the muskwa-kechika management area: a …...considering only the iucn’s strict conservation...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area: A governance system

assessment of landscape-level

ecosystem-based management

Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Working Paper no. 1

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

This!project!is!partly!funded!by!the!Social!Sciences!and!Humanities!Research!Council!of!Canada!(SSHRC)

!

The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! i!

!

The Muskw-Kechika Management Area: A governance assessment of landscape-level

ecosystem-based management !

LLEBM!Working!Paper!no.!1!!!!!!!

A graduating thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honours degree of Bachelor of Science

University of Victoria

2013

!!!!!!

Citation:!Law,!L.!(2013).!The!Muskwa=Kechika!Management!Area:!A!governance!assessment!of!landscape=level!ecosystem=based!management.!!Landscape=Level!Ecosystem=Based!Management!Working!Paper!no.!1.![online]!!URL:!http://www.viu.ca/landscapelevel/.!!

A!Governance!Assessment!Framework!for!Landscape=Level!Ecosystem=Based!Management!

Institute!for!Coastal!Research!Vancouver!Island!University!

900!Fifth!St.!Nanaimo,!BC!V9R!5S5!Canada!

Email:[email protected]! Web:!www.viu.ca/landscapelevel!!

The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! ii!

!

This thesis is dedicated to my mother for all her love and support, to Ryan for listening and advising me through my rough moments during my thesis writing, and to all my room mates for

coping with my frenzy, stress, and all-nighters it took to finish this thesis. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! iii!

!

Table of Contents

Dedication…………………………………..………………………………………...…..ii Table of Contents……………………………....……………………………………..….iii List of Figures………………………….…………………………………..……………..iv Acknowledgements…………………….………………..………………………….…….v Executive Summary……………………………………..……...………...…………..….vi Preface………..……………………………………………..………………………..…..vii Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………….……………………………...1-11

1.1 Putting Things into Context…………………….…………………………...1-3 1.2 The LLEBM Project…………………………….…………………………...4-7 1.3 The Study Area………………………………….…………………………...7-11

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………..12-26 2.1 Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change…………………………………....12-14 2.2 Protected Areas Systems and Categories…………………….……………14-17 2.3 Ecosystem-Based Management at the Landscape-Level………………...17-21 2.4 Protected Areas Governance……………………..………….…………......21-24 2.5 Collaborative Multi-stakeholder Decision-making………….…………....25-26

Chapter 3: Study Design & Methods…………………………………………………..27-35 3.1 Study Design……………………………………………………………...…27-28 3.2 Participant Selection………………………………………………...……...28-33 3.3 Interviews………………………………….…….…………………………..33 3.4 N.Vivo Analysis……………………………………………….…………….33-35

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………..……………………..36-60 4.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………......36-43 4.2 Description of the SES……………………………………….…………..….45-46 4.3 Governance Processes in the SES………………………………..………....45-46 4.4 Assessment of the Governance Process…………..…………..………….....47-60

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion……………………………………..………..…61-66 5.1 Discussion and Recommendations………………………………………....61-65 5.2 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………65-66

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………....67-76 References………………………………………………………………………………..77-79

List of Figures

Figure 1. The M-KMA & Species Objective Strategic Units.…………….……..…..…..8 Figure 2. Elements of Governance for Assessing LLEBM ……………….………..…..24 Figure 3. Differentiation Between Indicator Scores…………..…………………….…..39 Figure 4. Frequency of Responses to Structured Questionnaire …………..…………..43

The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! iv!

!

List of Tables

Table 1. IUCN PA Categories ……………………………………………….………...15-16 Table 2. Governance Assessment Interview Questions……………………….....Appendix Table 3. Key Informants and Affiliation to the M-KMA……………………………...34 Table 4. Indicator Scoring Criterion…………………………………………....…Appendix Table 5. Summary of Perceived and Desired Benefits of SES and Governance

System...........................................................................................................36-37 Table 6. Summary of Perceived Weaknesses of SES and Governance System….......37 Table 7. Summary of Personal Values Shaped by SES and Governance System....…37-38 Table 8. Summary and Justification for Indicator Scores……………………………..40-42

The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! v!

!!

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. Phil Dearden, Dr. Lance Robinson, Nathan Bennett, Luba Reshtinyk, and all the members of both the University of Victoria MPARG lab and the LLEBM research team. A special thanks goes to Phil for being more than just a supervisor, but also a mentor and a friend.

Thank you for your patience, life lessons, and believing in me more than I believed in myself.

The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! vi!

!

Abstract

Environmental management approaches are beginning to look beyond the protected areas level to larger landscapes for conservation and sustainability planning. However, governance at the landscape-level can involve more stakeholder groups, several communities, protected areas of various types, and varying levels of governments. As a result, landscape-level ecosystem-based management is more challenging and complex than it is for individual protected areas. Until now, landscape-level ecosystem-based management has received relatively little attention from researchers. This case study looks to better understand governance for landscape-level ecosystem-based management in the M-KMA in northeastern British Columbia. A newly developed framework was utilized to examine the effects of governance infrastructure on landscape-level ecosystem based management. This draft assessment framework was comprised of 8 questions and 16 indicators. The framework guided analysis of interviews conducted with Advisory Board members who represent one of the governing bodies of the M-KMA. The governance model was been proven to be struggling under a changing financial and political climate. It does not have the capacity to balance the competing stakeholder interests in the area and the Board is struggling to improve the governance model that is currently in place. This report provides insight and reflection on the LLEBM governance assessment framework and can help guide similar assessments conducted on large-scale environmental governance arrangements.

The M-KMA: A governance assessment of LLEBM vii

Preface

Before I ever visited the area in northern British Columbia known as the Muskwa-Kechika, I had been told that it was someplace unique. It is an amazing expanse of wilderness, the likes of which still exist in only a handful of places in the world. On my first visit there I realized that the word “unique” can hardly convey the awe-inspiring vastness and rugged beauty that the Muskwa-Kechika is. But one cannot refer to the Muskwa-Kechika as a wilderness without also expressing a caveat. There are communities around it, and a couple within it, and although it has parks within it and although it is a wilderness, it is, as the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area’s motto says, a working wilderness.

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (M-KMA) is a unique response to the growing recognition around the world that neither the conservation objectives of parks nor the social and economic objectives of resource-based communities can be achieved without looking beyond, municipal, protected area and other administrative boundaries. If conservation within protected areas is to be effective and if development outside of protected areas is to be sustainable, there needs to be landscape level planning and management. The approach to large-scale sustainability planning embodied in the M-KMA was ambitious, aiming to develop plans in several resource sectors that would guide sustainable development and use of region’s natural resources while still completely maintaining its wilderness character. The M-KMA is a model that holds lessons for other parts of Canada and for the world on how to simultaneously achieve these various kinds of objectives.

In this report, Lauren Law examines the M-KMA through the lens of governance. Whereas management is related to how decisions are carried out and implemented, governance is concerned with the who, how and why of decision-making. With the growing interest in ecosystem-based management and sustainable development planning at the landscape level, there is a need for assessment tools that can help local communities, policymakers and other stakeholders to make sense of governance at that level.

For this reason, members of the landscape-level ecosystem-based management project have developed a draft version of an assessment framework for the evaluation of landscape-level governance systems. The assessment framework is a flexible tool comprised of a set of questions to guide mixed-methods research, and a set of steps for feeding both that research and other types of knowledge (existing research, new research, practitioner experience, and traditional, indigenous and local knowledge) into stakeholder deliberation and planning. It includes the following five conceptual tasks: description of the broader social-ecosystem, description of governance processes, assessment of governance processes, assessment of governance capacities, and assessment of governance outcomes. Those tasks are broken down into eight

The M-KMA: A governance assessment of LLEBM viii

descriptive questions and 16 evaluative indicators. The evaluative indicators are assessed according to criteria that are outlined in the annex to this report.

The report that follows presents findings from an assessment, based on this framework. Lauren’s analysis provides insights which stakeholders who live in and near the Muskwa-Kechika or who are concerned about it will find useful.

Lance W. Robinson

Governance Assessment Framework for Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Project

The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 1!

!

Chapter(1:((Introduction(and(Background( 1.1 Putting Things into Context

Life on earth is disappearing at an outstanding rate and will continue to do so unless

urgent action is taken. The establishment of well designed and effectively managed systems of

protected areas (PAs) is a vital tool for reducing biodiversity loss and achieving the aims of the

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Ervin et al., 2010). At the tenth Conference of the

Parties (CoP10) of the CBD, the 2011-2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets were set. The objective of

Target 11 is to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2020. The conservation of

biological diversity will be accomplished using effective equitable management and well

connected ecologically representative systems of PAs (CBD, 2012). While there has been

significant progress in conserving the world’s representative terrestrial ecosystems, recent

assessments indicate that conservation of marine and terrestrial biodiversity is still woefully

inadequate (Butchart et al., 2010).

Canada falls well below the global average when it comes to PA establishments (Lee &

Cheng, 2011). Canada holds vast expanses of intact natural areas, however, less than 10% of

Canada’s land has been set aside for protection (Lee & Cheng, 2011). Canada is ranked 13th of 29

countries on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) list,

falling below the worldwide average of 12.6% of land protected (Lee & Cheng, 2011).

Considering only the IUCN’s strict conservation categories I-III, where industrial resource

extraction is prohibited, the percentage of land protected in Canada drops even lower to just over

4% (Lee & Cheng, 2011). Many of the areas protected in Canada allow industries such as mining,

forestry, or energy development (Lee & Cheng, 2011). Human land use threatens PA’s ecological

function. When PAs become fragmented and isolated they no longer are able to meet their CBD


!

targets.

PAs are faced with several problems including poorly represented habitats, lack of

funds for management, lack of connectivity between PAs, and human pressures such as

urbanization, logging, and mining (Naughton-treves, Holland, & Brandon, 2005). Much of the

human impact occurs outside the administrative boundaries of existing PAs and results in

increasing landscape fragmentation and ecological isolation (Naughton-treves, Holland, &

Brandon, 2005). Most of the world’s PAs are smaller than 10,000 hectares (Naughton-treves et

al., 2005). These PAs are not large enough to maintain adequate populations of rare or far-

ranging species and are unable to maintain ecosystem-level processes that sustain biodiversity

(Naughton-treves et al., 2005). Small PAs have significant importance, but research suggests that

only PAs greater than 10,000 hectares have the potential to slow long-term species loss

(Naughton-treves et al., 2005). To add further complexity to the problem, the effects of climate

change and other broad-scale anthropogenic influences such as pollution, nitrogen deposition,

and introductions of invasive species are anticipated to increase in the coming years (Glicksman

& Cumming, 2012). These influences are expected to alter both the structure and functioning of

natural systems, making it impossible for PAs to function as they have in the past (Glicksman &

Cumming, 2012).

Landscape-level conservation combined with ecosystem-based management (EBM)

emerged to address today’s deepening biodiversity crisis (Price, Roburn, & MacKinnon, 2009).

Landscape-level ecosystem-based management (LLEBM) is an integrated approach to natural

resource management that considers the needs of wildlife at a broader landscape-level when

implementing conservation initiatives (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). This approach goes

beyond traditional management based on single species and single sectors and recognizes a deep


!

connectivity amongst all elements of the ecosystems, including humans (Espinosa-Romero et al.,

2011).

Defining clear and concise goals for LLEBM is one of the most important steps in

effective EBM implementation (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). There have been various efforts

to define the key aspects, principles and guidelines of LLEBM and what it requires, however,

there is still a gap between theory and practice (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). Managers face

political, legal, social and scientific difficulties in implementing LLEBM, which has come to be

seen as daunting and expensive (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). The main challenges for the

implementation of LLEBM include building a unified vision of the objectives for LLEBM,

designing metrics to evaluate the accomplishment of the objectives, and creating governance

frameworks (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). There have been successful initiatives aimed at

implementing EBM in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, Puget Sound in United States, and

Raja Ampat in Indonesia. Although not at the landscape level, their initiatives meaningful engage

stakeholders in the definition of objectives and in monitoring processes (Espinosa-Romero et al.,

2011). In other words, the human value articulated and pursued within appropriate governance

processes are at the heart of why LLEBM is important and defines what LLEBM should achieve

(Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). In turn, governance success around LLEBM has been identified

as a central factor affecting the ability of protected areas to achieve their goals (Dearden et al.,

2005). The Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Project was created in order to guide

assessments of governance systems in place for landscape-level social ecological systems (SES).

The LLEBM project utilizes a newly developed governance assessment framework, which is

meant to provide a succinct overview of processes and structures of governance for EBM at the

landscape-level.


!

1.2 The LLEBM Project

There is now widespread recognition that ecosystems extend beyond the boundaries of

PAs into the larger landscape (Robinson et al., 2012). EBM at the landscape-level is a common

approach adopted by PA managers to help them manage and maintain the ecological integrity of

PA systems (Grumbine, 1994). However, selecting an appropriate management approach is only

half the struggle of PA conservation. There is a growing realization that governance plays an

important factor in PA effectiveness and their ability to achieve conservation goals (Robinson et

al., 2012). Governance at the landscape level is challenging and complex and involves potentially

more stakeholder groups, several communities, PAs of various types, varying levels of

governments, private land-owners, resource extractive industries, and natural resource users to

sustain all or part of their livelihood (Robinson et al., 2012). Collaborative stakeholder

participation and consensus-based decision-making has emerged in association with growing

interest in PA governance at the landscape level. There has been relatively little research in

assessing the governance of LLEBM for parks and other types of PAs, thus research in this area

is overdue.

