pacific salmon restructuring programs. By 2002 over $2.7 million had been spent on
Nimpkish habitat restoration. Berry (2002, 27) adds ―We could probably spend that much
a year for the next 20 years and still barely scratch the surface of some of the things that
need to be done.‖ Forest Renewal BC (FRBC) provided funding from 1995 until 2001.
The Nimpkish watershed was selected in July 2001 as a pilot under the joint
federal/provincial Watershed Fish Sustainability Plan initiative, developing a plan based
on a guidebook jointly published by DFO and provincial Environment and Fisheries
ministries (2000). However, the process did not provide the funding required to reach the
Plan‘s goals.
Replacement of FRBC with a new Forest Investment Account (FIA) resulted in
significant reduction in BC-W funding. A 2002-2006 restoration plan budgeted $2 million
for projects in 11 sub-basins. BC-W‘s budget, including the enhancement activities of
Gwa‘ni hatchery (operated separately by ‗Namgis First Nation but contributing to BC-W
objectives), fell from over $1 million in 2001 to $925,500 in 2003 and less than $600,000 in
2004 due to DFO cutbacks and forest policy changes. The DFO-funded Gwa‘ni Hatchery
budget fell to $322,000 in 2004/05 from $950,000 in the early 1980s, ‗Namgis First
Nation contributing an increasing portion of the enhancement program budget.
Respondents report that the future of FIA funding for instream works is uncertain and
―political,‖ negotiated with major forest companies on a year-to-year and project-by-
project basis. FRBC/FIA funding fell from $840,000 in 1997 to approximately $150,000
in 2004. In 2003 FIA funding had fallen to 25% of the BC-W/Gwa‘ni Hatchery watershed
management budget. Federal (primarily federal ‘Namgis enhancement program) funds
provided 41%, foundations 28% and Canfor 3% (Appendix 12).
238
Contractors spent an increasing amount of time searching for funds to fulfill
restoration plans, approaching new sources such as the Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund
and the Canada-US Pacific Salmon Commission, with a small grant received from the
Commission for tagging of Chinook salmon smolts. As fisheries funding dried up the
Board has been left expending increasing amounts of energy searching for financial
resources and a ―very limited focus deciding on the best use of progressively declining
dollars‖ (Weinstein 2007, 9). One proposal for generating revenue for reinvestment in
enhancement is an ocean ranching/surplus harvest concept. Federal resistance and then
low market value for chum salmon have prevented pursuit of this option.
The Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) has developed a series of
plans to guide its activities since 2000, each modified to suite particular funding
requirements while addressing gaps identified in earlier plans. These include: Nimpkish
Watershed Recovery Plan (2000-2001), Nimpkish Restoration plan (2002-2006), joint
federal/provincial Watershed Fish Sustainability Plan (2002) and a Nimpkish Watershed
Salmon Recovery Plan (2003). The 2002 Fish Sustainability Plan included both the
Nimpkish and neighbouring Kokish systems and is described as ―an adaptively managed
strategic framework for the protection and enhancement of the endemic fish stocks in the
Nimpkish Watershed,‖ drawing upon existing projects and activities, input from experts
and stakeholder groups (NRMB 2002, 2).
Receipt of Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund support was dependent on the creation of
a Watershed Salmon Recovery Plan. The earlier Fish Sustainability Plan, it was
suggested, lacked explicit analyses of habitat capacity and associated species-specific
goals and targets. The 2003 Nimpkish Watershed Salmon Recovery Plan began with a
watershed profile and then developed objectives, targets and strategies to guide recovery
as well as a monitoring and assessment framework to provide an evaluation mechanism
with assistance from a Salmon Endowment Fund Technical Committee. The process was
also to identify and implement a suite of strategic actions required to reach recovery
goals. The Recovery Plan called for $4.9 million in investment over five years (excludes
hatcheries). While important, funding in 2003/04 was below what had been expected
($603,500 vs. $1.03 million in the plan, reduced further to approx. $300,000 in 2004/05,
and reduced again in 2005/06).
239
Watershed management in this region takes place within a context of a highly
complex land and coastal planning environment compared to the other cases. Two major
land use planning processes were launched in the case study area in the 1990s. The first
was the Vancouver Island Commission on Resources and Environment, which included
the terrestrial and freshwater portions of the Nimpkish watershed. The Provincial Cabinet
endorsed the Vancouver Island Summary Land Use Plan in February 2000, establishing
Resource Management Zones, objectives and Landscape Unit Plans for designated units
such as the Lower and Upper Nimpkish. The second was the Central Coast Land and
Coastal Resource Management Plan (CCLCRMP) process, described above.
As the Central Coast Land and Coastal Resource Management Plan (CCLCRMP)
process was being negotiated, Fisheries and Oceans Canada selected the Central Coast as
a pilot for Integrated Management under the Oceans Act, building on these ear;ier
planning efforts . The pilot area was later extended to what is now called the Pacific
North Coast Integrated Management Area, an 88,000 square km large ocean management
area extending north to the Canada-Alaska border. In collaboration with other parties,
Fisheries and Oceans and other federal organizations have begun ―gathering the
information needed for integrated management,‖ including sorting out the jurisdictions,
roles and responsibilities of a myriad of agencies with involvement in the region.
The watershed scale is significant in plans created under the Central Coast Land
and Coastal Resource Management Plan. The Plan recommends watersheds as an
appropriate scale for a number of resource management objectives and activities. During
a completion phase that began in 2001, provincial and federal governments along with the
Joint Solutions Project, a joint effort of forestry companies and environmental
organizations, funded a $3.3 million Coast Information Team to provide ecological,
socio-economic, technical, traditional and local information that would assist in
developing practical recommendations to resolve land use and natural resource
management issues and move the Plans toward completion. The Team‘s 2005 (p.24)
report recommended four sub-regional bodies be formed to ensure implementation within
marine as well as terrestrial ecosystems. The bodies would involve at least equal decision-
making authority between the Crown (reflecting the diversity of the non-aboriginal
community) and First Nations. They further suggested that ecosystem-based management
240
objectives and targets be legally binding, although treated as regulations subject to change
as knowledge improves. The Team recommended five nested planning scales, including
the 1,000-50,000 ha watershed scale for ―tactical planning‖ and producing outputs such as
watershed reserves, resource development and business or project plans.
After ten years of negotiation, the CCLRMP land use planning decision was
announced in February 2006. It proclaimed an ―historic step towards a new level of co-
operation in British Columbia‘s forests‖ (Bell 2006). Agreements with First Nations include
a Land Use Planning Agreement-In-Principle for the southern portion of the plan area
(largely within the Mount Waddington region, see Figure 15). The agreement was signed
between the Province and a group referred to as the KNT First Nations (Kwakiutl District
Council-‗Namgis-Tlowitsis). Seven companies comprising the Coast Forest Conservation
Initiative agreed to commit themselves to a new level of forest management planning and
practice. The Southern area
agreement includes a series of
watershed level objectives,
indicators and targets intended to
sustain freshwater ecosystems and
habitats as well as landscape and
watershed level biodiversity.
There is no direct link between
these central coast planning efforts Figure 15 CCLCRMP Southern Plan Area
and those of BC-W, although the

southern plan area does include the
estuarine portion of the Nimpkish
system as well as other portions of
‗Namgis First Nation territory. The
Nimpkish estuary was included in
the 2001 North Island Straits
CCLCRMP sub-area plan but a
Figure 15 Southern Central Coast Plan Area
DFO representative explains ―there Source: KNT March 2006 AIP
hasn‘t been, to this point, a real effort to mesh the two....‖
241
The Nimpkish watershed is an integral part of the ‗Namgis First Nation‘s long-term
planning, although also undertaken independently of BC-W. The ‗Namgis First Nation
treaty team has been engaged in several new initiatives related to land use planning,
including a bioregional atlas describing the physical, biological and cultural identity of
‗Namgis traditional territory in a series of more than 60 large-format digital maps. Land
use plans are being developed at multiple scales (territorial, watershed, community, and
special areas) with goals, objectives and action plans linked to land use zones (NFN
2006). The draft ‗Namgis Agreement In Principle includes a Land and Resource Planning
chapter that defines ‗Namgis‘ role in future uses of the ‗Namgis Settlement Area (NFN
2005).
Extensive forestry planning is also underway within the watershed. Canfor is
certified for ISO140001 and Canadian Standards Association‘s (CSA) Sustainable Forest
Management (SFM) programs, for example (Canfor 2005). The firm has developed
Sustainable Forest Management plans but also plans related to species of special concern,
establishing Old Growth Management Areas and Biodiversity Conservation Planning.
New forest license holder Western Forest Products is also CSA certified, with a
Sustainable Forest Management Plan.
Ensuring that these various planning initiatives are linked and ensuring sufficient
resources for implementation and monitoring and evaluation are continuing challenges.
One respondent explains, ―We recognize that there is little point in doing in-stream
restorations that are expensive if we can‘t prove that they really work.‖ BC-W uses
formal evaluation procedures and incorporates evaluation results into future strategies.
Two-way exchanges on evaluation processes and results occur principally in the form of
reports given at annual meetings as well as written reports to funding agencies and
resulting dialogue. Monitoring and stock assessment are considered essential to
evaluation and adaptive management. However, core activities such as Nimpkish stock
assessment are not funded or conducted by DFO and it is difficult to raise funds from
outside sources that are reluctant to finance DFO‘s retreat from their responsibilities.
Provincial relationships have been strained by lack of participation and resources
in recent years as well as a focus on recreational species such as steelhead and Chinook,
while ‗Namgis representatives advocate for increased spending on sockeye and chum. A
242
government representative explains ―Canfor and ‗Namgis were looking probably for a
little bit different objectives than the Department (DFO) at that time, but they had...I
guess the reason for the Board‘s formation was to ensure some sort of equitable split of
jobs or opportunities for First Nations as well as IWA (ed. Industrial, Wood and Allied
Workers of Canada, now United Steelworkers) employees.‖
7.8 Summary of Model Similarities and Differences
A comparison of these watershed management models demonstrates considerable

diversity in approaches, actors and actor relationships, while at the same time exhibiting
common characteristics and challenges. In two of the three cases, for example, First
Nations have played a leadership role in the pursuit of watershed sustainability. In the
third (NL-W), settler communities have led the way, although notably with support from
a neighbouring Mi‘kmaw community. Municipal actors are formally involved in the Bras
d‘Or case but not in others. While often conflicted and varying by federal agency and
issue, all three cases have strong relationships with the federal government while the
strength of network ties with provincial governments and international actors ranges from
weak to medium. The nature and diversity of these relationships also vary (see Appendix
4). Although there a significantly greater number of communities, residents and other
actors in the Bras d‘Or watershed, in all cases ongoing tensions in community-
government and watershed institution-public relations require significant skill and
investment in the development of collaborative governance structures and processes.
Each of these initiatives was motivated by natural resource decline and associated
social, cultural, economic and human health implications. Fisheries were the primary
initial concern in all cases. Degradation of overall ecosystem health appears to have been
a secondary consideration, although now the primary emphasis in the Bras d‘Or Lakes
case. Considering Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife Commission as a precursor of Unama‘ki
Institute of Natural Resources, with the exception of Sustainable Communities and
Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiatives in Cape Breton, the case study
organizations all began in the late 1980s. This timeframe reflects links to a broader global
sustainability agenda and resulting provincial and federal policy frameworks and support
programs of the late 1980s and 1990s. Today, in the absence of strong policy support or
243
funding mechanisms all three case studies experience funding challenges. Leaders spend
significant amounts of time (human resources) seeking financing for future projects and
priorities. Particularly in NL-W and BC-W cases the struggle for financial survival
diverts limited resources from the pursuit of watershed management goals.
In two of three cases (NL-W and NS-W) the range of issues addressed has
increased over time. Strategies employed differ, but all three cases have engaged in
research, monitoring, and habitat restoration, including repair of damage caused by
logging practices. Organizational structures, financial and human resources and processes
of planning and evaluation differ in each case (Table 30). All three case studies have
engaged in planning processes, NL-W the least involved in strategic and coastal planning.
Nova Scotia (NS-W) and British Columbia (BC-W) cases illustrate the complexity and
challenges of collaboration within nested and overlapping planning scales.
Table 30 Organizational models
Governance Model
NL-W Concentrated/community-based non-profit
(Indian Bay) - one incorporated non-profit society recognized by senior government and the
community
- other associated local interests loosely associated with watershed activities and
decisions
- grassroots voting model
NS-W Network model
(Bras d‘Or) - many groups with responsibilities for watershed stewardship and sustainable
community development, network of various organizations and committees
- several nodes, UINR as secretariat for CEPI, Pitu‘paq but also BSS, SCI etc.
- connected through committees, projects and loose networks
- seeking new more structured mechanism
BC-W Semi-concentrated/triad collaborative
(Nimpkish) - one key group led by three major actors that also act independently, as do
other associated actors
- connected through committee membership (e.g. Board, management
committee and technical working group) and communication
- unincorporated
Organizational structure represents perhaps the greatest difference among these

three networks. The models range from a single non-government organization in NL with
Board membership elected by local members, without official representation from First
Nations or municipal government to a loose, multi-centred network of agencies in the
Bras d‘Or and, third, a semi-concentrated network of organizations and their appointed
244
representatives, connected through a committee structure and industry-federal-First
Nation management triad, in BC. Overall, watershed governance organization is more
informal than in regional economic development cases, although both BC-W and NS-W
cases have moved toward more formal structures over time. The degree to which diverse
actors are involved also varies, as does the nature of their involvement, the extent to
which power is shared, collaborative governance principles followed, and the mix of
objectives and issues addressed. Each of these topics and their role in collaborative
governance outcomes are discussed further in the following chapters.
245
8 – Outcomes, Resistors and Enablers: Research Findings and Cross-case Analysis
This chapter presents the findings of a comparative analysis of the six case studies
described in Chapters 6 and 7. Research findings related to each of the three major
questions posed in Chapter 1 are summarized:
1. Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable development in

Canada‘s coastal regions? If so, how?
2. What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in
3. What barriers and resistors exist to collaborative governance and advancing
4. How might these barriers/resistors be overcome?
8.1 Sustainable Development Outcomes
The case studies examined were chosen in part because they were recommended as model
initiatives involving collaboration among a range of actors, including communities and
senior levels of government, in the pursuit of sustainable development objectives. Yet
respondents are cautious about considering their initiatives in this way. Despite
provincial, national and even international recognition they emphasize that sustainable
development, including related Table 31 Evaluation challenges
policy-making, regional economic - financial and human resource costs of evaluation

development (RED) and ecosystem - difficulty tracking results
- demonstrating cause and effect when many
recovery efforts, is a long, slow factors, often beyond the control of any one actor
or group of actors, impact sustainability
process. In each case there is much - lack of early attention to monitoring and
work still to be done. evaluation, resulting in inadequate baseline data
and difficulty demonstrating results to date
In addition to long time scales - difficulty measuring the impact of activities such
as planning, coordination, and facilitation and of
before results can be seen, other accounting for social capital and capacity
reported challenges associated with building outcomes
- lack of capacity and resources devoted to
evaluating collaborative governance evaluation (organizations often sidelined by
―fighting fires‖)
outcomes are presented in Table 31.
- resentment of inappropriate evaluation methods
Concerns related to communication developed without stakeholder involvement
- unrealistic expectations given limited resources
of evaluation results were also and challenging mandates
246
raised, including pressure to communicate results too early and take credit for shared
outcomes, thus conflicting with empowerment objectives and/or alienating project
partners. Partly due to these concerns, the task of communicating results has received
inadequate attention despite its importance to long-term organizational and network
viability, and to principles of public participation and transparency.
Monitoring and evaluation processes in the case study initiatives, discussed further in
Chapter 9, remain under development, but have received increased attention in recent
years in all cases but Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W). Despite the challenges
outlined above, data related to collaborative governance outcomes were collected using a
combination of existing documentation and primary data, which were particularly
important for largely undocumented capacity and social outcomes. Outcomes, achieved at
multiple scales, were categorized according to the six sustainable development
imperatives outlined in Figure 16 and are summarized below.
Social learning
Skills
Relationships
Skills
Knowledge
systems
Information
& other
Social- resources
ecological
system
Ecological
Social Economic
Governance
capacity
Individual Cultural
Figure 16 Collaborative governance outcomes
247
While evidence suggests that reported outcomes are linked to collaborative governance
efforts, it must be acknowledged that, in some cases, similar outcomes may have been
achieved under alternative governance models.
8.1.1 Enhancing Governance System Capacity
In both RED and watershed management cases, with the exception of Community Futures
Development Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E), the primary outcomes observed
have been contributions to enhanced governance system capacity (Olsen‘s first order
outcomes). Increases in individual, organizational and/or public skills and knowledge
were referred to as benefits of case study initiatives by 57 respondents (44% of those who
discussed outcomes) and were the most frequently observed outcome of Indian Bay
Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W), Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W), Strait
Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E) and, in general, in the watershed
management cases. Understanding of the physical, biological and archaeological
characteristics of watershed ecosystems as well as human values, livelihoods and
relationships has been enhanced. Improved fish stock assessment abilities are reported in
all three watersheds due to increased scientific understanding, skills development and
increased management attention. Participants have benefited from increased technical and
management skills and, through the participation of First Nations and other local actors,
local and traditional knowledge have been added to governance knowledge systems
(discussed further in Chapter 9).
Local actors have demonstrated a commitment to long-term monitoring and
evaluation that is not typical of government programs, but necessary for observation of
long-term trends and processes such as population recruitment rates or human
relationship development. One scientist claims that NL-W and its partners have
developed ―the best long-term database on trout anywhere in Canada or even the world,‖
with Indian Bay‘s model for brook trout management and recovery has also been applied
elsewhere in Canada and internationally. In all the watershed management cases,
respondents report that public awareness about environmental trends, issues and impacts
of their behaviour has increased, although changing attitudes is described as a ―long,
slow, difficult process.‖ Respondents also report greater awareness and knowledge related
248
to the following topics: community and regional economic development in their regions;
partnerships; each other; interconnections among economic, social and cultural
development; and integrated management and horizontal policy development.
Respondents claim that case study networks have improved governance through
enhanced communication, information sharing and coordination. Improvements in
legislation, policies and management practices have also been observed, such as no
harvest zones, reduced catch limits and the Bras d‘Or Lakes Designation as a no-
discharge zone for boating sewage under the Canada Shipping Act. Increased monitoring
and enforcement of harvesting activities and infrastructure development such as research,
laboratory and business service centre facilities are additional outcomes.
Regional economic development (RED) groups have contributed to strategic
planning at community and regional scales, and to enhanced capabilities for local
development and for addressing issues broader than one community can tackle on its
own. NS-E facilitators describe helping communities start small, with something
―everybody would think would be a good thing,‖ often with tourism-related projects,
building the skills and confidence needed for larger projects. In the RED cases, and in the
Bras d‘Or, support has been provided for new and existing community and regional
organizations. Given the many challenges discussed below, respondents note that the
development and survival of the case study organizations is itself a notable outcome.
Speaking of the NL-W case, for example, one provincial representative states, ―it‘s a
powerful statement in an economically challenged area … the longevity alone attests to a
certain level of capacity and commitment and courage…‖
8.1.2 Contributions to Social Well-being
In NS-W, BC-W52 and Kittiwake Economic Development Corp. (NL-E) cases,

relationship building was the top reported outcome (second for Community Futures
Mount Waddington - BC-E), creating governance capacity and social capital. New and
enhanced relationships were noted as an outcome of collaborative governance efforts by
78% of NS-W, 54% of BC-W, 55% of BC-E and 22% of NL-E respondents (see
Appendix 1). With an estimated 228 organizations within their respective governance
52
In the BC-W case, relationships and learning/capacity building were noted as outcomes by an equal # of
respondents (54%).
249
networks, watershed management actors have developed relationships that range from
sharing information to collaborative decision-making. In RED cases the number of
identified network actors rises to nearly 400 (see appendix 4). Case study organizations
have formed key nodes within these policy networks and worked at ―building bridges,‖
connecting local actors to one another and to external resources.
Through the BC and Bras d‘Or (NS) watershed management cases, for example,
trust has been increased in the often rocky relationship between First Nations and
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). In Bras d‘Or, Mi‘kmaw First Nations interact
regularly with DFO staff from the local to the Regional Director General level. These
institutional relationships are central to Bras d‘Or watershed management efforts and rely
on working relationships among individuals that have been fostered, in some cases, over a
period of up to thirty years.
It‘s about creating a culture of awareness of what‘s going on in the Bras

d‘Or Lakes, so rather than having each silo of government out there
doing its thing, we‘ve broken that down.
NS-W provincial respondent
The trust with DFO, we have the trust because we‘ve worked with them
for the last 10 years. I personally, longer, I‘ve been around DFO people for
the last 30 years. So I know when a person is lying to me. I know how to
read the report… but most communities don‘t have the capacity to ask
their technicians, is it true what DFO is telling me? Plus there‘s no trust.
NS-W Mi‘kmaw representative
In the Nimpkish watershed, trust has been built primarily at the local level,
although weakened by DFO staff turnover:
Let‘s face it, DFO and First Nations don‘t have a great relationship
sometimes but if you go to the NRMB meeting, you wouldn‘t see that
part of it, right, because you‘ve got technical people who are trying to
do something about it. It‘s not necessarily the decision maker that
comes down, no, we‘re not doing this…. There‘s an awful lot more
exchange on that one-on-one level than there was before, and that‘s a
good thing that has come out of the NRMB process. Unfortunately we
have to rebuild them all again because half the players have up and
disappeared.
BC-W local representative
250
I think the collegial approach that the board takes to problems
generally, is probably the biggest success, bringing the previous
adversaries together as a working group who are all kind of pursuing
the same objective. If you flip it back ten or fifteen years ago you‘d
never have Canfor sitting down with ‗Namgis, talking about mutual
interests.
BC-W provincial representative
In both of these cases, First Nations have also strengthened their relationships
with neighbouring non-Aboriginal communities through watershed management. One
BC-W Board member explains, ―It was one of the first times loggers and fishermen,
native and non-native have worked together,‖ allowing them to develop a better
understanding of one another (Vodden and Gunter 2000). In Cape Breton:
The wardens came onside. If they couldn‘t come they‘d send

others, but most of the time we had all five municipalities
represented and maybe two First Nations bands, then three,
sometimes five… they all came onside, and it was great. Then we
decided instead of always meeting in Victoria County, the different
mayors and the different chiefs would host. So we started crowding
around to each other‘s areas, and that was breaking down barriers
also.
NS-W municipal respondent
A federal official explains of the Pitu‘paq initiative that it is ―a collaboration of

mayors and wardens and chiefs around the lakes… There‘s social harmony and racial
relations that we don‘t have too many good examples of in Canada… that‘s social
development.‖ Non-Aboriginal Bras d‘Or respondents describe a greater understanding of
Mi‘kmaw culture, spirituality, ways of decision-making, traditional knowledge,
environmental values and management capacity as a result of working together. Given
growth in First Nations populations on Canada‘s coasts and tensions associated with
resource declines and increasing recognition of Aboriginal rights, improved cross-cultural
relationships are a significant outcome. Recognition of Aboriginal rights and title, access
to resources, decision-making and employment for First Nations in these cases also
provides an important measure of equity and fairness given a history of
disenfranchisement.
251
Respondents in all three regions also refer to the role of RED organizations in
giving youth a voice through avenues such as youth councils. Seeing the link between
social and economic development, both NL-E and BC-E have provided assistance to
organizations and projects with a largely social mandate. Through the self-employment
assistance program, BC-E helped social assistance recipients start business ventures, until
provincial funding for this activity was cut. The results of this program, as well as lending
programs for marginalized groups including the disabled, women, youth and displaced
workers, support social aims such as empowerment and self-reliance.
8.1.3 Enhancing Individual Well-being and Human Capital
Individual well-being in all six case study regions has been enhanced by training,
education and mentorship. The Bras d‘Or Lakes case (NS-W) is particularly illustrative,
with a focus on both formal post-secondary and experiential learning. NL-E Adult Basic
Education, Strategic Lifelong Learning Plan and capacity-building workshops, student
research and work experience with NL-W, and on-the-job training for members of
‗Namgis First Nation in BC-W are further examples. One respondent observes that in
general Nova Scotia‘s community development approach has helped create capacity
across Cape Breton Island: ―with all of this activity going on for 15-20 years, you get an
awful lot of pretty vocal and articulate community people.‖
The Bras d‘Or approach, using the medicine wheel as a framework for Integrated
Management, considers four dimensions of human health and learning: mental, physical,
emotional and spiritual. Attempts to address each of these through this planning
framework are, however, in their early stages. In the Nimpkish watershed, ‗Namgis
members have benefited from hope that something can be done to recover salmon runs
essential to their cultural heritage, providing a sense of security. Nimpkish salmon is a
traditional food source for the ‗Namgis. Local health practitioners describe negative
health impacts of reduced salmon consumption and other dietary changes. As one
response, Gwa‘ni hatchery brood stock are provided to local elders as a food source.
Forestry employees also describe pride in their efforts. One BC-W representative states,
―I think having the company involved has a lot of health benefits, mental health benefits
252
for their employees...‖ Individual well-being is enhanced by interconnected social,
ecological, cultural and economic outcomes.
8.1.4 Preservation and Renewal of Coastal Cultures
According to one respondent, in rural Canada ―culture and history connect you to the
land. That is your community.‖ Cultural53 outcomes were discussed primarily by First
Nations and Newfoundland watershed management participants, and are therefore not
reflected highly in overall response numbers. They are significant, however, for these
specific groups. One ‗Namgis First Nation key informant explains: ―Other people move
on… We will always be here, or we will cease to exist.‖ For the ‗Namgis and Mi‘kmaq of
Unama‘ki (Cape Breton), cultural well-being is tied to the health of the Nimpkish and
Bras d‘Or watersheds. Watershed management is an important part of the cultural revival
process. While limited improvements in salmon returns have been observed, ‗Namgis
representatives explain that management and restoration activities allow the Nation to
continue its long history of involvement in and connection to the Nimpkish Valley, and to
exercise their right to be actively involved in the management of their traditional territory.
Bras d‘Or Mi‘kmaw respondents incorporate Mi‘kmaw culture explicitly into all
aspects of watershed management. Through Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources
(UINR), the Unama‘ki Council of Elders was formed to ensure that knowledge about
Mi‘kmaw culture is appropriately relayed. Traditional knowledge has been documented
and mapped, helping to preserve this valued resource. Mi‘kmaw language is spoken by
approximately 50% of UINR staff members and used within the office environment.
Further, the medicine wheel has been selected as a framework for integrated management
planning. Spirituality is an integral part of Mi'kmaw cultural beliefs. One non-Aboriginal
community participant explains, ―the whole spirituality thing is not something that I come
to easily, so it‘s interesting. It means a whole new thing,‖ an illustration of increasing
cross-cultural awareness. Representatives suggest, however, that there is much more to be
done in creating respect and appreciation for cultural diversity. One BC-W participant
explains that cultural issues ―go right over the heads of most of our DFO partners,‖ and
53
Culture is considered here to include socially patterned or learned human norms, values, standards and
behaviours, often passed down through generations within a given society (Bodley 1994, Murphy 1986).
253
that it is difficult for forest companies to accept the idea of not logging an area because of
its cultural significance. ‗Namgis representatives believe that more discussion is needed
on these issues.
More than in any other case, Indian Bay respondents link their culture and way of
life to the lands and waters that surround them. Protecting a rural way of life that involves
going to the cabin, trout fishing and other outdoor recreational activities is an important
objective for 39% of NL-W case study respondents. A 2001 study of recreational Indian
Bay watershed users concluded that local values were ―consistent with the
Newfoundlander‘s historical reliance on the land for subsistence and the attitude of a
traditional right of access to Crown land and resources for personal use‖ (Buffinga 2001,
ii). Power (1997) states that trout fishing ―is a deep-rooted part of our heritage.‖ NL-W
efforts have contributed to the protection of this way of life through restoration and
management of trout stocks, land use planning (attempting to protect wilderness
recreation areas) and through information and parking areas for watershed visitors. An
early objective to develop sport fishing enterprises has been abandoned due to concerns
about fishing pressure and priority placed on local access, putting social, cultural and
conservation before economic objectives.
Representatives of RED organizations also refer to cultural outcomes, including
financial and advisory/facilitation support for culture and heritage initiatives. While often
tied to the tourism industry, these projects help to preserve the built and artistic heritage
of all three regions. Some respondents suggest that watershed management and RED
efforts have contributed to a culture change within federal and provincial government
institutions that supports more holistic, collaborative community-based development
approaches, particularly within the Province of Nova Scotia. Others are skeptical.
Participation in collaborative processes is limited to certain individuals and departments
and does not necessarily translate into organizational learning and a change of
institutional perspective. One BC-W representative remarks of DFO, ―They may be
totally willing to go and sit at a community‘s table, but whether or not that‘s going to
influence a change in the way that they‘re making their decisions, that‘s what I‘m not sure
about, the cultural shift.‖ Organizational culture shifts vary by department and province,
and are influenced significantly by leadership, which is discussed further below.
254
8.1.5 Economic Benefits
Only Community Futures Development Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E)

respondents report economic benefits as the number one outcome of their activities, with
70% of respondents referring to business development outcomes, 45% to funding brought
into the region, and 25% to economic diversification through support of new and/or
growing industries (see Table 32). A 2002 evaluation of Community Futures
organizations across western Canada demonstrated their financial effectiveness, with
interest on investment funds offsetting bad debt and loan administration costs. The
average loan client generates $1.2 million in revenue and ten person years of employment
over five years. Clients attribute 59% of their business revenues to Community Futures
services. Case studies show that each Community Futures organization dollar leverages
an additional $84 (Ference Weiker 2002). Table 32 Industries under
development
Community Futures Development
Corporation Mount Waddington (BC-E) reports that, Kittiwake: blueberry farming,
as of 2004, they had assisted 240 businesses with a cod grow-out, birch sap
products, call centres,
33% success rate, contributed to the creation of 238 manufacturing, tourism,
aerospace
jobs, provided local entrepreneurs with access to $3.6
million in loan funds and assisted in bringing over $6 Strait-Highlands: minerals,
shipping, call centres,
million in federal project investments to the region alternative/sustainable energy,
information technology,
(CFDC 2004). These investments have helped tourism
finance infrastructure such as tourism
Mount Waddington: shellfish
accommodations, an industrial site, harbour facilities, aquaculture, non-timber forest
products, tourism
trails, an arena, waterfront improvements, and a First
Nations Big House. One local business person comments that BC-E staff members are
proficient at seeking funding, and that he ―would hate to see Community Futures ever
leave, because here we are on the west coast of British Columbia and we‘re as far away
from Ottawa as you can get... it‘s one of our few sources of federal government funding.‖
A provincial official adds, ―I think they‘re, particularly in the more rural areas, a critical
element of the business development piece because for the most part the major lending
institutions won‘t provide capital funds for businesses north of Campbell River and other
255
coastal communities. It‘s viewed as high risk and limited opportunity so corporations like
CF are really the first and only resort for many of the smaller businesses…‖
Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E) and, to a lesser extent,
Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E) respondents report access to
funds, business support/development services, improved infrastructure, and industry
development as economic outcomes. Although these groups do not provide loan funds, in
2003/04 alone NS-E played an important role in projects that brought approximately $30
million in investment into the region. Since 2000, they have played an acknowledged role
in the creation of over 700 jobs (including 500-600 in a local call centre) and in new
infrastructure such as broadband access, Port Hawkesbury Civic Centre, downtown
revitalization, arts and cultural centre upgrades, marine terminal reconstruction and
supply base expansion. The organization helped launch Strait of Canso Superport
Corporation Limited, a port corporation that now operates the area‘s main economic
engine, and assisted with Cape Breton Island‘s first windmill project.
Statistical indicators of NL-E‘s economic outcomes are scarce. Over 100
businesses were served in 2003, a successful Ekubator project provided local businesses
with an internet presence and the organization has assisted with the development of
several new and growing industries. Investment and job creation results of these activities
are not provided in annual reports.
Significant economic outcomes have also been observed from watershed
management. BC-W respondents (54%) suggest that employment is one of the most
significant benefits achieved (NL-W 29%, Bras d‘Or 22%). From 1979-2001 Gwa‘ni
hatchery provided training and over 150 person-years of employment to ‗Namgis First
Nation members. An agreement regarding in-stream restoration works between ‗Namgis,
Canfor and the International Wood and Allied Workers Union ensured 50% of restoration
work went to ‗Namgis crew members. Recent machine-intensive work and funding
cutbacks have resulted in a decline from a crew of 15 in 1997 for 4.5 months to three
employees for two weeks in 2003. It was hoped that this work would get ‗Namgis
employees‘ ―foot in the door,‖ however employment within forestry operations does not
appear to have increased as a result.
NL-W has provided summer employment and research experience for an estimated
256
150 youth. Many of these students have gone on to complete undergraduate and graduate
degrees in natural resource-related fields and secure employment with resource
management and academic institutions. NL-W provides employment for approximately
20 local people each year (six regular plus project staff, including Gwa‘ni Hatchery), has
invested over $3 million in the local economy, which helps support outdoor recreation
activity and in turn local businesses (Adams and Norris 2008). Because of outcomes such
as these, ecosystem management has been identified in the provincial regional
diversification strategy as an area of economic opportunity for the Kittiwake zone (NL
2005b). Economic benefits from Bras d‘Or watershed management activities include
employment for over 200 Mi‘kmaq, including the Eskasoni commercial fishery and
employment with Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission (EFWC) and Unama‘ki Institute
of Natural Resource (UINR). Revenues and royalties from resource development provide
a degree of financial self-sufficiency for watershed management. Additional benefits
noted include access to funding and efficient use of public resources. While funding is
often tenuous, collectively these watershed management initiatives bring over three
million dollars into their rural regions annually.
8.1.6 Ecological Benefits
According to documents such as business plans, recovery plans and official charters,
ecological outcomes are the primary aim of watershed management initiatives. RED cases
also acknowledge the importance of restoring and maintaining natural capital and of
balancing social, economic and ecological objectives. Ecological outcomes have been the
most difficult to achieve, most frequently reported by NL-W respondents (36%), followed
by Bras d‘Or (34%) and BC-W (15%). RED representatives also provide examples of
projects they have assisted with environmental benefits, including coastal resources
mapping, eider duck and wetland habitat conservation and creating marine protected areas
(NL-E), alternative energy projects (NS-E) and support for fisheries enhancement and
restoration activities (BC-E).
Launched to clean up litter and restore local trout populations, NL-W has had
success in meeting both of these objectives. A late 1980s/early 1990s clean-up and public
awareness campaign removed 5000 bags of garbage and 40-50 tonnes of large debris (oil
257
tanks, fridges, stoves etc.) from the ecosystem and reduced littering by watershed users.
While some local observers question trout stock improvements, stock assessment data
suggest that Indian Bay trout populations have stabilized since their 1970s/80s decline.
Trout size and numbers remain below historic levels, but creel survey results suggest
significant increases in brook trout size since the early 1990s (Adams and Norris 2008).
Five lakes (―ponds‖ in the vernacular) are still considered overexploited (Van Zyll
de Jong et al. 2002) but local anglers are aware that stocks are vulnerable to overfishing
(Buffinga 2001). While only government representatives used the term ―stewardship,‖
approximately 20% of respondents suggest there is now a higher level of community care,
ownership and responsibility for protecting ecological assets, including discouraging
poaching and habitat destruction. One local suggested ―we‘re all wardens now,‖ although
illegal harvesting of fish, waterfowl, seabirds, moose and timber remains an issue
according to enforcement officials and 24% of NL-W respondents. While stocks have
only partially recovered, these efforts have helped protect one of only four or five systems
on the island with trophy-sized brook trout (Slade 2004) and ―one of the top brook trout
fisheries in the world‖ (de Jong 2004). Habitat restoration and land use planning efforts
have provided increased protection for stream-side habitats, but have failed to protect
other ecological assets, such as old forest habitats, in the face of powerful timber
interests.
In the Bras d‘Or, ecological threats remain significant. Scientific studies
suggest that winter flounder, winter skate and cod are rebounding since the efforts of
Mi‘kmaw organizations and scientists led to the exclusion of draggers from the Lakes in
1992 (Lambert 2002). Traditional and local ecological knowledge suggest, however,
further declines in these species (CEPI 2006; Barrington 2005). The herring fishery was
closed in 1999 as the population reached the point of collapse, but stocks have not
recovered since the closure (Westhead and Parker 2005). Despite efforts to better
understand and manage shellfish disease, outbreaks in several sites have decimated
shellfish populations and threaten biodiversity (Yang et al. 2008). Forest diversity
remains compromised, although UINR and Mi‘kmaw community partners have engaged
in replanting efforts. Streambanks in the River Denys basin have been stabilized and,
tackling what is considered the most pressing ecological issue faced by the Lakes,
258
centralized sewage systems have been upgraded. A new sewage treatment plant was
installed in Baddeck in 2002. Pumping stations have been added to marinas, and private
landowners have also invested over $2 million in new and upgraded on-site systems.
Evidence on the early results of these measures is mixed. Malcolm (2003) reports less
than a 1% increase in the classified area approved for shellfish harvest from 1994 to 2003,
while Canada (2002c) reports that a partnership agreement between Environment Canada
and UINR/EFWC had resulted in a 12% increase of approved shellfish growing areas.
Respondents suggest there were close to 50 sites closed in 2003 but ―we can‘t point to
reduced fecal coliform yet.‖ By 2007, Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society reported that the
number of reported shellfish closures had been reduced to 29 (BSS 2007), while
Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (CEPI) representatives continued to
lobby for tightened ballast water discharge regulations.
Of the three watershed cases, BC-W has struggled most with achieving its
ecological objectives. It is anticipated that BC-W‘s restoration work will have resulted in
improved freshwater conditions that will be beneficial if and/or when marine survival
(now considered to be the major limiting factor) improves. Hoped-for stock increases
have not yet materialized. One respondent suggests that what is really needed is a better
understanding of the system as a whole and how it can be restored. Another adds that
activities such as hatchery production and habitat enhancement have not resulted in more
fish, ―We‘re cranking out five or six million chums a year and we had a return of less
than a hundred last fall.‖ Overall, there was an increasing trend in 1980s and 90s chum
returns, attributed in part to habitat restoration work, but there has also been significant
variability and recent years of extremely low numbers. Evidence exists of increased
juvenile production but this has not resulted in increased adult returns, with the exception
of some coho improvements. PSF (2004) reports some Chinook increases but numbers
have not risen above 300-400/year (compared to a 1950s average of 10,000 fish).
Entire sockeye stocks, including a culturally significant early run, have been lost.
Total sockeye escapement from 2003-2005 ranged from 18,500 to 32,150, well under the
target of 100,000. Nimpkish lake fertilization in the early 1980s may have been
associated with annual average escapements reaching approximately 100,000 by the early
1990‘s, but the fertilization program was cancelled and sockeye returns subsequently
259
declined. BC-W representatives are hopeful that a new lake fertilization program and
food web study, launched in 2000 and demonstrating ―significantly increased fry growth
rates,‖ will have a positive impact.
Wood (2002) asks the important question – ―where would we be without
enhancement?‖ suggesting that the answer includes lower awareness of and priority given
to salmon in enhanced systems, fewer viable populations and less information to
recognize and protect endangered stocks. Rather than recovery, for now the role of BC-W
and Gwa‘ni Hatchery is, according to one local scientist, to serve as ―the life support of
the Nimpkish salmon.‖
8.1.7 Summary
Figures 18-20 compare the range of benefits achieved in each region with the areas where
―sustainability gaps‖ were identified in Chapter 5. In NL cases, for example (Fig. 18)
ecological and economic outcomes have been achieved but not to the extent needed to
address the gaps identified in these areas. At the same time, these initiatives have
continued to enhance social capital, already an area of relative strength in the region
according to indicators such as social support and charitable giving.
Differences between priority sustainability issues (gaps) and areas where
governance outcomes have been achieved are most significant in the area of ecological
sustainability in all three case study regions, along with economic development in the
NL-E case. While the
most noted and evident
Ecological
outcomes
of collaborative
governance fall under
Cultural Economic
the category of
―governance capacity,‖
characterized by Olsen
Social Individual as first order outcomes,
Figures 17-19
Gaps IBEC Outcomes KEDC Outcomes
demonstrates that case
Figure 17 NL case study outcomes and sustainability gaps
260
study initiatives
are also moving
toward higher
Ecological
order,
interconnected
Cultural Economic social, cultural,
economic and
ecological
Social Individual outcomes.

Collectively, next to
enhanced
Gaps NRMB Outcomes MWCFDC Outcomes
governance
capacity, the most
Figure 18 BC case study outcomes and sustainability gaps

significant
achievements have
been in the
categories of
Ecological
individual and
social well-being,
Cultural Economic followed by
cultural, economic,
and ecological
Social Individual well-being

respectively, with
improved
Gaps Bras d'Or Outcomes SHRDA Outcomes
outcomes needed
in the latter two
Figure 19 NS case study outcomes and sustainability gaps
areas.
Comparing demonstrated outcomes with stated objectives, the latter being
primarily economic for RED organizations and ecological for watershed management, it
is evident that the largely unmonitored and either unintended or unofficially sought
261
outcomes from these initiatives are considerable. If a sustainable development approach
is to be meaningfully applied by collaborative governance structures, monitoring
programs that take into account a range of outcomes are required. The absence of
multiple-objective monitoring and evaluation illustrates that an explicitly integrated,
multi-objective development approach is not yet being implemented. Resistors to such an
approach, including lack of commitment and capacity are discussed further below.
Table 33 Outcomes of collaborative governance initiatives

NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W
a) Evidence of meeting stated 3 3 2 2 2 1
objectives (/4)
b) Improvement in priority regional 254 3 2 2 2 2
sustainable development issues (/4)
c) Comparative ranking on priority 0 2 1 2 1 0
(economic/ecological) outcomes
(/2)
Overall outcomes rating (/10) 5 8 5 6 5 3
Explanation of values: a) 0 = No evidence of outcomes, 1 = limited outcomes or conflicting data,

2 = To some degree, 3 = To some degree/Yes, 4 = Yes (strong evidence of significant outcomes);
b) 2 = 70-84%, 3 = 85%+ total contribution to sustainability gaps/total sustainability gap value
(see Appendix 1); c) 0 = lowest comparative rank, 1 = middle, 2 = highest comparative rank
Table 33 compares the observed outcomes from each case to a) the organization/
network‘s stated objectives, b) improvements in priority regional sustainability issues
(areas where sustainability gaps exist) and c) performance in the primary area of
emphasis relative to other cases (economic outcomes for RED cases and ecological
outcomes for watershed management). Numerical values are assigned to allow for
ranking each case relative to the others. The results of this analysis indicate higher
outcomes for NS-E, followed by BC-E and NL-E among the RED cases and for NL-W in
watershed management, followed by Bras d‘Or and BC-W. The following section
discusses factors contributing to these varied outcomes.
8.2 Enablers and Resistors
The ability of the case study organizations to achieve the outcomes described above is
impacted by both enabling factors and factors that act as resistors, even barriers to
54
The discrepancy between NL-E‘s success in meeting organizational objectives and in addressing
economic sustainability gaps is accounted for by the nature of NL-E‘s objectives, which are focused on
building capacity and collaboration rather than direct, ―higher order‖ outcomes.
262
collaborative governance efforts. Table 34 identifies the most significant enabling factors
according to interview respondents. Results are based on the percentage of respondents
referring to each factor, calculated for each case study, for RED cases (weighted equally
for each case), watershed management cases and overall (all six cases). Results for
individual case studies are provided in Appendix 14. Leaders, or key actors, were
considered the number one enabling factor in both RED and watershed management, in
three out of six cases (NL-W, Bras d‘Or and NS-E) and overall. Other factors differ
considerably from case-to-case and across policy arenas. Long-term commitment and
community support have been critical in watershed management efforts, while RED
models have relied more upon relationships with senior levels of government.
Table 34 Ranking of top ten enabling factors according to interview respondents
RED WM Overall
Individuals/leaders 1 1 1
Time/persistence 7 2 2
Government support/relationships with 2 10 3
government
Communication, cooperation 3 5 4
Community support and involvement 9 3 4
Common ground – shared goals, interests, 4 6 6
understanding
Community capacity/capacity building 7 8 7
Financial resources 5 - 8
Regional thinking/approach 14 7 9
Commitment/interest - 4 10
Board of Directors/structure 5 - 11
8.2.1 The influence of individuals
Respondents from all case studies describe groups of key individuals that ―make the
structure work‖ (Table 35). In all cases these key actors include both federal employees
and community and regional-level actors. In the four Atlantic cases provincial staff and
politicians are also included.
Two kinds of key individuals were identified: primary actors (drivers) and
enablers. In all watershed management cases and, to a lesser extent, NS-E, specific local-
level leaders with day-to-day leadership responsibilities were identified as primary actors,
or ―conductors of the orchestra.‖ In all cases these actors are senior organizational staff
263
(Managers or Chief Executive Officers). Commonly noted primary actor characteristics
include: strong, respected, committed, hard working, persistent, effective, wise,
pragmatic, problem solvers, diplomatic and well connected, with an ability to build
partnerships and resolve conflicts, skills conducive to collaboration. Fundraising and
lobbying abilities were also noted. One of these leaders is described as a visionary,
another as dynamic, high energy and proactive, creating opportunities rather than waiting
for opportunities to come to them. Another successful primary actor is described as ―low
key‖ but with ―a unique ability to bring out the positive and get people to work together.‖
One BC respondent remarks:
I think it is a question of talent. If an

Table 35 Individuals described as key actors individual has the ability to bring
community together and manage a
NL-E (16): 4 federal (1 political, 2 senior staff, 1 CF operation at the same time then
regional), 6 provincial (2 political, 1 senior staff, 2
they tend to be more effective…
mid-level, 3 regional), 2 staff, 2 community reps
- 8 still involved (2005) you‘re asking them to be able to
manage an office and staff, you‘re
NS-E (7): 2 federal (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2 asking them to be good marketers,
provincial (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2 former you‘re asking them to be good
Board members, 1 staff member partnership developers, you‘re
- 2 still involved (2005) asking them to be good
communicators to the public.
BC-E (12): 4 federal (1 mid-level manager, 2 senior,
1 regional staff), 3 staff members, 2 Board members,
1 local politician, 1 town staff member Both Kittiwake (NL-E) and BC-E
- 10 still involved (2005)
cases lacked a clearly identified
NL-W (13): 5 federal (2 political, 1 regional staff, 2 primary actor. Funding uncertainty
mid-level manager), 6 provincial (2 political, 2
senior staff, 1 mid-level, 1 regional), 1 staff, 1 and declining government support
community rep. discouraged two NL-E key staff
- 6 still involved (2005)
members who later left the
NS-W (23): 3 federal (senior staff), 7 provincial (4
senior, 1 mid-level, 2 regional), 7 First Nations, 3 organization.
municipal (1 politician, 2 staff), 1 municipal/ Enabling individuals share
provincial politician, 2 NGO/community
- 22 still involved (2005) leadership responsibility with
BC-W (10): 2 federal (1 regional staff, 1 scientist), 3 primary actors but play a different
First Nations, 1 consultant/community rep, 2 type of role in their respective
community/NGO, 1 academic, 1 industry
- 8 still involved (2005) policy networks, participating in
264
and promoting case study initiatives within their own organizations. Regional employees
of provincial and federal agencies are identified as key actors in six of seven cases. Their
role includes providing ―hands-on‖ operational advice and support as well as building
support at higher levels by reporting on activities, plans and achievements. In the Bras
d‘Or watershed, one regional-level provincial employee was described as ―the glue that
holds us all together.‖
Mid and/or senior-level government managers55 are also identified as key enabling
actors in all cases, as are politicians in the four Atlantic cases. Politicians are considered
particularly influential in NL cases. These senior officials and politicians act as advocates
for collaborative governance within their respective governments, often facilitating access
to funding or policy change. Senior-level support provides confidence for junior level
staff that their involvement is accepted and valued. ―It takes that combination of those
really strong people, both on the ground and above… someone has to be looking out for
you when you‘re out there doing what you‘re doing‖ observes one regional-level
government employee.
Commitment and sincerity are considered key characteristics of enabling actors.
Effective enablers must understand and believe in network goals and objectives. These
―team players‖ may also bring specific skills, knowledge or expertise to the table. One
federal official is described as ―the epitome of what‘s best of bureaucracy,‖ sensitive,
intelligent, with experience working in the field and a good sense of humor: ―if you‘ve
got somebody in that position that has all the right skills, then it works better than other
places.‖
Having enabling individuals at senior levels in both provincial and federal
governments is particularly beneficial. NL-E respondents recall, for example, the early
1990s federal-provincial relations that facilitated the creation of REDBs. ―Doug House
was basically the provincial chair and Gord Slade was the federal chair, they had a great
working relationship. Unfortunately I don‘t think that that relationship has been
duplicated… that was sort of the marriage made in heaven, and we‘ve been struggling to
find that since.‖ Respondents described waning support for REDBs since this ―marriage‖
55
Includes Assistant Deputy Ministers and Deputy Ministers, federal Director Generals, CEOs of Crown
Corps. Department/Division Heads or Managers, Regional Managers (federal).
265
ended due to political change just after they were created. In the Bras d‘Or, senior level
support from both governments is facilitated through Sustainable Communities Initiative
(SCI) ―champions‖ and regular reports to weekly provincial Deputy Ministers‘ meetings
and a Federal Director General - Deputy Ministers Committee. All but BC-W and BC-E
characterize individuals from both federal and provincial levels as key actors. The
absence of provincial actors in both cases reflects limited provincial presence in the
Mount Waddington region, linked to government cutbacks and the region‘s relative
remoteness.
Board members were also typically described as enabling rather than primary
actors. Their most frequently mentioned role is connecting regional organizations with
other local and regional stakeholders. One First Nations BC-E board member, for
example, makes a valuable contribution by being ―able to navigate both worlds‖
(Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal). Another provides a link between the Community
Futures Board and the land use planning efforts of the Central Coast Land and Resource
Team.
Despite the reported presence of strong primary actors, leadership capacity is also
considered a barrier for NS-E and Bras d‘Or cases by one-third and 22% of respondents
respectively. In the case of NS-E, the majority of key individual actors mentioned are no
longer involved in the network. As illustrated by Table 35, turnover in key individuals has
been particularly high (50% or greater) in NL-W, NL-E and NS-E cases. While some
community leaders refer to frustration, burnout and health reasons for leaving the
network, career changes also result in the loss of staff members or supporters. Frequent
turnover is a barrier to collaboration and highlights the vulnerability of a system reliant on
a few key individuals and their relationships. ―There‘s a lot of trust, it doesn‘t take too
many speed bumps to get you off track sometimes,‖ explains one respondent. ―The right
people building it over time make it work and if your right people move on regularly and
there‘s no continuity then it‘s a more difficult thing.‖ Respondents describe difficulties
recruiting new leaders, particularly young people.
The most significant resistors faced by collaborative governance initiatives are
presented in Table 36. Although there is more consistency across cases than with enabling
factors, the relative importance of key resistors also varies according to policy area.
266
Conflict and differing perspectives among actors was the most commonly referred to
resistor across all cases (mentioned by 53% of respondents), but is a greater challenge for
RED groups. For RED groups, key sources of difference and conflict occur within the
region, while watershed management organizations report conflict and differing
perspectives between local and external partners. Significant differences also occur
between cases. Conflict and differing perspectives, for example, was identified as a
barrier by only 9% of Indian Bay and 29% of Kittiwake respondents, compared to 81% in
Mount Waddington and 69% of Nimpkish respondents. Individual case study results are
provided in Appendix 14.
Table 36 Ranking of top ten resistors/barriers according to interview respondents
RED WM Overall
Conflict, different agendas and perspectives 1 3 1
Lack of government support/relationships with 2 1 2
government
Inadequate financial resources 5 2 3
Limited knowledge/capacity 3 3 4
Lack of/difficulties with integration 6 6 5
Time/timing 9 5 6
Silos/lack of intergovernmental cooperation 10 7 7
Lack of community support and involvement 4 10 8
Politics 6 10 9
Communication 14 9 10
Government56 support is an important enabler for regional economic development (RED)

groups, but lack of government support is also a major barrier. For watershed
management groups, however, relationships with government are the number one barrier.
Community support, by contrast, is considered a strength of watershed management
initiatives, but a significant barrier for RED organizations. Differences in these
relationships are explored further below.
8.2.2 Relationships with government
Government support, financial and non-financial, and working relationships between

government and non-government actors are considered critical success factors.
56
Respondents typically refer to provincial and federal levels as ―government,‖ while municipal and First
Nations governments are often described as an element of ―community.‖
267
Relationships between community and regional level actors and various individuals,
departments and layers within government vary. Watershed management organizations
are supported by strong community commitment more than by senior governments.
Initiated largely by government, and provided with core financial support, the opposite is
true of RED organizations. Figure 20 illustrates factors that have helped facilitate
positive, productive relationships between government and other network actors and
those that have hindered or been resistors to these relations, and ultimately to
sustainability outcomes. The two most important resistors in these relationships are
unwillingness to share power and control and the related issue of lack of financial
resources. Both factors are described as significant in each of the six case studies.
Relationship Enablers Relationship Resistors/Barriers
In five cases: In six cases:

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

 Communication  Rigid/inflexible/red tape
 Common ground, understanding  Time: slow rate of change/response but
 Financial contribution also impatience and short-term thinking
 Formal legislative or policy mandate  Lack of understanding/capacity
 Willingness to share  Lack of coordination within
power/responsibility government
 Hands-on involvement
In four cases:
Other (3): trust, multi-level commitment/  Changes in government policies and
involvement (including senior level, political programs that occur too quickly
and staff)
Other (3): need to play a more active role,
dependency, distrust, turnover
Figure 20 Relationship factors
268
8.2.2.i Sharing power
A majority of respondents (57%), including both government and community
representatives, felt that local communities should have a greater role in planning and
decision-making related to RED and watershed management. While some respondents
(17%) feel that government has begun to make a shift in this direction, in some cases as a
collaboration. They all involve multiple actors, responsible for all phases of the policy
cycle in relatively long-term arrangements with at least some degree of formality. While
varied, their responsibilities include aspects of each of Abrams et al.‘s (2003) key powers
of governance (Chapter 3). Respondents suggest that the debate in these policy areas is no
longer whether governance should be top-down or bottom-up, but rather the extent of
local involvement and the nature of the collaboration between various actors in different
times and contexts.
In general, many respondents concur with an official who argues that
―government needs to be seen as much more open and willing to involve the community
in the development of policy and procedures‖ - in the steering as well as the rowing in
New Public Management (NPM) terminology. Several examples exist within the case
studies of relationship breakdowns that occur when power is not shared, including the
DFO-dominated early BC-W, 1995 Bras d‘Or Task Force and University College of Cape
Breton report and, in 2003-2004, a constrained and disempowered NL-E. Unwillingness
to share power is identified as the most significant resistor to improved government-
community/regional relationships within collaborative governance efforts.
In regional economic development (RED), respondents indicate that case study
organizations, mandated by government to coordinate and deliver RED services, are the
actors with the greatest influence over RED in their areas, along with the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency in the Kittiwake case. Yet, even for RED agencies, ―commitment
to collaborative governance is not easy for senior agencies accustomed to control. It
involves sharing power and learning to trust.‖ Respondents identify a conflict between
collaborative governance and government‘s desire for administrative ease, the push for
accountability and the current political culture, particularly in NL. Securing support from
middle management, responsible for spending and ensuring and reporting on outcomes, is
noted as particularly difficult. Respondents observe that hiring trends have impacted
269
organizational culture and approach, and therefore the success or failure of collaboration.
Poor relationships with Service Canada, for example, are linked to a trend of hiring ―bean
counters‖ in response to accountability and results-focused management demands.
While governments ―need to learn to let go,‖ accountability is seen as ―the other side of
the coin‖ and a responsibility that must be shared by local partners and collaborative
entities. Gaps in local capacity can reduce confidence in governance models that involve
increased community control. Government respondents from agencies such as Fisheries
and Oceans Canada and Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources emphasize their
systemic and command powers and associated limits to local involvement. Community
control in natural resource management, they suggest, is not feasible under the existing
legal and jurisdictional framework. Respondents suggest varying roles for senior
government and local/regional level actors. Areas of commonality are summarized in
Table 37. The research findings indicate that coordinated, multi-level enforcement in
watershed management and sufficiently flexible funding guidelines with appropriate
evaluation and reporting procedures are examples of systems of ―checks and balances‖
that can be put in place.
Struggles over power occur throughout the policy process but are most evident in
conflicts over agenda setting. Restricted to a more narrow focus than their original vision,
NL-E has limited agenda setting capability and therefore reduced power relative to the
other RED cases. Some respondents are worried that current integrated management
planning and endangered species-related activities in the Bras d‘Or are following a
federal policy agenda. However, restoration of the Bras d‘Or and, in particular, an initial
focus on fisheries and later sewage pollution are local priorities. While the findings
suggest resistance to power sharing within some Province of Nova Scotia departments,
particularly the Department of Natural Resources, several examples were given of
government policies and programs supporting a bottom-up development approach,
including the Atlantic Canada Action Program and Nova Scotia Community
Development Policy. Although it is perceived locally as a government-driven initiative,
participants suggest that the Sustainable Communities Initiative is also directed by local
priorities. Agenda setting is therefore shared in the Bras d‘Or case. By acting collectively,
270
Bras d‘Or actors hold all four types of power referred to by Stoker (Chapter 3), thus
strengthening their position.
Table 37 Recommended roles and responsibilities
Watershed Management Regional Economic
Development (RED)
Government Agencies  setting regulations, guidelines  provider of guidance,
and standards affecting scales resources, and a supportive,
beyond the local conducive environment
 enforcing natural resources-  funding, with guidelines that
related regulations allow for flexibility and
 providing tools, resources and accountability. improvement-
facilitation support oriented evaluation
Community/Regional  recommendations related to  champions, leaders,
Organization(s) regulations, guidelines and coordinators
standards affecting scales  capacity building, facilitation
beyond the local  ensuring accountability, local
 regulations, guidelines and knowledge flow and support
standards on local issues
 enforcement within multi-level
enforcement teams
 local and traditional knowledge
Financial contributions increase actor power and can influence agenda setting. As
one BC respondent explains, ―it‘s difficult to have say without dollars.‖ In the case of
Nova Scotia RDAs, a federal representative explains, ―we‘re one-third funder so we can‘t
direct it. We relinquish our control a little bit. We can‘t really flex our muscles,‖ but
because the organization is contributing financially ―we also have to lay out our
expectations, objectives, reporting requirements.‖ Primarily federally funded and,
increasingly directed according to the research findings, NL-E has considerably less
autonomy. NL-W has been unable to make inroads with wildlife research and broadening
its scope to ecosystem management, in large part due to dependence on government
funding and provincial priorities for wildlife spending in other regions. NL-W‘s influence
in trout management, despite limited resources, illustrates Howlett and Ramesh‘s (1995)
contention that the power of communities and collaborative entities is increased when
state capacity is low, as in the case of freshwater fisheries in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The British Columbia case studies illustrate that senior levels of government are
not the only sources of resistance to power sharing. While BC-E has struggled with
271
federal and provincial human resources departments over program priorities, there has
been little ―direct stepping in‖ by WD in BC-E operations. Some community partners
suggest, however, that BC-E exhibits a lack of willingness to share agenda-setting with
community-based organizations and that resistance to inclusive, collaborative planning
exists within both the Community Futures organization and local governments. Power
sharing barriers are, therefore, internal and external to the region.
The private sector also has considerable agenda-setting influence, particularly
large forest enterprises in all three provinces. Forestry companies have significant
influence over land use in all regions. In Indian Bay, NL-W has been forced to make
concessions in its land use plans to accommodate forestry interests. In the Nimpkish
system, forestry companies have allowed some decisions related to spending of habitat
restoration funds to be made by BC-W, but neither ‗Namgis nor forestry partners are
willing to bring discussions of forestry plans and practices into the process. Thus,
significant power is ―held back‖ from the collaborative governance process. BC-W actors
also struggle over issues such as which salmon species will be enhanced, decisions
dominated by DFO and to a lesser extent the Province in the past, with increasing
‗Namgis influence. Ongoing power struggles between the lead partners decreases the BC-
W‘s resilience.
With particular attention to agenda setting, Figure 21 demonstrates the degree of
power sharing among these case studies relative to one another suggested by these
research findings. Notably, with the exception of NL-W, cases on the lower end of the
power sharing spectrum have lower outcomes ratings (see Table 8.3).
Figure 21 Degree of power sharing within the collaborative governance network
NL-E – BC-W/ NL-W/BC-E - NS-W/NS-E
Lower Higher
Degree of power sharing
Genuine power sharing necessitates flexibility, an ability to accommodate new

ideas and perspectives. Consistent with low levels of power sharing, the rigidity of
government partners, particularly Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and
272
Service Canada, and their rules and regulations, is considered the primary barrier to
collaboration in the NL-E case. By contrast, Western Diversification (WD)‘s flexible
programming is described as an enabling factor. BC-E enjoys considerable flexibility to
set its own agenda within the broad guidelines of WD funding, agency representatives
recognizing that problems and appropriate solutions vary according to context. Flexibility
in all RED cases has been limited significantly, however, by programming changes at
Service Canada and by provincial funding cuts (with some recent improvements). Case
study representatives expressed widespread frustration with Service Canada changes that
make RED organizations contractors rather than partners, increase paperwork and wait
times, and restrict community development investments. However, the ability of some
Service Canada staff members to continue to find ways to fund priority RED projects, and
varying approaches being taken to integrated management and Oceans Act
implementation by DFO across the country, demonstrate that flexibility and power-
sharing are determined by individuals and cultures in regional offices as well as by
national policy.
Actors within each of these case studies hold different amounts and types of
power. The individuals and the organizations they represent chose to share this power
with collective efforts (or not), although structural conditions influence and constrain
these decisions. The result is considerable variation in power sharing across cases.
Respondents contend that both ―top-down‖ and ―bottom-up‖ approaches are needed.
Despite suggestions to the contrary, examples from the case studies suggest that even
structural power is dynamic and can be ―shared,‖ used as a tool for achieving collective
aims through negotiation, formal agreements and, where needed, regulatory and
legislative reform (as in non discharge zone designations under the Canada Shipping Act,
Fisheries Act partnering provisions, or the Oceans Act). While systemic and command
and control power often dominate, when one type of power is absent or weak actors often
turn to another. In each case, leadership skills and approach are critical to collaboration in
an environment of uneven power relationships.
273
8.2.2.ii Sharing costs
Shared power comes with shared responsibilities and costs, whether financial, human
resources or other contributions. Shared costs imply more dispersed power and greater
opportunities for acquiring necessary resources. Without sufficient resources
collaborative governance is itself unsustainable. Scarce financial resources are noted as a
significant challenge in BC-W, NL-W and NL-E cases and to a lesser extent for BC-E,
NS-E and NS-W. Budgets vary considerably, from $276,000 (NL-W 2002) to
approximately $3 million (Bras d‘Or). Trends in revenues and diversity of sources also
differ significantly (see Appendices 10 and 12).
Both BC-W and NL-E, cases with the lowest overall outcomes ratings, have been
faced with major cutbacks and financial uncertainty in recent years. With 87% federal
support, NL-E is the most reliant of the RED cases on a single funding source. However,
with a relatively high outcomes rating, NL-W is also heavily reliant on tenuous federal
support (94% of total revenue). Uncertainty has not yet translated into reduced funding,
however, due to organizational innovation and strong relationships. Cases with the
highest levels of funding (BC-E and Bras d‘Or) do not have the highest corresponding
outcomes ratings, demonstrating, as with power sharing, that outcomes cannot be
attributed to financial resources alone.
Funding is a central aspect of the relationship between provincial and federal
government partners and collaborative governance bodies. Lack of provincial
contributions was identified as a constraint in five of six cases and requirements
associated with funding a particular concern in BC-W and NL-E cases (cases with the low
levels of power sharing) but also in others, particularly with respect to Service Canada.
Resource shortages constrain communications and outreach activities for RED
organizations. Respondents report that budgets do not adequately account for
communications and outreach needs, or for business development assistance and after-
care. Financial shortages but, even more importantly in the case of NL-E, uncertainty,
also limit the organization‘s ability to attract and retain quality staff or ―primary actors‖ in
two of three RED cases. RED case studies demonstrate the importance of multi-year
funding agreements in providing a degree of organizational stability and certainty.
274
Insufficient private sector/investment capital for small business is yet another financial
constraint within the RED system.
In Bras d‘Or and Nimpkish watersheds federal and provincial governments account
for less than 50% of spending on their watershed management activities. In the Bras d‘Or
watershed the remaining revenue is derived primarily from First Nations resource
harvesting and royalties. Despite some internal political vulnerability within Mi‘kmaw
communities, due to Aboriginal rights and Mi‘kmaw commitment watershed management
efforts are well-financed and in a secure financial position compared to other watershed
management cases. Resource royalties, private industry and foundations all contribute to
BC-W revenues. Representatives report, however, that important activities such as stock
assessment, restoration and research related to marine survival are costly and that the
group‘s diversified funding mix is short-term, ―political,‖ declining and a result of
significant effort. Both BC-W and Bras d‘Or cases demonstrate increasing financial
commitments from First Nations through reinvestment of resource revenues, while lack of
provincial and federal investment in salmon conservation and restoration in the region is
seen to reflect a low level of political commitment (Weinstein 2007). Respondents in both
Indian Bay and Mount Waddington regions stress the need for greater reinvestment of
resource revenues into rural, coastal regions. With no mechanism to benefit from resource
royalties, pursuing project funds consumes a significant portion of NL-W senior staff
time. Further, reliance on federal funding leaves the organization vulnerable to changing
personnel and/or priorities.
The findings of this research demonstrate the importance of diverse funding
sources, local and external, and support Abram et al.‘s (2003) suggestion that the ability
to generate revenue is a key power of governance. Respondents on both coasts, including
agency representatives, report that coping with cutbacks is one of DFO‘s primary
motivations for partnering with stakeholder groups. Yet government agencies are
reluctant to allow organizations to engage in cost-recovery, revenue-generating activities
that would allow them to partner more effectively. Facilities ownership by REDBs,
returns surplus to spawning requirements fisheries on the Nimpkish, and collection of
fishing or cabin license fees in the Indian Bay watershed are all examples of revenue-
generating proposals resisted or blocked by senior governments. Cutbacks and expecting
275
more for less with limited revenue-generating alternatives jeopardize collaborative
governance initiatives.
Stumpage fees from local forest resources, mining royalties, community-owned oyster
leases, commercial fishing profits, municipal tax dollars and interest on investment funds
are examples of revenue sources used. Such options require local access to resources and,
where governments collect resource fees, a willingness to have these dollars reinvested in
the regions and ecosystems from which they were generated. Respondents report that
collaboration leads to reduced duplication, increased efficiency and value from dollars
spent.
8.2.2.iii Communication and personal relationships
Strong working relationships are fostered through personal relationships between

individuals. One respondent explained, ―good working relationships are strongly founded
on personalities.‖ Another suggests, ―generally communities don‘t trust government, but
they will trust people.‖ Respondents from all cases stress that both formal and informal
relationships are important but RED respondents argue that informal, personal
relationships ―on that one-on-one level‖ are the foundation and ―most common basis for
interaction.‖ RED and BC-W respondents point out that, because of proximity, these
personal relationships are more easily developed between communities and regional staff
of government agencies. Local representatives express appreciation, however, for senior
officials who take the time to meet with them in their area. In both Bras d‘Or and NL-W,
primary actors have been able to establish personal relationships with senior government
staff based in the capital cities of Halifax and St. John‘s respectively, expanding their
discretionary reach beyond their regions.
Effective personal relationships are dependent on personality, leadership style,
nature and frequency of interaction and levels of trust. People that are ―easy to work
with,‖ with whom one is ―able to pick up the phone and discuss things,‖ who are helpful
and trustworthy are among the personality characteristics of individuals that facilitate
positive relationships. Respondents in BC-E, NS-E and Bras d‘Or stress the importance of
communication and dialogue to their achievements. Respondents from five of six cases
also identify lack of communication as a barrier, including more than one-third of BC-W
276
and BC-E respondents. Regional organizations must communicate, facilitate dialogue,
and ultimately build relationships, at multiple scales, from community to national and
even global. This represents a significant challenge, leaving the case study organizations
open to criticisms that they have lost touch with the communities, families and
individuals they serve.
NS-E results suggest that inadequate early attention to communications may have
been a factor in the withdrawal of community partners. A new model of communicating
with municipal funding units through joint meetings to discuss progress and changes in
priorities is now being used to encourage better working relationships (NS-E 2004). NS
RDA representatives question, however, the need for reaching out to the public in their
communications, a position likely to account in part for ―lack of community support‖ as a
barrier cited in this case. Low public awareness and support threatens the legitimacy of
the NL-E and similar regional organizations (Smith 2003b). Individual residents have
important contributions to make in fulfilling the mandates of each of the case study
organizations. A BC logger who stopped operations because he came across a fish-
bearing stream and a Chapel Island entrepreneur who created a new business and local
employment are just two examples. Board members represent one avenue for community
outreach, although one member explains that ―most of us are so busy that we can‘t get out
into the community.‖ Without effective community outreach these opportunities for
change may be lost. While websites, newspaper articles, inserts, and newsletters are
useful vehicles for disseminating information, respondents stress the importance of face-
to-face interaction through avenues such as monthly luncheons, regularly scheduled
meetings, workshops, conferences and forums that ―allow people to get together and
focus on issues and establish contact and common interests, common understandings,‖
making connections that may lead to further collaboration.
Building relationships external to the region also requires concerted effort. A
provincial representative advises of potential funding partners ―if you‘re going to actually
work with nonprofits and individual corporate entities that are potentially going to
support the kinds of things we want to do in watersheds, you actually have to get to know
them on a first-name basis… invite them out, show them what you‘re doing, get them in
the drysuits, swim them down the river, take them fly fishing … that‘s how business is
277
done...‖ Using a similar strategy, NL-W brings government and academic partners into
the watershed for an annual retreat with NL-W staff and board members.
One senior federal staff member acknowledges ―the value of getting out of the
office and looking at these things, not making assumptions while you‘re sitting in Ottawa
or Vancouver….‖ Respondents point out that, while financial contributions are needed,
sending money and a contract for signature is not collaboration. One NL-E respondent
describes an example: ―ACOA was like the father and the provincial government was like
the mother. They were the nurturers, they went out, they sort of talked and listened and
worked with the boards, and we gave them the money.‖ When provincial support for the
REDBs waned the organizations lost their ―mother‖ and the absence of dialogue and
working relationships with ACOA threatened the REDB model. Respondents stress the
need for working together rather than a ―hands-off‖ approach, facilitated in NS-E and
NL-E cases by co-location of offices with government partners.
The need for investment in communications and relationship-building is often
underestimated and even ignored. Costs of these activities rise in areas with high numbers
of communities such as Strait Highlands or Kittiwake regions, and in large remote
geographies such as Mount Waddington. Incorporating communications costs into
collaborative governance budgets could, in some cases, challenge the economies of scale
assumptions that are often used to justify regionalization as a cost-cutting strategy.
8.2.2.iv Formal relationship mechanisms
While unstructured informal relationships provide the ―people element‖ that ultimately
makes collaborative models work, formal mechanisms such as well-managed
organizational structures can provide accountability, stability and clarity. Senior levels of
government established all three RED models as formal, incorporated organizational
structures. REDBs were given a recommended set of bylaws, constitution and board
membership. RDAs had more flexibility in their boards, bylaws and incorporation but
have since implemented efficiency, operating, accounting and service quality standards.
Board size, diversity, committees and reporting and evaluation mechanisms vary among
the three RED models. Perhaps the most significant difference impacting community-
government relationships is the participation of provincial and federal government
278
representatives as ex-officio NS-E board members, providing an opportunity for regular
interaction and information flow.
Unlike the RED cases, all three watershed management groups began without formal
structures. Today, watershed management respondents stress the importance of having
both formal and informal, but particularly formalized relationships. Only 18% of
watershed management respondents suggest that informal relationships are most
important (vs. 76% in RED cases). Grassroots initiated, each of the three watershed
management models is very different and continues to develop over time. NL-W
incorporated after seven years of operation as an unincorporated committee while both
the BC-W and Bras d‘Or cases relationships and organizational structures remain largely
informal, as described in Chapter 7. This organic development was considered an initial
strength but more formal arrangements are now required. An NL-W representative
suggests that while friendships have developed through working together, formal
channels are needed ―so as not to take advantage of these friendships.‖ There is consensus
in Bras d‘Or that a more formal structure is needed and in BC-W that work in developing
formalized procedures should continue but, with more complex ecosystems and
heterogeneous communities, it is unlikely that the NL-W model would be appropriate for
either of these situations.
Important aspects of formal organizational structures include: terms of reference,
budgets and timelines, identified roles and responsibilities, decision-making, reporting
and communication procedures and dispute resolution mechanisms. Written agreements
and MOUs have been important tools used in all cases to clarify expectations and
responsibilities between partner
Table 38 Policy and legal supports
groups. Lack of communication and
coordination within government - Oceans Act, Oceans Strategy and Action Plan
- Court rulings on Aboriginal rights and title
(within and between departments - Canadian Rural Partnership
and between federal and provincial - Nova Scotia‘s Act to Encourage and Facilitate
Community-based Planning for Economic,
levels) is a barrier in all cases. Social, and Institutional Change
- Nova Scotia Community Development Policy
Federal-provincial agreements such - Environmental Assessment Acts
as the Labour Market Development - Sustainable development reporting and audit
requirements under the Auditor General Act
Agreement (LMDA) have assisted
279
in bridging these divides.
Government representatives are much better positioned to participate in
collaborative governance when they are supported by an appropriate legal and/or policy
framework, which may include legislation, enforcement, policy statements, funding,
technical support programs, strategic plans, monitoring and/or accountability
mechanisms. Cape Breton‘s Teresa MacNeil (2003) refers to the need for both magnets
and glue in community development. Strong Acts, legal rulings and policy statements are
magnets that will bring government actors to the table. Strong relationships and
meaningful results, once they get there, are the glue. However, all branches of
government do not apply legislative requirements equally. Interview results indicate that
the 1995 federal requirement for departmental Sustainable Development Strategies under
the Auditor General Act has not been taken seriously by ACOA, relative to Environment
Canada, Department of Justice or Western Diversification, supporting the findings of a
2000-2001 review that suggested sustainable development requires higher profile and
level of commitment within the agency (ACOA 2001). Respondents cite an increasing
interest, in principle at least, in horizontal policy approaches within the Treasury Board of
Canada and Privy Council.
8.2.3 Time – Balance in Temporal Scale
Following relationships with senior levels of government, issues related to time and
appropriate temporal scale were the second most frequently noted set of enabling factors
in watershed management cases and overall. Judgements of temporal scale are also
significant sources of tension in the case studies. Respondents stress that collaborative
governance and sustainable development require long-term commitment, including the
patience to allow relationships to develop, for learning and adaptation and for results. The
BC-W case, where there is little evidence of improvement in salmon populations after
more than three decades of recovery efforts, is particularly illustrative. One government
representative suggests, ―you can‘t measure success in the short-term... fish populations
take a long time to react... Especially in periods of very low ocean survival...‖
Encouraging results of recent lake fertilization, the latest in a series of restoration
strategies attempted, offer hope that BC-W‘s long-term adaptive management approach
280
may ultimately yield sought-after improvements in salmon populations. NL-E and other
RED experiences demonstrate that industry development requires two ore more years of
background work as well as investment by the private sector and supporting agencies,
after which only some efforts will be successful.
Respondents from NL and NS indicate that REDBs and other development groups
often need ten to twenty years to work effectively, finding success ―after years of soil
tilling and failures.‖ The Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed management network structure (NS-
W) has evolved over 20 years, becoming increasingly inclusive and only recently able to
build bridges between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities and all levels of
government.
Expanding temporal scale within development processes includes not only
looking to the future but also the past. A focus on the past is a significant element of all
three watershed management cases, including efforts to protect and restore ecosystems
and cultures, and to incorporate local and traditional knowledge into management
systems. In RED as well, the commitment of many individual actors is rooted in a passion
for place often linked to their own personal histories and those of their communities.
The need for balance and judgement regarding appropriate temporal scale is also
clear. While short-term thinking is a barrier to strong working relationships, so are slow
rates of response and adaptation. Being prepared to act quickly allows communities and
organizations to capture new funding opportunities when they become available.
Governments and citizens alike are impatient for results, often seeing the need for long-
term thinking, but demanding short-term responsiveness, flexibility and results.
Government policy change and program responses are notoriously slow, yet at times
programs and policies appear to change overnight with little analysis or consultation
(often but not always related to political change). Judgement is needed to determine the
appropriate rate of change, taking factors such as need, urgency, importance and
readiness for change into account when determining if ―the time is right.‖ In the case of
the 1995 report on watershed management in the Bras d‘Or: ―it was just as good as
anything that‘s happened, and maybe better … but it was the wrong time,‖ causing
mistrust that must be overcome by actors in today‘s initiatives.
281
To provide balance in temporal scales, actions with short-term results are needed
within long-term planning efforts. The Strait-Highlands (NS-E) 2004/2005 work plan,
seeking to balance short, medium and long-term initiatives, all with a long-term view of
development, is one such example (NS-E 2004). Management plans can be developed as
a work in progress, evolving and changing with priorities. Protocols and processes for
working together can be created over time, acknowledging the impatience of many actors
for too much process discussion up-front. Actors must also recognize that new policies,
programs and initiatives are overlaid on previous ones, considering how old and new may
interact given inherited path dependencies and resistance to change (see also Chapter 9).
8.2.4 Local Conflict and Capacity
Community divisions and conflict are described as the number one barrier to
collaborative governance in RED, particularly in Mount Waddington and Strait Highlands
cases, followed by lack of local capacity (including capacity to deal with conflict and
difference). One respondent explains, ―if communities are fighting locally the easiest
thing for government to do is nothing.‖ One senior official describes the North Island as
―rancorous‖. Within Cape Breton, Victoria County actors are faced with ―lack of trust and
parochial rivalry … based on traditional religious and cultural separations‖ (Victoria
County 2000). Conflict within and between communities occurs due to competition over
decision-making influence and benefits, particularly economic benefits, of development.
Lack of understanding, particularly between rural and urban, Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal neighbours, and lack of identified common objectives and shared values
further contribute to local divides.
Aboriginal-non-Aboriginal relations are the most significant source of community
difference and conflict. Strait-Highlands respondents describe a history of infrequent
interaction (unlike the Mount Waddington region), racism and mistrust. One local official
describes that in eastern Cape Breton, Victoria County and its representatives ―got invited
to everything‖ with a budget of $4 million dollars while ―Membertou Reserve spends in
the vicinity of $27 million a year in the city of Sydney and they get invited to nothing.‖
Another reflects the shift that is occurring and collaborative approach of the Mi‘kmaq
Nations, ―I see them as a major stakeholder here... They are not coming forward saying
282
well we have claim to all of this. They know it‘s a major problem or a major challenge
and that every community has to be involved... I think it‘s really shown leadership for the
rest of the country, how a community can really take the lead and be a major player in the
resources.‖ Increased interaction and mutual respect at official levels of Mik‘maw and
municipal government are noted as outcomes of collaborative governance in Cape Breton,
particularly in watershed management. In Mount Waddington, BC-W has taken steps in
recent years to involve and increase services to Aboriginal communities. Similar efforts
were not observed, however, in NS-E, a significant gap in the organization‘s
inclusiveness.
Respondents from both Strait Highlands and Kittiwake suggest there is a growing
appreciation for the common interests between regional centres such as Gander and the
Straits region and surrounding areas, although there is a need to demonstrate that ―what is
good for Port Hawkesbury is good for all‖ and that a balance of urban, semi-urban and
rural development is needed. Understanding but also respect and appreciation for
difference is required, recognizing the value different cultures and lifestyle options bring
to a region. Communications and dialogue are tools for increasing this understanding,
which can in turn increase government confidence and willingness to engage in
collaborative governance initiatives.
Local interest, commitment and leadership are assets within the case study regions
that have contributed to positive outcomes. Yet respondents suggest that local capacity
(the knowledge, skills and resources needed to participate in development and decision-
making) has also been a significant resistor to positive change. In the Bras d‘Or, despite
the important role Mi‘kmaw individuals and governments have played in watershed
management, respondents describe leadership and capacity gaps in some First Nations
communities and in specific areas of activity such as forestry planning and economic
development. Limited capacity, particularly staff resources, for economic development at
the local level were noted in BC-E and NL-E cases. NS-E respondents also suggest that
the ability at local and regional levels to plan and implement economic development
projects is limited. Difficulty getting volunteers, lack of entrepreneurial skills and spirit,
limited ability to adapt to change, low education levels and social dysfunction are specific
local capacity concerns. The BC-W case emphasizes lack of knowledge and
283
understanding of complex ecosystems as a significant barrier, suggesting that governance
capacity requirements increase along with the complexity of the systems-to-be-governed.
The importance of system complexity and of learning and capacity-building are discussed
further in Chapter 9.
To assist in determining the extent to which types of ―capacity‖ have impacted the
achievements of the collaborative governance case studies, characteristics of each model
were grouped within four capacity categories: organizational resources and management,
relational, leadership, and learning and adaptation. These categories reflect a set of
traditional organizational capacity measures, as well as leadership and relationship
management abilities highlighted by the research findings described above and, finally,
learning and adaptation, emphasized by the CASES framework. The organizational
capacity index was derived based on the following factors: budget size, number of staff,
number of volunteers, existence of a formal governance structure, website and other
public communications tools, range of services/activity areas, number of ―clients‖ served
per year, longevity, strategic planning, evaluation and annual reporting. A relational
capacity index was derived based on the indicated status of relationships with a range of
stakeholders and network participants. The leadership capacity rating considers:
identification of primary actors, % of total respondents referring to individuals or ―key
actors‖ as an enabling factor, number of individuals within this set of key actors, diversity
of leadership (key actors), continuity, expertise and recruitment (see Appendix 14).
Indicators of learning and adaptation capacity are described further in Chapter 9.
Together these indices comprise an overall capacity index (Table 39).
Table 39 Case study capacity ratings

Max. score = 20 NL-E NS-E BC-E NL-W NS-W BC-W
Organizational capacity 14 17 15 12.5 16 12
Relational capacity 10.5 15 10.5 13 17.5 10
Leadership capacity 11 10 10 10 17 13
Learning and adaptation 10.5 15.5 12 12 18 13
Combined /overall avg. 11.5 14.5 12 12 17 12
Note: Organizational and Relational index calculations can be found in Appendices 10 and 12,
Leadership in Appendix 14, Learning and adaptation in Chapter 957.
57
Learning and adaptation values are drawn from Figure 28, Chapter 9 (converted from a score out of 9,
considering 9 variables, to 20 to provide consistency with other capacity ratings).
284
Several limitations of this approach should be noted. Each indicator and the
resulting indices are dynamic, yet these results represent only a single period. Further,
indices do not reflect all possible factors but rather those that have been determined as
significant by the literature review and interview respondents. In addition, all indicators
and indices are weighted equally in importance. This is due to the qualitative nature of the
research design. Evidence that the importance of various factors differs in unique contexts
and case studies indicates that a uniform weighting system would be problematic.
Despite these acknowledged limitations, patterns of interest can be observed from
the simple indices depicted in Table 36. Results demonstrate, for example, higher overall
capacity in watershed management than in RED and in Cape Breton, followed by
Nimpkish, Indian Bay, Mount Waddington and Kittiwake cases. Comparing these results
to outcomes in Figure 22 suggests a potential relationship between overall capacity and
outcomes in RED cases. In particular there appears to be a general relationship between
Learning and Adaptation
Leadership Capacity
NRMB
Relational Capacity Bras d'Or
IBEC
Organizational Capacity
MWCFDC
SHRDA
Overall Capacity
KEDC
Figure 8.6 Comparing capacities and outcomes
Outcomes Rating
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 22 Comparing capacities and outcomes
both relational and organizational capacity and positive outcomes, corresponding with
interview results. However, there are also exceptions. The relationship between outcomes
and capacity is not clear or consistent, particularly in watershed management. Bras d‘Or
watershed in particular exhibits high capacity ratings in all categories relative to outcomes
achieved to date.
285
In addition, no clear relationship between leadership capacity index and outcomes
ratings is evident from Figure 22. Relatively low leadership ratings for NS-E, for
example, appear to be compensated for by other forms of capacity. NL-E‘s relatively high
leadership rating suggests a possible over-emphasis on enabling versus primary actors
within the index. Primary actor capacity is emphasized most in Bras d‘Or (NS-W) and
BC-W cases (by 35 and 33% of respondents respectively), followed by NS-E (21%) and
NL-W (20%). Primary actor capacity does not necessarily correspond with outcomes in
NS-W and BC-W cases.
Although a general link between relational, organizational, and learning and
adaptation (RED organizations only) capacity and governance outcomes is suggested by
the above analysis, it is clear that no one set of these factors or governance capacity
overall is the prime determinant of outcomes in each of these cases. The early
development stage of the Bras d‘Or case, combined with findings that suggest long time
frames are required for results, raises once again the question of temporal scale and
whether current capacity will translate into future rather than present outcomes in the
Bras d‘Or watershed and other cases. This may be especially true of learning and
adaptation capacity, discussed further in Chapter 9. The specific combination of
important capacity factors may also differ from case to case, depending in part on the
sustainability issues faced within and the complexity of the systems within which
governing systems operate. System complexity is considered in Chapter 9.
8.3 Summary
Have the collaborative governance experiments examined advanced sustainable

development in Canada‘s coastal regions? The answer to this question is a qualified
―yes.‖ Together case study actors have restored habitats and improved industrial
practices, reduced targeted pollution sources and illegal harvesting, established and/or
helped operate programs for monitoring water quality and fish populations. They have
provided a measure of social equity through the empowerment and economic
participation of First Nations and enhanced social capital by building new relationships
and partnerships, reducing conflict and creating shared understanding. They have worked
to protect a way of life that is connected to place. Jobs, businesses and new industries
286
have been created and expanded. While some of these outcomes may have been achieved
without collaborative governance, others can be traced directly to the case study efforts,
whether as lead agencies or significant contributors.
Despite this range of achievements, overall the social-ecological systems these
initiatives seek to govern are more vulnerable and degraded than before the case study
efforts began. Improvements have not kept pace with the pressures of economic growth
and concentration of wealth. Yet without these organizations, the viability of these social-
ecological systems would be at even greater risk. They have helped stem the decline,
restoring past damage and attempting to better manage current and future uses of natural
resources and ecosystems, building capacity and exploring opportunities for rural
development and diversification. Some of these effects have already translated into
employment and incomes. Despite their constraints and limitations these six case studied
have provided hope, resilience and space for adaptation.
What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in
collaborative governance for sustainable coastal development? The research findings
presented in this chapter suggest that a variety of factors influence success. Respondents
suggest that the most critical enablers of sustainable development outcomes are individual
leaders at multiple levels within the system who are respected, informed, committed and
collaborative, together with strong government support and community-government
relationships. Shared power, diverse yet secure revenue sources, good personal
relationships and effective formal structures aid these relationships. Appropriate
judgments of temporal scale and community support, involvement and commitment and
conflict resolution have also been important.
What barriers exist to a shift toward collaborative governance for sustainable
development and how might these barriers be overcome? A key barrier is lack of
provincial and federal government support and positive working relationships between
communities and senior governments, with particular concerns related to an
unwillingness to share power and resources. Struggles over power in cases such as NL-E
and BC-W have diverted attention from the creation of much needed outcomes, as has the
ongoing quest for funding, particularly in watershed cases. Inadequate financial
287
resources, rigidity, lack of understanding and appreciation for difference and associated
conflicts, and limitations in local capacity are related challenges.
Overall watershed management organizations exhibit higher levels of governance
capacity than regional economic development (RED) case study initiatives; yet,
particularly in Bras d‘Or and BC-W cases, outcomes ratings are low relative to their
capacity. While lower overall, RED organizations demonstrate higher outcomes ratings
and higher organizational capacity, linked to their formal organizational structures, policy
and core funding support. The ―package‖ of governance capacity factors that is present
and has had the most significant influence on outcomes differs not only between policy
arenas but also from place to place, between and within regions. Cross-case analysis
shows that governance system capacity by itself does not fully account for variations in
outcomes.
The next chapter discusses the role of scale, adaptation, complexity and values in
the case study results, and relates the research findings presented above to three central
themes within the complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework: scale
and cross-scale interactions, learning and adaption, and the need for balance in CASES –
between stability and flexibility; complexity and governability; and autonomy, diversity,
common goals and values.
288
9 – Reflections on Collaborative Governance and Complex Adaptive Systems
This chapter explores insights into the research findings presented in Chapter 8 offered by
the literature on collaborative governance and complex adaptive social-ecological
systems (CASES) reviewed in Chapters 2 and 3, particularly Walker et al.´s (2006)
propositions on CASES, Bossel´s (1999, 2001) identification of fundamental system
interests and Gunderson and Holling´s (2001) adaptive renewal cycle. In turn, ways that
research findings inform these emerging fields of inquiry are also examined. Three
central themes are discussed: 1) spatial scale and cross-scale interactions; 2) learning and
adaptation; and 3) the ongoing search for balance and appropriate mix - of stability and
flexibility; complexity and governance capacity; diversity and common goals, principles
and values – in governance systems.
9.1 The Multiple Scales of Collaborative Governance
9.1.1 Nested Systems and Expanded Discretionary Reach
Recent work on resilience suggests that many of the observed shifts or crises observed in
ecological systems occur due to processes and structures interacting across scales
(Gunderson and Holling 2001, Walker and Meyers 2004). The same can be said of
integrally connected social systems. Sewage pollution within the Bras d‘Or and trout
fishing in Indian Bay watershed are examples of issues primarily within local and
provincial control addressed in the case studies. But decisions and changes occurring at
broader scales also have significant impacts on these watersheds. Examples include
domestic resource and land use policies and, globally, ocean conditions and shipping
practices. The influence of the World Commission on Environment and Development and
subsequent sustainable development commitments on federal and provincial policies and
programs, and in turn on funding and support for the case study initiatives, is another
example.
Case study actors are more than passive recipients of this externally generated
change. Seeking to extend their influence, regional economic development (RED) groups
participate in provincial associations that promote their interests and inform RED policy.
Actors involved in all three watershed cases also participate in federal fisheries advisory
committees and processes and individual members connect case study organizations with
289
their own provincial and federal advocacy networks. Attempts to exert global influence
include lobbying for changes in ballast water disposal practices and pursuit of United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) biosphere
designation in the Bras d‘Or watershed and the Nimpkish Resource Management Board
(BC-W)‘s request to include Nimpkish sockeye genetic information in national and
international fisheries management databases. Community-based conservation programs
contribute to provincial, Atlantic, Pacific and global salmon conservation efforts and to
fulfilling commitments related to threatened and endangered species. Social innovations
in collaboration and linking western science and traditional knowledge in the Bras d‘Or,
and Indian Bay trout management techniques are models with provincial, federal and
even international relevance.
Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E) and Kittiwake Economic
Development Corporation (NL-E) have engaged in some international marketing and
investment prospecting, but efforts to pursue international market opportunities have been
limited, particularly in Mount Waddington region. Young and Matthews (2005, 10), in a
recent study of the Community Futures Development Corporation of Mount Waddington
(BC-E) and its role in connecting local and global economies, concur that there is only
―modest evidence of the spatial extension of community economies.‖ Within RED
networks, some individual businesses, particularly externally controlled commodity
producers, and some community and First Nation organizations have been successful at
fostering international alliances. But overall, Young and Matthews‘ observation of limited
spatial extension applies to all of the cases.
Case study participants recognize that forces largely beyond their control influence
the outcomes of their efforts, but also that they can capture opportunities and exert
influence at these larger scales. The likelihood of their initiatives effecting change within
their regions is dependent in part on their ability to monitor, respond to and shape these
cross-scale relationships. Nevertheless, regional linkages to the national and international
scales remain relatively weak, more one way (top-down) than bi-directional.
Collaborative governance initiatives have had some impact in expanding local influence
to broader scales, but they struggle to enlarge their discretionary reach. Particularly in
Mount Waddington, remoteness, exacerbated by service withdrawal, has weakened
290
connections with provincial and federal officials. Without strong advocates in higher
levels of government, the onus is on local and regional actors in peripheral regions to
expand their sphere of influence to decision-making centres.
9.1.2 Region as a Focal Scale
While recognizing multi-scale interconnections, respondents emphasize the importance of

the scale to which people are connected and relate in their daily lives. The local scale is
the foundation of each of the case study initiatives, ―where sustainable development
issues come together.‖ Passion and commitment to place has fostered leadership,
voluntarism and local knowledge. Consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, it is also
considered more efficient and effective to resolve issues ―at the local working level,‖
where relationships can more easily be formed and maintained.
The majority of case study respondents suggest that the sub-provincial region is an
important scale for analysis and planning. Effectiveness in tourism and investment
attraction, and the reality that ―government is not going to pay for CED (community
economic development) in every little place,‖ are arguments for the sub-provincial region
as a focal scale for economic development. In the case of watershed management, there is
an understanding that activities in any particular part of a watershed system can have
system-wide impacts and that there is a need to coordinate efforts at the watershed scale.
The watershed is a relevant scale for stewardship and collaborative governance in areas
such as fisheries, water quality and land use planning, including forestry, recreational
property development, tourism and outdoor recreation use. Watershed-based planning is a
particularly strong fit for First Nations with continuing traditions of watershed
governance. A challenge for watershed management is that many people don‘t fully
understand or relate to the concept of a watershed. Yet residents are directly connected
with their watersheds, whether as a source of drinking water, recreation, subsistence
and/or culture. The results of this research show that an understanding of these
connections can be fostered through public education and participation in watershed
governance activities. RED case study participants also contend that a sense of regional
identity as ―a community of communities‖ is being developed over time.
Multiple and overlapping layers occur within what are often conceptualized as
291
single scales. With the exception of the Bras d‘Or, watershed regions are nested within
socio-economic planning regions, addressing issues that ―don‘t stop at a watershed
boundary.‖ These regions are then broken down into sub-regional groupings consisting of
a number of communities within relatively close proximity. Sub-regions often have a
history of interaction and allow regional organizations to connect more effectively with
communities. Sub-watersheds are also used for planning and management, a scale at
which residents and/or resource managers can connect directly with other users and feel
they have more knowledge about and influence upon than the watershed as a whole. Both
RED and watershed organizations also increasingly recognize the need to work in regions
larger than their own for certain purposes, working within new and existing regions and
conceptualizations of place. Thus, regions are both nested and dynamic.
Overall region size is not considered a key factor in collaborative governance
success. Although smaller region size may contribute to higher outcomes rankings in NS-
E and Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp. (NL-W) cases (both small regions relative to other
cases in their respective policy areas) region size was not considered to be a strength by
respondents in either case. Issues of remoteness and spatial scale were considered a
barrier by 24% of NS-E and BC-E respondents. Including both the smallest and largest of
the RED regions studied, this suggests that distance can be considered a challenge in any
regional endeavor. The BC-E case is particularly telling. The majority of respondents in
this case indicated that a service area more than 40,000 square kilometers in size is
manageable if the necessary resources are budgeted for travel and community outreach.
Yet in the Strait Highlands region, the decision of Victoria County to pull out of NS-E is
believed to have left the region ―a more manageable size.‖ Serving a region one-eighth
the geographic size, NS-E respondents describe a weaker sense of regional identity than
those within the BC-E service area.
These cases indicate that a sense of common identity and interaction among
residents is more important than spatial scale in regional relationships. This is illustrated
by the relatively successful increase in BC-E service area size, contrasted against the
attempt to create a Nova Scotia-wide Mi‘kmaq Fish and Wildlife Commission. Central
coast residents are accustomed to travelling long distances to the north island region for
services and visits with friends and family, sharing a sense of identity linked to kinship
292
and way of life. By contrast, differences in religion, organizational affiliations,
ecosystems and thus traditional knowledge, between Unama‘ki and mainland Mi‘kmaq,
as well as a lack of history of working together are offered as reasons for the
Commission‘s collapse. Island geography, in the case of Unama‘ki Mi‘kmaw Nations,
and remoteness of the north island/central coast region are described as contributors in
cooperative relations, helping to enhance regional identity although also posing a
challenge for developing communications and transportation infrastructure and external
relationships.
Appropriate regional boundaries are determined by history, culture, awareness and
patterns of interactions more than by geographic size or distance. Nevertheless, the
resource requirements of increased regional size remain an important consideration
(Chapter 8). Collaborative governance does not work effectively if regional organizations
are perceived as too far removed, whether by distance, difference or lack of
communication to understand and address local realities. When this occurs regional
organizations suffer from lack of legitimacy. Weak connections between community and
regional scales leave the entire collaborative governance network vulnerable to collapse.
The need for recognition of interconnections and overlap across policy subsystems
are demonstrated in many ways, including the need for economic development within the
Indian Bay watershed to ensure continuing governance system viability, and the
economic and social impacts of the collapse of the cod fishery in the Kittiwake region.
The forces of social-ecological change on Canada‘s coasts are both cross-scale and multi-
scale. So must be the adaptations to change. As Walker et al. (2006) suggest,
understanding and managing cross-scale interactions appears to increase the likelihood of
achieving sustainability objectives. Discretionary reach must extend up the panarchy but
also down to community and individual levels, and across systems and temporal scales.
Case study experiences illustrate that improved understanding and re-shaping of roles and
relationships within interconnected social-ecological processes is possible through
collaborative governance, but there are many sources of resistance to be overcome in
creating and maintaining positive, productive cross-scale relationships.
293
9.2 Processes of Change, Adaptation and Resilience
A second key feature of CASES is that they exhibit dynamic, multi-level patterns of self-
organization and adaptation that allow them to cope with, and even thrive from, change.
The CASES framework suggests that sustainable systems must create and maintain
adaptive capabilities, including the ability to learn from the past and apply these lessons
in current and future circumstances (Bunnell 2002).
While resilience has been eroded in recent decades by trends such as resource
depletion and centralization, and each case is unique, Chapter 5 portrays a history of
adaptation and resilience in each of the case study regions. A North Island resident
proclaims, ―We made it through the dirty thirties. We‘ll make it through this.‖ First
Nations communities remain committed to their cultures and territories after centuries of
assimilation pressures. Processes contributing to resilience and adaptation in collaborative
governance systems and the broader social-ecological systems of which they are a part
are considered below.
9.2.1 Destabilizing Feedback Loops
Feedback loops are essential to self-organization in CASES. Examples of both positive

and negative feedback loops exist within each of the case studies, although response to
feedback varies considerably among the cases and over time. While negative (corrective)
feedbacks involve stabilizing adaptations, positive feedbacks are reinforcing, often
emergent and destabilizing system properties. In an example from Bras d‘Or Lakes, ―peer
pressure‖ within and between levels of government and a ―contagious‖ desire to support
watershed initiatives is described, fuelled by visionary local leadership and commitment.
This has created support and enthusiasm within all levels of government but has not yet
built sufficient momentum to have the destabilizing impact predicted of positive,
reinforcing feedbacks. Established systems of government provide negative feedbacks
and top-down constraint to movements toward widespread governance change.
As provincial and federal support and confidence in the regional economic
development board (REDB) model in Newfoundland and Labrador waned, a re-enforcing
feedback loop was created that sent NL-E into a downward spiral by 2003/04. Weak
leadership was both a contributor to and a result of this downward trend. Valued staff
294
members left the organization and NL-E lacked the capacity to implement actions to slow
or reverse organizational decline. While all REDBs suffered from a provincial scale
decline in support, some were impacted more than others. NL-E experienced a complete
staff turnover and local credibility loss. These examples emphasize once again the
important role of provincial and federal actors, as supporters and resistors, and of
regional-level leadership.
9.2.2 Responding to Sudden or Significant Events
According to Resilience Alliance researchers, a system‘s resilience is defined by its

ability to avoid a regime shift after experiencing a shock (Walker et al. 2006). Responses
to system shocks in each collaborative governance case study were examined, providing
evidence of their resilience and insights into sources of both stability and adaptation (see
Table 40).
Each of the six case studies has lost key actors over time (see Table 35). Given the
importance of primary actors described above and in Chapter 8, the sudden loss of one of
these individuals can constitute a major shock in a collaborative governance system. One
BC-W respondent explains ―it‘s strong enough to survive but it needs somebody really,
from the ‗Namgis for instance, as strong as Lawrence, as sharp as him, to hold it
together.‖ Sadly, BC-W Co-Chair and ‗Namgis Band Manager Lawrence Ambers passed
away suddenly in 2005, followed by ‗Namgis representative and long-time watershed
steward Bertram Svanvik in 2006. Western Forest Products purchased Canfor‘s Nimpkish
Valley operations during the same period, further severing personal and institutional
relationships. However, Svanvik and Gw‘ani Hatchery Manager Hank Nelson had
mentored numerous ‗Namgis youth. Nelson, Chief Bill Cranmer, a collaborative leader
and key actor, long-time BC-W technical advisors and others continue to participate.
Despite their sudden and significant losses, the ‗Namgis First Nation‘s commitment to
their territory, diverse leadership and growing capacity make continuing watershed
management efforts possible. Given the multi-scale, multi-jurisdictional nature of the
issues faced, watershed governance will continue to involve collaboration, although very
likely with increased ‗Namgis control as power relations continue to shift. These changes,
295
Table 40 System disturbances and sources of resilience
Event – Breakdown or Sources of Stability Sources of Renewal

potential breakdown
point
NL-E Late 90s political change, Senior government support Provincial/federal
loss of government (mixed), Board continuity initiation, new leadership
support, staff and (staff), evaluation process
confidence (2000-2005)
NS-E Withdrawal of member Remaining support at all New leadership (staff)
counties (1999-2004), levels, structure (policy, Municipal partners/new
loss of key actors legislated) communication process
BC-E Lawsuit, public Federal support/structure, Response primarily after
defamation by former Board structure and study period
loan applicant (2003- supportive groups within
2005) the community
NL-W Concern about research Primary actor skills, Election process, Board
practices leading to Board continuity/ commitment, learning, local leadership
―takeover‖ (1998-2001) personal and institutional (primary actor)
relationships
NS-W UCCB report (1995), Culture, ongoing Local leadership,
Eskasoni political change commitment of key court cases, policy change,
(2004) individuals, Mi‘kmaq + election process
ongoing relationships
BC-W DFO/‘Namgis power Culture, ongoing Funding opportunity/
struggle and breakdown commitment, leadership provincial and federal
(1992), loss of key actors diversity and continuity, policy, local leadership
(2005/06) legal rights and title
combined with reduced federal and provincial commitment and funding, leave the
existing BC-W structure vulnerable to breakdown but, ultimately, renewal.
NL-W and NL-E also faced the loss of powerful provincial political supporters
after a 1996 election and the resulting demise of a key supporting agency to both
organizations, the Economic Recovery Commission. While NL-W was able to create new
relationships with subsequent political leaders, NL-E entered the downward spiral
described above. As in the BC-W case, NL-W‘s resilience is attributed to strong
leadership at the local level, linked to commitment to place, as well as greater levels of
federal support and power sharing. In both NS-E and NL-E cases the hiring of a new
senior staff member has facilitated renewal while the continuing presence of senior
provincial and/or federal supporters at the management levels offers a degree of stability
and resilience while regional reorganization occurs.
296
Several other system shocks or significant disturbances were observed and/or
described that culminated in a shift comparable to the breakdown/release phase of the
adaptive renewal cycle (see Figure 23). The adaptive cycle is used as a heuristic device
for examining the circumstances leading up to the events referred to in Table 40, as well
as subsequent responses. The results of this analysis illustrate significant variety in the
way change occurs. Decline, for example, occurs at varying speeds.NL-E‘s decline
occurred over nearly a decade, with signs of breakdown present throughout this period
that provided opportunities for corrective measures. Changes due to the Eskasoni First
Nation election in 2004 occurred rapidly, as did the collapse of an early attempt at
collaborative watershed governance in the Bras d‘Or watershed after provincial refusal to
accept the recommendations of a 1995 report. Due to resulting mistrust, relationships,
particularly between the Mi‘kmaq and Province of Nova Scotia, have taken over a decade
to begin to rebuild. Collaborative governance in the Bras d‘Or system has experienced a
long period of re-organization and slow growth since that time. This pattern is very
different from the RED cases, where organizational models were put in place and moved
relatively quickly into the conservation or K phase, within three years in the NL-E case.
Actors at various scales, ranging from a vocal individual at the local level to
coalitions of officials within provincial or federal agencies or political leaders, have been
responsible for instigating system change. In several cases breakdown has been linked to
the political process. Primary actors such as senior staff members play a key role in
reorganization. Case study
responses to times of stress or
CFDC
NRMB breakdown range from changing
KEDC IBEC
Board or key staff members to
SHRDA
modification of operating
procedures and even changing
organizational goals and values.
Bras d‘Or
As Walker et al. (2006) suggest
multiple forms of re-organization
are possible. In the growth phase,
Figure 23 The adaptive renewal cycle (2005/06)
Source: Modified from Bunnell (2002) support from political and senior-
297
level government officials has been important for securing legitimacy and resources.
Extending the conservation phase and avoiding collapse require that primary actors be
responsive to signs of relationship fractures and potential causes of system breakdown.
While surprise events also occur, lack of sensitivity to system weaknesses can be seen in
most cases prior to breakdown events.
All six case studies have demonstrated a degree of resilience through periods of
disturbance and reorganization. They have also shown vulnerability during times of
political change, heightened power struggles or when differing perspectives among key
partners cannot be reconciled. In all cases, however, after breakdowns actors have
reorganized and returned to the collaborative governance table. The following section
explores whether the potential for learning from these experiences has been captured
which can be applied in current and future iterations of the adaptive renewal cycle.
9.2.3 Learning and Adaptation
Walker et al. (2006, 8) maintain that “learning is a key component of adaptability,‖

emphasizing along with Folke et al. (2005) and others that an active adaptive governance
approach includes conscious efforts to create constructive feedback loops. The following
section considers the extent to which examples of adaptation in the case studies exhibit an
active learning approach; that is the degree to which changes that have been made in case
study governance processes or structures have been made on the basis of purposeful prior
learning. The findings of this study suggest that there are multiple paths to learning and
capacity-building, many informal and experiential. Together, the varied approaches
described suggest a learning, adaptive governance framework with four key components,
illustrated in Figure 24. Both formal and informal evaluation processes are considered
along with the sources of knowledge that are drawn upon for system learning, the ways
information and knowledge are managed within the governance network as well as the
training, education and other efforts to build learning capacity.
298
•Multiple inputs •Lesson drawing
•Two-way communication •Formal and informal
• Identfication of knowledge methods
needs and potential • Improvement
knowledge partnerships orientation
• Systems for information •Includes assessment of
•management values, principles , goals
Information and
Monitoring
knowledge
and evaluation
management
Individual Proactive,
learning and ongoing
capacity planning and
building implementation
•Learning by doing
•Assessment of human •Dynamic, nested
resources and requirements • Long-term perspective
•Mentorship with short-term actions
•Formal training and • Addresses connections
education across scales, issues and
actors
Figure 24 Learning, adaptive governance framework
9.2.3.i Training, education and capacity building
Considering the importance of individuals discussed above and in Chapter 8, an important

approach in creating and enhancing learning systems is building the skills and knowledge
of individuals within the governance system. Learning organizations rely on learning
individuals. Capacity building was the most commonly cited outcome and the second
most commonly cited governance mechanism employed within the case study
organizations. Enhanced governance capacity has been achieved in part through the
training, education, mentoring and experiential learning of individuals.
Education and skills development efforts within the case studies are targeted at:
key actors within the case study organizations, specific ―client groups,‖ and the public.
Training opportunities for board members has been provided in all three RED cases, and
staff training in all six cases. Both RED and watershed management require diverse
knowledge and skills that must be updated on a continual basis due to turnover in staff
and volunteers, new lessons learned, changing legislation and other circumstances.
Among the watershed organizations, those in the Bras d‘Or watershed have placed the
greatest emphasis on formal training and education, including scholarships and
299
curriculum development for post-secondary education in a range of related fields.
Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR/NS-W) and its partners have mentored
the next generation of leaders, particularly in First Nations communities. To a lesser
extent this is also true of BC-W. NL-W staff members have had specific skills training
and BC-W staff participate in periodic workshops, but actors from these groups and
others emphasize the importance of ―learning by doing.‖ Results suggest that through
practice collaborative governance skills can be developed.
Gaps in knowledge and skills required for collaborative governance within
government agencies have also been identified. In general, respondents feel that
government representatives have a poor understanding of community realities, including
local priorities and decision-making processes. Programs such as cross-cultural training
for scientists, courses in organizational behaviour for DFO staff, and in community
development for economic development agencies are examples of initiatives that have
been taken to address these gaps within provincial and federal systems.
At the local level, RED organizations have targeted businesses and community
groups for specific training and education programs. NL-E initiated programs in adult
literacy, for example, in response to low levels of education in the region (Chapter 5). All
six cases include youth mentoring and/or education and public education efforts. Through
initiatives such as workshops, articles in local newspapers, and newsletters RED
organizations have sought to build awareness of economic development programs and
alternatives and watershed management groups to increase awareness of human-
ecosystem interactions and stewardship opportunities. Watershed management groups
have also used school programs as a vehicle for public education but argue that resources
to support education initiatives are lacking. Opportunities exist for greater collaboration
with local schools and community colleges, thus incorporating these actors into the
collaborative governance system.
9.2.3.ii Managing information and knowledge as a resource

The information demands of adaptive, collaborative governance are extensive, requiring
ongoing information inputs and an ability to filter an increasing volume of information
for its relevance, reliability and importance, then to adjust understanding, plans and
300
behaviours accordingly. Information becomes particularly useful and is transformed into
knowledge when it is combined with the critical abilities, experiences and worldviews of
those who use information (Chapter 3, section 3.4), reinforcing the importance of
individual capacity building efforts.
Two important aspects of information management are: 1) identifying gaps in
information that hinder planning and decision-making and, 2) developing systems for
collecting, storing, inventorying and making relevant information available to network
actors. Each case provides examples where information needs were identified and
partnerships formed to fill these gaps. With an extensive research agenda, the Bras D‘Or
watershed is most advanced in this regard, supported by an inventory of information
related to past and current watershed conditions. BC-W has also created a ―watershed
profile,‖ focused on ecosystem conditions, while NL-E and NS-E have completed
economic profiles of their regions. NS-E updates its ―regional business case‖ regularly as
a tool for business and investment attraction.
As a central repository for regional information these case study organizations
compile information in multiple formats. Local and traditional knowledge narratives are
increasingly coupled with information technology such as satellite imagery, Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) and database programs. Both NS-W and BC-W cases have
employed GIS to capture information while all three watershed management
organizations and BC-E have compiled physical libraries. Computerized mapping and
databases are not referred to by RED organizations or NL-W as information management
tools, indicating potential for development in this area.
Respondents stress the importance of information dissemination in knowledge
management, explaining for example that mapping products will ―sit on a shelf unless the
community knows the information is available.‖ Word-of-mouth and network contacts
are important communications avenues. All cases but BC-W provide information to their
respective policy communities through websites and newsletters, RED organizations
through annual reports. Creating time and space for dialogue is essential for collaborative
knowledge sharing and generation. Community meetings (often annual), workshops, and
conferences also provide important avenues for two-way communications.
301
Extending organizational to societal learning requires a widening of the actor
network to include the general public. Bras D‘Or actors have devoted the greatest
attention to communicating with the public. Both NS-E and NS-W (UINR) have
communications plans and/or dedicated communications staff. BC-E has experimented
with a range of methods for reaching widely dispersed residents, including economic
development lunches, local media, satellite offices and open houses. In NL, lack of
information going to the public has been a fundamental weakness in the REDB process,
resulting in low public awareness, misperceptions and negative public opinion (Baird
2001). Budgets, bylaws and evaluation criteria related to communications can help ensure
adequate attention to this important but often neglected function of the governance
process.
9.2.3.iii Incorporating multiple sources and types of knowledge

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

science58 knowledge knowledge practitioner
NL-E
NS-E
BC-E
NL-W
NS-W
BC-W
= clear evidence of ongoing incorporation in governance processes
= some evidence/use of this knowledge system
Figure 25 Knowledge systems incorporated
58
Including natural, social sciences and humanities.
302
All three watershed cases have engaged in natural sciences research, NS-W and NL-
W cases also hosting social science studies related to coastal planning (NS-W), resident
attitudes and value systems (NL-W). Economic development agencies have worked with
academic, government and private sector partners on industry research and development
initiatives. In all cases, post-secondary institutions play important roles in knowledge and
learning systems not only as educators but also as research partners.
Integrating traditional with conventional scientific knowledge has been a major
focus in the Bras d‘Or watershed, including mapping programs, cross-cultural workshops,
talking circles, involvement of the Unama‘ki Council of Elders, the adoption of a ―two-
eyed seeing‖ approach and medicine wheel planning framework. The availability and
willingness to share traditional Aboriginal knowledge varies from Nation to Nation. One
Mi‘kmaw respondent explains, ―each Band has their own mandate of incorporation of
traditional knowledge…‖
The case studies illustrate that each knowledge system contributes unique
strengths and helps to offset the weaknesses of others. Examples drawn from case studies
experiences are provided in Table 41. Consistent with collaborative governance more
generally, many challenges exist to incorporating multiple forms of knowledge into
governance processes. The most significant of these is garnering mutual respect and
recognition of the contributions each can make, whether among local residents
unconvinced of the need for scientific knowledge and ―all this technical stuff coming
from outside,‖ or among scientists thinking they are ―a little too educated for us (local
actors) to be involved‖ and who ―only believe in their science.‖ The potential for reduced
knowledge quality and flow due to self-interest is a concern raised about local interests,
such as resource harvesters, scientific researchers and policy practitioners. The reliability
and motives behind all knowledge sources warrant open, respectful discussion in
collaborative inquiry.
Despite the challenges outlined above, respondents report that willingness to
recognize and share different forms of knowledge is increasing. One federal scientist
303
Table 41 Comparison of knowledge forms59
Benefits/Strengths Challenges/Limitations
Local knowledge - results in plans that reflect views, - lacks acceptance, credibility
values and aspirations of the with external actors (―anecdotal‖)
regional population - systems of peer review/
- can identify the need for further differentiating between sources
monitoring and study poorly understood
- tends to be more holistic - tends to decrease for species
- often able to provide information less commonly encountered/ used
quickly when time sensitive issues - desire for administrative ease
arise and cost efficiency often takes
- can provide information on local precedence over effective
systems where science is not consultation and gathering local
available (e.g. pollution sources) knowledge
- lack of public interest/
participation
Traditional - provides benefit of multi- - vulnerable to loss of elders,
knowledge generational memory changing lifestyles, decline or
- based on ―learning by doing‖ loss of access to traditional
accumulated over long time scales territories and resources
in specific systems
- provides a benchmark for
restoration
- incorporates values, respect and
spirituality, transmitted though
culture and nature
Policy practitioner - provides information on programs - cutbacks and efficiency focus
and resources, what policy changes have hindered knowledge flow
are feasible, how best to advocate - lost knowledge due to staff
for change turnover
―Western‖ science - depth of specialized expertise - narrow/specialized
- credibility with policy-makers, - long time periods required for
supported by peer review system study/research of immediate
problems
explains, ―government agencies are more open to the value of traditional knowledge
now.‖ BC-W representatives explain that the knowledge and commitment of Gwa‘ni staff
and management are respected more now than in the past, in part due to increased First
Nations structural power. Each of the case studies illustrates mechanisms for creating
knowledge flows across sectors and scales, including scholarships, exchanges,
collaborative science and coastal mapping projects. One senior DFO official recalls ―there
were meetings in the evening, in the homes of people.... getting their knowledge onto
these maps, which are wonderful tools,‖ one of many options for creating collective
59
See page 82 for definitions.
304
opportunities to better understand CASES. Actors representing each case study initiative
also participate in larger-scale knowledge networks such as provincial associations and
national conferences. Overall, however, knowledge sharing beyond the provincial scale
and federal participants is limited.
9.2.3.iv Improvement oriented and social learning evaluation approaches

All cases employ more than one form of evaluation, including judgement and
improvement-oriented, formal and informal, single and double loop learning. In most
cases social learning related to goals, values and ‗mental maps‘ has not been a major
focus of evaluation and has taken place through dialogue outside of formal evaluation
processes. Feedback regarding local values is most frequently shared through annual
public meetings, Board member elections and informal discussion between residents and
organizational representatives. Bras D‘Or watershed actors have tackled questions of
goals and values most directly, in consultation meetings and internal reviews. Both NS-E
and BC-E respondents report increasing recognition of ―the importance of holistic
development,‖ indicating consideration of goals and values. However, NL-W, BC-W and
NL-E cases demonstrate resistance to open discussion of, and thus learning about,
underlying goals, values and assumptions in formal evaluation and planning processes.
While case study results support Howlett and Ramesh‘s (1995) suggestion that
social learning is most likely in situations with high levels of organizational capacity and
societal actor influence, they differ from their suggestion that reliance on formal
evaluation reflects low levels of capacity and expertise. With the exception of NL-W and
BC-E, considerable and often increasing emphasis has been placed on formal evaluation.
Substantial organizational capacity has been required to develop and undertake formal
monitoring and evaluation programs.
Evaluations in NL-E and NS-E cases are seen as primarily judgement oriented.
―It‘s all to do with results and the accountability framework,‖ explains one respondent. In
an era of results-based management, agencies must link spending, activities and outputs
with outcomes (Canada 2005a). ―At the end of the day you‘ve got to be able to see some
impact,‖ explains one official. Actors at all levels want to see progress, variously defined,
from their investments of time and resources. Results suggest inconsistent approaches at
305
the federal level, with less reliance on formal, judgment-oriented evaluation in the CFDC
Mount Waddington case (consistent with greater levels of autonomy and federal support).
In part due to lack of secure government funding commitments, watershed management
organizations have also avoided the level of scrutiny experienced by NL-E and NS-E,
although British Columbia‘s funding agencies increasingly demand monitoring and
evaluation programs. Monitoring fish populations is a critical step in gauging the
effectiveness of watershed management efforts. BC-W actors view formal monitoring and
evaluation as integral components of their adaptive management approach.
A perceived focus on judgement has limited the willingness of some actors to
participate fully in evaluation processes and in implementing recommendations. While
judgements regarding the use of limited resources are needed, emphasis on judgment
without collaboration, including discussion of methods and results, creates mistrust, fear
and lost improvement and social learning potential. Despite this judgement-oriented
focus, for NS-E, NL-E, NS-W and BC-W, formal evaluation has provided an opportunity
for a range of actors to discuss their expectations, assess the effectiveness of strategies
employed, express concerns and make suggestions for improvement. Indications that
funding partners are turning their emphasis to more improvement-oriented approaches in
NL-E and NS-E cases offer promise for improved relationships and evaluation results.
One federal respondent acknowledges, ―we‘re not too good ourselves at measuring our
own success.‖
Current evaluation methods focus primarily on a single level, agency or initiative
rather than interactions and collective lessons and outcomes. Results suggest that
multilevel and cross-scale assessment efforts better reflect the realities of CASES and
collaborative governance. As one respondent explains ―your own progress is determined
not only by your own efforts...‖ Monitoring and evaluation must include assessment of
multiple levels or sub-systems of governance, as well as changes in the system(s)-to-be-
governed and interactions among these systems. RED outcomes are, for example, not
only a function of NL-E efforts but also those of other actors in the RED governance
system as well other interacting systems (as in the economic impact of ecosystem changes
such as reduced cod stocks or changes in other Canadian economies that draw young,
skilled workers from the Kittiwake region). Examples of steps taken toward multi-level
306
assessment include efforts to monitor species, community and regional/watershed-level
impacts of governance initiatives, recognition by Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
(ACOA) of their role in REDB evaluation results and BC-W‘s efforts to better understand
international factors in Nimpkish fish stock declines.
With the exception of nascent approaches in Bras D‘Or (NS-W), monitoring and
evaluation frameworks include a narrow range of sustainability outcomes, indicating a
lack of commitment to a truly integrated, multi-objective approach. Bras d‘Or monitoring
programs include a more extensive suite of ecological indicators than in the BC-W and
NL-W cases. Monitoring and evaluation are made more challenging in the Bras d‘Or due
to the network‘s holistic, sustainable development mandate. Watershed efforts in the Bras
d‘Or are looked upon as a model for relationship building and the pursuit of community
sustainability. Evaluation methods in these areas are, however, poorly developed.
Network members are working to clarify their objectives and expectations and develop
appropriate sustainability-based performance indicators, asking questions such as how do
you measure goodwill or take into account the time that policy or relationship
development takes? Indicators related to communications, relationship and capacity
building are needed; along with attempts to track relationships between first order and
higher order sustainable development outcomes.
Evaluation is undertaken both independently by individual actors and
collaboratively, resulting in multiple evaluations in most cases. The benefits from these
multiple perspectives are maximized when results are shared, discussed and translated
into learning and adaptation. Collaborative evaluation, as in the Strait Highlands model,
allows for greater consensus and clarity on desired outcomes and spreads learning
throughout the governance network. For evaluation to be truly collaborative requires
increased transparency, making the process open to review by peers, clients and the
public (the full policy community). This provides checks and balances on authority and
holds participants mutually accountable. In all cases, room remains for ―opening up‖ the
monitoring and evaluation process. Timely feedback on progress is needed. Waiting
nearly ten years to engage in meaningful evaluation increased the vulnerability of the
REDB model to collapse, a risk faced in the Bras d‘Or as NS-W participants work
towards establishing a comprehensive set of progress indicators.
307
9.2.3.v Lesson drawing: learning from cycles of disturbance and reorganization
Lesson drawing implies organizational learning from practice and ―reflection-in-action,‖

typically through informal processes of review and evaluation. Bras d‘Or, Strait
Highlands and, by 2006, Kittiwake cases each suggest evidence of lesson drawing from
the adaptive cycles discussed above. NS-E and NL-E have implemented communications
changes to improve stakeholder relations (Chapter 8). In the Bras d‘Or (NS-W),
Mi‘kmaw strategies of asserting leadership and Aboriginal rights, focusing on
strengthened federal relations, citizen efforts such as the Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society,
and gradual development of new partnership arrangements, are purposeful strategies for
avoiding a repeat of mid-1990s difficulties.
The Indian Bay watershed (NL-W) case shows that lesson drawing is inconsistent
without a concerted effort to recognize and analyze sources of breakdown such as
conflict. After learning that local residents prioritize social/recreational over economic
values and were resistant to commercial recreational fishing development, NL-W actors
turned to research and education as a revenue generation strategy. However, when local
dissatisfaction related to the impacts of fyke netting (a fisheries inventory and research
method) led to the election of a new NL-W board of directors, there is little evidence that
research partners or NL-W management learned from the experience. The event caused a
partial breakdown in community-university partnerships. Research efforts were renewed
due to the education and involvement of new board members, but without changes to
communications strategies the organization remains vulnerable to similar conflicts in the
future. Without an active approach to learning and a willingness to look critically at
current ideas and practices, opportunities for improvement are lost.
Overall, monitoring and evaluation are limited in scope and scale, whether formal or
informal, but improving. RDAs in Nova Scotia are refining techniques to track the
outcomes of common but difficult-to-measure activities such as planning, training and
facilitation. Thermal marking offers promise for monitoring migratory Nimpkish salmon
stocks. Bras d‘Or actors are pioneering methods for incorporating learning regarding
goals and values into planning processes. The potential for monitoring and evaluation to
contribute to adaptation and, ultimately, the survival of collaborative governance systems
308
calls for continued investment in this important aspect of the governance process.
Monitoring, evaluation and lesson-drawing will only enhance system resilience and
sustainability if new knowledge leads to improved goals and behaviours, often facilitated
through planning processes.
9.2.3.vi Planning for sustainable futures
Planning is the most commonly cited governance mechanism used in the case studies. It
is described as a critical tool for establishing goals, priorities and guidelines for future
action. Ideally plans are informed by the best available knowledge of lessons from the
past, current conditions and anticipated futures. Ideally they are inclusive, effectively
communicated and broadly supported. Each of the case studies models varies
considerably when compared to this ideal.
Each of the case study initiatives is involved in multiple planning processes (see
Appendix 5). Five of the six case study organizations (all but NL-W) develop annual
work plans. SCI (Bras d‘Or), NL-W, BC-W and NL-E have also developed longer-term
business or activity plans. First Nations-led planning processes in the Bras D‘Or and
Nimpkish watersheds are looking generations ahead, and drawing from traditional
knowledge of the past. Respondents in all cases emphasize that effective plans are ―living
documents‖ that must be revisited and incorporate new information and learning on an
ongoing basis. Annual work planning processes provide an important opportunity for
regular reflection and review, and for translating long-term objectives into short-term,
strategic actions.
In evaluating the various case study plans through a sustainable development
paradigm, it is evident that most are limited in scope. Case study actors acknowledge the
value of incorporating multiple issues, objectives, actors and scales in planning, but
suggest this is difficult to accomplish in practice. In particular, they describe the
integration of sustainability imperatives as a ―difficult but necessary‖ goal. Determining
the appropriate level of integration is a significant planning challenge, raising related
questions of purpose, values and capacity. Four of the six case studies (NL-E, NL-W, NS-
E and NS-W) explicitly include sustainable development imperatives within their
mandate and goal statements, although NL-E respondents point out that they have since
309
been advised, primarily by government funding agencies, to focus on economic outcomes
(Chapter 6).
All case studies are involved in some form of land use and/or coastal planning.
While forest harvest planning focuses on industry objectives, land use planning in BC and
in Indian Bay has allowed for discussion of a broader range of values. Territorial planning
has provided the most effective avenue to date for balancing a broad suite of
sustainability objectives. The absence of integrated land use plans is a barrier to
sustainable development in Bras d‘Or watershed and throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador (NL 1994; 1999; Newfoundland and Labrador Round Table on the Environment
and the Economy 1995). The developing planning model in the Bras d‘Or watershed (NS-
W), Central Coast Land and Resource Use and ‗Namgis territorial planning are the best
examples of integrating multiple objectives and scales in planning within the case study
regions (Figure 26).
NL-W, NS-W
(NS-E, BC-W, NL-E, BC-E) Planning beyond the regional scale
- BC- Land and Resource Use

planning, ‗Namgis territorial Integrated regional
planning sustainability plans
- NS-W - future?
Issue/sector specific
NL-E, NS-E, BC-E,
regional plans
NL-W, NS-W, BC-W
Business or
NL-E, NS-E, BC-E, NS-W
work plans
NL-E, NS-E, BC-E, NL-W, Project, community or sub-watershed plans

NS-W, BC-W
Figure 26 Nested planning processes

Note: Cases in italics are planning at this level to a limited extent only
310
As examples of expanding discretionary reach, Indian Bay and Bras d‘Or
watershed organizations have participated in planning processes at scales beyond their
regions that have local impacts, NL-W in provincial trout and salmon management
planning for example. The nested approach to Bras d‘Or Integrated Management (IM)
planning envisioned includes a series of connected sub-watershed and issue-specific plans
as well as participation in broader processes such as Eastern Scotian Shelf IM and
national ballast water policy development. Despite the promise of this approach, other
elements of a comprehensive sustainability plan have yet to be connected to the Bras d‘Or
process, including forestry, residential and economic development planning. NS-W actors
are working toward comprehensive sustainability planning, however the process is in its
early stages and the scope of issues to be addressed still being discussed.
Limited capacity (skills and resources) is a resistor to the ideal of integrated
planning. Integration has increased over time, as learning occurs and capacity is built, in
NS-W, NS-E and NL-W cases, demonstrated by an increasing range and scope of
activities. NL-E and BC-W cases, however, have reduced integration and become more
specialized over time. While recognizing the interconnections within complex social-
ecological systems, case study respondents suggest that it is often necessary to focus on
one or a few priority issues. One respondent explains, ―there‘s so many issues in the Bras
d‘Or… I think it‘s only logical that you start to break them down, either on a watershed or
an issue-based basis.‖
Respondents suggest that many plans are wish lists rather than strategic plans and
do not adequately prioritize objectives and targets. Taking into account their goals and
capacities, case study initiatives have struggled to define their niche within the
governance system, whether functional, geographic or both. Examples include BC-W‘s
decision to focus on fisheries restoration, Pitu‘paq‘s (NS-W) initial focus on addressing
sewage pollution and NL-E‘s focus on economic outcomes, addressing a major
sustainability gap in their region. The nature of collaborative governance can facilitate the
inclusion of multiple sustainability imperatives in planning and decision-making. An
integrated yet strategic approach is possible when multiple dimensions of a specific focus
area are considered.
311
Directed effort is required to monitor related planning processes at other scales or
within other functional areas, seeking opportunities for synergies. For example,
connections between watershed management and economic development case studies are
weak. Overlapping interests and opportunities to assist one another have not been fully
explored. BC-W and BC-E planning processes remain disconnected from forestry and
land use planning, with the exception of linking actors common to multiple planning
networks. Collaborative governance systems must fulfill specialist as well as connecting
or bridging functions, individual actors defining their niche but aware of the
interconnected, overlapping functions of others. Finally, respondents suggest that
participation in planning is key. Bras d‘Or watershed and RED organizations place
increasing emphasis on public participation in planning.
9.2.3.vii Summary
The extent to which each of the four identified key components of a learning, adaptive
governance approach are present within the case studies is illustrated in Figure 27.
Learning and adaptive governance characteristics are present to some degree in all cases,
most evident in Bras d‘Or watershed (NS-W), least in the Kittiwake (NL-E) case within
the period of this study.
Learning has taken place on an individual, organizational and, less frequently, a
system wide basis. Informal ―learning by doing‖ rather than formal, deliberate approaches
are more commonly employed. An analysis of case study responses to periods of
breakdown or potential breakdown suggests that adaptation also occurs due to individual
leadership and other aspects of governance structure, such as changes imposed by
powerful federal actors in BC-E60 and NL-E cases. However, many of the adaptations
made by case study actors have been in response to learning, enhancing governance
system resilience. While the links between capacity building and longer-term outcomes
are not well documented or understood, changes in behaviour and initial outcomes
suggest that social learning, particularly when it is related to goals and values rather than
simply specific knowledge or techniques of governance, may also translate into greater
60
While after the case study period and therefore excluded from the discussion on learning and adaption
above, follow-up evidence suggests that by 2007 organizational change was underway in Mount
Waddington under new leadership that may be linked to lesson-drawing from the 2003-2005 period.
312
resilience in broader social-ecological systems.

1. Individual learning
Formal training and education
Learning by doing/experiential
2.Information and knowledge management systems
Diversity of knowledge
forms/sources
Information management
Communications
3. Evaluation and reflection in action
Lesson drawing (informal)
Improvement-oriented
evaluation
Double-loop social learning
(goals/values reconsidered)
4. Planning for sustainable
futures
Learning and adaptation
Rating system: = no evidence of this characteristic, limited/mixed evidence,

significant evidence/agreement.
Figure 27 Processes of learning and adaptation
Capacity-building has been a primary case study outcome. Yet many skills,
education and learning capability gaps remain. Strategies for formal and informal learning
are required, along with managing information and using evaluation more effectively. A
review of evaluation approaches employed suggests that monitoring and evaluation in
collaborative governance should be ongoing, collaborative, multi-level, improvement-
oriented and include monitoring of first order outcomes such as learning, capacity and
relationship-building. Despite being an important aspect of RED organization mandates,
this is a weak, and in some cases absent, component of current evaluation programs.
Integrated planning also has an important role to play. Many of the components of such a
learning system are already in place, but a more deliberate, consistent approach to
learning and adaptation would likely enhance system resilience and capacity.
313
9.3 Balance and Sustainable CASES
Balance is a defining feature of resilient, sustainable complex adaptive systems. Rather

than either/or dichotomies, complex systems involve a mix of extremes. The balance in
this mix is dynamic and a source of creative tensions. The results of this research
highlight the importance of a continual search for balance in three particular areas:
flexibility, complexity and diversity.
9.3.1 Flexibility and stability
Temporal scale is a critical variable in the case studies examined (see Chapter 8). Both
change and stability play important functions. Actors must attempt to judge the
appropriate mix at any given time of short-term outcomes and flexibility to adapt to new
information and circumstances, and longer-term dimensions of governance systems, such
as memory, persistence, security, relationship-building, values and vision. Efficiency and
responsiveness must be balanced with other aspects of good governance such as
effectiveness and inclusiveness.
Table 40 shows that each of the case studies has characteristics that contribute to
stability and others that facilitate change. Both sets of characteristics have enhanced
governance system resilience. Elections represent a period of vulnerability, but also
opportunity for renewal and reorganization (beyond program name changes). The NL-W
board change came after a long period of stable leadership that did not adequately
recognize community dissatisfaction, for example. An open, democratic election process
allowed reorganization to occur. Monitoring and evaluation have also provided an
opportunity for change, generating improvements that have helped sustain these
initiatives.
Stability is provided by formal structures such as laws and written policies,
culture, individual commitment, personal relationships and the multi-level nature of
collaborative governance networks. The resilience of Unama‘ki Institute (NS-W) during a
period of political change within Eskasoni First Nation, a key UINR partner, illustrates
the stabilizing nature of multi-level governance. Holling and Gunderson (2001) observe
that, in a resilient system, breakdown at lower scales is inhibited by stability at other,
often higher levels, in this case within UINR and the remainder of the governance system.
314
UINR‘s strong leadership, central position within the governance system, extensive
networks and personal relationships enhance its resilience and allowed the organization to
draw from outside resources during a time of change. In each case, diverse leadership and
relationships have enhanced stability.
Persistence and long-term commitment are critical enabling factors, particularly in
watershed management. In RED formal, in some cases legislated, policy support has
provided stability in times of vulnerability. Rigidity and lack of flexibility, however, also
inhibit governance processes. Increasingly, stringent rules and procedures imposed on the
regional scale from higher levels is considered the most significant barrier faced by NL-E.
Where flexibility exists in relationships with agencies considered to be rigid, particularly
Service Canada, it often comes from individual agents willing to interpret higher-level
edicts in creative ways. Balance between stability and flexibility thus also implies a
balance of institutionalized and more informal forms of regulation that rely on individuals
and their relationships.
Collaborative governance boundaries provide an example of the need for both
flexibility and stability. In all cases, regional boundaries have changed over time,
supporting Walker et al.‘s (2006) proposition that transformation, such as the
transformation to new forms of governance, requires changes in scales of the panarchy.
Examples include integrating new or removing previously included communities as in the
BC-E and NS-E cases, partnerships between neighbouring regions, expanding watershed
activities to include marine as well as freshwater components, or a shifting focus from
watershed to island-wide regional boundaries in Cape Breton´s Sustainable Communities
Initiative.
Nevertheless, case study experiences caution against a tendency for boundary
change without dialogue, justification and planning. It is perceived as easier and less
expensive for senior governments to deal with fewer, larger regional groupings of
communities, a trend illustrated in BC coastal planning, NL forestry and in the shift in NL
from the use of twenty RED regions to nine Rural Secretariat regions, with different but
overlapping mandates. Grant Thornton (2003) warns of the dangers of expanded CFDC
areas, stating ―if an attempt were made to reduce the number of CFDCs in Western
Canada, the Program and WD would suffer from a lack of knowledge and capability to
315
meet ‗local needs‘.‖ Increases in scale jeopardize collaborative governance when they are
based on untested assumptions about economies of scale rather than learning, dialogue
and careful consideration of human relationships to place and to one another, including
how old boundaries and structures may interact with new ones. The concept of region has
both flexibility and stability in practice. As new layers of region are added they create
increased rather than reduced complexity. Policy-makers who assume the opposite effect
ignore path dependency and the robustness of pre-existing relationships. These findings
support Walker et al.‘s (2006) contention that managing cross-scale linkages can increase
chances of positive outcomes during re-organization, and indicate that ignoring or
underestimating these linkages jeopardizes new forms of regional organization.
The challenge, then, is to seek forms of stability without rigidity, long-term vision,
commitment and recognition of the past but also openness to change - nested temporal as
well as spatial scales. Implementation and evaluation of short-term strategies, election
cycles and unexpected events such as the loss of a primary actor are examples of
opportunities for change within a longer-term agenda. If long-term goals and the higher-
level structures that support them are resilient, they will be capable of not only sustaining
changes but also of capturing new opportunities, including opportunities for learning and
adaptation.
9.3.2 Complexity and Governability
The discrepancies between governance capacity and outcomes described in Chapter 8,

particularly low outcomes in the NS-W and BC-W cases relative to their capabilities,
suggest that the complexity of the issues and systems being addressed is significant for
collaborative governance results. The focus of the above analysis has been on the six
collaborative governance case studies as governing systems. Coastal zone and
collaborative governance systems are inherently complex (Chapter 3, Jentoft 2007), but
both the governing systems and systems-to-be-governed in these cases have varying
levels of complexity. A detailed comparison of social-ecological system complexity
within the case study regions is beyond the scope of this study. However, an initial
assessment considering social, ecological and social-ecological complexities indicates
that the Bras d‘Or watershed is the most complex, Indian Bay watershed the least.
316
Considering factors such as the number of actors in the policy community, and
economic and cultural diversity, social system complexity is greatest in Cape Breton
cases, followed by the Kittiwake and Mount Waddington regions, Nimpkish, and Indian
Bay watersheds. Indicators such as species and habitat diversity (Chapter 5), suggest that
Indian Bay is the least ecologically diverse and complex of the three watershed regions.
Further analysis is required to adequately compare ecological complexity, but species
diversity indicates greater complexity in the Nimpkish than the Bras d‘Or watershed. The
complexity of the Nimpkish watershed increases significantly when factors influencing
marine survival of salmon are considered. In all three provinces economic regions are
more ecologically complex than the watersheds contained within them. However, RED
case study organizations do not attempt to govern ecosystems. Watershed management
organizations intervene in social and ecological systems and in their interactions. Given
the diverse range of human actors and uses within the Bras d‘Or, interactions between
social and ecological systems are most complex in this system, least diverse and complex
in Indian Bay.
Considering each of these dimensions, both Nimpkish and Bras d‘Or systems can
be considered highly complex. This likely accounts, in part, for low outcomes ratings
compared to Indian Bay. Higher Bras d‘Or watershed management (NS-W) outcomes
compared to BC-W, despite its earlier stage of development, appear to be linked to higher
levels of governance capacity as well as the governability challenges of marine
ecosystems and their role in Nimpkish salmon recovery. Higher outcomes ratings in NL-
W relative to the NL-E case, despite similar levels of overall capacity and initial
sustainability conditions, further suggest that a relatively low level of complexity has
contributed to favourable outcomes and system governability in Indian Bay.
High outcomes ratings, combined with a high level of social complexity in the
Strait- Highlands region, indicate that complexity is not as significant a barrier in social
as in the ecological or social-ecological systems governed in these cases. The positive
results in Cape Breton suggest that social diversity and complexity can be an enabler
when combined with high levels of capacity, supporting Amin and Thrift‘s (1995) notion
of the value of institutional thickness or Putnam‘s (1995, 67) ―dense networks of social
interaction.‖ While cross-cultural relationships represent an important strength in the Bras
317
d‘Or system, they are also a challenge (Chapter 8). Governance systems that include
diverse actors require leadership capabilities that include cultural awareness and the
ability to foster cohesion.
Authors such as Holling and Gunderson (2001) argue that management
institutions must become more complex to adjust to increasingly coupled and complex
nature-society systems. Collaborative governance networks are considered an appropriate
model for addressing complex issues and systems. However, BC-W and NS-W cases show
that these governance networks also struggle with, and even add to, high levels of social-
ecological complexity. Considering the number of actors involved, the diversity of their
interactions (Appendix 4), and the range of scales, objectives and issues being addressed
the Bras d‘Or watershed governing system is considerably more complex than others.
NS-E, NL-W, NL-E, BC-E and BC-W have similar levels of complexity when each of
these aspects are considered equally, NS-E slightly higher due to a larger number of
actors and NL-W due to its wider range of objectives.
BC-W‘s governance system is considerably less complex than the system it
attempts to govern. In part this is because of the Board‘s decision to focus on fisheries
restoration, itself a challenging goal. Further, as of yet, it has not incorporated
international actors that influence a large part of salmon life cycles. Weinstein (2007, p.
9) claims that a narrow focus on fisheries restoration, particularly activities for which
funding is available, has left BC-W with a ―limited focus deciding on the best use of
progressively declining dollars.‖ Lack of mandate diversity has increased BC-W‘s
vulnerability to collapse.
While an increase in governance complexity may be needed in some cases, both
governance and CASES literature caution that there are limits to how much complexity
systems, including governing systems, can sustain. Capacity demands increase along with
the complexity. Increased governance complexity implies more time, data, participation,
and hence cost, as well as potential fragmentation of limited resources and rigidity due to
increasing formality, specialization and actor connectedness. At a certain point,
increasing complexity can result in decreasing gains for added cost or even catastrophic
collapse (Homer-Dixon 2006; Tainter 1988; Jentoft 2007). There is no evidence to
suggest that Bras d‘Or watershed management, the most complex of the governance
318
systems, is on the verge of collapse, but costs are significantly higher than for the other
models. Another consideration is the capacity and willingness of individuals to engage
with complexity. Collaborative governance systems comprise actors with an adversity to
complexity and systems thinking that has led to a long history of reductionist approaches
in science and government (Morgan 2005). A shift to more holistic approaches requires
new capabilities, learning and even cultural change.
Balance is needed, therefore, between complexity and governability, considering
both governance capacity and the complexity of the system(s) to be governed. Ecosystem
and social-ecological complexity has challenged governing systems more than social
complexity within these Canadian coastal regions. The BC-W case raises the question of
whether any amount of investment in governance will restore the Nimpkish salmon,
whether the system is governable or not. Surely the answer is not to throw up our hands
and give up on governing within highly complex systems, but rather to increase our
ability and willingness to engage with complexity. This includes tackling priority issues
while also recognizing the many interconnections associated with these priorities. Bras
d‘Or (NS-W) actors have been more effective in recognizing and managing cross-scale
relationships and expanding their discretionary reach than in the Nimpkish system (BC-
W). This does not imply that the Bras d‘Or polycentric network model should be applied
in the Nimpkish, but rather that opportunities for increasing governance complexity and
capabilities in a context-appropriate way should be explored.
Holling (2001) discusses the need to keep things ―as simple as possible but no
simpler.‖ Similarly, the findings of this study suggest that governance systems in highly
complex systems should be as complex as is feasible given existing resources and
capabilities, but no more complex. Governability has been increased (and complexity
reduced) by removing parts of the systems-to-be governed from governance activities.
Mi‘kmaw organizations have been excluded from Strait-Highlands economic
development initiatives; wildlife management from watershed management in Indian Bay
and Nimpkish watersheds; ecological issues from RED cases. Where these specialization
strategies are employed, people and processes are required that recognize cross-scale
connections within coastal social-ecological systems, and link interrelated and
overlapping policy and governance systems. Although ecosystem management is not part
319
of its mandate, for example, the success of NL-E‘s development efforts is linked to the
management and health of the region‘s fish and forest resources. In 2004/2005 the
province‘s Rural Secretariat was charged with addressing these interconnections, linking
RED with other governance systems that influence sustainability at community and
regional scales.
Setting specific objectives and using indicators to track progress and monitor
system conditions have also assisted in managing system complexity. Sub-regional
meetings and representation, local media and conferences or workshops are used as
methods to facilitate efficient interaction with diverse actors. A common strategy has
been to create centrality within policy networks by creating an organizational structure at
the regional scale that serves as a hub or central node. RED case study organizations are
envisioned as a ―first-stop-shop‖ within their regions and respective policy arenas,
facilitating coordination and order. This hub model has helped secure support from
complexity-averse provincial and federal officials. However, without efforts to recognize,
represent and conserve local diversity, legitimacy and support for these organizations at
individual and local scales is jeopardized. Regional organizations play a critical and
challenging role in seeking complexity-governability balance.
9.3.3 Diversity, Autonomy, and Common Ground
The challenge of balancing complexity and governability is, in part, one of balancing
actor diversity with the common ground needed for collective action. Competition among
diverse, semi-autonomous actors is a key characteristic of a CASES and its self-
organizing behaviour. Walker et al. (2006, 13) suggest that both functional and response
diversity are important. The more different types of actors there are, the more functions
are likely to be performed, as with the wide range of activities within the NS-W case
study, and the presence of local and regional development agencies within RED cases.
The resilience of many Rural Development Associations in NL despite funding cuts, for
example, illustrates that there is an important functional, although overlapping role for
community and sub-regional development actors within the RED system. As complex
systems literature suggests, diverse actors and relationships have provided response
320
alternatives during times of breakdown and renewal, and, thereby, overall system
resilience.
Diversity also creates tension and even conflict. Each actor has her/his/its own
interests. Although they are interdependent and have interests in common that are being
pursued, individuals seek to further their own interests. They are often wary that
collaboration will mean lost autonomy to pursue these interests. First Nations are careful,
for example, to ensure that collaborative planning processes are without prejudice to
Aboriginal rights and title and ongoing treaty negotiations. Federal officials also
emphasize that their participation does not imply either the delegation of their authority or
their willingness to share resources allocated to them for fulfilling their responsibilities.
Some critics argue that organizations have traded their autonomy and ability to serve
local interests for funding and stability. Respondents contend that participants must be
honest and transparent about their interests and motivations, turning Bryant‘s latent into
stated orientations. Considering and seeking synergies between individual as well as
collective roles and interests can help support both independence and interdependence.
Diversity implies difference, including differences in power and perspective.
Despite the ideal of collaborative governance, involving more heterarchical relationships
and degrees of ―power sharing,‖ considerable variation remains in the types and amounts
of power held by individuals and organizations within the case study networks. Actor
diversity comes with debate, competition and power struggles. While these struggles
force continual change, and often improvement, beyond a certain threshold they can
undermine trust and confidence and even cause breakdown, as demonstrated by the
collapse of early collaborative governance attempts in both Nimpkish and Bras d‘Or
watersheds. Walker et al. (2006) similarly observe that partially overlapping mental
models enhance adaptability, but if competing mental models and the actions they suggest
are very different, cooperation or adaptation could be stifled.
RED organizations are continually challenged with reconciling the differing
values and needs of urban and rural, industrial, fishing, forestry, and service-sector based
communities, while promoting regional cooperation. Community divisions are considered
the greatest barrier to collaborative governance in both Strait Highlands (NS-E) and
Mount Waddington (BC-E) regions (Chapter 8). Respondents in both cases emphasize the
321
divisions between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities, a social capital deficit
BC-E has recently sought to address. In contrast, with relatively low levels of social
diversity, conflict and difference are not cited as a significant barrier in the NL cases.
Divisions also exist within government agencies. These divisions have helped to protect
the case studies from collapse despite opposition (enhancing resilience) in some cases,
while also hindering expanded support for collaborative governance (inhibiting
adaptation) in others.
The case study results suggest that ―common ground‖ is important to healthy,
productive relationships. Recognition that actors have a mutual interest that may be best
addressed by working in collaboration is a first step in bringing people into the process.
Grant Thornton (2003) explains how CFDCs have benefited from an alignment of the
strategic directions and intended outcomes of the CFDC program with those of WD and a
number of federal government priorities. Ambers (2000) explains of the BC-W that
―relationships have been strained… but that is put aside when it comes to talking about
how we can fix some of the damage that has occurred‖ to Nimpkish salmon stocks and
their habitats, a common goal of all parties.
Shared goals, understanding, principles and, ultimately, values build a foundation
for collaboration and a reason for being as a collaborative network or structure. As
Walker et al. (2006) suggest, differences in mental models can enhance adaptation but
common elements or areas of overlap are needed that allow for a convergence of
viewpoints and purpose despite competing desires. Efforts to better understand each
other‘s perspectives and seek these areas of overlap have been required in each case.
Within the broader policy community, respondents suggest that citizens have a poor
understanding of how governments operate and the constraints they face. Likewise,
government representatives often have a poor understanding of community problems,
processes and values. These gaps in understanding create challenges in communication
and collaboration within governance networks. NS-W and BC-W respondents also
emphasize the need for greater cross-cultural understanding, including respect and
appreciation for difference.
Respondents highlight the important role of communication and, in particular,
dialogue and relationship-building over time for increasing mutual understanding. Tota
322
(2002) notes that because dialogue is relatively risk-free, it is a good starting point for
interaction and building trust: ―The more you understand the other world, the challenges,
the difficulties, the world that person has to deal with...At the end of those discussions
you come out of it having built the kind of trust that you need to move forward.‖ Such
discussions often include agreement on appropriate terminology. In the Bras d‘Or, for
example, the term governance has negative connotations for provincial, federal and First
Nations participants, variously implying top-down or bottom-up approaches. For some
the term is associated with an unpopular and prescriptive proposed (now failed) First
Nations Governance Act (Bill C-7). For others, particularly provincial and federal
government respondents, it is a reminder of failed past attempts by local actors to
establish watershed co-management and associated ill-will. As a result terms such as
collaborative planning collaborative planning, collective, integrative or integrated
management are used instead. While language is important, finding common ground also
required discussion of similarities and differences in principles, goals and values.
Mixed evidence, including opinions and awareness among interview respondents,
related to principles of sustainable development, collaboration and good governance
suggest that greater attention is need to developing and shared principles and putting
these principles into action within case study networks. Although respondents at all levels
report an increasing interest in collaborative, integrated approaches, agreement and
―compliance‖ with generally accepted principles of collaboration, sustainable
development
and good
Principles - Overall
governance is
mixed and Sustainability Principles BC-W
NS-W
relatively low
Collaboration Principles NL-W
overall (see
BC-E
Figure 29). Governance Principles NS-E
Refer to NL-E
Appendix 3 for Outcomes Rating
supporting data
0 5 10 15 20
and details on Figure 28 "Compliance" with collaborative governance principles
323
how the indices reflected in Figure 28 were derived.
Of these three sets of principles those linked to sustainability are most prominent
in case study results. Four of the six case studies explicitly include sustainable
development imperatives within their stated mandate and goals. All six cases incorporate
sustainable development in aspects of their work. NRMB respondents value the
employment and cultural outcomes of their work, for example, but have not explicitly
incorporated these objectives in planning. Although their priorities and values may differ,
many actors at the local and regional scale have an intrinsic understanding of the
connections among social, cultural, economic and ecological well-being. While they may
be incorporated in practice, sustainable development objectives and targets are often
unwritten and unmonitored, particularly where support for a holistic approach falls
outside of government and other funding partner guidelines. Sustainability outcomes,
therefore, are largely inconsistent and poorly documented, despite a federal policy that
both intended and unintended impacts should be assessed (Canada 2008a).
NS and BC regional economic development cases (NE-E and BC-E) exhibit the
highest degree of compliance with the principles of good governance outlined in Chapter
4, followed by NS-W, BC-W, NL-W and NL-E respectively. With respect to governance
principles, respondents vary in their emphasis on some principles but share a common
concern for inclusion and stakeholder participation (to a lesser extent among BC-W
respondents). Respondents in all cases except NL-E place greater emphasis on flexibility
and adaptation than accountability, while credibility and legitimacy are stressed by a
higher percentage (22%) of NL-W respondents than other cases. Recognition of
Aboriginal rights and title was discussed by more than 10% of respondents in only NS-W
(41%) and BC-W (50%) cases.
Discussion and observance of principles of collaboration is lower overall than other
principle sets. Official goals, mandates and statements of operating principles rarely move
beyond a general commitment to involvement, partnership and/or collaboration only in
NS-W, BC-E and NL-E cases. Collaboration principles most frequently cited by
respondents include: mutual interests and understanding, trust and respect, long term
commitment, mutual benefits, and power sharing. Recognition of principles for effective
collaboration has not necessarily translated into strong network relationships.
324
Considering evidence of collaboration principles in action, recognition by respondents
and in official mission, mandate and planning documents BC-E and NS-W cases
demonstrate the highest levels of apparent commitment to collaboration. While this
corresponds with high relational capacity and relatively strong relationship in the NS-W
case this is not the case for BC-E. Other factors such as relatively low leadership
capacity and remoteness inhibit relationship development despite apparent commitment
to collaboration.
Conflicts at the deeper level of values also inhibit collaboration. Values are a lens
through which we interpret knowledge, prioritize issues and establish goals and guiding
principles (McLaren et al. 2008). Bossel‘s final basic orientor for systems that include
―sentient beings‖ is psychological needs, linked to mental maps, or sense-making, values
and cultural norms. Bosel maintains that values are ―basic system requirements emerging
from a system‘s interaction with its environment‖ (Bossel 1999, 37). Values may be
adapted over time based on learning and interactions with other actors, including the
environment. Meaningful, long-term relationships and social learning require
understanding of values and why other actors in a governance network make the
judgments and pursue the goals they do, and ultimately changes in values that are not
aligned with long-term system interests. Without commonality and room for learning and
adaptation at this level, trust is limited and collaborative governance relationships
vulnerable. BC-W has experienced ongoing tensions, for example, because, while the
actors involved share the goal of restoration, their underlying motives differ. BC-E
respondents and official documentation make clear commitments to open participation
and collaboration but respondents report that differing values within the region (including
varying levels of commitment to environmental conservation) continue to weaken
relationships and relational capacity.
Attachment to place and importance of community are values that drive many
local-level actors and can lead to conflicts with higher-level officials that emphasize
principles such as economic viability, accountability and efficiency. One senior provincial
employee in NL predicts, for example, that less than one-third of current communities
will be capable of offering employment for their residents in the future. Greater
agreement exists when it comes to the goal of sustaining the ―regional community,‖ but
325
even at this scale conflicts remain related to principles of adjacency, rights to resources
and reinvestment of resource wealth in rural regions. Further, this research suggests that
sustainable regions depend upon and contribute to (rather than replace) diverse,
sustainable communities.
For a deeper level of social learning and a significant shift towards more
sustainable development to occur, dialogue about these sometimes conflicting values
must become part of the process of seeking common ground among network actors. This
has proven difficult in all the cases examined. In some, powerful actors impose their
values in exchange for satisfying other system requirements, particularly financial
resources. Less powerful actors may then pursue their own values, or psychological
needs, in more covert ways. Many find it difficult or uncomfortable to articulate what is
important to them. Others may be wary about highlighting significant values differences.
The case studies suggest that a period of building relationships, trust, and conflict
resolution capabilities is often required before open discussion can fruitfully occur.
One senior provincial official observes that ―the more you find a way to… to go
beyond consultation, toward collaboration… the more it‘s going to be deeply rooted in
community, and home.‖ Mi‘kmaw respondents explain that values such as respect for
ecosystems and all living things, sharing and interconnectedness are part of a traditional
knowledge system developed through millennia of relations between people and place.
Mik‘maq participants bring such values explicitly to Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed
management, facilitating social learning within the network. As a planning framework for
the Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative, the medicine wheel symbolizes
spirituality, cyclical patterns, temporal scale, balance and interconnections between
people and the environment they are part of (Paul 2004). The high level of collaboration
and attention to ecological protection and restoration in the Bras d‘Or watershed is
credited, in part, to Unama‘ki Mi‘kmaw culture and its emphasis on principles of holism,
conservation and cooperation. MacNeil (2003) describes the Bras d‘Or process as
―building a culture of collaboration‖.
Respondents contrast government agencies, major businesses and communities
according to their predominant principles and values, creating distinct cultures that
influence their participation and relationships in collaborative governance. The need for
326
autonomy implies that not all values will be held in common, but for a shift to
collaborative, sustainable development to occur a set of collective values will have to
recognize the importance of sustainability, adaptation, diversity and collaboration.
Theories of dependency, staples development and real regulation emphasize the challenge
of growing support for this set of values in a system long dominated by patterns of
relationships that foster inequity and exploitation. Regulation and complexity theories
emphasize the role of crisis in significant system change. Walker et al. (2006) point out
that changes to prevailing mental models are unlikely until large-scale changes are
perceived as crises.
For many, particularly coastal residents dependent on now depleted natural
resources, a crisis point has been reached. One federal official argues that the 1992
closure of commercial cod and salmon fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)
―was a major turnaround in conservationism.‖ A NL-E representative explains of the
formation of the regional economic development boards (REDBs): ―I think the
government recognized that something had to be done or rural Newfoundland was
certainly going to die...‖ NL respondents describe a ―culture of exploitation‖ in the
province and in their regions, but believe that this culture is slowly changing to one more
conscious of ecological limits and the need for conservation. A similar change is
described on northern Vancouver Island, collaborative governance case studies being
credited for contributing to this shift in both cases.
Despite the stated recognition of the need for change by the majority of
respondents, others in each case study network believe that old ideals can be sustained.
While changing, economic imperatives remain dominant and ―economic development and
conservation are still seen as mutually exclusive.‖ Case study evidence suggests a lack of
provincial and federal support for integrated development approaches in British Columbia
(BC) and NL. Provincial commitment to sustainable development is weak in BC, mixed
in NL and strongest in NS, despite forest management concerns. Federally, Western
Diversification is increasingly supportive of sustainable development approaches, but NL
and NS representatives suggest that this is not the case within the equivalent agency in the
Atlantic (ACOA). Measures such as amendments to Canada‘s Auditor General Act
(1995) that require sustainable development reporting and the Oceans Act (1997) support
327
sustainable development within the federal system, but commitment and linkages across
policy sub-systems remain mixed in all cases and weak overall.
A more significant, although still uneven shift can be seen in the trend toward
multi-level collaboration in governance (Chapter 8). Overall, respondents feel that a
culture shift is slowly taking place in parts of government and in their regions. This
values adaptation is a response to current realities such as limited resources, recognition
of Aboriginal rights and title and increasing complexity, but also learning and
adjustments made in response to past experiences of resource depletion and dependency
and the inability of current systems to avoid this resource exploitation cycle. Not fully
accepted, these evolving orientations often remain latent rather than explicit. As a result
they are not always shared (or tested to see if they are shared) across collaborative
governance networks and the opportunities for learning are not maximized. Strategic
planning exercises and other collaborative governance processes provide an opportunity
to identify, explore and even learn shared goals and values, particularly when they are
explicitly addressed. In some cases, particularly the Bras d‘Or (NS-W), leaders with
strong values and vision have instigated this process. In others, debates about values arise
because of characteristics of system structure such as actor diversity or learning and self-
organization processes.
Struggles over power are, in part, struggles
of competing values and ideology.
While the findings of this
research demonstrate resilience Shared Shared
interest(s) understanding
within new and evolving
collaborative governance systems,
Shared decisions and
old systems and cultures in responsibilities
government also have resilience.