There is no governance assessment framework currently established that assesses the status

and trends of PA governance at the landscape-level for EBM. A research team from Vancouver

Island University and the University of Victoria developed a draft version of an assessment

framework to fill this void (Robinson et al., 2012). The framework for LLEBM is a flexible tool

comprised of a set of questions to guide the research and a set of steps for feeding research into

stakeholder deliberation and planning. The framework includes the following five conceptual

tasks: descriptions of the broader SES, description of governance processes, assessments of

governance processes, assessment of governance capacities, and assessment of governance


!

outcomes (Robinson et al., 2012). These tasks are broken down into 8 questions, and 16

indicators (Robinson et al., 2012).

This research project adapts the LLEBM governance assessment framework to examine the

system of governance and decision-making in the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (M-KMA)

in north-eastern British Columbia. The M-KMA project is part of a larger initiative under the

Protected Areas and Poverty Reduction (PAPR) Canada-Africa Research and Learning Alliance,

which seeks to address the challenges of rural poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability

through a focus on PAs in Canada, Tanzania, and Ghana (PAPR, 2013). The PAPR recognizes

the inextricable linkage between extreme poverty and environmental degradation. These issues

can result from PAs that lead to marginalized local communities, increased human-wildlife

conflicts, the erosion of support for conservation, and inequity in flows of economic benefits and

costs (PAPR, 2013). To understand the complex issues involved with PAs, there are four main

research objectives explored under the PAPR, including:

1) Analyzing the flows of a broad suite of benefits and costs (social, economic, cultural, and

environmental) related to PAs.

2) Understanding human-wildlife interactions in and around PAs.

3) Re-conceptualizing and improving PA governance models within the broader, multi-scalar

social-ecological system in order to better address both the poverty reduction and

conservation agendas.

4) Mobilizing new and existing information among and between academic researchers,

community organizations, visitors and managers in a cross-cultural context.

The LLEBM project focuses on how governance can be re-conceptualized and improved

for PA systems. To examine this question, the M-KMA was identified as an appropriate


!

Canadian case study for assessing LLEBM governance because of the multi-dimensional nature

of the region and governance structure.

The M-KMA has been widely viewed as the “high water mark” in terms of the 1990’s

approach to consensus-based land use planning development and implementation (Griggs &

Luff, 2009). An Advisory Board comprised of individuals from various stakeholder groups, First

Nations, local communities, and various levels of government is mandated with advising the

government on natural resource management in the M-KMA (Griggs & Luff, 2009). While the

M-KMA has conventional PAs within it, the area as a whole is meant to be “a working

wilderness” where resource extraction and other economic activities can proceed as long as the

wilderness character of the region is maintained. In theory this may be an ideal design for the M-

KMA, however, there are potential challenges when balancing human land use needs with the

ecological function of the PA. It becomes difficult to achieve collective decision-making on the

Advisory Board when diverse values, interests, and goals come into conflict. Budget cuts and

development pressure also present uncertainties regarding the future success and legitimacy of

the governance structure currently in place.

This paper reports the results from interviews conducted with Advisory Board members

under the guidelines of the LLEBM framework. The framework provides reflection on the

current governance structure in place for the M-KMA, the extent to which it has balanced the

needs and interests of various communities and stakeholder groups, and whether it has met the

M-KMA’s goals. The LLEBM governance assessment framework helps determine how decisions

are made; in particular, how to manage discrepancies in power, and differences in overall vision.

This analysis will give local communities and various stakeholder groups insight into possible

improvements to the governance structure currently in place. At the same time, this is a pilot


!

project to test whether the LLEBM governance assessment framework can be feasibly applied to

similar assessments of other large-scale environmental governance arrangements. The paper ends

with a synthesizing discussion and recommendation for the future of the M-KMA and the

governance assessment framework.

1.3 The Study Area

The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area lies in the traditional territories of the Kaska

Dena, Treaty 8, and Carrier-Sekani First Nations. The region covers 6.4 million hectares and

stretches from the Rocky Mountain foothills north of the Peace River down to the south-eastern

Cassiar Mountains (Figure 1). Four biogeoclimatic zones are found within the M-KMA including

the alpine tundra, spruce-willow-birch, boreal white and black spruce, and englemann spruce-

subalpine fir (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The forested terrain is home to

significant populations of grizzly bears, mountain goats, stone sheep, wolves, martens, and

caribou (Chester, Hilty, & Francis, 2012). The M-KMA’s rich natural resources and grizzly bear

populations make this region one of the key priorities of the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y)

Conservation Initiative (Chester et al., 2012). The Y2Y region starts in the south in Yellowstone

National Park and moves north crossing over five US states and two Canadian provinces until it

reaches northern Yukon (Chester et al., 2012). The Y2Y represents a movement towards

landscape-level conservation that recognizes the importance of connectivity between PAs as an


!

Figure(1. The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area and Species Objective/Strategy Units (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013)


!

adaptive strategy for biodiversity conservation. The M-KMA constitutes a large portion of the

Y2Y corridor and keeping this region intact is critical to the success of achieving Y2Y’s

landscape-level vision. Hence, studying governance around LLEBM for the M-KMA benefits not

only the region itself but will serve a larger role to support connecting networks of large intact

ecosystems.

The BC government established the M-KMA in 1998 during the BC Land and Resource

Management Planning (LRMP) process. The LRMP was a “consensus building process…[which]

established direction for land use and specified broad resource management objectives and

strategies” (Day & Tamblyn, 1998). The LRMPs were guided by provincial policies and regional

plans and included processes such as open public participation with consideration of all resource

stakeholder interests. Federal, provincial and local resource management agencies were involved

with decision making based on resource sustainability (Day & Tamblyn, 1998). Through the

resource planning tables in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and Mackenzie, it was agreed the M-KMA

would be regarded as a special management area allowing for resource development to continue

while recognizing, accommodating, and protecting important wildlife and environmental values

in the area. The management plan for the M-KMA attempts to balance resource management

with conservation, making it an excellent example of how competing interests are striving to co-

exist on the land.

Unlike many PAs, the M-KMA has its own Act and Management Plan. The goal of the

Management Plan is to establish a world standard for environmental sustainability and economic

stability, with development conducted in a way that maintains wildlife and wilderness values

(Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The M-KMA was the first, and remains one of the

only models in which theories of conservation biology are applied to real-world development


!

(Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The M-KMA Act and M-KMA Management Plan

require the development of 5 “local strategic plans” to direct the appropriate management of the

following areas:

• Wildlife (M-KMA Wildlife Management Plan)

• Oil and Gas (Pre-tenure Plans)

• Recreation (Recreation Management Plan)

• Forestry (Landscape Unit Objectives)

• Provincial Parks (Park Management Plans)

The unique arrangements in place for the M-KMA may offer the possibility for a greater level of

management than would be possible for individual PAs, municipalities, and First Nations.

The Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board (M-KAB) is an advisory body appointed by the

Premier of BC that advises the government on natural resource management in the M-KMA and

ensures that activities within the area are consistent with the objectives of the Muskwa-Kechika

Management Plan. Advisory Board members reflect a diversity of perspectives with members

representing the following groups: First Nations, conservation, oil and gas, forestry, mining, local

government, guide outfitting, commercial recreation, wilderness tourism, trapping and labour. M-

KAB members provide their services voluntarily and are responsible for preparing an annual

report to the Premier and Public outlining their funding expenditures, submitting advice to the

government, and reporting on Board and Committee work. However, the diversity of interests

and values of stakeholder representatives on the Advisory Board creates conflicts of interests.

This research comes at a pivotal time when the region will face economic, political, and

environmental challenges in the upcoming years. Although the area itself is largely unchanged

from a decade ago, there have been many adjustments in the governance arrangements for the


!

M-KMA itself that have undermined confidence and raised questions over the commitments

made to conservation for the long term. In particular, the BC government has reduced the

funding support available for the M-KMA and has cut back severely on agency resources and

commitments. Over several years, the provincial government has also struggled to define an

appropriate role for the M-KAB, which now has less than 10% of the funding that was originally

available (Griggs & Luff, 2009). In addition, some of the key changes needed to keep the M-

KMA Act and regulation up to date have yet to be completed and work is needed to maintain an

effective management regime.

This paper opened by establishing the context for why PAs are important. It discussed the

LLEBM governance assessment framework and described the framework’s application for

assessing governance in the M-KMA. In the following chapter, governance for LLEBM is

explained in greater detail through a review of available literature concerning biodiversity, PA

systems and categories, EBM theory and governance concepts. Preceding this section is an

outline of the study design and methods to conduct this research. This paper ends with a

synthesizing discussion of the assessment results and recommendations for the future.


!

Chapter(2:((Literature(Review(!

This chapter contains a review of critically analyzed academic literature. The literature

review begins by describing the current state of biodiversity and the pressures reinforcing

biodiversity loss. PAs are then described as an important approach to biodiversity conservation,

with mention about the gaps associated with PA establishments. The history of the International

Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) PA categories systems is explained, including the current

process of revising the guidelines. EBM at the landscape-level is identified as an appropriate

approach in an effort to mitigate issues around PA systems based on its history and theory. The

role of governance in achieving PA conservation goals is explained by looking at participative

management and collaborative multi-stakeholder decision-making in the governance structure for

LLEBM.

2.1 Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change

Biodiversity is the foundation of life on earth. It describes the wide variety of animals,

plants, habitats and ecological complexes in existence (Buchart et al., 2010). Biodiversity is crucial

for the functioning of ecosystems, which provides humans with essential products and services

(Mulongoy & Chape, 2004). Oxygen, food, fresh water, fertile soil, medicines, shelter, stable

climate and recreation all have their source in healthy ecosystems (Mulongoy & Chape, 2004). By

changing biodiversity we strongly affect human well-being and the well-being of all life on earth

(Ervin et al., 2010).

Loss of biodiversity is one of the world’s most pressing crises (Ervin et al., 2010). The

IUCN estimates that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher

than it would be naturally (Ervin et al., 2010). 18,788 species out of 52,017 so far assessed are


!

threatened with extinction of which 618 mammals and 1,895 amphibians are endangered or

extinct (Ervin et al., 2010). The main threats to these populations involve converting natural areas

to farming and urban development, introducing invasive alien species, polluting or over-

exploiting resources, and harvesting wild plants and animals at unsustainable levels (Ervin et al.,

2010). Above all impacts, climate change will be one of the biggest issues for biodiversity.

Our understanding of climate change comes primarily from the results of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report

on Climate Change, global temperatures are projected to increase 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by

the end of the century (Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007). This temperature rise will be accompanied

by changes in sea level, extreme weather events, and habitat distributions (Pachauri & Reisinger,

2007). Species and ecosystems will be forced to adapt as climate change disrupts their migratory

paths by altering habitat, resource availability, and phenology (Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007).

Furthermore, extreme warming is anticipated to cause major shifts in the ranges of organisms

and in the timing of their biological cycles (Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007).

In response to the world’s deepening biodiversity crisis, PA establishment has been the

cornerstone of global conservation strategies to reduce biodiversity loss (Dearden et al., 2005).

This approach to conserving biodiversity through PAs has been the foundation of conservation

for many centuries, but this approach is far from perfect with notable gaps in PA systems

(Dearden et al., 2005). While the rate of growth in PA establishment has been impressive, many

PAs have been set up in remote, unpopulated or sparsely populated areas such as mountains, ice-

fields and tundra (Dudley, 2008). Many of the world’s wild plant and animal species do not have

viable populations in PAs and a substantial proportion remain completely outside (Dudley, 2008).

The emerging threat of climate change will exacerbate these issues by pushing species further out


!

of their range and out of PA boundaries.

The role of PAs and their effectiveness need to be examined if there is any hope for the

future in mitigating harmful effects of climate change on biodiversity. Data on the geographic

location and spatial extent of PAs is commonly used as the key determinant for understanding

“effectiveness” in conserving biodiversity (Chape et al., 2005). However, neither indicators of

areal extent nor the current global PA dataset tell us if PAs are achieving conservation objectives

(Chape et al., 2005). Therefore, understanding PA management and governance is needed to

assess real progress in meeting the 2010 biodiversity targets of the CBD.

2.2 Protected Areas Systems and Categories

Since the 1960s, conservation science and principles for establishing and managing

protected areas have developed enormously (Chape et al., 2005). Over the past 40 years, there has

been a paradigm shift in the role of PAs as an important strategy for biodiversity conservation

(Chape et al., 2005). The IUCN and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WPCA) have

been instrumental in guiding this paradigm shift, and have defined a protected area as a

“….clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or

other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem

services and cultural values” (Locke & Dearden, 2005).