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

Multi-scale
Shared power
Multi-sector
Multi-objective
Learning and adaptation
Overall collaborative
governance
characteristics
Overall capacity
Complexity of system-to-be-
governed
Outcomes
Rating system: = little to no evidence of this characteristic/low rating, limited/mixed
evidence of this characteristic/medium rating, significant evidence/agreement that this
characteristic exists, high rating.
Figure 30 Comparison of case study characteristics and outcomes
close fit with the collaborative governance ideal. Others exhibit a mix of collaborative
and more traditional governance approaches. Figure 30 also suggests a potential link
between the pursuit of collaborative governance and levels of governance capacity. As
329
discussed above, discrepancies exist however between capacity and commitment to
collaborative governance and outcomes, explained at least in part by the complexity of
the systems these networks seek to govern.
9.4 Collaborative Governance as a Complex Adaptive System: Contributions to the

CASES Literature
Critics of complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) perspectives argue that

further empirical support is needed, particularly from social systems, for CASES as an
analytical framework and ongoing theory-building project (Gatrell 2003). This study, along
with other recent works focused on the social elements and governance sub-systems of
social-ecological systems (Gallopin 2006; Olssen et al. 2004; Berkes 2007), contributes
to filling this gap. It also responds to those who question the utility of CASES
approaches. The CASES framework has proven useful as a way of representing the
realities of collaborative governance systems, which are themselves complex, and is
helpful for reflecting on the interactions between these governing systems and the
systems they seek to govern. As a starting point, it draws attention to the issue of
complexity, a significant factor in collaborative governance outcomes, representing both
challenge (as in Nimpkish and Bras d‘Or ecosystems) and opportunity (as in NS-W‘s
social diversity). Developing theories of complexity have aided in considering different
types, components of and changes over time in the complexity of the case study systems.
Multi-directional and multi-scale interactions within multi-layered and overlapping
networks of actors are key characteristics of CASES that appropriately describe the case
study systems. The CASES framework provides a broad view of these cross-scale and
multi-scale governance interactions appropriate for this study‘s exploratory approach. In
turn the study contributes to the CASES literature by providing examples of collaborative
governance systems as CASES and, in general, empirical support for the CASES
framework.
The adaptive renewal cycle is a particularly useful heuristic device for exploring
the role of various actors in, as well responses and adaptations to, system change. Using
the cycle as an analytical tool allowed for comparative analyses across cases and between
findings based on adaptive cycle analysis (Chapter 9) and those generated from
interviews with expert respondents (Chapter 8). The findings from Chapter 8 show, for
330
example, that diverse actors in leadership roles (primary and enablers) and multi-scale
relationships are key variables in collaborative governance systems. These findings are
supported by comparative analysis using the adaptive cycle, suggesting that collaborative
governance systems gain resilience from leadership, multi-level system structure and
relationships.
What the adaptive cycle does not explain is either why cycles differ in different
systems or iterations, or the roles and behaviours of specific actors in these processes of
change. Here Bossel (2001)‘s contributions on essential interests (orientations or
orientors) of systems are significant (Chapter 2), particularly in combination with Bryant
(1999)‘s suggestion that actor orientations may be either latent or stated/explicit (Chapter
4). Where commitments of resources and/or policy support to governance processes are
unstable or when the ability to cope with and in some cases influence change are
otherwise uncertain, three of Bossel‘s six basic orientors are jeopardized: existence,
effectiveness and security. In these cases, as Bossel suggests, case study actors often
devote significant attention to satisfying these system requirements, as in the case of NL-
W‘s ongoing search for financial resources or the efforts of NS-W actors to create a new
collaborative planning and decision-making structure. Centralized control, dependence on
one or a few sources of revenue, and/or challenges to legitimacy also threaten a fourth
orientor: freedom of action. Efforts to satisfy these orientors are a significant element in
power struggles and increased vulnerability of the BC-W, NL-E and NL-W cases, where
significant energy is allocated to the pursuit of resources, particularly access to financial
and natural resources, at the expense of other strategies and outcomes.
The findings of this research further suggest that Bossel‘s sixth orientor -
psychological needs – is a significant resistor to collaboration when the differences in this
actor needs and associated values are too great or not aligned with principles of
cooperation and sustainability. Deeply engrained values and beliefs that are incompatible
with collaborative governance approaches, related power struggles and the importance of
primary actors or leaders, also alluded to by Westley et al. (2001), are key dimensions of
inter and intra-system interactions illuminated in this study that have not received
adequate attention in the CASES literature to date. Bossel‘s orientors offer insight into
behaviour and conflict within and between systems, but do not fully address Massey‘s
331
(1993) call for greater attention to the power geometry of networks, or the important role
of individual actors. The findings of this research highlight and elaborate on these themes.
As an increasing number of social scientists enter this area of research they bring
with them added theoretical insights. Staples, dependency, political economy and
regulation theories contribute to an understanding of the past and current dynamics that
shape adaptive cycles, including a tendency toward unequal distribution of power and
resources and cycles of resource depletion that threaten coastal social-ecological systems
(Chapter 1). In return, CASES research has much to contribute to these fields. The
understanding of learning and adaptation processes gained in this study, for example, can
advance recent regional development concepts such as the learning region, regional
innovation systems, and more broadly new regionalism. Further, this research contradicts
notions that the federal state is no longer a powerful actor or that there is one mode of
regulation in a ―post-Fordist‖ era on Canada‘s coasts. Theoretical insights have helped
uncover themes and patterns below the surface not openly discussed by respondents,
while the perspectives of expert respondents intimately engaged in collaborative
governance provide understanding from ―the messiness of surface‖ that theoretical
research tends to oversimplify or even avoid (White 2006). This study‘s geographical
perspective has also provided a focus on the politics of scale, connections to place and the
increasing importance and challenge of regions as focal scales in the panarchy. Other
CASES authors have discussed the importance of regions, particularly watersheds. This
research provides additional insights from RED and contrast experiences from the related
policy arenas of RED and watershed management.
The findings presented above provide support for Walker et al.‘s (2006) general
propositions regarding change in social-ecological systems and their application to
collaborative governance systems as one form of CASES. The case study experiences
reinforce Walker et al.‘s (2006) proposition, for example, that the absolute and relative
amounts of all forms of capital, including systems of institutions and governance, are
determinants of adaptability. While several key variables have been identified, there is no
single factor to which positive outcomes or adaptation can be attributed. System
conditions, behaviours and outcomes are created by a set of interacting system elements,
characteristics and relationships.
332
As Urry (2003) argues, complexity theory is a vehicle for moving away from
reductionist accounts and binary divides, suggesting instead a continuing search for
balance among apparently competing values and system characteristics. Seeking the right
mix of these characteristics is an ongoing challenge. The multiple, interacting temporal
scales of governance and the need for both appropriate short-term actions and longer-term
planning and perspectives discussed above is an important example. As Westley (2002)
argues, the interactive dynamics of CASES require governance actors to continually make
judgments about ―the right time,‖ for emphasizing certain relationships, issues, system
characteristics or aspects of the governance process.
While supporting much of the emerging consensus within CASES literature, the
cases examined also demonstrate exceptions to some of the general patterns observed and
point to areas where the CASES framework can be further refined. Whereas a tendency
for experimentation at lower, and conservation at higher levels of the panarchy are
observed in the literature, for example, experimentation, conservation, memory and
resistance to change occur at multiple levels within the case studies examined. While
higher levels often provide stability, sudden political and policy change also occurs at
higher levels. Short-term thinking in government challenges collaborative governance in
five of the six cases examined (Figure 8.3) while local actors often provide system
stability, long term perspective and even resistance to change. Further, while the adaptive
cycle as a model of change is criticized for viewing actors and systems as being
externally driven rather than capable of reflection and adaptation based on internal
dynamics, like Gallopin (2006), this study suggests that ‗triggers‘ for adaptation may be
internal, as in the case of leadership, or external.
Ruitenbeek and Cartier (2001) argue that adaptive, co-management is an emergent
strategy within complex systems, not an arrangement that can be legislated top-down, but
one that self-organizes bottom-up. This research suggests that principles, norms and
values associated with collaboration and adaptation, may be learned and evolve or emerge
over time. Collaborative governance strategies can, however, also be put in place by
government agencies, or with the incentive of government investment, within a relatively
short time frame. Under the right conditions, collaborative governance initiatives formed
largely from the top-down (such as Community Futures organizations or Regional
333
Economic Development Boards) can foster sustainable development and gain acceptance
in communities and regions.
Glaser (2006) points to a recent turn in CASES theory that places less emphasis
on competition and more on cooperation, symbiotic ties between parts, and emergent
properties of the whole. Emphasizing the importance of relationships and the promise of
collaborative governance models, this research fits within this recent vein. This in turn
must be accompanied by greater attention to social characteristics and dynamics such as
power, values, learning and other aspects of governance and decision-making such as
planning and evaluation. Yorque et al. (2001, 419) conclude that because of the inherent
complexities involved in seeking sustainable futures ―the most pragmatic approach is one
of learning our way to sustainable futures, rather than planning our way.‖ The findings of
this research suggest that planning is an integral part of learning and adaptation within
governance processes. By involving diverse actors, sharing value and knowledge systems,
and planning for the future, we come to know that there is no one path to sustainability
and that a range of actors, tools and processes is required to better understand and manage
our behaviours and related social-ecological interactions.
In summary, the use of a complex adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES)
conceptual framework in this study has contributed to the understanding of collaborative
governance networks as complex policy systems, and of the relationships between policy
systems and the systems they seek to govern. Holling and Gunderson‘s (2001) adaptive
renewal cycle, together with Bossel‘s (2001) basic system orientors and Walker et al.‘s
(2006) propositions regarding change in social-ecological systems, have proven useful in
analyzing the characteristics that contribute to resilience and adaptation in governance
systems, corroborating and strengthening the results of interview analysis while
highlighting the important role of learning and adaptation and providing an alternative to
reductionist, binary thinking. Limitations of the CASES framework include inadequate
attention to social relationships, including power struggles, and the role of leadership and
individual actors not only in response to but also as drivers of system change. This
research emphasizes the importance of these system dimensions and adds to a growing
body of literature that employs a CASES approach in the study of the social and social-
ecological aspects of social-ecological systems, contributing insights from the social
334
sciences on recurring social and social-ecological relationship patterns that tend towards
unsustainable outcomes such as inequity and resource depletion. Attempts to implement
collaborative, sustainable governance systems are thus understood as operating within
broader governing systems with these structural biases, adding to the understanding
provided by CASES. Finally, by examining collaborative governance from a geographic
perspective the thesis has provided insights into significant issues of scalar complexity,
attachment to place and cross-scale relationships.
335
10 – Conclusion: the Promise and Challenge of Collaborative Governance
Long before Europeans first occupied her shores Canada‘s coasts and their rich natural
resources supported prosperous First Nations, among them the Kwakwaka‘wakw of
Northern Vancouver Island, known for their elaborate culture and social systems, and the
Mi‘kmaq of Unama‘ki. In the late 1400s, explorer John Cabot sighted a ―new found isle,‖
where ―the seas swarmed with fish‖ (Francis et al. 1988, 27). Prolific marine resources
drew fishers, traders, and later settler governments and communities across the Atlantic
and later to the Pacific coast in a period of 17th to 19th century economic and population
growth.
In each of the case study regions examined, this story has turned from one of
resource abundance to depletion and from the establishment of new settlements to rural
communities that are, in many cases, struggling to stabilize and reverse declines in
populations, economies, cultures and ways of life. Times of change such as these can be
either productive periods of adaptation and renewal or can lead to system collapse. An
increasing number of authors, Commissions and reports suggest that these outcomes are
significantly influenced by systems of governance – the way we plan, make decisions and
collectively guide our societies. This thesis explored the potential of collaborative
governance as a strategy for rerouting Canadian coastal development on to a more
sustainable path.
Collaborative governance involves multiple actors engaging in planning and
decision-making processes that consist of formal and informal relationships, power
sharing, vertical, horizontal and temporal integration and ongoing processes of dialogue,
struggle, learning and adaptation in identifying and pursuing collective goals. This study
has examined the emergence of six collaborative governance arrangements in coastal
Canada and assessed their contributions to sustainability, adaptation and resilience at the
scale of the sub-provincial region. In particular, models of collaborative regional
governance that were identified as having a sustainable development approach were
investigated. They included two cases from each of three coastal provinces
(Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and British Columbia): three focused on
watershed management initiatives and three on regional economic development (RED).
The objectives of this study were to better explain the concept of collaborative,
336
multi-level governance and how it has been applied in the pursuit of the complex and
overarching goal of sustainable development in Canada‘s coastal zones. The degree to
which these models have been able to shift the development paths of their respective
regions on to more sustainable trajectories and, finally, possible causal relationships
between case study characteristics and their outcomes were also explored. The
governance structures and processes of each case study were examined within a complex,
adaptive social-ecological systems (CASES) framework. The CASES framework,
described in Chapter 2, is theorized as an appropriate perspective for investigating
complex coastal contexts and sustainability problems. Each case study was then examined
by employing a seven-component research framework. Data were collected through
observation, documentation and 136 formal, semi-structured interviews with a range of
governance case study actors.
The research sought to answer four specific questions:
1. Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable

development in Canada‘s coastal regions? If so, how?
2. What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in
3. What barriers and resistors exist to collaborative governance and advancing
4. How might these barriers/resistors be overcome?
Before summarizing the findings of this research as they relate to each of these
questions, it is important to point out that the six case studies examined varied in the
extent to which they corresponded with the collaborative governance ideal outlined in
Chapters 1 and 3 during the data collection period (2003-2006). All six cases
demonstrated a medium to high level of compatibility with at least two key collaborative
governance characteristics but only two of six (NS-W and NS-E) illustrated a relatively
close fit with all five characteristics outlined in Chapter 1 and above in Figure 30 (see
also Appendix 15). The Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed management case (NS-W) was found
to be the most consistent with these criteria; the Kittiwake Economic Development
Corporation (NL-E) the least. Increased emphasis on learning, adaptation and
337
partnerships since this time in the NL-E case illustrates the dynamic nature of
collaborative governance networks and the time-sensitive nature of such assessments.
It is also worth noting that the term collaborative governance is not universally
accepted in the case study regions, emphasizing the importance of discussion and
agreement on terminology. In Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed, for example, the terms
collaborative planning and integrated management are preferred. For the purposes of this
document the term collaborative governance is used, consistent with the growing body of
literature in this subject area presented in Chapter 3.
10.1 Revisiting the Research Questions
1) Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable development

in Canada‘s coastal regions? In many ways, described in Chapters 6 through 8, they
have. This research did not compare changes occurring in these six regions with others
that do not have collaborative governance systems in place and significant challenges
with monitoring collaborative governance outcomes have been identified. Nevertheless
the evidence presented above demonstrates that the case study networks have enhanced
individual and governance capacity, facilitated the creation of new jobs, businesses,
relationships and cultural revival projects, and invested in reducing pollution and
restoring damaged habitats and fish populations. Have they reversed the decline of rural
communities and ecosystems in their regions? Overall, the answer is no. The research
findings suggest, however, that case study governance systems have stalled the downward
spiral of social-ecological decline, helping to avoid system collapse (at least temporarily)
and providing an opportunity for learning and adaptation. The ―life support‖ being
provided for the Nimpkish salmon by the Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-
W) and ‗Namgis First Nation is a striking example.
Where breakdown has occurred collaborative governance initiatives have aided in
renewal. Examples include the contributions of Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-
W) to stabilization and partial recovery of local trout stocks and economic diversification
assistance provided by regional economic development agencies in regions suffering from
downturns in traditional fishing, forestry and mining industries. The success of these
338
initiatives in meeting their objectives and achieving sustainable development outcomes
has been modest, but the findings of this research suggest that without these efforts the
economies and ecosystems they seek to govern would be more vulnerable to collapse,
their recovery more difficult and uncertain.
The primary achievements demonstrated by these six collaborative governance
case studies have been in creating enhanced governance capacity, including developing
relationships and collaborative knowledge and learning systems. Given that relationship
and capacity limitations are identified as important resistors to collaborative governance
and sustainable development, contributions to governance capacity should not be
underestimated. Yet they are often undervalued and poorly assessed in evaluation
processes focused on long-term objectives and higher order outcomes.
2) What governance and contextual characteristics contribute to success in
collaborative governance for sustainable coastal development? While each case
examined exhibits its own strengths and critical enabling factors, leadership, senior
government support, the ability to finance good governance and to enhance skills and
knowledge have been key determinants in collaborative governance outcomes to date.
Leadership is the most significant enabling factor in the collaborative governance
case studies examined, including both watershed management and RED cases. Leadership
is provided by individuals of two types within collaborative governance networks: those
with primary responsibility for collaborative governance initiatives (described as primary
actors and typically based at a local scale), and supporting individuals (enablers) that
assume the role of champion within their respective governance institutions, mainly
federal and provincial governments. Both play important roles.
Diversity and commitment, often linked to a sense of place, are key characteristics
within a suite of important leadership qualities. Both qualities are identified as sources of
stability and resilience in times of system breakdown (or potential breakdown). In
watershed management cases long-term persistence and commitment by individuals,
backed by community support, has substituted in part for the absence of formal policy
and financial support present in RED cases. Leadership capabilities also support other
forms of governance capacity. Strong management skills coupled with adequate resources
339
increase organizational capacity, for example. The ability of leaders to form social
networks and build trust is an important component of relational capacity.
Each of the case studies
Table 42 Resistors and Enablers: Central themes
examined provide an illustration
1. Leadership
o Primary and supporting of the nested, overlapping
2. Relationships with government hierarchies of collaborative

o Power sharing governance described in the
o Personal/informal and formal
o Flexibility and long-term commitment literature, particularly when a
3. Financial resources holistic, sustainable
o Adequate, diverse
o Reinvestment development perspective is
4. Knowledge and capacity incorporated. Fostering and
o Leadership, relational and organization skills, managing relationships within
knowledge systems, learning and adaptation
and between these hierarchies is
5. Balance
o Appreciating difference while seeking common a critical function within
ground
o Timing/temporal scale collaborative governance
o Complexity, integration and capacity systems. The ability of
6. Nested spatial scales collaborative governance
o Region as a key node, dynamic, local foundation
o Expanded discretionary reach (down and up) network actors to fulfill this
function is described as
7. Principles and values
o Commitment to place relational capacity. Sustained
o Integration/holism (need for and difficulty of)
o Collaboration and good governance
collaborative governance
relationships involve shared
understanding, interests and mutual support along with shared benefits, responsibilities
and costs. Financial contributions increase participant power within collaborative
governance. Shared costs imply dispersed power and greater opportunities for acquiring
the necessary resources to operate effectively. Increased recognition of Aboriginal rights
and title has been important in this regard, providing First Nations with access to natural
resources, and resource revenues. This, in turn, has resulted in First Nations investment,
enhanced participation and increased power in governance processes, particularly in
watershed and natural resources management but also in RED, as illustrated by the British
Columbia case (BC-E).
340
Success in fostering strong relationships, or relational capacity, is varied within
the case study networks. Relational capacity is stronger overall among watershed
management than in RED cases and in Nova Scotia compared to British Columbia case
study regions. In all cases examples of both weak and strong relationships exist.
Collaborative governance involves both informal, personal relationships among
individuals, fostered through processes that allow for dialogue and relationship building,
and formal institutional relationships, shaped by mechanisms such as written policies,
procedures, legislation, budgets, timelines, and agreements. Formal arrangements provide
accountability, stability and clarity within the governance system while informal relations
are often the ―glue‖ between actors and a conduit for communication and collaboration.
In the absence of formal program or policy support for watershed management,
relationships with government are described overall as a resistor rather than an enabler of
collaborative watershed governance. In RED cases, however, these relationships are
conflicted as senior levels of governments act as both an enabler of and a resistor to
collaborative efforts. Canada‘s federalist system provides a history of multi-level
governance but also adds complexity within governance systems. Success in managing
these cross-scale relationships has been mixed.
The notion of balance is a recurring theme in the findings of this study. When
systems become imbalanced, too rigid or unstable, or power relations too unequal for
example, breakdown is likely to occur. Interview respondents describe a continuing
search for balance along multiple governance dimensions – balance in temporal scale,
among differing agendas and perspectives, and between complexity and integration on
one hand and manageable ―systems to be governed‖ on the other. Challenges of
integration and building relationships across policy silos are discussed further below.
Balance in temporal scale has involved efforts to incorporate features such as short-term
action plans, outcomes and responsiveness as well as long-term memory, vision,
commitment and resilience in collaborative governance structures and processes. In part,
this has been achieved by balancing flexible, informal relationships with more rigid
formal relationships and by building opportunities for adaptation into formal and longer-
term governance mechanisms.
341
Sub-provincial regions have also offered a middle ground between large and small
scale, and bottom-up and top-down processes among the multi-layered spatial scales of
collaborative governance within the case study governance networks. In each of these
cases the sub-provincial region is a boundary-spanning, or bridging scale between
community and provincial and federal levels within collaborative governance systems.
Regional governance institutions and processes serve as important nodes in multi-level
governance networks. Regions are made up of groupings of prior conceptualizations of
place. They vary in geographic and population size, findings illustrating that new scales
of governance, often referred to as regions, arise due to new circumstances and newly
identified spatial niches. Regional boundaries that are flexible are an enabler of successful
collaborative governance. Appropriate region-size is issue, place-specific and dynamic
where boundaries are reviewed and permitted to shift over time.
While regional boundaries tend to change over time, the findings confirm
sustainable communities are the foundation of sustainable regions. Communities belong
to multiple regions, including economic and watershed regions. While communities
themselves also change, they provide stability in sense-of-place, leadership, commitment
and local legitimacy within shifting regional spaces. Long-term relationships with place
are an integral part of Aboriginal but also non-Aboriginal coastal cultures within the case
study regions that provide resilience in collaborative governance systems and in the
broader social-ecological systems they are part of. Resilient complex systems, including
collaborative governance systems, have both fluidity and stability. There is a need for
new spaces of relations and for places associated with generations of human-ecosystem
interactions within collaborative governance, and for actors that associate themselves
with both.
3) What barriers and resistors exist to collaborative governance and advancing
sustainable development through this governance approach? The case studies examined
are held up as successful examples of collaborative governance across the country, yet
they face many challenges in advancing sustainable development. Research results related
to resistors and barriers again emphasize the importance of relationships, particularly
relationships between local actors and provincial and federal governments, and managing
conflict, differing agendas and perspectives among network actors. Barriers to improved
342
relationships include unwillingness to share decision-making control and financial
resources. While power relationships are being reconfigured in cases where First Nations
play an instrumental role, in others local rights of adjacency remain controversial. In all
cases local actors struggle to find the resources to participate in and sustain collaboration,
often despite the generation of significant resource wealth within their regions. Without
investment by senior levels of government, negative interpretations of collaborative
governance as a cover for government abandonment and neglect of their responsibilities
under a new public management agenda will continue to arise. Access to, but also
stability of financial resources contributes to governance system viability and desired
outcomes.
Struggles over sharing decision-making authority are common within
collaborative governance networks. While resistance continues, the case study initiatives
demonstrate that authority can be shared, with the aim of reaching agreed upon goals.
While the case studies indicate a slow and partial shift within provincial and federal levels
toward greater collaboration in planning and decision-making, respondents suggest that
―government needs to be seen as much more open and willing to involve the community
in the development of policy and procedures.‖
Canada‘s Oceans Strategy (Canada 2002, i) establishes Integrated Management
(IM) plans as ―the central governance mechanism‖ for applying the principles of
sustainable development within our oceans and coasts. The findings of this research
suggest that the potential of this relatively new federal direction has not yet been realized.
Even within the collaborative governance networks examined, with explicit commitments
to integration and sustainable development in four of six cases, monitoring and reporting
of multiple-objective, sustainable development outcomes is weak, as is integration and
collaboration across the related policy fields of watershed management and RED.
Watershed management and RED case study actors recognize links between sustainable
development imperatives and, in most cases, collaborative governance processes are
moving towards a more integrated approach. In the face of resistance from more powerful
status quo governing systems, however, sustainable development remains a largely latent
rather than explicit and only partially supported orientation and a ―difficult but necessary‖
goal.
343
Governance actors, particularly at provincial and federal levels, often continue to
operate in policy silos, although there have been provincial-level efforts in Nova Scotia
and, to a lesser extent, Newfoundland and Labrador to build cross-scale linkages within
the study period. Federal commitment and capacity to pursue collaborative, sustainable
development is highly varied. Struggles between actors advocating traditional approaches
and those pursuing more collaborative, integrated models are taking place within agencies
such as Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Western and Atlantic RED agencies appear to be
moving in opposite directions on the continuum of siloed vs. integrated governance.
Within Service Canada, despite a narrow, rigid approach overall, the results of this study
suggest that some regional staff are able to interpret centralized policies in a way that
reflects their own perspectives and regional needs. While First Nations and other local
actors exhibit an intrinsic understanding of linkages between ecological, social, cultural
and economic well-being, in some cases local leaders, relationships, priorities and
capacity limitations also serve as resistors to integrated approaches. More holistic,
multiple objective monitoring and evaluation processes are needed to demonstrate the
integrated nature of development efforts.
Complex coastal social-ecological systems call for governance arrangements
suited to complexity and uncertainty (Plummer and Armitage 2007). Collaborative
governance networks are complex systems. The findings of this research, and of other
recent governance studies, demonstrate a need for balance between governance
complexity and capacity. New regions add new layers, and thus added complexity to
governance systems. Attachments to previous definitions and conceptualizations of region
do not disappear within short to medium-scale timeframes. Interactions between new and
previously existing layers of spatial scale, therefore, are among the relationships that must
be understood and managed within collaborative governance. Inadequate attention to
these relationships has created implementation difficulties for models such as the
Regional Economic Development Boards of Newfoundland and Labrador. Complexity
also increases as the range of issues and objectives to be addressed expands. In cases
where policy and funding guidelines allow for increased scope, collaborative governance
has become more integrated over time as capacity is built and initial priorities are
addressed. Despite increased collaborative governance capacity, real limits to the capacity
344
of collaborative governance systems to understand and manage complexity remain, with
much room for enhanced learning and adaptation capabilities within the six collaborative
governance case studies examined.
Finally, actor values can facilitate and inhibit sustainable development. Values
such as stewardship, conservation, and holism can be learned over time, facilitated by
collaborative governance experiences. These values are brought in to collaborative
governance processes through traditional knowledge that embodies long term memory of
social-ecological system interactions, in this case that of the Mik‘maq and ‗Namgis First
Nations. Achieving sustainable development outcomes through collaborative governance
requires multiple forms of capacity, but also appropriate principles and values, perhaps
the greatest challenge facing collaborative governance models.
4) How might barriers/resistors be overcome, or strengths further enhanced?
Multi-layered governance requires multi-layered support, with commitment and
willingness at all levels to share the power to establish priorities, make decisions,
generate and distribute resources. This is a tall order to fill, but the experiences of the six
case studies examined suggest that, with time, communication and personal relationships
across vertical and horizontal boundaries, multi-level support for collaborative
governance can be created and enhanced.
A BC watershed management network leader explains: ―If we get the values right,
the rest will come.‖ In an environment of trust, open discussion about and review of goals
and values can lead to ―double-loop‖ learning and governance guided by principles
compatible with sustainable development, collaboration and/or good governance. Open,
honest dialogue and social learning about principles and values requires time, trust and
even culture change within traditional government institutions and among actors
uncomfortable with and ill-equipped for respectful discussion at this level. Actors in each
of the case study networks have engaged in dialogue about underlying goals, values and
assumptions, but largely outside of formal processes of planning and evaluation. Creating
genuine support for a sustainable development approach will require increased openness
to, and opportunity for, frank and honest dialogue about the merits of, and commitment to
integrated, collaborative approaches to governance and development.
345
Opportunities exist to create synergies between often disparate efforts within
different layers and policy silos and between high level dictates such as the Oceans
Strategy or Canada‘s Auditor General Act (with its sustainable development reporting
requirements), and even international commitments such as Agenda 21, and local level
efforts to create more sustainable communities and regions. But success in creating these
synergies through collaborative governance must be demonstrated before collaborative
governance will become a viable model (or, more accurately, set of potential models)
capable of advancing sustainable development within Canada‘s rural coastal social-
ecological systems. The impacts of collaborative governance systems must be
strengthened and widely communicated and the number of such efforts increased. Only
with widespread acceptance and application of these alternative models will change
permeate the broader Canadian governance system. Such a change will require new and
improved governance capacities at all levels, particularly at the local (community and
regional) scale.
Enhancing collaborative governance capacity will require more deliberate efforts
to enhance learning and adaptation, including improvements in each of the four elements
of learning, adaptive governance identified in this research: 1) gathering, managing and
sharing knowledge within collaborative knowledge systems; 2) evaluation (formal and
informal); 3) individual learning; and 4) linking knowledge with action through planning.
Enhancements in learning and adaptation capacity can help overcome other identified
resistors. Sharing resources and decision-making power and responsibilities, for example,
also requires shared accountability. Shared accountability can be facilitated by
collaborative multi-level evaluation processes, processes that require further development
in all six cases examined in this thesis. Leadership diversity and recruitment are critical
given the reliance on individual leaders. Devoting attention and resources to training and
mentoring individuals within collaborative governance processes, recognizing and
rewarding leadership at multiple levels will help ensure the long-term viability of
collaborative governance systems.
Managing relationships is a key function of collaborative governance. More
attention to understanding and monitoring interactions among actors, changes in these
relationships, and implications for sustainable development outcomes is also needed. This
346
includes relationships and communications with wider policy communities, sharing
knowledge of collaborative governance challenges and achievements in an attempt to
scale-up collaborative governance efforts.
Finally, the capacity of network actors and institutions to understand and manage
complexity must be taken into account in the design and operation of collaborative
governance systems. When increasing the effectiveness and sustainability of governance
systems calls for involving an expanded number of actors, interactions, issues and/or
spatial scales, strategies for increasing governance complexity over time are required. The
case study examples suggest several strategies for managing increased complexity,
including identification of priority areas of focus while at the same time recognizing and
seeking to understand multiple actors and issues associated with these priorities, the use
of indicators within monitoring and evaluation programs, employing specialist strategies
and human resources but also people, processes and/or institutions charged with
managing cross-scale linkages. These include organizations and/or processes at the sub-
provincial scale that serve as knowledge and communications hubs within governance
networks. Hub and spoke models are problematic, however, unless they recognize, foster
and support diversity within their regions (working to strengthen the spokes and the rim
as well as the hub, or the complete system, to extend the wheel analogy).
10.2 Recommendations and Future Directions
The findings of this research translate into lessons and a series of recommendations for
collaborative governance organizations, supporting provincial and federal agencies and
for future research. Continued effort to develop improvement-oriented monitoring and
evaluation programs are critical. In an era of accountability and scarce resources, without
an understanding of, and the ability to demonstrate the outcomes of collaborative
governance case study initiatives are likely to become more vulnerable and collaborative
governance dismissed as an alternative for governance renewal and sustainable
development on Canada‘s coasts. To advance a sustainable development approach and
take into account the full range of benefits achieved, more holistic monitoring and
evaluation frameworks are required that incorporate social, cultural, economic, ecological
and capacity-building improvements. Efforts to foster and monitor capacity change
347
should be linked wherever possible to ―higher order‖ outcomes achieved over time,
linking past with current achievements.
Barriers to development should also be identified and monitored within these
processes. This research has demonstrated that actor relationships can be significant
resistors or enablers of sustainable development outcomes. Regional-to-senior
government, region-to-community, and community-to-community relationships play a
particularly important role. With limited and threatened financial resources,
communications and relationship building are often neglected yet the results of this
research suggest that fostering and managing relationships should be recognized as an
important organizational or network function. Thus goals and objectives related to
relationships should be established and planning, resources and a concerted effort made to
develop relationships and increase ―relational capacity,‖ including relevant skills,
communications systems, and trust within the network.
Leadership at multiple levels is critical, but particularly at the local and regional
level where ―primary actors‖ are located. Related recommendations include succession
planning, fostering leadership through training and mentoring programs and recognizing
and supporting actors that take a leadership role within agencies as champions of
collaborative governance efforts. Provincial and federal governments can play a role in
recognizing these individuals within their institutions and in providing support for
capacity-building within collaborative governance networks. Support from government
agencies for collaborative governance organizations and processes should take multiple
forms, including not only financial resources but also advice and mentorship for
individuals, active participation in planning and activities, and policy and legislative
support.
To reduce financial vulnerability within the network diverse revenue sources are
recommended, including revenues that are self-generated and/or reinvestments from
resource revenues in relevant sectors, as in the example of forestry royalties in the BC-W
case, fisheries in NS-W or investment fund interest in BC-E. Provincial and federal
governments can facilitate revenue generation by allowing for flexibility and innovation
in revenue-generating activities and reinvesting resource revenues in collaborative
governance of natural resources.
348
Multi-year commitments of financial resources should be accompanied by
improvement-oriented mechanisms for mutual and multi-level accountability, including
linking monitoring and evaluation programs at multiple levels in ways that: a)
acknowledge the impacts of one policy arena or level of governance on others; and b)
encourage dialogue on how these cross-scale relationships can enable rather than hinder
sustainable development efforts.
Canada has yet to realize the full potential of integrated management (IM) under the
Oceans Act, including the potential to promote integration and collaboration across the
related policy fields of watershed management and RED. Greater commitment to,
resourcing, and improvement-oriented monitoring of these collaborative governance
processes are required. Addressing concerns about the difficulty of achieving integrated,
sustainable development, efforts should be made to encourage long-term, holistic visions
and goals within IM processes while also focusing on a series of shorter term priorities
and actions. Both elements and temporal scales are needed. Finally, regional boundaries
for IM and other collaborative governance processes should be open to change over time,
but only based on dialogue, learning and recognition of the importance of communities
and local, sub-regional actors within regions. These local actors represent a critical source
of knowledge, commitment and potential for implementation of plans and policies created
by collaborative governance institutions and processes.
Finally, the results of this research imply four key areas for future enquiry. First, the
discussion of balance above suggests there are thresholds of imbalance beyond which
system resilience is threatened. Much of the documentation of CASES thresholds to date
has focused on ecosystem collapse (Resilience Alliance and Santa Fe Institute 2004). The
findings of this research suggest that there are also thresholds of instability, rigidity,
diversity and complexity within governance systems. Although vulnerable to varying
degrees, the cases examined have been resilient enough to recover from breakdowns
and/or adapt to change since the mid-1990s. What can we learn from those that have not?
Examining the role of factors such as flexibility and complexity in examples where
collaborative governance models have collapsed offers an opportunity to better
understand social system thresholds, acknowledging that thresholds are themselves
dynamic and context-sensitive.
349
Second, the topic of collaborative governance capacity requires further research, as do
methods of monitoring change in governance capacity and relationships between capacity
and longer-term outcomes. This research suggests that opportunities exist for enhancing
our ability to understand complexity and manage complex problems within complex
systems, therefore changing complexity thresholds. Ostrom (2005) points out that, as
individuals, we deal with a lot of complexity in our lives, implicitly making sense of
diverse and complex situations. Can these skills be better understood and used within our
governing systems? If so, how? Research findings have also highlighted the importance
of monitoring and evaluation to learning and adaptation within governance systems.
Research is required to identify and assist in the development of improved methods for
collaborative, improvement-oriented, multi-objective, and multi-level evaluation
frameworks that include measures related to capacity, relationships and communication.
Four key types of capacity have been identified in this research: leadership,
relational, organizational and learning and adaptation, with indices for each.
Collaborative governance organizations have an important ‗relationship manager‘
function, yet efforts to understand and monitor relationships are weak. Further
development of indices and techniques such as relationship mapping to assess relational
capacity is suggested, contributing to future collaborative governance monitoring and
evaluation processes. Inconsistencies suggest that the leadership index employed in this
study should be revisited. Tools such Olsen‘s Orders of Outcomes and the Input-Output-
Outcome-Impact logic model, modified for rural and coastal community contexts and
multi-level governance, also offer promise for better understanding relationships between
capacity and ―higher order‖ outcomes. Quantitative factor and social network analyses
may also provide greater insight into the relative importance of the indicators and indices
examined, particularly when analyzed in conjunction with the results of this and other
qualitative studies.
Third, continued comparative research is needed. Participants in collaborative
governance express a desire to learn more from the experiences of others across Canada.
Comparative analysis presented in an appropriate way can contribute to the practice of
learning within collaborative governance systems, while at the same time responding to
the call for empirical support and enrichment of the CASES framework. In particular,
350
comparative research can shed further light on core themes raised in this research, such as
the role of leadership, strategies for increasing leadership capacity or strengthening
relationships within governance networks. Comparing themes from the CASES literature
with research on social dynamics from the social sciences also offers promise for further
development of the CASES framework.
Fourth, this research calls for continued, long-term monitoring and observation of
collaborative governance case studies. The findings of this three year field research study
are rich with lessons learned, but extended observation of these six cases offers potential
for greater insight into the challenges and opportunities of collaborative governance on
Canada‘s threatened coasts. The CASES and, in particular, panarchy framework
examines adaptive cycles and their evolution over time. This thesis and other case study-
based literature on collaborative governance and regional development cover a relatively
short time frame. The results presented above reflect a limited, three-year window within
ongoing, dynamic governance processes. Further, the case studies themselves are
relatively new as governance processes and institutions. Long-term monitoring is required
to yield further insights into processes of change and adaptation within these complex
governance systems, as well as their interactions with broader social-ecological systems,
including sustainable development outcomes. MacNeil (2003) suggests that the Bras d‘Or
watershed be seen as a laboratory for testing approaches to economic and social
development, or as one respondent suggests a ―collaboratory.‖ Follow-up research will
be required to monitor the results of investments in stewardship, planning, collaboration
and social innovation in the Bras d‘Or, to observe if and how learning is translated into
policy and action for sustainable development, and how each of these case studies evolve.
Over time, the difficult-to-observe implicit or latent characteristics of these governance
models can be better understood. This is particularly important in the Cape Breton cases
where the researcher has not had the benefit of multi-year residency.
Additional questions that can be observed over time include: Will the BC
watershed case (BC-W) become increasingly vulnerable, or will it stabilize as power
relationships in the region continue to shift and treaty negotiations are settled? Will
watershed actors be able to extend their discretionary reach to marine habitats and
international waters? Will the policy intent of IM under the Oceans Act be realized? What
351
are the implications for sustainable development in the Kittiwake region of NL-E‘s shift
to a narrower economic focus? Will collaborative governance move beyond an
experimental, pilot project mode to become a more widely accepted and applied
governance approach? These outstanding questions can only be answered through long-
term research and repeated observations.
In conclusion, this comparative analysis of six collaborative governance initiatives
suggests that collaborative governance offers promise as a governance approach more
compatible with sustainable development than those that have led to depleted ecosystems
and communities on Canada‘s coasts. While it is too soon to declare collaborative
governance a success in shifting the current trajectory of development and decision-
making on to a more sustainable path, these cases have slowed the momentum of forces
pushing regional coastal systems towards collapse. Each of the six case studies examined
differs in its make-up, intent, context and other characteristics. Each has strengths and
areas requiring further development. Together, they demonstrate that improved
understanding and re-shaping of roles and relationships within interconnected social-
ecological systems is possible; that governance systems can build on the strengths
provided by long-standing connections to place while being flexible enough to form new
relationships and new spaces of interaction.
They also demonstrate, however, that there are many challenges to be met and
sources of resistance to be overcome in implementing alternative governance models.
Traditional forms of governing have proven to be a significant resistor to integrated,
collaborative governance. If the tug-of-war between opposing trajectories of change -
sustainable and unsustainable – on Canada‘s coasts is to be won by coastal communities
and ecosystems, governance alternatives that favour sustainability must be strengthened;
their outcomes increased, recorded and communicated; commitment to the principles of
sustainable development more genuine. Social learning and expanded discretionary reach
will require the continued expansion of collaborative governance networks and capacity.
The likelihood that collaborative governance will become more widely applied during the
current period of governance renewal and reorganization is dependent on the ability of
collaborative governance leaders and institutions to learn, adapt and scale-up their impact.
352
Reference List
Abdellatif, A. 2003 ‗Good Governance and its Relationship to Democracy and Economic
Development‘ Paper presented at the Global Forum III on Fighting Corruption and
Safeguarding Integrity, Seoul 20-31 May 2003
Abrams, P., Borrini-Feyerabend,G., Gardner, J., and Heylings, P. 2003 Evaluating
Governance: A Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process for a Protected
Area, CEPA Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Ramsar Convention Secretariat,
Gland
Abzug, R. 1999 ‗The nonprofit sector and the informal sector: A theoretical perspective‘
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 10(2),
131-149
ACCA (Atlantic Community Accounts). 2007 ‗Community Account statistics‘,
www.communityaccounts.ca/communityaccounts/onlinedata/ACCA/acca_wbindicat
ors_detail.asp?varid=gini accessed 6 November 2008
ACOA (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency). 2001 The Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Opportunities for Sustainable Development 2001-2003,
(Fredericton, NB: ACOA)
Adams, B. and Norris, W. 2008 ‗Indian Bay Research Partnerships‘ Presentation to
Memorial University – Community Research Partnerships: Resource Management in
Marine & Freshwater Environments Workshop, Beaches Heritage Centre NL 21-22
August 2008.
Adger, W. 2000 ‗Social and ecological resilience: are they related?‘ Progress in Human
Geography 24(3), 347-364
Aglietta, M. 1979 A Theory of Capitalist Regulation - The US Experience (London:
Verso)
AFER (Ancient Forest Exploration and Research). 1996 Status of Old-Growth Red Pine
Forests: A Preliminary Assessment, www.ancientforest.org/flb14.html accessed 5
November 2008
Ahl, V., and Allen, T. 1996 Hierarchy Theory: A vision, vocabulary, and epistemology
(New York: Columbia University Press)
Alasia, A. 2003 Sub-provincial Income Disparity in Canada Agriculture and Rural
Working Paper Series (Ottawa: Statistics Canada)
Alder, J., and Ward, T. 2001 ‗Australia's ocean policy — sink or swim?‘ Journal of
Environment and Development 10, 266-289
Alexander, D. 1990 ‗Bioregionalism: science or sensibility?‘ Environmental Ethics 12
(2), 161-173
Ali, K., R. Olfert, and M. Partridge. 2007 ‗Urban Footprints in Rural Canada:
Employment Spillovers by City Size‘ Presented at the Canadian Urban Institute-
Canada Rural Revitalization forum: Developing the Regional Imagination: A
National Workshop on Rural-Urban Interaction, Toronto, Ontario. 13 July 13 2007
353
Allemand, S. 2000 ‗Gouvernance. Le pouvoir partage‘ Sciences humaines 101, 12-18
Allen, J., Massey, D., Cochrane, A., Charlesworth, J., Court, J., Henry, N., and Sarre, P.
1998 ‗Rethinking the region 2000‘ Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human
Geography, 82(4), 235-236
Amin A, 2004 ‗Regions unbound: towards a new politics of place‘ Geografiska Annaler
B 86, 33-44
Amin, A., and Thrift, N. 2000 ‗What kind of economic theory for what kind of economic
geography?‘ Antipode 32:4–9
Amin, A., and Thrift, N. 1995 ‗Globalisation, institutional thickness and the local
economy‘ in Managing Cities, eds. P. Healey, S. Cameron, S. Davoudi, S. Graham
and A. Madanipour (Chichester: John Wiley), 91-108
Amin, A ed.1994 Post-Fordism: A Reader (Oxford: Blackwell)
Andersson, K., and Hoskins, M.W. 2004 ‗Information use and abuse in the local
governance of common-pool forest resources‘ Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 14,
295-312
Anderson, J. 2001 ‗On the edge of chaos: Crafting adaptive collaborative management for
biological diversity conservation in a pluralistic world‘ in Biological Diversity:
Balancing Interests through Adaptive Collaborative Management, eds. L. Buck, C.
Geisler., J. Schelhas., and E. Wollenberg (Boca Raton, LA: CRC Press) 171–186
Anderson, R. 1999 Economic Development Among the Aboriginal Peoples in Canada
(North York: Captus Press)
Anderson, J.E. 1984 Public Policy-making, 3rd ed (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston)
Andrew, C. 2005 ‗Place-Based Policy Making‘ Presentation for the Sixth Annual
National Forum, Public Policy and Third Sector Initiative, Kingston: Queen‘s
University
Ansell, C. 2000 ‗The networked polity: Regional development in western Europe‘
Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 13(3), 279-291
(21)
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. ‗Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice‘ Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543 - 571
Antle, R. 2008 ‗NL a 'have province' for first time since Confederation,‘ The Telegram,
St. John‘s. Nov. 4, 2008
Ardron, J. 2003 BC Coast Information Team Marine Ecosystem Spatial Analysis v. 1.2
Excerpted and revised from: Rumsey, C., Ardron, J., Ciruna, K., Curtis, T., Doyle, F.,
Ferdana, Z., Hamilton, T., Heinemyer, K., Iachetti, P., Jeo, R., Kaiser, G., Narver, D.,
Noss, R., Sizemore, D., Tautz, A., Tingey, R., Vance-Borland, K. An ecosystem
analysis for Haida Gwaii, Central Coast, and North Coast British Columbia. DRAFT,
Sept. 22, 2003.URL: www.livingoceans.org/library.htm accessed 7 November 2008.
354
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1974 Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. 1978 Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective
(Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley)
Armitage, D. 2008 ‗Governance and the commons in a multi-level world‘ International
Journal of the Commons 2 (1),7-32
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., and Doubleday, N. eds. 2007 Adaptive Co-Management:
Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance (Vancouver: University of
British Columbia Press)
Armstrong, H.W., Kehrer, B. and Wells, P. 2002 ‗The evaluation of community economic
development initiatives‘ Urban Studies, 39 (3), 457-481
Armstrong, J.; Lenihan, D.G. 1999 ‗From controlling to collaborating: when governments
want to be partners. a report on the collaborative partnerships project.‘ New
Directions. 3, The Institute Of Public Administration of Canada, Toronto
Arradotir, E. 2003 ‗The role of innovation systems in rural economic development: A
case study of the exploits valley region, NL‘ MSc thesis (St. John‘s, NL: Memorial
University of Newfoundland)
Arseneau, D. 1975 A Proposal: Management of the Bras d‘Or Coastal Zone Submitted to
the Department of Municipal Affairs of Nova Scotia (Sydney, NS: The Bras d‘Or
Institute, College of Cape Breton) 15 December, 1975
----------. 1977 A Proposal for a Resource Development Strategy for the Bras d‘Or Lakes
(Sydney, NS: The Bras d‘Or Institute, College of Cape Breton) April 1977
Asheim, B. 2007 ‗The learning firm in the learning region: innovating through
cooperation and social capital building‘ in Europe - Reflections on Social capital,
Innovation & Regional Development, eds. M. Landabaso., A. Kuklinski., and C.
Román (WSB-NLU)
Asheim, B. T., and Gertler, M. 2005 ‗The Geography of Innovation: Regional. Innovation
Systems‘, in Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., and Nelson, R. eds. The Oxford Handbook of
Innovation. (New York: Oxford University Press)
Asselin, R. 2001 The Canadian Social Union: Questions about the Division of Powers
and Fiscal Federalism (Ottawa: Political and Social Affairs Division, Library of
Parliament, Canada) www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0031-
e.htm#(12) accessed 6 November 2008.
ATBC (Aboriginal Tourism Association of British Columbia). 2008
www.aboriginalbc.com/trellis/First_Nations_Summary accessed 6 November 2008
Aucoin, P. 2001 ‗The design of public organizations for 21st century: why bureaucracy
will survive in public management‘ Canadian Public Administration 40(2), 290-306
Aus, J. 2005 ‗Conjunctural Causation in Comparative Case-Oriented Research: Exploring
the Scope Conditions of Rationalist and Institutionalist Causal Mechanisms‘
355
www.arena.uio.no/publications/working-papers2005/papers/wp05_28.pdf accessed 6
November 2008.
Australia. 2002 The Framework for Marine and Estuarine Water Quality Protection
(Canberra: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts)
Babbie, E. 1986 The Practice of Social Research, Fifth Edition, (Belmont: Wadsworth
Publishing)
Backhaus, J. 1999 ‗Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in Environmental Policy‘
Paper provided by Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and
Organization, Research Memoranda 018, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Baird Planning Associates. 2001 Taking Stock of the Regional Economic Development
Process: Background and Overview, Recommendations and Action Plans (St. John‘s:
Baird Planning Associates)
Baker, H. 1993 ‗Building multi-community rural development partnerships.‘ in The
structure, theory and practice of partnerships in rural development, ed. RC Rounds
(Brandon, Manitoba: Canadian Agriculture and Rural Restructuring Group, Rural
Development Institute, University of Brandon)
Baker, M. 2003 ‘History of Newfoundland and Labrador summary chronology of events‘
Prepared for Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in
Canada. St. John‘s, NL
Baker, M., and Pitt, J. 1988 ‗The third tier: A historical overview of the development of
local government in Newfoundland and Labrador‘, Convention of the Newfoundland
and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, October 7-9, 1988 , St. John's,
Newfoundland, 39-43
Baldacchino, G., and Milne, D. eds. 2000 Lessons from the Political Economy of Small
Islands: The Resourcefulness of Jurisdiction (London: Macmillan)
Banathy, B. 1997 Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. Series: Contemporary
Systems Thinking (New York: Springer)
Bantjes, R. 2004 ‗Regionalism and environmental governance in Atlantic Canada‘ in
Regionalism in a Global Society: Persistence and Change in Atlantic Canada and
New England, eds. S. Tomblin and C. Colgan (Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press)
Baptista, R. 2000 ‗Do innovations diffuse faster with geographic clusters?‘ International
Journal of Industrial Organization 18, 515-535
Barabási, A-L. 2002 Linked: The New Science of Networks (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus
Publishing)
Barrington, S. 2005 ‗Developing a strategic action plan for the Denys Basin Watershed,
Nova Scotia‘ MSc Thesis (Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University)
356
Barlow-Irick, P. 1997 ‗Barriers to Making Order out of Chaos: species with fuzzy
boundaries‘, www.largocanyon.org/science/species/intro.htm accessed 6 November
2008
Barnes, T., J. and Hayter, R. 1994 ‗Economic restructuring, local development and
resource towns: Forest communities in coastal British Columbia‘ Canadian Journal
of Regional Science 17( 3 ), 289-310
Bass, J. 2007 ‗Fort Rupert Reconstruction Primer‘ http://ccpcura.anso.ubc.ca accessed 6
November 2008
Battram, A. 1998 Navigating Complexity: The Essential Guide to Complexity Theory in
Business and Management (London: The Industrial Society)
Baumgartner, F. and B. Jones. 1993 Agendas and Instability in American Politics
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press)
BC (British Columbia) (BC Stats). 2008 ‗Socio-Economic Profiles‘
www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca accessed 6 November 2008.
-----. 2007 http://guidetobceconomy.org/major_industries/goods_sector.htm accessed 6
November 2008
----. 2007b Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture Final Report 3rd Session, 38th
Parliament 16 May, 2007, Victoria, BC
----. 2006 Building Stronger Communities, Report of the Task Force on Community
Opportunities (Victoria, BC)
----. 2006b British Columbia‘s Coastal Environment 2006 Victoria, BC.
----. 2005 Economic Hardship Indices by Regional District, 2005 Education Concerns
Indices (Victoria, BC: BC Stats)
----. 2004 Provincial – British Columbia (Victoria, BC: Office of the Auditor-General)
---- (Provincial Health Officer). 2001 Report on the Health of British Columbians-
Provincial Health Officer‘s Annual Report 2000 - Drinking Water Quality in British
Columbia: The Public Health Perspective (Victoria, BC: Ministry of Health
Planning)
----. 1999 Biodiversity in BC (Victoria, BC: Environmental Stewardship Division,
Ministry of the Environment)
BCBC (Business Council of BC). 2007 ‗A Dramatic Turnaround‘
www.bcbc.com/bcjobs/move_forward.asp accessed 6 November 2008.
BC (British Columbia) Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. 1991 Closer to
Home, Summary of the Report of the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health
Care Costs (Victoria, BC: Royal Commission on Health Care Costs)
BC Treaty Commission. 2007 ‗Negotiation Update‘ www.bctreaty.net/files/updates.php
accessed 6 November 2008.
Beckley, T., Parkins, J., and Stedman, R. 2002 ‗Indicators of forest-dependent community
sustainability: the evolution of research‘ For. Chron. 78(5), 626–636
357
Bell, T. 2002 ‗MUN NL History website‘ www.mun.ca accessed 6 November 2008
Bell, T., and Liverman, D. 1997 http//www.heritage.nf.ca/environment/landscape.html
Bendavid-Val, A. 1991 ‗An idealized planning model‘ in Regional and Local Economic
Analysis for Practitioners, A. Bendavid-Val (London: Praeger)
Bennett, J. 2008 ‗Presentation at Centreville Strategic Economic Plan Consultation
Session‘ Centreville-Wareham-Trinity, NL. June 2008
Berkes, F. 2007 ‗Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the many faces of
co-management‘ in Adaptive Co-Management, eds. D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N.
Doubleday (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press), 19-37
Berkes, F. 2004 ‗Rethinking community-based conservation‘ Conservation Biology
18(3), 621-630
Berkes, F., Bankes, N., Marschke, M., Armitage, D., and Clark, D. 2005 ‗Cross-scale
institutions and building resilience in the Canadian North‘ in Breaking Ice:
Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North, eds. F.
Berkes., A. Diduck., H. Fast., R. Huebert., and M. manseau (Calgary: The University
of Calgary Press), 225-247
Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. 2003 ‗Introduction‘ In Navigating Social-
Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, eds. F.J
Berkes., J. Colding., and C. Folke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Berkes, F., and Folke, C. 2001 ‗Back to the future: Ecosystem dynamics and local
knowledge‘ In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural
Systems, eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC, Island Press),
121-146
----- 1995 ‗A Framework for the Study of Indigenous Knowledge: Linking Social and
Ecological Systems‘ Presented at "Reinventing the Commons‘, the Fifth Annual
Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, May
24-28, 1995, Bodoe, Norway
Berneshawi, S. 1993 ‗Netukulimk: Resource management and the involvement of the
Mi‘kmaq Nation‘ MA Thesis (Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University)
Berry, M. 2002 ‗A brief history of Nimpkish (Gwa‘ni) Hatchery,‘ in Hatcheries and the
Protection of Wild Salmon: Proceedings, eds. P. Gallaugher, J. Penikett and C. Orr,
Proceedings document for Hatcheries and the Protection of Wild Salmon (Burnaby:
Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University)
Berton, P. 1997 1967, the last great year (Toronto: Doubleday)
Bickers, K. and Williams, J. 2001 Public Policy Analysis: A Political Economy
Approach. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin)
Bickerton, J., and Gagnon, A. 2008 ‗Regions‘ in Comparative Politics, ed. D. Caramani
(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Birner, R., and Wittmer, H. 2001 ‗Converting Social Capital into Political Capital‘, Paper
Presented at Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New
358
Millenium 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of
Common Property (IASCP), Bloomington, Indiana from May 31-June 4, 2000
Bish, R.L. 2002 Accommodating multiple boundaries for local services: British
Columbia‘s local governance system (Victoria, BC: University of Victoria)
Bish, R.L. 2001 Local Government Amalgamations: Discredited Nineteenth-Century
Ideals Alive in the Twenty-First (Ottawa ON: C.D. Institute Commentary 150).
Bishop, H. 1994 Newfoundland Country video. Title #: 781.642 N45. Lyrics available at:
http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/05/turrs.htm
Black, J. 1999 Development in Theory and Practice: Bridging the Gap (Boulder:
Westview)
Blunden, G., Moran, W., and Cocklin, C. 1995 ‗Sustainability, Real Regulation, Scale
and Context‘ IGU, August, 1995
Blake, R. 2003 Regional and Rural Development Strategies in Canada: The Search For
Solutions Prepared for the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our
Place in Canada (St. John‘s, NL: Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening
Our Place in Canada)
Bodley, J. 1994 Cultural Anthropology: Tribes, States, and the Global System (NY:
McGraw-Hill)
Boggs, J. and Rantisi, N. 2003 ‗The relational turn in economic geography‘ Journal of
Economic Geography 3, 109-116
Bond, W., O'Farrell, D., Ironside, G., Buckland, B., and Smith, R. 2005 Environmental
Indicators and State of the Environment Reporting: An Overview for Canada
Background Paper to an Environmental Indicators and State of the Environment
Reporting Strategy, 2004–2009 (Gatineau, QC: Environment Canada, Knowledge
Integration Strategies Division)
Bonta, M. and Protevi, J. 2004 Deleuze and Geophilosophy: A Guide and Glossary
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press)
Boothroyd, P. and Davis, C. 1991 The Meaning of Community Economic Development
UBC Planning Papers Discussion Paper No. 25 (Vancouver, BC: UBC)
Bossel, H. 2001 ‗Assessing viability and sustainability: A systems-based approach for
deriving comprehensive indicator sets‘ Conservation Ecology 5(2),12 URL:
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art12/ last accessed 6 November 2008
Bossel, H. 1999 Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method, Applications.
— A Report to the Balaton Group (Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for
Sustainable Development)
Bossel, H. 1998 Earth at a Crossroads: Paths to a Sustainable Future (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press)
Bourgon, J. 1998 ‗A Voice for All: Engaging Canadians for Change‖ notes for address by
Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet presented at the Institute on
Governance conference, Aylmer, Quebec 27 October 1998
359
Bras d‘Or Lakes Working Group. 1995 ‗Taking Care of the Bras d‘Or: A New Approach
to Stewardship of the Bras d‘Or Watershed‘ in Proceedings of the Bras d‘Or Lakes
Aquaculture Conference (Sydney: College of Cape Breton Press)
Brenner, N. 2001 ‗The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration‘
Progress in Human Geography 25, 591–614
Briscoe, A. and Burns, M. 2004 Seven Reports on the Identification of Rural Indicators
for Rural Communities: 4. Local Institutional Capacity. Prepared for the Rural
Secretariat of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Ottawa, ON: New Rural Economy
Project, Phase 2 (NRE2))
Broadbent, S. 2006 Cooperation and Competition in Region Building: The Role of
Incentives (Victoria, BC: Local Government Knowledge Partnership, Local
Government Institute)
Brock, K. and Banting, K. 2001 ‗The non-profit sector and government in a new century:
An introduction‘ in The Nonprofit Sector and Government in a New Century, eds. K.
Brock and K. Banting (Kingston: Queens University Press)
Brock, W. 2004 Tipping Points, Abrupt Opinion Changes and Punctuated Policy Change
(Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Economics University of Wisconsin) URL:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/econ/archive/wp2003-28.pdf last accessed 6 November
2008
Brodie, J. 1990 The Political Economy of Canadian Regionalism (Toronto: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovitch)
Brody, A., Demetriades, J., and Esplen, E. 2008 Gender and Climate Change: Mapping
the Linkages - A Scoping Study on Knowledge and Gaps (Brighton: Institute of
Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex)
Brohman, J. 1996 Popular Development: Rethinking the Theory and Practice of
Development. (London: Blackwell Publishing)
Brown, D. 1999 The Impact of Global and Regional Integration on Federal Political
Systems: A Baseline Study (Kingston, ON: Institute of Intergovernmental Relations.
Queens University)
Brown, K. 1994 C.B. County Economic Development Authority, Strategic Economic
Action Plan, August 1994 (Sydney, NS: Cape Breton County Economic Development
Authority)
Brueckner, J. 2000 ‗Welfare reform and the race to the bottom: Theory and evidence‘
Southern Economic Journal 66(3), 505-525.
Bruce, D. and Gadsen, P. 1998 Quality of Life in Rural and Small Town Newfoundland
(Sackville, NB: Mount Allison University, Rural and Small Town Programme)
Brunnen, B. 2006 Economic Performance and Economic Regions in the New Economy:
Foundations, Strategy and Governance University of Victoria Local Government
Institute Working Paper (Victoria, BC: University of Victoria)
360
Bryant, C. 1999 ‗Community Change in Context‘ in Communities, Development and
Sustainability Across Canada, eds. J.T. Pierce, and A. Dale (Vancouver: UBC
Press), 69-89
Bryant, C. 1997 A good backgrounder on the history of government involvement in CED
in Nova Scotia (Halifax, NS: Community Economic Development Division, Nova
Scotia Department of Economic Development)
Bryant, C. 1995 ‗The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe‘ Journal of
Rural Studies 11(3), 255-267
Bryson, J. and Crosby, B. 1992 Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public
Problems in a Shared Power World (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)
Byrne, D. 1998 Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences (London: Routledge)
Buenza, D. and Stark, D. 2003 ‗The organization of responsiveness: innovation and
recovery in the trading rooms of lower Manhattan‘ Socio-economic Review 1, 135-
164
Buffinga, A. 2001 ‗The influence of cultural values and reasoned action on local attitudes
towards the management of the Indian Bay recreational fishery project‘ MA Thesis
(St. John‘s, NL: Memorial University of NL)
Bunnell, F. 2002 URL: http://www.resalliance.org/593.php last accessed 6 November
2008
Buttimer, A. 1995 Landscape and Life: Appropriate Scales for Sustainable Development
(Dublin: University College Dublin)
Buttimer, A. (ed.) 2001 Sustainable Landscapes and Lifeways: Scale and
Appropriateness (Cork: Cork University Press)
Cameron, J., and Gibson, K. 2005 ‗Alternative pathways to community and economic
development: The Latrobe Valley Community Partnering Project‘ Geographical
Research 43(3), 274-85
Cameron, V. 2006 ‗Source Water Protection: Who‘s Accountable? What works?‘
Presentation to Water and Cities Conference‘ Simon Fraser University, Vancouver,
BC, June 14-16th 2006
Campbell, D. 1975 ‗Degrees of freedom and the case study‘ Comparative Political
Studies 8, 178-185
Campfens, H. 1997 Community Development Around The World: Practice, Theory,
Research, Training (Toronto: University of Toronto Press)
Canada (Treasury Board). 2008a http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/eval_e.asp accessed 6
November 2008
----- (NRCan). 2008b. http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/statsprofile/economicimpact/
accessed 6 November 2008
-----. 2007a ‗The Gulf of St. Lawrence - A Unique Ecosystem‘ http://www.glf.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/sci-sci/goslim-gigsl/s-2-e.jsp. accessed 6 November 2008
361
-----. 2007b ‗Equalization Program‘ www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html accessed 6
November 2008
-----. 2007c ‗Ecozones of Canada‘ http://www.ccea.org/ecozones/index.html accessed 6
November 2008
-----. 2007d www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/nl/terranova/natcul/natcul7_E.asp accessed 6 November
2008
-----. 2007e
http://www.virtualmuseum.ca/Exhibitions/Ceilidh/html/gaeliccb_godeeper.html
-----. 2005a ‗Management, Resources and Results Structure Policy‘ www.tbs-
sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=12412&section=text#4 accessed 6 November 2008
----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2005b Canada‘s Oceans Action Plan for Present and Future
Generations (Ottawa, ON: DFO)
----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2005c Policy for Conservation of Wild Salmon (Vancouver,
BC: DFO)
----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2004a A Policy Framework for the Management of Fisheries
on Canada‘s Atlantic Coast (Ottawa, ON: DFO)
-----. 2004b ‗Great Lakes Action Plan‘ http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/water/greatlakes/action-
plan-e.html accessed 6 November 2008
-----. 2003a ‗Water in Canada‘ http://www.wateryear2003.org/ accessed 6 November,
2008
-----. 2003b www.atl.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/plover/brochure/page6.html
-----. 2003c ‗Success through Partnerships – Shellfish Program Benefits Bras d‘Or‘
www.atl.ec.gc.ca/aboriginal/unamaki/shellfish_e.html accessed 6 November, 2008
----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 2002 Canada‘s Oceans Strategy (Ottawa ON: DFO Oceans
Directorate) http://www.cos-soc.gc.ca/doc/publications_e.asp.
-----. 2000 Canada‘s National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-based Activities (NPA) (Ottawa, ON:
Federal/Provincial/Territorial Advisory Committee, Minister of Public Works and
Government, Services Canada) http://www.npa-pan.ca/en/publications/npa/toc.cfm.
-----. 1996a Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. People to People, Nation to
Nation: Highlights from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
(Ottawa, ON: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada)
----- (Fisheries and Oceans). 1996b Oceans Act s.c. 1996, c. 31. http://www.pac.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/oceans/OceansAct/oceansact_e.htm
Canadian Boreal Initiative. 2007 ‗The Canadian Boreal Initiative‘
www.borealcanada.ca/framework_e.cfm accessed 6 November 2008
Canfor. 2005 Sustainable Forest Management Plan 9 - Nimpkish DFA and TFL 37
(Vancouver, BC: Canfor)
362
Canmac Economics Limited and Dan White and Associates Limited. 2005 Economic
Impact of Federal Development Assistance on Cape Breton Island Report
commissioned by ECBC (Sydney, NS: ECBC)
Cardenas, J. 2008 Incomplete democracy. A retrospective view of Peru's governability
following the transition (1980 - 2001) Should the concept of governability be
redefined? (Madrid, Spain: Center for International Relations and Development
Studies. Latin America Programme) Workshop No. 26
Carlsson, L., and Berkes, F. 2003 Co-Management across Levels of Organization:
Concepts and Methodological Implications‘ Presented at Politics of the Commons:
Articulating Development and Strengthening Local Practices, Chiang Mai, Thailand,
July 11-14, 2003
Carney, D. ed. 1998 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution Can We Make?
(London, UK: DFID)
Carr, D., Selin, S. and Scuett, M. 1998 ‗Managing public forests: understanding the role
of collaborative planning‘ Environmental Management 22, 767
Carter, S. 2007 ‗Pitu‘paq - Flowing into Oneness: A unique collaborative partnership of
the Mayors, Wardens and First Nation Chiefs of Cape Breton (Unama‘ki).‘
Cashin, R. 2005 Report of the Chairman of the Raw Materials Sharing Review Committee
(St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)
Cashore, B., Hoberg, G., Howlett, M., Rayner, J. and Wilson, J. 2001 In Search of
Sustainability: British Columbia Forest Policy in the 1990s (Vancouver: UBC Press)
Castells, M. 2000 The rise of the network society, 2nd edition (Oxford: Blackwell)
Castells, M. 1989 The informational city (Oxford, Blackwell)
Cattan, N., Baudet-Michel, S., Berroir, S., Bretagnolle, A., Buxeda, C., Dumas, E.,
Guérois, M., Sanders, L., Saint-Julien, T., Allain, R., Baudelle, G., Charles Le Bihan,
D., Cristescu, J., and Cunningham-Sabot, E. 2004 Critical Dictionary of
Polycentricity: The Role, Specific Situation and Potentials for Urban Areas as Nodes
of Polycentric Development ESPON Project 1.1.1 Report (Grand-Duche de
Luxembourg: ESPON – European Spatial Planning Observation Network)
CBCEDA (Cape Breton Community Economic Development Authority). 2008 ‗Present
State of Economy‘ URL:
http://www.cbceda.org/Index.php?PageID=33&SubGroupID=4 last accessed 6
November, 2008
CBRM (Cape Breton Regional Municipality). 2004 Municipal Planning Strategy and
Land Use Bylaw (Sydney, NS: CBRM)
CBU (Cape Breton University). 2008 URL: http://mrc.uccb.ns.ca/mcihome.html last
accessed 6 November, 2008
-----. 2006 URL:www.msit.capebretonu.ca last accessed 6 November, 2008
CCEDNet (Canadian CED Network). 2008 URL: http://www.ccednet-rcdec.ca/ last
accessed 6 November, 2008.
363
-----. 2005 The Need for New Funding Arrangements for Community Programs in
Employment and Skills Development, Submission to the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities (Ottawa, ON: CCEDNet)
-----. 2004 ‗Concerns with Administrative Procedures of Human Resources and Skills
Development Canada‘, August 31. Ottawa, ON
CCFS (Celtic Colours Festival Society). 2005 http://celtic-colours.com accessed 4
November 2008
CEC (Commission of the European Communities). 2001 European Governance: A White
Paper (Brussels: CEC)
Centre for Community Enterprise .1999 Community Resilience Manual: A Resource for
Rural Recovery and Renewal. December 1999 Draft (Port Alberni, BC: Centre for
Community Enterprise).
CEPI (The Bras d‘Or Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative). 2006 Bras d‘Or
Lakes Traditional Ecological Knowledge Workshop Proceedings Proceedings of the
workshop held May 3-4, 2006 (Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative Environmental Planning
Initiative)
-----. 2006 Toward a Bras d‘Or Lakes and Watershed Environmental Management Plan
Report prepared for the Bras d‘Or Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative
(Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative)
-----. 2004 Proceedings of the 2004 Bras d‘Or Lakes Workshop prepared for the Bras
d‘Or Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative
Environmental Planning Initiative)
-----. 2003 Proceedings of the 2003 Bras d‘Or Lakes Workshop Report prepared for the
Bras d‘Or Collaborative Planning Initiative (Eskasoni, NS: Collaborative
Environmental Planning Initiative)
CFDCMW (Community Futures Development Corporation of Mt. Waddington). 2008a
URL: www.cfmw.ca/board-staff.html accessed 4 November 2008
-----. 2008b ‗Community Futures Mount Waddington – Growing communities one idea at
a time‘ Port McNeill, BC.
-----. 2004 ‗Community Futures Development Corporation Annual Report 2003/04‘ Port
McNeill, BC.
Chapman, K. 2005 ‗From 'growth centre' to 'cluster': restructuring, regional development,
and the Teesside chemical industry‘ Environment and Planning A 37(4), 597–615
Chandoke, N. 1995 State and Civil Society Exploration in Political Theory (New Delhi:
Sage).
Charles, A.T., Boyd, H., Lavers, A, and Benjamin, C. 2001 The Nova Scotia GPI
Fisheries and Marine Environment Accounts: A Preliminary Set of Ecological,
Socioeconomic and Institutional Indicators for Nova Scotia‘s Fisheries and Marine
Environment (Halifax, NS: Management Science/Environmental Studies, Saint
Mary‘s University)
364
Checkland, P. 1981 Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Chichester: John Wiley).
Chenoweth, J., Malano, H. and Bird, J. 2001 ‗Integrated river basin management in multi-
jurisdictional river basins: the case of the Mekong River Basin‘ International Journal
of Water Resources Development 17 (3), 365-377.
Chippett, J. D. 2004 ‗An examination of the distribution, habitat, genetic and physical
characteristics of Fundulus diaphanous, the banded killifish, in Newfoundland‘ M.Sc
Thesis (St. John‘s, NL: Memorial University of Newfoundland).
Chippett, J. D. 2003 ‗Update COSEWIC status report on the banded killifish Fundulus
diaphanus, Newfoundland population in Canada‘ in COSEWIC assessment and
update status report on the banded killifish Fundulus diaphanous in Canada
(Ottawa: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)
Christensen, R. 2004 ‗Non-Sovereigns Formalizing the Potency of the Informal Sector?
Institutional Analysis of Nongovernmental Organizations Prescribing, Invoking,
Monitoring, Applying, and Enforcing Policy.‘ Paper Presented at the EGDI-WIDER
Conference, "Unlocking Human Potential: Linking the Informal and Formal Sectors,"
Helsinki, Finland, 17-18 September 2004
Christmas, P. 1977. ‗Supplement on Mi‘kmaq‘ Mi‘kmaq Association for Cultural
Studies: http://www.mikmaq-
assoc.ca/Historical%20Articles/Supplement%20on%20Mi'kmaq%201977.htm
Cicin-Sain, B. and R. W. Knecht. 1998 Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management
Concepts and Practices (Washington D.C.: Island Press)
Cilliers, P. 1998 Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems
(London: Routledge)
Clapp, R. A. 1998 ‗The resource cycle in forestry and fishing‘ The Canadian Geographer
42 (2): 129-44
Clark, G. L. 1992 ‗Real regulation: the administrative state‘ Environment and Planning
A, 24: 615-627
Close, D. 2007 ‗The Newfoundland and Labrador Strategic Social Plan: Governance
Misconceived and Ill-Applied‘ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago
Cluster Competitiveness Task Force. 2004 Winning the Job Wars of the Future: A
Competitiveness Plan for the Research Triangle Region (North Carolina: Research
Triangle Regional Partnership)
Clutterbuck, P. and M. Novick. 2003 Building Inclusive Communities: Cross-Canada
Perspectives and Strategies A Report Prepared for the Laidlaw Foundation and the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities. URL:
http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/Clutterbuck_Novick_Inclusiv.pdf.
accessed 10 December 2008
CNLACTR (Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Action Team for Cod Recovery).
2005. A Strategy for the Recovery and Management of Cod Stocks in Newfoundland
365
and Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Action Team for
Cod Recovery)
CNN (Cable News Network). 2006 ‗CNN Larry King Live: Interview with Paul
McCartney, Heather Mills McCartney‘ CNN, Atlanta.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0603/03/lkl.01.html accessed 3 March
2006
Coady, L. 2007 Dynamics of Change, The view up-close. How does it feel? A Canadian
Forest Sector Example from the BC Coastal Temperate Rainforest, presentation
Coastal Resources Centre (CRC). 2002 A World of Learning in Coastal Management: A
Portfolio of Coastal Resources Management Program Experience and Products
Coastal Management Report #2235 (Narragansett, RI University of Rhode Island,
Coastal Resources Center)
-----. 2001 Future Directions in Integrated Coastal Management: The Consensus from
Block Island (Narragansett, RI University of Rhode Island, Coastal Resources
Center) URL: http://www.crc.uri.edu/download/BFUTDIR.PDF
Cocklin, C., Blunden, G., and Moran, W. 1997 ‗Sustainability, spatial hierarchies and
land-based production,‘ in Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: A
Geographical Perspective, (eds.) B. Ilbery, Q. Chiotti, and T. Rickard (Wallingford:
CAB International) 25-39
Coe, S. 2006 ‗Regions and Economic Development Policies: A Comparative Perspective.
The Role of Collaboration and Functional Governance in Regional Economic
Development‘. Local Government Knowledge Partnership, Local Government
Institute, University of Victoria School of Public Administration. Victoria, BC
Coe, N. M., and Yeung, H. W. 2001 ‗Geographical perspectives on mapping
globalization: An introduction‘ to the JEG special issue ―Mapping globalization:
Geographical perspectives on international trade and investment.‖ Journal of
Economic Geography 1,367–80
Coffey, W. and Bailly A. 1996 ‗Economic restructuring: a conceptual framework‘ in The
Spatial Impact of Economic Changes in Europe, eds. A. Bailly and W. Lever
(Avebury, Aldershot, Hants) 13 – 37
Cohen, S., de Loe, R., Hamlet, A. Herrington, R. Mortsch, L. and Shrubsole, D. 2002
‗Integrated and Cumulative Threats to Water Availability‘ in Threats to Water
Availability in Canada (Ottawa, ON: National Water Research Institute and the
Meteorological Service of Canada)
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. 1990 'Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation.' Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1), 128-152
366
Colebatch, H.K. ed. 2006 Beyond the Policy Cycle: The policy process in Australia
(Sydney: Allen & Unwin)
Coleman, J. 1988 ‗Social capital in the creation of human capital‘ American Journal of
Sociology 94 supplement, 95-120
College of the North Atlantic (CONA) 2002 Monitoring and Evaluation Handbook:
Regional Economic Development in Newfoundland and Labrador Prepared on behalf
of the Long Range Regional Economic Development Board (Stephenville NL: Long
Range Regional Economic Development Board)
Connell, J. and Kubisch, A. 1998 `Applying a theory of change approach to the
evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects and
problems' in New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, vol. 2, Theory,
Measurement, and Analysis, eds. K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. Kubisch and J. Connell
(Washington, DC: Aspen Institute)
Connor, R., and Dovers, S. 2004 Institutional Change for Sustainable Development
(Cheltenham: Edward Elger)
Cooke, P. 2001 ‗From Technopoles to Regional Innovation Systems: The Evolution of
Localised Technology Development Policy‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science,
24, 21-40
Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. 1998 The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and
Innovation. (New York: Oxford University Press)
Connections Research and Central Consulting Services. 2003 Out of Sight, Out of Mind –
Community Does Matter! A Study of the Mandate and Roles of the Rural
Development Associations and the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development
Council Prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council
Copes, P. 1971 Community Resettlement and Rationalization of the Fishing Industry in
Newfoundland (Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University Department of Economics
and Commerce)
COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2006
COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American eel Anguilla rostrata in
Canada (Ottawa, ON: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada)
URL: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm
COST (European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research). 2003
European City-regions in an Age of Multi-level Governance: Reconciling
Competitiveness and Social Cohesion Technical Annex to Draft Memorandum of
Understanding for the implementation of a European Concerted Research Action
designated as COST Action A26 (Brussels: Council of the European Union)
Coté, D. 2005 ‗Using stewardship, long term monitoring and adaptive management to
restore the Atlantic salmon population of the Northwest River‘ Technical Report in
Ecosystem Science 43 Parks Canada, Canadian Heritage
Cox, K. R. 1998 ‗Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale,
or: Looking for local politics‘ Political Geography 17, 1–23
367
Cowan, R., N. Jonard and M. Ozman. 2003 Knowledge Dynamics in a Network Industry
MERIT (Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology)
Infonomics Memorandum Series (Maastricht, The Netherlands: MERIT and
International Institute of Infonomics)
Cox, S.P. and Hinch, S.G., 1997 ‗Changes in size at maturity of Fraser River sockeye
salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) (1952-1993) and associations with temperature‘
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54, 1159-1165
CUS (Coasts Under Stress). 2003 Coasts Under Stress Newsletter:
www.coastsunderstress.ca accessed 10 November 2008
Creech, H. 2001 Form Follows Function: Management and Governance of a Formal
Knowledge Network (Winnipeg. MB: IISD)
Cressman, E.M. 1987 A Proposal Concerning Integrated Management for the Bras d‘Or
Lake watershed (Dartmouth, NS: Environment Canada)
Crowder, L., Osherenko, G., Young, O.R., Airame, S., Norse, E.A., Baron, N., Day, J.C.
Douvere, F., Ehler, C.N., Halpern, C.B., Langdon, S.J., McLeod, K.L., Ogden, J.C.,
Peach, R.E., Rosenberg, A.A. Wilson, J.A. 2006 ‗Resolving mismatches in U.S.
ocean governance‘ Science 13, 617-618
CSC (Community Services Council). 2004 The Nonprofit Sector as a Force for
Sustainability and Renewal in Newfoundland and Labrador: A Submission to the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador‘s Program Renewal Submitted by the
Community Services Council of Newfoundland and Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: CSC)
Daly, H. 2006 Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development (Boston:
Beacon Press Books)
D‘Aoust, R. 2000 Summary Report of the Conference on May 3rd, 2000 on Modernizing
Governance (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Management Development)
Dahrendorf, R. 1995 Economic Opportunity, Civil Society and Political Liberty (Geneva:
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development)
Davidson, D. 2001 ‗Federal Policy in Local Context: The Influence of Local State-
Societal Relations on Endangered Species Act Implementation. Policy Studies
Review. 18(1) 212-240
Davoudi, S. 2005 'The Northern Way: A Polycentric Megalopolis' The Yorkshire &
Humber Regional Review, Spring 2005
Davoudi, S., Strange, I., and Wishardt, M. 2004 WP5: Governing Polycentricity Report
on Espon Project 1.1.1. The Role, Specific Situation and Potentials for Urban Areas
as Nodes of Polycentric Development (Leeds UK: Centre for Urban Development
and Environmental Management, Leeds Metropolitan University)
Dekker, P., and van den Broek, A. 1998 ‗Civil society in comparative perspective.‘
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 9(1)
Demetrion, G. 2004 Postpositivist Scientific Philosophy: Mediating Convergences.
www.the-rathouse.com/Postpositivism.htm. A monograph based on Demetrion, G.
368
2004 Conflicting paradigms in adult literacy education: In quest of a U.S.
democratic politics of literacy (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
Dent, E. B. 1999 'Complexity science: A worldview shift' Emergence 7(4), 5-19
Denny, S. 2006 ‗Native rights to lobster balanced by science‘ Shunpiking: The discovery
magazine 3(7), www.shunpikig.com/ol0307/index.html
Desjardins, P., Paul A., Hobson, R. and Savoie, D. 1994 Trade, Equalization and
Regional Disparities in Canada (Moncton, NB: Canadian Institute for Research on
Regional Development University of Moncton)
de Peuter, J., and Sorensen, M., with contributions by J. Lambert, R. Bollman, C. Binet,
and J. Hannes. 2005. Rural Newfoundland and Labrador Profile: A Ten-year Census
Analysis (1991-2001) Canadian Rural Partnership Rural Research and Analysis,
Prepared for the Rural Secretariat, Government of Canada URL:
http://www.rural.gc.ca/research/profile/nl_e.phtml accessed 12 November 2008
DeWeese-Boyd, M. 2007 ‗Between history and tomorrow: Making and breaking
everyday life in rural Newfoundland‘ Community Development Journal 42, 137-140
DFO/FOC (Department of Fisheries and Oceans/Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2007a
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species/species_searchLocation_e.asp accessed
12 November 2008
----. 2007b Stock Assessment of Northern (2J3KL) Cod in 2007 (Ottawa, ON: DFO)
----. 2007c. Stock Assessment of Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Salmon 2006
Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Science Advisory Report (St. John‘s: DFO)
----. 2006a. Overview Snow Crab Fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador -
Backgrounder (St. John‘s: DFO)
----. 2006b. ‗Management of the Newfoundland and Labrador lobster fishery‘
Presentation to Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Ottawa, ON
----. 2006c. ‗American Lobster in NL‘ Presentation to Fisheries Resource Conservation
Council, Ottawa, ON
----. 2005 State of the Fisheries British Columbia www.pac.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/reports/fisheries05/stats_e.htm accessed 12 November 2008
----- 2002 Policy and Operational Framework for Integrated Management of Estuarine,
Coastal and Marine Environments in Canada (Ottawa: Oceans Directorate) URL:
www.cos-soc.gc.ca/doc/im-gi/index_e.asp
-----. 2001a The Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative:
Development of a Collaborative Management and Planning Process A Discussion
Paper Prepared for the Federal-Provincial ESSIM Working Group (Dartmouth, NS:
DFO)
----. 2001b ESSIM Issues, Challenges and Opportunities Discussion Paper (Dartmouth,
NS: DFO)
----. 1999 Improving DFO Stakeholder Relations (Ottawa, ON: DFO)
369
----. 1997. Middle Shoal Channel Improvement Reconsideration of the Screening Report
Habitat Status Report 97/1 E (Dartmouth NS: DFO Maritimes Region)
Diamant, P. 1997 " Restructuring Local Government: Where Do We Go From Here?" in
Changing Rural Institutions R. Rounds, ed. (Brandon, Manitoba: The Rural
Development Institute, Brandon University)
Diamond, J. 2005 Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. (New York:
Viking Press)
-----. 1997 Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (Mississauga, ON:
Random House)
Dicken, P. 2007 Global Shift: Mapping the changing contours of the world economy
(London: Sage)
----. 1994 ‗The Roepke lecture in economic geography—global-local tensions: Firms and
states in the global space-economy‘ Economic Geography 70,101–28
Dobell, R. and Bunton, M. 2001 Sound Governance: The emergence of collaborative
networks and new institutions in the Clayoquot Sound region Background paper for
Clayoquot Sound Regional Workshop, September 2001
Dolan, H., Taylor, M., Neis, B., Ommer, R., Eyles, J., Schneider, D., and Montevecchi, B.
2005 ‗Restructuring and health in Canadian coastal communities‘ EcoHealth
2(3),195-208
Dooley, K. 1997 ‗A complex adaptive systems model of organizational change,‘
Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences 1(1), 69-97
Dore J. 2003 'The governance of increasing Mekong regionalism' in Social Challenges for
the Mekong Region, eds. M. Kaosa-ard and J. Dore (White Lotus, Bangkok)
Doubleday, N., Mackenzie, A., Fiona, D., Dalby, S. 2004 ‗Reimagining sustainable
cultures: constitutions, land and art‘ Canadian Geographer 48(4) 389-404
Douglas, D. J. A. 2006 Presentation made at the Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy
and Development, Memorial University, St John‘s NL, June 2006
Dovetail Consulting.1999 An Evaluation of DFO Involvement in Land and Resource
Management Planning (LRMP) in British Columbia (Vancouver BC: DFO).
du Plessis, V. Beshiri, B., Bollman, R., and Clemenson, H. 2002 Definitions of ―Rural‖
(Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada)
Drache, D. and Clement, W. 1985 The New Practical Guide to Canadian Political
Economy (Toronto: James Lorimer)
Dunn, C. 2003 ‗Provincial Mediation of Federal-Municipal Relations in Newfoundland
and Labrador‘ Paper presented at the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations
Conference, May 9-10, 2003, Queen‘s University. Kingston, ON
Dunne, E. 2003 Final report: fish processing policy review (St. John‘s: Department of
Fisheries and Aquaculture)
370
Eaton, P.B., Gray, A.G., Johnson, P.W., and Hundert, E. 1994 State of the Environment in
the Atlantic Region (Dartmouth, NS: Environment Canada, Atlantic Region)
Easterling, W.E., Hurd, B. and Smith, J. 2004 Coping with Global Climate Change: the
Role of Adaptation in the United States Paper Prepared for the Pew Centre on Global
Climate Change (Arlington, VA : Pew Centre on Global Climate Change) URL :
www.pewclimate.org/docuploads/adaptation%2e.pdf
ECBC (Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation). 2008 URL:
http://www.ecbc.ca/e/default.asp last accessed Dec. 10, 2008
Ecotrust Canada and Ecotrust. 2004 Catch-22: Conservation, communities and the
privatization of BC Fisheries (Vancouver, BC: Ecotrust Canada)
Edgington, D.W. 1995 ‗Trade, investment and the new regionalism: 'Cascadia' and
its economic links with Japan‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Studies 18(3), 333-356
EEWC (Education Equity Working Committee). 1997 Our Children, Our Communities
and Our Future: Equity in Education A jointly produced policy framework of the
Saskatchewan Teachers' Federation, the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association,
the League of Educational Administrators, Directors and Superintendents, the
Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, and Saskatchewan Education (Regina:
Authors)
EFWC (Eskasoni Fish and Wildlife Commission). 1995 Bras d‘Or Lakes Co-
management proposal (Eskasoni, NS: EFWC)
Eisenhardt, K. 1989 ‗Building theories from case study research‘ Academy of
Management Review 14, 532-550
EKOS Research Associates. 2002 ‗Positioning the Voluntary Sector in Canada: What the
Elite and the General Public Say.‘ Presentation Report to the Steering Committee of
the Voluntary Sector Initiative, Ottawa, October 8th 2002. Ottawa, ON
Ellison, G., and Glaeser, E. 1999 ‗The Geographic concentration of industry: Does
natural advantage explain agglomeration?‘ American Economic Review 89(2), 311-
316
Encarta. 2007 ‗World English Dictionary [North American Edition] Microsoft
Corporation
Ennis, J. 2006 Science and Sustainable Fishery Management: The State of the
Newfoundland Lobster Fishery Paper prepared for the Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council Consultation Process on the Long-term Conservation
Framework for Atlantic Lobster. Ottawa, ON, URL:
www.frcc.ca/lobster/Fishery%20Science_comp.pdf
Environment Canada, New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local
Government, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Environment and
Conservation, Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour, and Prince
Edward Island Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture, and Environment. 2005
Application and Testing of the CCME Water Quality Index in Selected Water Bodies
371
in Atlantic Canada (Winnipeg Manitoba: Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment)
Environment Canada. 2008 ‗Northern Rivers Ecosystem Initiative‘Dartmouth, NS.
www.pnr-rpn.ec.gc.ca/nature/ecosystems/nrei-iern/index.en.html accessed 3rd
November 2008
----. 1999 ‗The New World of Environment Policy Making: Theory and Practice.‘ ESAC
Annual Meeting, Dartmouth, NS
Eoyang, G. and Berkas, T. 1998 Evaluation in a Complex Adaptive System URL:
www.chaos-limited.com/EvalinCAS.pdf accessed 3rd November 2008.
Eoyang, G. 2001 ‗Conditions for Self-organizing in Human Systems.‘ [Unpublished
dissertation]. URL: http://www.winternet.com/~eoyang/dissertation.pdf
accessed November 4 2008.
-----. 1999 Coping with chaos: Seven simple tools. (Cheyenne: Lagumo)
-----. 1996 ‗A Brief Introduction to Complexity in Organizations.‘ URL:
http://www.chaos-
limited.com/A%20Brief%20Introduction%20to%20Complexity%20in%20Or
ganizations.pdf accessed on 10 November 2008
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2008 ‗Core principle 1: Watersheds are natural
systems that we can work with‘ URL:
www.epa.gov/watertrain/watershedmgt/principle1.html Accessed on 10 November
2008
-----. 1997 ‗The National Estuary Program: A Ten Year Perspective‘ URL:
http://www.epa.gov/nep/aniv.htm
Epstein, R. 1999 Principles for a Free Society: Reconciling Individual Liberty with the
Common Good (Reading: Perseus Books)
ESDP (European Spatial Development Perspective). 1999 ‗European Spatial
Development Perspective, Towards a Balanced and Sustainable Development of the
Territory of the EU‘ CEC, Luxemburg. European and American Experience
(London, MacMillan)
ESPON (European Spatial Planning Observatory Network). 2004 Critical Dictionary of
Polycentricity (Stockholm, Sweden: The ESPON Monitoring Committee and the
partners of the projects mentioned, including Nordregio)
Fairtlough, G. 2005 The Three Ways of Getting Things Done Hierarchy, Heterarchy and
Responsible Autonomy in Organizations (Devon: Triarchy press)
Farrell, R. 1993 Our Mountains and Glens: The History of River Denys, Big Brook and
Lime Hill (North Side), Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. (Fredericton: New Ireland Press)
Farrell, S.J., Reissing, E.R., and Aubry, T. 2002 Street needs assessment: An investigation
of the characteristics and service needs of persons who are homeless and not
currently using shelters (Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa)
372
Fenety, J. 1981 ‗New Developments in River Basin Management‘ Water, Science and
Technology 13 (3)
Fenger, M. and Klok, P.J. 2001 ‗Interdependency, beliefs, and coalition behavior: a
contribution to the advocacy coalition framework‘ Policy Sciences. 34 (2), 157-170
Fernow, B.E. 1912 Forest Conditions of Nova Scotia, assisted by C.D. Howe and J.H.
White; pub; by permission of the Dept. of Crown Lands, Nova Scotia (Ottawa:
Commission of Conservation)
Filion, P. 1998 ‗Potential and limitations of community economic development:
individual initiative and collective action in a post-Fordist context.‘ Environment and
Planning A 30, 1101-1123
Finnie, R. 2001 ‗Unequal inequality: the distribution of individual‘s earnings by
province‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science 24, 265-288
Fischer, F. 1998 ‗Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in postpositive perspective‘
Available at http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tps/e-print/peter.pdf accessed on 10 November
2008.
Flinders, M. and M. Smith eds. 1999 Quangos, Accountability and Reform: The Politics
of Quasi-Government (Basingstoke: Macmillan)
Florida, R. 1995 ‗Toward the learning region‘ Futures 27,527–536
FNI (Federation of Newfoundland Indians). 2007 URL: http://www.fni.nf.ca/qalipu.asp.
Last accessed Dec. 9, 2008
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, CS, Walker, B.,
Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L.,
Kasperson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S., Göran Mäler, K., Moberg, F.,
Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockström, J., Savenije, H. and
Svedin, U. 2002 ‗Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive
Capacity in a World of Transformations‘ Scientific Background Paper on Resilience
for the process of The World Summit on Sustainable Development on behalf of The
Environmental Advisory Council to the Swedish Government, Johannesburg, South
Africa
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. 2005 „Adaptive governance of social-
ecological systems‘ Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 441-473
Francis, D., Jones, R., and Smith, D. 1988 Origins: Canadian History to Confederation
(Toronto: Holt, Rinehart & Winston of Canada Ltd)
FRCC (Fisheries Resource Conservation Council). 2005 A Strategic Conservation
Framework for Atlantic Snow Crab (Ottawa, ON: DFO)
Freeman, L.C. 2004 The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the
Sociology of Science‘ (Vancouver: Empirical Press)
Freshwater, D., Thurston, L. and Ehrensaft, P. 1993 ‗Negotiating Partnerships for
Community Development‘ in The Structure Theory and Practice of Partnerships in
Rural Development ed. R.C. Rounds (Brandon, Manitoba: Rural Development
Institute, Brandon University)
373
Friedmann, J. and Weaver, C. 1979 Territory and Function: The Evolution of Regional
Planning. (London: Edward Arnold)
Freudenburg, W. 1992 ‗Addictive economies: Extractive industries and vulnerable
localities in a changing world economy‘ Rural Sociology 57, 305-32
Gagne, G. 1998 „Accountability and public administration‘ in The Puzzles of Power: An
Introduction to Political Science eds. M. Howlett and D. Laycock (Don Mills, ON:
Oxford University Press), 175-184
Gagnon, G. and Walsh, M. 2007 ‗Drinking Water Research at Dalhousie University‘
Science Forum on Water Resource Management at Cape Breton University, 21 Feb
2007
Galaway, B., and Hudson, J. 1994 Community Economic Development: Perspectives on
Research and Policy (Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc)
Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., Svedin, U. 2007 ‘The Problem of Fit between
Ecosystems and Governance Systems – Insights and Emerging Challenges‘, Ecology
and Society 12(1), 20
Gale, F., and McGonigle, M eds. 2000 Nature, Production, Power: Approaches to
Ecological Political Economy (Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar
Publishers)
Gallaugher, P., Alder, J., Bendell-Young, L. and Guénette, S. 2005 Changing Currents:
Charting a Course of Action for the Future of Oceans Summary Report of Workshop
held at SFU Harbour Centre‘s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue, Vancouver BC,
23-26, Feb. 2006 (Burnaby, BC: SFU Centre for Coastal Studies)
Gallopin, G.C. 2006 ‗Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity‘
Global environmental Change 16(3), 293-303
----. 2001 ‗Planning for resilience: scenarios, surprises and branch points‘ in Panarchy.
Understanding Transformation in Human and Natural Systems. Eds. Gunderson,
L.H. and Holling, C.S. (Washington: Island Press)
Gallopín, G.C., Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M. and Ravetz, J. 2001 ‗Science for the 21st
Century: from Social Contract to the Scientific Core‘ International Journal of Social
Science 168, 219-229
Gann, G.D., and Lamb, D. eds. 2006 Ecological Restoration: A Means of conserving
Biodiversity and Sustaining Livelihoods (version 1.1). Society for Ecological
Restoration International (Tucson, Arizona, USA and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN)
GASHA (Guysborough Antigonish Strait Health Authority). 2005 Trends in Our Aging
Population: Adults and Seniors (Antigonish, NS: GASHA)
Gatrell, A. 2003 Complexity theory and geographies of health: a modern and global
synthesis? (Lancaster. UK: Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University)
Geepu Nah Tiepoh, M. and Reimer, B. 2004 ‗Social capital, information flows, and
income creation in rural Canada: a cross-community analysis‘ Journal of Socio-
Economics 33 (4), September 2004, 427-448
374
GEMSAP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on
the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 2001 A Sea of Troubles,
Rep. Stud. No. 70 (London: GEMSAP)
Gephart, R P. 1999 ‗Paradigms and Research Methods‘ Research Methods Forum 4(1),
11
Gertler, M.S., Florida, R., Gates, G., and Vinodrai, T. 2002 Competing on Creativity:
Placing Ontario‘s Cities in North American Context A report prepared for the
Ontario Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation and the Institute for
Competitiveness and Prosperity, Toronto ON
Gertler, M.S. and Wolfe, D.A. (eds). 2002. Innovation and Social Learning: Institutional
Adaptation in an Era of Technological Change. (Basingstoke, UK:
Macmillan/Palgrave)
Gezelius, S. 2007 ‗Three Paths from Law Enforcement to Compliance: Cases from the
Fisheries.‘ Human Organization Winter 2007 Edition
Gibbs, D., and Jonas, A. 2001 ‗Rescaling and Regional Governance: the English Regional
Development Agencies and the environment.‘ Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy 19(2), 269-288
Gibson, J., Haedrich, R., Kennedy, J., Vodden, K., and Wernerheim, M. 2008 ‗Barriers
and Diversions to Knowledge Flow‘ in Making and Moving Knowledge eds. J. Lutz
and B. Neis (McGill-Queen‘s Press), 155-177
Gibson-Graham J. K. 2003 ‗An ethics of the local.‘ Rethinking Marxism 15(1), 49-74
Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2002 ‗Beyond Global vs. Local: Economic Politics Outside the
Binary Frame‘ in A. Herod and M. Wright eds., Geographies of Power: Placing
Scale. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers)
Gilkeson, L., L. Bonner, R. Brown, K. Francis, D. Johannesen, R. Canessa, J. Alder, D.
Bernard, G. Mattu, C. Wong, R. Paynter. 2006 Alive and Inseparable: British
Columbia‘s Coastal Environment Prepared by the UBC Fisheries Centre and
University of Victoria (Victoria, BC: Canada, BC Ministry of Environment) URL:
www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/404442/bcce_report.pdf accessed 4
November 2008
Gill, A. and Reed, M. 1999 ‗Incorporating Postproductivist Values into Sustainable
Community Processes‘ in J. T. Pierce and A. Dale, eds Community Perspective on
Sustainable Development (Vancouver: UBC Press), 169-189
Gill, A. and Reed, M. 1997 ‗The Reimagining of a Canadian Resource Town: Post
Productivism in a North American Context‘ Journal of Applied Geographical Studies
1(2),129-147
375
Gislason, G.S., Lam, E., and Mohan, M. 1996 Fishing for Answers: Coastal Communities
and the BC Salmon Fishery Final Report Prepared by ARA Consulting Group for BC
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Victoria, BC: Government of BC)
Glaser, M. 2006 ‗The social dimension in ecosystem management: Strengths and
weaknesses of human-nature mind maps‘ Human Ecology Review 13(2), 122-142.
Society for Human Ecology
Goetz, A. 2003 ‗Women's political effectiveness: A conceptual framework‘ in No
Shortcuts to Power, eds. A. M. Goetz and S. Hassim (London, Zed), 29-80
Goldenberg, M. 2008 ‗A Review of Rural and Regional Development Policies and
Programs‘, undertaken by Canadian Policy Research Networks on behalf of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour (Ottawa, ON: CPRN)
Goldstein, H. 2005 ‗The role of knowledge infrastructure in regional economic
development: the case of the Research Triangle.‘ Canadian Journal of Regional
Science 28(2), 199-224)
Graham, K. and S. Phillips. 1997 ‗Citizen engagement: Beyond the customer revolution‘,
Canadian Public Administration, Summer, 255-73
Grainger, A. 2004 ‗The role of spatial scale and spatial interactions in sustainable
development‘ In Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives,
eds. M. Purvis and A. Grainger (London: Earthscan) 50-84
Grant Thorton. 2003 ‗Audit of the Community Futures Program‘ Prepared for: Western
Economic Diversification Canada (Vancouver, BC: WD)
Greenwood, R. 2005 ‗Performance Contracts and Newfoundland and Labrador‘s
Regional Economic Development Boards: Initial Framework and Lessons Learned‘
presentation, St. John‘s, NL 15 March, 2005
Greenwood, R. 1991 ‗The Local State and Economic Development in Peripheral Regions:
A Comparative Study of Newfoundland and Northern Norway‘ Unpublished PhD
Thesis (Coventry, UK: University of Warwick)
Gresh, T., Lichatowich, J., and Schoonmaker, P. 2000 „An estimation of historic and
current levels of salmon production in Northeast Pacific ecosystems‘ Fisheries 25(1),
15-21
Gunderson, L., and Holling, C.S. 2001 Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in
Human and Natural Systems (Washington DC: Island Press)
Gunnarsson, M. 2000 Regionalism and Security – Two Concepts in the Wind of Change
(Umeå, Sweden: Umea Univesitet Department of Political Studies)
Haas, E. 1958 The Uniting of Europe (London: Stevens & Sons)
Haggan, N. 2000 ‗Back to the future and creative justice: Recalling and restoring
forgotten abundance in Canada‘s marine ecosystems‘ in Just Fish: Ethics in
Canadian Coastal Fisheries, eds. H. Coward, R. Ommer and T. Pitcher (St. John‘s:
ISER Books)
376
Hall, M., and Banting, K. 2000 ‗The nonprofit sector in Canada: An introduction.‘ In The
Nonprofit Sector in Canada: Roles and Relationships, ed. K. Banting (Kingston:
McGill-Queen‘s University Press)
Hall, M., Lasby, D., Gumulka, G., and Tryon, C. 2006 Caring Canadians, Involved
Canadians: Highlights from the 2004. Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and
Participating (Ottawa, ON: Published by authority of the Minister responsible for
Statistics Canada)
Hall, P. 1993 ‗Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: The case of economic
policymaking in Britain‘ Comparative Politics 25, 275-297
Halseth, G. Manson, D., Markey, S., Lax, L. and Buttar, O. 2006 „The Connected North:
Findings from the Northern BC Economic Vision and Strategy Project‘ Journal of
Rural and Community Development 3, 21-27
Halseth, G., Bruce, D., and Sullivan, L. 2004 ‗Leading and lagging: The long run role of
institutions and social capital in fostering community economic development‘ in
Building for Success: Explorations of Rural Community and Rural Development, eds.
G. Halseth and R. Halseth (Brandon, MB: Rural Development Institute, Brandon
University), 309-336
Hamilton, L.C., Haedrich, R.L., and Duncan, C.M. 2004 ‗Above and below the water:
Social/ecological transformation in northwest Newfoundland‘ Population and
Environment 25(3), 195-215
Hamilton, L., and Butler, M. 2001 ‗Outport adaptations: Social indicators through
Newfoundland‘s cod crisis‘ Human Ecology Review 8(2), 1-11
Harper, D. J., and Quigley, J.T. 2000 No Net Loss of Fish Habitat: An Audit of Forest
Road Crossings of Fish-Bearing Streams in British Columbia, 1996-1999 (Ottawa,
ON: Habitat and Enhancement Branch, DFO)
Harrington, L. 2005 ‗Sustainability, Scale, and Critical Connections: Commentary on
Robert Kates' Essay on Long-Term Trends and Transitions.‘ FORUM: Science and
Innovation for Sustainable Development. URL:
http://sustsci.aaas.org/content.html?contentid=645&print=1
Harrison, J. 2006 ‗Constructing New Regional Geographies: Territories, Networks and
Relational Regions‘ GaWC Research Bulletin 213. Edited and posted 21st November
2006
Harvey, D. 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford/Cambridge MA)
Hassink, R. 2005 ‗How to unlock regional economies from path dependency? From
learning region to learning cluster‘ European Planning Studies 13(4) June 2005, 521
- 535
377
Haughton, G., and Counsell, C. 2004 ‗Regions and sustainable development: regional
planning matters‘ Geographical Journal 170(2), 135-145 (11)
Hayter, R. 2000 ‗Flexible Crossroads: The Restructuring of British Columbia‘s Forest
Economy‘ (Vancouver: UBC Press)
Hayter, R. 2001 ‗Forest Re-regulation and Industrial Restructuring: Reflections on the
NDP's Forest Policy for British Columbia, 1991-2001‘ Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 93(3), 706-729
Hayter, R., and Barnes, T. 1990 ‗Innis' staple theory, exports, and recession: British
Columbia, 1981-1986‘ Economic Geography, 66, 156-73
Healy, A., 1999 ‗Shaping up for integration (ESDP and action plan to promote a spatial
dimension in community planning)‘ Planning 1345, 19 November 1999
Healey, P., Madanipour, A. and de Magalhaes, C. eds. 2002 Urban Governance,
Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux (Ashgate: Aldershot)
Healey, P. 1998 ‗Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to
urban planning‘ Environment and Planning A, 30,1531-1546
Heiltsuk First Nation. 2001 How Long Will it Last?‘ Cedar Logging in the Heiltsuk
Traditional Territory (Bella Bella, BC: Heiltsuk First Nation)
Henoque, Y., and Dennis, J. 2001 A Methodological Guide: Steps and Tools towards
Integrated Coastal Area Management IOC Manuals and Guides No 42 (Paris:
UNESCO)
Henton, D., Melville, J., Amsler, T. and Kopell, M. 2005 Collaborative Governance: A
Guide for Grantmakers (Menlo Park, CA: The William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation)
Hessing, M. and Howlett, M. 1997 Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental
Policy (Vancouver: UBC Press)
Higgins, B., and Savoie, D. 1995 Regional Development Theories and Their Application
(New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers)
Hildebrand, L.P. 1989 Canada‘s experience with Coastal Zone Management (Halifax,
NS: Oceans Institute of Canada)
Hipwell, W. 2001 ‗Taking Charge of the Bras d'Or: Ecological Politics in the 'Land of
Fog‘ Ph.D Thesis (Carleton, ON: Carlton University)
Hoberg, G. 2001 ‗`Don't forget government can do anything': policies towards jobs in the
British Columbia forest sector‘ in In Search of Sustainability: British Columbia
Forest Policy in the 1990s, eds. B Cashore, G Hoberg, M Howlett, J Rayner, J
Wilson (UBC Press, Vancouver), 207 – 231
Hobson, P., Desjardins, P., and Savoie, D. 2004 Trade, Equalization and Regional
Disparities in Canada URL:
www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/programs/cepra/hobson_paper-1.pdf accessed 2
November, 2008
Hodge, G., and I, Robinson. 2001 ‗Planning Canadian Regions‟ (Vancouver: UBC Press)
378
Hodge, G.D., and M.A. Qadeer. 1983 Towns and Villages in Canada: The Importance of
Being Unimportant (Toronto: Butterworths)
Hoffman, B. 1955. ‗The historical ethnography of the Micmac of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries‘ PhD thesis (Berkley, CA: University of California)
Hollett, A. 2003 ‗The Community Accounts: The Journey and Future Directions of a
Newfoundland and Labrador Innovation‘ Paper presented to the Newfoundland and
Labrador Regional Group Institute of Public Administration of Canada Luncheon,
Sept. 29. St. John‘s, NL
Holling, C.S., and Gunderson, L. 2001 ‗Resilience and Adaptive Cycles‘, In Panarchy:
Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, eds. L. H.
Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC: Island Press), 25-62
Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L. H. and G. D. Peterson. 2001 ‗Sustainability and Panarchies‘
in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, eds.
L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC: Island Press), 63-102
Holling, C.S. 2001 ‗Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social
systems,‘ Ecosystems 4, 390-405
----- ed. 1978 Adaptive environmental assessment and management (New York: John
Wiley and Sons)
-----. 1973 ‗Resilience and stability of ecological systems‘ Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 4, 1-23
Hollister, R. and Hill, J. 1995 Problems in the Evaluation of Community-Wide Initiatives.
New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and
Contexts (Queenstown, MD: The Aspen Institute)
Homer-Dixon, T. 2000 The Ingenuity Gap: How Can We Solve The Problems of the
Future?(New York: Random House)
----. 2006. The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization
(Washington, DC: Knopf, Island Press)
Hoover, E.M., and Giarratani, F. 1985 An Introduction to Regional Economics
(Morgantown, VA: Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University)
House, D. 2006 ‗Oil, Fish and Social Change in Newfoundland and Labrador:
Lessons for British Columbia.‘ Presentation sponsored by Simon Fraser University's
Centre for Coastal Studies, Burnaby, BC, 11 January 2006
----. 2003. ‗Does Community Really Matter in Newfoundland and Labrador? The Need
for Supportive Capacity in the New Regional Economic Development‘ in
Retrenchment and Regeneration in Rural Newfoundland ed. R. Byron (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press), 226-267
----. 2001 ‗The New Regional Development: Is Rural Development A Viable Option in
Newfoundland and Labrador?‘ Newfoundland Studies 17(1), 11-31
-----. 1999 Against the Tide: Battling for Economic Renewal in Newfoundland and
Labrador (Toronto: University of Toronto Press)
379
-----. 1985 The Challenge of Oil: Newfoundland's Quest for Controlled Development (St.
John's, Newfoundland: ISER Books)
Howlett, M., and Brownsey, K. 2008 Canada‘s Resource Economy in Transition: The
Past, Present, and Future of Canadian Staples Industries (Toronto: Emond
Montgomery Publications)
Howlett, M., and Carmichael, K. 2008 ‗Ontario to get slice of equalization pie‘ Globe and
Mail Report on Business, November 3, 2008
Howlett, M., and Ramesh, M. 1995 Studying Public Policy (Toronto: Oxford University
Press)
-----. 1992. The Political Economy of Canada: An Introduction (Toronto: McClelland and
Stewart)
Howlett, M. 1998 Unpublished proposal. www.sfu.ca/~howlett/SSHRC98.html accessed
11 November, 2008
Hudson, R. 2005 Economic Geographies: Circuits, Flows and Spaces (London and
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications)
Hueglin, T. and Fenna, A. 2005 Comparative Federalism: A Systematic Inquiry (Toronto:
Broadview Press)
Huggett, D. 1998 ‗The role of federal government intervention in coastal zone planning
and management‘ Ocean and Coastal Management 39(1-2) 33-50
Hurtig, M. 1991. The Betrayal of Canada (Toronto: Stoddart)
Hutchings, J. 2005 ‗The Collapse of Northern Cod: Malleable Links Between Science and
Policy‘ Presented at Changing Currents: Charting a Course of Action for the Future
of Oceans, 23-26 Feb. 2005: www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/changingcurrents.htm
Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (IBEC). 2003 Centre for Terrestrial and Aquatic
Field Studies, Phase I Feasibility Study (Indian Bay, NL: IBEC)
Innes, J., Connick, S..Kaplan, L. and Booher, D. 2006 Collaborative Governance in the
CALFED Program: Adaptive Policy Making for California Water (Berkely: Institute
of Urban and Regional Development, University of California and Sacramento:
Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University)
Innes, J. and Booher, D. 1999 ‗Consensus Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive
Systems – A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning‘ Journal of the
American Planning Association Autumn 1999, 65(4) 412-423
Innes, J., J. Gruber, M. Neuman and R. Thompson. 1994 `Co-ordinating growth and
environmental management through consensus building' California Policy Seminar
Paper, Berkeley, CA: University of California
Innis, H. 1933 Problems of Staple Production in Canada (Toronto: Ryerson Press)
-----. 1956 The Fur Trade in Canada: an Introduction to Canadian Economic History
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press)
Interfor. 1996 Interfacts April 1996 2(2) Interfor Publication.
380
Iyer-Raniga, U. and Treloar, G. 2000 ‗FORUM: A context for participation in sustainable
development‘ Environmental Management 26(4), 349-361
Jackson, L., Marshall, A., Tirone, S., Donovan, C., and Shepard, B. 2006 ‗The forgotten
population? power, powerlessness and agency among youth in coastal communities‘
in Power and Restructuring: Canada‘s Coastal Society and Environment eds. P.
Sinclair and R. Ommer (St. John‘s: ISER Books)
Jackson, R., and Jackson, D. 1998 Politics in Canada: Culture, Institutions, Behaviour
and Public Policy (Scarborough ON, Prentice-Hall Canada)
Jamieson, G. and Levings, C. 2001 ‗Marine protected areas in Canada—implications for
both conservation and fisheries management‘ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 138–156
Janssen, M., and Anderies, J. 2007 ‗Robustness trade-offs in social-ecological systems‘
International Journal of the Commons 1(1)
Janssen, M. A. 2001 ‗A future of surprises‘ in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations
in Human and Natural Systems, eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington
DC: Island Press), 241-260
Jenson, J. and Phillips, S. 1996 'Regime shift: new citizenship practices in Canada'
International Journal of Canadian Studies 14 (fall), 111–136
Jentoft, S. 2007 ‗Limits of Governability? Institutional Implications for Fisheries and
Coastal Governance‘ Marine Policy 31, 360-370
Jessop, B. 2000 ‗Governance Failure‘ in The New Politics of British Local Governance
ed. G. Stoker (London: Macmillan), 11-32
Jessop, B. 1997 ‗Governance of complexity and the complexity of governance:
preliminary remarks on some problems and limits of economic guidance‘ in Beyond
Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity eds. A. Amin
and J. Hausner (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 95-108
Jessop, B. 1990 State Theory: Putting the Capitalist State in Its Place (Cambridge:
Polity)
Johnson, D. 1999 ‗Industrial policy and the new economy: Cape Breton confronts an
uncertain future‘ in Proceedings of the Conference ~ Cape Breton in Transition:
Economic Diversification and Prospects for Tourism ed. W. O'Shea, C. Corbin and
E. Krause (Louisbourg, NS: Louisbourg Institute)
Johnson, P. 1996 in The Encyclopedia of North American Indians ed. F. Hoxie (New
York: Houghton Mifflin)
Johnson, D. and Kooiman, J. 2008 ‗The governability of governing systems: institutional
adaptation as seen from interactive governance and complex adaptive systems
perspectives‘ Presented at the Interactive governance and the resilience of aquatic
resource exploitation systems session, Resilience 2008:
http://resilience2008.org/resilience/panels/2.htm
Johnston, H. 1996 The Pacific Province: A History of British Columbia (Vancouver:
Douglas & MacIntyre)
381
Juda, L. 1999 ‗Considerations in developing a functional approach to the governance of
Large Marine Ecosystems‘ Ocean Development and International Law 30, 89-125
Juda, L. and Hennessey, T. 2001 ‗Governance Profiles and the Management of the Uses
of Large Marine Ecosystems‘ Ocean Development & International Law 32:41-67
Juillet, L. 2000 ‗Regional models of environmental governance in the context of market
integration‘ in Governing the Environment: Trends and Challenges ed. E. Parsons
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 125-168
Kagan, R. 1997 ‗Political and legal obstacles to collaborative ecosystem planning‘
Ecology Law Quarterly 24(4), 871-875
Kates, R. 2000 ‗Sustainability Science‘ Presentation to the World Academies Conference,
Transition to Sustainability in the 21st Century. Tokyo, Japan
Kates, R., Parris, T. and Leiserowitz, A. 2005. ‗What is sustainable development? Goals,
indicators, values and practice‘ Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable
Development 47(3), 8–21
Kates, R., Clark, W., Corell, R., Hall, J., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J., Schellnhuber,
H., Bolin, B., Dickson, N., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G., Gruebler, A., Huntley, B.,
Jäger, J., Jodha, N., Kasperson, R., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore,
B. O‘Riordan, T. and Svedin, U. 2001 ‗Sustainability Science‘ Science 292, 641-2
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. 2005 Governance Matters IV: Governance
Indicators for 1996-2004 Report to the World Bank Group (Washington DC: The
World Bank)
Kaufmann, D. 2005 ‗Lecture on Governance and Corruption‘ American University of
Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon, October 7, 2005
Kavanaugh, M. 2005 (original text by Goudie, I.) ‗Bird Fact Sheets: Common Eider‘
Hinterland Who‘s Who‘ Canada (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wildlife Service and
Canadian Wildlife Federation) URL: http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=38
KEDC (Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation). 2006a ‗KEDC Overview‘
Presentation by Jill Bennett, Centreville NL
----. 2006b ‗Annual General Meeting Presentation‘ by Jill Bennett Hotel Gander, Gander
NL Sept. 14, 2008
----. 2003 ‗Strategic Economic Plan 2003-2008‘ (Gander: KEDC)
----. 2001 ‗Annual Workplan‘ (Gander: KEDC)
----. 1997 ‗Strategic Economic Plan‘(Gander: KEDC)
Kemmis, D. 1995 The Good City and the Good Life (New York: Houghton Mifflin
Company)
Kenchington, T. 1997 ‗First Nations Fisheries Management in Bras D‘Or: Some
Considerations‘ Prepared for Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission (Eskasoni, NS:
EFWC)
382
-----. 1998 ‗Unamaki Ewey Uta‘n: A description of the Bras D‘Or region‘ Version 0.2.1
Gadus Associates report prepared for the Union of Nova Scotia Indians and
Una‘maki Environment Committee
Kenchington, T. and E. Carruthers. 2001 ‗Unamapaqt: A description of the Bras D‘Or
marine environment‘ A report prepared for the Union of Nova Scotia Indians and
Una‘maki Environment Committee
Kernaghan, K. and J. Langford. 1990 The Responsible Public Servant (Toronto:
IPAC/IRPP)
Kildow, J. 1997 ‗The Roots and Context of the Coastal Zone Movement‘ Coastal
Management 25, 231-263
Kim, Sook-Jin. 2006 ‗Networks, scale, and transnational corporations: The case of the
South Korean seed industry‘ Economic Geography 82(3), 317–338
King, N. 2008 ‗Stora Enso sells Point Tupper mill‘ The Nova Scotia Business Journal.
23/09/07
Kitson, M., Martin, R. and Tyler, P. 2004 ‗Regional competitiveness: an elusive yet key
concept?‘ Regional Studies, 38(9), 991-999
Kloosterman, R.C and Musterd, S. 2001 ‗The polycentric urban region: Towards a
research agenda‘ Urban Studies 38(4), 623-633
Knill, C. 1999 ‗Explaining cross-national variance in administrative reform: autonomous
versus instrumental bureaucracies‘ Journal of Public Policy 19, 113-139
Kontopolous, K. 1993 The logics of social structure (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
Kooiman, J., and Bavinck, M. 2005 The governance perspective. In Fish for life:
interactive governance for fisheries eds. J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft and R.
Pullin. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press) 1-24
Koontz, T., Steelman, T., Carmin, J. Korfmacher, K., Mosely, C. and Thomas, C. 2004
Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government?
(Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press)
Krugman, P. 1994 Peddling Prosperity (New York: W.W. Norton)
Lackey, R. 2008 ‗Salmon Decline in Western North America: Historical Context‘ in
Encyclopedia of Earth ed. J. Cutler, (Washington, DC: Environmental Information
Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment)
Lambert, T. 2002 Overview of the Ecology of the Bras d‘Or Lakes with Emphasis on the
Fish. Proceedings of the Nova Scotia Institute of Science, Vol. 42, 65-99
Larkin, G.A., and Slaney, P.A. 1996 „Trends in marine-derived nutrient sources to south
coastal British Columbia streams: impending implications to salmonid production‘
Watershed Restoration Management Report No. 3 (Victoria, BC. Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests)
Latour, B. 1987 Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press)
383
Law, J. ed. 1992 A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology, and
Domination (London: Routledge Sociological Review Monograph)
Law, J. 1999 ‗After ANT: complexity, naming and topology‘ in Actor Network Theory
and After, eds. J. Law and J. Hassard (Oxford: Blackwell/The Sociological Review)
Laxer, G. ed. 1991 Perspectives on Canadian Economic Development: Class, Staples,
Gender and Elites (Toronto: Oxford University Press)
Lebel, L. 2005 ‗The politics of scale in environmental assessment‘ In Bridging scales and
epistemologies: linking local knowledge and global science in environmental
assessments eds. F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistran (Washington, D.C: Island
Press)
Lebel, L., Garden, P., and Imamura, M. 2005 ‗The politics of scale, position, and place in
the governance of water resources in the Mekong region‘ Ecology and Society 10(2),
18
Lee, E. 2007 ‗Organizational Form and Structure of the Global Justice Movement‘ Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association,
TBA, San Francisco, CA URL: www.allacademic.com/meta/p173179_index.html
Lee, K. 1999 ‗Appraising adaptive management‘ Conservation Ecology 3(2), 3. URL:
http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/
Lefebvre M. and Brender, N. 2006 ‗Canada‘s Hub Cities a Driving Force of the National
Economy‘ (Ottawa, ON: The Conference Board of Canada)
LEPS (Langley Environmental Partners Society), Land Stewardship Centre of Canada,
Alberta, Conservation Ontario, Comité ZIP Baie des Chaleurs, Clean Annapolis
River Project. National Watershed Stewardship Report: Policy recommendations and
suggested actions to expand and strengthen watershed stewardship in Canada
(Langley, BC: Langley Environmental Partners Society)
Leygues, L. 2001 ‗Report by the Working Group on Multi-Level Governance: Linking
and Networking the Various Regional and Local Levels‘ (Brussels: Council of
European Municipalities and Regions)
Leuven, R., Smits, A. and Nienhuis, P. 2000 ‗From integrated approaches to sustainable
river basin management‘ in New approaches to river management eds. A. Smits, P.
Nienhuis and R. Leuven eds (Leiden, Backhuys Publishers) 329-347
Levin, S. 1999 Fragile dominion: complexity and the commons (Reading, Massachusetts:
Perseus Books)
Leslie, D. 2004 ‗Geographies of Power. Placing Scale‘ (Book Review) The Canadian
Geographer 48(2), 246
Lipietz, A. 1992 Towards a New Economic Order, Postfordism, Ecology, Democracy
(Oxford and New York: Polity Press and Oxford University Press)
Lippard, L. 1997 The Lure of the Local: Senses of Place in a Multicentered Society (New
York: The New Press)
384
Little J. 2001 ‗New rural governance?‘ Progress in Human Geography 25(1), 97-102
Locke, W. and Tomblin, S. 2003. ‗Good Governance, a Necessary but Not Sufficient
Condition for Facilitating Economic Viability in a Peripheral Region: Cape Breton
as a Case Study‘ A Discussion Paper Prepared for the Cape Breton Regional
Municipality (Sydney, NS: CBRM)
Lovell, C., Mandondo, A., and Moriarty, P. 2002 ‗The question of scale in integrated
natural resource management‘ Conservation Ecology 5(2), 25
Lubell, M., Schneider, M., Scholz, J. and Mete, M. 2002 ―Watershed Partnerships and the
Emergence of Collective Action Institutions.‖ American Journal of Political Science
46, 148-163
Lukas, C., and Andrews, R. 2007. ‗Four Keys to Collaboration Success‘ URL:
www.fieldstonealliance.org/client/client_pages/articles_tools/Article-
4_Key_Collab_Success.cfm accessed 24 November 2008
Lutz, J., and Neis, B. 2004 ‗Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Proposed Concepts to
Unify the Volume on How Knowledge Moves‘ Unpublished Coasts Under Stress
working document.
MacLeod G, 2001 ‗New regionalism reconsidered, globalization, regulation and the
recasting of political economic space‘ International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 25, 804-829
MacNeil, T. 2003 ‗Knowledge: the Magnet and the Glue‘ Presentation to the Bras d‘Or
Lakes Workshop‘ 9 October, 2003
MacDonald, M., Neis, B., and Grzetic, B. 2006 ‗Making a living: the struggle to stay‘. In
Power and Restructuring: Canada‘s Coastal Society and Environment eds. P.
Sinclair and R. Ommer (St. John‘s: ISER Books)
Mahoney, J. 2000 ‗Path dependence in historical sociology‘ Theory and Society 29(4),
507-548
Mahoney, S. 2004 ‗The Land Mammals of Insular Newfoundland‘ Antigonish Review
#124
Maillat, D. 1997 ‗Innovative milieux and new generations of regional policies‘ in
Competitiveness, innovation and regional development in Ireland eds. D. McCafferty
and J.A. Walsh (Dublin: The Regional Studies Association)
Malcolm, K. 2003. ‗Bras d'Or Lake Designation Update‘ October 2003
Malenfant, D. 1997 ‗New horizons for community forestry: social-environmental
development‘ in Changing Rural Institutions, A Canadian Perspective ed. R. Rounds
(Brandon: Brandon University)
Malinik, T., and Matthews, R. 2005 ‗The Question of Resource Dependence in British
Columbia and its Coast Region: The Heartland-Hinterland Divide‘ (Vancouver,
British Columbia: University of British Columbia)
Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. 1997 ‗Towards an explanation of industry agglomeration
and regional specialization‘ European Planning Studies 5 (1): 25- 41
385
Mandale, M., Foster, M., and Chiasson, P. 2000 ‗The Economic Value of Marine-related
Resources in New Brunswick‘ Prepared for the New Brunswick Department of
Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Research
Team (Fredericton, NB: DFO)
Margerum, R. 1999 ‗Implementing integrated planning and management: A typology of
approaches‘ Australian Planner 36 (3), 155-161
Markey, S. 2008 ‗Renewal: From Space to Place in Northern British Columbia‘
Presentation to Space to Place: The Next Rural Economies Workshop held at UNBC
in Prince George from 15-16 May 2008
Markey, S. 2003 ‗Facing Uncertainty: Building Local Development Institutions in Rural
British Columbia‘ PhD Thesis (Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University)
Markey, S., Pierce, J., Vodden, K., and Roseland, M. 2005 Second Growth: Community
Economic Development in Rural British Columbia (Vancouver: UBC Press)
Markey, S., Pierce, J., and Vodden, K. 2000 ‗Resources, people and the environment: A
regional analysis of the evolution of resource policy in Canada‘ Journal of Regional
Science XXIII (3), 427-454
Marquardt, W., and Crumley, C. 1987 ‗Theoretical issues in the analysis of spatial
patterning‘ In Regional dynamics: Burgundian landscapes in historical perspective
eds. C. Crumley and W. Marquardt (San Diego: Academic Press)
Marsden, T. 1998 ‗Economic perspectives‘ in The geography of rural change ed. B.
Ilbery (Essex, Longman)
Marshall, M. 1991 ‗Introduction‘ in Paqtatek - Volume 1 Policy and Consciousness in
Mi'kmaq Life eds. Inglis, S., Mannette, J., Sulewski, S. (Halifax: Garamond Press)
Marshall, G. 2005 Economics for collaborative environmental management:
Renegotiating the commons (London: Earthscan)
Massam, B. 2000 Conditions of the Civic State (Jerusalem: Magnes Press)
Massam, B. H. and Dickinson, J. 1999 ‗The civic state, civil society and the promotion of
sustainable development‘ In Communities, Development and Sustainability across
Canada eds. J. Pierce and A. Dale (Vancouver, UBC Press), 208-239
Massey, D. 2004 ‗Geographies of responsibility‘ Geografiska Annaler, 86, 5-18
Massey, D. 1993 ‗Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place‘ in Mapping the
Futures: Local Cultures, Global Change eds. J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G.
Robertson, and L. Tickner (London: Routledge), 59–69
Maunder, J. 1999 ‗The Newfoundland Wolf‘ Museum Notes No. 8 Newfoundland
Museum, St. John‘s, NL
Maxwell, J. 2005 ‗Building Blocks for Place-Making Policy‘ Presentation to the 6th
National Forum on Public Policy and the Third Sector, Queen's University
McBride, J. ed. 2001 Our Own Vision - Our Own Plan: What Six First Nations
Organizations have Accomplished with their Own Economic Development Plans.
(Burnaby: Simon Fraser University) URL: www.sfu.ca/cscd/pdf/our_own_vision.pdf
386
McGinnis, M. ed. 1999 Polycentric Governance and Development: Readings from the
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press)
McLaren, B, Hollis, T., Roach, C., Blanchard, K., Chaurette, E., and Bavington, D. 2008
‗Knowledge flows, conservation values and municipal wetlands stewardship‘ in
Making and Moving Knowledge eds. J. Lutz and B. Neis (Montreal: McGill-Queen‘s
Press)
M&E (Monitoring and Evaluation) Subcommittee. 1997 Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework for the Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement and Regional
Economic Development Board Performance Contracts. DRAFT in preparation for
the Management Committee of the Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement.
Meades, S., Hay, S. and Brouillet, L. 2000. ‗Annotated Checklist of the Vascular Plants
of Newfoundland and Labrador‘ URL: www.digitalnaturalhistory.com/meades.htm
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005 Ecosystems and Human Well-being:
Synthesis (Washington, DC: Island Press)
Meadows, D., Meadows, D. and Randers, J. 1992 Beyond the Limits (Post Mills,
Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing)
Meisen, A. 2005 Opening presentation. Regional Workshop on the Kittiwake Coast.
Barbour Premises, New-Wes-Valley, 1 December 2005
Melnbardis, R. 2002 ‗Watchdog says Great Lakes cleanup going too slow‘ Reuters News
Service 16 September 2002
Meltzer, E. 1998 ‗International Review of Integrated Coastal Zone Management‘ Oceans
Conservation Report Series (Ottawa, ON: DFO)
Meydani, A. and Doron, G. 2007 ‗Constitutional Court versus Non-Governability: The
Israeli Case‘Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the The Law and Society
Association, TBA, Berlin, Germany URL:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p173874_index.html accessed 4 November 2008
Miles, M., and Huberman, M. 1984 Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook for New
Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications)
Miliband, D. 2006 ‗Power devolved is energy released‘ Speech by the Rt Hon David
Miliband MP at the Local Government Association annual conference,
Bournemouth, 4 July 2006
Mitchell, D. 2001 ‗The lure of the local: landscape studies at the end of a troubled
century‘ Progress in Human Geography 25, 269-281
Morcol, G. 2001 „Positivist beliefs among policy professionals: An empirical
investigation‘ Policy Sciences 34 (3-4), 381-401
Moran, W., Blunden, G., and Lewis, N. 1996 ‗Regulating Sustainable Rural Systems:
Political Rhetoric and Reality‘ Presented at the International Geographic Congress,
Den Haag, 5 August 1996
387
Morgan, K. 2007 ‗The Polycentric State: New Spaces of Empowerment and
Engagement?‘ Regional Studies 41, 1237-1251
Morgan, P. 2005. ‗The Idea and Practice of Systems Thinking and their Relevance for
Capacity Development‘ European Centre for Development Policy Management,
Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Morgan, K., and Nauwealers, C. 1999. Regional Innovation Strategies, London,
Stationary Office in Cooperation with the Regional Studies Association, London,
UK.
MUN (Memorial University of Newfoundland) 1997 ‗Society and Culture‘
Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site Project URL:
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/culture.html last accessed 9 December 2008
Murdoch, J. 1997 ‗Inhuman/nonhuman/human: actor-network theory and the prospects
for a nondualistic and symmetrical perspective on nature and society‘ Environment
and Planning D: Society & Space 15, 731-756
Murphy, R. 1986 Culture and Social Anthropology: An Overture 2nd ed. (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall)
MWLAP (Ministry of Water, Land, Air, Protection. 2000a ‗Environmental Report. 2000.
Artlish River‘ (Nanaimo: MWLAP), 18 October 2000
-----. 2000b. ‗Environmental Report: Nahwitti River‘ (Nanaimo: MWLAP), 18 October
2000
Myers, R.A., and Ottensmeyer, C.A. 2005 ‗Extinction Risk in Marine Species‘ in Marine
Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea's Biodiversity eds. E.A
Norse and L.B. Crowder (Washington DC: Island Press)
Najam, A., Runnalls, D. and Halle, M. 2007 ‗Environment and Globalization: Five
Propositions‘ (Winnipeg, MB: IISD)
Native Council of Nova Scotia. 2007 Mi‘kmaw Resource Guide 4th Edition (Truro:
Eastern Woodland Publishing)
Naug, J. 2003a ‗Harmony, Balance and our Future are in our Nature: Bras d‘Or Lakes
Watershed: Partnering to Secure Our Sustainability‘ Draft Discussion Paper,
(Dartmouth, NS: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Oceans Branch)
------. 2003b. ‗DRAFT Summary of Existing Management Groups in the Bras d‘Or Lakes‘
Prepared for the Bras d‘Or Partnership Committee (Dartmouth, NS: Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Oceans Branch)
Nelson, J. 2004 ‗A Vanishing Heritage: The Loss of Ancient Red Cedar from Canada‘s
Rainforests‘ A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation (Vancouver, BC: David
Suzuki Foundation)
Newhouse, D. 2006 ‗Aboriginal Economic Development in the Shadow of the Borg‘ in
Community Economic Development: Building for Social Change eds. E. Shragge and
M. Toye (Sydney: Cape Breton University Press)
388
NL (Province of Newfoundland and Labrador). 2008 ‗The Economy 2008 –
Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Economic Research and Analysis
Division)
----. 2007a ‗Labour Market Indicators and Trends: Gander-New-Wes-Valley Region.
Strengthening Partnerships in the Labour Market Initiative‘ Report #8 Winter 2007
(St. John‘s, NL: Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment)
----. 2007b ‗Boil Water Advisories for Public Water Supplies in Newfoundland and
Labrador 28 June 2007‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and
Conservation)
----. 2007c ‗THMs Summary for Public Water Supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador‘
(St. John‘s, NL: Department of Environment and Conservation)
----. 2007d ‗Drinking Water Quality Community Reports - Winter 2007‘ (St. John‘s, NL:
Department of Environment and Conservation)
----. 2007e ‗Landings & landed value – 2007‘ URL:
http://www.fishaq.gov.nl.ca/stats/landings/Landings_2007_prel.pdf Accessed 8 May
2008.
----. 2007f ‗Sustainable Development Act, S.N.L. 2007, c. S-34‘ (St. John's,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada: Queen's Printer,) URL:
http://www.canlii.org/nl/laws/sta/s-34/20070813/whole.html
----. 2006a ‗Rural Secretariat Executive Council Annual Activity Report 2005-06‘ (St.
John‘s, NL: Rural Secretariat)
----. 2006b ‗Forest Management Districts 4, 5, 6 & 8 (Planning Zone 3) Sustainable
Forest Management Plan – Crown (2007-2011)‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of
Natural Resources)
----. 2006c ‗News Release: Insular Newfoundland caribou initiative‘ (St. John‘s, NL.
Environment and Conservation)
----. 2006d ‗Sustainable Development Discussion Document‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department
of Environment and Conservation) URL:
http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/publ/susdevdoc.pdf
----. 2005a ‗Community Accounts‘ URL: www.communityaccounts.ca
----. 2005b ‗Backgrounder Comprehensive Regional Diversification Strategy Gander -
New-Wes-Valley‘ URL:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2005/intrd/0318n02backgander.htm
----. 2005c ‗An Immigration Strategy for Newfoundland and Labrador: Opportunity for
Growth‘ St. John‘s, NL: Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment)
----. 2005d ‗NL Species at Risk: The Red Crossbill‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of
Environment and Conservation Inland Fish and Wildlife Division) URL:
http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/wildatrisk/Red_Crossbill.pdf
----. 2003 ‗Provincial Sustainable Forest Management Strategy‘ (St. John‘s, NL:
Department of Natural Resources)
389
----. 2002 ‗Reaching Consensus and Planning Ahead: Health Forums 2001 Regional
Profile Central Region‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Department of Health and Community
Services)
----. 2002 ‗The Economy 2002 – Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Economic
Research and Analysis Division)
----. 2001 ‗Source to Tap - Water Supplies in Newfoundland and Labrador‘ (St. John‘s,
NL: Department of Environment and Conservation)
----. 2000 Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site Project, St. John‘s, NL,
Available at http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/diversity.html accessed 22 March
2007.
----. 1999 ‗Our Smiling Land: Government‘s Vision for the Protection and Use of
Newfoundland and Labrador‘s Outdoor Resources‘ URL:
http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/1999/drr/smiling.htm last accessed 10
December 2008
----. 1994 ‗Interdepartmental Review Committee on Land Use Policy and Planning‘ (St.
John‘s, NL: Interdepartmental Review Committee)
----. 1992 Change and Challenge. A Strategic Economic Plan for Newfoundland and
Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)
NLFM (Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities). 2005 ‗Strengthening
Our Communities: President‘s Task Force on Municipal Sustainability Discussion
Paper‘ (St. John‘s, NL: NLFM)
NLREDA (Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Economic Development Association).
2005a ‗Monitoring & Evaluation Program Provincial Report on Phase 1‘ Presentation
to 2005 Spring Pan Provincial, Marystown, NL
----. 2005b NLREDA News August 2005
Newfoundland and Labrador Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1995
‗Framework for a Sustainable Development Strategy for Newfoundland and
Labrador‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Newfoundland and Labrador Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy)
Norris, M.J., and Jantzen, L. 2002 ‗From Generation to Generation: Survival and
Maintenance of Canada's Aboriginal Languages within Families, Communities and
Cities‘ (Ottawa, ON: Indian Affairs and Northern Development)
Norris, W. 1997 ‗Indian Bay Watershed Stream Survey Report. Submitted to Inland
Fisheries (Indian Bay, NL: IBEC)
Nowlan, L. 1998 ‗Preserving British Columbia‘s Coast: a Regulatory Review‘ Prepared
by West Coast Environmental Law for the BC Near Shore Habitat Loss Working
Group (Victoria, BC: Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force)
Nozick, M. 1999 ‗Sustainable Development Begins at Home‘ in Communities,
Development and Sustainability Across Canada eds. J. T. Pierce and A .Dale
(Vancouver: UBC Press)
390
NS (Nova Scotia) Community Counts. 2007 URL:
http://www.gov.ns.ca/finance/communitycounts/
NS (Nova Scotia). 2007 ‗Negotiations‘ URL:
http://www.gov.ns.ca/abor/officeofaboriginalaffairs/whatwedo/negotiations accessed
8 November 2008
----. 2003 ‗Municipal Facts, Figures, and History - The History of Municipal
Government in Nova Scotia‘ (Halifax, NS: Service Nova Scotia and Municipal
Relations) URL: www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/muns/info/history/originHIST1.asp
----. 2002a ‗Natural Landscapes of Nova Scotia: Summary Descriptions‘ (Halifax, NS:
Protected Areas Branch, NS Department of Environment and Labour)
----. 2002b ‗A Drinking Water Strategy for Nova Scotia‘ (Halifax, NS: NS Department of
Environment and Labour)
NSDLF (Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forests). 1994 ‗Impact of the 1974-1981
Spruce Budworm Infestation on the Forest of Cape Breton Island‘ Forest Research
Report # 47
NSSC (National Seafood Sector Council). 2004 ‗Meeting the Challenge: Canada's
Seafood Processing Industry Labour Market in the 21st Century‘ (Ottawa, ON:
NSSC)
OAGC (Office of the Auditor General of Canada). 1999a Chapter 20—Fisheries and
Oceans—Pacific Salmon: Sustainability of the Fisheries in ‗1999 November Report
of the Auditor General of Canada‘ (Ottawa, ON: OAGC)
-----. 1999b Chapter 5 - Collaborative Arrangements—Issues for the Federal
Government ‗1999 April Report of the Auditor General of Canada‘ (Ottawa, ON:
OAGC)
O‘Connell, M. and Dempson, J. 2002 ‗The Biology of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus,
of Gander Lake, a large, deep, oligotrophic lake in Newfoundland, Canada‘
Environmental Biology of Fishes 64, 115-126
OECD (Organisation for Co-operation and Development) 2006 The New Rural
Paradigm: Policies and Governance (Paris: OECD)
-----. 2004 ‗OECD Review of Canada‘s Environmental Performance: Good Progress,
Much to Be Done‘ OECD Environmental Performance Reviews (Paris: OCED)
Ohmae, K. 1995. The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies (New
York: The Free Press)
Olsen, S. 2003 ‗Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal
management initiatives‘ Ocean and Coastal Management 46, 347-361
Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Hahn, T. 2004 ‗Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem
management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in
Southern Sweden‘ Ecology and Society 9, 4
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2/
391
Ommer, R. and research team. 2007 Coasts Under Stress: Understanding Restructuring
and the Social-Ecological Health of Coastal Communities (Montreal: McGill-
Queen's University Press)
Ommer, R., and Sinclair, P. 1999 'Systemic Crisis in Rural Newfoundland: Can the.
Outports Survive?' in Communities, Development and Sustainability Across Canada
eds. J. Pierce and A. Dale (Vancouver: UBC Press)
Osbourne, D., and Gaebler, T. 1992 Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector (Reading MA: Addison Wesley)
Ostrom, E. 2005 Understanding Institutional Diversity (New Jersey: Princeton
University Press)
Ostrom, E. 1999 ‗Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis
and development framework‘ in Theories of the Policy Process ed. P. Sabatier
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press), 35-71
PAA (Protected Areas Assoc.). 2000a ‗Maritime Barrens‘ URL:
www.env.gov.nl.ca/parks/library/pdf/ecoregions/Island6a_northeastern_barrens_sub
region_2005.pdf accessed 8 October 2008
----. 2000b. ‗Central Newfoundland Forest‘ URL:
www.env.gov.nl.ca/parks/library/pdf/ecoregions/Island2a_north-
central_subregion.pdf accessed 8 October 2008.
----. 2000c. ‗North Shore Forest‘ St. John‘s, NL.
Paddock, M. 1996 ‗The good old days of Indian Bay‘ Newfoundland Sportsman
Painter, J., and Goodwin, M. 1995 ‗Local governance and concrete research: investigating
the uneven development of regulation‘ Economy and Society 24, 334-56
Pal, L. 1992 Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction 2nd Edition (Scarborough: Nelson)
Palmer, C. and Sinclair, P. 2000 ‗Expecting to leave: Attitudes to migration among high
school students on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland‘ Newfoundland
Studies 16 (1), 30-46
Panitch, L 1993 ‗Different Kind of State?‘ in A Different Kind of State eds. G. Albo, D.
Langille and L. Panitch (Toronto: University of Toronto), 2-16
Paquet, G. 2000 ‗The New Governance, Subsidiarity and the Strategic State‘ Paper
Prepared for OECD Forum for Future Conference on 21st Century Governance:
Power and Knowledge in the Global Knowledge Economy and Society, Hannover
----. 1999 Governance Through Social Learning (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press)
Parker, M., Westhead, M., Doherty, P. and Naug, J. 2007 ‗Ecosystem Overview and
Assessment Report for the Bras d‘Or Lakes, Nova Scotia‘ Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 2789, xxii
Parker M. and Westhead, M. 2006 ‗EBSAs – A case study from the Bras D‘Or Lakes‘
Presented at the DFO-FSRS Workshop on Inshore Ecosystems and Significant Areas
of the Scotian Shelf 16-19 January 2006, Bedford Institute of Oceanography,
392
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
www.marinebiodiversity.ca/en/inshore/Parker%20and%20Westhead%20Pdf.pdf
Parker, M. 2002 ‗Sustainability Issues: Bras d'Or Region - Final Report‘ Prepared for
the Bras d'Or Field Team Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative by East
Coast Aquatics, June 2002 (St. Peter‘s, NS: Bras d'Or Field Team Nova Scotia
Sustainable Communities Initiative)
-----. 2001 River Denys Integrated Management Report prepared for Fisheries and Oceans
Canada by East Coast Aquatics (Dartmouth, NS: DFO)
Parsons, G. 2005 Personal communication. Fisheries Development Officer, Dept. of
Fisheries & Aquaculture
Partridge, M., and Rickman, D. 2008 ‗Place-based policy and rural poverty: insights from
the urban spatial mismatch literature‘ Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and
Society 1(1), 131-156
Pastore, R. 1997 ‗The Beothuks‘ URL:
http://www.heritage.nf.ca/aboriginal/beothuk.html.
Paul, K. 2006 ‗Drinking Water in First Nations Communities‘ Presentation Oct 2006
Paul, D. 1993 We Were Not the Savages (Halifax: Nimbus Publishing)
Paulette, M.J., and Prosper, K. 2002 Ka't (American Eel) Life History. Social Research
for Sustainable Fisheries Fact Sheet 6 (Antigonish, NS: Social Research for
Sustainable Fisheries, St. Francis Xavier University)
Peet, R. 1975. Inequality and Poverty.
Penfold, G., Salter, B., and Carley, D. 2004 ‗A Regional Economic Development Strategy
For the Regional District of Mount Waddington‘ (Port McNeill, BC: Regional
District of Mount Waddington)
Perroux, F. 1969. L'Économie du XXe siècle (Paris: Presses universitaires de France)
Perry R.I. and R. Ommer. 2003 Scale issues in marine ecosystems and human
interactions. Fisheries Oceanography. 12: 513–522.
Peterson, D., Wood, A., and Gardner, J. 2005 ‘An Assessment of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada‘ Pacific Region‘s Effectiveness in Meeting its Conservation Mandate.
Prepared for the David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, BC.
Petrella, R. 2000 ‗The Future of regions: Why the competitiveness imperative should not
prevail over solidarity, sustainability and democracy‘ Geografiska Annaler: Series B,
Human Geography 82(2) August 2000, 67-72(6)
Phillips, D.C. and Burbules, N.C. 2000 Postpositivism and educational research
(Lanham, MA: Rowman and Litlefield)
Phillips, S., and Graham, K. 2000 ‗Hand-in-hand: When accountability meets
collaboration in the voluntary sector‘ in The Non-profit Sector in Canada: Roles and
Relationships ed. K. Banting (Kingston: McGill-Queen‘s University Press)
393
Phillips, S., and Orsini, M. 2002 ‗Mapping the Links: Citizen Involvement in Policy
Processes‘ Discussion Paper No.F21 (Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network)
Pierce, J.T., and Dale, A. eds. 1999 Communities, Development and Sustainability across
Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press)
Pierce, J. T. 1998 ‗Sustaining Rural Environments: Widening Communities of
Knowledge‘ in Dimensions of Sustainable Rural Systems eds. C. Bowler, P. Bryant
and P. Huigen (Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies)
-----. 1995 ‗The conservation challenge in sustaining rural environments‘ Journal of
Rural Studies 12(3), 215-229
Pierre-Louis, P. 2004 Director, Ministry of Local Government, Sports and Culture,
Seychelles, 17 December posting: www.csiwisepractices.org email forum
Pierson, P. 2000 ‗Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics."
American Political Science Review 94(2), 251-267
Pinkerton, E., and Weinstein, M. 1995 ‗Fisheries That Work: Sustainability Through
Community-based Management‘ A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation,
Vancouver, BC
Pinkerton, E. ed. 1989 Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries (Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press)
Pitu‘paq Committee URL: http://pitupaq.ca/ accessed 12 February 2007
Plummer, R. and D. Armitage. 2007 ‗Charting the new territory of adaptive co-
management: a Delphi study‘ Ecology and Society 12(2), 10 URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art10/
Plumptre, T., and Graham, J. 1999 ‗Governance and Good Governance: International
and Aboriginal Perspectives‘ (Canberra: Institute on Governance)
Polèse, M., and Shearmur, R. 2002 ‗The Periphery in the Knowledge-Based Economy:
The Spatial Dynamics of the Canadian Economy and the Future of Non-Metropolitan
Regions in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces‘ (Moncton: Montreal/Canadian
Institute for Research on Regional Development)
Poncelet, E. 2001 ‗A Kiss Here and a Kiss There: Conflict and Collaboration in
Environmental Partnerships‘ Environmental Management 27 (1), 13-25
Porter, M, 1990 The competitive advantage of nations (London: Macmillan)
-----. 2001 ‗Clusters of Innovation Initiative: Regional Foundations of US
Competitiveness‘ (Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness and Monitor
Group)
-----. 2003 ‗The economic performance of regions‘ Regional Studies 37(6/7), 549-678
Power, B. 1999 ‗Trout management plan a winner‘ Evening Telegram 9 January
-----. 1998 ‗Trout license a benefit‘ Evening Telegram
-----. 1997 ‗Rebuilding trouters‘ heaven‘ Newfoundland Sportsman July/August, 26-31
394
Purvis, M. and Grainger, A. 2004 ‗Future perspectives: Developing sustainable
development‘ In Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives
eds. M. Purvis and A. Grainger (London, Earthscan) 313-339
Prescott Allen, R. 2005 ‗Coast Information Team Review Report‘ (Victoria, BC: Coast
Information Team)
Price, I. and Evans, L. 2005 ‗Punctuated equilibrium: An organic model for the learning
organization‘ Forum: the Quarterly Journal of the European for Management
Development 93, 1
Pritchard, L., and Sanderson, S. E. 2001 ‗The dynamics of political discourse in seeking
sustainability‘ In Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural
Systems eds. L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington DC: Island Press) 147-
169
Proulx, M. 1997 ‗The policy of governmental decentralization in Quebec: Principles,
status and issues‖ in Changing Rural Institutions ed. R.C. Rounds (Brandon:
Canadian Rural Restructuring Foundation)
Protevi, J. 2005 ‗Deleuze, Guattari and Emergence‘ Draft unpublished paper
Putnam, R. 1995 ‗Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital‘ Journal of
Democracy 6 (1), 65-78
-----. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton:
Princeton University Press)
Quadra Planning Consultants. 1997 ‗No Net Loss of Habitat: Assessing Achievement‘
Workshop Proceedings (Vancouver, BC: Fraser River Action Plan)
Ragin, C.C. 2000 Fuzzy-Set Social Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press)
Randall, J., and Ironside, G. 1996 ‗Communities on the edge: An economic geography of
resource-dependent communities in Canada‘ The Canadian Geographer 40(1), 17-35
RCEU (Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment in Newfoundland and
Labrador). 1986 ‗Building on our Strengths: Final Report of the Royal Commission
on Employment and Unemployment‘ (St John‘s, NL: Government of NL)
Redman, S., Myers, D. and Averill, D. eds. 2005 ‗Regional Nearshore and Marine
Aspects of Salmon Recovery in Puget Sound‘ (Olympia, WA: Puget Sound Action
Team)
Reimer, B. 2005 ‗Rural and urban: differences and common ground‘ in Urban Canada:
Sociological Perspectives ed. H. Hiller (Toronto: Oxford University Press)
-----. 2004 ‗Local Governance of Rural-Urban Interaction: New Directions‘ Presentation
to Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation Think Tank, College of New Caledonia,
Prince George BC, April 2004
-----. 2002 ‗Understanding Social Capital: its Nature and Manifestations in Rural Canada‘
presentation to the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association Annual
Conference, Toronto ON
Resilience Alliance 2007 http://www.resalliance.org/576.php accessed 8 November 2008
395
Resilience Alliance and Santa Fe Institute. 2004 ‗Thresholds and alternate states in
ecological and social-ecological systems‘ Resilience Alliance URL:
http://www.resalliance.org/index.php?id=183 accessed 8 November 2008
Reihlin, M. 1996 ‗The Logic of Heterarchies: Making Organizations Competitive for
Knowledge-based Competition‘ Working Paper No. 91 (Cologne: Koln University,
Planung und Logistik)
Rhodes, R. 1997 Understanding Governance – Policy networks, governance reflexivity
and accountability (Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press)
Richards, G. 1998 ‗Businesslike government: the ultimate oxymoron?‘ in The Puzzles of
Power: An Introduction to Political Science 2 edition eds. M. Howlett and D.
Laycock (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press)
Richardson, R. 2004 ‗A Conceptual Framework for Comparative Studies of Higher
Education Policy‘ an AIHEPS (alliance for international higher education policy
studies) Working Paper (New York: AIHEPS)
Robadue, D. and Hale, L. 2003 „International experience in integrated coastal resources
management‟ Presented at Examining Best Practices in Coastal Zone Planning:
Lessons and Applications for BC's Central Coast workshop, April 3, 2003, Alert Bay
BC
Robinson, L., Fuller, T., and Waltner-Toews, D. 2006 ‗Ecosystem Health and Sustainable
Livelihoods Approaches – A Synthesis of the Latest Thinking‘ URL:
www.uoguelph.ca/~sl~esh accessed 6 November 2008
Roman, C., and Moore, G. 2004 ‗Measuring Local Institutions and Organizations: the
Role of Community Institutional Capacity in Social Capital‘ Urban Institute Report
on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families (Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press)
Rondinelli, D. 1990 ‗Decentralization, territorial power and the state: a critical response‘
Development and Change 21, 491–500
Rose, G. 1993 Feminism and Geography: The limits of geographical knowledge
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press)
Rose, G. 2003 ‗Fisheries Resources and Science in Newfoundland and Labrador: An
Independent Assessment‘ Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our
Place in Canada (St. John‘s, NL: Royal Commission)
Roseland, M. 1999 ‗Natural Capital and Social Capital: Implications for Sustainable
Community Development‘ in Communities, Development, and Sustainability across
Canada eds. J.T. Pierce and A. Dale (Vancouver: UBC Press), 190-207
-----. 1998 Toward Sustainable Communities (Gabriola Island, New Society Publishers)
Rosell, S. 1992 Governing in an Information Society (Montreal: Institute for Research on
Public Policy)
Rostow, W. 1960 The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto
(London: Cambridge University Press)
396
Roy, V. 2003 ‗Regional Economic Development and New Governance Models:
Emerging Rural and Urban Perspectives‘ Paper presented at EDAC Seminar, St.
John‘s, NL
Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment in Newfoundland (RCEUN).
1986 ‗Building on Our Strengths‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador)
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2004 ‗Turning the Tide: Addressing the
Impact of Fisheries on the Marine Environment‘ (London, UK: Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution)
Rowell, P. and E. Ewaschuk 2003 Watershed Stewardship Across the Prairies Prepared
for Langley Environmental Partners Society and Fisheries & Oceans Canada URL:
www.stewardship2003.ca/forum
Rowles, G. 2000 ‗Habituation and being in place‘ Occupational Therapy Journal of
Research, Supplement, 20, 52S-67S
Rumsey, C., Ardron, J., Ciruna, K., Curtis, T., Doyle, F., Ferdana, Z., Hamilton, T.,
Heinemeyer, K., Iachetti, P., Jeo, R., Kaiser, G., Narver, D., Noss, R., Sizemore, D.,
Tautz, A., Tingey, R., Vance-Borland, K. 2003 ‗An Ecosystem Spatial Analysis for
Haida Gwaii, Central Coast, and North Coast British Columbia‘ (Victoria, BC:
Coast Information Team)
RUPRI (Rural Policy Research Institute). 2006 ‗Eight Principles for Effective Rural
Governance‘ University of Missouri-Columbia
Sabatier, P. 1999 Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder: Westview Press)
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. 1993 Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy
Coalition Approach (Boulder, CO: Westview Press)
Sabatier, P., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A. and Matlock, M. (ed.).
2005. Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management
MIT Press.
Sabel, C. 2004 ‗Beyond Principal-Agent Governance: Experimentalist Organizations,
Learning and Accountability‘, Draft Discussion Paper Prepared for WRR Meeting,
Amsterdam (May 10-14, 2004) In De Staat van de Democratie. Democratie voorbij
de Staa eds. E. Engelen & M. Sie Dhian Ho (eds.), (Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press) 173-195
Salamon, L. 1994 ‗The Rise of the Non-profit Sector‘ Foreign Affairs. 73 (4), 109-22
Sale, K. 2000 Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press)
Sancton, A. 2001 Merger Mania (Kingston: Queen‘s-McGill University Press)
Sassen, S. 1996 Losing Control (New York: Columbia University Press)
Saul, J.R. 2005 The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World (London:
Atlantic Press)
397
Saunders, K., and Duinker, P. 2002 ‗Perceptions of barriers to certification of government
forestry in Newfoundland‘ The Forestry Chronicle 78, 6
Savitch, H. and Kantor, P. 2003 Cities in the International Marketplace: The Political
Economy of Urban Development in North America and Western Europe (Princeton
University Press)
Savoie, D. 2000 Community Economic Development in Atlantic Canada: False Hope or
Panacea? (Moncton, Canadian Institute for Research on Regional Development)
------. 1992 Regional Economic Development: Canada‘s Search for Solutions (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press)
Scheffer, M.,Westley, F, Brock, W.A, and Holmgren, M. 2001 ‗Dynamic interaction of
societies and ecosystems - linking theories from ecology, economy, and sociology‘ in
Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems eds. L. H.
Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Washington, D.C: Island Press)
Schermerhorn J. 1975 ‗Determinants of Inter-organizational Cooperation‘ The Academy
of Management Journal 18,4
Schilling, T. 1997 ‗Subsidiarity as a Rule and a Principle, or: Taking Subsidiarity
Seriously‘ New York University School of Law, Jean Monnet Centre, URL:
http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/95/9510ind.html accessed 6 November
2008
Schneider, F. 2007 ‗Collaboration‘ URL: http://summit.kein.org/node/190
Schneider, M., Scholz, J. Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., and Edwardsen, M. 2003 ‗Building
Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program‘ American
Journal of Political Science 47, 143-158
Schrank, W.E. 1997 ‗The Newfoundland Fishery: Past, Present and Future‘ Paper
prepared for the World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C. by W.E. Schrank,
Department of Economics, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Schuman, S. ed. 2006 Creating a Culture of Collaboration (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass)
Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. 1994 ‗Report of the
Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound‘ URL:
http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/158782/clay1.pdf
Scoones, I. 1999 ‗New Ecology and the Social Sciences: what prospects for a fruitful
engagement?‘ Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 479-507
Scott, P. 2005. www.mun.ca/botgarden/plant_bio/
Sheppard, E. 2002 ‗The Spaces and Times of Globalization: Place, Scale, Networks, and
Positionality‘ Economic Geography 78(3), 307-330
SHRDA (Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency). 2007 ‗Strait-Highlands
Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2006 – 2007‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS:
S-HRDA)
----. 2006 ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2005 – 2006‘
(Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA)
398
----. 2004a ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Business Plan 2004-2005‘
Jan. 2004 (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA)
----. 2004b ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Annual Report 2003 – 2004‘
(Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA)
----. 2003a ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency 2002-2003 Annual Report
and Financial Statements‘ June 2003 (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA)
----. 2003b ‗Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency Business Plan 2003-2004‘
Feb. 2003 (Port Hawkesbury, NS: S-HRDA)
Sierra Club of Canada. 2004 ‗Footprints in the Forest: Current practice and future
challenges in forest certification‘ The Canadian Standards Association SFM Standard
Review and Analysis. Prepared for Fern.
-----. 2003. ‗Response to the Draft Newfoundland and Labrador Sustainable Forest
Management Strategy‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Sierra Club)
Sim, R. A. 1988 Land and Community (Guelph, ON: University of Guelph)
Simpson, J. and Weiner, E. eds. 1989 Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition
(Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Simon, H. A. 1973 ‗The organization of complex systems‘ in Hierarchy Theory: The
Challenge of Complex Systems. ed. H. Pattee (New York: George), 1-28
Slaney, P. and Zaldokas, D. ed. 1997 ‗Fish Rehabilitation Procedures‘ Watershed
Restoration Circular No. 9 (Victoria, BC: BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and
Parks)
Slaney, T., Hyatt, K. Northcote, T. and Fielden, R. 1996 ‗Status of anadromous salmon
and trout in British Columbia and Yukon‘ Fisheries 21:10–35
Smith, R. 2003 ―World City Actor-Networks‖ Progress in Human Geography, 27 (1),
(2003), 25-44 Research Bulletin 71
Smith, N. 2003 ‗The Role of Local Democracy and Governance in the Kittiwake Zone,
Newfoundland and Labrador‘ Presentation at annual conference, Canadian
Sociologists and Anthropologists Association, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Smith, B. 2000 ‗Challenges and Directions for Public Consultation‘ Prepared for DFO.
Smith, KG., Carroll, S.J. and Ashford, S.J. 1995 ‗Intra- and Interorganizational
Cooperation: Towards a Research Agenda‘ The Academy of Management Journal 38
(1)
Smith, N. 1984 Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space
(Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell)
Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. 2007 ‗Vikings: the North Atlantic
Saga‘ URL: http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/start.html
Sniderman, P., Fletcher, J., Russell, P., Tetlock, P., and Gaines, B. 1998 ‗The fallacy of
democratic elitism‘ in The Puzzles of Power: An Introduction to Political Science
eds. M. Howlett and D. Laycock (Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press)
399
Snowadzky, B. 2005 ‗Coming Together or Going it Alone: How Resource-dependent
Communities Survive in Newfoundland and Labrador‘ PhD Thesis (Durham, NH:
Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire)
Society for Ecological Restoration International and IUCN Commission on Ecosystem
Management (SERI and IUCN). 2004 ‗Ecological Restoration, a means of
conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods‘ (Tucson, Arizona: Society for
Ecological Restoration International and Gland, Switzerland: IUCN)
Soja, E. 1989 Postmodern Geographies: The reassertion of space in. critical social
theory (New York: Verso)
Sokal, A. and Bricmont, J. 1998 Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers‘
Abuse of Science (London: Profile Books)
Sorensen, J. 1997 ‗National and international efforts at integrated coastal management:
definitions, achievements, lessons‘ Coastal Management 25(1), 3-41
Sorensen, M. and de Peuter, J. with R. Bollman, J. Lambert, C. Binet and J. Hannes.
2005a ‗Rural British Columbia Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991 – 2001)‘
(Ottawa, ON: the Rural Secretariat)
2005b ‗Rural Newfoundland and Labrador Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis
(1991 – 2001)‘ (Ottawa, ON: the Rural Secretariat)
2005c ‗Rural Nova Scotia Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991 – 2001)‘
(Ottawa, ON: the Rural Secretariat)
Sorensen, M. and Aylward, J. with R. Bollman, K. Humpage, J. Lambert, C. Binet, and J.
Hannes ‗National Rural Profile: A Ten-year Census Analysis (1991-2001)‘ (Ottawa,
ON: Canadian Rural Partnership, Rural Research and Analysis) URL:
http://www.rural.gc.ca/research/profile/nat_e.phtml.
Soussan, J. 2004 ‗Linking the Local to the Global: Can Sustainable Development Work in
Practice?‘ in Exploring Sustainable Development: Geographical Perspectives eds.
M. Purvis and A. Grainger (London, Earthscan), 85-98
Speck, D. Culhane. 1987 An Error in Judgement (Vancouver: Talonbooks)
Stake, R. 1995 The art of case research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications)
Statistics Canada, 2008a CANSIM, table 282-0088:
www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/labr67b.htm
-----. 2007 ‗Income of Canadians 2005‘ The Daily Thursday, May 3, 2007
-----. 2007a www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm
-----. 2007b ‗Labour Force Information‘ Catalogue no. 71-001-XIE
-----. 2007c http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/definitions/geography.htm. Accessed
March 22, 2007
400
-----. 2007d ‗2006 Community Profile‘. 2006 Census, Statistics Canada Catalogue no.
92-591-XWE. Released March 13, 2007
----- 2006 ‗Human activity and the environment‘
-----. 2005 ‗Life expectancy - abridged life table, at birth and confidence interval, by sex,
three-year average, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions and peer groups‘
2001Catalogue no. 82-221, Vol. 2005 No. 1
-----. 2005b ‗General Social Survey: Criminal victimization‘ 2005.
Internet source: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/051124/d051124b.htm
-----. 2004a Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating.
-----. 2004b ‗Newfoundland and Labrador: The labour market in Newfoundland and
Labrador continues to improve‘ The Canadian Labour Market at a Glance
-----. 2002. Self-rated health, by sex, household population aged 12 and over, Canada,
provinces, territories, health regions and peer groups, 2000/01.
-----. 2001 ‗2001 Community Profile‘. 2001 Census
-----. 2000 Statistics Canada, CD ROM No. 71F0004XCB
Steytler, N. 2002 „Background Paper on the Place and Role of Local Government in
Federations‘ Prepared for the Cities and Federalism Conference, Rio de Janiero,
Brazil, 6-7 May 2002
Stewart, P. 2001 ‗Complexity theories, social theory, and the question of social
complexity‘ Philosophy of the Social Sciences 31, 323-60
Stoker, G. 2000 ‗Urban Political Science and the challenge of urban governance‘ in
Debating Governance ed. J. Pierre (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Stone C. 1986 ‗Power and social complexity‘ in Community Power: Directions for
Future Research ed. R Waste (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), 77 – 113
Stora Enso Port Hawkesbury Ltd. 2006 ‗Sustainable Forest Management Long-Term
Plan‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS: Stora Enso)
-----. 2005 ‗Green Balance Report‘ (Port Hawkesbury, NS: Stora Enso)
Stora Enso Oyj. 2006b ‗Stora Enso's Port Hawkesbury Mill to restart‘ Stora Enso Oyj
News Release 29 September 2006
Storper, M. 1995 ‗The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a
nexus of untraded interdependencies'‘ European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(3),
191-221
Storper, M 1997 The regional world: territorial development in a global economy (New
York: The Guilford Press)
Sunstein, C. 1990 After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State,
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press)
Synergy Management Group. 2003 ‗Proprietary Economic Modelling and Impact
Analysis for the Mt. Waddington Region‘ Pilot project report produced for Province
of British Columbia (Victoria, BC: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management)
401
Swift, J. 1999 Civil Society in Question (Toronto: Between the Lines)
Swyngedouw, E. 2000 ‗Authoritarian governance, power and the politics of rescaling‘
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18, 63–76
----. 1997 ‗Neither global nor local: "glocalization" and the politics of scale‘ in Spaces of
globalization ed. K Cox (New York: Guilford), 137-166
Tainter, J. 1996 ‗Complexity, Problem Solving and Sustainable Societies‘ in Getting
Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics ed. R. Costanza
(Washington DC, Island Press)
-----. 1988 The collapse of complex societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Task Force on CED (Task Force on Community Economic Development in
Newfoundland and Labrador). 1995 ‗Community Matters: The New Regional
Economic Development‘ (St. John‘s, NL: Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador)
Taylor, P., Evans, D. and Pain, K. 2006 ‗Application of the inter-locking network
model to mega-city regions: measuring polycentricity within and beyond city-
regions‘ GaWC Research Bulletin 201.
Taylor, P. 1994 ‗The state as container: territoriality in the modern world-system‘
Progress in Human Geography 18, 151-162
Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B. and Geran, J. 1998 Evaluating Collaboratives (Madison:
University of Wisconsin-Extension)
Tellis, W. 1997 ‗Introduction to case study‘ in The Qualitative Report 3(2) URL:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html
Tennant, P. 1989 Aboriginal Peoples and Politics in BC (Vancouver: UBC Press)
Thayer, R. 2003 LifePlace: Bioregional Thought and Practice (Berkeley: University of
California Press)
Thrift, N. 1999 ‗The place of complexity‘ Theory, Culture & Society, 16, 31-69
-----. 1996 ‗A phantom state? International money, electronic networks and global cities‘
in Spatial Formations (Beverly Hills: Sage), 213-255
Tickell, A and Peck, J. 1995 ‗Social regulation after Fordism: regulation theory, neo-
liberalism and the global-local nexus‘ in Economy and Society 24(3), 357-386
Todaro, M. 1997 Economic Development (New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company)
Tomblin, S. 2005 ‗Memorial Presents‘ Presentation to Regional Approaches to
Governance in Economic Development and Municipal Government, A Dialogue on
Social Innovation. Harris Centre, October, St. John‘s NL URL:
http://www.mun.ca/harriscentre/presents.php/.
-----. 2004 ‗Introduction and overview‘ In Regionalism in a Global Society: Persistence
and Change in Atlantic Canada and New England eds. S. Tomblin and C. Colgan
(Toronto, ON: Broadview Press)
402
-----. 2002 ‗Newfoundland and Labrador at the crossroads: Reform or lack of reform in a
new era?‘ Journal of Canadian Studies, Spring 2002
-----. 2000a ‗Newfoundland and Labrador at the Crossroads: Prospects for Effecting
Change in the Knowledge-based Economy?‘ Presented at the North Atlantic Forum
2000
-----. 2000b ‗Regional Integration and the Quest to Strengthen Transborder Connections:
Rethinking the Line‘ presented at the conference session The New Regionalism:
Lessons From the Atlantic Seaboard, Policy Research Initiative (Privy Council) -
University of British Columbia & Washington State University
Tompkins, E. and Adger, N. 2004 ‗Does Adaptive Management of Natural Resources
Enhance Resilience to Climate Change?‘ Ecology and Society 9 (2) October
Torjman, S. 2006 ‗Preparing for the Demographic Tsunami‘ Caledon Institute of Social
Policy
Tota, K., 2002 ‗Can place-based collaborative planning work between First Nations and
Local Governments in Nova Scotia?‘ Master of Urban and Rural Planning (Halifax,
NS: Dalhousie University)
Tremblay, D. and S. Rousseau. 2005 ‗The Montreal Multimedia Sector: A Cluster, An
'Innovative Milieu' or A Simple Co-location?‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science
28, 299-328
Tremblay, R. 2005 ‗Introduction‘ Canadian Journal of Regional Science 28 (2) Summer
2005, 19(4)
UINR (Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources) URL: www.uinr.ca
------.2006a Spring newsletter.
-----. 2006b American Marten in Unama‘ki.
UMA Group (Underwood McLellan Associates). 1989 ‗Bras d‘Or Lake Watershed
Integrated Resource Management Plan Study‘ (Sydney, NS: Bras d‘Or Institute)
UN (United Nations). 2005 Millennium Project Task Force on Environmental
Sustainability
-----. 1992 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development from the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14
June 1992
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 1997 Governance for Sustainable Human
Development: A UNDP policy document URL:
http://magnet.undp.org/policy/summary.htm
Urquizo, N., J. Bastedo, T. Brydges, H. Shear. 2000 ‗Ecological Assessment of the Boreal
Shield Ecozone‘ (Ottawa: Environment Canada)
Urbanwater.info. 2005
http://www.urbanwater.info/Organisation/AdaptiveManagement.cfm. Hunter and
Central Coast Councils.
403
Urry, J. 2003 Global Complexity (Cambridge: Polity Press)
US Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004 ‗An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final
Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy‘ Final Report (Washington DC: US
Commission on Ocean Policy)
Uvalic, M. 2002 ―Regional Cooperation and the Enlargement of the European Union:
Lessons Learned.‖ International Political Science Review 23(3)
Van Zyll de Jong, M., N. Lester, R. Korver, W. Norris, B. Wicks 2002 ‗Managing the
exploitation of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill), populations in
Newfoundland lakes‘ in Ecology and Management of lake and Reservoir Fisheries,
Fishing ed. I. Cowx (Oxford, UK: News Books), 267-283
Victor, D. 2006 ‗Recovering Sustainable Development‘ Foreign Affairs, 85 (1), 91-103
Victoria County. 2000 ‗Choice Not Circumstance: The Victoria County Strategic Plan‘
June 2000 (Baddeck, NS: Victoria County)
Vodden, K. and Bannister, K. 2008 „Circularising Knowledge Flows: Institutional
structures, policies and practices for community-university partnerships‘ in Making
and Moving Knowledge J. Lutz and B. Neis (eds.) (Montreal, PQ: McGill-Queen‘s
Press), Chapter 13
Vodden, K. and Kennedy, J. 2006 ‗From Resignation to Renewal: First Nations Strategies
for Resilience‘ in Power, Agency and Environment: Restructuring Canada‘s East
and West Coasts eds. P. Sinclair and R. Ommer (St. John‘s, NL: ISER Books)
Vodden, K., Ommer, R. and Schneider, D. 2006 ‗A Comparative analysis of three modes
of collaborative learning in fisheries governance: Hierarchy, Networks, and
Community‘ in Participation in Fisheries Governance ed. T. Gray (Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer)
Vodden, K. and Panek, P. 1998 ‗Government and Community Groups: Friends or Foe in
Ecological Restoration?‘ in Helping the Land Heal (Victoria BC)
Vodden, K. 2006 ‗Adapting to Uncertain Futures: Alert Bay Community Background
Report‘ URL: www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/uncertainfutures/
-----. 2005 ‗Case Studies in Municipal Service Sharing‘ Prepared for Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador (St. John‘s, NL: MNL)
-----. 2004 ‗Knowledge Sharing and Collaborative Watershed Governance - Coast to
Coast‘ Presentation to the Canadian Water Resources Association Conference,
November 2004, Regina, SK
Vodden, K. 2002. ―Sustainable Community Development in a Coastal Context: The Case of Alert
Bay, British Columbia‖, Canadian Journal of Aboriginal Economic Development. Vol. 3.
No.1.
-----. 1999a ‗Nanwakola: Co-management and Sustainable Community Economic
Development in a BC Fishing Village‘ MA thesis (Burnaby: Department of
Geography, Simon Fraser University) URL: www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies
404
-----. 1999b ‗Cormorant Island Community Profile, Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre,
Alert Bay, BC‘ Unpublished paper
Waldrop, M. 1992 Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Chaos (New York:
Simon and Schuster)
Walesh, K. and Henton, D. 2001 ‗The Creative Community: Leveraging Creativity and
Cultural Participation for Silicon Valley's Economic and Civic Future‘ Working
Paper (Mountain View, CA: Collaborative Economics)
Walker, B. H., L. H. Gunderson, A. P. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. R. Carpenter, and L. Schultz.
2006 ‗A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in
social-ecological systems‘ Ecology and Society 11(1), 13 URL:
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art13/
Walker, BH and Abel, N. 2001 ‗Resilient Rangelands – Adaptation In Complex Systems‘
Chapter 11 in Gunderson, L, and Holling, CS (eds) Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems (Washington DC: Island Press)
Walker, B. H., and R. L. Lawson. 2006 ‗Case studies in resilience: fifteen social-
ecological systems across continents and societies‘ The Resilience Alliance. URL:
http://www.resalliance.org/1613.php
Walker, B. and J. A. Meyers. 2004 ‗Thresholds in ecological and social–ecological
systems: a developing database‘ Ecology and Society 9(2): 3 URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3
Wall, D. 2005 ‗British Columbia‘s Community CharterA Legislative Framework for
Modern Local Government‟ Public Sector Management Workshop, May 30, 2005
Wall, E. And K. Marzall. 2006 ‗Adaptive Capacity for Climate Change in Canadian Rural
Communities‘ Local Environment 11(4) 373–397, August 2006.
Wallace, R., Wallace, D., Ullmann, J.E. and Andrews, H. (1999) Deindustrialization,
inner-city decay, and the hierarchical diffusion of AIDS in the USA: how neoliberal
and cold war policies magnified the ecological niche for emerging infections and
created a national security crisis, Environment and Planning A, 31, 113-39
Wang, Puqu. 2002 ‗On the Viability of Polycentric Governance Theory to Contemporary
China‘ Presented at the Institutional Analysis and Development Mini-Conference and
TransCoop Meeting, Humboldt University/Indiana University, Workshop in Political
Theory and Policy Analysis, Bloomington, IN, December 13-16, 2002
Ward, K. and A. Jonas. 2004 ‗Competitive city-regionalism as a politics of space: a
critical reinterpretation of the new regionalism‘ Environment and Planning A, 36,
2119-2139
Warren, W. 2005 ‗Hierarchy Theory in Sociology, Ecology, and Resource Management:
A Conceptual Model for Natural Resource or Environmental Sociology and Socio-
ecological Systems‘ Society & Natural Resources 18 (5), 447 – 466
Watershed-based Fish Sustainability Planning Steering Committee. 2000 ‗Watershed-
based Fish Sustainability Planning: Conserving Fish Populations and their Habitat: A
Guidebook for Participants‘
405
Watkins, M. 1982 ‗The Innis Tradition in Canadian Political Economy‘ Canadian
Journal of Political Science and Social Theory 6 (1-2), 12-34
Way, S. 2003. Kittiwake Coaster Winter 2003
WCED (World Commission on the Environment and Development) Brundtland, Gro
Harlem, Chairperson. 1987 Our Common Future (New York, Oxford University
Press)
WD (Western Diversification) ‗2003/2004 Annual Report‘
Webber, M. 1964 ‗The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm‘ in: Explorations into
the Urban Structure eds. Webber et al (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press) 79-153
Weick, K. 1995 Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications)
Wein, F. 1997 ‗The Royal Commission Report: Nine Steps to Rebuild Aboriginal
Economies‘ in The Cost of Doing Nothing: A Call to Action. (Toronto: CANDO-
Royal Bank Symposium)
Weinstein, M. ‗Design possibilities for a regional resource management board for the
implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy within the MTTC First Nations'
territories: Discussion Paper‘ (Coquitlam, BC: Watershed Watch)
------. 1991 ‗Nimpkish Valley: A History of Resource Management on Vancouver Island
Lands of the Nimpkish Indian People, from Aboriginal Times to the 1980s‘ A report
prepared for the Nimpkish Indian Band Council, Alert Bay, BC
Welch, R. 2002 ‗Legitimacy of Rural Local Government in the New Governance
Environment‘ Journal of Rural Studies 18, 443-459.
Werring, J. and Chapman, D. 2002 ‗Law and Disorder: A Review of Habitat. Legislation
and Protection for BC's Salmon Streams‘ (Vancouver, BC: Sierra Legal Defense
Fund)
Wescott, G. 2002 ‗Partnerships for capacity building: community, governments and
universities working together‘ Ocean & Coastal Management 45, 549–571
Westhead, M. and M. Parker 2005 ‗Ecosystem overview report‘
Wettenhall, R 1981 'The quango phenomenon' Current Affairs Bulletin 57(10), 14-22
WFP (Western Forest Products) ‗North Vancouver Island Region Sustainable Forest
Management Plan - 8 - Last Revised: November 24, 2007‘
Westley, F., Carpenter, S.R., Brock, W.A., Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H 2001 ‗Why
systems of people and nature are not just social and ecological systems‘ in Panarchy.
Understanding Transformation in Human and Natural Systems eds. L. Gunderson
and CS. Holling (Washington, DC: Island Press), 103-120
Whiffen, G. and Hilliard, W. 2000 ‗DFO Warns of Decline‘ Evening Telegram 28 March
2000.
White, R. 2006 Complexity and Chaos (Blackstone Audio Inc. Science & Discovery
Series)
406
Wicks, B. 1996 ‗Economic Development Plan for the Indian Bay Watershed‘ (Indian
Bay, NL: IBEC)
Williams et al. 2006. Fishing Industry Renewal Discussion Paper
Williams, C. and A. Millington 2004. ―The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable
development‖. The Geographical Journal. Vol. 1 No. 2. pp. 99-104.
Williamson, T.B., and S. Annamraju. 1996. Analysis of the contribution of the forest
industry to the economic base of rural communities in Canada. Working Paper 43.
Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Industry, Economics
and Programs Branch.
Wilson, P. 1997. Building Social Capital: A Learning Agenda for the Twenty-first
Century. Urban Studies.
Wilson, C. 2000 ‗Policy Regimes and Policy Change‘ Journal of Public Policy
Winer, M. and Ray, K. 1994 Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and
Enjoying the Journey (Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation)
Wittayapak, C., and P. Dearden. 1999 ‗Decision-making arrangements in community-
based watershed management in Northern Thailand‘ Society and Natural Resources
12, 673–691
Wolfe, D. ed. 2005 Clusters Old and New: The Transition to a Knowledge Economy in
Canada‘s Regions (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen‘s Press)
Wolfe, L. 2000 ‗Patterns of Equivocality in Decision Making for Marine and Terrestrial
Ecosystems: Towards the Design of Equivocality-Reducing Management Systems‘
PhD Dissertation (Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University School of Resource and
Environmental Management)
Wolfish, D. and G. Smith. 2000 ―Governance and Policy in a Multi-centric World‖
Canadian Public Policy, XXVI Supplement
Woodrow, M. 2006 ‗Definitions of Resilience‘ presentation to workshop on Adapting to
Uncertain Futures, Alert Bay BC, Oct. 3.
-----. 1996 ‗Resistance to regulatory changes in the fishery: a study of selected
communities of Bonavista North, Newfoundland‘ Unpublished PhD Thesis
(Montreal, QC: Universite Laval)
Wuttenee, W. 2006 ‗Making Space: Aboriginal Perspectives of Community Economic
Development‘ in Community Economic Development: Building for Social Change
eds. E. Shragge and M. Toye (Sydney, NS: Cape Breton University Press)
Yin, R. 2002 Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park, Sage
Publications.
Yorque, R., B. Walker, C.S. Holling, L., C. Folke, S. Carpenter and W. Brock 2001
Toward an Integrative Synthesis, in Gunderson and Holling (eds) Panarchy.
Understanding Transformation in Human and Natural Systems, Washington, Island
Press: 419-438
407
Young, O. 1994 International Governance: Protecting the Environment in a Stateless
Society (Ithaca, Cornell University Press)
Young, D. and J. Charland 1992 Successful Local Economic Development Initiatives.
Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research (Toronto: ICURR)
Young, N. and R. Matthews. 2007 ‗The economic spaces of community and industry in
rural British Columbia: the political reconstitution of a rural economy‘ Area 39 (2),
176–185
------. 2005a ‗Spatial strategies for rural development in British Columbia‘ Draft
unpublished paper, July 2005
Yuan, M. 2000 ‗Representation dynamic geographic phenomena based on hierarchical
theory‘ in Proceedings: 9th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling
Spatial Data Handling ed. P. Forer, 2a.19-2a.29
Yuliani, E.L. 2007 Decentralisation, deconcentration and devolution; what do they mean?
Internet www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf
Zdravko, P. 2002 ‗Political Economy of the Croatian De-Evolution‘ Presented at the
Institutional Analysis and Development Mini-Conference and TransCoop Meeting,
Humboldt University/Indiana University, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy
Analysis, Bloomington, IN, December 13-16, 2002
Zartman, I. 1996 Governance as Conflict Management: Politics and Violence in West
Africa (Washington DC: Brookings Institute)
Zimmerer K. and Basset T. 2003 Political Ecology: An Integrative Approach to
Geography and Environment – Development Studies (Guilford, New York)
Zimmerman, B., C. Lindberg and Paul Plesk. 1998 ‗A Complexity Science Primer‘
Adapted from Edgeware: Lessons from Complexity Science for Health Care Leaders
(Dallas, TX: VHA Inc.)
408
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Case Study Outcomes
a) Respondent perspectives: Outcomes are listed in order of the frequency with which
they were noted by respondents from each case). Yes (Y), Medium/To some degree (M),
or No (N) indicate assessments of the presence of these outcomes, considering
observations, disagreements among respondents and inconsistencies among data sources.
NL-W BC-W NS-W