The IUCN definition of PAs is the standard used by the United Nations Environment

Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and by over 188 countries

currently part of the CBD (Dudley, 2008). Despite the growth in global agreements on nature

conservation and the establishment of PAs, the PA designations used by countries are not

necessarily directly comparable across countries because of potentially different legislative

regimes (Dudley, 2008). Hence, the need for internationally standardized PA nomenclature and


!

definitions was a concern raised at the First World Conference on National Parks in 1962

(Dudley, 2008). In 1994, an agreement was reached on a management objective-based system of

six categories (Dudley, 2008).

Of the six categories of PAs recognized by the IUCN (Table 1), categories I-IV fit

comfortably within the definition and purpose of PA goals aimed at biodiversity conservation.

However, categories V and VI pose potential conflicts of interest between environmental

conservation and resource extraction. Catagories V and VI arose in 1992 following the World

Parks Congress and were heralded a “new paradigm” (Locke & Dearden, 2005). This new

approach to PA systems focuses on benefits to local people to alleviate poverty and draw a

greater emphasis on the interaction between humans and nature (Locke & Dearden, 2005). Some

argue categories V and VI devalue conservation biology, undermine the creation of strictly

protected reserves, and inflate the amount of area in reserves that place people at the centre of

the protected area agenda at the expense of wild biodiversity (Locke & Dearden, 2005). Despite

the argument against categories V and VI, the social profile of communities and the social

implications of PA establishment cannot be disregarded. Poverty alleviation and improving

human welfare are large reasons behind PA establishment along with the ecosystem goods and

services that come out of them. The broadening of PA categories to include categories V and VI

is a noteworthy effort to recognize the human and livelihood dimensions of PA systems.

Table 1. The six categories of protected areas recognized by the IUCN (Dudley, 2008). Categories Description

I (a and b)

Strict nature reserve, wilderness protection area, or wilderness area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection.

II

National park, managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation.

III


!

National monument, managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features

IV

Habitat/species management area, managed mainly for conservation through management intervention

V

Protected landscape/seascape, managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation or recreation

VI

Managed resource protected area, managed mainly for sustainable use of natural resources.

In many ways, the M-KMA reflects characteristics similar to PA category VI. The M-

KMA was established with the intent to establish a world standard for environmental

sustainability and economic stability, serving as a model that balances human activities (namely,

resource extraction and tourism) with conserving its environmental values and wilderness state

over time (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The M-KMA Act states the region is

intended to: “Maintain in perpetuity the wilderness quality, and the diversity and abundance of wildlife and the

ecosystems on which it depends, while allowing resource development and use in parts of the M-KMA designated for

those purposes including recreation, hunting, trapping, timber harvesting, mineral exploration and mining, and oil

and gas exploration and development” (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, 1998). Under the M-

KMA Management Plans, the land is divided into different zones, with varying levels of

protection. The original plan calls for 25% of the land to be turned into provincial parks, 60% to

become “special management zones” where mining and oil and gas drilling are to be allowed, and

15% to become “special wildland zones” where logging is prohibited (Muskwa-Kechika

Management Area Act, 1998). Whether the M-KMA has struck this appropriate balance is still up

for question, but economic opportunities available for industry in the region threaten and devalue

its perceived environmental significance.

With such a multi-faceted zoning scheme, the governance structure for an area like this


!

can become incredibly complex as various stakeholders compete on the land-base for space. This

becomes a challenge for managers and decision-makers to foster agreements amongst a diverse

suite of stakeholders. To deal with some of these challenges, EBM and integrated resource

management as well as collaborative multi-stakeholder and consensus-based decision-making

have been adapted in governance models that manage PAs of this type. These conservation and

decision-making approaches are positive movements for PAs, however they are relatively new PA

governing concepts with weaknesses that lack understanding. Research and exploration in these

gaps are necessary if PA systems are to be managed effectively and sustainably in the future.

2.3 Ecosystem-Based Management at the Landscape-Level

In the rush to establish PAs to save fragments of natural land and water from the sudden

onslaught of development, PAs are often set aside without careful analysis of the skills and

capacities needed to maintain them. Despite impressively rapid growth of protected land and

marine areas worldwide, biodiversity is still in steep decline. Is biodiversity loss related to

inadequacies in PA systems? If so, what is lacking in PA management and effectiveness and what

can be done to improve them?

PAs are too few, too small, and too isolated. In Canada, federal and provincial PA system

plans adopt natural regions or ecoregion representation approaches and, like PA systems around

the world, are designed to protect specific natural features, species, and communities in situ

(Lemieux & Scott, 2005). This approach to biodiversity protection does not account for

landscape-level shifts in ecosystem distribution and structure that will be induced by climate

change (Lemieux & Scott, 2005). Protection of this kind lacks consideration for species

movement and migration, and makes PAs susceptible to progressive isolation as surrounding

land use changes. Hence, EBM emerged in the mid 1930’s from concerns made by conservation


!

biologists, ecologists, and scientists who recognized parks were not fully functional ecosystems

and did not accurately reflect the biotic of large mammals (Grumbine, 1994). Landscape-level

conservation arose in conjunction with EBM and involves the consideration of broad scale

interconnected ecological systems (Linehan et al., 1995). LLEBM is carried out in a number of

ways, one of which is wildlife corridors. Wildlife corridors connect between isolated habitat

patches as a solution to habitat fragmentation. The Y2Y is one of the best-known examples of a

wildlife corridor and the M-KMA forms a large portion of the region (Krysko & Ewing, 2011).

Y2Y connects the mountain ecosystems from Yellowstone National Park in northern United

States up to the Yukon in northern Canada (Krysko & Ewing, 2011). Y2Y’s primary goal is to

retain connected, well-managed and good quality wildlife habitat so that animals can safely travel

between PAs (Krysko & Ewing, 2011). The LLEBM concept has permeated land management

discussion worldwide. LLEBM not only addresses issues related to loss of biodiversity and of the

intrinsic value of ecosystems, but it has also expanded to the realization that stakeholder

participation in management is crucial to successfully achieve conservation goals (Jones, 2013).

Debates about how to govern human uses of PA’s are taking place in the much wider

context of debates about how we should go about managing people and the social, economic,

political, and bureaucratic systems of which they are a part (Jones, 2013). The main debate

surrounding EBM focuses on its implementation and on the difficulty in decision-making

regarding entire ecosystems, inter-agency jurisdictional challenges and complexities, cost

effectiveness of new management schemes, and the role of top-down and bottom-up governance

approaches (Gelcich et al., 2009). According to Grumbine (1994), there are ten dominant themes

critical to the definition, implementation, or overall comprehension of EBM. The ten dominant

themes emerged repeatedly through his literature review and are as follows:


!

1. Hierarchical Context. Focusing on any one level of the biodiversity hierarchy (genes,

species, populations, ecosystems, and landscapes) is not sufficient. PA managers need to adopt a

“systems” perspective. This means, when working at a problem at any one level, managers need

to seek a connection between all levels.

2. Ecological Boundaries. Management requires working across administrative and

political boundaries (i.e., national forest, national parks) and defining ecological boundaries at

appropriate scales.

3. Ecological Integrity. Management for ecological integrity is defined as protecting

total native diversity (species, populations, ecosystems) and the ecological patterns and process

that maintain that diversity. This can be discussed as conservation of viable populations of native

species, maintaining natural disturbance regimes, reintroduction of native, extirpated species,

representation of ecosystems across natural ranges of variation, etc.

4. Data Collection. EBM requires more research and data collection (i.e. habitat

inventory/classification, disturbance regime dynamics, baseline species and population

assessment) as well as better management and use of existing data.

5. Monitoring. Managers must track the result of their actions so that success or failure

may be evaluated quantitatively. Monitoring creates ongoing feedback loops of useful

information. However, a baseline of information is required to make monitoring effective.

6. Adaptive Management. Adaptive management assumes scientific knowledge is

provisional. Management is a learning process or continuous experiment where incorporating the

result of previous actions allows managers to remain flexible and adapt to uncertainties.

7. Interagency Cooperation. Cooperation is required between federal, state, and local

management agencies as well as private parties. Managers must learn to work together and


!

integrate conflicting legal mandates and management goals.

8. Organizational Change. EBM implementations require changes in the structure of

land management agencies and the way they operate. These changes may range from simple

(forming an interagency committee) to complex (changing professional norms, altering power

relationships).

9. Humans Embedded in Nature. People cannot be separated from nature. Humans

are fundamental influences on ecological patterns and processes and are in turn affected by them.

10. Values. Human values, in addition to scientific knowledge, play an important role in

ecosystem management goals.

These ten dominant themes form the basis of a working definition: “EBM integrates

scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the

general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term” (Grumbine, 1994). Grumbine’s

outline for EBM guides our evaluation of what charters successful EBM and if its

implementation in the M-KMA governance structure adequately achieves the goals and objectives

of the area.

There are five specific goals of EBM within the overall goal of sustaining ecological

integrity: (1) maintain viable populations of native species in situ, (2) represent all native

ecosystem types within PAs, (3) maintain evolutionary and ecological process, (4) manage

ecosystems over long periods of time for the evolution potential of species and ecosystems, and

(5) accommodate human use and occupancy within these constraints (Grumbine, 1994). The first

four of these goals are value statements that aim to reduce the biodiversity crisis. The fifth goal

acknowledges the vital role that people play in all aspects of the ecosystem management debate.

These goals speak to the “balance” that is often brought up in management and governance of


!

PAs, and is the same question that is being asked of the M-KMA. What does balance mean and

what does it look like in a PA? Does balance with human use in a PA undermine its

environmental values? Can balance in a PA be achieved through LLEBM? With these questions

in mind, this research is directed at exploring the governance system and decision-making

functions that apply LLEBM to the real world.

2.4 Protected Areas Governance

PAs only contribute to conservation if they are managed effectively, thus governance has

been identified as central to the conservation and effectiveness of PAs around the world

(Dearden et al., 2005). Government and governance are commonly confused to mean the same

thing, however these two words are not interchangeable and have been clearly distinguished in

the literature (Robinson et al., 2012). Governments can be viewed as an organization or body that

does the governing, while governance is the process of governing (Robinson et al., 2012). In this

study, governance is of greater relevancy. Governance is concerned with how power is exercised

among the different sectors or interests in society and about pathways to desired conditions or

outcomes. “Good governance” can thus be defined as a model of governance that leads to social,

environmental and economic results sought by citizens (Robinson et al., 2012). According to

Lockwood et al. (2010), good governance is a prerequisite for effective management, and is

fundamental to securing the political and community support essential to the development and

survival of the global PAs system.

Social scientists have put forth theories suggesting the eight principles to “good

governance” of natural resource management including the following: legitimacy, transparency,

accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, integration, capability, and adaptability (Lockwood et al.,

2010). A study by Lebel et al. (2008), looked at certain attributes of governance function in


!

society to enhance the capacity to manage resiliency. They looked at three propositions in what

they define as aspects of “good governance”: (1) participation, (2) polycentric and multilayered

institutions, and (3) accountable authorities. Participation builds the trust, deliberation, and

shared understanding needed to mobilize and self-organize (Lebel et al., 2008). Polycentric and

multilayered institutions improve the fit between knowledge, action and social-ecological contexts

in ways that allow societies to respond more adaptively (Lebel et al., 2008). Accountable

authorities who pursue just distribution of benefits and involuntary risks enhance adaptive

capacity of vulnerable groups and society as a whole (Lebel et al., 2008).

In the past, “top down” government control has been the dominant model guiding

decision flow in PA management (Lockwood et al., 2010). However, as issues become more

complex the limitations of “top down” governance is more apparent as government is far from

the sole determinate of social, environmental, or economic conditions (Lockwood et al., 2010).

Important issues of public concern, such as environmental issues can be too complex to be

addressed by government acting alone (Lockwood et al., 2010). The CBD Programme of Work

on Protected Areas is bringing greater attention to the subject of improved governance for PAs

and calling for the involvement of all relevant sectors of society. (Hockings, 2003).

Governance assessments may be undertaken as part of management effectiveness

evaluations guided by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature World

Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) framework (Hockings, 2003). However, the

IUCN-WCPA framework is limited and neglects to evaluate important governance dimensions

such as legitimacy and fairness, and incompletely addresses other aspects such as accountability

(Hockings, 2003). Furthermore, there is no literature regarding evaluation frameworks for a

governance assessment for EBM at the landscape-level.


!

According to Robinson et al. (2012), the assessment of governance must encompass both

the social functions, and the method with which those functions are carried out. Seven indicators

for assessing governance processes was identified as: deliberation, resources, linkages, and under

fair governance – equity, responsiveness, legitimacy and society (Robinson et al., 2012).

Governance processes contribute to a variety of capacities in the community or society, three of

which are particularly relevant for the LLEBM: effective decision-making, learning, and

leadership (Robinson et al., 2012). Governance process and the capacities that they contribute to

help to carry out four main social functions: resolving tradeoffs, shaping how power is used,

setting direction, and building community (Figure 2) (Robinson et al., 2012).