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

1a. Coordination and 1. Business support/development 1. Capacity building/education
cooperation (M) (Y/M) 2. Support for development (M)
2a. Industry development (M) 2. Regional thinking/relationship efforts (info, facilitate) (Y)
b. Assistance to small building (M) 3. a. Ease for government (Y)
business (M) 3. Access to funding/$ into area (Y) b. Regional planning and
c. Internal/organizational 4. Capacity building (Y/M) cooperation (Y/M)
capacity building (M) 5. Rebuilding reputation (M) 4. Access to funding/$ (Y)
3a. Liaison with government/ 6. Development of/support for new 5. Business support/
advocate for the region (M) NGOs (Y/M) development (Y)
b. Education/capacity 7. Diversification/support for new 6. Infrastructure improved (Y)
building (Y) industries 7a. Comm. planning (Y/M)
4a. Giving youth a voice/ b. Industry development (Y)
addressing youth issues (Y) Other: voice for youth, 8a. Survival and organizational
b. Strategic planning (Y/M) job creation/experience/transition, development (Y)
5a. Seeing the bigger picture, infrastructure 9. Representation/voice (Y)
―thinking outside the box‖ and
about issues broader than one Debate re. role as government/ Other: youth involvement
community can tackle (Y) community interface and (limited), ease for communities of
b. Funding/resources (Y) communication/coordination (#8) horizontal partnerships, labour
c. Diversification (M) Some criticisms re. lack of outcomes, market development, job creation,
very difficult region green energy projects
409
b. Outcomes organized by sustainable development imperative/indicator category
(#s reflect the number of respondents citing each type of outcome out of a total number
―n‖of respondents discussing outcomes).
NL-W (n=28) BC-W (n=13) NS-W (n=32)
System capacity: System capacity: Social/system capacity:

1. Knowledge/science (Y) – 13 1 a. Learning/capacity building 1. Relationship building and
2.a. Monitoring and enforcement (Y/M) - 7 information sharing (Y) - 25
(M) - 10 2. Coordination & 2. Knowledge/capacity and
b. Community/public education/ communication (Y/M) - 5 understanding (Y) – 24
awareness (Y/M) - 10 4a. Stewardship (M) - 3 5b. Integration/improved
3. Management improvements (Y) 4b. Public relations for DFO, management and policy - 5
-9 forest companies (Y/M) - 3
4a. Field school prep/ potential 5. Financial management (Y) Ecological:
(Y/M) - 8 #3. Water quality
Social: improvement/pollution
Ecological: Relationships (M) - 7 reduction measures – 11 (Y/M)
2.c. Habitat protection and 3. Pride (Y) - 4
restoration (Y/M) - 10 Economic:
5. Improvement in fish stocks Economic: #4. Employment – 7 (Y/M –
(Y/M) – 7 1. Employment (Y) - 7 LT, some ST losses, room for
- limited to fisheries focus 4. Leverage/access to financial improvement in FNs emp.)
resources (Y/M) – 4/1? #5 a. Value for $/efficiency - 5
Economic:
4b. Student training/jobs (Y) - 8 Ecological: Cultural/legal:
5. Ec dev (Y/M) -7 5. a. Improvement in overall - Presence/leadership in
watershed health (M) - 2 resource management and
Social/cultural: b. Habitat protection and resource industries
- lifestyle protection restoration (Y) – 2/1? - Cross-cultural sharing
- limited to fisheries focus
Other: government awareness,
stewardship, land use planning, Cultural/legal:
litter clean-up - Presence/leadership on the land
& in fish management
410
NL-E (27) BC-E (20) NS-E (11)
System capacity: Economic: System Capacity:

1a. Coordination and cooperation 1. Business development (Y/M) - 1. Capacity bldg/ed. (M) - 7
(M) - 6 14 2. Support for dev‘t efforts
2c. Internal/organizational capacity 3. $ into the area, projects and (info, facilitate) (Y) - 5
building (M) - 5 businesses (Y) - 9 3. a. Ease for gov‘t (Y) - 4
3a. Liaison with gov‘t/ advocate 7. Diversification/support for new b. Regional planning and
for the region - 4 industries - 5 cooperation (Y/M)
b. Education & community System Capacity: 4. a. Comm. plans (Y/M) - 3
capacity building (Y) - 4 2. Regional relationships (M)- 11 5. a. Survival, organization
4.b. Strategic planning (Y/M) - 3 4. Capacity building (Y/M) - 8 development (Y) - 2
5.a. Seeing the bigger picture, 5. Rebuilding reputation (M) - 7 b. Represent‘n/voice (Y) - 2
―thinking outside the box‖ and 6. Support for, dev‘t of new Economic:
about issues broader than one NGOs/agencies (M) - 6 3c. Access to funds/$ (Y)- 4
community can tackle (Y/M)-2 Social: d. Business support/
Economic: 2. Relationships (M) - 11 development (Y/M)
2. a. Industry development (M) - 5 e. Infr. improved (Y)
b. Assist small bus. (Y/M) - 5 Other: youth involvement/jobs 4. b. Industry dev‘t - 3
5.a. Funding/resources (Y) - 2 (3), assistance to social NGOs,
b. Diversification (M) - 2 some assistance for projects with Other: youth involvement
Social: ecological and cultural benefits (limited - social), ease for
1b. ―Building bridges‖ (Y/M) - 6 communities of horizontal
4.a. Giving youth a voice/ partnerships, government
addressing youth issues (Y) - 3 learning as part of such
Ecological: partnerships (esp. RT and SCI),
- support for c.r.m. efforts labour market development, job
(Eastport, GRMA, Ragged creation, green energy projects
Harbour, eider) (M) (ecological)
411
c. Outcomes compared to stated mission/mandate (officially desired outcomes)
Element of stated mission/mandate Outcome Observed Notes

type sought outputs,
outcomes
NL-E
Develop SEPs, coordinate Capacity Yes/To some Major emphasis of government
implementation degree partners, implementation gaps
Coordinate business development Capacity To some Recognition, communication,
degree resources, resistance
Support organizations and Support for specific identified groups
communities Capacity Yes and initiatives, aided by government
req. for support
Coordinate RED-related social and To some # of actors involved, recognition,
economic initiatives Capacity degree communication, resources
Promote public participation, Community capacity building
community education in RED Capacity Yes program, increased awareness of
interdependence
Other outcomes: organizational development, assisting small business, advocacy, diversification, bringing $
into the region, relationship bldg, voice for youth, lifelong learning initiative, support from CRM efforts.
Note: More holistic 1997 vision statement omitted in 2003 plan, elements remaining in goals.
NS-E
To lead in the facilitation, Combination of response to requests
coordination and initiation of Economic Yes and targeted strategic projects and
community and business issues + Capacity partnerships
and opportunities
The integrating force in developing To some Similar to KEDC, difficulty
sustainable regional economics and Capacity degree integrating/coordinating with many
communities actors, limited connection to or
recognition by many of them
Logic model refers to interim Yes/To some Need for updated regional plan,
outcomes - capacity, programs, Capacity degree additional capacity bldg but also
leadership and planning achievements
Other outcomes: internal organizational development, broad mandate covers outcomes
BC-E
Foster responsible economic Economic Yes Limited but important outcomes,
growth difficult context
Leadership in: Have not been active in this area, until
Community-based strategic Capacity Limited required by SEAI
planning (note vs. regional)
Small bus. training, development, Economic + Yes Investment funds, SEA program
financial support capacity important support
Developing alternatives for EI and Economic To some SA funding cuts
SA recipients through SEP degree
Coordinating, targeting and Capacity Limited Have not been active in this area – O-
designing employment training Zone, referrals
Partnerships for creative econ. Capacity Yes/To some Some communities feel excluded
diversification solutions degree limiting potential
412
Other outcomes: Regional relationship building, youth engagement, assistance to social and other NGOs –
local capacity building, internal organizational development (reputation recovery)
Note: Also identify a set of more holistic strategic priorities.
Element of stated Outcome type sought Observed outputs, Notes

mission/mandate outcomes
NL-W
Preserve and enhance our Ecological Yes/to some degree Have protected and restored
wilderness heritage trout pop.s to some degree,
(forests, rivers and restored habitats, achieved
streams) land use planning and
conservation measures
but fisheries focused
Sustainable ec dev Economic To some degree Government funding
through a revitalized dependent for IBEC jobs,
recreational fishery local fishery sustained
Other outcomes: management/governance capacity (knowledge/science, monitoring and enforcement,
community/public education/ awareness, management improvements, research and education facilities),
student training/jobs and support for tourism and recreation and resource management-related economic
development, lifestyle protection
NS-W
Stakeholder collaboration Social + capacity Yes (with need to High level of collaboration
further engage taking place with room for
community at large, further enhancement
industry players)
IM planning Capacity/institutional In progress River Denys only
Plan implementation Capacity/institutional Limited (actions on Interim actions only,
sewage issues) planning underway
Incorporating TK and Social + capacity Yes Significant role played by
western science UINR, CBU
Sewage remediation/ Ecological To some degree Infrastructure
water quality improvements and early
improvement positive signs in testing
Protecting and preserving Ecological Limited/to some Much left to be done
the BLWE degree
Meeting the needs of Economic + social, Limited/to some Job creation benefits have
current generations cultural, ecological degree occurred but also fishery
- Mi‘kmaq employment jobs lost, ltd. emphasis to
date
One-window/ improved Capacity/institutional To some degree Silos still considered a
government service problem but several
projects have benefited
First Nation‘s Social, cultural + Yes/To some degree Management model still in
strengthened and equal capacity/ institutional development but with sign.
participation in resource involvement and capacity
management bldg
Other outcomes: value for $/efficiency (others covered by broad objectives above)
BC-W
Re-establish and rebuild Ecological Limited Habitat protection and
Nimpkish salmonid stocks restoration measures,
413
reported improvement in
overall watershed health
but salmon stocks remain at
low levels
Integrated resource Capacity/institutional To some degree Increased coordination and
planning and coordination communication, used as
of resource use/activities clearinghouse for resource
impacting salmon applications but planning is
limited outside fisheries
recovery activities
Other outcomes: enhanced governance/management capacity (learning/capacity building, stewardship,
improved financial management and leverage/access to financial resources), public relations for DFO and
forest companies, relationship-building, pride, employment, First Nations presence/leadership on the land &
in fisheries management
Outcome Index
Interviews results presented above are compared to secondary data and the following
scores were consequently assigned to create the radial diagrams:
0 = no evidence of impact in this area

1 = some evidence of improvement but majority of evidence suggests outcomes are
minimal
2 = some evidence of impact but only of medium significance and/or data is conflicting
3 = evidence of significant impact but with remaining gaps unaddressed or some
disagreement in the data
4 = evidence of significant impact in this area
NL-W NL-E
Gaps Outcomes Outcomes
Ecological 3 2 1
Economic 3 2 2
Individual 3 3 3
Social 1 2 3
Cultural 2 2 2
NS-W NS-E
Gaps Outcomes Outcomes
Ecological 3 2 2
Economic 3 2 3
Individual 2 3 2
Social 2 4 2
Cultural 1 4 2
414
BC-W
Gaps Outcomes BC-E Outcomes Total Outcome Score
Ecological 2 1 1 9
Economic 2 2 3 14
Individual 3 3 2 16
Social 3 2 3 16
Cultural 2 3 1 14
Calculation of improvement in priority sustainable development issues:
Contribution towards sustainability gap score = outcome score for each category where
there is a gap up to a maximum of the sustainability gap score in that category
Improvement score = contribution score/total sustainability gap (all categories added)
100% = 4/4
85%+= = 3/4 (NS-E)
70-84% = 2/4 (BC-W, BC-E, NS-W, NL-W, NL-E)
BC-W Example:
Contribution = 1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 2 (vs. 3) = 10
Sustainability gap total = 12
10/12= 83%
Overall outcomes ratings are presented in Table 33 (p. 262).
415
Appendix 2 - Principles of Good Governance, Collaboration and Sustainable
Development
While a high degree of consensus may exist on the principles of good governance,
measuring their practice has proven notoriously difficult (ESPON 2005). Attempts to
develop indicators for current governance practice and opportunities for improvement
have met with mixed success. Further, the evolving nature of the governance process
makes it difficult to set up permanent indicators. New priorities continue to arise, such as
the increasing emphasis on flexibility, adaptation and collaboration described in Chapters
2 and 3. Indicators should be used cautiously, evaluation undertaken over a sufficiently
long period of time and evaluation methods themselves critically reviewed initially and
periodically. Despite these challenges the effort to measure good governance remains an
important attempt to improve confidence in complex institutions (CEC 2001).
Note: principles of good governance, collaboration and sustainable development are

interconnected and therefore some indicators provide evidence of more than one principle
in practice. Good governance (the accumulation of good governance principles in
practice) is, for example, itself considered a principle of sustainable development.
Good Governance
1. Effectiveness: The degree to which actions/policies lead to changes in behaviour that

help to solve the problems being addressed (have intended effect)
Satisfaction of effectiveness criteria relates to the principle of thoroughness/fullness.

Effectiveness requires sufficient depth to the examination of issues, as well as a scale(s)
of decision-making appropriate to the problem and implementation capacity.
Indicators:
- documented clear objectives and action plans clearly and logically linked to those
objectives
- program/procedures in place to review and monitor policy performance
- evaluation criteria and procedures for staff and Board members
- demonstrated achievement of established goals and objectives
Sources: Massam and Dickinson (1999), Paquet and Wilkins (2002), CEC (2001),
Abrams (2003)
416
2. Transparency/openness: sharing information and acting in an open manner, with open
channels of communication between stakeholders and officials and sufficient range of
accessible information provided to understand and monitor institutions and decision-
making processes. Relevant decisions ―behind closed doors‖ should be avoided outside of
collaborative governance processes, hidden agendas revealed.
Indicators:
- regular reports the public in appropriate venues about activities and decisions
- public availability of meeting minutes and documents
- meetings open to the public
- provision of information on web sites
- language is clear and understandable (accessibility)
- consistence between stated values and practices
Sources: CEC (2001), Davoudi et el (2004), UNDP
3. Accountability: ―To be accountable is to answer for one‘s responsibilities, to report, to

explain, to give reasons, to respond, to assume obligations, to render a reckoning and
submit to an outside or external judgement‖ (Gagne 1998 p. 175).
Accountability is the requirement of decision-makers/power-holders to explain and justify

their actions to stakeholders, act on criticisms, and accept responsibility for failure. It
requires clear roles and responsibilities, adequate and open access to information (related
to transparency) and organized stakeholders who are able to monitor and respond).
Accountability also requires enforceability of sanctions for powerholders who make
mistakes or engage in illegal behaviour. Accountability becomes more difficult to enforce
as goals, objectives and responsibilities become more complex. Organizations may have
accountability to more than one stakeholder and that these may conflict. Goals may be
ambiguous and/or continually modified through negotiation and reflection in collaborative,
adaptive governance, thus, it is argued, not having the same level of accountability as a
traditional government led by elected officials. Long time frames for action can exacerbate
the problem of monitoring and reporting on effectiveness and meeting the accountability
principle.
Indicators:
- documentation demonstrating clear/well-defined, transparent rights, roles,
responsibilities, authority and accountability (e.g. contracts, MOUs, legislation)
- documentation demonstrating clear/well-defined, transparent goals, objectives and
targets, expectations/guidelines for behaviour
- stakeholders with adequate knowledge regarding what is at stake in decision-
making, who is responsible, goals, objectives, plans and how those responsible
can be made accountable
- mechanisms for audit/review/evaluation
- methods for reporting back to stakeholders on evaluation results (open
information)
- mechanisms for providing feedback/demanding accountability that are accessible
to all
417
- mechanisms for responding to feedback
- evidence of action taken in response to concerns raised (e.g. decisions modified
when reasonably questioned, % of complaints responded to/acted upon)
- evidence of action taken in response to evaluation results
- clear process for overturning decisions
- concrete rewards for good decisions and repercussions/sanctions for those making
inappropriate or irresponsible decisions (e.g. job sanctions, election - ballot box is
the traditional democratic mechanism according to Morgan 2007)
- mechanisms for dealing with violations of group rules/norms
- mechanism for financial review and accountability
Sources: UNDP, Savoie (2000), Goetz (2002), CEC (2001), Abrams (2003), Coe (2006),
Markey et al (2004), Kernaghan and Siegel
4. Legitimacy/authority: ―sanctioning of actions by the populace‖
Authority is a legitimate right to exercise power and to change formal decision-making

rules, legitimate in that the public and stakeholders accept that governing body has the
right to and/or should make decisions for them. Legitimacy is often garnered by balancing
power on one hand with support on the other, including providing access to argument and
follow-up response, honesty and sincerity, presenting a case for action based on evidence
and full justification. Weber identifies three sources of authority and legitimacy:
traditional authority (derived from custom and history); charismatic authority (based on
popular admiration); and rational-legal/bureaucratic (from the offices individuals hold
and institutions that got them there).
Indicators:
- clearly identified roles and responsibilities (overlaps in responsibility also
identified)
- election of representatives
- election turnout rates
- approval for election process
- endorsement of elected governments (or composition of governing bodies),
respect for leadership
- support for decisions and policies
- compliance with rules, legislation and agreements
- degree to which stakeholders believe agreements are honoured by governing
bodies (or if not satisfactory explanations are provided)
- use of mix of soft and hard policy instruments
Sources: Jackson and Jackson, Massam and Dickinson (1999), Abrams (2003)
5. Inclusive Public Engagement/Participation: engagement of stakeholder groups and

representatives but also the general public ―based on the democratic maxim that those
affected by a decision should participate directly in the decision-making process‖
(participatory democracy a form of representative democracy)
418
Public participation provides leadership through support and coordination rather than
simple command and control. Ideally it recognizes, respects and accommodates
stakeholder diversity, balancing communities of interest and communities of place.
Inclusiveness should be considered in access, presence and influence. All significant and
legitimate interests should be taken into account, including: those to be affected by the
process outcome; those required to implement decisions; those who could undermine the
process if not included; and those who bring required experience, knowledge or skills to
the process, recognizing, however, that not everyone will/can be involved. The level of
involvement should be appropriate for the level of public interest, seriousness of the issue
and decision-making power available to citizens while keeping group size manageable.
Benefits and costs of participation must be balanced. Appropriate players and methods
may change over time. Some authors argue for sustained rather than sporadic and
episodic methods of engagement while others advocate timelines that limit the process.
By providing opportunities for participation governance processes recognize, value, and
support all community members in contributing to the economic, social and cultural life
of a society. Stakeholder participation policy must be backed by sufficient resources,
staff, and commitment to be effective and meaningful, should have a meaningful
influence and implementation ability and the parties should be sufficiently supportive and
committed to invest the time necessary to make it work (see also Collaboration principles
below). Timeliness of involvement where possible indicates sincerity, recognizing that
missing actors may be identified or come forward later.
Indicators:
- existence and frequency of public meetings, presentations and other opportunities
for citizen input, including opportunities that do not require public speaking or
written response
- advertising of opportunities for input in locally appropriate venues, including use
of local media, schools, community groups (all sectors)
- existence and updating of stakeholder analysis
- number and range of different social actors involved in governance
initiative/organization
- opportunities provided before decisions are made (early in the process and
throughout)
- power sharing, e.g. delegation of responsibility where appropriate
- opportunities for dialogue provided
- open discussion about governance issues within civil society and/or the media
- diversity of representation (inclusion of underrepresented groups, e.g.
youth/students, non-resident interests)
- examination and addressing of barriers to participation
- special measures to ensure that marginalized groups have access to programs and
participation (expression without discrimination by gender, ethnicity, social class
etc.)
- program to build participation capacity
- stakeholder involvement in evaluation
- stakeholder satisfaction with opportunities for participation
- frequency of reports to stakeholders and the public
419
Sources: CEC (2001), RUPRI (2006), Bryant (1999), Eoyang (1999), Abrams (2003),
Clutterbuck and Novick (2003), Markey and Vodden (2003)
6. Conflict resolution and consensus building: builds collaborative relationships and

consensus solutions among stakeholders, evolution of consensus solutions based on
shared values/principles and common commitments, seeking to resolve disagreement
while allowing for expression of different points of view, exploration of diverse
meanings, respecting and accommodating the diversities within society
Balance is needed when considering participation and consensus-building principles.

Consensus process gets more difficult and costly as the number of parties increases.
Scharpf (1997: 70) suggests ―as the number of affected parties increases . . . negotiated
solutions incur exponentially rising and eventually prohibitive transaction costs.‖ Hooghe
(2001) argues in some cases a control approach (hard instruments) may be needed,
although the threat of a forced decision is often an incentive for collaborative negotiation.
Indicators:
- goals and objectives determined by consensus (widely agreed upon)
- opportunities provided for sharing common experiences
- identification of and steps taken to discuss and seek resolution to areas of
disagreement
- existence and use of consensus building and conflict resolution techniques
- staff training provided in consensus building and conflict resolution techniques
- used of skilled, independent facilitators when necessary (e.g. important planning
processes, dealing with controversial issues)
- demonstrated respect for different points of view
- seek solutions acceptable to all
- % of decisions by consensus vs. vote
Sources: Davoudi et al (2004), Scharpf (1997), Hooghe (2001), Clutterbuck and Novick
(2003)
7. Efficiency/Cost-effectiveness: outputs and outcomes commensurate with inputs (effort

expended and resources committed)
Indicators:
- comparisons of costs to other similar initiatives/organizations
- certification of effectiveness and efficiency
- trends in time required to reach agreement on decisions
- source of financing/revenue adequate to support the governance process
- stakeholder understanding of costs and benefits
Source: Abrams (2003)
8. Equity/Fairness: upholding justice, non-discrimination and consistency, equal

opportunity and benefit, fair sharing of benefits with costs, respect for welfare, justice
and basic human rights, efforts to ensure everyone has the means to meet their needs (i.e.
420
income supports, employment, food, housing), develop one‘s capacities and actively
participate in community life recognizing that to be treated equitably and foster a
barrier-free environment some people may need more or different supports. In
Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for "equal protection" and
"equal benefits" for all Canadians.
Indicators:
- rule without bias, right to a fair hearing, impartial enforcement - consistent
application of rules, rewards, sanctions
- programs aiming to provide territorial equality in services (training, culture,
health, economy)
- programs aiming to reduce economic, social and cultural inequities (e.g. economic
disparities, racism, age or gender discrimination, etc.) and provide opportunities
for all to improve or maintain their well-being (e.g. integrated recreation programs
welcoming all community members, such as people with disabilities; mixed
income housing developments; preventive as well as protective public health
programming
- services provided in culturally, socially and ecologically sensitive and appropriate
ways
- planning for inter-generational equity (maintaining future opportunities, including
youth)
- opportunities to be heard for all (see participation above)
- compensation for losses without consent
- employment practices that ensure equity and fairness
- proportion of decision-making positions held by traditionally marginalized
groups, support for their participation
- recognizing the value of different ways of learning and views of knowledge
- mention of equity/fairness as a core value
Sources: Massam and Dickinson (1999, 229), Abrams (2003), EPSON (2004),
Clutterbuck and Novick (2003), EEWC (1997)
9. Integration/Fullness/Holism/Coherence: parts of the system function in

complementary ways.
While governance processes and structures may be designed for specific issues and
purposes there is a need for mechanisms to address what have been termed "cross-
cutting" or "wicked problems". In addressing such problems, Sabel (2000) suggests
governance must draw on both local knowledge and an ability to co-ordinate and frame
experimentation across a wide range of jurisdictions. It must balance the social, economic
and environmental needs of present and future generations (sustainable development).
System-wide alignment of and mutually reinforcing components (coherence) provide
more system stability than other self-organized patterns. Coherence provides mutually
reinforcing dynamics that make change more difficult, creating systems that are stable
than incoherent ones.
421
Indicators:
- policies, projects and/or structures that address economic, social and ecological
issues variety, breadth and relevance of issues addressed
- a broad, long-term perspective
- understanding of historical, cultural and social complexities impacting the
governance context
- ecosystem approach
- horizontal and vertical integration: existence of joint initiatives, coordinating
structures and processes with other governance authorities with overlapping interests
(across issues and scales)
- frequency of decisions supported, overruled or contradicted by other governance
processes/bodies
- shared meaning, limited internal tensions
- promotes a consistent approach within a complex system
- existence of an overall strategic vision and plan (vs. piecemeal approach)
Sources: Massam and Dickinson (1999), Sabel (2002), CED (2001), Davoudi et al (2004),
Eoyung (2001), Abrams (2003)
10. Robustness/stability: ability ―to overcome a variety of threats/obstacles and come out
strengthened from the experiences‖ (Abrams et al 2003, p. 21)
Resilience in complex adaptive systems requires a balance between change and stability.
World Bank (2004) governance indicators, for example, suggest political stability as one
of six key themes in measuring good governance. Paquet and Wilkins (2002) suggest that
a system of governance must have both the robustness to withstand perturbations and the
flexibility to make necessary changes, which will in turn contribute to resilience.
Indicators:
- years governance process/institutions have been in functioning
- legal and policy basis for governance process/organization
- frequency of change in membership of governing bodies (turnover more frequent
than called for by bylaws?)
- # of agreements/decisions recanted or changed
- number of type of threats and changes in the operating environment
- use of risk management to face threats
- threats effectively dealt with in the past
Sources: Abrams (2003), Paquet and Wilkins (2002), World Bank (2004)
11. Flexibility, adaptation, continuous learning and improvement: considered critical to

the long-term viability of CASES, including governance sub-systems (as discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3)
Evolution and timely response to feedback is incorporated, drawing from accumulated
knowledge and experience in an ongoing and iterative process.
422
Indicators:
- ongoing evaluation, capacity for self-monitoring and acting upon results (see
accountability indicators)
- frequency of stakeholder feedback resulting in changes, new initiatives or other
actions
- information-based decision-making (capacity for information management –
timely, accurate, relevant, comprehensive, reliable)
- proactive, efforts to anticipate upcoming issues, monitoring of internal and
external environment
- staff, board and community/constituent training allowances and programs
- learning promoted through information sharing and exchange
- rules of operation the promote collaborative learning
- structures, strategies and processes shift over time
- movement to higher order outcomes over time
- positioning on the adaptive cycle
- changes to strategies and goals explicitly based on lessons learned from
evaluation, reflection and/or dialogue
- instances of ―remarkable flexibility‖, demonstrating an ability to experiment and
adopt novel solutions
Sources: Abrams (2003), Gunderson and Holling (2001)
With thanks to A. Catmur and D. House, who, along with myself, prepared an initial list
of indicators for the analysis of Regional Economic Development Boards in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Collaboration
1. Commitment to collaboration: ―Participants must share a common concern, which

they are committed to resolving and can see that concern is best resolved through
a collaborative process. They set milestones and timelines in working towards
agreed upon objectives and those responsible for implementation or follow-up
action are genuinely committed‖ (Markey and Vodden 2003: 52). Such
commitment is often fostered by collaborative leaders.
Indicators:
 all participants commit significant resources (not necessarily financial) to the
collaborative initiative
 overall commitment of resources adequate to achieve mandate (often long-term)
 % of meetings missed/attended
 completion of agreed upon tasks by individual collaborators
2. Trust/honesty: clear, transparent decision-making processes, trust among collaborators

built on reliability and reputation (performance based) or kinship/community, ―real‖
423
collaboration and power-sharing vs. ―sham forms of participation‖ (Sabel 2004),
delegated service delivery (deconcentration and/or devolution)
Indicators:
- frequency with which sincerity is questioned
- use of written policy statements on key issues of concern
- see also transparency above
3. Accountability mechanisms
- see governance principle #3 above
4. Common goal-setting, consensus building

5. Mutual respect, understanding: respect for the needs of each party, understanding and
appreciation of differences, diverse values, interests and backgrounds, respect for
different sources and forms of knowledge, recognition of different partners‘ cultures
Indicators:
- initiatives/efforts for partners to learn and appreciate each others‘ the working
practices and cultures
- consideration of traditional means of conflict resolution and/or decision-making
- use of local, traditional and conventional scientific knowledge (social and natural)
in CASES decision-making
6. Decision-making and dispute resolution mechanisms: agreed upon process for making
decisions and resolving conflicts
7. Effective listening and communication, two-way information flow: clear,

open/transparent and ongoing lines of communications, communicative interaction to
build mutual interaction and acceptance
Indicators: observation, satisfaction surveys, evidence of two-way information flow:

concerns and comments raised are reflected in meeting documents and decisions, all
important sources of information are made available to all collaborators, frequency and
nature of communication between collaborators
8. Fair and agreed upon sharing of benefits, costs and responsibilities/decision-making

(power): relationship includes mutual benefit/reciprocal exchange, sharing of
costs/workload and resources or benefits, and a true sharing of decision-making (see also
#8 above).
Indicators:
- evidence of mutual benefit
- costs seen as commensurate with benefits/satisfaction by individual collaborators
424
- shared financial contributions (facilitated by a degree of economic self-sufficiency or a
diversity of funding sources) – may differ according to ability to ay and other
contributions
- balance of overall contributions
- open dialogue about fair allocation of costs and benefits from the partnership
- members understand their role in the collaboration and the role of others
- written record of responsibilities, costs and expected benefits
completion of agreed upon tasks/responsibilities by all collaborators
documented, clear, agreed upon decision-making process
avenue for recourse when injustice is claimed
satisfaction/complaints about fairness and the way injustices have been addressed
compensation for losses without agreement and/or benefit
9. Time - long-term view: the mutual learning required to build understanding and work
toward consensus take time, as does building trust, establishing structures and
relationships, capacity-building. Time frames required for successful collaboration are
often greater than a single short-term project and may take more than a decade. Short,
time-limited partnerships often spend too much effort establishing relationships. More
enduring relationships allow for a more concerted focus on objectives and delivery. Start
small. Build on successes.
Indicators:
time set aside for defining and agreeing on ―process‖: the identification of roles,
responsibilities and understanding of the partnership environment, establishment
of clear administrative procedures
time set aside for relationship building where required
plans includes a long-term vision and goals
longevity of the collaboration
stated and demonstrated commitment to sustainable development (see below)
10. Open to change, ―permeable boundaries‖

- See also governance principle #10 above
Indicators:
- initiatives that demonstrate innovation, new approaches
- frequency of new members or partners
- evidence that monitoring and evaluation results in change, revisiting of both ends
and means
Sources: Gertler and Wolfe (2002), Markey et al (2004), MacNeil (1994), Berkes (2004),
Davoudi et al (2004), Markey and Vodden (2003), Abrams (2003)
Sustainable Development
1. Living within ecological limits

 maintaining and restoring a healthy environment/natural capital
425
 overt recognition of limits to biophysical carrying capacity and of the natural
capital stock of a locality and taking measures to that development activity does
not degrade this natural capital
 recognition of the need not just to maintain current levels of natural capital but to
reverse and restore past degradation
 wastes disposed of at a rate not greater than the physical environment's ability to
assimilate them
 reduce or eliminate inputs of hazardous and radioactive substances
 resources extracted at a rate not greater than the resource and its supporting
systems are replenished
 harvest rates that do no result in loss of species or genetic diversity
 monitoring of the status of ecosystem health
 identified limits to growth
 areas protected from development to maintain biological diversity (species and
ecosystems)
 calls for a precautionary, ecosystem approach
Sample indicators:
 Water quality: eutrophication, algae concentration, oil pollution, faecal pollution,
heavy metal parameters, solid waste on beaches, disease agents, salinity, turbidity,
beach closures or boil water orders due to water quality concerns
 Biodiversity and habitats: threatened or endangered species (as % of total), threats
to habitat and ecosystem structure, % cover of key habitats (e.g. forest) and related
trends, fish populations as a % of historic levels/population trends, # of fisheries
closures
2. Positive, ongoing environmental change (stewardship): Striving for:

 more efficient use of resources and improved conservation measures
 pollution prevention and the elimination of toxic materials
 replacement of non-renewable with renewable resources
 waste minimization
 maximum reuse and recycling
 biodiversity preservation
 use of environmentally benign technologies and durable, repairable products
 restoration and/or enhancement of natural habitats affected by past use
Sample indicators: % of citizens involved in volunteer environmental initiatives, # of

ENGOs, presence of recycling and composting programs, % diversion, level of awareness
of and concern about ecological and sustainable development issues
3. Equity and social justice (satisfies needs of all, includes marginalized and
disadvantaged groups, intergenerational equity, fair sharing of costs and benefits)
 provision of affordable housing, education, health care
 provision of safe, clean water and adequate nutrition for all
 costs and benefits of development fairly distributed (including consideration of
426
historic dependence and adjacency and "fairer" distribution of income
 seeks to eliminate poverty
 maintains basic freedoms and human rights
 land claims resolution and recognition of Aboriginal rights
 implications of development decisions for future generations taken into account -
should have access to at least the same resource (or natural capital stock) base as
the previous generation.
Sample indicators: % of population living below the poverty line, nutritional status of
children, %%% of population with access to primary health care facilities, adult
secondary achievement, Gini index of income inequality (from CSD Theme Indicator
Framework), compensation for losses without agreement and/or benefit. See also
governance principle #8 above.
4. Economic viability/vitality (of individuals, businesses, organizations, ventures,

processes): a sustainable SES fosters a healthy economy that provides the adequate
material means for individuals and communities to live and manage their affairs in
manner consistent with the other principles outlined, including recognition of the
value of non-monetary contributions to community and economy (the voluntary and
informal economy).
Sample indicators: unemployment rates, income levels, poverty measures, diversity of the
economic base, local investment, measures/surveys of informal economy participation,
communication, transportation and municipal infrastructure
5. Broad-based participation and collaboration: Agenda 21 and other documents and

research results suggest that "access to information and broad public participation in
decision-making are fundamental to sustainable development", linked to social justice,
community-building/community mutuality (looking after each other), the right of
individuals to have a voice and recognition of multiple knowledge sources/forms.
Sample indicators: see governance principle #5
6. Diversity: biological and cultural diversity, economic diversification, diversity of

perspectives/ backgrounds, knowledge etc., recognition that diversity creates
resilience, land use diversity
Sample indicators: species richness, economic diversity/single industry or government

dependency, cultural diversity, diversity of participation
7. Integration: a comprehensive, holistic approach, integrating social, economic and

environmental objectives and seeking development options that balance these
imperatives rather than position them as ―either-or‖ alternatives, encourages thinking
broadly across issues, disciplines, physical and social boundaries.
Sample indicators: see governance principle #9, also collaboration #11
427
8. Qualitative development (vs. emphasis on quantitative economic growth)
- development that aims to maximize all forms of capital (natural, social, cultural, human
as well as economic)
Sample indicators: perceived quality of life
9. Long-term perspective, ongoing improvement: consideration of the long-term

consequences from today‘s actions and decision, linked to concept of
intergenerational equity but also to need for process patience discuss above, ongoing
process of learning and building adaptive capacity, ability to address increased
complexity over time
Sample indicators: see collaboration principle #10, 11
10. Values community, role of the local and global

- recognizes critical role of local actors in sustainable development, including
contributions of local knowledge and of commitment to place
- also acknowledges multi-scale dimensions of sustainability
11. Good governance: also termed institutional criteria for sustainability, represents the
social structures that proprogate and sustain sustainable development values -
increasingly recognized as a pre-condition for sustainable development (see Chapters One
and Two)
Sample indicators: see good governance principle indicators above, also shared
perspectives on what constitutes good governance
Sources: Vodden (1999); Belfiore et al (2003); Woollard (2000); CRC (2002); Booth and
Halseth; Bauen, Baker, and Johnson (1996); Abrams (2003)
428
Appendix 3 – Case Study Principles
a. Principles emphasized by case study interview respondents (compared to those in the organization
or network‘s written documentation as outlined further in Appendix 4 section b)
n = number of respondents that discussed guiding or operating principles, which were grouped into
three categories (sustainable development, governance and collaboration) according to the
methodology outlined in Chapter 4 and recognizing that some principles could be placed in more
than one of these overlapping categories. The number of respondents discussing each individual
principle is also provided and principled are listed in order of the frequency with which they were
noted. For example, 22 of 36 NL-W respondents discussing principles noted the need to integrate
social, economic and ecological imperatives, but 23 of 36 emphasized economic imperatives or
suggested that economic imperatives dominate watershed governance in Indian Bay area and/or in
the province of NL. The importance of ecological and social/cultural imperatives was noted by an
equal number of respondents in this case (14/36).
Principles Principles emphasized by interview respondents

emphasized in
written documents
Sustainable Development Governance Collaboration

- Economic values - Community involvement in -Collaboration
NL-W (n = 36) emphasized (23) resource management (25) principles (14),
- Integrating social, -Governance principles (25), including:
- shared responsibility economic and ecological including: - Mutual benefit (6)
- conserve and imperatives and ecosystem- - Credibility/legitimacy (8) - Communication (3):
enhance wilderness based management/ - Discretion/flexibility (7) best fostered through
heritage governance - difficult but - Cooperation (5) dialogue
- cultural & economic necessary (22) - Public participation (5) - Respect (3)
identity - Ecological (14) - changing - Monitoring and evaluation
- future generations attitudes toward the (5) Note: Overlaps
- sustainable economic ecological a ―long, b. – Need for a mix of LK/TK with governance
development slow/difficult process‖ and ―science‖ (5)
- equality of access, - Social/cultural (14) - being - Transparency (4 - weak)
user management, cost outdoors/going to the cabin - Accountability (3 - weak –
recovery/ self- key aspect of quality of life MOUs a mechanism)
financing - Adjacency (5) - Efficiency (3)
429
- Integration (28) among - Terminology - don‘t use Collaboration, a
NS-W (n = 34) actors
4 (13), also social, the term governance (7) principle flowing
economic
) and ecological throughout Bras d‘Or
- collaboration pillars (11), with culture (7), Participation and bottom-up efforts (27)
- IM environment/economy (4), vs. top-down (31): co-
- sewage remediation having natural and human management or shared Common ground (13)
- healthy watershed resources for the long-term governance recommended Long-term (13)
ecosystem (3 – 1 mentions future by 12/31, 24/31 more local Respect/trust (12)
generations, 1 ongoing control
process), also a spiritual Flexibility (21) Linked to principle of
dimension (3) Capacity building, learning equality and Mi‘kmaw
- IM (11) (17) culture
- Not happening yet (11) - 3 Aboriginal rights and title - A lot to do with
economic weak (enviro (14) leadership style
focus), 5 economic/growth Transparency (14) - 8
focused, 2 not in their largely yes (improving), 4
mandates consider it a problem (with
- More of this kind of exceptions)
thinking occurring (10) Recognizing complexity
- Too difficult (1) (12)
- - Limited mention of fed. Linking science and TK/LK
SD planning requirements (12)
except ACAP (4) Evaluation (8)
- - Better understanding of Inclusive (8)
SD needed (4) Accountability (7)
- - Link to Brundtland (SCI, Effectiveness (4)
CD policy), Rio (2) Efficiency (4)
- Equality (4)
- - Stewardship/care (13) Adjacency (4)
- Whole ecosystem
approach/earth as a living
system (10)
- Environment as the
foundation (4): ―The
environment has to come
first.‖
- - First Nations perspective
environmentally-based (3),
1 disagrees/exceptions
- Community survival (10)
430
- Economic/employment Principles of good Principles of
BC-W (n = 14) emphasized (14), followed governance (9): collaboration (10):
by social/cultural (9) and - Long-term view (8) - Power sharing (9)
- fish first, stock then ecological or ―fish- - Coordination (7) - Trust and
rebuilding centric‖ (8) - common - Aboriginal rights (7) understanding (6)
- prioritization/ objective - Inclusive participation(6) - Cooperation
recovery and - Integrated approach (9), - Transparency (6) - Commonality (5)
integrated resource recognize full range of - Cost efficiency (5) - Mutual benefit (5)
planning values ―not just - Learning and adaptation - Buy-in (2)
- coordination of preservation‖, socio- (5) - Autonomy (2)
resource use/activities economic, cultural and - First Nations leadership
impacting salmon ecological linked (9) role (5) Other: Compromise,
- economic and - Linking science and respect
cultural significance LK/TK (4)
acknowledged - Flexibility/ diversity (4)
- Effectiveness (4) and
monitoring and evaluation
(3)
Sustainable Development Governance Collaboration

- Ecological aspects Principles of good Cooperation/
NL-E (n= 35) emphasized, slow change, governance (27) including: coordination (3):
current development - Public and stakeholder - Still a lot separate
- Flexibility unsustainable but participation/inclusion, thinking in different
to ec dev improving (17), increasing important but difficult (18), agencies/groups (1)
- Good basic services ecological awareness, benefits of community - Repetitiveness, groups
(health, education, models of integrated/s.d. participation (5), need to working toward similar
social) - Difficulties of integration, balance top down and bottom goals that can benefit
- Lifestyle based on although also of separating up (5), role for both from greater
respect for each other social and economic, ec dev government and community collaboration (1)
and and conservation still seen (3) - Communities won‘t
environment as mutually exclusive survive without a
- Partners, create ones (16) - Accountability (multi-level) collaborative approach
own future - Economic (14), social (9) (1)
(Vision ‗97 SEP) (11) and cultural (4) - Learning and adaptation (7)
sustainability concerns - - Legitimacy (5) * Discussed as
social gains seen as easier - Cooperation/coordination outcomes (6) but not a
to achieve and measure (3) major emphasis in
Current: economic and than economic
entrepreneurial discussions on goals
- Importance of c.r.m. to Other: subsidiarity,
development and and principles
sust. devt. (12) transparency (1), efficiency,
planning, partnerships - Rural survival (11)
and capacity flexibility/diversity (3 –
- ST vs. LT focus (4) significant barrier),
development to - Adjacency (2)
support these aims
Quality of life (2)
- Integrated, holistic Principles of good Cooperation/collaborati
BC-E (n=20) approach, triple bottom governance (20): on (14):
line/env and econ (12) - Inclusive/participation (15) - Diversity/inclusive
- Responsible econ. - Current development - Coop/collaboration (14) (11)
unsustainable but - Flexibility (11) - Common ground (10)
431
growth improving, CFDC SD - Accountability (6) - Building trust (7)
- Citizen participation approach (3) - Community as leaders (6),
- Planning - Ecological concerns (5) programs to local
- Reflects ecological - Rural community circumstances (4)
and social values of survival (5) -Government as enablers (5),
residents - Economic/financial including capacity building
- Broad representation sustainability issues (3) (3), policy and program/
- Diversification - Long-term perspective (3) structural support (3),
- Social issues addressed
- Partnership $/getting resources to
only to a ltd. extent locally,
- Effective resource communities (3),
social economy approach
use assistance in a crisis (2)
nationally
- Self-sustaining - Transparency (5)
- Proactive vs. reactive (4)
(Annual Report 2003- - TK/local knowledge (4)
2004) - Aboriginal rights and title
(2)
NS-E (n=19) - Holistic approach/ Principles of good -Collaboration (6)
balance – mixed re. practice governance (19): -Time (4)
(16) -Bottom-up (13)
- Environment/economy -Flexibility/diversity (6) Other: independence +
emphasis -Accountability (4) interdependence
-Social -Transparency (3)
- Long term (4)
Other: be aware, reduce
- Improving (6/16) complexity where possible,
- Elements planning as a response, self-
come together in sufficiency, evaluation
community (4), yet
communities not addressing Term governance has
links (2), in negative connotations (3)
community/RDA plans
- Community survival (7)
BC-E rep: ―Principles before personality... We have principles but it‘s a huge struggle to live up
to it.‖
Review of statements of goals, principles and priorities (summarized above)
Note: emphasis on key themes has been added by the author using italics.
NL-W (IBEC)
Mission statement: "We believe that all of us together have a shared responsibility to
conserve and enhance our wilderness heritage, that our forests, rivers and streams form
the life blood of our cultural and economic identity, and that this priceless gift must be
preserved, protected and passed on as our own legacy to generations yet unborn."
432
- no organizational plan/further official goal statements
Guiding principles: conservation, equality of access, user management, cost

recovery/self-financing.
Goal: sustainable economic development from a revitalized recreational fishery
Source: Wicks (1996)
NS-W (Bras d‟Or)
SCI
The Nova Scotia Sustainable Communities Initiative is about supporting communities
through a collaborative approach which integrates social, cultural, economic and
environmental policies and programs. It's about governments at all levels working
together - and with the communities they serve - toward decision-making that meets the
needs of today without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
The Nova Scotia Sustainable Community Initiative (SCI) is a unique partnership

comprised of more than 40 federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations organizations
dedicated to working with communities towards improved social, economic,
environmental and cultural well being... The teams meet regularly to share information
and to find ways of supporting community priorities in a holistic, sustainable way... Their
role is to support local initiatives and priorities...
SCI offers single window access to government for community groups wishing to obtain
support or information about programs and services. It presents an opportunity for a more
holistic understanding of community issues within government and, as a result, improved
service.
The purpose of the Initiative is to:

 coordinate and improve citizen-centred programs and service-delivery across all
governments;
 forge new partnerships and collaborate with local citizens in their efforts to build
strong, sustainable communities.
CEPI
The Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative (CEPI) is initiated by First Nations
to bring all partners together to work collaboratively on solving environmental challenges
in the Bras d'Or Lakes and to develop a management plan for Bras d'Or Lakes.
Source: Bras d‘Or Charter (signed Nov. 2005)
Vision: To lead a unique collaboration of partners that incorporates traditional Mi‘kmaq

and Western science perspectives in order to foster a healthy and productive Bras d'Or
Lakes ecosystem.
433
Purpose: To develop an overall management plan for the Bras d‘Or Lakes ecosystem and
to facilitate its implementation by governments and other relevant stakeholders
Objectives: A balance of environmental, social, cultural and institutional objectives will

be pursued to ensure the health and sustainable use of the Bras d‘Or Lakes watershed
ecosystem.
Other:
 Improve communications, and awareness of issues on many levels
 Integrate traditional Mi‘kmaq knowledge into the governance of the watershed
 Develop community participation over a broad spectrum, including youth and
elders from both cultures
 Manage for sustainable natural resources
 Foster ecosystem-based management to ensure healthy aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems
Source: UINR website (July 2008)
Pitu‘paq
Out of growing public concern over the adverse effects of sewage pollution to the Bras
d‘Or Lake watershed, a committee has come together focusing on sewage remediation.
Pitu'paq is the society name and it is comprised of five First Nation and five municipals
leaders from Bras d‘Or communities. The committee has served and enabled municipal
governments and First Nations to work collaboratively in protecting and preserving the
Bras d‘Or Lake watershed. It is facilitated by the NS Department of Environment and
Labour through the Bras d‘Or Lake Coordinator and is working together to address on-
site sewage, sewage treatment plant issues and boating sewage.
UINR
Since 1999, Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR) has represented Cape
Breton's First Nation's voice on natural resources and environmental concerns.
Goals:
• To provide resources for First Nation‘s equal participation in natural resource
management in Unama‘ki and its traditional territory.
• To strengthen First Nation‘s research and natural resource management while
maintaining our traditions and world views.
• To partner with other groups sharing the same desire to protect and preserve our
resources for future generations.
UINR Forestry Division: strive for an environmentally sound way to use our natural
resources while at the same time creating employment for members of our communities
and further strengthening relationships between local industry and First Nations people
434
BC-W (NRMB)
Purpose: ―fish-first‖, re-establishment and rebuilding of the Nimpkish salmonid stocks
Nimpkish Watershed Restoration Plan (p. 2-3) re. NRMB mandate: ―coordinate all the
various resource use initiatives (including but not exclusively fishery resources) through a
central ‗clearing house‘‖, integrated resource planning
Nimpkish Watershed Fish Resource Management Plan/Nimpkish Watershed Fish

Sustainability Plan (2002): protection and enhancement of endemic fish stocks in the
Nimpkish watershed, with a plan to ―assess, prioritize, coordinate and monitor the
planned and ongoing initiatives that were influencing salmon populations in the Nimpkish
and Kokish watersheds‖
Source: Nimpkish Watershed Salmon Recovery Plan (2003), Nimpkish Watershed

Restoration Plan 2002-2006
NL-E (KEDC)
Vision (1997): Our vision is that the people of the Kittiwake Economic Development Zone
will live in a region that has the flexibility to develop its economic potential, has good
basic services (health, education, and social programs), is secure, and maintains a lifestyle
that is based on respect for each other and our environment. We believe community
economic development means the people themselves should be directly involved in
pursuing and managing their own economic development. In order to achieve success,
many partnerships must be formed between stakeholders (people and interest groups), all
three levels of government, education and others.
Mandate (2003): Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) lists only the organization‘s government
assigned five point mandate, which included: developing and coordinating the
implementation of strategic economic plans (SEPs); coordinating business development
support in each zone; supporting organizations and communities within the zone;
coordinating social and economic initiatives relating to regional economic development;
promoting public participation and community education related to regional economic
development.
As discussed in Chapter 6 this mandate has since been narrowed to: develop and
coordinate the implementation of a SEP, supported by an integrated business plan;
develop a strong partnership with municipalities in each Zone that incorporates their
strategies and priorities in the economic planning process; develop partnerships in
planning and implementation with chambers of commerce, industry associations, labour
organizations, post secondary institutions, CBDCs, and other Zones that advance and
support economic and entrepreneurial environment; undertake capacity building and
support stakeholders to strengthen the economic environment; coordinate and facilitate
linkages with government agencies at all levels in support of the SEP. A new SEP is
being developed for 2009 in accordance with this revised mandate.
435
Source: KEDC SEP (1997 and 2003), KEDC website (2008)
NS-E (SHRDA)
Mission/mandate: to lead in the facilitation, coordination and initiation of community and

business issues and opportunities, as the integrating force in developing sustainable
regional economics and communities
- best utilization of government resources, federally, provincially and municipally in
Nova Scotia
- facilitators and coordinators of community and economic development
- partner, promote and nurture growth for community vibrancy
- lead on studies, data collection, analysis and reporting for municipalities, ec dev
planning, local engagement of citizens/community groups, collaboration for/coordination
of ec dev planning, economic related lobbying and advocacy (2004/05 Business Plan)
Strategic directions: Community development and support, business development and

support, innovation, labour development, major projects/strategic economic generators,
operational effectiveness
Source: Business Plan 2004/05; Annual Report 2003-2004
BC-E (MWCFDC)
Mission: To foster responsible economic growth in the North Island region.
Mandate:
- leadership in community-based strategic planning
- leadership in small enterprise training, development, financial support
- in developing alternatives for EI and SA recipients through NE SEP
- in coordinating, targeting and designing employment training
- partnerships for creative ec diversification solutions
Strategic Priorities:
2. Economic development guided by a plan created and updated through citizen
participation, supported by the majority of residents, reflects their ecological and social
values and concerns
3. Effective organization, Board with broad representation balancing gender, labour,
business and First Nations involvement
4. Healthy, growing business ventures, sustain and increase employment, diversification
5. Educational and social development programs to eliminate barriers
6. All NI ec dev orgs working in partnership to use resources effectively
7. Self-sustaining org through income generated by capital pool investments and
services provided
436
Source: Annual Reports 2003 and 2004
437
Comparison of principles reported by interview respondents and written statements above
Most frequently reported Reflected in mission/ goal Reflected in strategic directions/activities?

principles/values statements61?
NL-W
Community involvement in Yes Yes
resource management
Economic development Yes To some degree (self-sufficiency, staff
employment)
Integrated approach Yes Yes/To some degree (fisheries focus but
multiple fisheries values are considered)
Ecological/conservation Yes Yes/To some degree (fisheries focus)
Lifestyle preservation Yes Yes (through fisheries conservation,
(social/cultural) planning, facilities/information)
NS-W
Integrated approach Yes Yes/To some degree (enviro. focus for some
groups and initiatives but with recognition of
other dimensions)
Collaboration Yes Yes
Bottom-up /community Yes Yes
involvement
Flexibility/diversity To some degree (broad Yes
mandate allows)
Capacity-building Yes/to some degree Yes
Most frequently reported Reflected in mission/ Reflected in strategic directions/activities?

principles/values mandate statement62?
BC-W
Economic No Yes/To some degree (primarily in
management/restoration)
Integrated Yes To some degree (fish focused and limited integrated
planning, multi-objective commitment is not
explicit/written)
Social/cultural No Yes/To some degree (cooperation, emphasis on
cultural preservation for some actors)
Ecological Yes Yes
Power sharing No To some degree (some joint planning and decision-
making taking place but feeling that DFO and
‗Namgis have control and have limited willing to
share their respective power)
61
Includes identified ―strategic priorities‖.
62
Includes identified ―strategic priorities.‖
438
NL-E
Public involvement/participation Yes Yes (with opportunities for improved
and inclusion outreach)
Ecological sustainability No (1997 yes) To some degree – yes initially, less since
2003 and little discussion in most recent
documentation
Integrated/SD development No To some degree – yes initially, less since
approach 2003 and little discussion in most recent
documentation
Rural community survival Implied (to some Yes
degree)
Accountability No To some degree
NS-E
Integrated approach, ec dev + Yes/to some degree (some concerns re.
environmental sustainability, Yes industrial + growth focus, aquaculture, oil
social to a slightly lesser extent and gas but also green initiatives)
Bottom-up development No Yes
Rural community survival Yes Yes
Flexibility and diversity To some degree (broad Yes/To some degree (some diversity
mandate) concerns)
Collaboration No Yes
BC-E
Inclusion/participation Yes To some degree (some concerns)
Collaboration/partnerships Yes Yes/To some degree
Integrated/holistic approach Yes Yes/To some degree (tensions related to
ecological values)
Flexibility and diversity Yes (diversity) Yes/To some degree (flexible approach,
some diversity concerns, challenges/
constraints from community and gov‘t)
Accountability No To some degree (reporting req.)
Notes: WD cited as increasingly taking a SD approach, understanding of social and economic

linkages. The opposite trend is observed of ACOA. BC-E most closely follows its stated mission
and in particular its ―strategic directions‖ which provide a broader guiding framework than their
official mandate. NS-E activities closely match their reported principles, as do the others with
some concerns/constraints. There is a mismatch between official and unofficial missions of NL-E,
for example, as a broad sustainable development approach is no longer part of their mandate but
many actors involved still express a commitment to a more holistic perspective and set of goals.
Deriving a ―principles compliance‖ index
A rating for each case was derived for each of the three principle sets being examined;
those related to sustainable development, good governance and to collaboration
(described in Appendix 2). Wherever information was available, considering the full
range of sources, the indicators outlined in Appendix 2 were considered in deriving an
overall index score out of 20 for each case and each principle set. As noted in Chapter 4
these indices are to assist in comparative analysis but involve a degree of judgement and
439
thus subjectivity in the interpretation of available data and assigning of scores for each
part of the index.
440
Sustainable Development
Recognized
SD in Official Evidence of SD by Ecosystem/
Mandate/Multi- Approach in Respondents multi-resource Overall
objective (see a Activities (see (see a. and/or multi- Average (out
and b. above) c. above63) above)64 sector approach of 20)
NL-E 1 2 2 n/a 11
NS-E 3 2.5 3.5 n/a 16.5
BC-E 3 2.5 2.5 n/a 14
NL-W 4 3.5 2.5 3 15.5
NS-W 4 3.5 3.5 4 17.5
BC-W 1 2.5 2.5 2 11.5
Individual ratings are out of a possible score of 4. 1 = little to no evidence, 2 = limited or mixed
evidence of a holistic, sustainable development approach, 3 = some evidence, 4=significant
evidence of an organization/network-wide holistic, sustainable development approach.
Individual principles related to good governance and collaboration are reviewed below for
evidence of ―compliance‖ with or attention to these principles in the activities of the case study
organizations and networks. For each of these a score of 0, 1 or 2 is assigned: Y - 2, TSD/mixed
response - 1, N – 0. A total score or rating is derived by adding individual ratings and dividing the
total by the # of indicators for which a rating was available (for an average rating out of 2
multiplied by 2 for a rating out of 465, comparable to the sustainable development ratings above).
Note that all indictors are weighted equally. As noted in Chapter 8, this is due to the qualitative
nature of the research design, which did not set out to measure each indicator or principle‘s
relative importance or assume that a uniform weighting of indicators across all cases would be
appropriate given differing circumstances.
63
For written statements of priority, actions beyond stated priorities are considered here. For watershed
groups, for example economic, social and cultural considerations are taken into account to a greater extent
than what is reflected in written/official documents.
64
For example, ¾ suggests approximately 75% of respondents discussing principles recognized and
referred to the need for a holistic or multi-objective sustainable development approach, 2/4 50% of
respondents, 2.5 60-65% etc..
65
Rounded to the nearest rating at 0.5 intervals.
441
Good Governance
Effectiveness 0.5 1.5 1 1 1 0.5
Transparency 0 0.5 1 1 1 1
Accountability 1 1.5 1 1 1 1
Legitimacy/authority 1 1.5 1 1 1.5 1.5
Participation, inclusive 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1
Consensus-building 1 ? 1 ? 2 1
Efficiency ? ? ? 1 1.5 0.5
Equity 1 1 1 1 1.5 1.5
Integration 1 2 1 1 2 1
Flexible, adaptive66 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 1
Robust/stability 1 1.5 2 1 1 0.5
Evidence of principles in action overall /4 1.5 2.5 2 2 2.5 2
Recognition in official mission and 1 2 2.5 1 1.5 2
mandate /4
Respondent recognition /4 3 4 4 3 3.5 2.5
Overall (converted to a rating out of 20) 9 14 14 10 12.5 11
Collaboration
Commitment 0.5 1 1 1 1.5 0.5
Consensus- building 1 1 1 0.5 1.5 1
Fair sharing of costs and benefits ? ? ? ? 1 1
Effective communication 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 0.5
Decision-making and dispute resolution 1 1.5 1 1 0.5 1
mechanisms
Two-way information flow 0.5 1 1 1 1 1
Accountability mechanisms 1 1.5 1 1 1 1
Trust/honesty 1 1 0.5 1 1 1
Mutual respect and understanding 1 1 1 1 1 1
Time 1 1 1.5 1 1.5 1.5
Evidence of principle in action overall /4 1.5 2 2 2 2 2
Recognition in official mission and 3 2 3 2.5 3.5 2
mandate /4
Respondent recognition /4 0.5 1.5 3 1.5 3 3
Overall (converted to a rating out of 20) 8.5 9 13.5 10 14 11.5
Note: Ratings are out of a possible score of 4. 1 = little to no evidence of a commitment to

principles of good governance or collaboration, 2 = limited or mixed evidence, 3 = some evidence
but not extensive, 4=significant evidence of commitment and efforts to ensure principles are
reflected in action.
66
See also Chapter 9, Figure 28 for a discussion on evaluation and reflection in action.
442
Overall Principle ―Compliance‖ (attention to principles suggested by the literature,
Appendix 2)
Outcomes Governance Collaboration Sustainability Principles -

Rating Principles Principles Principles Overall
NL-E 10 9.0 8.5 11.0 9.5
NS-E 16 14.0 9 16.5 13.2
BC-E 10 14.0 13.5 14.0 13.8
NL-W 12 10.0 10 15.5 11.8
NS-W 10 12.5 14 17.5 14.7
BC-W 6 11.0 11.5 11.5 11.3
443
Appendix 4 – RED Case Study Actors and Relationships
Number of Actors Described
NL-E NS-E BC-E TOTAL

Federal agencies 6 11 7 1467
Provincial 8 11 6 25
agencies
First Nations 3 3 + Grand 18 - 14 Nations, 4 26
Council and Tribal Councils
UNSI
Municipal 39 + 31 LSDs 3 9 – 6 municipal, 2 82
governments Regional District,
1 Improv District
Intergovernmental 2 3 2 7
Local economic 15 described: 7 Est 75 local FNs (3): AHRDA 134
development RDAs, 11 regional (NVIATS), UCC,
NGOs68 GADCo., 2 BBEDS
heritage
groups, 4 RED agencies: 10
others + est. a
min. of 20
others
unidentified
Chambers of 2 6 2 10
Commerce/
Board of Trade
Tourism assoc.s 3 8 1 12
NGOs – other Prov‘l/fed‘l - 8 Prov‘l/federal69 - Provincial/federal Prov‘l/federal –
Env‘t/resources 7 –9 24
–6 Env‘t/resources - Env‘t/resources - Env‘t/resources
16 7+ – 29+
Industry/business Industry/business Industry/business
orgs other - 7 other - 1 other - 8
Post-secondary 4 + School 10 + Strait- 5 21
Board Region School
Board
TOTAL 148 174 80 392+
Businesses in the 1,628 1,315 641 3584
region (2004) (MW + 50% CC)
67
Agencies active in more than one case counted once only.
68
Case study organizations are included in local (regional) NGOs.
69
Nova Scotia Native Women‘s Association and Native Council of Nova Scotia (off-reserve membership)
were also mentioned by one provincial representative as active provincially but not by Cape Breton
respondents. These groups are, therefore, not included above. Lack of mention of these groups may be
related to the respondent mix.
444
Key actors (most ACOA, other SH-RDA, ECBC, CFDCMW, RD
influence in RED) funding OED, (BS), First
agencies communities, Nations,
(INTRD, First Nations, municipal,
HRSD), private enterprise provincial and
KEDC, federal
municipalities, governments
key (WD, HRDC)
government
officials
Relationships (overall condition 2003/2004)
NL-E NS-E BC-E

Role Significant control ―Creatures of the Significant federal
of/relationship with remains with funding province‖, power/cost control but flexible
sr govt agencies, mixed sharing but concerns re, (WD), delivery agent
recognition of value of top-down approach, for some provincial
regional orgs. support in region and programs, strong
Halifax ACOA, ECBC support for the model
mixed
Relationship status Mixed (declining) Mixed Mixed
Relationship $, monitoring of $, monitoring of RDA $, monitoring of
mechanisms Strategic Economic business plans, ex- annual operating plan
Plans officio/support and targets
Role Little awareness in Strong with some Medium-high public
of/relationship with general public, mixed municipal, difficulties awareness, varied
community among business and with others, some NGO relationships due to
community leaders, resentment, weak bad press and
Governments and decline in community connection to FNs, community division
NGOs presence smaller communities, (#2 barrier)
some public dissatis. (#3
barrier)
Relationship status Mixed (declining pre. Mixed Weak to mixed
2006) (improving)
Relationship Board representation Board representation, Board representation
mechanisms Open AGM, project partnerships, Open AGM,
newsletter, projects, advisory support newsletter, use of
capacity bldg local media
Role Weak except for client Has worked with several Medium – some
of/relationship with assistance (low (large) private sector Board representation,
private sector awareness) partners, referrals and awareness and client
assistance to small bus assistance
Relationship status Weak to mixed Strong to medium Medium
Relationship Assistance, Board Assistance, Board, Lending and
mechanisms representation from project assistance, Board
each sub-zone funding/contracts, representation
(considered weak) committees, membership
in industry orgs, Strait
Chamber, ACCIC
445
Role MUN, Canadian NS Community College, Royal Roads, UBC,
of/relationship with Centre for Fisheries Universite St. Ann and SFU, College
post-secondary Innovation others
and the Marine
Institute
Relationship status Mixed but improving Mixed, increasing Mixed to strong
Relationship Projects with partners, Project partnerships, Several joint projects
mechanisms 2006 Harris Ctr wksp increased from 2003-
2005, Board ex-officio
Role Partnership initiatives Some investment Little global outreach
of/relationship with prospecting in minerals
global actors
Relationship status Weak/limited to Weak/limited to medium Weak/limited
medium (declining)
Relationship Prospecting initiative ISO accreditation,
mechanisms with Town of Gander, research some
seafood marketing, international outreach in
web mktg, research fisheries, energy,
tourism and shipping
sectors, involvement in
UNESCO designation?
NL-E NS-E BC-E

# of organizations in 148 organizations and 174 organizations and 80 organizations and
network governments/agencies governments/agencies governments/agencies + 641
+ 1628 firms = 1776 + 1,315 firms = 1489 firms = 721
Est. # of org.s have Est. 175 (10%) Est. 370 (25%) 80 (11%) but has assisted a
interacted with/yr (% - 2003-2004 approx. high % of bus community over
of total actors) 95 orgs as partners time (est. 16-19%70)
Communications Limited after loss of Communication Multiple communications
program marketing coordinator strategy in place methods used, no strategy
Active website Yes Yes Yes but not fully functional
(improved by 2008)
Government Relationships
NL-E NS-E BC-E

Federal agencies 6 - ACOA, HRSDC 11 - ACOA, ECBC, 7 - WD, HRDC + DFO,
major partners, FBDB, HRDC major Rural Secretariat, Cdn.
DFO, RS, Federal partners Tourism Commission,
Council DIAND
Contribution Federal funding $123,420 (approx. Federal grants =
(Budget 2002/03) (contract + 134,727 1/3 of core $ - $707,250
core/grant) = $125,000) 231,288 core $ +
$434,121 softwood lumber
program admin and WD-
70
Reported 33% success on SEA loans since 1992 (roughly 80 surviving businesses). Expect higher on
regular loans, therefore estimate 100-120 existing businesses assisted.
446
funded small projects
Relationship Supervisory/overseer, Information, Limited non-financial
mechanisms (other local info sharing, SEP volunteers - ex- support a concern,
than financial) considered in funding officio Board reporting
decisions representation
(HRDC and ECBC),
reporting
Relationship status Mixed - paternalistic Mixed support Mixed - significant issues
with HRDC (in all cases),
with some recognition,
WD very supportive but
has ltd. reg‘l presence
Provincial agencies 8 - INTRD (principal 11 - Office of Ec. 6 - Little interaction with
partner), HRL&E, Dev. major partner prov‘l agencies
Tourism, Crown
Lands, MAPA, F&A,
SSP/RS, Natural
Resources
Contribution ($) Provincial core $: Approx. 1/3 core = None reported – some
$54,890 $125,000 fisheries, SEA $ in the
past
Relationship ―Like mother, See map Limited – occasional info
mechanisms nurturer‖ sharing
Relationship status Mixed - generally Strong overall Weak/limited role –
described as positive supportive but interaction
but declining, missed primarily with MWRD
positions within govt
Intergovernmental LMDA Committee, Tripartite Forum, Rural Team
Rural Team (1 prov. SCI, Rural Team (3 LMDA (regional
respondent, little use) – 1 prov., 1 fed, 1 committee for larger NI)
- formerly SSP staff)
Contribution ($) No $ reported as N/a N/a
LMDA – problems
with accessing funds
under new rules,
HRDC funds may be
LMDA
Relationship None reported SCI Field Team, WEPAs - joint federal/
mechanisms otherwise little provincial, multi-year
interaction initiatives, NTFP
application unsuccessful
– no prov‘l $
Relationship status Federal-provincial Limited Weak/limited
poor
First Nations
Contribution ($) N/a Little interaction N/a
Relationship GRMA, RDA N/a Board and committee
mechanisms membership, training,
project partnerships
Relationship status Weak/ltd - little Weak/ltd Limited to medium –
447
interaction increasing
Municipal
Municipal N/a 1/3 of core = N/a
contribution ($) approx. $125,000
Relationship Board representation, Quarterly municipal Board and committee
mechanisms training, joint projects meetings, formal membership, project
Board partnerships
representation
Relationship status Qualified/mixed Mixed - Richmond Mixed – varies by
municipal support County returned community
April ‗03, goal to
strengthen
relationships
Non-government Actors
NL-E NS-E BC-E

Within Local development Local development agencies (est. Local development:
region (26+): MIRA, Fogo 75+): see below Bella Bella Ec Dev
Island Survival, Society
Banting Heritage, Cape SHRDA (2006) estimates that
Freels Heritage, the region has over 600 Other FNs devt orgs:
Gander Airport community development NVIATS/NVIAMS,
Authority, Wesleyville organizations, 75 to 100 U‘Mista CC
Harbour Authority + a organizations engaged in
minimum estimate of economic development and Business and tourism
20 others unidentified enterprise development. One (4): Port Hardy and Port
(note: this may be source reports 76 in Inverness McNeill Chambers, NVI
much higher, an County alone. Artists, VINVA
inventory has not been
completed) Business, industry and tourism CRM/conservation and
(21): Strait Area, NE Highlands, enhancement groups
Community resource CB County, Grand Narrows (7+): NRMB, PMKC,
mgmnt. (6): IBEC, Chambers, APCIC, CBP, tourism Quatse, Woss, Kokish,
GRMA, NWR, RH, assocs (Isle Madame, Baddeck NIFC, LOS
FABEC, Eastport and Area, Destination CB,
MPA, lobster Destination Richmond, Tourism Other RED agencies (9):
committee CB, Cape Smokey, Snowbelt, ICNRC, Women‘s
NS Tourism Partnership Employment and
Business and tourism Council) + ICCA, CBCCD, NS Training Coalition,
NGOs (5): TITA, Road IT HR Council, Value-Added NTFP Centre, Trails
to the Beaches Wood Assoc., Mining Society, Society, NI Community
Tourism, KCTA, OTANS, Fed. of Ag Services, Opportunity
Lewisporte Chamber, Zone, Coast
Gander Chamber Resource/conservation groups Sustainability Trust
(16): includes 3 groups (MW Regional Steering
Other RED agencies campaigning against the Melford Committee), NI Post-
(8): GADCo. + 7 mine - no noted direct Secondary Education
RDAs - Cape Freels, association with SHRDA Committee
448
AB-TN, Fogo, T-NWI,
GB-HS, GIBDA, Other REDOs (10): see map
Lewisporte
Outside NLFM/MNL, NL Fed. of Cdn. Mun. (FCM) EcoTrust, TAVI
of CBDCs, NLEDA CPRN, ALIN CFDC Assoc., CFDC
region NLREDA, WISE NS Assoc. of RDAs, CDENE Pan Cdn., CFDC Pan
FINALY, NLOWE AA CBDCs, AIC Wst.
DUC CPRN, EcoTrust, CCN
VIEDA, FLT
NS-E local development NGOs identified by respondents and literature reviewed (45):
Strait of Canso (4): Strait of Canso Superport Corp., Straits East Nova Community Enterprise
Network, Strait Area Waterfront Development Association
Inverness County (23): Cheticamp Development Commission/Cheticamp Development

Association71, Société Saint-Pierre/Les Trois Pignons, Meat Cove Development Group/Meat
Cove Development Association, Pleasant Bay Development Association, LeMoine Development
volunteer committee/Lemoine Development Association, Margaree and Area Development
Assoc., Inverness Development Agency/Inverness Development Association, Lake Ainslie
Development Assoc., Whycocomagh Development Commission/Whycocomagh Development
Association, Mabou Development Association, Judique and Area Development Association, Port
Hood Area Society/Port Hood and Area Development Association (PHADA), Port Hastings
Community Development Association , Orangedale Improvement Association, Orangedale
Station Association, Glendale & Area Community Co-operative, West Bay and area development,
West Bay Road Community Group, Marble Mountain Community Association, North Highlands
Community Organization, Inverness CAP Network, Strathspey Place, L‘Arche
Richmond County (10): Richmond Literacy Network, Development Isle Madam Association Inc.,
Richmond CAP Network, Lakeside Community Association, L'Ardoise Economic
Association for Development, Village on the Canal Association, St. Peter's and Area Lions
Club (runs the marina), Career Development Association of Inverness Richmond, The
MacKinnons Harbour Survival Association, Richmond Rail Trail
Victoria County (5 - over 140 community organisations based on a S-HRDA inventory):

Community Learning Association North of Smokey (CLANS), NOSEDA (North of Smokey
Economic Development Association), SOVICDA (South Victoria Community Development
Association), St. Ann`s Bay Development Association, Ingonish Development Society
CD organizations outside/not specific to the region noted: Bras d'Or Centre Community
Development Association, New Waterford and District Economic Renewal Association,
Margaree and Area Development Association, also harbour authorities
71
―There are at least 20 or so non-profit associations which are vying for political favours within
Cheticamp.‖
449
MWCFDC – Mount Waddington Community Futures Development Corporation (BC-E)
Strength of Relationships Map
450
Mount Waddington Community Futures Development Corporation (BC-E)
Types of Relationships Map
451
Mount Waddington Community Futures Development Corporation (BC-E)
Acronym Organization
AHRDA / Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement / North Vancouver
NVIATS Island Training Society
BBEDS Bella Bella Economic Development Society
CEAI Community Economic Adjustment Initiative
CFDC Ass. Community Futures Development Corporations Association
CFDC Pan CN Community Futures Development Corporations Pan Canadian
CFDC Pan Wst. Community Futures Development Corporations Pan West
CPRN Canadian Policy Research Network
CST Coast Sustainability Trust
DIAND Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans
FLT Fisheries Legacy Trust
GNN Gwa'sala-'Nakwaxda'xw First Nation
HR/EIA Human Resources/Employment and Income Assistance
HRSD Human Resources and Social Development
ICNRC Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre
LOS Living Oceans Society
LWBC Land and Water British Columbia
MED Ministry of Economic Development
MISC Malcolm Island Shellfish Cooperative
MTTC Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council
MWRD Mount Waddington Regional District
NI College North Island College
NI Community North Island Community Services
Services
NIEFS North Island Employment Foundations Society
NIFC North Island Fisheries Centre
NIPSEC North Island Post-secondary Education Committee
NRMB Nimpkish Resource Management Board
NTFP Centre Non-timber Forest Products Centre/Mount Waddington Innovation Centre
Society
NVIAS North Vancouver Island Aboriginal Management Society
Quatse Quatse Hatchery/Northern Vancouver Island Salmonid Enhancement
Association
RECN Ragged Edge Community Network
SFU Simon Fraser University
SRM Sustainable Resource Management
TAVI Tourism Association of Vancouver Island
UBC University of British Columbia
UCC U‘mista Cultural Centre
Uninc. Comm. Unincorporated communities
UVIC University of Victoria
VIEDA Vancouver Island Economic Developers Association
VINVA Vancouver Island North Visitors Association
WD Western Economic Diversification
WETC Women‘s Employment and Training Coalition
452
Strait-Highlands Regional Development Agency (NS-E)
Strength of Relationships Map
453
454
AA CBDCs Atlantic Association of Community Business Development corps.
ACCESS Association of Core Fishers Committed to Equitable Sharing of Snow Crab
ADAM Aquatic Development Association of Margaree
AIC Atlantic Innovation Council
ALIN Atlantic Learning Innovation Network
APCIC Atlantic Provinces Chambers Innovation Council
BDC Business Development Bank of Canada
BPF Bras d‘Or Preservation Foundation
BSS Bras d‘Or Lakes Stewardship Society
CB Cape Breton
C/CEN Community Enterprise Network
CBCCD Cape Breton Centre for Craft and Design
CBDC Community Business Development Corporation
CBGF Cape Breton Growth Fund
CBP Cape Breton Partnership
CDENE Le Conseil de development economique de la Nouvelle-Ecosse
CPRN Canadian Policy Research Network
DNR Department of Natural Resources
ECBC Enterprise Cape Breton Corp.
FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities
HRSD Human Resources and Social Development/Service Canada,
formerly Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC)
ICCA Inverness County Craft Assoc.
KLOG Kanata Learning Opportunities Growth Centre
MCC Melford Concerned Citizens
MLAHRS Margaree Lake Ainslie Heritage River Society
MSA Margaree Salmon Association
NRC Natural Resources Canada
NSARDA Nova Scotia Association of Regional Development Authorities
NSBI Nova Scotia Business Inc.
OTANS Offshore Technology Association of Nova Scotia
RDÉENÉ Réseau de développement économique et d'employabilité Nouvelle-Écosse
SCSPC Strait of Canso Superport Corp.
SENCEN Straits East Nova Community Enterprise Network
UCCB/CBU University College of Cape Breton /Cape Breton University
UINR Unama'ki Institute of Natural Resources
WWF World Wildlife Fund
455
Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation (NL-E)
Strengths of Relationships Map
456
457
AB-TN Alexander Bay – Terra Nova Development Association
CONA College of the North Atlantic
CWT Town of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity
Eastport MPA Eastport Marine Protected Area
F&A Fisheries and Agriculture
FBDB Federal Business Development Bank
FINALY Futures in Newfoundland and Labrador
FNI Federation of Newfoundland Indians
GADCo Gander Area Community Business Development Corporation
GB-HS Gander Bay – Hamilton Sound
GIBDA Gambo-Indian Bay Development Association
GRAMA Grand River Management Association
HRL&E Human Resources Labour and Employment
HRSDC Human Resources and Social Development Canada
IBEC Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation
INTRD Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development
KCTA Kittiwake Coast Tourism Association
MHA Member of House of Assembly
MIRA Millennium Institute for Rural Advocacy
MP Member of Parliament
MUN Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador
NL CBDC Newfoundland and Labrador Community Business Development
Corporation
NLEDA Newfoundland and Labrador Economic Developers Association
NLFM Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities
NLOWE Newfoundland and Labrador Organization for Women Entrepreneurs
NLREDA Newfoundland and Labrador Regional Economic Development Association
SSP/RS Strategic Social Plan
TITA Twillingate Islands Tourism Association
T-NWI Twillingate – New World Island
WISE Women Interested in Successful Employment
458
Watershed Management Case Study Actors and Relationships
Actors Described
NS-W NL-W BC-W All
Federal agencies 1872 9 2 18
Provincial agencies 11 7 4 22
First Nations 5+5 1 3 14
Municipal 6 12 (inc 2 LSDs) 4 (3+RD) 22
governments
Intergovernmental 3 0 3 6
Local ENGOs or 11 12 9 32
collaboratives
Companies 11+ - 2 gypsum cos., 14+ - 2 forestry, 10+ - 4 major 35+
2 forestry, 3 tourism 1 blueberry, 1 resource companies
noted, 3+ consultants, local + 4 contractors +
Maritime NE Pipeline manufacturer, 8 applicants for
- est. 1000+ retail/gas, cabin watershed
businesses operating rental, hardware development
in the watershed retailer - less than 100
- includes additional
business in the businesses
watershed
Industry 5 1 0 6
associations
NGOs – other Local 4+ Local 5 1 local 10+
Fed‘l/Prov‘l 8 Fed‘l/Prov‘l 9 4 provincial 21
Post-secondary 5 8 8 21
TOTAL 92 88 48 228
Including 287+ 88 51
unincorporated - 1200+ including all - less than 150 with
communities businesses all businesses
Key actors (most First Nations (Chiefs, IBEC, DFO ‗Namgis First
influential in UINR, EFWC), Nation, Province of
watershed Province/NSE&L, BC, DFO
management municipalities/Rural
decisions) CB Planning
Commission, Federal
agencies (esp. DFO,
EC, DIAND)
Relationships (2003/2004)
NS-W NL-W BC-W
Role of/relationship Leadership role (prov‘l Important but not Important partnership
with sr. gov‟t in SCI and federal in leadership role – but not leadership
CEPI) tenuous funding role
relationship
Relationship status Strong to medium Strong to mixed Mixed – better with
(federal), mixed local, technical DFO
72
Combines DFO and the Canadian Coast Guard, a Special Operating Agency of DFO.
459
(provincial) than decision-makers,
different priorities
than provincial
Relationship 5 Chiefs/RDG MOU (expired), Funding, watershed
mechanisms meetings, MOUs, SCI, Awareness planning
BPC, funding, frequent Campaign, forestry
comm‘n, coastal planning, funding,
planning (IM), incorp. agreement re.
of TK and increasingly enforcement, frequent
other LK comm‘n, LK incorp
in decision-making
Role of/relationship FNs leadership + some ―Community‖-driven Primarily through the
with community NGOs key, non-FNs but with concerns board and affiliations,
(governments and leadership getting about lack of general public
NGOs) engaged, particularly communication with awareness and
through Pitupaq general public involvement low
Relationship status Mixed (community-at- Medium/mixed – Weak to mixed

large awareness and public awareness and general public, mixed
involvement low (gov‘t involvement is to good with related
focus) but described as variable NGOs
improving, varied
municipal involvement
Relationship Elders committee, Primarily through the Annual meeting of
mechanisms employment policies board members and involved groups,
(FNs), Pitu-paq & SCI, their affiliations occasional news
financial contributions, (attention to Board coverage, ex.
community workshops, and employment knowledge of Gwan‘i
outreach/use of media dist‘n, annual general/ hatchery in AB
community meeting,
community events
Role of/relationship Increasing Forestry activity is Central
with private sector collaboration significant but overall - project sponsors
- legal disputes collaboration on - committee co-
Note: varied - contracted research watershed chair
- Stora certification and management is
forestry project limited - local
- seeking to establish spending + IBEC
FNs/Industry Advisory input in forestry
Council planning –
- partnership committee
Relationship status Mixed/medium Mixed (firm Strong
dependent, powerful
differences)
Relationship Forestry planning Forestry planning Co-chair, co-funding
mechanisms processes, forestry processes, periodic (forestry planning
agreement, $ funding provided by separate)
forest co., support for
local business through
spending
460
Role of/relationship Important research and Critical knowledge, Research partnerships
with post-secondary education role research and but a less dominant
education/ training role
partners, revenue
generation potential
Relationship status Medium to strong – Medium/mixed to Mixed, would like to
CBU strong strong expand, past conflicts
Relationship Research, education, Advisory Committee,
mechanisms funding, committees project partnerships/
grad students
Role of/relationship Potential tools for Some outside Impacted by Can/US
with global actors conservation/tourism, research interest and decision-making re.
policy and industry outreach, policy and salmon, also forestry
influence, summer industry influence trade but little global
residents outreach
Relationship status Limited to medium Limited to medium Limited
Relationship WSSD, Rio declaration Partnerships have PSC/genetics, tagging
mechanisms as impetus, pursuit of resulted in some partnerships
Biosphere Reserve international projects,
designation Cdn Fish Science
Conf.
Relational capacity/activity measures
NS-W NL-W BC-W

Role of/relationship with 2 1.5 1
sr govt
Role of/relationship
with community 2 1 1
(government and
NGOs)
Role of/relationship with 1.5 1 1.5
private sector
post-secondary
Role of/relationship with 1 1 0.5
global actors
# of organizations in 2 2 1
network
Est. # of org.s have 3 3 3
interacted with/yr (% of
total actors)
Communications 2 1 1
program
Active website 2 1 0
17.5/20 13/20 10/20
Weak – little interaction or majority of respondents suggest poor/needs significant improvement (0)
461
Mixed – Conflicting responses and/or some positive aspects with areas for improvement (1)
Strong – majority report relationships are positive, ongoing, diverse, parties work well together (2)
Improving + 0.5, Declining – 0.5
200 or more actors 3 25% or less 1

50-199 2 26-49% 2
less than 50 1 50% or more 3
462
Government Relationships
NS-W NL-W BC-W
Federal agencies Environment Canada DFO, ACOA, HRSD, DFO, HRDC (HRSD)
Department of Justice Parks Canada, CWS,
DIAND/INAC, ACOA Environment Canada,
ECBC, NRCAN, DFO DIAND, Heritage
Health Canada, Canada, Health
Infrastructure Canada Canada
Rural Secretariat/Ag.
Can, Can. Customs &
Rev., CMHC,
Transport Canada
Public Works & Gov.
Services, HRSD/
Service Canada, Parks
Canada, RCMP
Industry Canada
Contribution ($) SCI 2004: $150,000 – 2005: 2003: $379,000$
federal/provincial cost DFO $10,000 $ 52,000 DFO
share ACOA $368,950 5,000 HRDC
HRSD $34,794 (HRSD)
UINR 2004: $383,565
2005: federal (DFO, + $322,000 Gwani –
INAC) and provincial DFO/ NFN
(52% = $676,000)
Pitupaq Dec.-June
2003 $191,198
CEPI 2005
commitment as of Jan
05: $147,500
Relationship See map DFO trout and salmon Strong DFO
mechanisms (other advisory groups, participation as Board
than $) enforcement pilot Co-Chair, committee
membership, project
partnerships
Relationship status Strong to medium/ Strong to medium/
mixed mixed
463
Provincial Dept. of Health, ENL/ERC, Committee MOE/WLAP,
agencies Service NS and Mun on Use of Outdoor MSRM/MFR/Ag. &
Relations, Envt and Resources (former), Lands, FRBC/FIA
Lbr, Ec Dev, Natural ITRD, Tourism, HCTF
Resources, Ag and Culture and Rec, Forest
and Agrifoods, Crown
Fish, Comm. Lands, OMNR
Services
Aboriginal Affairs,
Tourism,
Transportation and
Works, Education
Contribution ($) SCI 2004: 150K ITRD 2005: $23,000 2003: $241,000 (from
fed/prov cost share - constraints on revenue forestry and
Pitupaq: $1000 Dec.- generation potential hunting/fishing
June 2003, $28,000 royalty/licensing
2005 revenues)
CEPI 2005
commitment as of Jan
2005: $75,000
UINR 2004: $0
2005: federal and
provincial (52% =
$676,000)
Relationship See map MOU (expired), CES Board and committees
mechanisms - Committee, (participation limited
other collaboration in vs. DFO, Canfor and
enforcement and fish NFN), project
and wildlife partnerships
management, land use (steelhead/sport focus)
decision-making
Relationship status Medium/mixed Medium/mixed Medium/mixed
Intergovernmenta FEDC-DM N/a Canadian Council of
l MNS Tripartite Forum Fisheries and
Rural Team Aquaculture Ministers
(CCFAM, 1999),
Pacific Council of
Fisheries and
Aquaculture Ministers
(PCFAM, 2003),
Pacific Fisheries
Resource
Conservation Council
(PFRCC)
Contribution ($) N/a N/a N/a

Relationship See map Formerly CASEC Above orgs + joint
464
mechanisms agreement, fed‘l/prov‘l MoELP/DFO/FRBC
devt agreements Resource Management
Planning (RMP)
Trout and salmon exercise (2001), BC
advisory committees Agreement on the
include both provincial Management of
and federal Pacific Salmon
representatives Fishery Issues (1997),
MOU for
Implementation of
COS in B.C
Relationship status Strong N/a – ongoing Weak to medium
discussions on division (PFRCC, small grant
of costs/resp. in 2005)
First Nations Mi‘kmaq leadership Informal & occasional NFN leadership role
role collaboration
Contribution ($) UINR 2004: $278,636 N/a 2003: $15,000
2005: $572,000 (KTFC)
Pitupaq (Dec.-June + Gwani Hatchery

2003): $1000 $322,000 (NFN
CEPI as of Jan. 05 program, DFO
$7500 + EFWC primary funder)
contributions/research
and related activities
(AFS, federal
contracts + fishing
income)
EFWC: 230K AFS + 1

million fishing income
Overall 52% of total:

est. $1.56 million+
(2005)
Relationship See map, UINR as Info sharing, inclusion Co-Chair, committees,
mechanisms secretariat/coordinatio of IBEC staff in project partnerships,
n role guardian training NFN
secretariat/coordinatio
n role
Relationship status Strong Limited but strong Mixed/strong
Municipal Key partners in some Informal only, some Little involvement
parts of the network, conflict/communication
growing role s barriers
Municipal Pitupaq Dec.-June N/a N/a
contribution ($) 2003: $5000
Relationship Mayors and Wardens Some Board members Little municipal
mechanisms on Pitupaq, SCI field also members of Mayor involvement
team participation and Council
Relationship status Medium to strong Weak to Mixed Weak
465
(increasing through
Pitupaq)
Non-government Actors
NS-W NL-W BC-W
Within region Connectivity Alliance, IBEC, Snowmobile 4 hatcheries (PMKC,
S-HRDA, Baddeck and ATV Club, Quatse, Woss, Kokish),
Women‘s Centre, OIA, GIBDA, Cape Freels NIFC, KTFC, ICNRC, ,
McKinnon‘s Hbr. RDA, KEDC IWA local, ABMRS,
Survival Coalition KCTA, former NIFC, LOS
Gander-Bonavista
MRWMS, North Angler Ec dev: MWCFDC,
Sampsonville Water Association NIAMS
Assoc., BPS, BSS,
OWA, SRDWA GRMA, FABEC, - little affiliation with
Ross‘s Ferry Northwest River, other NI NGOs
Stewardship Society + Ragged Harbour
4 watershed River, Eastport
collaboratives Lobster Committee
Outside of region CCN, NS Institute of Gilbert Bay, St. Pacific Salmon
(watershed) Science, NB Cons. John‘s and Humber Foundation, Vancouver
Council, S. Gulf of St. ACAP, ERMA, Foundation, Pacific
Lawrence Coalition on BASE, Bay St. Salmon Endowment Fund,
Sustainability, NS George Devt Assoc. BC Conservation
Council for Status of Foundation
Women, CAP Network PAA, SCNL, SAEN,
SPAWN, CORA,
UNSM, ASF, DUC, NL
FCM Conservation Corps,
Wildlife Federation
466
Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W)
467
468
ABMRS Alert Bay Marine Research Society
BCCF British Columbia Conservation Foundation
CANFOR Canadian Forest Products (forestry company)
CCFAM Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers
CIT Coast Information Team
FRBC/FIA Forestry Renewal British Columbia / Forest Investment Account
HCSP Habitat Conservation and Stewardship Program
HCTF Habitat Conservation Trust Fund
ICNRC Inner Coast Natural Resource Center
IWA International Woodworkers of America
LOS Living Oceans Society
MOE/WLAP Ministry of Environment / Water, Land, and Air Protection
MSR/MFR Ministry of Sustainable Resources/Forestry
MWCF Mount Waddington Community Futures
NIC North Island College
NIFC North Island Fisheries Centre
NSERC Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
NWAC Nimpkish Watershed Advisory Committee
PBS Pacific Biological Station
PCFAM Pacific Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers
PFRCC Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council
PH Port Hardy
PMKC Port McNeill Kokanee Club
PSEF Pacific Salmon Endowment Fund
PSF Pacific Salmon Foundation
RDMW Regional Development Mount Waddington
UBC University of British Columbia
UVIC University of Victoria
WFP Western Forest Products
469
Bras D‘Or Watershed Network (NS-W)
470
471
BABTA Baddeck Area Business and Tourist Association
BPC Bras d‘Or Partnership Committee
BPS Bras d‘Or Preservation Society
BSS Bras d‘Or Stewardship Society
CAP Network Community Access Program Network
CBRM Cape Breton Regional Municipality
CCN Coastal Community Network
CBU Cape Breton University
CCN Coastal Communities Network
CEPI Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative
CMHC Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp.
DIAND/INAC Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development/
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
ECBC Enterprise Cape Breton Corp.
EFWC Eskasoni Fish & Wildlife Commission
Envt and Lbr Department of Environment and Labour
FCM Federation of Canadian Municipalities
FEDC/DM Federal Economic Development Council and Deputy Ministers
FN Envt Network First Nations Environment Network
MNS Tripartite Forum Mi‘kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Tripartite Forum
MRWMS Middle River Watershed Management Society
NRCAN Natural Resources Canada
OIA Orangedale Improvement Assoc.
OWA Orangedale Water Assoc.
SCI Sustainable Communities Initiative
SHRDA Strait Highlands Regional Development Authority
SRDWA Stewards of the River Denys Watershed Assoc.
TIANS Tourism Industry Assoc. of Nova Scotia
UINR Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources Society
UNSI Union of Nova Scotia Indians
UNSM Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities
472
Indian Bay Ecosystem Corporation (NL-W)
473
474
ACAP Atlantic Coastal Action Program
ASF Atlantic Salmon Federation
BASE Burin Peninsula Association for Salmon Enhancement
CONA Coastal Communities Network
CORA Citizen‘s Outdoor Rights Alliance
CWT Town of Centreville-Wareham-Trinity
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DUC Ducks Unlimited Canada
FABEC Freshwater/Alexander Bay Ecosystem Corporation
GIBDA Gambo-Indian Bay Development Association
GRAMA Grand River Management Association
HRDC Human Resources Development Canada
HRL&E Human Resources Labour and Employment
ITRD Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development
KCTA Kittiwake Coast Tourism Association
KEDC Kittiwake Economic Development Corporation
KTA Kittiwake Tourism Assoc.
MUN Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador
NWRASC Northwest River Atlantic Salmon Committee
OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
PAA Protected Areas Association
RHRCG Ragged Harbour River Conservation Group
SAEN Salmonid Association of Eastern NL
SCNL Salmonid Council of NL
SPAWN Salmon Preservation Association for the Waters of Newfoundland
SSP/RS Strategic Social Plan /
UNB University of New Brunswick
475
Appendix 5 – Mechanisms Used
Most frequently referred to mechanisms used in RED

NL-E (41) BC-E (21) NS-E (28)
1. Planning – 24 1. Comm‘n, networking – 16 1. Planning - 11
2. Training/education/capacity 2. Planning - 15 2. Info. sharing/dialogue - 8
building - 17 3. Capacity building - 14 3. a. Evaluation and
3. Board of Directors - 15 4. a. Community Board - 13 reporting
4. a. Business assistance - 13 b. Business support services - a. Training - 6
b. Industry development - 13 13 b.Assistance with funding
5. Evaluation and reporting - 12 5. a. Assistance with proposals proposals/bus plans
6. Multi-stakeholder b. Evaluation and reporting - 11 4. a. Use of technology - 5
committees/structures - 11 6. a. Community dev‘t - 10 b. Funding provision
7. REDBs as funding/ financing b. Lending (primarily partners
agencies - 10 c. Program/project $ agencies)
8. a. Facilitation/support - 7 7. Industry development - 8 c. Multi-stakeholder
b. Communications 8. a. NGO start-up/support - 7 committees
9. Political action/networking - b. Youth Council c. Board
4 9. Committees - 6 5. a. Mktg and branding - 4
10. a. Investment attraction - 3 10. a. Use of technology - 5 b. Co-location
b.Project delivery b. Ec dev lunches 6. a. Federal-provincial
c. Co-location agreements - 3
d.Growth centres b. Labour market
11. a. MOUs - 2 development/supply
b. Youth Council 7. a. Operating standards - 2
b. Youth programs/voice
c. MOUs/agreements
#1. Planning (50)

#2. Training/education/capacity building (37)
#3. Board of Directors (33)
#4. Business assistance (32)
#5. Communications (31)
Evaluation and reporting (29)

Funding/funding assistance (25)
476
Most frequently referred to mechanisms used in watershed management
NL-W (43) BC-W (11) NS-W (32)

1. a. Research (19) 1. Stock assessment (10) 1. a. Planning and
b. Revenue-generating 2. a. Research (8) prioritization (24)
activities/mechanisms (19) b. Habitat restoration (8) b. Training and education
2. a. Resource management c. Planning (8) (24)
guidelines/regulations (18) 3. Enhancement/hatcheries (7) 2 a. Funding/revenue
b. Education (18) 4. Public outreach/education generation (22)
3. Board of Directors (16) (6) b. Community consultation/
4. a. Federal/provincial 5. a. Training/capacity building involvement
agreements (15) b. Fundraising (5) 3. Communication (19)
b. Enforcement/compliance c. Technical Working Group 4. MOUs/agreements (17)
monitoring (15) d. Fertilization (5) 5. a. Dialogue (16)
5. a. Planning (14) 6. a. Management Team (4) b. Committees/field teams
b. Habitat restoration and b. Review of dev‘t proposals 6. Workshops and
protection (14) c. Board (4) conferences (15)
6. Community meetings/public 7. a. Federal/provincial 7. Research (14)
consultation (12) agreements (3) 8. Pilot projects (12)
7. Research Centre/Field School b. Promotion (3) 9. Legislation (11)
(11) c. Consultation (3) 10 a. No discharge
8. a. Committees (10) d. Coordinator (3) designation (10)
b. MOUs (10) e. Monitoring and review b. Reciprocal principles (10)
9. Awareness Day/Campaign (3)
(8) f. Enforcement (3) Other: addressing
10. Stock assessment (8) 8. a. Reporting (2) municipal/residential sewage
b. Protected areas (2) (9), cross-cultural awareness/
Other: monitoring (6), lobbying c. Expert Advisory Team (2) communication (9), mapping
(4), marketing & comm‘n (2) d. Certification e. NWAC (9), court cases (9),
(2) compliance monitoring (8)
f. Management measures (2) evaluation and reporting (8)
relationship building/
partnerships (7), champions
(7), Protected areas/
Biosphere Designation (6),
HR policies (6) infrastructure
(6), CEPI (5), shellfish and
water quality monitoring (5),
conflict resolution (4),
fisheries and aquaculture
management (4),
lobbying (3), forestry
management (2),
certification (2)
477
#1. Education (48)
#2a. Revenue generation (46)
#2b. Planning (46)
#3. Research (41)
#4a. Community involvement/consultation (37)
#4b.Board/committee structure (37)
MOUs/Agreements (35)
Habitat restoration and protection (32) – including no discharge and other pollution
measures in the BD
Resource management guidelines/regulations (31)
Communications (27)
Enforcement (26)
Most commonly discussed mechanisms overall (RED + watershed management)

Planning: 96
Education/training/capacity building: 85
Board/committee structure: 70
Communication: 58
Activities within the Bras d‟Or Lakes Watershed/NS-W (1989-2004)
Scientific
1996
 Cape Breton First Nations communities organize an Ecological Research and
Monitoring Workshop
1997
 Shellfish Section of EC enters into partnership with EFWC in a collaborative shellfish
water quality monitoring program
1999
 Several research projects underway at EFWC/UINR in partnership with various
agencies (herring stock discreteness, green crab distribution and oyster size
preferences, groundfish survey, TEK studies and coastal resources mapping)
nd
 2 workshop outlines broadened research goals (DFO, ECBC $)
 MOU is signed between DFO and Unama‘ki Institute of Natural Resources (UINR),
DFO agrees to provide research vessel for 5 yrs
2000
 2 projects developed by DFO Science in cooperation with other federal, provincial,
FNs and academic partners (Dal) under Bras d‘Or Lakes Ecosystem Study:
1) deployment of two instrumented moorings to address sediment dynamics
questions and gaps in knowledge of winter processes in the Lakes
2) an extensive habitat mapping exercise to delineate sensitive areas worthy of
more detailed attention, including:
478
 Multi-beam Sonar data collected in deeper portions, Airborne LIDAR data
gathered for shallow areas
 Sidescan Sonar data and bottom grab samples
 Remote sensing over-flights and ground truth field studies
 Enhanced EC/EFWC shellfish water quality monitoring pilot study begins aimed at:
creating conditionally managed oyster harvest within closed areas of River Denys
Basin, and working with gov‘t and community interests to develop a remediation
strategy to improve water quality in the Basin Watershed. A Flow Gauge Station is
being established for River Denys, owned and operated by UINR.
 Science for the Integrated Management of the Bras d'Or Lakes (SIMBOL)
established, conducting a range of scientific studies (DFO in partnership with UINR),
including:
 Verification Of Benthic Habitat Classification Maps;

 Evaluation Of The Current State Of Wild American Oyster Population in the
Lakes;
 Potential Limiting Factors And Enhancement Approaches for Lobster;
 Identification And Distribution Of Macrophytic Algae;
 The Timing And Duration Of Phytoplankton Blooms In the Lakes;
 Monitoring of Herring Spawning Populations;
 Stock Assessment of Atlantic Herring Population Through Acoustic Surveys;
 Green Crab and Its Effect On the Epibenthic Communities in the Bras d‘Or Lakes;
 Bras d‘Or Lakes Ecosystem Baseline Studies including: Plankton and
Zooplankton; Bras d‘Or Lakes Trawl Survey; Cod Tagging Program; Benthic
Survey
 Sediment Dynamics In Denys Basin;
 Bras d‘Or Lakes Gaspereau Population;
 Stock Assessment Of the Atlantic Mackerel: Fishing Potential For First Nations;
 Environmental Monitoring Of the Bras d‘Or Lakes;
 An Examination Of Atlantic Herring Egg Size And Larvae As Recruitment
Indicators;
 The Bras d‘Or Lakes Eel Population: An Experiment To Determine Enhancement
Feasibility.
 DFO/UINR jointly awarded annual scholarship to a Dalhousie University team (graduate

student and supervisor) focusing research on the Bras d'Or Lakes ecosystem. Project
must include the mentoring of a high school student from a Cape Breton First Nation.
Legal/Policy Development and Planning
 Series of discussions over late 70s/early 80s re. need for better management
1989
 Bras d‘Or Lake Watershed Integrated Resource Management Plan Study (UMA Group
for Bras d‘Or Institute, UCCB with EC$)
479
 Aboriginal Fisheries Task Force leads to the establishment of EFWC (1991)
1992
 First Nations lobby successfully for exclusion of fish draggers from the Lakes
1995
 Taking Care of the Bras d‘Or report recommends the establishment of a Bras d'Or
Stewardship Commission as a community-based co-management organization (Bras
d‘Or Lakes Working Group with UCCB, $ from ECBC)
1996
 Middle Shoal channel dredging project at the entrance to the Bras d‘Or Lakes
suspended by a Federal Court order after the Union of Nova Scotia Indians requested
a judicial review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) review of
the project.
1999/2000
 Lakes and watershed are designated as pilot Integrated Management Project under the
Oceans Act
2002 – 2004 UINR Oyster Harvesting Guidelines (UINR Project, INAC $)

 UINR to establish community guidelines for oyster harvesting and a natural Dispute
Resolution Process. This pilot project focuses on community consultation and
education, formation of guidelines, and establishing consensus on how the dispute
resolution process should be set up. Once established, this process may be applied to
other aspects of natural resource management.
2003 - present
 Pursuing new collaborative planning structure (UINR lead with fed‘l agencies) under
the Collaborative Environmental Planning Initiative
 Pursuing designation as No Discharge Zone under the Canada Shipping Act (Pitu‘paq
and SCI)
Infrastructure/Sewage Treatment/Pollution Control

2003
 Bras d‘Or Youth Internship Initiative/Bras d‘Or Lake Cleanup Project (Pitu‘paq with
support from SCI and associated agencies, $ from HRDC and Justice Canada):
 Mapping discharge sources

 Developing proposal to the Canada-Nova Scotia Municipal Infrastructure
Program to address on-site sewage issues
 No Discharge Zone application (see above)
Habitat Restoration
 Restoration activities on all the First Nation Reservations tributary to the Lakes, on
Middle River, and on streams in the River Denys Basin Watershed (led in some cases
480
and supported in others by DFO Oceans Branch, with UINR, Stewards of the River
Denys Watershed Association and others)
Enforcement
1992
 Aboriginal Fisheries Guardian Program put in place
2002-2003
 Multi-agency joint enforcement pilot through the SCI field team, to assist in the
dissemination of information to the public and provide enforcement capability
Public Outreach and Education

1996 and 1999
 Bras d‘Or Lakes Ecological Research and Monitoring Workshops
2001 –
 Bras d‘Or Partnership Project (UINR/Partnership Committee Project, INAC $):
project coordinator from a FN community to receive training and experience in
communications, establish networks with Federal/Provincial/Municipal governments,
coastal communities and FN communities to increase communication and cooperation
and build awareness through formal presentations and workshops, newsletters,
radio/TV specials and the creation of a professional displays and posters and
consultations.
2003
 Public awareness campaign re. the environmental impacts of boat sewage
(coordinated by EC with other local and gov‘t partners)
 Community workshops re. SCI and priority sustainability issues in the watershed
Industry Agreements/Development
1970s
 oyster farming experiments with DFO and FNs
2001-2003
 UINR Forestry Management Project (INAC $): to develop a strategy and agreement
with a major pulp and paper company (STORA), the sole leaseholder of crown lands
in Cape Breton, to allow the Mi'kmaq to become partners in the management of the
forestry industry, gain experience and expertise, and pursue economic benefits
 Georgia Pacific Linkage Project (UINR Project, INAC $): Phase II of this initiative
continues the development on an Advisory Council of the Mi'kmaq leadership from
Cape Breton and leading business persons showing interest in the development of
Aboriginal/Corporate relations and employment of skilled individuals from First
Nation communities. This project will build on past successes with such major
employers as Georgia - Pacific Canada Limited and Stora Enso Port Hawkesbury
Limited, who will become founding members of the Advisory Council. Relationships
will also be established with training facilities and government agencies.
481
 See above re. ongoing measures related to the shellfish industry. Also MSX Working
Group and the Integrated Oyster Management Committees for Bras d‘Or
Initiatives Under Discussion (2004/2005)

 Workshop on bylaws as a tool on-reserve
 Bi-annual (or more) symposiums for info sharing, coordination and partnership
development among all relevant groups
 Explore solutions to contaminated sites + preventative measures re. fuel tanks
 Possible assistance to Chapel Island FN re. protection of water supply source
 Potential research re. the impact of Climate Change on the Bras d‘Or Lakes
 Capacity building with UINR lab re. microbiology and chemical analysis
 Discussions with INAC re. $ for FNs training on oil spill response and contingency
planning
 Exploration of designation as a UN Biosphere Reserve
Nimpkish Resource Management Board (BC-W) Activities
Science/Assessment
 Ongoing snorkel assessment program throughout watershed
 Upstream fence count program
 Watershed assessments (Canfor and Timberwest)
1992, 93, 97
 Sockeye mark/recapture (Gwa‘ni hatchery with KTFC)
2000-2008
 Lake fertilization: ongoing monitoring program, including analysis of food web
structure and water chemistry in fertilized and control Lakes (with Don McQueen,
York University, Gwa‘ni and DFO)
2002
 Marine survival study
2001-2003
 Nimpkish estuary productivity study (Inner Coast Natural Resource Centre)
2002 - present
 Sockeye genetic structure (DFO)
 Hydroacoustic juvenile assessments in lakes (York, SFU, DFO)
2003
 Downstream smolt assessment and trapping (rotary screw trap)
 Upstream assessment fish wheel (KTFC, Gwa‘ni Hatchery)
482
Stock Enhancement
1979 - present
 Salmon hatchery (Gwa‘ni Hatchery)
5.5 million smolts released 2002/2003, 4 species
Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement

1997- ongoing
 Instream restoration activities (Canfor, ‗Namgis, MoF FIA $)
2000 - ongoing
 Lake fertilization (Don McQueen, York University, Gwa‘ni and DFO)
Planning/policy
2000 - 2001
 Nimpkish Watershed Recovery Plan
 Watershed Fish Sustainability Plan (DFO, MoELP, MAFF)
 Review of development proposals and forestry plans
483
Planning as a governance mechanism
Plan Type Role Timeframe Geographic Issue Scope

Scope
NL-E Annual work plans Lead 1 year Organization/ Economic focus
economic region (current, formerly
integrated)
Economic plan Lead 5 year Economic region Integrated
+ sub-region
Community Support Varies Community/ Varies
planning municipal
Forestry planning Participant 5 year Planning Zone 3 Forestry/economic
(Districts 4,5,6, 8) focus
NS-E Business (work) Lead 1 year Organization/ Economic focus +
plan Economic region social, ecological
Communication Lead 3 years Same as above Organizational
plan
Economic plan Lead 5 year Economic region Economic focus
Sectoral plans Lead Strait Economic/social
- HR, Green AP Economic/Ecological
Community Support Varies Communities + Varies
planning sub-regions
Forestry planning Participant 10 years Stora forest lands Forestry/economic
focus
BC-E Annual work/ Lead 1 year Economic region Organizational,
operating plans economic + social
Regional economic Lead (+ Short term - Regional District Economic focus +
plan participant, project id. (sub-region) social, ecological
RD plan)
Land use and Indirect Long-term Central Coast/NI Integrated/
coastal planning participant (2050) Straits – multi- Economic focus
level
NL-W Business planning Lead Approx. 5 Watershed/ Initiative specific -
years research centre economic focus
site, national and
international
clientele
Fisheries Lead + 5 year Watershed + Ecological + social,
management Participant Provincial economic
Forestry Participant 5 year Watershed + Forestry/economic
Districts 4,5,6,8 focus
Land use planning Lead Long-term Watershed Focused on
ecological/cabin
zoning
484
NS-W SCI business plan Participant Provincial/two Organizational
regions
Annual work plans Participant 1 year Watershed Science program
(DFO led)
Lead SCI field team
CEPI/coastal Lead Long-term Watershed, sub- Integrated, ecological
planning watersheds, focus
LOMA
Forestry planning Participant 10 years Stora lands Forestry/economic
Community plans Indirect Varies Community/First Varies
participant Nation territory
BC-W Fish/w. recovery Lead 5 years/ Watershed + sub- Ecological
planning (3), work annual basins
plan
Forestry planning Indirect 5 years Watershed/TFL Forestry/economic
participant focus
Land and resource Indirect Long-term/ Watershed, Integrated
use planning participant multi- ‗Namgis
generation territorial, Central
Coast – multi-
level
485
Appendix 6 - Factors in Collaborative Governance Success: Resistors and Enablers
Intellectual/knowledge capital
Enablers: learning, including learning to work together in the face of conflict, evaluation,
failures viewed as source of learning, ongoing leadership training
Barriers and resistors: gaps in capacity and understanding at all levels, lack of necessary
information, lack of participant education and training, lack of familiarity, knowledge or
skills, low morale contributing to resistance to change
Social capital/collaborative spirit
Enablers: Mutual respect and trust*, reciprocity and social understanding, history of
cooperation or collaboration, established informal relationships and communication links,
homogeneous community, shared view of interdependence, relationships (including both
staff and political levels of government), sense of regional community over time
Barriers and resistors: intercommunity competition, personnel turnover, mistrust/hidden

agendas
Political/leadership capital
Enablers: the capacity to act collectively, collaborative group seen as a legitimate

leader/provides avenues for legitimate representation, favorable political and social
climate, commitment from all levels of government and other key decision-makers,
including implementation support
Enabling types of leadership: Skilled, strong traditional authority, ability to hear all
perspectives and work out differences/manage conflict and diversity as opportunity, build
capacity and understanding and address power imbalances, ability to compromise,
concerted effort to share leadership, building credibility in the community and with
government (e.g. through measurable results)
Barriers and resistors: willingness (for SD), ability to work outside of the collaborative
process (e.g. patronage, side deals), jurisdictional disputes, party politics, key interests not
willing to participate, lack of political commitment, inconsistent values/political
philosophy, lack of constituency support, downloading without support for capacity
building, legacy of past policies, personal resistance to change – e.g. low morale/political
capital
486
Material capital
Enablers: sufficient funds, staff, materials, and time to adequately consider potential
regional initiatives and to put plans into action, sound funding base, ability to assemble
resources from a wide range of sources/cost sharing
Barriers and resistors: cost (time and money), volunteer burnout and lack of volunteer and
human resources (e.g. energy, leadership, skills), resource access (e.g. natural resources)
Structures
Enablers: Supportive policy and/or legislative framework, flexibility, adaptability,

mechanisms for recognizing First Nations rights and title
Barriers and resistors: Legal and constitutional barriers, difficulty in changing existing
institutional structures, poorly designed organizational structure, power and influence of
the elite/established structure
Process
Enablers: Clear roles and policy guidelines, management area geographically defined
(with some clarity and consensus)/reasonable boundaries, multiple layers of participation,
includes all who may be directly influenced but not so many as to make the process
unwieldy, early inclusion, balanced participation, ability to draw in new groups,
withstand the loss of others, appropriate pace of development, open and frequent
communication, shared indicators of progress, maintaining identity within the partnership,
equity/fairness in cost sharing and governance arrangements (shared power and control),
agreements (not always written) that provide mutual benefits (emphasis on win-win),
persistence/patience, adequate orientation and time for planning, dialogue, negotiation
and relationship building, external support systems (e.g. facilitator, funder) in a periodic
role, evaluation, celebration of success, sequencing of programs or projects that show
evidence of progress with a coherent direction, flexible solutions, accommodating
participants‘ needs
Barriers and resistors: time constraints, lack of communication/reporting/information

flow, lack of planning, particularly of a transition strategy
Purpose
Enablers: Concrete, attainable goals and objectives (clear and important reason to become
partners), negotiated goals reflect the major interests of partners and concerns of citizens/
community members, shared vision, purpose and stake in both process and outcome
(members see collaboration as in their self-interest, that partnership is needed to address
the problem at hand), unique purpose, people buy-in, feel they are benefiting more than
487
paying - benefits are identified and appreciated by all partners, necessity, shared
understanding of the problem developed
Values
Enablers: recognition of the adjacency principle by decision makers, traditional role of

community in stewardship
Barriers and resistors: value conflicts and resistance to change, e.g. due to fear of job loss
Sources: Winer and Ray (1994); Rees (1990); O‘Riordan (1976); McManus (1996);
Burkey (1993); Pomeroy (1989); National Round Table (1993); Gallaugher et al. (1996);
Gallaugher (1997); Mitchell (1986); Vodden et al. (1997b); Pinkerton (1997); Mitchell
(1994); Renard (1991); Dovetail Consulting (1994); Pinkerton and Weinstein (1995);
Vodden (2005); Baker (1993); Freshwater et al. (1993); Taylor-Powell (1998); Coe
(2006)
488
Appendix 7 - Respondent Profile
NS NL BC
# % # % # %
Total 52 55 34
Actor Category
Federal 18 35 14 26 9 27
Provincial 7 12 12 22 2 6
Municipal 3 6 7 13 3 9
First Nation 8 15 1 2 8 24
NGO/Community - 14 27 19 35 12 35
Other Legend
University 8 15 4 7 1 3
Study Org 28 54 17 31 20 59 University
NGO/Community Other
Gender
Male 36 69 45 82 24 71 Federal
Female 16 31 10 18 10 29
Provincial
Case Study Municipal
WM 25 48 21 38 11 32
CED 7 14 22 40 15 44 First Nation
Both 20 39 12 22 8 24
NS Respondents (52) BC Respondents (34)
14% 3%
31% 26%
34%
24%
6%
12% 8%
14% 23%
5%
NL Respondents (55)
7%
25%
33%
2% 21%
12%
489
Appendix 8 - Interview Topics
Organization/initiative background: when and how it started, goals and objectives,

major players, staff, Board/committee structure, financing (obtain print/web material
where available)
Sustainable development: meaning, sustainability of resource extraction, tourism,

residential and other forms of development in the watershed/region, major sustainability
issues, changes over the past 10 years, changes as a result of your organization/initiative
Governance: meaning, major decision-makers re. development in the region/watershed

currently, their respective roles, recent changes, future vision, barriers to change
Working relationships/cooperation: study region as a model, factors in success, quality

and nature of relations (past and current) between: communities (First Nations and non-
First Nations), communities and provincial and federal governments, federal vs.
provincial, industry, environmental groups, educational institutions, steps taken to
improve relationships, clarity of responsibilities, role of government - leader/initiator or
facilitator?
Tools of cooperation: frequency of communication with major partners, through what

forms, about what kinds of issues, processes for establishing common objectives, arriving
at solutions and resolving conflicts, benefits of the relationship (for both), willingness to
share control, level of mutual understanding, formal vs. informal agreements and
structures for working together
Scale: meaning of community, local community vs. watershed/regional level problems,

regional vs. provincial/ national interests, pros and cons of planning at the
regional/watershed level, local feeling of connection and belonging to the watershed/
region as a whole
Principles: that guide development in the watershed today, that should guide
development in the future, principles and values that guide of your organization/initiative
(written or unwritten?), principles of good governance
Application of key sustainable development and governance principles in the

watershed/region and in your organization/initiative: integration of social, ecological,
economic and cultural objectives, precautionary approach, sensitive areas protection,
poverty, social issues, rural community survival, responsibilities and rights to benefit
from adjacent resources, rights of historic dependence, learning and adaptation,
consideration and respect for TK/LK and conventional science, inclusivity, transparency/
information sharing, legitimate representation, strategic planning, monitoring and
reporting on successes/failures, responding to concerns/suggestions, proactive v. reactive,
public awareness, involvement and support
Respondent profile: occupation, role/position in organization/initiative, history of

involvement, flexibility in position, length of position (past and future), age, birthplace,
490
language, years in the region, education and career history, how your background assists
you in your position and in building cooperative relationships
Feedback on interview, other comments? THANK YOU!!!
491
Appendix 9 - Regional descriptions and well-being/sustainability indicators
Table 9.1 Overview of demographic and economic indicators (2001)

Kittiwake NL SH NS MW/CC BC Canada
# of communities Approx. Approx. Approx. - 75 Approx. 27 - 555+76 5,984
(watershed est.) 120 63673 300 74
from 23 (6)
(2) (100+)
POPULATION
Population ‗01 48,065 512,930 30,162 908,007 14,802 3.9 mill 30 mill
Population ‗06 46,43177 505,469 28,776 913,462 13,137 4.1 mill 31.6 mill
% pop. change - 10 -7 -5 0 - 10 +5 +4
(‘96–01)
% pop. change (‘01- -3 - 1.5 -5 1 - 11 +5 +5
‘06)
% pop. under 20 24 25 26 25 31 25 26
(‘01)
% pop. 65+ 15 12 16 14 6 14 13
Med. pop. age - 38 41 39 35 38 38
% aboriginal identity 1 4 4 2 20 4 4
% immigrant/visible 2/178 2/1 3/1 5/4 8/2 26/22 18/13
minority
JOBS and INCOME
% unemployment 29 22 22 11 13 8.5 7
% employment 40 45 44 55 64 60 61.5
Median individual 15,00079 16,800 15,455 18,735 23,374 23,073 22,120
income (‗00)
Median family 31,000 32,700 42,367 46,523 54,526 54,840 55,016
income (‘00)
Labour force in 11 10 12 7 23 5 5
primary industry (%)
% of income from 29 22 24 16 10 12 11
transfers
73
NLFM reports in 2005 there were 283 municipalities (3 cities and 280 towns), 182 LSDs, 168
unincorporated communities in the province. While Inuit communities were considered municipalities at
this time there are an additional 2 Innu communities and the Mi‘kmaq community of Conne River.
74
Communities within Richmond and Inverness counties listed by Community Counts.
75
Includes 31 towns, 18 counties, 13 First Nations, number of communities within counties is unknown.
76
Includes 157 municipalities, over 200 Local Improvement Districts (all but one located within 27
Regional Districts) and 198 First Nations.
77
Estimate based on average of community population losses.
78
Based on the seven largest towns of the Kittiwake region, comprising more than 50% of the population.
79
RCEUN (1986) points to the need to be careful in comparing economic well-being across regions,
pointing out for example that while incomes are less in rural Newfoundland and Labrador (69% of urban)
the ―monetary cost of living was less‖, and ―in some ways rural Newfoundlanders were, and remain, better
off than urban Canadians.‖ With over 90% home ownership, for example, (vs. 70% in urban Nfld. and 62%
in Canada overall), there are minimal interest and mortgage payments to make. Further, many do their own
repairs, collect firewood, provide their own food and have used modern appliances and machines to
enhance this production (although this is itself costly).
492
Sources: Statistics Canada (2001 and 2006), BC Stats Indicators of Education Concerns, BC
(2006), Atlas of Canada, Statistics Canada, Canadian Community Health Survey, 2000/01
Statistics Canada (2005), NS Community Counts (2007), Roy (2003)
Table 9.2 Overview of social capital and individual well-being (human capital) indicators, 2001
Kittiwake NL SH NS MW/CC BC Canada
HEALTH
Life expectancy 78 78 79 79 79 80 79.5
(Central) (Zone 4) 76 (2003)
Self-rated health - % 65 66 58 59 63 (Upper 59 61
Ex. Or VG (Zone 4) Island/CC)
EDUCATION
% pop with less than 50 (20+) 33 (20-64) 29 (20-64) 25 30 (20-64) 19
HS grad 52 (15+) 42 (15+) 35 28 31
% pop with university 7 (25-54) 14 (20-64) 13 (20-64) 20 10 (20-64) 23
degree 5.5 (15+) 10 (15+) 14 16 15
% pop college or univ. 32 (25-54) 34 (20-64) 40 (20-64) 34 32 (20-64) 31
incomplete 32 (15+) 36 (15+) 37 40 36
SOCIAL
% child care 37 37 30 30 34 29 -
% senior care 20 18 21 15 11 14 18
80
% very strong sense of 41 30 31 /28 23 28 20 17
comm.. belonging (‗05)
% someone to listen 93 91 88 90 88 89
most or all of the time
Sources: Community Accounts NL, Community Counts NS, Statistics Canada Community Profiles,
Canadian Community Health Survey 2001, 2005, GASHA 2005
Provincial Ecosystem Well-being Indicators - Explanatory Notes
Biodiversity
With more ecosystems and species than any other province, BC is highly diverse and
productive (BC 1999). Coastal BC‘s biodiversity is considered to be of global
importance, representing approximately one-quarter of the world‘s remaining coastal
temperate rainforests. BC has the highest number and percentage of total species
endangered, a function primarily of southern urban development pressures and to a lesser
extent rural industrial practices. For its size NS also has rich landscape and species
diversity, although forest species diversity has declined considerably (Wilson et al 2001).
Mahoney (2004) describes the island of Newfoundland‘s fauna “an intriguing mix of low
diversity but high distinctiveness‖ developed over a long period of isolation. NL is,
however, home to globally significant seabird colonies and caribou herds and part of
Canada‘s boreal forest. Providing one-quarter of the world's remaining original forests,
critical bird habitat and ecological functions such as carbon storage and water
purification, scientists and others are recommending at least half of Canada‘s Boreal
80
31 includes Guysbourough and most of SH (Zone 4), Zone 5 is the remainder of CB (28). BC region
figures from NVI Health region.
493
Forest be designated protected areas (CBI 2007). NL (2006b) suggest the boreal forest
has 500 times as many mycorrhizal fungi as a tropical rainforest and that the 95% of
boreal organisms that are not plants and vertebrates are largely unrecorded and unstudied.
Table 9.3 Provincial ecosystem indicators

NL NS BC
% forest/woodland covered 46-50 79 68
land
% old forest of total forest 14 – 121 years+ 0.15 – 100+ years 66 (140 years+, mid-
land 38 – 80 years+ 1 (80 years+) 1990s, coastal)
(island of Nfld, 2003) (2001)
Harvesting trend (1991- Fluctuating but relatively stable Increasing Decreasing– after
2001) overall increasing until late 80s
% of land base protected 4 8 13
(2003)81
% of land base Crown- 99 29 94-96
owned
% of forest area certified 19 39 66
Estimated # of species Total unknown82 40,000 75,000+83
- plant and mammal estimates
lowest
COSEWIC listed 7 8 64 (86 in coastal BC
endangered species 2005, 15 extinct or
(2004)84 extirpated)
21 (2002) 36 (2006)85 440 (2005)
Listed by provincial CDCs
13 16 43
FOC-listed marine species
at risk
% of fish species 51 (Rose 2003) 62 (LOS 2003)
considered at low relative - structural change 51 (salmon stocks)
81
The important issues of connectivity between protected areas and protected area size are excluded here.
Internationally agreed upon targets for protection range from 10-12% (CBPP, Prescott Allen 2005) although
Rumsey et al (2003, p. 19) suggest ―most studies and experts have concluded that some degree of protection
for at least 40-60% of the terrestrial lands and fresh waters would be required to sufficiently protect
biodiversity in temperate regions, assuming that the very ―best‖ and representative areas are selected‖. For
marine areas 10-50% is suggested, while protection of 20% of the shoreline is considered a ―Medium
Conservation Risk Option‖. They add that to protect species such as grizzly bear areas between 10,000 km2
and 40,000 km2 must be designated.
82
The total number of species in NL is unknown (Pardy 2007) but estimates of plant (1300) and bird (350)
species diversity are lower than the other two provinces (Meades et al 2000). Mahoney (2004) describes 13
resident, two seasonally visiting (polar bear and arctic fox) and approximately ten introduced mammals on
the island.
83
BC (2007) estimates approximately 65,000 vascular plants, animals and invertebrates in the province in
addition to 1000 bryophytes (mosses and liverworts), 1600 lichens, 522 species of attached algae and over
10,000 species of fungi. The number of the number of vertebrates, invertebrates (over 20,000), and plants in
Nova Scotia is estimated to approach 40,000 (NS 2002). There are an estimated 50 species of mammal, 185
species of bird, and approximately 3000 different plant species in eastern Nova Scotia (Stora Enso 2006).
84
Excluding ocean species.
85
UINR (2006) refers to 47 NS species seriously at risk and five extinct.
494
to historic levels - no structural change
# of MPAs (provincial and 10 17 (maritimes) 130 – 240,000 ha (less
federal, 2001) than 0.5%)
Waste disposal per capita 725 417 667
(kg, 2002)
% of population in Less than 55 Less than 55 63
communities of 1000+ with (Atlantic) (Atlantic)
sewer served by secondary
sewage treatment
Water quality 322 (2001) 304 (2001),
boil orders 226 (2007) ? 3016 total systems
communities with high 115 (2007) 10 (2002) (+468 FNs systems
THMs monitored by DIAND)
―almost none‖
Sources: BC (1999, 2001, 2006b), FOC (2007, 2005), Statistics Canada (2006), Jamieson
and Levings (2001), Rose (2003), NS (2002), NL (2007), NL CDC (2002), Atlantic CDC
(2006), Peterson et al (2005)
Forest ecosystems
Both NS and BC forest ecosystems are suffering from a history of high-grading
(removing the best trees) and clearcutting (both for forestry and land clearing in NS). In
1958, 25% of the province‘s forest was more than 80 years old, now only 1%. Old-growth
forests (with trees once up to 800 years old) remain only in very small, isolated pockets.
In the mid-1990s, about 40% of the total area of the BC coast was still covered in trees
over 140 years old, two-thirds of the total forested land base. Trees in Pacific old growth
rainforests can live for more than 2,000 years and require 200-300 years to fully mature
(Alaback 1982, 1984). Harvesting on the coast has been declining since the mid-1980s
due to sawmill and pulp mill closures, a decrease in accessible big trees and increasing
costs of accessing higher elevation timber. In contrast, the volume of wood harvested
annually in NS nearly doubled from the early l980s to 2000. Old-growth forests are
considered ―rare and endangered ecosystems in the Atlantic Region‖ (Eaton et al 1993,
417). The NL Forest Service (NFS) introduced an old forest objective in 2003 that 15-20
% of the total productive forest within a district will be older than 80 years. In 2003 38%
of Newfoundland island‘s forests fell within this age class. Approximately 14% were over
121 years of age but no protection is provided for forests older than 80 years under the
Strategy (NL 2003).
With almost 70% of land owned privately, protected area establishment is
particularly challenging in NS (29% provincial ownership vs. 96% in BC and 99% in NL)
(Statistics Canada 2002, Canada 2006). Similarly, of the island of Newfoundland‘s
productive timber lands 59% have been tenured to the province‘s two pulp and paper
companies and are treated by the province‘s financial and legal system as private land
(NRC 2006). Black ash, of great cultural importance to the Mi‘kmaq, is now rare in NS.
Species such as white and red pine have been reduced by more than 50% and are also at
risk and declining in NL, where policies for conservation have recently been put in place
(Urquizo et al 2000, NL 2003).
495
Marine
Rose (2003) describes the state of NL‘s fisheries resources as mixed, with groundfish and
pelagic stocks at low and crab (in two areas), shrimp, sand lance and seal populations at
high current levels, listing 49 NL fish stocks and characterizing the status of 25 as low
(51%), six unknown, 14 moderate and only four as high. Special management measures
and quota reductions have subsequently been required for snow crab. Misunderstanding
and uncertainty regarding resource availability, fisher behaviour and pressure for
increased quotas, the need to add value, improve quality and ensure full utilization were
all noted as issues impacting the NL fishery‘s sustainability. The decline in many NL fish
stocks is also attributed to ―the inability to control foreign and domestic fisheries,
inadequate science, inappropriate policies, ineffective management, and the inability to
react to local environmental and fisheries conditions and knowledge‖ (Rose 2003).
Pre-1997 cold conditions were associated with higher productivity for crab and
shrimp but lower for formerly dominant species, particularly cod and capelin. The
combined effects of these events are said to have caused an early-1990s ecosystem
regime shift from a pelagic-demersal fish group (e.g., capelin-cod) to a crustacean-
dominated biological community (shrimp and crab), shrinking the trophic pyramid in the
middle while increasing it at the top and bottom. Rose (1993) suggests that the relatively
short life cycles of crustaceans may make the system less stable than one dominated by
longer-life cod and redfish. Greater understanding of crab biology and ecology is needed.
Changing ecological conditions, including post-1997 warming, coupled with an increase
in harvesting pressure associated with a quadrupling of the number of crab licenses in NL
and throughout the Atlantic region from 1992 to 2004, have led to quota reductions and
special management measures for snow crab (FRCC 2005).
Landings in the Newfoundland lobster fishery peaked in 1992, after a period of
increase linked to ecological conditions. Post-1992 declines throughout Atlantic Canada
led to a 1995 review by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC), licence
buy out/early retirement programs in the 1990s and a 1998 integrated management plan
calling for v-notching (the voluntary marking by fishermen of berried females they
catch), an increase in the minimum size for harvest, shortened seasons and reduced trap
limits (DFO 2006d). Exploitation rates in the high intensity fishery remain higher than
95% in more productive fishing areas despite effort reductions. Management of the NL
lobster fishery is described resilient after more than one hundred years but not
sustainable, requiring an ongoing commitment to lowering exploitation levels by building
on recent locally-driven conservation initiatives such as area closures and v-notching
(Ennis 2006).
The Pacific salmon is a symbol of BC‘s ecoystems and a ―cornerstone‖ species
supporting much of the Pacific coastal ecosystem, linking the ocean, freshwater and land
(BC 2001). Thus salmon declines are a critical ecological as well as cultural and socio-
economic concern. With a complex number of species, populations, stocks and factors
influencing their health, the status of Pacific salmon is frequently debated (Canada 2004).
Canada (2004) suggests that while the catch has decreased and numbers of spawners are
below early 1990s highs they have stayed relatively stable overall over the past fifty
years. Declines in the 1990s are attributed to poor marine survival due to climate-related
factors, resulting in strong conservation measures for some populations and thus declining
catches. They report that overall abundance and catch has decreased but the total number
of salmon returning to B.C. streams to spawn had been maintained. Canada (2005b)
496
states, however, that both salmon and herring stocks (also a keystone species) in the
Pacific Maritime ecozone have generally been overfished and that salmon stocks,
critically important in BC coastal ecosystems (Rumsey et al 2003, Canada 2004), are
continually declining and at ―dangerously low levels‖ (Canada 2005b). Concerns exist
about declining overall abundance but also lost biological diversity, genetic differences
and the habitats that support this diversity, in turn supporting adaptation and resilience.
Large runs such as the Fraser, Skeena and Nass (themselves diverse) mask problems with
hundreds of smaller systems. Conservation concerns about sockeye salmon, Strait of
Georgia coho and all Lower Mainland (south coast) steelhead are noted in particular
(DFO 2005). Slaney et al (1996) reported that salmon had been extirpated in two percent
of the spawning locations assessed and were at high risk of extinction in another 12 per
cent. A COSEWIC recommendation to list three groups of Pacific salmon as Endangered
under SARA was a strong motivation for the Wild Salmon Policy (Canada 2004).
Many inshore BC rockfish species are also experiencing low levels of abundance
or recruitment, with 89 areas closed to fishing. Other important species, however, appear
to be harvested at sustainable rates (halibut, perch, hake, geoduck, herring, Dungeness
crab) and there is no reported trend in changes of trophic levels of fish caught since 1982
(indicating little change in ecosystem structure, unlike NL). Fecal contamination, the
introduction of endocrine-disrupting compounds in municipal, agricultural and industrial
wastes, shellfish contamination from persistent organic pollutants (POPs), continuing
presence of organochlorine pesticides such DDT and hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)-
related compounds in seabirds and seabird food chains (thought to reflect atmospheric
transport from areas of ongoing use in Asia), pollution inputs from agriculture and
abandoned mines are all considered threats to coastal ecosystems in BC (BC 2006).
Water and wastewater