Effective governance of PAs requires the cooperation and equitable treatment of

stakeholders, particularly people dependent on the resources included in PAs (Gunton et al.,

2007). Collaborative environmental management has been increasingly advocated as a desirable

approach to PA management and governance through multi-party or multi-stakeholder planning

(Griggs & Luff, 2009). The M-KMA represents an extraordinary experiment in collaboration for

the implementation of a land use agreement. While there is a growing trend towards collaborative

management in PAs, there are relatively few success stories thus far. The final section of this

chapter focuses on participatory management approaches for multi-stakeholder decision-making

in the governance model to learn how to implement collaborative management and to

understand what it means in practice.

The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$24$

$

Social P

henomena that

Deliver G

overnance

Governance

Capacities

Governance O

utcomes

(Social functions that are perform

ed)

R

esolving tradeoffs

O

rganizations Institutions N

etworks

Norm

s V

alues E

tc.

Governance

processes

Effective D

ecision-M

aking

Shaping how

power is used

Learning

Setting direction

Leadership

A

ssessed according to 7 indicators: deliberation, resources, linkages, equity, responsiveness, legitim

acy and accountability.

B

uilding comm

unity

!Figure!2:!!E

lements of governance for assessing LLE

BM

(Robinson et al., 2012)

The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 25$

$

2.5 Collaborative Multi-stakeholder Decision-making

The success of PAs is intrinsically dependent on the behaviour of people and their use of

the land base. Therefore, it places governance and PA decision-making at the centre of this

LLEBM assessment framework. Stakeholder involvement has become axial to PA planning and

has been proposed to open debate, contribute to policy formulation, increase government

accountability, build support for agency programs, reduce community tensions, and increase the

sustainability of the actions (Gunton et al., 2007). Therefore, PA governance is increasingly

relying on collaborative planning models that engage stakeholders to develop plans through

consensus-based negotiations (Gunton et al., 2007).

In the 1970s and 1980s, several planning models emerged (Gunton et al., 2007). The most

common approach was to consult stakeholders during plan preparation by seeking feedback

through public consultations (Gunton et al., 2007). The problem with consultation, however, is

that it does not resolve disputes among competing interest groups and the outcomes of the

process do not necessarily have any impact on government policies. This approach struggles to

cope with policy problems that are complex, involve interdependent actors, and require

cooperation with non-state actors (Gunton et al., 2007). Collaboration appeared in the 1990s

primarily as a response to the limitations and failures of expert administration, an approach

heavily influenced by managerialist values such as economic efficiency, a faith in specialist skills

and knowledge, and an emphasis on control through hierarchy (Gunton et al., 2007). As

described by Koontz (2005), collaboration is characterized by diverse stakeholders working

together to resolve a conflict or develop and advance a shared vision.

The M-KMA collaborative approach engages in consensus-based decision-making, a

method by which the input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a


$

final decision acceptable to all. Consensus planning attempts to build consensus between the

various parties taking part in the planning process (Dressler, 2009). Consensus is a cooperative

process in which all group members develop and agree to support a decision that is in the best

interest of the whole (Dressler, 2009). In consensus, the input of every member is carefully

considered and there is a good faith effort to address all legitimate concerns. Through consensus

building, the planning process strives to reach a win-win situation and to provide a mutually

beneficial outcome.

Consensus-based approaches may be applicable in some cases, however the ‘common

ground solution’ this planning approach seeks to achieve can in fact trump progress (Mackenzie,

2008). One issue with consensus is that resulting decisions are mediocre or uninspired because

they have become watered down by compromises necessary to secure the support of every group

member (Mackenzie, 2008). There is particular concern environmental decisions are watered

down in order to win the favour of involved stakeholders (Mackenzie, 2008). Understanding the

challenging enterprise of PA management through collaboration and consensus-based decision-

making is in its infancy. Due to the highly fragmented nature of LLEBM governance and its

decision-making applications, the governance assessment carried out using this framework is

meant to provide an overview of the process and structures that help determine who decides,

how they decide, how tradeoffs are management, how power relations are managed, how

collective vision is created, and how community is built. It also provides insight into successes

and challenges of the collaborative governance arrangement currently in place for the M-KMA to

help them achieve conservation and development goals. The next chapter outlines the methods

used to conduct the governance assessment research with an overview of the indicators chosen

to guide the assessment framework.


$

Chapter(3:((Study(Design(&(Methods!

Chapter three describes the study design and methodology used to conduct research for

the LLEBM project. Advisory Board members were interviewed to gain understanding and

insights on the governance system in place for LLEBM in the M-KMA. In this chapter, the

processes and structures used to select research participants and perform interviews are

explained. A qualitative analysis software known as N.Vivo 10 was employed to critically analyze

the collected interviews. These interviews were examined under a system of codes, indices, and

scoring criterion conducted under the LLEBM Governance Assessment Framework adapted

from Robinson et al. (2012)

3.1 Study Design

The study makes use of qualitative methodology and was designed around a hybrid of

primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews with

Advisory Boards members, land and resource managers, guide outfitters, and local community

members. To obtain these interviews, fieldwork was conducted between August 2012 and

September 2012 in Fort St. John, British Columbia. This city is situated east of the M-KMA and

was identified as a significant location to connect with some of the key stakeholders functioning

in and around the region.

Prior to data-collection, the governance assessment framework for LLEBM was reviewed

and adapted to develop three main interview guides for core people, M-KAB members, and M-

KAB non-members. The interview guide was designed following the five broad tasks of

describing the social-ecological system (SES), the landscape-level governance system, governance

process, governance capacity, and governance outcomes. For each of these tasks, there are a


$

number of questions or indicators. The broad tasks, the 8 core descriptive questions and the 16

core indicators making up the framework are summarized in Table 2 (Appendix).

3.1.1 Descriptive Tasks and Questions

The first two tasks are descriptive in which the first task describes the SES and the

second task describes governance processes. For the task of describing the SES, there are five

core questions:

Q1. What is the “identity” of the SES?

This question can simply look at the physical extent of the LLEBM initiative and

its delineated boundaries identified on a map. However, answering this question also

involved looking at the social and/or ecological process, which occurs beyond the

boundaries.

Q2. Who are the stakeholders?

The second question looks to list and identify stakeholders formally included in

the LLEBM initiative, stakeholders who play a role in making decisions that affect the

SES, and to also identify groups that are affected by the initiative and by activities of

other human actors within the SES.

Q3. What are the main issues and problems in the SES?

This question looks to discover the ecological processes that are of greatest

concern to stakeholders as well as identify the issues that extend beyond the boundaries

of the SES.

Q4. What are the objectives, interests, and values of the stakeholders?

Q5. What are the commonalities and contradictions among the various stakeholders’ objectives, interests,

and values?


$

These next two questions are to identify the objectives, interest, and values of

those stakeholders, and to find commonalities, contradictions, and potential conflicts

between them. These two questions involved developing narratives that capture the most

important views and feelings of the people in the SES.

The second task is to describe and summarize governance processes pertaining to the

SES. Three core questions were asked:

Q6. What are the core organizational and institution elements of the governance system?

The first question identifies the core organizational institutional elements of the

governance system such as the foundational institutions (legislation, regulations,

agreements) upon which the Advisory Board is based. If a single landscape level body was

not identified, a set of organizations and decision-making mechanisms were identified

instead.

Q7. What are the key mechanisms and strategies used for governance?

This question refers to how the decisions made within the governance system

attempt to change some aspect of human behaviour. Establishing regulations is a

common approach, but the social functions that comprise what we call “governance” can

also be carried by other means such as by providing funding, by influencing norms, or by

establishing or changing relationships among actors. Addressing this question requires

identifying the key decision-making bodies and their objectives.

Q8. What are the key decisions being made that affect the SES and the problems?

This question is concerned with collective decision-making, although certain kinds of

individual or household level decisions may also be relevant. This question should not ignore


$

other governance processes and organizations whose decisions have an impact. Identifying the

most important among these decisions involves understanding how stakeholders have identified

their main concerns, and what their objectives, interests, and values are

3.1.2 Assessment of Governance Processes

The task of assessing governance processes involves seven indicators: I-1 Deliberation, I-

2 Resources, I-3 Linkages, I-4 Equity, I-5 Responsiveness, I-6 Legitimacy, and I-7 Accountability.

Deliberation is a key element of meaningful multi-level participation, contributing to

effective feedback and decision-making mechanisms (Robinson et al., 2012). Therefore, I-1 asks

to what extent there is deliberation among stakeholders and decision-makers on important issues.

Effective government requires resources and so I-2 assesses the ability of the system to

generate resources. Following Robinson et al., (2012), resources are grouped into three types:

financial resources, human resources, and political resources.

Interplay and linkages among organizations and institutions, both vertically across levels

and horizontally within the same level are identified as critical factors in resilient SES, especially

in the capacity of a system to adapt to change (Robinson et al., 2012). I-3 asks whether there are

appropriate linkages among organizations and institutions, and where the linkages may be lacking.

Indicators I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 can be grouped under the larger heading of fair governance.

Gupta et al., (2010) identify four dimensions of fair governance: equity, legitimacy, responsive,

and accountability. Equity (I-4) refers to whether or not the institutional rules embodied in the

governance system are fare and take account of unequal circumstances in society. Responsiveness

(I-5) asks whether the governance system shows a response to society and the concerns and

issues raised by people and communities. Legitimacy (I-6) refers to the extent to which there is


$

support for the governance system among the various communities and stakeholder groups and

the general public. The fourth fair governance indicator asks whether institutional patterns

provide for accountability procedures (I-7).

3.1.3 Assessment of Governance Capacities

Three capacities of governance systems were identified for LLEBM: capacity for effective

decision-making, capacity within the system for learning, and the room created by the system for

leadership (Robinson et al., 2012). Each of these capacities has an important contribution to the

overall effectiveness of the governance system.

To assess for the capacity for effective decision-making, three indicators were proposed:

I-8 Clear scope, goals and objectives, I-9 Efficiency, and I-10 Fit (Robinson et al., 2012). I-8

suggests that effective decision-making presupposes the existence of clear goals and objectives

(Robinson et al., 2012). Stakeholders have only such time and organization have finite resources,

so I-9 looks at how the use of research, knowledge, and dialogue is balanced against the

efficiency of the process. Effective decision-making also depends on how well the governance

system matches the SES for which decision are being made (Robinson et al., 2012). To avoid

misfit, I-10 explores how the governance system responds appropriately to the spatial and

temporal characteristics of the system.

Trust, discussion of doubts, and institutional memories are identified as the aspects for

assessing how the governance system contributes to learning capacity under I-11 Learning. This

indicator asks the extent to which institutional patterns in the governance system promote

learning from past experiences and improve the way they operate, to which they promote deeper

reflection and questioning of underlying assumptions, and to which doubts and uncertainty are

openly discussed and addressed by the governance system.


$

I-12 asks about kinds of leadership that the governance system tries to promote including

visionary leaders, entrepreneurial leadership, and collaborative leadership. Without leadership,

decision-making discussion and progress has the potential to go awry.

3.1.4 Assessment of Governance Outcomes

Whereas government is a set of organizations, governance is a set of social functions

(Robinson et al., 2012). Four social functions stand out to form the following indicators for

assessing the outcomes of governance: I-13 Resolving tradeoffs, I-14 Contributing to just power

relations, I-15 Setting direction, and I-16 Building community.

Indicator I-13 asks how the governance system has performed at resolving tradeoffs in

terms of equity, efficiency, and environmental sustainability. I-14 is concerned with both coercive

power (“power over”) and power as capacity (“power to” and “power with”) (Robinson et al.,

2012). This indicator is asking at to what extent the governance system has contributed to just

power relations and if a certain stakeholder group has the ability to push their agenda forward

more easily than another.

A governance system cannot progress and improve without a set of clearly established

goals and visions. I-15, therefore, asks to what extent governance has established a vision or

common direction for steering and guiding the societies and organizations involved.

Finally, I-16 recognizes one of the key constituents of well-being is social connectedness

and sense of community (Robinson et al., 2012). This last indicator in this section relates to

building community and asks the extent to which the governance system helps stakeholders

identify, create, and share values and identities.


$

3.1.5 Structured Questionnaire

Each interview was comprised of a structured questionnaire with twelve question

statements (Appendix). For each statement, key informants were asked to respond as strongly

disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, or don’t know. In some cases, further explanation for a

response was inquired. This questionnaire was intended to quickly capture some of the values

and themes related to core questions no. Q4, Q7, and Q8.

3.2 Participant Selection

The study sought to document information on specific issues around LLEBM

governance, which would be known by those with extensive knowledge and experience with the

M-KMA governance structure. Hence, particular interest was directed towards speaking with

members of the M-KAB, while other focus groups included land and resource managers, First

Nations, government ministers, guide outfitters, and local community members in the region.

The goal was to interview individuals with significant impacts on decision-making processes and

outcomes, and who represented stakeholders currently functioning in and around the M-KMA.