Municipal wastewater effluents (sewage and stormwater) represent one of the largest
sources of pollution in Canadian waters. In 1999, an estimated 63% of the population in
BC living within municipalities with populations of 1000 or more with sewer systems had
secondary or tertiary treatment, compared to 55% in the Atlantic provinces and 78%
Canada-wide (Environment Canada 2005b). Nevertheless, shellfish closures have
increased in BC along with population growth, reflective of a corresponding increase in
sewage discharge (BC 2006b).
NL has the lowest drinking water quality overall using boil water advisories and
THM presence as indicators, including the highest number of communities with annual
average Trihalomethanes (THM) levels above recommended amounts (NL 2007c). A by-
product of chlorine disinfection that reacts with organic matter, most commonly in
surface water supplies, THMs may pose risks of cancer and adverse birth outcomes (NS
2002). NL also had the highest number of boil water advisories in place in 2001. NS does
not have a public record of boil orders. The Province reports only ten water supplies as
having elevated THM levels in 2002, but arsenic is a concern in rural NS drinking water
supplies (Gagnon and Walsh 2007, NS 2002). Despite 76% reliance on surface water
supply, ―almost all‖ of BC‘s water systems maintain THM levels below current
acceptable levels. However, BC has had the highest rate of intestinal illness in Canada,
caused primarily by consuming contaminated water or food. On average at least one
waterborne disease outbreak occurs in BC each year, many the result of water system
failures or lack of adequate treatment (BC 2001). It is noteworthy that as of 2001 there
497
were ―no requirements for the use of qualified or certified personnel operating water
systems on Indian reserves.‖ INAC collects data about these water systems in its
community infrastructure database and produces summary reports annually. (BC 2001,
42). These systems are excluded from this analysis.
498
Regional Ecosystem Indicators
Table 9.4 Comparative Table of Regional Ecosystem Indicators
Kittiwake SH MW/CC
% forest/woodland 37% productive forest 80% of watershed 49% MW (50%
covered land land in FMD 5 (excluding saltwater/ mountain, lake,
Lakes portion, 56% of glacier, 1%
total) urban)/50% CC
- 78% NW
% old forest of total 10% 3-12% of forestry EPUs Approx. 50% in CC
forest land planning area, 12% in
NW w. recruitment in
OGMA
Harvesting trend Increasing (reference Reference to high levels Decreasing
to high level ‗01-05) of cutting since
softwood lumber
exemption (VC 2000)
% of land base Est. 5%, 0% watershed 3-5% Bras d‘Or, 15% 20% in CC – 6% NW
protected SH, 28% Highlands and (39% of forest
3% of Lowlands EPUs constrained by special
management, 20% of
productive
permanently set
aside)
% of forest area 28% CBPP - District 5 30% (Stora Enso lands - 4% CSA as of 2003 –
certified (ISO 14001, CSA), A- ISO 14001, SFI, CSA) WFP, Canfor,
C 14% (ISO 14001) Weyerhauser) + ?%
TW ISO
Species at risk: - Great Auk and NL Several extinct or - 11 listed species, 16
wolf extinct, piping extirpated species + 15 plant associations in
COSEWIC listed plover appears to be referenced rare or NW, wolverine,
endangered extirpated endangered species marmot considered
species86 Common eider extirpated
breeding pop. low 19 NI Straits marine
Listed by provincial Pine marten species
CDCs American eel and - rare sponge reefs
banded killifish with continued
(freshwater – IB) damage
Other species trends Moose and caribou Deer decline, moose Deer and elk
pop. decline, increases increasing, birds and recovering,
in furbearers/predators other wildlife mixed conservation concern
re. mountain goat,
grizzly and wolf,
furbearers low, black
bear and cougar
86
Excluding ocean species.
499
secure
Forestry-related Old forest-dependent Old/diverse forest- #1 respondent
concerns species; reduced forest dependent species; ecological concern
diversity; run-off, reduced diversity; Old forest-dependent
water levels and harvest levels; erosion/ species, erosion,
temperatures; siltation; habitat loss siltation and stream
spraying/pesticides; Stora Enso policies and habitat damage, loss
erosion/compaction/ targets in place re. of old growth and
siltation; road access protected areas, old forest diversity,
to remote areas (#2); forest, diversity, vulnerability to flood
buffer zones to protect clearcutting, wildlife events (coupled with
water quality and fish habitat protection etc. climate change),
habitat (#1); forest but private lands (62%) clearcutting, high
regeneration; are poorly monitored grading and loss of
protecting aesthetic and protected culturally important
values species, pesticides
(improvements noted)
% of fish species #1 respondent 70% in the Bras d‘Or 71% populations
considered at low ecological concern watershed considered examined by CIT in
relative to historic - Majority of species low and/or declining Upper-Mid Coast
levels low relative to historic declining
levels but with some Central Coast 80%
(overfishing – legal signs of recovery Pacific salmon units
and illegal – was - inshore cod in decline
among the factors recovering slowly but Weinstein (2007)
noted in all cases) highly vulnerable, describes a regional
offshore no recovery, salmon collapse in the
some capelin + lobster Kwakwaka‘wakw sea
improvement but low
abundance, crab - variability in
vulnerable, shrimp Nimpkish salmon
stable returns since 1800s
freshwater pop.s noted
stressed (trout declines
with some recovery
and system integrity in
IB, salmon pop.s
below conservation
req.s with increases in
some areas)
# of MPAs 1 formal MPA 0 formally designated, 5+ (MW) - 2% of
(provincial and (Eastport) + marine protection around total Queen Charlotte
federal) portion of Funk Island Spectacle and Bird Sound and Strait
(2) Islands (2) marine area – 67,793
ha
Water quality Mixed – good in #1 respondent 132 Upper Island
Gander watershed and ecological concern water systems
IB (drinking and fish significant concerns re. excluding FNs
habitat) but 16% of fecal coliform/ sewage- systems, only 10%
local governments on related pollution with provincially inspected
boil orders (5/11 LT), recent improvements, in 1999/2000 (vs.
500
34% high THM levels chemical contamination 24% BC) – of 46
(including fish farms), rated systems 78%
erosion/sedimentation low hazard rating (vs.
Denys basin drinking 75% BC), 9% high
water: aluminum, (8% BC), 16 boil
bacteria, supply order advisories =
12% of systems (10%
in BC)
Other Lack of $ for resource Invasive species and Lack of $ for resource
management and parasites management and
stewardship Climate change stewardship
Attitudes/‖culture of Urban and beachfront Change in climate
exploitation‖, development and ocean conditions
improving and to a Lack of land use - Aquaculture
lesser extent in IB, planning Tourism and cottage
particularly re. trout Atmospheric pollution development
Threat of gold mining Acid precipitation Predation (seals,
Illegal harvest Predation & competition introduced trout)
- Climate/ocean - Attitudes/greed - Pollution from ship
conditions (literature) traffic, proposed oil
and gas development
Regional Ecosystem Well-being - Explanatory Notes
Kittiwake (NL-E) Region

The region is still home to significant seabird populations, but Funk Island, a seabird
sanctuary in the region, is believed to have been home to the world‘s last known breeding
colony of the now-extinct great auk, driven to extinction by human exploitation. Glavin
(2006) points out that Newfoundlanders sought assistance from Britain in restraining the
slaughter, primarily by New Englanders, in the 1700s and even publicly flogged auk
plunderers in St. John‘s, but by the early 1800s auks could no longer be found on the
island. The northeast coast area was also historically home to significant breeding and
wintering populations of the Common Eider. By 1970 the Eider population around the
island has been decimated to just 500 nesting pair (Way 2003). Recovery has been slow
(Kavanagh 2005). Local respondents suggest that illegal harvest and selling of seabirds is
a significant conservation threat. Some stewardship efforts have been undertaken to
facilitate Eider nesting on offshore islands. Portion‘s of the region‘s sandy coastline were
once a nesting area for the endangered piping plover but its presence is no longer known.
Recreational use and development of beach habitats are considered significant factors in
piping plovers declines (Canada 2003).
Two COSEWIC-listed fish species of special concern exist within the Indian Bay
ecosystem – the NL banded killifish (provincially threatened) and the American eel.
Despite being provincial and/or national concern, there is no evidence of decline within
the system of either species. Further killifish research is now underway. Indian Bay is one
of seven known sites for the population, which is considered locally abundant but
501
vulnerable to water quality disturbance including forestry impacts (NL 2006b). The
threatened pine marten and endangered red crossbill can also be found within the region
(Kittiwake and Forest Management Districts 4 and 5). Dependent on late successional
mixed or coniferous forests and large home ranges, the marten population is suffering due
to habitat loss, accidental mortality from snaring and trapping and low, isolated numbers
(Canada 2007d). Habitat loss (particularly older mature forest) is also considered a factor
in red crossbill declines, along with competition from the introduced red squirrel (NL
2005).
Red pine was once present throughout Newfoundland‘s central boreal ecoregion
but is now the province‘s rarest tree. The range of white pine has also declined due to
harvesting and blister rust but is still present in locations throughout the region and is no
longer harvested by commercial operations in the zone (NL 2006b). Old-growth red pine
forest is considered a critically endangered ecosystem (<2% remaining) in eastern North
America (Noss et al 1995). AFER (1996) identifies 22 remaining stands in eastern North
America87. Seven of these are in the Kittiwake region (AFER 1996). Of the region‘s 534
hectares of old-growth red pine identified by AFER (1996) 75% is under some protection.
The issue of limited remaining old growth forest applies to forest stands of all types
throughout the region. Despite only 10% of the productive forest land base being
identified as 81+ years (vs. 38% in NL in 2003) and a provincial target of 15-20 % per
district (2006b, p. 28) suggests that ―with the oldest first management policy, Class 5
should be able to support some harvesting for commercial and domestic operations until
Class 4 areas are needed‖. No 100+ year stands are identified in the District. Reduced
forest diversity is also a concern due not only to forestry practices but also browsing
preferences of the introduced but now abundant moose (Parks Canada 2007).
Table 9.5 % of productive forest by age class, District 5 (NL 2006b)

1 (0-20) 2 (21-40) 3 (41-60) 4 (61-80) 5 (81-100) Total
23% 34% 3% 28% 10% 214,245 ha
Moose were first introduced to the province within the region (Gander Bay) in
1878 (NL 2006). Results of the most recent moose census for the area (Bonavista North,
Area 23) suggest a 56% drop since 1991. Wildlife officials believe several factors have
contributed, including a combination of poaching, timber harvesting and lack of a quality
food (Pretty 2005). Increasing predator populations may also be a factor. Poaching and
habitat fragmentation due to the TransCanada highway are thought to be factors in the
condition of the small reportedly depressed (relative to the 1960s) Indian Bay ecosystem
caribou population. After a recovery in the Kittiwake and neighbouring zones in the
1980s and 90s caribou populations have since experienced a significant decline. Access to
remote areas (increasing road-kill and poaching), logging and other disturbances in
calving areas, lichen abundance and distribution are factors (NL 2006b). Respondents
report increases in bear, loon, coyote, beaver, and lynx (due to part to less trapping) and
fluctuating rabbit populations. Ten species of furbearer are found in the zone, three non-
native88.
87
NL (2006b) suggests there are 22 small, scattered red pine stands remaining in insular NL.
88
Lynx, red fox, beaver, otter, muskrat, short-tailed weasel, pine marten, red squirrel, mink, and coyote (the
last three non-native) (NL 2006b).
502
The Kittiwake region is made up of several significant rivers and watersheds,
including the Gander, Terra Nova, Gambo, Indian Bay and Ragged Harbour systems. The
Gander River watershed constitutes nearly 50% of the region at 6400 square km
(O‘Connell and Dempson 2002). Forest harvesting occurs in approximately 4/5 of the
Gander system, an important fishing destination, water supply and home to over 20% of
the region‘s population. Extensive clearcutting on parts of the river with resulting changes
in water levels, run-off and water temperature are a concern (although forestry officials
counter that changing water levels are due to precipitation), along with access roads,
spraying, site preparation, thinning and planting activity (Environment Canada et al 2005,
Beacon 1999). The most common forestry-related issues raised by interview respondents
in the region (24% referred to forestry-related concerns) were the need for extended
buffer zones and the impacts of increased road access to remote areas, particularly
watershed headwaters. Several respondents suggested that given the political power of the
forest companies and economic reliance of some communities on the industry, it is
difficult to get protection measures in place. The province‘s Sustainable Forest
Management Strategy (2003) requires a minimum 20 m buffer on water bodies (30-150 m
in various components of drinking water supply systems such as Indian Bay). While also
increased in some areas such as salmon spawning, cabin development or aesthetic areas,
wildlife habitats or outfitting camps, selective harvesting is now being undertaken in
buffer zones. Pesticides and waterway siltation, particularly from road construction,
remain a concern (Eaton et al 1994, Wells 1992). Eaton et al (1994) further suggest that
clearcutting on poorer Newfoundland soils can cause long-term failure of forest
regeneration. 64% of District 5 has medium timber growth potential, 23% poor (NL
2006b).
A major forest fire in 1961 decimated the Bonavista North region (including
Indian Bay)‘s large stands of valuable timber. Ecological impacts of pre-1960s logging
activities are mixed (Pritchett 1997). Commercial logging is now underway again in the
more remote, headwater areas of the system, some of which were not damaged by fire.
Wells (2002) describes one such area, since harvested, as a productive black spruce forest
with trees 82 years old and a predominantly feathermoss forest floor. One forestry official
suggests the majority of the watershed is an age class two stand and won‘t be cut for 30-
40 years. Respondents expressed concerns related to renewed forestry activity, including
the need for increased buffers, cutting on slopes, impact of harvesters on soil compaction,
erosion and sedimentation and of increased road access. There is also perception among
some local residents that the watershed should not be used for industrial activity.
Proposals for decommissioning logging roads have not been successful but the two major
forest companies operating in the watershed have conceded to 100 m buffers, as
suggested by DFO for sensitive spawning areas, (―the most protection you could possibly
hope for‖ according to one forestry official) and use of winter roads in new areas. A one
km management zone is regulated for salmon habitat protection along the Gander River
(NL 2006b). IBEC has struggled with only temporary success, however, to protect
portions of the watershed with remaining old timber (one portion with white pine also
identified) from harvesting. The Protected Areas Association of NL (1998) suggested,
unsuccessfully, that a portion of the watershed containing old growth timber be
designated a protected area.
Despite concerns about forestry-related impacts on water quality and, until
recently, sewage discharges from the towns of Glenwood and Appleton a 2005 national
503
study rated Gander River water quality as good for both protection of aquatic life and
drinking water. Bogs and fens influence water quality in some rivers by making the water
a tea-like colour, increasing levels of dissolved organic carbon and naturally occurring
metals and lowering pH (Environment Canada et al 2005). As of June 28, 2007 eleven
municipalities or LSDs in the region (16%) were on boil water advisory. Five of these had
been in place for more than a year (NL 2007). Incidence of high THM levels in drinking
water supplies is also a significant issue, impacting 24 communities with local
governments and therefore responsibility for public water systems (34% of total). Town
of Indian Bay water quality, drawing from the Indian Bay River, is within acceptable
THM levels and is ranked ―very good‖ according to a water quality index (NL 2007).
The region‘s freshwater systems support salmon, brook trout, Arctic charr,
rainbow smelt, American eel, sea lamprey, rainbow trout, and other fish species. Atlantic
salmon stocks are a conservation concern province-wide, closed to the commercial
salmon fishery in 1992. Despite some improvements in recent years returns remain low
relative to historic levels, four of six assessed rivers in two local management areas not
achieving conservation requirements. The Gander River has met or exceeded
requirements in only seven of the last 15 years, including 2004 and 2005. Marine survival
remains low. Illegal harvesting both near-shore and in-river is considered a significant
factor. Efforts to curb poaching and encourage stewardships appear to have resulted in
improvements in the status of salmon in Northwest River (Terra Nova Park) (Cote 2005),
with similar efforts underway on other systems. Salmonid populations are also dependent
on the condition of adjacent forests and riparian vegetation, discussed above (Wells
2002). Outside of the Indian Bay ecosystem limited information is available on other
freshwater species within the region. Trout populations are reported to have declined
throughout the province in the 1990s (SAEN 1994), corresponding with increased access
according to one respondent, and a study of a seatrout population in the Greenspond area
suggests overexploitation and resulting population declines (Sutton 1997).
Because the original species composition, productivity and recently the population
age structures of the trout and landlocked salmon have been retained Gibson (2004)
suggests, from a fisheries perspective, Indian Bay watershed could be considered a near
healthy ecosystem. Local observers, however, share stories of greater past abundance. ―It
was once a wonderful place to fish, but there's nothing left up there now. That goes for
many types of trout, and eels, and salmon.‖ Widely known as one of the best trout fishing
locations on the island, trout numbers and size declined considerably throughout the
1960s and 70s as access increased due to a new highway, the opening up of former
logging roads and the introduction of snowmobiles, ATVs and even small planes.
Outdoor Canada (1989) rated Indian Bay one of the five best fishing holes in Canada due
to good fishing, unspoiled surroundings and easy accessibility but by the 1980s ―Indian
Bay was fished out,‖ resulting in the formation of IBEC (see Chapter Seven). Research
suggests that the trout population has since stabilized with substantial increases in trout
size over the past decade (de Jong 2004), although not to pre-1980s size or numbers.
Despite restrictions and reduced fishing effort (particularly for salmon) harvesting
pressure is still considered high. ―On average fishing is at the upper limit of system
capacity, the current fishery is of high quality and sustainable but cannot sustain any
dramatic increase‖ (de Jong 2004), in fact five ponds are considered overexploited (de
Jong et al 2001). Stable growth rates suggest any declines are due to human rather than
natural factors. Concerns were also noted about Indian Bay salmon and sea trout
504
populations. Catch per unit effort was low on Indian Bay Brook relative to the provincial
average from 2002-2005 and nearby Middle Brook, an indicator river, saw salmon
declines until 2003 with recent improvements. The subject of climate change received
little attention from interview respondents with the exception of three who referred to
impacts on salmon survival at sea.
Like other areas of the province the Kittiwake region was hard hit by the cod
moratoria. Research in the late 1990s illustrated that there are at least two groups of cod
in the region (cod management 3KL): a resident, coastal (inshore) group and a migrant
offshore group that moves south in the winter and returns in the spring/summer. The
spawning stock in offshore areas has been at an estimated 1-2% of 1980s levels since the
mid-1990s, with low recruitment and high mortality (CNLACTR 2005). Most recent
reports indicate increases in inshore cod biomass since 2003, but still at relatively low
levels (although fish harvesters feel inshore abundance in 2006 was better than the late
1980s). Studies also indicate a decrease in older (4+) age classes. A 2006 ―pilot fishery‖
for cod removed an estimated 8% of the biomass. The most recent stock status report
suggests that with no removal biomass the central inshore stock can be expected to
increase 6% from 2007-2010 but a 22% decline is expected if 2006 harvest levels are
continued. Cod condition and weight are reportedly improving but recent recruitment has
been weak. Cod status in the region can be described as exhibiting signs of slow recovery
but with high vulnerability.
There is limited information available and considerable uncertainty regarding
capelin stocks, a key food source for cod, seabirds and other species. One respondent
described, ―You know we started fishing capelin… It was what the cod fed on. We were
taking it out of the water in tons, and then we started seeing declines‖ (in both capelin and
cod). Although there is evidence of offshore cod lacking capelin in their diet (CNLACTR
2005) there are recent indications of improvements in capelin conditions and spawning
inshore (again still below late 1980s levels) (FOC 2007). Interview respondents suggested
considerable concern for the future of the marine fishery overall, particularly the lucrative
snow crab segment, observing ―we‘re heading for disaster… the different fishermen‘s
committees and the union … when February or March comes around that‘s what they‘ll
be doing, going into St. John‘s looking for more crab quota… We‘re our own worst
enemy‖. While province and federal governments contributed to capacity problems by
licensing additional crab harvesting and processing licenses in the 1990s (Cashin 2005),
management measures have been taken to minimize high grading and soft shell crab
harvests, along with quota decreases (rising again in 2007). The industry is highly
vulnerable to declines in either crab or shrimp, which now support 75% of harvesting
revenues (Dunne 2003). Concerns were also raised not about shrimp populations
themselves but about harvesting operations and ―what is it doing to the crab grounds, the
dragging‖.
Many inshore, small boat fishermen in the Kittiwake region are engaged in the
lobster harvest89, a fishery about which concerns were also raised, including excess
harvesting pressure and harvesting of undersize (pre-spawning) lobsters. Mid-1990s
lobster conservation concerns led to the establishment of the Eastport Peninsula Lobster
Protection Committee, involving approximately 50 harvesters from seven small
89
Three-quarters of the core fishing enterprises in NL operate from vessels under 35 feet, which are
dependent on the lobster, cod, capelin and lumpfish fisheries (Williams et al 2006).
505
communities in the Kittwake region. It was ―not a requirement by law to return females
without eggs but the fishermen made it a practice.‖ In 1997 Eastport Peninsula Lobster
Management Area was formed, establishing two small protected areas as part of a co-
management agreement between licence holders and DFO (Ennis 2006, DFO 2006d).
Scientific research, self-monitoring and public education have also proven important.
According to recent data, the Eastport program has lost momentum in recent years but by
combining a size limit increase, v notching and closed areas the result has been a 40%
increase in egg production. Despite these local successes region-wide lobster landings
continued to decline from 1995 to 2004, increasing in 2005 but still well below mid 1990s
levels. ―Chasing mackerel from bay to bay‖ was also raised as a concern while strong
squid populations were reported in recent years.
Overall the region‘s terrestrial and freshwater systems remain largely undeveloped
with the exception of logging and some mining activity and scattered, relatively low
density cottage areas. Tourism outfitters and local residents also use forest access roads
for outdoor recreational activities and also cross the countryside with all-terrain vehicles
and snowmobiles. There are eight provincial protected areas and one national park in the
Kittiwake region (none within the Indian Bay watershed) offering varying degrees of
protection from such activities. The largest of these is the Bay du Nord Wilderness Area,
one of two wilderness reserves in the province. While only a small portion of the 2,895
km2 Reserve is within the Kittiwake region (estimated 10%), it includes the headwaters of
the Terra Nova watershed along with the wintering and calving grounds of 15,000
woodland caribou, the largest herd on the island. Motorized recreational vehicles are
restricted in some areas of the reserve. The region‘s second largest protected area is the
405 km2 Terra Nova National Park, which became Newfoundland's first national park in
1957. Funk Island is the only ecological reserve in the region and is restricted from all but
research use (island 0.2 km2, 5.2 km2 total). An additional six provincial parks focus on
recreational opportunities but some also protect special landscape and ecological features.
In total an estimated 710 km2 are protected in the region. At 5% of the total
terrestrial/freshwater area this is well below the recommended (although debated) 12%
conservation target. Further, this figure includes parks with primarily human use
objectives. NL (2006b) proposes an additional ecological reserve at Gambo Pond. In
Forest Management District 5 56% of productive forest area is Crown land (higher than
the provincial average), 42% tenured to one of two forest companies. Marine protected
areas include the Round and Duck Islands area in Eastport and a 5 km2 marine portion of
Funk Island Ecological Reserve.
Table 9.6 Major sustainable development issues described by interview respondents

BC
Mount Overharvesting (forestry and fishing), economic decline, aquaculture, need for
Waddington more value-added, climate change, culture, attitude/greed - ―gold rush‖ of 70s-90s
with some positive change/learning from fisheries declines
Nimpkish Forestry impacts, ocean conditions, commercial and sport fishing harvest,
watershed poaching, cottage development, climate change/weather events, stocking/non-
native species, tourism impacts, hydroelectric (the latter two primarily concern
about the future) – also lack of $ for resource management and
stewardship/restoration
506
NS
Strait- Economic development, sewage-related contamination, shellfish closures,
Highlands fisheries declines, tourism impacts - related to ecological concerns
Bras d‘Or Sewage pollution and associated water quality concerns, lack of economic
watershed opportunity/unemployment and low incomes (linked to out-migration concerns),
land use (impacts of residential property development and to a lesser extent
forestry and farming), planning and decision-making processes, fisheries
declines/overharvesting, shipping/ ballast water and invasive species, water
access, recreational vehicles
NL
Kittiwake Fisheries management/declines, economic development, attitude/culture of
economic exploitation but with slow change and important examples of stewardship, forestry
zone impacts, inequity in the fishery, value-added of raw materials, technological
change - fewer jobs
Indian Bay Fishing pressure (freshwater fisheries), industrial development (forestry, mining),
watershed road access, poaching/illegal harvest, attitude/ethics, water quality, cabin
development, ATVs and snowmobiles, ounaniche/competition and ecosystem
change, job loss, viability of recreation fishing sector and the need for protected
areas - – also lack of $ for resource management and stewardship/restoration
COMMON Fisheries declines and harvesting pressure, forestry practices (overharvesting,
THREATS reduced biodiversity, siltation/erosion, road access), population and economic
decline/need for economic development, impacts of tourism and recreation
Note: Concerns are listed in order of the frequency with which interview respondents
noted them.
Attitudes toward the environment and in particular a ―culture of exploitation‖ is

described as a negative factor in ecosystem well-being in both the province and the
region, linked to a history where ―you had to live off the land in order to survive, that
meant going out and shooting five or six moose to put on your table, it meant going out
and killing 200 fish in a week.‖ A municipal representative suggests, ―local people think
they should have free access to fish, feel they own them because they live here. I don‘t
think people see the links.‖ Buffinga (2001) suggests this attitude toward open access
may be part of a cultural belief system, described as a survival strategy linked to a short-
term/immediate need for jobs and household resources but that has resulted in lost current
and future opportunities and is ―killing itself.‖ Extending from communities to the
provincial government, one senior official explains there is little talk ―about the
environmental and stewardship side of things.‖ Saunders and Duinker (2002, p. 863)
suggest that in ―the underdeveloped economy of Newfoundland, the political basis of
decision-making often results in priority being given to the maintenance of jobs and
operations as opposed to the improvement of environmental performance‖. Respondents
also report a slow change in attitude and important examples of stewardship in practice,
several in the Kittiwake region. One local representative explains ―It is changing. But it‘s
taking a long time.‖ A federal official observes ―I think it all started with the loss of the
commercial cod fishing… fisherpersons lost total access to something that was there for
hundreds of years.‖ One Indian Bay elder suggests that in an earlier era ―there was a code
of ethics among the old guys… we used to look for people jigging and netting on the
river. There was not too many then, not like now.‖ Another from elsewhere in the region
suggests, ―My thinking now is like my great grandfather‘s. More conservation, people are
507
beginning to say if we don‘t take care of this, government is not going to take care of it
for us, so we‘ve got to take care of it ourselves… I see it happening and I thank the school
systems for that, this being practiced in the schools now to conserve.‖
Strait-Highlands/Bras d‘Or
One of the major forest companies operating in the watershed, Stora Enso, is ISO 14001
Environmental Management Standard (1998), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and
Canadian Standards Association (CSA) (2001) certified. In total, Stora Enso manages
approximately 30% of the watershed, primarily in two sub-watersheds. Stora Enso‘s
sustainable forest management plan includes ―water quality monitoring, strict operating
procedures around streams, steep slope (> 30% slope) reservation from regular harvesting
and limited harvesting (at least 80% in non clearcut condition) in key identified
watersheds (Westhead and Parker 2005).‖ Nevertheless several concerns about the
ecosystem impacts of forestry activities are raised by interview respondents and in the
scientific and ―grey‖ literature. In particular, private lands (62% of the watershed) are not
adequately tracked or monitored (Westhead and Parker 2005). In Denys sub-watershed it
is common for landowners to supplement their incomes by harvesting on their lands
(Barrington 2005). Major cutting began in the highlands from the mid-1970s to 1990
when an outbreak of spruce budworm killed 77% of the mature balsam fir. Most of the
infested areas were clearcut in a salvage operation, replaced by mono-culture fir forest
(UINR 2006b). Pesticide use has also been a concern (Hipwell 2001). Victoria Country
(2000) suggests that softwoods have been cut at an unsustainable rate since Atlantic
Canada was exempted from Softwood Lumber Agreement export limitations. Elders also
express concern about disease in beech trees, Dutch elm disease and alder trees, used for
sweat lodges, medicine and dyes, stating that they are unhealthy and dry, impacted by
pollution and new insects (CEPI 2006).
Loss of forest diversity is a significant concern on the island. Previous forestry
operations have selected against yellow birch mixed woods, replacing them with
softwood forests. Stora Enso (2006) reports that the mixed wood forests of the Cape
Breton Lowlands (currently with less than 5000 ha remaining) have suffered from high-
grading and even-aged management. Forestry management plans recognize that naturally
regenerated areas tend to be more diverse in the number and type of tree species and
generally more resilient to disturbance and stress, targeting 50% natural regeneration and
increases in mixed wood forests. The decline of black ash and maple in the watershed has
negatively impacted First Nations communities who use maple to make baskets (CEPI
2006). There is thought to be less than fifty individual trees remaining in the watershed
(UINR 2007 website). Concerns also exist about the clearcutting of areas used to harvest
medicinal plants and about declines in once abundant gooseberries, raspberries, wild
strawberries and blackberries, mint and hazelnuts (not necessarily linked to forestry)
(CEPI 2006).
An estimated eight percent of Stora Enso forest lands are in recent clearcut
condition (less than 15 years old). The company‘s long-term plan recognizes that
clearcutting is ecologically appropriate for some areas but not others. Partial cutting is
used in the majority of the Cape Breton Lowlands, although plans call for an increase in
the clearcut percentage (SE 2006). Impacts associated with clearcutting and intensive
harvesting include: soil erosion and siltation, diminishing populations of sensitive wildlife
species, accelerated nutrient losses, loss or alteration of habitat, altered hydrology,
508
changes in vegetation, increases in water temperature and negative visual impacts
(Malcolm 2003). Siltation and sedimentation is identified as a major concern. In areas of
the Denys Basin critical to the Lakes‘ wild and cultivated oyster industry studies have
shown that hard bottom habitats may have decreased by as much as 60% due to
sedimentation from land based sources (ECA 2001 in Westhead and Parker 2005). Basin
residents believe the main cause of sedimentation to be clearcutting near streams and on
steep hillsides coupled with the removal of riparian vegetation on private properties.
Interview respondents also referred to obstructions in streams, loss of aquatic habitat, and
loss of protective cover for species such as deer as negative impacts of clearcutting
observed in their area, along with impacts of forestry roads built on steep hillsides and the
use of forestry machinery in or near streams or in wetland areas. While supporting the
forest industry most felt that responsible practices, including selective cutting, should be
used (Barrington 2005)
Through fifty years of trawl surveys a total of 46 species of fish have been
identified in the Lakes, most of these benthic (Parker 2006). Recent studies suggest that
fish biomass was approximately three times more abundant in 2000 then in 1967 and that
fish abundance is generally increasing (Lambert 2002, Westhead and Parker 2005). These
findings conflict with public (and respondent) concern about fisheries declines (e.g.
Barrington 2005), possibly due to the decline of key commercial and locally consumed
species such as herring, lobster and oysters or area-specific declines. Scientific studies
also acknowledge there have been significant declines of some species and that pollock,
haddock, dogfish, and pout present in the 50s and 60s were not found in more recent
surveys. Elders also observe a decline in both size and abundance of local eel populations,
attributed in part to bridges and causeways (CEPI 2006). Westhead and Parker (2005),
CEPI (2006) and Barrington (2005) refer to the status and/or population trends of 23
watershed species. Of these 16 (70%) are at low and/or declining levels of abundance,
four stable or increasing (17%). Information for three is inconsistent (see Table A9.7).
Pelagic species of the Bras d‘Or include include mackerel, herring, gaspereau,
smelt, Atlantic salmon and a white stickleback that appears to be a new species. The
majority of these species is in decline or considered at low levels. The herring fishery was
closed in 1999 after excess fishing effort brought the already declining population to the
point of collapse (Westhead and Parker 2005), likely a major ecosystem component,
important food source for other species and source of marine-derived nutrients
(Kenchington 2001). Stocks have not recovered since the closure. Spawning is still absent
from some traditional areas and spring spawning biomass considered very low (Power et
al, 2003). Elders attribute the decline primarily to overexploitation but also to pollution,
seals and loss of eelgrass, which is observed to have declined around the Lakes since the
1940s and 1950s. Despite an overall decline, healthy eelgrass beds remain in certain
locations. Elders also observe a general loss of aquatic plant life (CEPI 2006). Salmon
stocks have been declining for many years due to overharvesting and environmental
conditions (EFWC 1995), although some rivers still have healthy populations (CEPI
2006).
The most abundant of the Bras d‘Or groundfish is winter flounder, observed to be
rebounding after declining in the 1960s and the subsequent closure of the trawl fishery
(Lambert 2002). Dragging in the late 1980s was thought to be a potential leading cause of
the decline in several species resulting in the exclusion of fish draggers from the lake in
1992. Windowpane flounder, winter skate and cod are said to have wide distribution, cod
509
seeming to have increased in abundance according to Lambert (2002). TEK and LEK,
however, suggests declines in cod, flounder and skate (CEPI 2006, Barrington 2005).
American plaice has decreased significantly, now confined to a few deepwater areas after
historically being widespread and plentiful (Lambert 2002). Shellfish populations are also
in mixed condition. The American Oyster, a culturally and economically important
species, faces limited suitable habitat, blue mussel competition and starfish predation
combined with predation and disease from introduced organisms. Heavy harvesting of
wild oyster stocks in 1999 and 2000 is said to have decreased stocks, along with more
recent overharvesting and harvesting of small ―cocktail size‖ oysters (Westhead and
Parker 2005, Barrington 2005). Siltation and pollution (particularly from sewage but also
roadside herbicides) are also blamed for oyster declines along with eelgrass decline (CEPI
2006). Weeds in shallows along the shore are also said to be more abundant, smothering
oysters. Some areas are less affected than others by these various factors.
Westhead and Parker (2005) suggest that current lobster landings are poor and that
fishermen report population declines, as does a recent TEK report (CEPI 2006).
Kenchington and Carruthers (2001) suggest that Bras d‘Or lobsters are larger than
average but that production is low. Denny (2006) explains that First Nations are not using
their full food fishery allocation for conservation reasons despite an ongoing commercial
fishery but that Cape Breton area lobster stocks are still relatively healthy (presumably
referring to stocks outside the Lakes). Blue mussel populations are stable and perhaps
increasing. One study suggests that abundance may vary significantly year-to-year
(Westhead and Parker 2005). Sea urchin and starfishes are found throughout the Lakes
but little is known about them (Westhead and Parker 2005). Elders observe declines in
clams and urchins.
510
Table 9.7 Status of Bras d‘Or Fish Species
Species Status/Trend Source
Overall Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002, Parker 2006
Herring Low and/or in decline (L/D) Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006
Barrington 2005
Dogfish L/D Lambert 2002
Pout L/D Lambert 2002
Eel L/D Barrington 2005, Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006
Trout (speckled, L/D – speckled increase in CEPI 2006
rainbow) Whycocomagh
Gaspereau L/D CEPI 2006, Barrington 2005
Smelt L/D CEPI 2006
Mackerel L/D Barrington 2005
Winter flounder Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006
Salmon L/D EFWC 1995, Barrington 2005
Pollock L/D Lambert 2002
Haddock L/D Lambert 2002
White hake Increase Lambert 2002
Winter skate Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002
CEPI 2006
Cod Sources inconsistent Lambert 2002, CEPI 2006, Barrington 2005
American plaice L/D Lambert 2002
American Oyster L/D CEPI 2006, Westhead and Parker 2005
Lobster L/D (stable on the outer Westhead and Parker 2005, Denny 2006, CEPI 2006
shores of Cape Breton?)
Rock crab + scallop Abundant but in limited area Lambert 2002
Blue mussel Stable or increasing CEPI 2006
Clams L/D CEPI 2006
Urchin Widespread but declining CEPI 2006
Like fisheries, the status of wildlife species is described as mixed in literature

relating to the region. Mammals of the Acadian forest include white-tailed deer, moose,
black bear, snowshoe hare, porcupine, beaver, marten, northern flying squirrel, and more
recently the coyote. Woodpeckers, grouse, owls and numerous nesting birds can also be
found, while waterways provide habitat for trout, salmon, herons, loons and fresh-water
ducks, tall trees nesting sites for ospreys and eagles (Eaton et al 1994). Species described
as increasing in the Bras d‘Or include seals (during winter months), moose, coyote, rats,
mice, skunk and porcupines (recently introduced). Ten species of birds ranging from
cormorants to grouse and bald eagles are described as stable or increasing (CEPI 2006).
The Lakes are home to the highest concentration of breeding bald eagles in northeastern
North America. Bobcats in the Bras d‘Or watershed are reported as rare and declining
(CEPI 2006). A drastic decline is deer populations has been seen since 2002 as a result of
a harsh winter, the deer harvest dropping from over 500 in the SH region in the late 1990s
to less than 100 in 2004 (Westhead and Parker 2005, CEPI 2006). A variety of birds are
also declining, including herons, kingfisher, sandpiper, grayjay, sparrows, while barn
swallows are rare (CEPI 2006). One respondent also suggests declines in the fox
population. Sea bird nesting is limited within the Lakes but locally significant populations
511
occur on islands in West Bay and St. Patricks Channel and Bird Islands beyond the mouth
of the Great Bras d‘Or Channel are home to the largest colony of Great Cormorants in
North America along with major populations of other species.
Several species are extinct or extirpated from the region, including caribou and
wolves. While hunting was a significant contributor in both cases, climate change,
predation and other factors are also implicated. Other species that are or are likely to
identified in the watershed or SH region and listed either by COSEWIC or the NS
Endangered Species Act include: Eastern Cougar, Bicknell‘s Thrush, Prototype
Quillwort, Canada Lynx, American Marten, Gaspe Shrew, Wood Turtle, New Jersey
Rush, Piping Plover and Felt Boreal Lichen along with Barrows Goldeneye, Harlequin
Duck, Wolfish and Monarch butterfly (neither the Harlequin or the Wolfish have been
recorded within the watershed, both are likely to be present, however, in SH coastal
waters). A rare and sparse marine algae is also found at several sites in the Bras d‘Or
Lakes (Westhead and Parker 2005). Threats to these species include habitat loss from
forestry, urban and beachfront development (in the case of the piping plover for
example), atmospheric pollutants and acid precipitation (boreal lichen).
Historically found throughout the province, American marten but are now found
in low numbers in only two locations, one being Unama‘ki. The central highlands plateau
was vacated by marten following the salvaging of budworm-killed timber in the 1970s
and ‗80s, leaving the population split into two separate isolated groups. Habitat
fragmentation is thought to have drastically reduced reproduction. Past unregulated
trapping along with habitat loss (including lost forest diversity) are believed to be the two
most significant factors in the Cape Breton marten‘s decline (UINR 2006b). Both the
marten and the lynx bring attention to the value of mature, diverse forest habitats. Lynx
rely on mature, structurally diverse softwood stands for feeding and denning. The Cape
Breton Highlands and Boisdale Hills areas are home to the few remaining lynx
populations in NS. Threats to the Lynx include: harvesting, competition from bobcats and
coyotes, habitat loss, disease and climate change (NS 2007). There is no clear indication
of the area of old forest remaining in the region, with estimates ranging from 3-12% (in
the highlands)90.
As of 2003, 66% of all parcels of land available for development in the Bras d‘Or
watershed were vacant, 34% developed. Approximately 62% of watershed lands were
privately owned, and 33% owned by the province (vs. 70% private for NS). Bras d‘Or
watershed provincial protected areas total 79.1 square km91, totalling 3% of the terrestrial
and freshwater area. An additional 2% of the total area is set aside from forest harvest due
to steep slope conditions (Westhead and Parker 2005). Ten areas protected for ecological
values were identified in the SH region, totalling approximately 750 square km (15% of
90
Westhead and Parker (2005) refer to 55.3 sqr km of old forest in the watershed identified by Stora Enso.
If this is within their area (approx 750 sqr km) the amount of old forest is 7%. Stora Enso (2006, p. 11)
suggest the forested area in the CB highlands is 176,131 ha – old forest 4413 (3%), Lowlands 44,294 ha,
old forest 1495 (3%) (total 5908 ha, 3% - 121+?). Later in the Plan (p. 91) they refer to the % of EPU in old
forest condition, with a target of 8% in each EPU (current percentage 12% of the highlands and 7% of
lowlands).
91
Includes Middle River (56 km2), Bornish Hills (9.6 sqr km), Washabuck (0.67 sqr km) and Spectacle
Island Game Sanctuary (1 ha) = 66.8 sqr km
512
total area).92 Considering forestry Ecological Planning Units (EPU), Wilderness and
Freehold Protected Areas total 20% of the Cape Breton highlands and lowlands areas, including 28%
of the highlands with all of Cape Breton Highlands National Park but only 3% of the
lowlands (SE 2006). Special lynx management areas, martin conservation zones, riparian
buffers and connectivity management zones (corridors) between ecologically significant
areas are also in place. Stora Enso has committed to 12% or greater protection on its
forest lands (SE 2006). While there are no marine protected areas in the system,
ecologically and culturally significant areas have been identified within the Lakes,
including areas with high species diversity or unique features.
Sewage-related pollution, with related concerns about water quality and shellfish
closures, was the number one ecological threat raised by interview respondents and
literature sources, followed by land use and related habitat impacts, including forestry,
agriculture, mining, residential and recreational/tourism development, and fisheries
declines (discussed above). With only two narrow openings to the sea (excluding the St.
Peter‘s canal), the Lakes have very limited ability to flush contaminants, which stay in the
system for long periods of time as a result. Even small amounts of pollution can build up
quickly. Parker (2006) suggests there is little contamination from heavy metals and
organic contaminants in the Lakes but the sheltered embayments favoured by oysters and
shellfish growers are highly susceptible to fecal coliform build-up. Only 25% of the
developments in the watershed are located in the seven shoreline communities served by
a central sewer system. Some of these central community collection systems are outdated,
although approximately $10 million in upgrades have been funded in four of the seven
communities. In the mid 1960s Nova Scotia prohibited the construction of new outfall
pipes discharging raw sewage, but over 2000 identified ‗straight pipes‘ were not
addressed. Private landowners have contributed as well, however, investing an estimated
$2 million in new and upgraded on-site systems since 1995. Boating activity is also
increasing, boaters often disposing of waste in pristine coves and boating anchorages
rather than pump-out stations. In the summer months heavy algal blooms cause ―severe
contamination of enclosed water bodies‖, linked to an increasing number of shellfish
closures (Malcolm 2003). Beginning in the 1970s, the number of shellfish closures due to
high contamination levels rose from 33 in 1999 to 48 in 2003, although the proportion of
the Lake area approved for harvesting rose slightly from 1995 to 2003 (from 93 to 94%).
Divers observe an increase in dead zones at the bottom of the Lakes and incidents of
sewage sludge. Additional environmental and human health concerns related to sewage
discharges include: oxygen demand, disease-causing pathogens, heavy metals, synthetic
organic chemicals and beaches closed to swimming (Westhead and Parker 2005). As
Malcolm (2003) points out ―shellfish contamination, unusual algae blooms and declining
fish populations are indicators of a system under stress‖.
In addition to forestry impacts some interview respondents express concern about
residential and commercial development. McCready (2006) explains that 398 new
92
They include Cape Breton Highlands National Park (950 km2) and provincially protected Pollets Cove-
Aspy Fault (272.3 km2), both shared by Inverness and Victoria Counties, along with seven Wilderness
Areas and Nature Reserves in Inverness Country Margaree River (68.5 sqr km), Trout Brook (28.8); River
Inhabitants (NR 3.6), Jim Campbell‘s Barren (17.5 WA), Sugarloaf Mountain (7.5 km2); McFarlane Woods
(1.32 NR), Bornish Hills (9.6 NR) and the Middle River-Framboise Wilderness Area (56.4 km2), partially
in Richmond County.
513
residential dwellings were built from 1987 to 2004 in the portion of the Bras d‘Or
watershed that is within CBRM, 100 of these located on waterfront lots. There are an
estimated 2000 seasonal cottages on the Lake, 50% on northeastern portion. However, the
trend in this area since 1990 has been toward less residential development (fewer
permits). Approximately 26% of Bras d‘Or watershed lands are used for agriculture,
including beef and dairy production and horticulture (Westhead and Parker 2005).
Concerns about these developments include contributions to sewage and chemical
contamination, erosion and sedimentation. Clearing of riparian vegetation increases the
vulnerability of shorelines to erosion caused by wave action, exacerbated by highspeed
pleasurecraft (Barrington 2005). Road construction and maintenance practices (ditching,
bridges) and a general lack of land use planning outside of CBRM is also a concern. TEK
identifies siltation and watershed runoff along with raw sewage and chemicals in fish
food from fish farms as causes of eelgrass decline, factors that have generally increased in
recent decades (CEPI 2006).
The Lakes, and in particular their shellfish, have been impacted by a series of
introduced species and parasites. Green crab arrived from 1992-95 and is now
widespread. Having devastated Maine‘s clam industry in the 1950s (Marshall 1999), the
crab is known to occupy protected embayments and ―prey voraciously‖ on bivalves,
including rock crab (Elner 1981 in Westhead and Parker 2005). Green crab and lobster
may compete for food sources and habitats, although cod appear to feed heavily on the
crab. Food web impacts require better understanding (Parker 2006). Since 1970, an
average of one new invading tunicate species every five years has been observed in east
coast waters (FOC 2005), including the Golden Star Tunicate and sea squirt now in the
Lakes. Tunicates can cause shellfish mortality, form thick blankets that cover substrates
in the sub-tidal zone, interfere with the settlement of oyster and mussel larvae and
compete for food with juveniles of these species (Westhead and Parker 2005). Elders
report areas where eelgrass is heavily fouled with tunicates (CEPI 2006). Since 2002 two
new oyster diseases have also been found in the Lakes: MSX and SSO (microscopic
parasites). MSX have a wide salinity tolerance and is widespread, causing 90-95%
mortality in infected shellfish. Lower tolerance to low salinity is likely to limit SSO
distribution, which can cause mortalities of 20-40% (Westhead and Parker 2005).
Respondents and various reports suggest ballast water release from foreign vessels may
be a transport mechanism for the parasites (CEPI 2006). On average 45 vessels per year
enter (from the U.S.) and exit the Lakes as part of Little Narrows Gypsum‘s operations.
Small cruise ships are occasional visitors to the Lakes, docking overnight at Baddeck.
Brown trout and rainbow trout have also been introduced to the Lakes and have
established reproducing populations.
Finally, climate change is noted as a threat to ecosystems in the region. Local and
traditional knowledge suggest a noticeable change in climate in the Bras d‘Or watershed
in recent decades, including warmer winters with more rain and hotter summers (CEPI
2006, Barrington 2005). Implications include a reduction in winter ice cover, increased
algae, accelerated erosion and reduction in water column visibility. A decline in eelgrass
after storms suggests vulnerability to storm surges along with erosion impacts on shallow
areas where eelgrass beds occur. A direct link also exists between climate change, they
suggest, and the decline of berries, black ash trees and jellyfish, although increasing
insects and seals. Warmer winters bring less runoff in the spring and thus less flushing
and an increase of bacteria in the water, as well as drier brooks and reduced water levels
514
(CEPI 2006). One respondent suggests warmer waters make oysters more vulnerable to
MSX infection. Climate change issues are increasingly recognized, noted as a relatively
minor concern in 2003 but by 2006 as ―the most important issues facing us today‖
(Dennis 2006).
Mount Waddington/Central Coast (BC-E region)

The MW/CC case study area falls within the Coast and Mountains Ecoprovince of BC,
extending from coastal Alaska to coastal Oregon (Rumsey et al 2003), and within the the
Pacific Maritime ecozone. The ecozone is home to an estimated 3 800 species of
invertebrates and 220 species of fish in the ecozone, of which the Pacific herring is most
abundant. Apart from seabird colonies, herring spawning areas, and hexactinellid reefs,
rare and endangered species and features are recorded patchily and unreliably and
therefore it is difficult to determine how well they are represented. BC (2002) identifies
19 listed marine species with the North Island Straits region. While higher concentrations
of identified species at risk can be found in more populated regions in the province these
figures remain cause for investigation and concern. Concern exists about commercial
fishing and whale watching impacts on red-listed orca populations, which are present
each summer and important to the local tourism sector. The region‘s sea otter population
was extirpated due to hunting and fur trade by 1929 but since reintroduction in 1969-72
has experienced a recovery (Ardron 2003). Due to survival from glacial refugia in some
areas, island isolation, and the barrier of the Coast Mountains the north and central coast
contains 12 endemic species and 41 endemic subspecies (16 plants, about 10 fishes, 3
birds, and 24 mammals). The Upper Mid-Coast is home to two hexactinellid sponge reefs
(only four exist on the world, all of them in BC‘s North and Central Coast). The reefs are
8,500–9,000 years old (individual sponges 100–200 years old) but are easily broken and
have been damaged by trawling. Although now closed to fishing damage continues
(Prescott Allen 2005). Globally the coastal temperate rainforest is considered a rare
ecosystem (Rumsey et al 2003).
According to the B.C. Conservation Data Centre there are five red-listed and five
blue-listed vertebrates (six birds including the red-listed Queen Charlotte goshawk and
marbled murrelet, three mammals and one amphibian), one plant and 16 listed plant
associations within the forest ecosystems of the Nimpkish watershed. The watershed is
one of 496 freshwater ecosystems identified within the central coast by the Coast
Information Team (CIT) (Rumsey et al 2003). One blue listed plant and a number of plant
communities at risk are also present (CDC 2004). Forestry practices are considered a
significant threat to the marbled murrelet, which is dependent on old-growth habitat for
nesting (Nelson 2004). Other potential factors in their decline include gillnets, oil
pollution, predation and a decrease in food supply associated with El Nino events (Ardron
2003). The goshawk is also associated with mature/old-growth coniferous forests (for
foraging and nesting), as is the tailed frog, a blue-listed/species of special concern found
in the central coast but not recorded in the Nimpkish system (Rumsey et al 2003). Within
the Nimpkish watershed the red legged frog is blue-listed (Canfor 2005). Wolverines and
the endangered Vancouver Island marmot are both considered extirpated from the area.
Unique karst features support bat populations, including the red-listed Keen‘s long-eared
myotis (also linked to old forests). Species associated with the region‘s karst habitats are
vulnerable to both tourism and logging. Furbearer populations are thought to be low,
impacted by logging, disease and reduced salmon returns. Predator (except wolf) and
515
ungulate populations remain relatively healthy. Both black and grizzly populations (not
found in the watershed) are being monitored as a focal species in the central and north
coast land use process (Rumsey et al 2003). Throughout the 1990s deer and elk were
considered low compared to historic levels in the Nimpkish system but due to steps were
taken to protect and manage for old-growth winter ranges they are reported to be
recovering93. Moose and mountain goat are also present elsewhere in the MW/CC region
(the latter of conservation concern and also considered a focal species in CC land use
planning). All six species of BC salmon, cutthroat, rainbow trout and Dolly Varden char
are present within the watershed. Of the salmon in the system all but pink and steelhead
are considered ―major‖ runs in the province.
Within the Mid-Coast of the fish focal species examined by the CIT, eulachon
were found to be the worst off in the region, with 85% of populations declining. The
central and north coast region is home to half of the spawning run of eulachon, a species
which spawns in the lower reaches of rivers from the southern Bering Sea to northern
California and is both ecologically and culturally significant (Prescott Allen 2005, Ardron
2003). Eulachon oil or ―grease‖ is used by First Nations to flavour and enriching fish,
seaweed, and berry dishes (Prescott Allen 2005) but also for medicinal purposes. Declines
in eulachon are followed in severity by salmon. On the central coast 80% of Pacific
salmon units are in decline. Causes cited include climate change and events, changes in
land use, hatcheries and over-fishing (Rumsey et al 2003). Weinstein (2007) describes a
regional salmon collapse throughout Area 12 (the Kwakwaka‘wakw sea), with 100+ once
productive salmon streams no longer fishable because of low spawning escapements.
Herring stocks, proposed as a keystone marine species (Ardron 2003), are considered to
be rebounding and in good condition coast-wide after overfishing led to the collapse of
herring stocks in 1967 and restrictions were put in place (Canada 2005b). Overall, the
mean percentage of declining fish populations is 71% in the Upper Mid-Coast, the highest
percentage within the overall central and north coast planning area.
The Port Alice pulp mill may be the region‘s main industrial polluter but,
encouraged by 1992 regulations requiring BC pulp mills to remove organochlorine
discharges from their liquid effluent by 2002, BC‘s pulp and paper industry has invested
significant resources to modify its bleaching processes, reducing dioxin and furan burdens
by over 97% (Hagen et al 1997). Wood stoves are relatively common, however given low
population density and the presence of few industrial polluters local air quality can be
described as high. Within the Mid-coast area air quality is extremely good where
monitored. Population density is the lowest in the province (along with Kitimat-Stikine)
(BC 2006b). BC (2006b) reports that significant tugboat traffic passes by the Scott Islands
each summer when the islands are home to more than two million breeding seabirds,
considered a concern because the tugs may be the source of many small-scale oil spills.
Seabirds congregating adjacent to their breeding colonies are particularly susceptible to
major and minor spill events in the area.
While an area of much contention, there is significant concern among First
Nations, communities, scientists and environmental organizations about the ecological
impacts of salmon aquaculture in the region, including impacts of escapes on wild salmon
populations such as competition for food and habitat and fear of cross-breeding, pollution
93
. Deer and elk are sensitive to increases in snowpack and to the loss of old-growth stands, which intercept
snowfall.
516
from feed and antibiotics, sea lice and diseases (Eklund 2004). Aquaculture impacts have
been linked to mainland pink salmon collapses (Weinstein 2007). Both aquaculture and
overfishing are observed to have contributed to declines in cod and clam resources. Clams
are observed to be smaller and darker in colour, little-neck clams (the key commercial
species) depleted (Weinstein 2007). Reasons for declines in eulachon runs may include
―unknown changes in habitat, the warming of the ocean climate, increased marine
mammal predation and bycatch from offshore trawl fisheries,‖ all cited as contributing
factors (BC 2002, p. 15). Humpback whales have returned to the area after the end of the
whaling industry in the area in 1968. Whale populations are observed as disturbed by
underwater devices used to deter seals at fish farms.
Finally forestry impacts have been the subject of heated debate along the BC
coast, including issues such as overharvesting, clearcutting, riparian damage and
erosion/siltation and the loss of old-growth forest habitats. A 1994/95 Timber Supply
Review for the Kingcome TSA on the central coast a 46% percent reduction in the AAC
in the long-term AAC (Fitzgibbon & Associates 1995). Nelson (2004) suggests that as a
result of lobbying by logging interests the cut was reduced by only 15 percent as a
―transitional phase to deal with the impacts of reduced timber and job supply…‖ (Interfor
1996). NRMB (2003, p. 63) suggests of the Nimpkish that ―since the majority of the
activities in the watershed are forest harvest related, future impacts on fish habitat (if any)
are likely to stem from that activity‖.
CIT (2005, 11) recommended that ―to secure a high probability of maintaining
ecological integrity overall at the sub-regional scale and in landscapes and watersheds
with significant cultural and ecological values, while allowing for greater focus on
economic activity in landscapes, watersheds, and sites with lower conservation value …
the old growth target at landscape level is 50% of the natural proportion, provided the
average across all landscapes is 70% (the subregional target); and at watershed level 30%,
provided the average across all watersheds is 50% (the landscape target).‖ The natural
mean amount of old growth (250+ years) for the planning area is considered to be 82%,
74% in fluvial areas. Wilson (2004) suggests that approximately 50% of the existing CC
planning area forest is considered old growth (older than 250 years). In the Nimpkish
Valley only 12% of the productive forest (18,794 ha) is referred to as old growth (part of
designated Old Growth Management Areas), only 28% of this within protected areas
(Canfor 2005). ―They have run out of good wood,‖ comments one respondent, linking
this fact to the recent sale of Canfor‘s TFL 37 operations. Canfor acknowledges that the
watershed was historically dominated by old forest and the importance to biodiversity of
retaining and developing old growth across the TFL. Significant old growth harvesting is
still occurring with over 60% of existing old growth (and 20% of the productive forest
overall) permanently reserved from harvest and a commitment to old growth recruitment
in Old Growth Management Areas.
Nelson (2004) identified high grading of red cedar (higher % of cut than of the
forest mix, harvesting large red cedar and leaving smaller, lower quality trees behind) as a
concern in the region. A 2001 report commissioned by the Heiltsuk Nation showed that at
current cedar harvesting rates ―most of the operable old-growth cedar in Heiltsuk
traditional territory will be gone by the year 2026‖ (Heiltsuk 2001 in Nelson 2004). Old-
growth dependent species of concern are noted above. While black bears are dependent
on old forest for denning they are considered secure and not at risk provincially,
nationally and globally (Rumsey et al 2005). Nelson (2004) indicates, however, that
517
studies in one northern Vancouver Island watershed determined that 48 percent of the
forested area suitable for bear denning in one watershed and 83% in another had been
logged by 2000, with 250 of the remaining 570 hectares of suitable forest scheduled to be
logged (MWLAP 2000a and b). Forestry can also couple with climate change to increase
likelihood of flood events, with consequent habitat damage. Rumsey et al (2005) cite
Jones and Grant (1996) and Jones et al. (2000), suggesting that the likelihood of a flood
event increases significantly with partial logging (25% of watershed or more).
Although 11% of the Central Coast area was protected and 20% under interim
protection under an interim Central Coast land use plan ecosystems in the region were
considered underrepresented in a 2005 report (Prescott Allen 2005). Within the Central
Coast and northwest Vancouver Island, several large areas of high conservation utility
have been identified (Ardron 2003) and proposed for protection, including: Hexactinellid
Sponge Reefs, Goose Islands, Bardswell Islands and vicinity, Rivers Inlet, Scott Islands,
entrance to Queen Charlotte Strait, Broughton Archipelago, Head of Knight Inlet,
Cordero Channel, Scott Islands, Mid-Quatsino Sound and Brooks Peninsula (Cape Cook)
westward to the base of the continental slope. A 1.2 million ha central and north coast
coastal protected area was announced in Feb. 2006 (bringing the total protected area to
1.8 million ha of the 11 million ha central and north coast land base - 16%). Witihin the
Central Coast more than 20 large protected areas were creating bringing the total area
protected to approximately one million hectares (20%), with harvesting deferrals in an
additional 11% for completion of an ecosystem-based management framework and
separate land use plans (Coady 2007). By contrast only 6% of the Nimpkish Valley‘s TFL
37 is protected area (11,422 ha94) excluding areas under other special management
constraints (totalling 39% of operable forest); 78% of the area is productive forest, 53%
operable. Of the marine portion of the Queen Charlotte Strait ecosection 3% is protected,
decreasing to 2% in the much larger Queen Charlotte Sound (BC 2006b). According to
Sierra Club (2004) a total of 770,000 ha (4% of the forested land base in MW/CC) was
operated under the CSA Sustainable Forest Management standard as of Dec. 2003
(Western Forest Products 230,000 ha, Canfor 200,000 ha, Weyerhauser 340,000 ha). The
Nimpkish watershed largely corresponds with TFL 37, of which 81% of the land base is
productive forest but only 48% operable for forestry. (+ TimberWest ISO 14001 in 2000 –
confirm area (TFL 47, Kokish). Under the Sustainable Forest Management Plan for the
TFL 37 (Nimpkish watershed) 39% of forest lands are constrained by measures such as
an Ungulate Winter Range Plan (2001), Queen Charlotte Goshawk Plan (2003), Marbled
Murrelet Plan (2004), Old Growth Management Areas (2005), Retention harvesting
(2002) and Biodiversity Conservation Plan (in prep) (Deal 2005). It is uncertain what
impact the acquisition of TFL 37 and its Canfor operations by Western Forest Products in
2005/2006 has had on these plans. Canfor representatives suggest that while such forest
management practices are complementary with certification ―That wasn‘t a driver to do it,
no. We were there before that… It‘s not like people in the forestry industry go out and
build bad roads because they want to build bad roads to disturb the environment, it‘s just
that that was kind of standard or a practice of the day. They went hey, this is a good
94
Another section of the SFMP (Canfor 2005) refers to ―PAs designated within and adjacent to the
Nimpkish DFA, which consist of both parks and ecological reserves… approximately 19,000 ha‖. If all
within the watershed this would amount to 10% protection but the term adjacent implies the 6% figure is
applicable.
518
change, right. So it‘s been a continual change. The code stepped it up a round,
certification steps it up another notch…‖ The company has had a biologist on staff since
1973.
519
Table 9.8 BC-E Region First Nations
First Nations 1996 reserve 2001 reserve Tribal Council Treaty stage95
(Settlements) pop pop
Da'naxda'xw/Awaetlala 0 0 KDC Stage 4
(Knight‘s Inlet)
Gwa‘Sala- 387 387 KDC Stage 4
Nakwaxda‘xw
(Tsulquate)
Gwawaenuk or Kwa- 10 5 N/a
wa-aineuk (Hopetown)
Heiltsuk (Waglisla) HTC Stage 4
Kitasoo/Xai'xais OKNTC N/a
Nation
Kwakiutl (Fort Rupert) 339 305 KDC Stage 4 – in
suspension
Kwicksutaineuk-ah- 28 35 MTTC
kwaw-ahmish
(Gilford/Gwa‘yasdams)
Mamalilikulla- 0 0 KDC
Qwe‘Qwa‘Sot‘Em
‗Namgis (Alert Bay) 655 692 MTTC Stage 4
Quatsino 217 198 KDC Stage 4
Tlatsikwala (Hope Is.) 0 5 KDC Stage 4
Tlowitsis 0 0 N/a Stage 2
Tswataineuk/ 130 95 MTTC
Dzawada‘enuxw
(Kingcome/Quaee)
Wuikinuxv Nation OKNTC Stage 4
(formerly known as
Oweekeno Nation)
TOTAL 1766 1722
Note: The Tlowitsis First Nation above is assumed to refer to the Tlowitsis-Mumtagila
First Nations. The Mumtagila people may alternatively be considered a fifteenth
independent nation.
Central Coast Area A (pop. 143), including the communities of Rivers Inlet (home of the
Wuikinuxv Nation) and Ocean Falls, reports a primarily non-Aboriginal population.
However, 2006 statistics show a population of 83 members residing on the
Oweekano/Wuikinuxv reserve, indicating growth in the Aboriginal population.
Klemtu/Kitasoo (pop 295) is home of the Kitasoo/Xai'xais Nation.
95
BC Treaty Commission website Dec. 31, 2006
520
Appendix 10 - Regional Economic Development Models
NL-E NS-E BC-E

Initiation Province/ACOA/RDAs in Province + local pilot Federal (EIC) CFDCs since
mid-90s dialogue (1995) (1994), from CFDC 1986, MW (1991/92)
Reasons Policy (provincial with Local models + Federal policy
federal support) + public provincial policy
pressure
Mandate/focus Planning, CED, business Planning and CD, Lending + CD – local
development, HR promotion, counseling delivery bodies
development and and mentoring business
communications – local and community groups –
coordination local coordination
Governance Volunteer Board + Volunteer Board + ex- Volunteer Board +
committees (4: Tourism, officio government and committees (2: self-
NR, HR, Bus/mfg.) academic partners, employment and loan review
project partnership + 3 + special purpose)
Board committees (HR,
Exec, Policy & Proced.)
RED Structure Set up as local Set up as local CFDC as local delivery agent
coordinating bodies coordinating bodies – combines lending with
(―hub‖), range of other (―hub‖ or ―nucleus‖), planning, other CED groups,
local ED groups, CBDCs wide range of CED community and regional
for small business lending groups, ECBC, CBDCs (loose network), Regional
for business lending, District involvement in
support vs. replace planning and policy
Size of area 13,167 sqr. km 5,082 sqr km + Victoria MWRD 20,288 sqr km
covered County – 2,768 sqr km CC Area 19,943 sqr km
40,231 sqr km
Definition of ED zones by Premier, RDAs created by Commonly accepted regional
region RDAs by community provincial/federal concept (previously defined
agreement, tied to county areas)
boundaries
Population 48,065 30,160 (excludes Victoria 14,802 (including 1,691 in
(2001) County 7,960) expanded area)
Number of 102-120 communities (39 Approx. 300 comm. (2 Approx. 27 communities
communities municipal, 31 LSDs) counties, 1 Town, 2 FNs (17 non-FNs or mixed, 10
settlements) - excludes FNs settlements, 6
Victoria County with municipalities, 2 RDs, 1
approx. 73 communities Improvement District)
Number of 145 organizations and 174 organizations and 80 organizations and
actors governments/agencies + governments/agencies governments/agencies + 641
1628 firms + 1,315 firms firms
Outcomes No data available on Contributed to over $30 Contributed to 240 businesses
economic benefits million investment (SEA), 238 jobs (by ‘0497),
521
2003/04 and 700+ jobs over $6 million CEIA/SCEIA
since 200096 projects, $3.6 million loan
funds (approx. 18 SEA clients
in 2004, 40 in 99/2000)
Resources Available
NL-E NS-E BC-E

Volunteer Board 18 – cut to 14 in 2006 9 + 4 ex-officio, 6 12 in 2003, 9 in 2004
ex-officio as of 2006 (seeking new members)
Representatives of: (6 + 3 in 2003, - 7 in 2007
business (one per seven without Richmond
sub-zones), three County) Representatives of: various
existing development communities, business
groups, one Representatives of: people, First Nations
representative each for community, business - no formal allocation
education, labour, and municipalities (3
disabled, youth, each, no more than
GADCo., Chambers of 50% municipal)
Commerce, large and
small municipalities Ex-officio: gov‘t +
college and
university partners
Annual Budget Revenue: Revenue: Revenue:
2001/02 – $368,972 2001/02 – $374,266 2001/02 - $3.4 million
2002/03 - 498,990 2002/03 – 363,000 2002/03 - 1.15 million
2003/04 – 403,851 2004/05 budget - 2003/04 - 1.065 million
2004/05 – 299,694 $570,800, core
2005/06 – 242,054 + $395,800, expect Less investment funds and
547,657 broadband $75K increase 05/06 SEA participant wages =
(HRDC contract cuts) 680,274
Funding 60% Federal 34% Provincial 61.5% Federal grants, 30%
(2002/03) contracts, 27% ACOA 29% Federal projects, interest and
core/grant = 87% 29% Municipal management fees
7% Other (interest, 8.5% Other gov‘t $
11% Provincial core rentals, appropriation (unspecified)
2% Other from surplus)
Excludes investment funds
($3.6 million 2003) &
SEA participant wages.
Staff 2003: 7 – 2 core, 5 2003: 9.5: 3 core, 6 2004: 6.5 - 6 + 1 summer
HRDC contract project, 1 summer (Avg. CFDC staff = 8)
2003 cost: $252,744 2003 cost: 216,833
+ 18,369 projects 2003 cost: $334,617
2004: 4
97
Postscript: A recently released 2007 Achievement Report suggests this figure is closer to 850 jobs.
96
Postscript: Includes EDS call centre in Port Hawkesbury, which closed in 07/08. Another opened in
Cheticamp.
522
2004: 6.5 - 5 + 1 PT 2007: 6 core staff
project staff, 1 coop
2006: 5 - 3 core, 2 work term and 1
project summer student
2005: 11 - 5 core + 5
project + 2 seasonal
2006: 10 - 4 core, 5
project, 1 coop, 1
summer
2007: 22.5 - 5 core

+17 project, 1
summer
Note: Average CFDC Revenue $580,108, 287,449 from WD (wages and travel higher than avg.)
+ CEAI, SEAI (FW 2002), average BC operating funding $224,000 (MW 231,288 ‘03 +
softwood lumber program admin and WD small projects), avg. investment funds in BC $1.9
million
- RDAs $125,000 min. municipal contribution – SW Shore RDA budget up to $600K+, core staff
4-8, core funding has risen from $300,000 to 307,000 (02/03) to 375,000
RED Organizational Capacity Measures (2004/2005) *
NL-E NS-E BC-E Comments

Planning 2 1.5 1.5 NS-E last plan 1995, seeking funds for
new process, support for others, 3-5 yr.
planning not initiated by BC-E
Annual reports 1 1.5 2 Recent NS-E reports without financials
(in bus plan), NL-E reports no financials
Evaluation 1 1.5 0.5 NL-E and NS-E in development, NS-E
program further, CFDC required stats only
Year started 2 2 2 All 1992-1995
# individuals/ 2 3 1 NL-E reports 150+ inquiries, NS-E 370,
groups served BC 18-40 SEA businesses + ? (est. less
than 100)
# of service 3 3 3 5-7 in all cases
areas
Website 2 2 1 BC-E not functioning properly
Other public 1 2 2 NS-E communications strategy, BC-E
comm. vehicles range of methods used, NL-E limited
Board of 1 1 1 NS-E lacks diversity, others have unfilled
Directors seats
Volunteers 2 1 2 Involvement in committees
Staff 1 2 2 4 (NL-E) – 7 (both others with summer
students included)
Budget 2 3 3 NS-E revenue growth, projected to be
above $500K for 04/05
20/28 23.5/28 21/28
523
14/20 17/20 15/20
* each of these measures is dynamic and changes depending on the time period
Planning 0 = no plans
1 = annual work plan
2 = 3-5 year plan incorporating stakeholder input
Annual report 0 = no report

1 = publicly available annual report with no financial report
2 = publicly available annual report with financial report
Evaluation program 0 = no evaluation program

1 = evaluation program under development
2 = well developed evaluation program (ideally with ongoing
improvement)
Year started 1 = 1997 – 2007

2 = 1987 – 1996
3 = Pre-1984
# groups served 1 = less than 100

2 = 100 – 250
3 = 250 +
# of service domains 1 = 1-2 domains

2 = 3-4
3 = five or more
Website 0 = no website
1 = website not updated/partially complete
2 = active, up-to-date website
Other public communication 0 = no other public communications initiatives

1 = occasional public information releases/efforts and/or one-
time communications avenue
2 = communications strategy with multiple vehicles used
Board of Directors 0 = No Board

1 = Board with unfilled seats and/or limited diversity
2 = Complete Board reflective of regional diversity
Volunteers 0 = No volunteers
1 = Board volunteers only
2 = Board + other volunteer involvement
Staff 0 = no paid staff

1 = 1-5 paid staff
2 = more than 5 paid staff
Budget 1 = less than $100,000
524
2 – between $100,000 and $500,000
3 = over $500,000
525
NL-E NS-E BC-E

Role of/relationship with sr govt 0.5 1 1
Role of/relationship with community 0.5 1 1
Governments and NGOs
Role of/relationship with private sector 0.5 1.5 1
Role of/relationship with post-secondary 1.5 1.5 1.5
Role of/relationship with global actors 0.5 1 0
# of organizations in network 3 2 1
Est. # of org.s have interacted with/yr (% of 1 3 2
total actors)
Communications program 1 2 2
10.5/20 15/20 10.5/20
Weak – little interaction or majority suggest relationships are poor/needs significant

improvement (0)
Mixed – conflicting responses and/or some positive aspects with areas for improvement, short-
term vs. ongoing relationship, limited in scope of collaboration (1)
Strong – majority said relationships are positive, parties work well together, ongoing relationship,
diverse scope (2)