Individuals considered for an interview were identified from a contact list compiled by the M-K

Secretariat, while additional contacts were suggested by word-of-mouth. LLEBM project

brochures were distributed to key informants through email with a request for their participation

in an interview. Willing participants then engaged in in-person interviews or phone interviews.

3.3 Interviews

A total of 9 M-KAB interviews, 3 BC government interviews, and 2 non-M-KAB

interviews were completed (Table 3). Past and present M-KAB members were interviewed who

had more than 7 years experience on the Board, or were newly appointed in 2012. Government


$

officials interviewed included a Land and Resource Specialist, the Executive Director of Forest,

Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, and the Land and Resource Manager for the West

Moberly First Nations. Non-MK-AB interviews were held with a Fort St. John local and a guide

outfitter. Interviews were recorded using a digital RCA audio recorder and the times ranged from

45 min to 1.5 h.

Table 3. Key informants, their institutional affiliations, professional backgrounds, and involvement with the MKMA Affiliation Key Informants History & Background M-KAB Chair Stephanie Killam District of Mackenzie mayor M-K Secretariat Don Roberts M-K Program Manager Karrilyn Vince District of Mackenzie mayor Advisory Board member Wayne Sawchuk Founder of M-KMA

Advisory Board member

Gavin Dirom

President of the Association for Mineral Exploration BC

Advisory Board member Juergen Puetter President of Aeolis Wind Power Advisory Board member Bob Peart 05-07 M-KAB member Advisory Board member Barry Holland BC Wildlife Federation Advisory Board member Reg Gardner Board Representative Bruce Muir

West Moberly First Nations Land Manager

BC Government Butch Morningstar

Executive Director Regional Operations FLNR

BC Government Rod Backmeyer Land & Resource Specialist FLNR Guide Outfitter Chris Shippmann Liard River Guide Outfitting Adventure Fort St. John local Anne Mackenzie Hotel Manager


$

3.4 N.Vivo Analysis

Interview recordings were emailed to a professional transcription service and then

transferred to NVivo 10. NVivo is a computer software package produced by QSR International

and designed for qualitative researchers working with rich text-based or multimedia information.

In NVivo, a preliminary analysis of the interviews involved coding the responses under nodes

representing the descriptive tasks and indicator questions as mentioned in the study design

section. Nodes organized commonalities and contradictions mentioned among the various

stakeholders about objectives, interests, and values of the LLEBM governance structure. For the

evaluative tasks, the nodes were scored from 1 to 4, 1 being poor/weak and 4 being good/strong.

In an attempt to make scoring as transparent and objective as possible, Table 4 in the appendix

outlines the criterion for each indicator describing what would constitute a score of “1”, “2”, “3”,

or “4”. The scores were then compiled in Microsoft Excel and summarized visually using tables

and figures in the Results section below.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


$

Chapter(4:((Results(!

The findings from the interviews are compiled here in Chapter Four. This chapter begins

with a brief overview of the results using tables and figures. The next section then describes how

the key informants perceived the SES and the governance processes of the SES system. The 8

core questions were used to find the identity of the SES, the main issues and problems in the

SES, the stakeholders of the SES, and the main objectives, interests, and values of the

stakeholders and the governance processes pertaining to the SES. Following this are the results

for the assessment of the governance system under the 16 evaluative indicators. The indicators

scored an average value of 2, suggesting the M-KMA is currently governed under a weak model.

4.1 Overview The following figures and tables provide a succinct overview of the results of the LLEBM

governance assessment framework. Tables 5-7 provide a summary of the common responses

grouped into perceived and desired benefits, perceived weaknesses, and personal values

associated with the SES and the SES governance system. An in-depth analysis of interview

responses showed the environment and economy dichotomy as a recurrent theme. In all tables,

the environment juxtaposes economic factors, which suggests the importance of this dichotomy

in how successes, weakness, and personal values are shaped for the SES and governance system.

Table 5: Summary of perceived and desired benefits for the SES and governance system. Description/Result Quotation Establishing the M-KMA

“The fact we got the [M-KMA] in there is a huge success. The fact it’s still alive is an accomplishment. That the Board has managed to fight despite all its idiosyncrasies or whatever to make sure that it stays alive."


$

Show conservation and development can co-exist

“ One of the major accomplishments was finding ways to allow some of those resource activities to take place, within the management area...to figure out a way for that to happen I think was really important"

Bring together various stakeholders to the table

“It includes all the stakeholders including First Nations at the table...It also provided a forum for all those groups to liaise amongst themselves but also with government.”

Learning opportunity for how to manage land resources

“In today’s world a lighter footprint is what everybody is looking to find”. So there is some huge lessons to be learned from the M-KMA that can apply outside...”

Set a world standard for “working wilderness” approach (environment vs. economy dichotomy)

“There is nowhere else in North America that I am aware of that managed to put in some different planning landscape type of things [for one region] beyond just parks versus no parks.”

Maintain a healthy land base

“Another success is that the land base is really healthy right now. You know there’s some management question about this species or that species but from a general sense, the M-K is extremely healthy from an ecological perspective.”

Table 6: Summary of perceived weaknesses for the SES and the governance system. Description/Result Quotation Uncertain about roles and responsibilities for AB

“One of the greatest challenges is to figure out...how the AB is going to provide useful advice to the government...by that I mean the ability to make decisions that are durable decisions.”

Poor communication between First Nations and government

“ The government to government discussions between First Nations and government has been a huge weakness"

Diminishing financial and political resources

“I think a major challenge facing [the M-K] is just...the inability for government to really have enough resources to really finish some of the plans that could be done.”

Biases in how trade-offs are made (environment vs. economy dichotomy)

“There is too much emphasis placed on the environmental protection and not enough weighting of the input on the social economic side...it would be disastrous to see all those resources and people just go on a social side, or just go to the economic side...we’re trying to find the balance...but it’s got a long ways to go.”

Consensus-based approach weaknesses

“It’s a consensus-based process, that’s it strength. But at the same time it can also be thrown out of whack by people who aren’t playing by the game...if someone brings their political agendas to the table or personal agendas it can be an issue.”

Lack of public awareness

“A major challenge is just people’s awareness of [the M-K]. Some people still thinks it’s a big park. And so I don’t think we in the North East have done a good job about educating to people what [the M-K] is and what it’s for.”

Table 7: Summary of personal values shaped by the SES and the governance system. Description/Result Quotation Maintaining an intact ecosystem

“If there’s resources in [the M-K] that are needed, you should be managing them in a manner that will retain those...The values that you’re looking for or trying to retain like the wilderness and the same or similar level of ecosystems.”

Conservation of wilderness and wildlife

“[The M-K] is a big chunk of wilderness that isn’t messed up. It still exists. Worldwide wilderness is disappearing at a alarming rate...so [PA] are becoming rarer all the time. We have a responsibility here on a global level to protected this chunk of ground."


$

Community and livelihood identity

“I’m an avid outdoors recreation person. I make a living off the land hunting and fishing and travelling around in the mountains on horseback. My kids grew up doing that with me and in the last few years, we’ve taken the grandkids to head of the Prophet on horseback...that has been a real interesting experience...the intrinsic value of being out there with family and friends”

Striking a balance (environment vs. economy dichotomy)

“How can we be smart as we go and explore and develop the world in certain areas that are very special? Arguably every area is sort of special in a way. So, [the M-K] is a gift, here’s an opportunity to kind of think about it more than we ever have. That’s fund, That’s exciting. That’s interesting to be part of that dynamic.”

Sustainability existence for the future

“I kept thinking what a wonderful thing to leave our kids. Our kids and their kids are going to actually be able to trail ride through three and be able to experience that area and its vast ecosystem...I assume that is the purpose of the AB and the purpose of having things set up to protect it and make sure that it is there for a long time to come.”

The scores for each of the 16 indicators were compiled into Figure 3, and colour coded

into the groups governance processes, governance capacities, and governance outcomes. Recall

that governance processes are the processes by means which social functions are carried out. In

turn, governance processes contribute to a variety of capacities in a community or society, and

together governance processes and the capacities that they contribute help to carry out the

resolution of tradeoffs, shaping of power relations, setting direction for governance, and building

community. On average, all indicators scored 2 out of a scale from 1 to 4, which suggests the

governance processes, governance capacities, and governance outcomes of the governance

system are generally weak. The indicators for responsiveness, learning capacity, and contributions

to just power relations were the highest scoring indicators, while resources and leadership were

the lowest scoring indicators. Table 8 summarizes each indicator, the score it received, and a brief

justification for why it was scored that value. At glance, the LLEBM governance system in place

for the M-KMA appears to be fairly weak, however, the accuracy and redundancy of the

assessment framework must be considered before any presumptions can be made about the

governance quality.


$

Figure 3. The scores on a scale from 1 to 4 to assess the 16 governance indicators. Green bars represent indicators for the assessment of governance processes (I-1 to I-7). Red bars represent indicators for the assessment of governance capacities (I-8 to I-12). Blue bars represent the indicators for the assessment of governance outcomes (I-13 to I-16).

0$ 1$ 2$ 3$ 4$

Deliberation$Resources$Linkages$Equity$

Responsiveness$Legitimacy$

Accountability$Clear$scope,$goals$and$objectives$

EfPiciency$of$the$decision&making$processes$Fit$

Learning$capacity$Leadership$

Resolving$tradeoffs$Contributing$to$just$power$relations$

Setting$direction$Building$community$


$ Table 8: Sum

mary of findings for each indicator.

Task

Questions/Indicators

Score E

xplanation Assessment of Governance Processes

I-1. D

eliberation 2

The consensus-based approach establishes the platform

that encourages AB

m

embers to engage in detailed deliberation. H

owever, conversations around larger

issues (e.g. First Nations issues and renew

able energy projects) are fettered by the C

hair to avoid dealing with som

e of the tougher discussions. There are concerns the

inventory about the SES is inadequate to appropriately inform

decision-making.

Board m

embers also m

eet only a handful of times during the year, w

hich makes

effective deliberation difficult and drawn-out.

I-2. R

esources 1

A dim

inishing financial and political climate is having negative effects on the A

B.

There is lack of political w

ill and interest into the M-K

MA

after a recent shift in governm

ent power. T

he government is not offering any m

ore money for the A

B

Trust Fund and alternative funding opportunities have been w

eakly explored. These

resource shortages have caused AB

mem

bers to become disengaged and reluctant in

decision-making processes.

I-3. Institutional Linkages

2 T

here is a strong linkage to UN

BC

through the endowm

ent for supporting scientific research. B

eyond this, linkages with the governm

ent and ministries are

weak. T

he government has not provided the necessary support for the m

anagement

of the region and the functioning of the AB

. The governm

ent has failed to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the A

B and has been unable to define “advice”.

There is poor linkages w

ith the First Nations com

munities and this been a source of

conflict between the A

B and First N

ations, and First Nations and the governm

ent.

Fair G

overnance

I-4. E

quity 2

While a good diversity of stakeholder groups sit on the A

B, equity m

erits more than

formal seating at the discussion table. First N

ations are poorly represented on the A

B and lack a legal voice in the decision-m

aking process. The governm

ent is currently w

orking on a government-to-governm

ent model w

ith First Nations, but

little progress has been made. T

he environment versus the econom

y dichotomy has

also been unequally balanced in decision-making processes, and this has pitted

industrial representatives against environmental representatives on the B

oard. I-5.

Responsiveness

3 T

he AB

does not have a direct role in managing concerns or issues, how

ever, the A

B helps direct inquiries to the governm

ent and appropriate Ministries. T

he governance system

is fairly responsive to concerns and issues raised by the general public and local com

munities. H

owever, this indicator is difficult to assess due to

lack of examples w

here the responsiveness of the governance system has been

adequately tested


$

I-6. Legitim

acy 2

Local comm

unities including Mackenzie, Fort N

elson, Fort St. John, and the Liard R

iver areas are supportive of the governance system. D

espite strong local support, there are few

individuals who heard and know

about the M-K

MA

. Thus, legitim

acy is difficult to assess w

hen very few individuals are aw

are of the region and its significance. T

here is poor support from a couple T

reaty 8 First Nations

comm

unities who have felt the area lacks respect for First N

ations ownership of the

land and their decision-making rights.

I-7. A

ccountability 2

There are clearly assigned responsibilities through the M

-KM

A A

ct about the purpose of the M

-KM

A and the role of the A

B. H

owever, there are no m

echanisms

in place that hold AB

mem

bers accountable to uphold their responsibilities and com

mitm

ents to the Board. T

he government has failed to provide adequate

monitoring for and feedback to the A

B. T

he process of appointing AB

mem

bers through the governm

ent also lacks transparency and accountability.

Assessment of Governance Capacities

Effective

Decision-

Making

I-8. C

lear scope, goals and objectives

2 T

he goals and objectives are well defined in the legislation and strategic plans,

however, A

B m

embers still struggle w

ith understanding their roles and responsibilities. U

nclear interpretations for what “balance” looks like and w

hat “advice” m

eans have restrained decision-making progress.

I-9. E

fficiency 2

Reaching decisions has been show

n to take a great deal of time, even for sm

all tasks and sim

ple issues. Lack of engagement w

ith AB

mem

bers has made deliberation

arduous and time-consum

ing. Furthermore, lack of scientific data about the SE

S creates an inefficient approach to deliberation w

here uninformed decisions can be

made.

I-10. Fit 2

The M

-KM

A is a large, intact SE

S region. The physical size of the SE

S is appropriate for m

aintaining the ecological quality and wildlife values of the region.

How

ever, a large SES ensues a greater num

ber of stakeholder interests and resource conflicts for the area. T

he AB

currently does not have the funding capacity to support a large SE

S and to function effectively as an advisory body. I-11. Learning capacity

3 T

he round-table discussions and consensus-based planning approach creates the opportunity for the various stakeholder groups to engage in m

eaningful discussion. T

he governance model creates the space for dialogue and the sharing of concerns

that would not otherw

ise have been voiced. While there m

ay be individuals bringing forth their personal agendas that m

ay skew the decision-m

aking process, m

embers felt there w

ere still values and perspectives to be gained from these

discussions.


$

I-12. Leadership 1

The governance system

does a poor job of facilitating the emergence of leaders.

The leadership displayed by the A

B C

hair facilitates or fetters the emergence of

leadership from other B

oard mem

bers. Unfortunately, shortcom

ings of the previous C

hair has generated a placate Board. A

B participation is volunteer-based, w

hich gives little incentive for A

B m

embers to take on leadership roles. T

he government

has also weakened leadership on the A

B by re-appointing m

embers w

ho are generally less vocal and less likely to engage in conflict.

Assessment of Governance Outcomes

I-13. Resolving T

rade-offs 2

Resolving trade-offs are done on a case-by-case or decision-by-decision basis. For

smaller trade-offs, the consensus-based approach w

as effective at reaching an agreem

ent among the various stakeholders. T

rade-off agreements betw

een the environm

ent and industry sector were m

ore difficult to reach and not always

equitable. For example, environm

ental concerns were said to trum

p economic ones.

I-14. Contributing to just pow

er relations 2

The contribution to just pow

er relations is fairly neutral for this governance system.

There are opportunities w

here AB

mem

bers can exercise their power, how

ever, the consensus approach has im

peded this. The achievem

ent of just power relations is

dependent on the mem

bers being cognizant and actively condoning coercive power.

I-15. Setting Direction

2 T

he AB

has discussed and identified issues for the upcoming years. T

here is no vision on how

they will address these issues and there is lim

ited comm

unication w

ith government on w

ays they will be supported m

oving forward. T

he advisory role and responsibilities still need to be defined by governm

ent in order to give the AB

better context for w

hat providing “advice” means.

I-16. Building C

omm

unity 2

There are tw

o areas of comm

unity building: the first is the building of identity and understanding w

ithin the AB

and the second is the building of the greater SES

comm

unity. First, the governance system has helped stakeholders share their values,

but it this has not meant greater acceptance or understanding betw

een stakeholders has been achieved. Second, the A

B has done a poor job of reaching out to local

comm

unities, educating the public about the M-K

MA

, and promoting public

support for the region. Hence, public aw

areness and support for the M-K

MA

is in its infancy and the B

oard has no imm

ediate plans on how they w

ill address this issue.


$

$

Recall, each interview guide contained a structured questionnaire comprised of 12

questions. Respondents answered these questions as strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly

agree, and don’t know. The frequency of each response is shown in Figure 4 and color coded for

ease of observation. According to the figure, 9 out of the 12 questions generated a high level of

agreement. However, respondents expressed disagreement with question 3 and 5. The Board did

not feel they were efficient with their time spent on reaching decisions nor did they believe the

governance model was completely fair and inclusive of all stakeholder groups. Finally, there was

a common feeling of uncertainty for questions 11 and 12 with regards to how competing interests

are balanced within the SES and governance system.

$Figure 4. The responses to the 12 questionnaire questions.

0$

2$

4$

6$

8$

10$

12$

14$

Don't$Know$

Strongly$Agree$Agree$

Disagree$

Strongly$Disagree$


$

4.2 Description of the SES

“The Muskwa-Kechika management area as a geographic unit is an important unit because you just don’t find,

you know, that kind of high value, ecological, environmental, wilderness value. You just don’t find that scale

around very much anywhere anymore. So there certainly is value to that.” – B. Morningstar

Most respondents referred directly to the purpose for the SES as outlined in the Act or

articulated a vision for the M-KMA that was generally consistent with the purpose in the Act.

Board members were firm to establish the M-KMA was not a park, but is a “wilderness area”

comprised of parks, other types of PAs, and land available for exploration by industries such as

oil and gas, mining, and forestry. This complex arrangement of the land base brings with it

resource and stakeholder conflicts. As a result, many of the Board members voiced a large

concern for a “balance” that needs to be struck between conservation and development. There

was general agreement that an important value to the Board was keeping the M-KMA a large and

intact wild ecosystem. However, the Board recognized that the identity of the M-KMA is largely

defined by the human and social dimensions of the region. This not only includes the cultural

significance of the area, but also the support for the SES from the surrounding local communities

such as Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, and other smaller communities. Many of these

communities rely heavily on the SES and its natural resources, wilderness values, economic

values, and cultural values for livelihood pursuits. Board members mentioned that they hoped to

see people continue to thrive and function off the land base sustainably so environmental values

of the region will not be jeopardized.

The stakeholders who function within the M-KMA and reflect their stakeholder

perspectives on the Board include First Nations, oil and gas, local government, conservation,

forestry, commercial recreation, labour, mining, wilderness tourism, and guide outfitting. The


$

general feeling towards the SES was a sense of pride and respect for the region. A majority of

these stakeholders agreed one of the largest issues that will need to be addressed for the SES is to

find the balance between conservation and development goals. Achieving any sort of balance will

require efficient and effective governance, however, respondents stated that the Board is unable

to perform successfully because of insufficient funds and political resources. Many Board

members shared concern about the future of the M-KMA, particularly about how the Board

would secure alternative funds and whether or not the upcoming election would result in the

abolishment of the Board.

Among the Board members, some wanted to see greater opportunities for industrial

development in the SES. These same members felt governance in the M-KMA had been too

biased towards the environment, which has trumped many development pursuits within the

region. However, other Board members were suspicious towards the industry sector and felt oil

and gas, forestry, and mining had done enough damage outside the boundaries of the M-KMA.

These respondents wanted to see the M-KMA kept as wild and intact with as little development

as possible. Some Board members also feared allowing further development in the region would

fragment the landscape so that wildlife could not longer utilize key migratory paths.

4.3 Governance Processes in the SES $

The core organization institutional elements of the governance system is centred around

the M-KAB as well as the legislations, regulations and agreements based in the M-KMA Act, Pre-

tenure Plans, Management Plans and the Trust Fund. The Act defines the aim of the SES, the

strategic plans, the role and responsibilities of the Board, and the purpose of the Trust Fund.

Board members are appointed by the Premier of BC, in some way, making the process of

selection slightly political. Some members stated that they were unsure if their position on the


$

Board would be renewed and this created some concern. Board members emphasized their role

was exclusively advisory, and any management or monitoring role was beyond the scope of their

responsibilities. Thus, decisions made by the Board have little direct affect on the SES. Since the

Board is an advisory body, it has no legal voice in the final decision-making of government

authorities and it has no ability to make physical changes that occur on the land base. According

to its mandate, the Board reviews and evaluates local strategic plans for oil and gas, wildlife and

recreation management. The Board then can direct planning of the local strategic plans through

developing and submitting letters of advice to the government. In this way, the Board merely

plays an advisory role to the government.

The tool used to guide discussion and deliberation at Board meetings is the consensus-

based approach. Deliberation occurs until an agreement can be reached amongst all stakeholder

representatives. If consensus is not achieved, an intermission is held for all Board members to

break off into smaller discussion groups. The members then reconvene with the hope that a final

decision can be made. A Board member stated that this technique has worked surprisingly well.

The key mechanisms in which the Board carries out its role is through the assets of the

Trust Fund. Monies of the Trust Fund finance Board meetings, research into wilderness

management, research into integrated management, promotional or educational programs,

enforcement training, and travel expenses. Beyond the Trust Fund, the Board has an endowment

fund out of a partnership with the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). This

partnership supports research in natural resources and environmental studies. A key concern

brought up by the Board members was the inadequate science and inventory available about the

SES. Therefore, respondents found their relationship with UNBC invaluable because of the

information about the land base that emerged from the university’s research.


$

4.4 Assessment of the Governance System

4.4.1 Deliberation Evaluative Indicator No. I-1, asks to what extent there is deliberation among stakeholders and decision-makers on important issues. Deliberation is a process in which people "confer, ponder, exchange views, consider evidence, reflect on matters of mutual interest, negotiate, and attempt to persuade each other" (Robinson et al., 2012). For the most part, Board members stated that the governance model allowed good

opportunities for deliberation and discussion between stakeholders. There was general agreement

that the consensus-based approach brought many issues to the forefront and encouraged Board

members to deliberate and negotiate tradeoffs. The Chair had a large role in facilitating effective

deliberation. Board members said when discussions became heated between two sectors, for

example between wildlife and industry, the M-KAB Chair sometimes fettered the discussion to

prevent the meeting from getting out of hand. However, some members felt these disputes

should be allowed to unfold in order to gain valuable discussions around some of the larger SES

issues.

Concerns were raised that the inventory about the SES was inadequate to inform

decision-making. Some Board members felt they were unable to engage in an educated and

meaningful discussion around matters that pertain to the science of the region, such as issues

around caribou migration or wind energy. As a result, these members did not see the deliberation

process being effective.

The Board meets only a handful of times during the year. Many Board members viewed

this as a negative aspect of the deliberation process. This was a common source of frustration for

the Board because it meant a lot of time was wasted on reminding members about the topics that

were discussed from the last meeting. The members agreed that they needed more Board


$

meetings during the year in order to engage in worthwhile deliberation. However, extra funds are

not available to support this.

4.4.2 Resources Evaluative Indicator No. I-2 assesses the ability of the system to generate three types of resources: financial resources, human resources and political resources.

Human Resources

Among the Board members, many stated that there was lack of engagement among

members at meetings and beyond meetings. Board members were disparaged by the lack of

funding and lack of interest from the BC government. Others said that lack of engagement was

also entrenched in the fact their roles were volunteer-based and therefore, members felt less

inclined to engage in the governance process in a more meaningful way.

Board members mentioned that only a handful of individuals out of the Board handled

the majority of the work. They felt this was unfair for those members who were undertaking

more of the responsibility than other. There was a general agreement those members who were

not actively engaged in the Board should be placed under consideration for removal.

Some members voiced concern that the pace of turn-over on the Board was too rapid for

there to be any progress made in decision-making or projects. New members had to be re-

informed about the status of the M-KMA and the current projects the Board was involved with.

It was mention the Board requires some sort of welcome orientation to establish and guide new

members in their role and responsibilities.

Poli t i ca l Resources

Political resources relates to the support and political will available to the Board. There

was general agreement that the BC government has lost some interest in the M-KMA since shift


$

in power from the New Democratic Party (NDP) to the Liberal Party. Part of the reason for lack

of government engagement is due to the poor fiscal climate under which the government is

currently functioning. There is little money at the government’s disposal and the M-KMA

represents one out of the many issues ranked as low priority. Another reason is the NDP

originally established the M-KMA and once the Liberal Party came to power, they felt less

obliged to support the M-KMA unless the Board could give reasons for why the government

should continue to sanction them funding. The Board members felt that there was some value

they had to offer or else the BC government would have discarded the Board long ago.

However, some members believe the Liberal Party is maintaining their role in order to save

public face.

Financial Resources

The form and function of the Board was supported primarily though the Trust Fund,

which received dividends from the BC government. There currently is little to no money

available for the government to offer the Board during these times in the recession. The Board

however, is still functioning as if its funding is what it was 10 years ago. Board members stated

that they were not adjusting appropriately to their financial situation nor have they explored

alternative funding partnerships and options. There was general agreement that lack of funding

has jeopardized their ability to perform at the capacity that is being demanded of them and they

are unable to conduct the appropriate research necessary to guide their decision-making and

advice.

4.4.3 Linkages Evaluative Indicator No. I-3 assesses whether there are appropriate linkages among organizations and institutions, especially across levels. Interplay and linkages among organizations and


$

institutions, both vertically across levels and horizontally within the same level, are critical factors in resilient social-ecological systems and environmental governance systems. The key linkages identified in this governance model is between the Board and Ministry,

the Board and municipalities, First Nations and Ministry, and the Board and UNBC. Although

there is adequate interplay horizontally at the Board level between the various stakeholder groups,

these linkages are not maintained beyond the general meeting times. Vertical interplay between

the Board and the government, the ministries, the universities, and the municipalities are fairly

poor.

Most Board members stated that their linkage with the government was inadequate. A

large concern for the Board was the lack of communication with government and ministries. The

Board has expressed its frustration to government because it has not clarified to them what

“advice” means and what it looks like. Government has also been said to disregard the Board’s

role completely by excluding the Board during consultation with industry. However, a Board

member suggested these discussions might have accidentally resulted because the government

lacks understanding about the roles and responsibilities of the Board.