1000-1499 2 11-24% 2
See Appendix 5 for details on relationships.
526
Appendix 11 - RED Policies and Programs in Canada
Roy (2003) describes the early approach to addressing regional inequity in Canada
as a passive one, with a focus in the 1940s on revenue transfers to the provinces through
equalization payments. Programs were also initiated in this early era to address problems
in particular sectors, such as the Depression-era Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act of 1935
and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1949 (Blake 2003). Although not specifically
designed for this purpose, post World War II personal transfer payments such as Old Age
Pensions, Unemployment Insurance, and Family Allowances, along with federally funded
infrastructure, helped bolster struggling regional economies.
The late 1950s saw a shift to a more deliberate federal effort to develop regional
economies. A 1957 Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects stressed that
twenty years of economic growth had not been shared equitably across the country,
particularly with the Atlantic region. Equalization payments were insufficient to address
this gap. The Commission recommended capital investment in rural communities and
migration of displaced workers to Central and Western Canada. A series of programs
followed, from support for large hydroelectric and other capital projects to the
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Rural Development Act (ARDA), the first explicit
national rural development program (Blake 2003). The solution, it seemed, was to
modernize resource and agricultural development and pursue import substitution through
the manufacturing sector (RCUEN 1986).
By the late 1960s, the emphasis shifted towards building social and economic
infrastructure and training for non-primary industries, particularly in regional growth
poles. Calls for greater coordination of the various federal programs and between federal
and provincial levels led to the creation of the Department of Regional Economic
Expansion (DREE) to coordinate federal efforts and establish General Development
Agreements with the provinces, with DREE and other federal departments as planning
partners. Despite a largely top-down federal approach, early experiments with
community-based, bottom-up approach were introduced, such as the Company of Young
Canadians and the Local Initiatives Program. One long-time government employee
explains ―how government supports CED, it has a lot to do with the intersection of
government and community… up until the mid to late 60s there was no intersection.
People would go to the government offices; they would stand in line...‖ The Company of
Young Canadians placed young volunteers in communities to encourage and support
community development. The program helped to ―avoid the social unrest caused by
unemployed youth that was being experienced in other countries‖ (Roy and Wong 1998)
but was also a ―catalyst in the struggle for human rights, native rights, women‘s rights
and grass-roots politics—all new concepts in 1967‖ (Berton 1997, 186). Observers also
refer to early horizontal program delivery approaches where, for example, five agencies
would jointly fund one office or worker in small rural communities. Despite these efforts,
the results in terms of addressing disparities were limited and by the late 1970s regional
development fell out of favour.
The 1980s was a decade of profound change, coming out of a recession influenced
by the election of the Mulroney Conservative government along with structural changes
such as deindustrialization, the rise of the service sector, new technologies, growth in
newly industrializing countries, escalating costs of production and changing trading
patterns. Megaprojects and market-driven continental rationalization though free trade
527
were the proposed solutions of the day98. Sustainable development had emerged as an
alternative but was unable to challenge the vision of unregulated free enterprise. The 1982
Constitution Act committed the Government of Canada to ―furthering economic
development to reduce disparity in opportunities‖ and ―providing essential public services
of reasonable quality to all Canadians‖ (Desjardins et al., 29). The challenge of fulfilling
this commitment posed a dilemma for a government that espoused free trade policies as
opposed to traditional tools such as subsidies, differential pricing or purchasing policies.
Savoie (1992) describes a shift to competitive federalism rather than the cooperative
federalism that had facilitated 1970s federal-provincial agreements.
The result was the establishment of federally controlled but regionally located
(―decentralized‖) development agencies in Atlantic (Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency - ACOA), Northern Ontario (FedNor) and Western Canada (Western
Diversification - WD) in 1987. Under the Western Economic Diversification Act (1985),
for example, Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) is mandated to "promote
the development and diversification of the economy of Western Canada and to advance
the interests of Western Canada in national economic policy, program and project
development and implementation" (WD 2004). Support is provided for projects in
innovation; information and communications technology; trade and tourism; business and
community development; access to capital; skills development; retention and attraction of
youth (Goldenburg 2008). Goldenburg (2008) observes that these agencies have moved
from a more traditional approach using economic and enterprise development instruments
to a wider variety of approaches, including support for innovation and commercialization,
CED, the social economy, and community capacity building.
Community Futures organizations have become a vehicle used by these agencies
to meet their mandates. The Community Futures Program was first established in 1986 by
Employment and Immigration Canada (now Service Canada) to support CED and help
local organizations address their own local problems. The program built on the success of
an earlier Local Economic Development Agency program (Savoie 1992). Targeting areas
with low employment, incomes and/or education levels, the program sought to address
the criticism that many past regional development programs had not met the needs of
rural Canada. By the early 1990s, however, with Labour Market Development
Programming funded under the Employment Insurance (EI) account and measurements of
success became centred on individual workers, their return to work and savings to the
account. As a result, cuts were made to longer term CED programs that had fewer short-
term, measurable job creation and human resources outcomes. By 1995 the agency
became reconfigured as Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) and
responsibility for the Community Futures program had been transferred to federal
regional development agencies. There are now 250 CFDCs and CBDCs across Canada,
including 41 CBDCs in rural Atlantic Canada (Blake 2003).
As of 1996, under a new Employment Insurance Act, HRDC (now Human
Resources and Social Development Canada and Service Canada) also transferred some of
its responsibilities to the provinces through Labour Market Development Agreements.
The Agreements provide resources from the EI Program to support labour market
development. In PEI and the Yukon, programs are co-managed rather than provincially
98
The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in Jan. 1989 with promises that it would provide
opportunities for disadvantaged regions that could then develop their natural north-south linkages.
528
operated. In NL the LMDA is currently being taken over by the provincial government. In
addition Aboriginal Human Resources Development Agreement holders deliver labour
market programming to Aboriginal Canadians in over 400 locations across the country.
HRDC has also played a significant role in supporting restructuring during times of
employment crises, such as the 1990s cod closure in NL and salmon fishery restructuring
in BC. A 1999 internal audit and October 2000 Report of the Office of the Auditor
General, however, found ―serious and widespread problems in HRDC's systems and
practices for managing grants and contributions.‖ Regulations and procedures associated
with Service Canada funding have since been significantly more rigid.
Industry Canada has provided important infrastructure support to rural and
northern regions while Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has contributed to fisheries
adjustment programs and incorporated economic considerations and objectives in coastal
planning (Chapter 7). The efforts of both departments are consistent with the Federal
Framework for Action in Rural Canada and Canadian Rural Partnership. The Framework
was launched in 1998, providing an overall federal approach to supporting rural
development and reconnecting government with rural Canadians. A Rural Lens is
intended to ensure that programs, services and policies are appropriate for rural
Canadians (Baker 2003). Strategic investments to improve the well-being of rural and
remote Canadians have been identified and Rural Teams established. The Teams, an
example of horizontal governance, are generally Co-Chaired by federal RED agencies. In
BC, one member explains, the Team includes an array of provincial ministries, is Co-
Chaired by provincial and WD representatives and has a staff member funded half time
by Agriculture Canada and half time by Service Canada. The Team has sponsored rural
dialogues throughout the province, holding sessions with women and youth, by region
and industry, with various departments contributing financial resources.
Baker (2003) and others are sceptical however, that the initiative will lead to
significant change, despite the requirement for annual reports to Parliament on the
government`s progress in meeting rural and remote Canadians‘ needs and priorities. Roy
(2003) adds that many of the expressed commitments to collaborative, bottom-up
approaches through the 1990s have amounted to little more than rhetoric. Collaborative
programs remain challenged by lack of investment, understanding and involvement.
Public expenditure on labour market programs in Canada is low in comparison with other
OECD countries and the country‘s fiscal imbalance fosters top-down federal initiatives,
limiting provincial and local involvement in decision-making (Roy and Wong 1998,
Greenwood 2005). Markey et al. (2005) contend that community and regional
development models continue to require government initiative, expertise, and resources.
Rather than finding a balance of top-down and bottom-up direction and initiative,
however, communities often feel like they are ‗on their own‘. Coordination of agencies
and programs also remains a concern. Savoie (1992) reports, for example, that there are
over 400 federal and provincial programs providing small business support in Canada.
Blake (2003, 204) argues that ―there has never been in Canada a coherent well-articulated
policy for the development of rural Canada.‖ The ability of Canadian governments to
alleviate regional disparities based on the strategies employed to date has been limited,
although with some successes and lessons for the future.
Specific milestones and regional development programs associated with each of
the eras discussed above and in Chapter 6 are outlined in the table below:
529
Name Years Regions Details
Rowell-Sirois 1940 Canada
Commission
Royal Commission on 1957 Canada
Canada‘s Economic
Prospects (Gordon
Commission)
Winter Works 1958-59, Atlantic
programmes 1959-60
Local Initiatives 1971-1977 Canada Work programs for unemployed workers,

Program (LIP) projects not be profit-oriented, to provide useful
services or facilities to communities
Canada Works 1977-1980
Canada Employment 1980-1983 Slow growth Comprehensive direct job creation program in
Program - Canada areas, projects of continuing value to the communities
Community primarily
Development Projects Atlantic and
Quebec
Atlantic Province Late 1950s Atlantic Payment in addition to the regular equalization
Adjustment Grants payments for large hydroelectric development
and other capital projects
Agricultural 1961 Rural areas - first explicit policy to create a national
Rehabilitation and program for rural development
Rural Development Act Expanded - to raise farm incomes and make farm land
(ARDA) 1963 more productive
- Minister empowered to develop agreements
Agricultural and Rural 1966 with the provinces
Development Act - program lacked a clear focus and had a
(name change) modest impact
- 729 projects (with a value of $61 million)
Special ARDA program 1971-1989 initiated by 1965, - little to suggest they were
part of a comprehensive development program
- 1963 shifted focus from largely individual
and unrelated agricultural assistance projects to
a more systematic and coordinated regional
development strategy
- 1966 expanded to include non-agricultural
programs in rural areas, designed to absorb
surplus labour from farming
- Special ARDA federal-provincial cost share,
focus on First Nations
Atlantic Development 1962-1969 Atlantic - first economic strategy for the region
Board - staffed by individuals from several federal
departments
Atlantic Development - $186 million to develop and improve basic
530
Fund economic infrastructure, over half spent on
highway construction and water and sewage
Replaced with Atlantic systems, some for electrical generating and
Development Council 1969- transmission facilities and to service new
(advisory) industrial parks
- not able to create and implement a
comprehensive plan gearing expenditures
towards specific targets
- failed to deliver a comprehensive regional
development plan
- accusations of use as a political tool
Areas Development 1963 - encouragement of ‗industrial development in
Authority and Areas areas of chronic
Development unemployment on a planned basis‘ by providing
Incentives Act for tax relief incentive and cash grants to
industry
- incentives were given to industry without any
effective attempt to specify what objectives were
being pursued
- use of growth pole model
Fund for Rural 1966-1969 Gaspé - $50 million to be applied only in areas with
Economic Development Peninsula, widespread low incomes and major problems of
(FRED) Que., two economic adjustment, lacking in social capital,
regions in NB, education, and wealth
all of PEI, - separate and comprehensive development plans
parts of developed for each regions to invest in
northern infrastructure and industry
Manitoba
Cape Breton 1967- Cape Breton To fill the economic void left by the decline of
Development Corp. the coal and steel industries
(DEVCo.) - incentives to attract new firms
- mine modernization, coal-fired power
- business operation, financing and support
PEI Comprehensive 1969-1981 PEI Infrastructure, incentive grants, market studies
Development Plan
Department of Regional 1969-1982 1) all but BC, - pinnacle of integrated planning
Economic Expansion Alberta and - coordinating various federal programs in
(DREE) Ontario RED under a powerful Minister
south of the - two-pronged approach:
Special Areas Program Ottawa River 1) industrial incentive program, providing
capital assistance to encourage companies to
2) ‗special locate in ‗less-favoured‘ areas of the country
areas‘ (growth 2) comprehensive development of educational
centres) training facilities, industrial parks, the
construction of housing, the provision of a
range of social and health services, and the
creation of jobs in services or manufacturing
- funded and administered in federal-provincial
partnership, mostly federal $
- criticism of central control
531
General Development 1974-1981 Provincial, all - comprehensive agreements to stimulate growth
Agreements (GDAs) but PEI in depressed areas, involved DREE, the
provinces and other federal departments as
Economic and Regional planning partners
Development 1981- - shifted attention from rural development
Agreements (ERDAs) towards regional urban industrial development,
growth poles
- moved to more project-based funding
- ERDAs delivered directly by federal vs.
provincial agencies, joint planning, programs
and projects could be federally delivered
―Social service state‖ 1965-75 Government transfers to individuals increased
by 400%
Company of Young 1966-1976 - community focus
Canadians - young volunteers trained in "social animation"
- arm‘s length from the government (re-
- replaced by summer organized 1970)
student employment - mandate to encourage social, economic and
programs 1977-present community development
- affiliation with revolutionary activity, attempt
to ―co-opt radical youth‖
Ministry of State for 1982-1984 Canada Co-ordinate federal action to encourage and
Economic and Regional foster regional and rural development, made all
Development (MSERD) departments of government responsible for
regional development
- currently each agency has a Minister
Industrial and Labour 1981 Ont., NS, NB Funding to help urban areas with economic
Adjustment Program communities adjustment, for restructuring, retraining and
mobility (urban community focus)
Department of Regional 1982 Canada To wind down DREE, deliver a regional
Industrial Expansion industrial program based on a "development"
(DRIE) index that classified all regions into four
categories of need
Local Economic 1980-1983 Through DREE and EIC
Development - involved local business and other interests in
Assistance (LEDA) stimulating local enterprise development
- funded planning and operation of community-
Local Employment 1983-1986 Communities based corporations to provide technical support
Assistance and with pop and financial assistance
Development (LEAD) 50,000 or less - LEAD funded infrastructure projects,
enterprise projects, or LEAD corporations,
depending on community needs and plans
ACOA, WD, FedNor, 1987- Atlantic, Regional agency support entrepreneurship,
CED-Q present Western, Ont., innovation, technological and community
Que development
Canadian Jobs Strategy Introduced as part of the Government of
- Community Futures Canada‘s Canadian Jobs Strategy (1985) to
initiative 1986- 80% of provide CED tools to rural communities dealing
present Canada with economic change and labour-force
adjustment
532
ECBC 1988- Cape Breton Split from DEVCo. to promote non-coal
present activities in Cape Breton, financing and
industry development
The Atlantic 1994-1998 $1.9 billion adjustment program, followed by
Groundfish Strategy another $730 million package to assist with
(TAGS) - post TAGS retraining and restructuring adjustments for
package 1998- displaced workers
Pacific Salmon 1996- BC fishing Included Fisheries Legacy Trust investment fund
Revitalization Strategy communities/ owned by the Coastal CFDCs, with loans to
regions impacted communities, and a $27 million
Community Economic Adjustment Initiative
(CEAI)
Softwood Lumber 2003-2005 Softwood Through Industry Canada, delivered in BC by
Strategy dependent WD in partnership with CFDCs, resulted in over
regions $50 million in investment in projects across rural
BC through a Softwood Industry Community
Economic Adjustment Initiative (SICEAI).
Transitional Jobs Fund 1996-2000 areas with
and Canada Jobs Fund 12%+
unemployment
Labour Market 1996- Canada Encourage, support and facilitate human
Development present resource planning and labour market
Agreements adjustments: co-managed in NL, PEI and
Yukon, others transferred to provinces (NL
transfer planned for 2009/2010)
Smart Communities
Broadband for Rural 2002-

and Northern
Development Pilot
Program
Source: Baker (2003), Mulvin (2007), Savoie (1992), Roy and Wong (1998), Desjardins, Hobson
and Savoie (2004), Hodge and Robinson (2001), Hamilton and Butler (2001).
533
BC Regional Development Summary from Markey et al. (2008)
Date Model Description
1950s- Province Building: Roads  Province building: economic expansion, infrastructure and
1970s to Resources access to resources;
 Re-organization of the provincial ministries and their
mandates;
 Built upon work of the Post-War Reconstruction
Committee.
1987- Ministers of State and  Regional districts established and assigned a Minister of
1992 Regional Development State;
Officers (RDO)  Regional offices opened in eight regions, consisting of
Minister of Regional regional development officer (RDO), a regional
Economic Development development liaison officer (RDLO) and clerical staff;
(1989)  Mandate to establish regional priorities, implement
government programs, and conduct evaluations and
reporting.
1993- Regional Economic  Five regional offices established with Regional Economic
1996 Development Offices Development Officers (REDOs);
 REDOs responsible for a more community-based approach
towards economic development and implementation of
government programs.
1998- Northern Development  NDC Established by the Northern Development Act and
2001 Commission (NDC) headed by a Commissioner supported by five staff servicing
three northern regions;
 NDC mandate for advocacy and consultation with small
fund available to assist development projects.
1999- Ministry of Community  Variety of community economic development programs
2001 Development, and transition funds.
Cooperatives, and
Volunteers
2000+  Northern Caucus  Macro environment: tax reductions, deregulation, labour
 Community Charter flexibility;
 Heartland‘s Strategy  Tourism (especially the 2010 Olympics);
 Northern Development  Transportation;
Initiative  First Nations support;
 Regional Trusts  Sector marketing and support;
 Northern Development Initiative Trust.

(adapted from Lax et al., 2001)
From Coe (2006):
Post-2000 regional initiatives include: Task Force on Community Opportunities, Building

Stronger Communities (2006), Cariboo Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition, Omineca
Beetle Action Coalition, Okanagan Partnership, Columbia Basin Trust, Northern
Development Initiative Trust (2004), Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust,
North Island - Coast Development Initiative Trust
534
The Task Force on Community Opportunities recognized the specific needs of resource
communities and the need for customized approaches. One example is the
Provincial/Peace River Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which addresses the
unique situation in the Peace River region in relation to the dispersed oil and gas industry.
In the Peace River Regional District, for a variety of reasons, the property tax system is
incapable of delivering industrial property tax revenues to the region‘s local governments
in ordinary ways. Local governments have therefore faced financial challenges in meeting
service and infrastructure demands associated with oil and gas development. The MOU is
designed to replace revenues that are otherwise not available to Peace River local
governments through industrial property taxes. It does this by providing an annual
provincial transfer to the signatories. While recognizing that the Peace River Regional
District is unique, the Task Force sees some merit in exploring servicing and taxation
issues in other resource dependent regions or sectors.
The $50 million North Island-Coast Development Initiative Trust was created in
September 2005. The trust model builds on the success of the U.S./Canadian Columbia
Basin Trust established in 199 and diverts resource revenues into the trust that provide
stable financing to RED efforts (Markey et al. 2006). North Island-Coast Development
Initiative Trust Funds are managed by a Board of Directors consisting largely of
municipal and provincial political representatives, with additional representatives
appointed by the Province. The region includes Sunshine Coast as well as Central-North
Island communities.
Goldenberg (2008):
The British Columbia Resort Municipality Initiative provides resort-oriented

municipalities with new finance, development and business promotion tools to enhance
the resort sector and promote tourism in the province. Areas of the province may be
designated as a Resort Region, qualifying local governments for finance, development
and business promotion tools, including transfers, by agreements with Resort Bodies, up
to 4% of the 8% Provincial Hotel Room Tax (HRT) generated within the Region to the
designated Resort Body for the development of their tourism economies.
The Community Charter provides authority for municipalities to exempt property from
municipal property taxes for up to 10 years under a revitalization program where property
owners may contribute to environmental revitalization, investment and employment,
social revitalization; conservation of heritage property, or neighbourhood rejuvenation.
The Province also has a venture capital program, a fund for Aboriginal business, grants
for infrastructure and small communities and partnerships with the federal government on
programs such as the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund and Urban Development
Agreements.
The BC Task Force on Community Opportunities (2006) pointed to several problems

with RED in BC, including: lack of attention to economic development by local
government structures, regional economies that operate at scales beyond local
535
government boundaries, challenges of developing partnerships between different regional
interests, and lack of economic rewards from development efforts. Markey et al. (2006)
further identify lack of control of local resources, conflicts between three to five year
government policy horizons and the long-term development process, and lack of
meaningful bottom-up direction. Despite, and even because of, these common constraints,
Markey et al. (2006) argue that a sense of regional identity has been strengthened in rural
and northern regions.
Alberta
In Alberta the first Regional Economic Development Alliance was established in 1998;
now there are 10 Regional Economic Development Alliances and two metro initiatives
(involving a total of 230 Alberta communities). These organizations are strategic alliances
of the provincial and municipal governments and community and business leaders
intended to promote business and community development on a regional basis. [see
www.alberta-canada.com/regionalDev/reda.cfm]. There is also a Northern Alberta
Development Council in the province.
Saskatchewan from Stabler (1996):

The Province of Saskatchewan has recently initiated a program in which local
communities and rural municipalities are encouraged to voluntarily form Regional
Economic Development Authorities (REDAs). The REDAs consist of contiguous rural
jurisdictions, approximating local labour market areas, which include at least one
community in the top four functional levels of the trade centre system. This is an
important first step in redefining the rural governance structure in that province.
From Goldenberg (2008):

Saskatchewan has 28 Regional Economic Development Authorities currently operating in
the province. Introduced as part of Saskatchewan‘s Partnership for Renewal Strategy in
1992, Regional Economic Development Authorities are a ―priority for the government
and a key component of Saskatchewan‘s continued economic growth.‖ [see
www.ir.gov.sk.ca/] The purpose of a Regional Economic Development Authority is to
allow communities and organizations to join together in cooperative and coordinated
ventures to promote economic development in their region. The provincial government
provides cost shared funds to help Regional Economic Development Authorities form and
cost-shared funding is also available to assist established Authorities in building their
service capacities and forming partnerships with provincial government departments and
the cooperative and private sectors in joint projects supporting job creation and economic
growth and investment. The provincial government also provides professional and
business development services and technical expertise to Regional Economic
Development Authorities and is currently examining government support programs for
business, and where appropriate, redesigning them so that these programs can be
delivered by Authorities.
Ontario from Goldenburg (2008):

Ontario‘s Rural Economic Development (RED) Program has focused on community
revitalization; improved access to health care services; and skills training and
enhancement as initial priorities. Projects are cost-shared, with the provincial government
536
(normally up to 50 per cent of the project‘s eligible cost). The Program also has a
Business Retention and Expansion (BR+E) component, including a Business Retention
and Expansion (BR+E) Tool Kit and Community-readiness Checklist. Other Government
of Ontario initiatives range from traditional business and economic development support
to rural community development and innovation initiatives. Ontario‘s Commercialization
Network (OCN) is a series of twelve regional commercialization nodes, a ―network of
networks‖ to facilitate cooperation and sharing of best practices within the province. The
GO North Investors Program helps northern communities attract and retain jobs and
investment and the Canada-Ontario Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (COMRIF)
helps provide infrastructure investments that support long-term economic growth and
sustainable communities. The program is a partnership between the Government of
Canada, the Government of Ontario, and Ontario municipalities.
Quebec From Goldenberg 2008:

The Quebec Government has a variety of programs to provide financial assistance to
community organizations to support such their efforts to foster community development,
including local economic development and social economy activities. Funding is
provided under three-year agreements. Other policies and instruments to support rural and
regional development include support for economic development, enterprise
development, and the social economy; initiatives to foster community development and
capacity building; tax incentives and measures; and initiatives to promote innovation and
commercialization.
Quebec‘s ACCORD (Action concertée de cooperation régionale de développement

[concerted action for regional development co-operation]) program supports the
development of regional niches of innovation and excellence and providing financial
support for community development corporations for community and volunteer action.
The program promotes the development of intra-regional and inter-regional industrial
networks, with regional agreements signed to support the implementation of action plans.
The program also makes specialized consulting firms available to conduct studies on
trends and market opportunities and offers technical assistance in structuring financing
and financial assistance under various programs.
Financial support is also available for regions and municipalities experiencing serious
economic difficulties, notably in the case of single-industry regions, to assist in economic
diversification and development. The maximum level of support that can be provided is
90% of total eligible costs.
The Province has a Rural Pact Policy on Rural Development, under which five year
funding agreements are negotiated with Quebec‘s 21 regional county municipalities to
support sustainable development and community well-being and development. Overall, in
2005-2006, the Quebec Government granted $634.7 million to community organizations
under 63 community organization programs or financial support measures administered
by some 20 government departments and agencies.
537
Federally funded Community Business Development Corporations (CBDCs) also operate
in parts of Quebec (and Ontario), along with and Community Economic Development
Corporations (CEDCs) in disadvantaged urban areas.
PEI
Agencies involved in economic development in PEI include:
Provincial
 Enterprise PEI, a provincial agency with outlets in most Regional Service Centres,
staffed by regional development officers;
Federal/provincial
 The Canada/Prince Edward Island Business Services Centre, a joint federal-
provincial operation, provides information on government business services from
five community resource sites;
 ACOA, in cooperation with the provincial Department of Economic Development
and Tourism, is responsible for Prince Edward Island's four community-based
development corporations.
Regional
 Prince Edward Island's Community Development Corporations:
o The Western Development Corporation (Bloomfield, serving West
Prince);
o The Central Development Corporation (Central Bedeque, serving East
Prince);
o Opportunities East Inc., (serving Kings Co.) and;
56
o The Baie Acadienne Development Corporation (Wellington)
 are run by local boards and assist small businesses and prospective entrepreneurs
with counselling, mentoring and financial assistance.
Cousins (1999) suggests: ―There are also a large number of rural and community
development corporations across the province.‖
New Brunswick from Hodge and Robinson (2001) and Bruce (2008):
The province adopted an integrated provincial development approach in the 1960s and
70s with multiple economic development efforts. Seven planning regions were
established, undertaking federally sponsored projects. Large provincial investments are
also described, including the failed Bricklin automobile venture. ―New Brunswick had
development commissions in place, they were more like industrial commissions, and they
brought those forward up until one to two years ago when the Premier implemented a
broader community based economic development model...‖ Today the province has 15
Enterprise Agencies.
538
International examples of RED programs include:
- Scotland‘s Highland and Islands Enterprise/Local Enterprise Corps.

- Local Area Groups under LEADER
- UK Development Trusts and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)
- Alaska Regional Development Organization program (ARDORs)
- Australia Sustainable Regions Program
- New Zealand Regional Partnerships
539
Appendix 12 - Watershed Management Models
NS-W NL-W BC-W

Initiation Grand Narrows and Community/RDAs, 1988 First Nations/DFO, 1987
District Board of IBEC formed, incorporated NRMB formed, inactive 1990-
Trade 1985, Env. 1995 1997
Canada 1987, UCCB
1989/1995, First - 1970s efforts by ‗Namgis
Nations-EFWC 1991, (enhancement, fisheries
BSS 1997, UINR and restrictions)
SCI 1999, CEPI 2003
Geographic 3600 km sqr - 2500 1000 km sqr. -700-750 sqr km 2226 km sqr (2003 plan) -
scale land and freshwater, drainage 1780 sqr km drainage, 550 sqr
1100 marine Largest lake – 11 sqr km km major tributaries, lakes
Note: 1 km sqr Largest lake - 36.5 sqr km
= 100 ha (Gander 5000 km sqr) Estuary - 13.7 km2
20 sub-basins
Population/ 200+ shoreline 2 in watershed (pop 1,361), 6 communities, pop 5,100 (2
communities comm.s, all under 12 communities regular users/ with 1,000+)
1,000 except engaged in WM (pop 20,434
Eskasoni, pop 22,000 in 2001; 6 with pop 1000+)
Reasons for Resource (primarily Resource decline (fish) Resource decline (fish)
initiation fish) and water
quality decline
Watershed Culture/traditional Recreation and culture Logging, tourism and
uses use, tourism and (social, traditional use), cabin recreation, culture/ traditional
recreation, fisheries, dev‘t, logging, tourism, use, some cabin/housing dev‘t
aquaculture, forestry, agriculture (ltd)
mining, marine
transport, agriculture,
urban/cottage dev‘t
Pressing issues Sewage, invasive Overfishing, logging (habitat, Ocean survival, logging,
species, overfishing, access), poaching, overfishing
- Fish focus, habitat damage recreational cabins and
motivating vehicles, issues re. municipal Cultural revival
factor Economy, education, water supply Employment
youth out-migration,
health risks/care, Preserving a way of life,
decision-making, economy
partnerships
Governance Diffused Concentrated Semi-Concentrated
- many groups - one group recognized by - one key group with others
- few strong ones, senior government and also acting independently but
esp FNs largely by community connected through committee
- connected through - grassroots voting model membership and
committees and - less emphasis on communication
loose networks governance partnerships,
- seeking new more more on funding and projects
structured
540
mechanism
Structure Network of various One primary non-profit Multi-stakeholder committee
orgs and committees, society/corp., other associated (uninc) with other formally
UINR as secretariat interests loosely associated connected orgs & initiatives,
for CEPI, Pitupaq - Board/staff subcommittees management committee and
technical working group
Activities Economic focus: FNs Economic focus: Economic focus: work in
(actions and fishing licenses, Work projects (maintenance restoration for FNs
orientations) protecting/restoring and infrastructure), research
fisheries centre development, training Ecological focus:
Note: for local students Habitat restoration and
Ecological Ecological focus: fisheries enhancement,
focus but Mapping and Ecological focus: habitat mapping and research, fishing
strongly research (baseline, cleanup, reduced bag limits and forestry restrictions
motivated by fisheries, water and seasons, logging buffers,
other reasons quality), sewage stock assessment and research Social/cultural focus:
improvements, maintenance of fishing and
stopping habitat Social/cultural focus: opportunities, presence on the
damage, no maintenance of fishing and land base
discharge, fisheries recreation opportunities
closures (lobbying/
advice to mgrs)
Social/cultural focus:
maintenance of
fishing and recreation
opps
 New sewage  Litter clean-up  Restored habitat but still
Ecological treatment plant  Reduced bag limits fluctuating returns
outcomes  No discharge  Increased enforcement  Employment and pride of
designation  Increased buffers FNs, involvement in
 Fisheries closures  Needed trout info managing territory
Overall: some early Overall: some improvement, Overall: salmon returns not
signs of improvement, particularly with litter improving, some improvements
continued declines in removal, trout size in forestry practices noted
some species
541
Resources Available
NS-W NL-W BC-W

Volunteer SCI coordinating committee: 38 12 22-40 (annual meeting
Board SCI field team: 34 (2002) – full membership)
UINR: 5 chiefs, Pitupaq: 10
CEPI committee: 21 (2005)
Annual 2001/02 Marshall Agreement – 2001: $302,000 2003: $603,500
Budget commitment of over $3 million 2002: $276,000 2004: 268,000
to EFWC 2005: approx. $450,000 + Gwan‘i Hatchery
SCI 2004: 300K (50% BD) est. $220,000 + approx. $322,000
CEPI 2005: 250K infrastructure
Pitupaq 2003: 200K+ federal Total ‗03: $925,500
(income Dec.-June $198,185) ACOA over $2 million 2004: $590,000
UINR 2004: 697,391 since 1997
2005: 1.3 million 1997-2001 FRBC
2006: 1.8 million habitat restoration
EFWC: 230K AFS + 1 million commitment over $1
fishing income million (Berry 2002
Total: approx. $3 million (2005) suggests total
spending of 2.7
million on restoration)
Funding SCI: federal and provincial cost 2005 2003
share (federal majority) DFO $10,000 (2%) FIA $235,000 (25%)
Note: ACOA $368,950 (84%) ($130-160,000 2004)
Full UINR: 2004: federal 55%, ITRD $23,000 (5%)
financial forestry 27%, UNSI 13%; 2005: HRSD $34,794 (8%) Foundations: (28%)
info. not federal (DFO, INAC) and $180,000 PSEF
available provincial (52%), forestry and Total 436,744 50,000 Vanc. Fdtn.
for the mining royalties (44%), 30,000 PSF
same contracts/misc (2%), CBU 2% Federal 94% ,
year in all $ 10K ASW,
cases Pitupaq: Dec.-June 2003 federal $ 6K HCTF,
(2003- 96.5%, 2.5% municipal, 0.5% 2006 $ 24 Canfor (3%)
2005 each First Nations and prov‘l – ACOA 308,800
range) prov‘l 50% of coordinator costs HRSD $45,000 Federal: (41%)
in 2005 ITRD $35,530 $ 5K HRDC
DFO $10,000 $ 52K DFO
CEPI Jan 05: federal 59% Gwani – DFO/NFN
confirmed, 30% prov, 4% NGO, $322,000
3% UCCB, 3% FN + EFWC
contributions/ research and $ 15K KTFC
related activities (AFS, federal
contracts + fishing income) 2002/03:
$30K HCTF
2005 overall: fed‘l and prov‘l
44%, resource revenues 52%, 4%
other
Staff 30-40 EFWC (2004) 6 regular (2 FT, 4 1 BC-W, 5 assessment
542
11 Pitupaq (2003) seasonal), students/ + consultants, 10
4 SCI (= 2 Bras d‘Or) research associates (5), hatchery + restoration
12 UINR (2006) = 44-65 construction (8-10)= 20, temps = 16-20,
approx. 11 FTEs approx. 12 FTEs
Watershed Management Organizational Capacity Measures *
NS-W NL-W BC-W Comments

Planning 2 1 2 No NL-W business plan
since 1996 (IBCES only)
Annual reports 1 0 1 – Verbal + Not referred to interviews –
to funders UINR yes, SCI and
Pitupaq?
Monitoring and 1 (SCI) 0.5 1.5 Limited evaluation in all
evaluation three cases, BC-W M&E
constrained by resources
and methods/capability
Year started 1.5 2 2 Earlier efforts in Bras d‘Or
and Nimpkish but case
study orgs. began in 80s and
90s
# of actors in 2 2 1 See below
network
Service/activity 3 3 3 See mechanisms
domains
Website 2 1 0
Other public 1.5 1 1 NL-W and BC-W - Periodic
comm. vehicles news articles and annual
meetings open to the public,
no comm. plan but
extensive methods in NS-W
Board of 1.5 1.5 1 BC-W informal with MC,
Directors many on various BD boards
- loose overall
Volunteers 1.5 1.5 1
Staff 2 2 1
Budget 4 2 3
22.5/28 17.5/28 16.5/28
Converted to /20 16 12.5 12
* Each of these measures is dynamic and changes depending on the time period. Data is 2003/04
with the exception of websites, which were checked in 2007.
Planning 0 = no plans
1 = annual work plan
2 = 3-5 year plan incorporating stakeholder input
Annual report 0 = no report

1 = publicly available annual report with no financial report
543
2 = publicly available annual report with financial report
Evaluation program 0 = no evaluation program

1 = evaluation program under development
2 = well developed evaluation program (ideally with ongoing
improvement)
Year started 1 = 1997 – 2007

2 = 1987 – 1996
3 = Pre-1984
# of groups in network 1 = less than 100

2 = 50 – 199
3 = 200 +
# of service domains 1 = 1-2 domains

2 = 3-4
3 = five or more
Website 0 = no website
1 = website not updated/partially complete
2 = active, up-to-date website
Other public communication 0 = no other public communications initiatives

1 = occasional public information releases/efforts and/or one-time communications avenue
2 = communications strategy with multiple vehicles used
Board of Directors 0 = No Board

1 = Board with unfilled seats, no formal structure and/or limited
diversity/representation of major stakeholder
2 = Complete Board reflective of regional diversity
Volunteers 0 = No volunteers
1 = Board volunteers only
2 = Board + other volunteer involvement
Staff 0 = no paid staff

1 = 1-5 paid staff
2 = more than 5 paid staff
Operating Budget 1 = less than $100,000

2 – between $100,000 and $500,000
3 = over $500,000
4 = over $1,000,000
544
NS-W NL-W BC-W

sr govt
Role of/relationship
with community 2 1 1
(government and
NGOs)
Role of/relationship with 1.5 1 1.5
private sector
post-secondary
Role of/relationship with 1 1 0.5
global actors
# of organizations in 2 2 1
network
Est. # of org.s have 3 3 3
interacted with/yr (% of
total actors)
Communications 2 1 1
program
17.5/20 13/20 10/20
Weak – little interaction or majority of respondents suggest poor/needs significant improvement (0)
Mixed – Conflicting responses and/or some positive aspects with areas for improvement (1)
Strong – majority report relationships are positive, ongoing, diverse, parties work well together (2)

50-199 2 26-49% 2
See Appendix 5 for details on relationships.
545
Appendix 13 - Watershed Management Legislation, Policies and Programs in Canada
Transboundary and International

Name Year Details
U.S.-Canada Boundary 1909 Established to ―preserve levels and flows‖ of
Waters Treaty transboundary waters, leading to several watershed/river
basin initiatives
Sanitary Practices in 1948 Implemented through the Canadian Shellfish
the Shellfish Industries, Sanitation Program (CSSP) of Environment Canada in
Memorandum of collaboration with (DFO), the Canadian Food Inspection
Agreement Agency (CFIA) and some provincial governments and
other partners.
Columbia River Treaty 1964
Canada–U.S. Great 1972
Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
UN Convention on the 1982 Includes the duty of the state to protect the sea from land-
Law of the Sea based activities.
Pacific Salmon Treaty 1985 Canada and the United States signed the Pacific Salmon
Treaty to provide for optimum production and equitable
exploitation of salmon stocks. Each party is to receive
benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating
in its waters, and is to avoid undue disruption to the
other‘s fisheries. Bilateral agreements must be periodically
developed to implement the Treaty‘s principles for long-
term conservation and harvest sharing. The Pacific Salmon
Commission was established to advise both countries on
the implementation of Treaty provisions. Helps to manage
the complexity of mixed stock and intercepting
fisheries in Canada and the U.S.
Great Lakes Charter 1985 Recommended as an institutional framework for dealing
with diversions of water by a task force of the Council of
Great Lakes Governors. Led to the creation of Great Lakes
2000 in 1989 to fulfil Canada's commitments.
Ramsar Convention/ 1986 Has resulted in a number of Canadian estuary stewardship
North American programs. In Eastern Canada the Eastern Habitat Joint
Waterfowl Venture is the operational arm of the Waterfowl
Management Plan Management Plan, a partnership of the six eastern
provinces, Environment Canada, Ducks Unlimited Canada
and Wildlife Habitat Canada. Activities include
securement, promoting sustainable agriculture and forestry
land-use practices, wetland restoration and enhancement,
and community projects (NPA 2000).
Brundtland/World 1987
Commission on
Environment and
Development
UN Convention on 1992 Signed by more than 150 countries at the 1992 Earth
Biological Diversity Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Convention has three main
goals: (1) conservation of biodiversity; (2) sustainable use
546
of the components of biodiversity; and (3) fair and
equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the
commercial and other use of genetic resources
Conservation of 1992/93 Established the North Pacific Anadromous Fish
Anadromous Stocks in Commission (NPAFC). The NPAFC includes Canada,
the North Pacific Japan, the Republic of Korea, Russia, and the U.S., the
primary states of origin for salmon stocks in the North
Pacific. The Convention prohibits directed fishing for
salmonids on the high seas of the North Pacific and
includes provisions to minimize the number of salmonids
taken in other fisheries. The NPAFC promotes the
conservation of salmonids in the North Pacific and its
adjacent seas and serves as a venue for cooperation in and
coordination of enforcement activities and scientific
research.
UN Global Programme 1995 Signed by 108 governments including Canada. Requires
of Action for the NPAs with targets, timelines and political commitment to
Protection of the implementation.
Marine Environment
from Land-based
Activities (GPA)
Pacific Salmon 1999 Established abundance-based fishing regimes for salmon
Agreement fisheries. Created two bilaterally managed regional funds
to promote cooperation, improve fisheries management,
and assist salmon and habitat enhancement efforts.
Included a commitment by the two countries to improve
how scientific information is obtained, shared and applied
to management decisions.
Supplementary 2001 Committed Great Lakes states and provinces to prepare a
Agreement to the Great basin-wide binding agreement, establish a decision-
Lakes Charter making standard for review of proposals, develop public
(Implementing participation, decision-making and dispute-resolution
Agreements, 2005) mechanisms, collect common water use and management
data, coordinate research and data exchange, establish a
Water Resources Management Committee and a Great
Lakes Basin Water Resources Management Program.
Lakewide Management Plans consist of plan of actions to
assess, restore, protect and monitor the ecosystem health
of a Great Lake and have been developed for lakes Erie,
Ontario, Superior and Michigan. The Lake Huron
Binational Partnership was created to coordinate
environmental activities in the Lake Huron basin.
World Summit for 2002 Reaffirmation of Agenda 21 and Millennium Development
Sustainable Goals – eight targets to reduce poverty and promote
Development sustainable development. Goal 7 to ensure environmental
(Johannesburg) sustainability. Focused on partnerships as a viable
mechanism, complementing government action.
547
National
Name Year Responsible Details
Department/
Agency
Fisheries Act 1867 DFO The primary legislative basis for fisheries
management in Canada. Authorizes the Minister
to make decisions about the conservation of
fisheries resources and habitat, to establish and
enforce standards for conservation, and to
determine access to and allocation of the resource.
Sections 35 (prohibiting the harmful alteration,
disruption and destruction of fish habitat) and 36
(prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances
into waters frequented by fish) confer strong
powers to protect habitat.
Stewardship and 1970s- DFO Regional community advisors put community
Community groups together with DFO experts to work on
Involvement particular habitat problems; facilitate partnerships
Program between groups and help find funding
Canada Water Act 1970 Environment Provided a vehicle for provincial-federal
cooperation in water resource management.
Permits the federal Minister to enter into
agreements with the provinces s to collect data
and develop plans for major river basins.
Constitution Act, 1982 Protection provided to Aboriginal and treaty rights
Section 35
Policy for the 1985/86 DFO ―No Net Loss Policy‖ under the provisions of the
Management of Fisheries Act
Fish Habitat
Federal Water 1987 Provides a focus for water-related activities of all
Policy federal departments
Green Plan 1990 Environment Sets out environmental goals and programs,
Canada covering environment, health, fisheries, forestry,
agriculture and energy, involving other federal
departments and non-government partnerships
Atlantic Canada 1991 Environment The program identified nine (now 13-14) ―hot
Action Program Canada spots‖ and formed groups formed with multi-
stakeholder volunteer Boards of Directors,
$50,000 in annual operating funds and additional
project dollars. All are watershed and coastal zone
initiatives, including groups in Sydney, Nova
Scotia, St. John‘s and Humber Arm, NL.
Aboriginal 1992 DFO Provides resources for Aboriginal involvement in
Fisheries Strategy fisheries management
Accord for the 1996 Environment Under this agreement, the Canadian Endangered
Protection of Canada/DFO Species Conservation Council was created to
Species at Risk in determine responses to assessments made by the
Canada Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada (COSEWIC), the independent body of
548
scientists responsible for designating the status of
species.
Canadian 1995
Environmental
Assessment Act
Oceans Act 1997 DFO
Canada—British 1997 DFO
Columbia
Agreement on the
Management of
Pacific Salmon
Fishery Issues
Approach to Sets out broad principles and objectives for
Implementation of fisheries management, including opportunities for
the Inherent Right increased Aboriginal participation and
and the involvement in fisheries management
Negotiation of
Aboriginal Self-
Government
Gathering 1997 Canada Access to fisheries resources and decision-making
Strength— provides an opportunity to improve First Nations
Canada‘s economic and social circumstances, consistent
Aboriginal Action with the Action Plan
Plan
A New Direction 1998
for Canada‘s
Pacific Salmon
Fisheries
Marshall program 1999 The Supreme Court of Canada released its
decision in the Marshall case on September 17,
1999, stating that local Treaties signed in 1760
and 1761 by Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities
include a communal right to hunt, fish and gather
in pursuit of a "moderate livelihood." To address
the Government's obligations and pursue its
objective of increased self-reliance for First
Nations, DFO initiated a program aimed at
increasing Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities'
participation in the Atlantic commercial fishery.
Guiding principles included:
 respect for conservation,
 respect for the Treaty right,
 recognition of the interests of non-
Aboriginal fishers, and
 an orderly and regulated fishery.
With an allocation of $159.7M, DFO negotiated
interim fishing agreements to provide the
opportunity for First Nations to achieve success in
the commercial fishery, through increased
participation in fishing and a role in co-
549
management of the resource. Agreements were
negotiated with 30 out of 34 affected
communities. Recognizing that fishery access
alone is not sufficient to build sustainable
Aboriginal fishing enterprises, these agreements
included a range of capacity-building components.
Canadian 1999 (in Aimed at preventing pollution, protecting the
Environmental force environment and human health and contributing to
Protection Act 2000) sustainable development.
NPA for the 2000 Environment Two key strategies: pollution prevention and
Protection of the Canada integrated management of activities taking place
Marine in or affecting the coastal zone. The goals of the
Environment from NPA are to: protect human health and the
Land-Based environment, reduce degradation of the marine
Activities environment, remediate damaged areas, promote
conservation and sustainable use of marine
resources, and maintain the productive capacity
and biodiversity of the marine environment.
Canada‘s 2002 Endorsed by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial
Stewardship Resource Ministers. A plan for collaboration with
Agenda a national vision and operating principles, four
key goals and actions to recognize and empower
stewards.
Oceans Strategy 2002 DFO Based on three pillars: sustainable development,
the precautionary principle and integrated
management.
Freshwater 2002 DFO Includes a goal to engage Canadians in
Fisheries Strategy management and stewardship, guided by an
ecosystem approach
Canada‘s National 2003 Emphasizes ecosystem management and
Forest Strategy community engagement in SFM
Aboriginal Aquatic 2003 DFO To increase the organizational capacity of
Resource and Aboriginal communities so that they can be
Oceans effectively involved in the management of
Management fisheries, both at the community and aggregate
Program level
(AAROM)
Agricultural Policy 2003 Advancing Environmental Farm Plans

Framework
Species at Risk Act 2003 DFO (aquatic)/ Fulfills a national commitment under the UN
(SARA) Environment Convention on Biological Diversity. Requires
protection of species at risk and their habitats,
including the legal requirements to implement
automatic prohibitions, develop recovery and
action plans, plan and implement critical habitat
protection, and conduct consultations within
specified timelines. Listing a species or
population as Extirpated, Endangered or
Threatened under Schedule 1 of SARA is based
550
on recommendations in a COSEWIC Status
Report for the species. Conservation may involve
cooperative agreements with landowners and
stewardship action plans.
Atlantic Fisheries 2004 Offers a new vision of how the Atlantic fisheries
Policy Review/A can be managed. Objectives include conservation
Policy Framework and sustainable use and self-reliance. Gives
for the resource users a stronger role in the stewardship
Management of of the resource, delegation of certain fisheries
Fisheries on management responsibilities to users. DFO to be
Canada‘s Atlantic concerned primarily with developing policy,
Coast setting strategic direction and evaluating
performance vs. day-to-day activities. Promises
new advisory processes, a more inclusive
approach to policy planning; facilitated
Aboriginal participation in policy planning and
decision making; and support building capacity
for resource users to take on new responsibilities.
Canada‘s Policy 2005 The stated goal is to restore and maintain healthy
for Conservation of and diverse salmon populations and their habitats.
Wild Salmon It provides for incorporation of information on
ecosystems and ocean climate impacts in annual
assessments of salmon abundance.
Oceans Action 2005 Released after criticism for the slow pace of IM
Plan planning. Committed to the establishment of
planning forums that will work to ―better manage
oceans activities and to determine where special
measures are necessary to protect biologically and
ecologically productive areas‖ and to develop
―proactive means for First Nations involvement in
marine and coastal resource management at the
broader oceans management scale, as well as
within the smaller coastal community scale‖ (FOC
2005).
Alberta from Rush (2003)

A range of agencies play a role in watershed management in Alberta. The South
Saskatchewan River Basin Management Plan (1990), for example resulted in the creation
of four multi-stakeholder sub-basin advisory committees (BACs) and the adoption of a
1991 South Saskatchewan River Basin Regulation to support the policies reflected in the
Plan. The South Saskatchewan River Basin encompasses much of southeastern Alberta
and extends into south-central Saskatchewan, with 90% of its water flow generated from
the snow and glaciers of the Rocky Mountains and a population of approximately 1.5
million. The Oldman Basin is one subwatershed of this system, along with the Red Deer,
Bow and South Saskatchewan. The Oldman Basin is home to non-government initiatives
such as the Oldman River Basin Water Quality Initiative and planning by the Oldman
Inter-municipal Service Agency in addition to the Oldman River BAC.
551
According to Rowell and Ewaschuk (2003) approximately 60 groups are involved in
water and watershed management at local and basin levels in Alberta (see
www.albertawatersheds.org).
Other related provincial policies and plans include Water for Life: Alberta‘s Strategy for
Sustainability (2002), regional sustainable development strategies (2002) and provincial
Integrated Resource Plans that include watershed protection objectives.
Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan watershed stewardship groups, agencies and organization formed the
Saskatchewan Network of Watershed Stewards (SNOWS) to coordinate and support
watershed programs in the province. See www.snows.sk.ca. The Province of
Saskatchewan‘s Saskatchewan Watershed Authority participates in SNOWS, South
Saskatchewan River Basin Management, and the Prairie Provinces Water Board (see
below).
From Prairie Provinces Water Board (2004)

A Prairie Provinces Water Board was formed in 1948 under the Prairie Provinces Water
Board Agreement, including Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The work of the
Board, reconstituted in 1969, includes sharing the flow and responsibilities for the quality
of interprovincial streams in nine river basins (Churchill, North Saskatchewan, South
Saskatchewan, Battle and Lodge Creeks, Qu‘Appelle, Saskatchewan, Lakes, Assiniboine
and Souris River sub-basin). The Board has federal spending authority of up to $625,000
from funds committed under the Canada Water Act administered by Environment
Canada. As of 1995 Environment Canada took on the Secretariat function for the Board
In 2003 DFO launched the Stewardship in Action program in the prairie provinces to help
grow community stewardship capacity.
Manitoba
According to Rowell and Ewaschuk (2003) 16 Conservation Districts work in partnership
with and with support from the Province of Manitoba to carry out integrated resource
management within 60% of agro-Manitoba (see
www.gov.mb.ca/ia/programs/conservation_districts.html).
From Schroeder (2004)

In 2003 the Government of Manitoba announced a new Water Strategy, followed by the
formation of a new Department of Manitoba Water Stewardship. In 2004 a Water
Protection Act provided a framework for watershed planning and water quality
management in newly established water quality management zones. The 2003 Strategy
recognized that partnerships between a myriad of pre-existing organizations, programs,
activities and resources must be built to make watershed management effective and
developed a capacity building framework to build these partnerships and identify and fill
remaining gaps in watershed stewardship capacity.
552
From Manitoba (2007)
The Conservation Districts Program operates under the authority of The Conservation
Districts Act and provides for conservation, control and prudent use of resources by
establishing conservation districts in partnerships with the Province of Manitoba and its
municipalities. In place since 1976, the act governs conservation district (CD) formation
and allows municipalities to collect a levy that supports CD programs. Provincial cost-
share funding with conservation districts varies according to current policy. The
Conservation Districts Program now includes 18 CDs, covering 85 per cent of municipal
Manitoba. Since 1999, the number of CDs has doubled. An additional three CDs are
expected to be formed in the next three years.
The Conservation Districts Commission, established by The Conservation Districts Act,

develops and applies provincial policies that guide effective delivery of the Conservation
Districts Program. The commission is chaired by the deputy minister of Manitoba Water
Stewardship and its members include deputy ministers from Manitoba Conservation,
Manitoba Intergovernmental Affairs, Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation and
Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. It also includes representatives from
the Manitoba Conservation Districts Association and the Association of Manitoba
Municipalities.
• In 35 years, the CD program has not changed significantly, despite the fact that stresses
on water and land resources have increased substantially.
• The Water Protection Act came into force in 2005. It identifies conservation district
boards as entities that may be designated as water planning authorities to deliver
integrated watershed management planning (IWMP).
• The current expectation that Manitoba should provide three times the funds CDs raise
with annual levies is no longer sustainable. From 1972 to 1987, six variable cost-sharing
arrangements were in place, depending on the program. These cost-shares ranged from 90
per cent provincial and 10 per cent municipal to 60 per cent provincial and 40 per cent
municipal. A 1987 policy decision changed cost sharing to 75 per cent provincial and 25
per cent municipal for all programming.
• Provincial funding must be more clearly linked to the measurement of change rather
than the number of projects completed.
• Involvement of the CD Commission, conservation districts, Manitoba Conservation
Districts Association, First Nations, Manitoba Northern Affairs communities, Association
of Manitoba Municipalities, rural communities, and other stakeholders will move the CD
program into the future.
• Continued program expansion and new provincial directions have placed a demand for a
new mandate, demonstrated support of provincial priorities, broader governance, surface
water management, drainage infrastructure partnerships, integration of large urban centres
and a new funding formula that is fair and equitable.
The target is to implement the new strategic framework for the Conservation Districts
Program in the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
Ontario Conservation Authorities from Ivey (2002)

Number: 38 (mostly southern Ontario)
553
Size: 215-10,933 square km
Revenue (1998): $355,893-$31 million (59 million total p.a.)
Permanent staff: 3-205
Legislation: Conservation Authorities Act (1946)
Conservation authorities hold major responsibilities for research, planning and program
implementation in Ontario watersheds. Their mandate is to establish and undertake
programs for the ―conservation, restoration, development and management of natural
resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals‖. Activities include research, land
acquisition, construction of works such as reservoirs and dykes, controlling surface water
flows, reforestation, creating regulations, prescribing fees, permits and municipal levies,
watershed and subwatershed planning, agricultural and rural landowner assistance and
environmental education.
The Authorities were created in response to concerns about post-WWII employment and
―the possibility that environmental degradation could shortly impair economic
development in Ontario.‖ Three principles guided the program: 1) use of the watershed as
a resource management unit; 2) local leadership and initiative; and 3) provincial-
municipal partnerships.
Under the Conservation Authorities Act of the provincial legislature municipalities must
request the formation of an Authority, which may then be created by an order of the
Lieutenant Governor with the agreement of a minimum of two-thirds of the municipalities
within a watershed. Board members are appointed by municipalities, although they may
be appointed from outside of municipal councils.
Operations are funded through municipal levies, senior government grants, and self-
generated revenues. Costs range from $0.25 to $37.40 per hectare (1997-1999). Between
1995 and 1997 operating grants to CAs from the Ministry of the Environment were cut by
42% due to cutbacks, the Province now funding only projects of core provincial interest
such as flood control.
See Ivey (2002) for a case study of the Maitland Valley Conservation Authority, covering
a 3,260 sqr. km area..
O‘Grady (2004) suggests seven key lessons from the experiences of the South Nation
River Conservation Authority: 1) full public participation, including establishing a sense
of watersheds as ―place‖ and a sense of control over what happens in the watershed; 2)
better communication and use of words and ideas that are useful to local residents; 3)
greater attention to implementation of planning recommendations; 4) the need for
statutory support for watershed planning (legal recognition of watershed as place); 5)
government funding is not a requirement; 6) planning involves political decision-making;
7) success must be measured in decades not years.
From Cameron (2006)

Ontario is approaching source water protection with big government, big regulation and lots of
funding. They recently announced that $67.5 million will be put into support for the Ontario
554
Conservation Authorities over the next five years for source protection. In addition, they have
gone through the second reading in the House for the Clean Water Act, a sweeping piece of
legislation that deals with source water protection. The allocated funding is just to deal with
assessment and planning of source water areas, not with implementation issues.
From de Launay (2006)

A proposed Clean Water Act was introduced on December 5, 2005. Under the Act
communities will work together on a watershed-basis to develop and execute plans to
protect their drinking water sources.
• The draft Clean Water Act will implement key recommendations arising out of the
Walkerton Inquiry.
• A key component of the government‘s multifaceted water stewardship strategy and will
establish a collaborative, locally driven, science-based, multi-stakeholder process
• Complements current suite of safe drinking water tools and legislation, including:
 Safe Drinking Water/Drinking Water Protection Legislation (2002)
 Nutrient Management (2002)
 Sustainable Water & Wastewater Systems (2002)
 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA)
 Canada Ontario Agreement (COA)
 Ontario Water Resources Act
The legislation, if passed, would establish Ontario as a leader in the delivery of safe
drinking water by:
 Requiring municipalities and conservation authorities (CAs) to map sources of
municipal drinking water and vulnerable areas that need protection to prevent
supplies from being depleted or contaminated;
 Directing local communities to monitor any activity that could potentially threaten
water quality or quantity and take action to reduce or remove that threat; and
 Empowering local authorities to take preventative measures to protect drinking
water supplies.
• promotes a shift in social attitudes with respect to water resources towards a notion of
stewardship - the shared responsibility of all stakeholders to protect the integrity of local
sources of public drinking water.
Shrubsole (2004) describes three major documents that illustrate the evolution of
watershed planning in Ontario:
 Watershed Management on a Watershed Basis: Implementing an Ecosystem

Approach (1993)
 Evaluation of Watershed Management in Ontario (1997)
 Protecting Ontario‘s Drinking Water: Toward a Watershed-based Source
Protection Framework (2003)
The latter document integrated human health and ecosystem considerations and called for
the formation of 24 Source Protection Coordinating Committees in the province, with 1/3
555
municipal and 1/3 provincial representation, along with 1/3 public health and other
stakeholders.
Quebec ZIP (Zones d‟intervention prioritaire) committees from LEPS et al (2003)

Since 1991 14 ZIP committees have been formed along the St. Lawrence River under the
St-Lawrence Vision 2000 Action Plan. The Committees are supported by a coordinating
body, Strategies Saint-Laurent. Committees are multi-stakeholder advisory boards
covering an ―area of prime concern.‖ Comite ZIP Baie des Chaleurs, for example, covers
a 350 km stretch of coastline along the southern portion of the Gaspe Peninsula, building
partnerships in stewardship for more than ten years.
ZIP Committees have the following mandate:

1. Mobilize riverside communities to work toward the protection, rehabilitation and
sustainable use of their part of the River
2. Organize a public consultation to target the priority issues and the necessary actions
3. Develop and implement an Ecological Rehabilitation Action Plan (ERAP)
4. Co-ordinate, give ongoing support and monitor results all along the ERAP process
From http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/eau/bassinversant/index_en.htm
―Integrated watershed management is a major course of action in the Québec Water
Policy adopted in fall 2002. Its primary goal is to reform the governance of water
resources. Watershed-based management considers local as well as regional issues and is
rooted in an ecosystem approach to management that uses the watershed as a water
quality planning unit.
The principal players in watershed-based management are watershed or basin

organizations. These organizations are composed of representatives of all those involved
in basin-scale water management, such as regional county municipalities (RCM),
municipalities, users, environmental groups and citizens. Governments are also
represented, but do not have the right to vote. Basin organizations are actually issue and
planning tables whose primary purpose is to develop a master water plan containing an
overview and diagnosis of the watershed, issues, directions and goals to be attained, along
with an action plan to be implemented through the signing of basin contracts.
By moving to an integrated watershed management approach, the Québec government is

hoping to enhance consensus building and accountability among the various players and
the public with regard to management of the common resources of water and aquatic
ecosystems. To that end, technical and financial support will be provided to basin
organizations‖.
New Brunwick
In the Province of NB beverage container deposits go into an Environmental Trust Fund
which is in turn distributed to community-based watershed groups
NL Watershed Groups
Bay St. George; Exploits River Management Assoc.; Freshwater Alexander Bay
Ecosystem Corp.; Harry‘s River; Gander River Management Assoc.; Humber Arm ACAP
556
site/Humber Arm Environmental Assoc.; Indian Bay Ecosystem Corp.; Northwest River
Working Groups; Ragged Harbour; Rennies River; St. John‘s Harbour ACAP
557
Appendix 14 – Success Factors (Enablers) and Barriers (Resistors)
Success factors/Enablers
NL-W (21) BC-W (10) NS-W (32)
1. Personality/individuals (9) 1. Desire/interest (7) 1. Individuals/human resources
2. a. Public input/participation (5) 2. First Nations/place (6) – both = (26)
b. Commitment (5) commitment 2. Time (22)
3. The area (4) 3. a. Time/persistence (5) 3. Cooperation/relationships
4. a. Integration (3) b. Resource over politics/ (19)
operational focus (5) 4. Senior level government
b. Persistence/time (3)
4. a. Individuals (4) support (13)
Evolution (2), the right
b. Capacity/track record (4) 5. Common ground and shared
timing (2)
c. Agreement/common ground (4) understanding (11)
5. a. Government/willingness to
5. a. Ability to deal with conflict 6. Integrity/trust (9)
delegate (2)
b. Coordination of effort (2) 7. Capacity building/ learning
(7)
8. a. Communication (6)
b. Community support (6)
9. a. Financial resources (5)
b. Flexibility
10. First Nations legal and
organizational clout (3)
NL-E (*) BC-E (18) NS-E (12)

1. Core funding (ACOA) 1. Communications/networks (10) 1. Leaders/individuals (7)
2. Federal/provincial agreements 2. a. Common ground - similar 2. a. Government staff support
3. Supportive individuals in objectives, understanding (8) b. Time (4)
government (some lost), b. Individuals (primarily CFDC 3. a. Political will/support (3)
particularly in regions staff, Board - Brenda) (8) b.Knowledgeable staff
4. Strategic plans (if 3. Community Board structure (7) c. Common goals/interests
participatory, living, 4. a. Gov‘t (WD) coop/support, 4. a. Regular comm‘n (2)
integrated) flexible programming (6) b. Power/cost sharing
5. Community capacity building b. Trust (6) c. Flexibility
5. Time/persistence (5) d.Resources/$
6. Broad-based Board
6. a. Leadership/taking action (4)
b. Regional thinking (4)
Other: trust, groundwork,
regional approach, Board
Other: flexibility (3), $ (2), local structure, connections, stability,
knowledge/capacity (2) attitude, strategic planning
* Success factors/enablers were added to the framework after analysis for NL-E was
completed. A score of five was allocated to each of the above points in the calculation of
overall totals, with the exception of individuals. Transcripts were reviewed for reference
to individuals as success factors and ten were recorded.
558
Success Factors Summary
Success Factor NL-E BC-E NS-E RED
Common goals/interests/ 8 3 11
Understanding
Communication/cooperation 10 2 12
Time/persistence 5 4 9
Individuals/leaders 10 8 7 25
Government support 5 6 4 15
Flexibility 3 2 5
Local capacity/capacity building 5 2 3 10
Funding/$ 5 2 2 9
Sharing costs and power 2 2
Trust 6 1 7
Intergovernmental coop 5 5
Planning 5 1 1 7
Regional thinking/approach 4 1 5
Political support 3 3
Community input/support 1 1
FNs 0
Commitment/interest 0
Resource over politics 0
Ability to deal with conflict 0
Integration 0
Board 5 7 1 13
Attitude 1 1
The area
559
Success Factor NL-W BC-W NS-W* WM
Common goals/interests/ 4 5.5 9.5
understanding
Communication/ 2 9.5 11.5
cooperation
Time/persistence 5 5 11 21
Individuals/leaders 9 4 13 26
Government support 2 8 10
Flexibility 2.5 2.5
Local capacity/ capacity 4 3.5 7.5
building
Funding/$ 3 2.5 5.5
Sharing costs and power 1 1
Trust 4.5 4.5
Intergovernmental coop 0
Planning 0
Regional 3 6.5 9.5
thinking/approach
Political support 0
Community input/support 5 6 3.5 14.5
FNs 6 1.5 7.5
Commitment/ 5 7 12
interest
Resource over politics 5 5
Ability to deal with conflict 2 2
Integration 3 3
Board 0
Attitude 0
The area 4 1 5
* #s divided by two for Bras d'Or responses to reduce Bras d‘Or bias due to high Bras
d‘Or response #s for questions related to this topic.
560
Barriers/challenges to collaborative governance for S.D.
– ―there are many, many pitfalls‖
NL-W (43) BC-W (13) NS-W (32)

1. Financial/economic (26) 1. a. Financial (9) 1. Education/awareness/
2. Government support (24) b. Different agendas/ understanding (22)
3. Culture of exploitation (18) perspectives (9) 2. Resentment/differing
4. Fear of privatization/ common 2. Capacity/understanding (7) perspectives (21)
property rights (17) 3. a. Government support (6) 3. Government (20)
5. a. Legitimacy/credibility and b. Integration/narrow focus 4. Silos/fragmentation in
community support (13) 4. a. Politics (5) governance (19)
b Time scales (13) b. Representation and 5. Timing/temporal scale (16)
6. Politics/political (12) communication (5) 6. Financial/reluctance to
7. a. Lack of intergovernmental 5. a. Competition (4) commit $ (14)
coop. (10) b. Relationships (5) 7. Attitude (10)
b. Communication (10) c. Time/bureaucracy (5) 8. a. Lack of clarity re. roles (9)
d. Personality (5) b. Lack of communication (9)
8. Building community/
e. Disconnect from the 9. Integration (8)
stakeholder knowledge (9)
ecosystem (5) 10. Leadership/capacity (7)
Other: geography/scale (5),
Other: Need for a more formal Other: developing common
integration (5), conflict/
disagreement (4) structure (3), intergov‘l goals and principles (5),
cooperation (3), conflict of complexity (4), evaluation (3),
interest (3), conflict (2) lack of First Nations
power (2), reactive approach (2), engagement (3)
need for public education/
awareness (2)
561
NL-E (50) BC-E (21) NS-E (21)
1. Tightening rules/reduced 1. Community divisions: 1. Community divisions: conflict,
flexibility, ―red tape‖ (19) conflict, competition, competition, difference (14)
2. a. Financial ($) (18) difference (17) * 2. Top down governance (11)
b. Local capacity (18) 2. Reputation/lack of community 3. Lack of comm. support (8)
1. Community competition (14) support (14) 4. a. Silos – other (7)
2. Politics vs. planning (12) 3. a. Politics (10 – local 8) b. Financial ($)
3. Short-term thinking (11) b. Local capacity c. Clarifying roles
4. a. Implementation ability (10) c. Inclusion/dealing with d. Time scales
b.Intergovernmental diversity e. HR capacity/leadership
cooperation/coordination 4. a. Financial resources (9) 5. Politics (6)
c. Government support ** b. Tightened rules/reduced 6. a. Geography/region size (5)
5. a. Diversification/traditional flexibility d. Transition/dealing with change
fisheries focus (9) c. Lack of government support e. Integration/balance
b. Macro-economic factors (non-financial) 7. a. Fragmentation (4)
6.a. Low public awareness and 5. Time scales (8)
b. Bureaucratic/inflexible
communication difficulties (8) 6. a. Division within government,
government systems
b. Top down approach: resistance b. State of economy/natural
c. Lack of government support
to loss of power resources, c. Attitudes, d.
communication/confusion re. d.Recognizing facilitator role
7.a. Government dependency/lack 8. Agendas/self-interest (3)
of local empowerment (6) mandate (7)
7.a. Cultural differences (6) 9. a. Natural resource sustainability
b. Lack of government CD (2)
b. Government inability to deal
capacity/understanding c. Loss of diversity
with complexity
c. Negative attitudes Other: staff turnover, lack of
10. a. UI dependency, b. Lack of 8. Distance/geography (5)
planning, liability, mistrust/
community support, 9. Staff turnover (4)
understanding, dependency,
c. Geography/location (5) 10. a. Dependency (3) conservatism, uncertainty, lack of
b. Global markets/vulnerability
marketing, negative attitude/image
of region
* With respect to community divisions those between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal

communities are the most frequently referred to in both NS-E and BC-E cases.
** In all cases lack of government support is a concern, however supportive individuals
and/or agencies are also noted (by 1/3 of respondents in BC-E case, for example)
562
Barriers NL-E BC-E NS-E RED
Financial 18 9 7 34 #3
Government 10 11 11 32 #4
Culture/disconnect from ecosystem
Common property rights
Community involvement/support 5 14 8 27 #7
Time/timing 11 8 7 26 #8
Politics 12 10 6 28 #6
Lack of intergovernmental coop 10 7 7 24
Communication 8 7 15
Knowledge/capacity 18 10 7 35 #2
Geography/scale 5 5 5 15
Integration (lack of, difficulty) 16 7 7 30 #5
Conflict and different agendas/ 14 17 14 45 #1
perspectives
Attitude 9 7 3 19
Lack of clarity re. roles 7 7 14
Leadership 7 7
Complexity 6 6
Evaluation 0
Red tape/lack of flexibility 19 9 4 32 #4
Macroeconomic 9 3 12
State of economy/resources 7 2 9
Staff turnover 4 1 5
Dependency 5 3 1 9
Transition/dealing with change 5 5
563
NL-W BC-W* NS-W WM
Financial 24 18 14 56 #2
Government 27 12 20 59 #1
Culture/disconnect from 18 10 4 32 #8
ecosystem
Common property rights 17 private property 17 #12
Community 13 4 2 19 #11
involvement/support
Time/timing 13 10 16 39 #6
Politics 12 10 22 #10
Lack of intergovt coop 10 12 19 41 #5
Communication 10 10 9 29 #9
Knowledge/capacity 9 14 22 45 #3
Geography/scale 5 5
Integration (lack of, 5 12 19 36 #7
difficulty)
Conflict and different 4 18 21 43 #4
agendas/ perspectives
Attitude 10
Lack of clarity re. roles 9 9
Leadership 7 7
Complexity 4 4
Evaluation 3 3
Red tape/lack of 1 6 7
flexibility
Macroeconomic
State of economy/
resources
Staff turnover
Dependency
Transition/dealing with
change
* BC-W response #s doubled to account for low response #s to questions related to this
topic.
564
Leadership Capacity Indicators
Key Actors
Drivers/Primary Actors:
Charlie Dennis, UINR CEO
Winston Norris, IBEC General Manager
Lawrence Ambers, ‗Namgis Band Manager
Blaine Gillis, SHRDA CEO
NL-E/KEDC/ (16): 4 federal (1 political, 2 senior staff, 1 regional), 6 provincial (2 political, 1

senior staff, 2 mid-level, 3 regional), 2 staff, 2 community reps
- 8 remaining (2005)
NS-E/SHRDA (7): 2 federal (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2 provincial (1 political, 1 senior staff), 2
former Board members, 1 staff member
BC-E/MWCFDC (12): 4 federal (1 mid-level manager, 2 senior, 1 regional staff), 3 staff members,
2 Board members, 1 local politician, 1 town staff member, 1 First Nations NGO
NL-W/IBEC (13): 5 federal (2 political, 1 regional staff, 2 mid-level manager), 6 provincial (2

political, 2 senior staff, 1 mid-level, 1 regional), 1 staff, 1 community rep.
NS-W/Bras d‘Or (23): 3 federal (senior staff), 7 provincial (4 senior, 1 mid-level, 2 regional), 7
First Nations, 3 municipal (1 politician, 2 staff), 1 municipal/provincial politician, 2
NGO/community
BC-W/NRMB (10): 2 federal (1 regional staff, 1 scientist), 3 First Nations, 1

consultant/community rep, 2 community/NGO, 1 academic, 1 industry
―Key Actors‖ - Federal ―Key Actors‖ - Provincial Total/8

categories
Political Sr. Mid Regional Political Sr Mid Reg‘l
NL-E X X X X X X 7
NS-E X X X X 4
BC-E X X X 3
NL-W X X X X X X X 7
NS-W X X X X X 5
BC-W X X 2
3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3
565
Reference to individuals as key actors/leadership as enablers
a. Reference to/dominance b. % referring to key actors

of primary actors
NL-E/KEDC 0 60% = 3
NS-E/SHRDA 2 58% = 3 – 1 = 2
BC-E/CFDC 1 44% = 2
NL-W/IBEC 2 43% = 2
NS-W/BD 3 81% = 4 – 1 = 3
BC-W/NRMB 3 40% = 2
Notes: 1. Based on % of respondents that answered the question re. enabling factors
2. b.: 4 = 75%+; 3 = 51-75%; 2 = 26-50%; 1 = 25% or less; 0 = 0%
Note: leadership also a barrier according to 33% of SHRDA respondents and 22% of Bras
d‘Or therefore 1 deducted from each score.
Leadership diversity and continuity
Total # of key actors Diversity of key actors % of total remaining

(overall) active in 2005
NL-E/KEDC 16 = 3 7 + 2 = 9 = 3/4 8 = 50% = 2
NS-E/ 7=1 4 + 2 = 6 = 2/4 2 = 29% = 2
SHRDA
BC-E/CFDC 12 = 2 3 + 2 = 5 = 1.5/4 10 = 83% = 4
NL-W/IBEC 13 = 2 7 + 1 = 8 = 2.5/4 6 = 46% = 2
NS-W/BD 23 = 4 5 + 3 = 8 = 2.5/4 22 = 96% = 4
BC-W/ 10 = 1 2 + 5 = 7 = 2/4 8 = 80% = 4
NRMB
Notes:
1. Total # of key actors: 0 = 0 mentioned, 1 = 1-10, 2 = 11-15, 3 = 16-20, 4 = 20+
2. Diversity of key actors considers the presence of key actors within each of the eight
senior government categories noted above + 1 for any of the following: municipal, First
Nation, private sector, academic and NGO/community other (= rating/12 converted to
score of 4).
Key actor continuity: 4 = 75%+ remaining (2005 vs. total); 3 = 51-75% remaining; 2 =
26-50% remaining; 1 = 25% or less remaining; 0 = 0%
566
Leadership training/expertise in field and governance + recruitment
Training/expertise Recruitment/replacement efforts

NL-E/KEDC 2 2
NS-E/SHRDA 3 2
BC-E/CFDC 2 2
NL-W/IBEC 2 2
NS-W/BD 3 4
BC-W/NRMB 3 3
Notes:
1. Training considers formal training, experience and access to in-house technical
expertise + interview responses
2. Recruitment: 2 = youth involvement, most commonly for example; 4 = active
recruitment and new leadership training efforts
Overall leadership index
/28 /20
NL-E/KEDC 15 11
NS-E/SHRDA 14 10
BC-E/CFDC 14.5 10
NL-W/IBEC 14.5 10
NS-W/BD 23.5 17
BC-W/NRMB 18 13
Note: /28 totalled from above tables. As with other indices all factors are considered
equal.
567
Appendix 15 - Overall case study comparison (rankings relative to other cases in the
policy sub-system)
IBEC BD NRMB KEDC SHRDA MWCFDC

(NL-W) (NS-W) (BC-W) (NL-E) (NS-E) (BC-E)
Outcomes rating M/H M L M H M
Circumstance/Context
Complexity – actors L H M M H L
Complexity – issues L H M M M/H M
Complexity – L M/H H
ecosystems
Overall complexity L H M/H M H/M M
Capacity
Organizational M H L/M L H M
Relational M H L M H M
Leadership M H M/H M L/M L/M
Principles
Principles of good L H M L M/H M/H
governance
Principles of L/M H M L/M M H
collaboration
Principles of M H L L H M
sustainability
Collaborative Governance Criteria
Multi-scale M H H M H/M L
Multi-sector M H L H H H
Multi-objective/ M/H H L/M L/M H M
ecosystem-based
Learning, adaptive L/M H M L/M H/M M - L (past), recent
evidence of M/H
Degree of power M H L/M L H M
sharing
Additional Key Characteristics
Initiation Comm. Comm./ Comm./ Gov‘t/ Gov‘t/ Gov‘t
Gov‘t Gov‘t Comm Comm
Years in operation H L M M/L M H
(current form) (1995) (1995) (1986/92)
Degree of local L M/H M/H L M/H M/H
control in agenda
setting
Budget size L H M M L H
Local revenue L H M L M/H M/H
sources
Funding diversity L M H L H M
568
Figure 15.1. Multi-scale
BC-E NL-W, NL-E, NS-E NS-W, BC-W
Figure 15.2. Multi-sector
BC-W NL-E , BC-E, NS-

NL-W
E, NS-W
Figure 15.16. Multi-objective
NL-E BC-E, BC-W NS-W, NL-W, NS-E
Figure 15.4. Learning, adaptive, multi-temporal
BC-E, NL-W, NS-

NL-E NS-E W
BC-W
569
1. NL-W 2. NS-W 3. BC-W 4. NL-E 5. NS-E 6. BC-E
Power sharing positions adjusted using dotted arrows (and temporal integration of BC-W)
2
3
5 .
1 4
.
1. NL-W lowest complexity, medium/high performance, medium capacity, high financial and
decision-making constraints, formal, concentrated but open semi-adaptive/learning structure,
single sector emphasis but multi-objective –informal vs. formal evaluation
2. NS-W: high capacity, medium performance collaborative, adaptive/learning network

structure – social learning, pluralist/issue network
3. BC-W multi-level, single sector focused (also NL-W to a lesser extent), power struggle
burdened, medium capacity, low performance, adaptive, semi- formal, semi-
concentrated/triad structure
4. NL-E: government-dominated, medium complexity/, low capacity, low performance,

financially constrained formal structure (with recent evidence of adaptation – possibly
overcorrection)
5. NS-E: high capacity, high performance collaborative, adaptive, formal semi-concentrated

structure – lesson-drawing, corporatist (Howlett and Ramesh 1995)
6. BC-E: isolated/region-focused, medium performance, and capacity formal, semi-concentrated

collaborative structure
570

ETD4665

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ETD4665

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEW SPACES, ANCIENT PLACES:

COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

In the Department of Geography

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

All rights reserved. This work may not be

Name: Kelly Vodden

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Dr. Nicholas Blomley

Dr. John Pierce

Dr. Mark Roseland

Dr. Doug House

Dr. Michael Howlett

Dr. Derek Armitage

Date Defended/Approved: December 17, 2008

The concept of collaborative, multi-level governance has garnered increasing attention in

To those who dedicate themselves to their communities

"We are nearing a point when the word partnership is

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities

Appendix 1 – Case Study Outcomes ........................................................................... 409

Note on CD-ROM Appendices

NOTE from SFU Library:

Table 1 Characteristics of collaborative governance ........................................................... 6

Figure 1.Canada's coastlines ................................................................................................ 1

1.1. Coastal Systems at Risk

Figure 1.Canada's coastlines

While coastlines globally become increasingly urbanized, Canada‘s remain

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

Evidence is mounting that we are experiencing large-scale governance failures with

Figure 2 Collaborative governance

1) Have collaborative governance experiments advanced sustainable development in

 What are the characteristics of effective government-community

3) What barriers and resistors exist to collaborative governance and advancing

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

Overarching Framework - CASES discourse. The emerging fields of

Figure 3 CASES framework

2.1.1 Multi-layered and Multi-scale

2.1.1a In Defence of Place

2.1.1b Scaling Up Community: the Sub-provincial Region

Global Provincial Community

Local, ―human scale‖

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

2.1.2 Dynamic Interactions within CASES

A focus on relationships and processes of interaction is characteristic of all systems

2.1.3 Change, Resilience and Adaptation

2.1.3a The Adaptive Renewal Cycle

1) Rapid growth and exploitation (r):

characterized by readily available resources, entrepreneurial competition and high

leading to a longer phase of:

Figure 5 The adaptive renewal cycle

2) Accumulation and © Resilience Alliance, cited as Bunnell (2002)

conservation (K): characterized by contest competition for resources and

Fore loop phases correspond to ecological succession in ecosystems and a development

3) Rapid breakdown, ‗release‘ or ‗creative destruction‘ (): system is fragile, over-

2.1.3b Diversity, Redundancy and Resilience

2.1.4 Initial Reflections on the CASES Framework

Table 3 CASES criticisms and limitations

2.2 Contributions from Development Geography

2.2.1 Dependency and Uneven Development

2.2.3 Regulation Theory

Profound global changes of recent decades include increased mobility, access to

2.2.4 New Developments and CASES Contributions

Market Civil Society

Figure 6 Seeking a balance of power