The linkage between First Nations, specifically Treaty 8, and government are among the

worst. Treaty 8 and Kaska Dena representatives have voiced concern that the governance model

undermines their rights and freedoms to control their land. First Nations do not want to be seen

as a stakeholder on the Board and they have asked repeatedly for a governance-to-governance

model with the Ministry separate from the Board. There has been substantial discussion about

establishing a government-to-government (G-to-G) structure, however, Board members stated

that there has yet to be a model of this sort established.


$

4.4.4 Equity Evaluative Indicator No. I-4 refers to whether or not the institutional rules embodied in the governance system are fair and take account of unequal circumstances in society and assesses representation and inclusivity. The general view on equity was both positive and negative. Some respondents felt the

governance system was equitable because the Board was highly inclusive of all stakeholder

groups. However, this indicator does not only imply that every imaginable stakeholder group

merits a formal seat at the table. It asks if all legitimate stakeholders, especially those most

marginalized are able to express their voice in decision-making processes in a meaningful way.

With this in mind, Board members stated that the governance system unfairly represents First

Nations. To start, the First Nations have asked for a G-to-G system, separate from the Board, to

discuss land issues directly with the BC government. The government has yet to address this

concern. As a result, conflict has arisen between First Nations representatives and other Board

members who feel the G-to-G ideology is stifling the decision-making process by hampering

meaningful deliberation from taking place.

Many Board members voiced that both environmental and economic concerns were not

equally represented at the table. Industry representatives felt targeted by Board members from

the environment side who wanted to constrain as much development as possible within the SES.

Because of this, industries such as mining as well as oil and gas have stepped down periodically

off the Board. At the same time, environmental representatives were strongly opposed to more

development in the M-KMA unless it achieves high standards of sustainability.

4.4.5 Responsiveness Evaluative Indicator No. I-5 asks whether the governance system shows a response to society and the concerns and issues raised by people and communities.


$

Many members could not think of a situation or direct example of a time when concerns

and issues were raised by a group of people and communities. They did, however, mention that if

any concerns or issues did arise, there were mechanisms in place for people to approach the

Board. Some members describe a situation when the Toad River community raised concern

about a proposed mine that was going to be placed near their community. The Board was not

directly involved in dealing with the issue, since they have little legal authority in matters, but

respondents seemed to agree that the issue was managed appropriately by the government. Since

the Toad River incident, there has not been an issue raised by the public of that magnitude, partly

because activity within the M-KMA has been fairly quiet in the last decade. Thus, it was hard to

assess whether the governance system does indeed shows adequate response to society.

4.4.6 Legitimacy Evaluative Indicator No. I-6 refers to the extent to which there is support for the governance system among the various communities and stakeholder groups and the general public.

Legitimacy was rated low for the governance system and SES. Some Board members

stated that there was strong support for the governance system and SES among the local

communities nearest to the region, which include the general public of the Mackenzie, Fort

Nelson, Fort St. John, and the Liard River areas. Despite strong local support for the M-KMA,

many respondents stated that there is still a tremendous amount of ignorance about the M-KMA.

The general public and communities beyond the immediate range of the SES have unlikely heard

about the M-KMA or know what it is. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether the governance

system indeed has the support from the various communities and stakeholder groups, and the

general public.

All stakeholder representatives on the Board supported the governance system and

agreed it was in fact legitimate. However, First Nations representatives offered the least support


$

for the governance model. This resistance is linked to the government’s continued lack of respect

for First Nations ownership of the land base and the lack of consultation and accommodation

with First Nations at the decision-making table.

4.4.7 Accountability Evaluative Indicator No. I-7 assesses whether institutional patterns provide for accountability procedures.

The governance model is shown to lack institutional patterns that enforce accountability.

To begin, the appointment of members to the Board by the Premier is political and there is lack

of accountability for why the individuals are chosen. Some individuals, such as the past M-KAB

Chair, was said to be appointed simply because the board had not yet had a representative from

the District of Mackenzie. Another respondent stated that he was removed from the Board

because his perspectives conflicted with the government’s vision. Transparency is therefore

lacking in the appointment process and should be re-evaluated to provide some accountability to

the Board.

Many Board members voiced their frustration about the government’s lack of

accountability to the Board. Members stated that they were unsure what the Advisory role meant

and what kind of advice the government expected from them. There has been little feedback

from the government about what “advice” looks like and how advice would be used in their

decision-making. Board members shared a strong desire for government to clarify the Board’s

purpose and role, and to provide feedback on how the government would employ the Board’s

advice.

There are not institution procedures that assess Board members and their accountability

to the governance system. Board members volunteer their time to the Board and are not required

to sign any contract that keeps them beholden to the Board for a certain period of time. In turn,


$

this has meant some members have placed more time into the Board than others. Respondents

stated that there needs to be careful consideration for who should remain on the Board. They felt

those who are not actively engaged in the governance process should be held accountable and

step down from their role. Board members also stated that they would like see the government

conduct an evaluation of the Board members and their contributions in order to guide the

Premier’s future reappointments to the Board.

4.4.8 Clear Scope, Goals and Objectives Evaluative Indicator No. I-8 assesses the extent to which decision-making bodies have clear goals and objectives.

This indicator scored poorly under the framework. Although the legislation provides clear

goals and objectives about the government structure for the Board, Trust Fund, and Management

Plans, there was a general sense of uncertainty and confusion from the respondents about their

roles and responsibilities. Board members stated that “advice” needed to be better defined by the

government in order for them to move forward in their decision-making plans.

The balance between environment and economy is an evident objective found in the M-

KMA Act. Despite having this purpose clearly stated in the legislation, there were concerns that

the idea of “balance” remains an abstract concept. Board members have raised questions about

what balance means and what it looks like on the land. These questions, however, are challenging

to address because “balance” is a theoretical concept without clearly definable answers.

The Board is currently undergoing major changes as the financial and political climates

are in a state of transition. There is little political interest in the M-KMA and this is worsened by

lack of funding at the Board’s disposal. Board members stated that they have incredibly poor and

unclear goals on how they will adapt to these changes. Currently, the board is at a standstill with a

lot of uncertainty about how they should move forward to create future funding options.


$

4.4.9 Efficiency Evaluative Indicator No. I-9 assesses efficiency of decision-making processes.

Efficiency in the decision-making process has been stifled because of lack in financial,

political, and human resources. Lack of funding has limited the Board’s ability to pursue active

research projects in the SES. The Board has thus struggled to engage in efficient decision-making

because adequate inventory and science has not been readily available to inform their

deliberations. The faltering relationship between the Board and the government has made it

difficult for the Board to obtain clear goals and objectives for their role as an advisory body. This

uncertainty has made Board members hesitant to engage in discussion, and thus has slowed the

decision-making process. Disengagement with Board members has also compromised the

efficiency of the government system. Board members stated that they sometimes spent excessive

amounts of time on decision that were not very important. Finally, Board members saw First

Nations as a large obstacle in decision-making because of the issues brought up about the G-to-

G system.

4.4.10 Fit Evaluative Indicator No. I-10 assesses the extent to which the governance system fits the SES.

Fit of the governance system was ranked appropriate for the SES, however, this indicator

was difficult to assess since fit is highly dependent on scale. For example, governance of a

particular resource requires the fit to be at a finer scale while governance of an entire ecosystem

requires the fit to be much coarser and larger. Respondents generally spoke about fit in regards to

the whole M-KMA region. Many Board members stated that the M-KMA was enormous, but

they felt it needed to be large in order to achieve conservation goals. There was also shared

agreement that the M-KMA must be maintained at this large scale if LLEBM was to be applied


$

effectively. Yet, with such a large SES comes with it a large set of challenges. Board members

stated some of these challenges were resource conflict, stakeholder disputes, and zoning

challenges. These issues were said to be further exacerbated by lack of resources, making it

difficult for the Board to function effectively at such a grand scale.

Some respondents mentioned that the fit of the governance system explicitly excludes

First Nations and their inherent rights to the land. These accusations were linked to the LRMP

processes from which First Nations were excluded. Therefore, some Board members felt the

current fit of the SES and governance structure does not account for this discrimination and

thus, boundaries of the SES needed to be re-evaluate with First Nations considerations.

4.4.11 Learning Capacity Evaluative Indicator No. I-11 assesses the extent to which the governance system promotes learning. The governance system, through the round-table discussions and consensus-based

planning approach, has created the opportunity for various stakeholder groups to engage in

meaningful discussion. Board members stated that this was a value that they gained from the

governance model. Yet, other members voiced that the governance system was too political for

learning to be achieved. Some stakeholders were accused of bringing their own agendas to Board

meetings, and because of this, these individuals did not have the M-KMA in their best interest.

However, some Board members felt that the governance system empowered stakeholders with a

platform to learn from each other. This meant concerns and issues that would not otherwise have

been voiced were put forward to the stakeholder groups. Whether the Board has taken this

information and used it in a meaningful way is still uncertain, and therefore, the learning capacity

of the SES governance system is rated fairly neutral.


$

4.4.12 Leadership Evaluative Indicator No. I-12 assesses the extent to which the governance system makes room for the emergence of leadership of various kinds—visionary, entrepreneurial, and collaborative.

The governance system facilitated leadership primarily through the role of the M-KAB

Chair. The Chair had the capacity to direct Board meetings, guide table discussion, and impede or

encourage deliberation. In this way, leadership has not been highly encouraged amongst the other

Board members. Respondents stated that many Board members chose a more passive role and

individuals who did voice their concerns often received more confrontation from the other

members. Actively vocal members on the Board said they sometimes hesitated to voice their

concerns to avoid conflict and chose instead to remain quiet.

The establishment of the governing system through the appointment of the Premier in

some ways restrains the emergence of leadership. As mentioned in accountability, vocal members

of the Board were sometimes not reappointed to avoid future conflict. A Board member stated

that this political process weakens the capacity and emergence of leadership on the Board.

4.4.13 Resolving Tradeoffs Evaluative Indicator No. I-13 assesses the extent to which the Governance Systems has resolved tradeoffs—including tradeoffs among social, economic and environmental needs, and tradeoffs among different social groups—in a way that is equitable and fair, that is economically rational, and that protects the environment.

The M-KMA is a complex SES with trade-offs occurring at all times. The Board

members described many instances when conflict arose between industry and environment as

well as between First Nations and the other stakeholder groups. There was general agreement

that the governance system created opportunities for these opposing groups to engaged in

meaningful deliberation and helped them reach a common ground.


$

For some of the smaller conflicts around hunting and guide outfitting, many Board

members stated that the consensus-base approach helped them resolve the conflict. They found

this model highly effective and regarded it as one of the successes of the SES. In some instances

where it became more challenging to achieve resolution, the Chair would call a meeting

intermission and divided the Board into smaller focus groups so that the issue could be discussed

in greater detail. The Board members would then reconvene and hopefully an agreement could

be made. Board members stated that this process was surprisingly effective at conflict resolution,

in which the outcome was generally consensus.

Despite the governance systems success in resolving trade-offs, it also comes with its own

challenges. When it came to larger conflicts around industry and the environment, there were

concerns that the Board was too biased towards the environment and the trade-offs that were

being made did not necessarily focus enough on the economic side of the SES. Industrial activity

within the M-KMA has also been fairly quiet in the past decade. It is hard to say whether trade-

offs between environment and the economy have been equitably and rationally resolved since

there are few examples that have tested this in the governance model.

4.4.14 Contributing to Just Power Relations Evaluative Indicator No. I-14 assesses the extent to which the governance system has placed limits on the use of coercive power, and to which it has enhanced power as capacity.

Many Board members stated that the governance model provides opportunities for the

members of the Board to abuse their powers, however, there was general agreement that the

Board has not functioned in that way. The consensus approach to decision-making has been the

primary mechanism that prevents a single person or stakeholder group from pushing their

agenda’s forward. Board members stated that achieving just power relations is dependent on the


$

members themselves to be self-aware of power dynamics and take ownership of actively rebuking

individuals who do attempt to use coercive power.

4.4.15 Setting Direction Evaluative Indicator No. I-15 assesses the extent to which governance has established a common vision or direction.

The Board has recognized many shortcomings of the governance model that need

attention. These include lack of financial resources, diminishing stakeholder engagement, and

uncertainty about their role to the government. Currently, there is little vision or direction that

guides the Board as they tackle these issues in the upcoming year. Ten Board members

mentioned that the fiscal climate is not what it was a decade ago, yet the Board continues to

function as if it receives substantial monies from the provincial government. The Trust Fund is

nearly at its end, and so alternative funding options such as partnerships with non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) and universities have been discussed, however, these ideas are in their

infancy and have yet to be acted upon. The Board has expressed feelings of hopelessness and

uncertainty in regards to the future of the M-KMA. This overall response to funding

inadequaceies has discouraged Board members from actively engaging in the decision making

process. Furthermore, the concept of “effective advice” is difficult to define. Thus, Board

members repeatedly voiced the need for the provincial government to define and provide

feedback on what they consider as effective advice. Without a clear definition, the Board is

unable to forecast the future changes it must achieve to strengthen the governance model. has

struggled through the decision-making process and is unable to clearly forecast its future

improvements to the Board.


$

4.4.16 Building Community Evaluative Indicator No. I-16 assess the extent to which the governance system is helping stakeholders to identify, or create, shared values and shared identities.

The MK-AB has done a poor job of reaching out to local communities and the general

public. Board members stated that there are very few people who know about the M-KMA

including those in communities closest to the SES boundaries. Farther south of the SES, the

Board predicts that even fewer people will have heard or know about the region. The Board has

invested in producing an educational DVD that outlines the SES boundary, its purpose, and its

significance. Despite these efforts, this has not been enough to gain the attention of the public

eye. Without public support for the M-KMA, some Board members are concerned there will be

no public resistance if the M-KMA and the Board were ever to be abolished.

This indicator scored higher in regards to how the governance system has helped

stakeholders identify, or create, shared valued and shared identities. The Board members stated

that the consensus-based planning approach and round-table discussions helped bring together

various stakeholder groups who would not otherwise be found sitting at the same table. This was

seen as a success of the governance model. However, while various stakeholders were able to

engage with each other in discussion, the governance system does not prevent stakeholders from

bringing their own agendas to the table.


$

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 5.1 Discussion and Recommendations $The$M&KMA$Governance$Model$

AB members were interviewed to learn whether, how, and to what extent the M-KMA

has balanced the needs and interests of various communities and stakeholder groups. According

to the results, the governance model for the M-KMA is inadequate and has done a poor job of

balancing the competing interests of the various stakeholders. This was determined by analyzing

the 8 core descriptive questions and 16 assessment indicators as outlined in the framework. The

indicators used to assess the governance processes, governance capacities, and governance

outcomes were given an average score of 2. This is a low rating considering the highest score is 4.

As stated by Robinson et al. (2012), governance capacities and processes determine governance

outcomes. In turn, the governance processes impact the governance capacities that can be

achieved. Since these three elements of governance are interlinked, any weakness in one element

will have widespread effects upon the whole governance model. Hence, if governance processes

are weak, the potential to achieve successful governance capacities and outcomes will be

compromised.

The challenges that were found associated with the implementation of LLEBM were

similar to the challenges expressed in the reviewed literature including: finding common vision

and objectives for LLEBM; designing metrics to evaluate the accomplishment of these objectives;

and obtaining funding for LLEBM implementation (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). As such, the

study contains few surprises, but rather re-enforces many of the suspected trends. Highlights

included:


$

• 10 out of 12 respondents reported the representation on the Board was inequitable, 2

of which felt First Nations were under represented;

• All respondents reported they had no legal influence on decision-making at the

provincial level;

• All respondents reported that budgets had not kept pace with requirements;

• 10 out of 12 respondents felt that trade-offs were biased and unjust;

• 9 out of 12 respondents reported decreased political interest;

• All respondents felt they needed government to better define the Board’s role and

responsibilities.

To address some of the issues listed above, co-management and consensus-based

decision-making are mechanisms that have been integrated into the M-KMA’s governance model

for dealing with resource conflict. Results showed that consensus proves to be effective for

dealing with short-term and straightforward problems. However, consensus is poor at dealing

with larger issues, specifically with regards to First Nations issues and resource issues between

environment and industry. Not only has the consensus approach done nothing to hinder

individual stakeholders from bringing their own agendas to the decision-making table, it has not

performed adequately to achieve fair governance and representation on the Board. Thus, the

success of consensus for the M-KMA has been limited in scope. Although much of the academic

literature speaks highly of consensus-based planning, this study warns that consensus should not

be accepted at face value nor simply applied to all LLEBM governance arrangements. Instead,

the application of consensus is context specific and its fit for a SES should be carefully


$

considered before being applied. Hence, this study suggests alternative planning approaches that

are more inclusive and better suited for the M-KMA should be explored in the upcoming year.

The changes necessary to improve the governance model for the M-KMA will be a

challenging and complex task. The Board requires financial and political support in order to

address some of the concerns and issues raised about the governance model. Yet, this study has

shown that finances and political will are highly curtailed. The funding available to the Board is

nowhere near what it needs to function, let alone make changes to the governance model.

Furthermore, the provincial government has recently made motions towards separating the

Board from the government’s funding responsibilities. If this is the case, the Board has

demanded that the province clarify their intended purpose for the Board as well as define what

“advice” means and what it looks like to support the government in decision-making processes.

This request has been communicated to the government, but the Board has yet to receive its

clarification. In lieu, the following recommendations may help the Board and provincial

government adjust to the diminishing financial and political climate. These are the options in

addressing the M-KMA governance model:

• The role and responsibilities of the Board need to be clarified by defining what

“advice” means and what the government would find as useful advice;

• The role of the Board can be expanded to include planning, advisory, coordination,

and funding functions;

• The government needs to develop clear expectations and accountabilities for the

Board that are contractual, transparent, and documented in an agreement;

• The government should consider downsizing the Board and removing members who

have offered minimal contributions to the Board;


$

• The Board needs to establish clear goals and objectives for exploring alternative

funding options including partnering with universities and NGOs;

• The Board should channel efforts towards raising public awareness about the M-

KMA through promotional and educational programs.

In this list of recommendations, these suggestions are intended to help fill the financial

and political void that the Board has struggled with over the past years. Part of the problem with

the governance model is that it has placated the Board. Thus, Board members need to engage

more actively in the decision-making process. By expanding the Board’s role to include planning,

advisory, coordination, and funding functions, it can empower, give agency, and encourage the

members to take ownership of their contributions to the Board. Furthermore, the government

needs to develop clear and contractual expectations for the Board that hold the members

accountable to their commitments. If “advice” can be clarified for the Board, it will give context

for the Board to plan its next set of improvements. Finally, the Board can no longer expect

government funding and must explore funding alternatives with universities, NGOs, and

fundraising through the general public.

$

The$LLEBM$Framework$

Robinson’s et al. (2012) governance assessment framework has proven useful to show

trends and patterns of the governance arrangement for LLEBM in the M-KMA. The framework,

however, is in its early stages of development and any generalizations obtained from these

research findings should be applied with caution. There are many implications of the LLEBM

governance assessment framework that needs greater attention and revaluation. First off, the


$

qualitative results obtained from this framework provides too large of a scope for assessing

governance in a clear and concise manner. Second, the framework is too long for key informants

to engage in and also too large for a single researcher to manage. Third, in-person interviews

introduced biases into the results due to the way respondents may have perceived or trusted the

interviewer. Finally, interview responses sometimes did not fit under the scoring criterion

outlined in this framework.

To address these concerns, this framework requires more evidence-based questions that

can provide a metric for evaluating the interview responses. It is suggested that the open-ended

format of this framework should be redesigned into a questionnaire or survey type design. Not

only will this shorten the amount of time needed to conduct the assessment, it will arguably

eliminate response biases associated with interviewer and respondent interactions. A survey type

study design will also standardize the way in which the questions are asked, thus removing further

biases. Likewise, methodologies that will ground-truth the interview responses is important for

proving the results in fact correspond with what takes place in the real world.

5.2 Conclusion

EBM is an approach used to address some of the deficiencies found in current PA

systems. In the last decade, there has been movement towards conservation approaches that look

to manage PA systems at the landscape-level using EBM. LLEBM is complex, involves many

stakeholder groups, and has high potential for resource conflict. Thus, efficient and effective PA

governance is not only important to implement LLEBM, but it remains essential for achieving

biodiversity conservation goals.

To date, there is limited understanding about the governance system around LLEBM for

large and complex SES. This research is the first to apply an assessment framework that assesses

The M-KMA: A governance assessment of LLEBM 66

governance for LLEBM in the M-KMA. The results in this paper show that the LLEBM

governance structures for the M-KMA is inadequate for achieving both conservation and

economic goals in this area. Specifically, this study demonstrates how insufficient financial and

political resources have far-reaching effects on the Board and their capacity to engage in effective

decision-making processes. Thus, in light of the current limited capacity and resources of the

provincial government the answer to enhancing effective LLEBM governance in the M-KMA

may lie in clarifying the Board’s roles and responsibilities. The ultimate goal is to have the AB as a

self-functioning governing body with looser ties to the provincial government.

As EBM involves complex decisions, conflicting objectives and massive uncertainties, a

systematic framework to make decisions has significant potential as it can be repeatedly used for

any decision even in the most complex situations. The draft governance assessment framework

applied in this study is a good starting point for assessing LLEBM governance for SES. However,

there are improvements that must be made to ensure this framework has less subjective and

holistic interview questions that will eliminate biases and adequately capture the scope of LLEBM

for SES. While much work still needs to be done, the new structure of objectives, attributes and

indicators presented in this study can be considered the first of many steps in building a more

comprehensive LLEBM governance assessment framework.

The$M&KM

A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM

$67$

$ Appendix!T

able 2: Assessing G

overnance for LL

EB

M – Sam

ple Interview Q

uestions

$Abbreviations

DM

= "decision-making"

GS = "governance system

" $

Questions/Indicators!

Sample!Q

uestions!Description!of!the!Social7Ecological!

System!

!

Q1. What$is$the$“identity”$of$the$SES?$

• [To be asked after asking about Error! R

eference source not found.] The geographical range of [nam

e of DM

body or of GS system

] is clearly defined. But do the issues and problem

s you identified correspond to those boundaries?

Q2. Who$are$the$stakeholders?$

• Who – w

hich comm

unity or group or set of stakeholders – is having the biggest effect on the ecosystem

and natural resources in the region? • W

ho – which group or com

munity – is m

ost affected by what's happening on the land and w

ith resources?

• Are there any significant differences betw

een wom

en and men in w

ho affects and who is affected by

what happens in the ecosystem

? What about differences for different com

munities or different ethnic

groups? • [N

ame of D

M body] includes representatives of [list groups/stakeholders/com

munities represented].

Are there any other groups are significant?

Q3. What$are$the$m

ain$issues$and$problem

s$in$the$SES?$• W

hat were the m

ain issues and problems at the tim

e this GS w

as created? • A

re those the same now

? What in your assessm

ent are the main issues and problem

s now?

Q4. What$are$the$objectives,$interests,$and$

values$of$the$stakeholders?$• Y

ou represent [name of group or com

munity]. W

hat do you want from

the GS for [nam

e of group or com

munity]?

• Why is that im

portant? • Is there any kind of discrepancy betw

een your hopes and objectives for the region and that of any of the other groups that w

e've mentioned? A

re your objectives and the objectives of others at odds in som

e ways? H

ow? Som

e of the time? M

ost of the time?

• Some of w

hat we've been talking about here relates in som

e way to values, and I'd also like to ask

about values at a personal level. What for you is im

portant about the work that the G

S is doing? Why

for you is it important to protect/sustainably m

anage [use wording of objectives already discussed] the

region?

The$M&KM


$68$

$ Q5. What$are$the$com

monalities$and$

contradictions$among$the$various$

stakeholders’$objectives,$interests$and$values?$

• Assessed prim

arily through analysis related to Error! R

eference source not found., rather than through direct questioning.

Description!of!the!Landscape7Level!Governance!System

!Q6. W

hat$are$the$core$organizational$and$institutional$elem

ents$of$the$governance$system

?$

• What is your understanding of w

hat the central purpose of [name of D

M body] is?

• Aside from

[list the elements w

hich the researchers have identified], is there some other D

M body that

are crucial for deciding what happens in the region? Som

e other legislation or set of regulations? Q7. W

hat$are$the$key$mechanism

s$and$strategies$used$for$governance?$

• Ultim

ately, [name of D

M body] is trying to influence people's actions in the real w

orld, maybe by

setting and enforcing rules, maybe by providing inform

ation, maybe by influencing people's norm

s and beliefs. W

hat are the main w

ays that [name of D

M body] tries to influence people's actions?

• [Nam

e of DM

body] has the power to [list key governance m

echanisms and strategies w

hich researchers have identified: setting regulations, review

ing permit applications, funding research, etc.].

Are there any other strategies or tools that it is using?

Q8. What$are$the$key$decisions$being$m

ade$that$affect$the$SES$and$the$problem

s?$• W

hat are the key decisions being made that affect the SES and the problem

s and issues that we've

talked about? • A

re there important decisions affecting the region w

hich are made at other levels? W

hat are they? Assessm

ent!of!Governance!Processes$

I&1. Deliberation$(The$extent$to$w

hich$stakeholders$and$decision&m

akers$engage$in$genuine$deliberation$on$important$issues.)$

• Are there opportunities w

ithin the DM

processes that are part of this GS for the people involved to

deliberate – to not just reach decisions but to really dialogue, and explore and analyze problems

together? Where – in w

hat venues? • A

ny kind of planning or DM

process has a number of aspects or stages: problem

definition, brainstorm

ing possible actions, setting priorities, considering alternatives, and so on. Is there, or has there been, deliberation pertaining to all of these stages? D

o any parts of any planning/DM

processes proceed w

ithout deliberation at some key stages?

I&2. Resources$(Ability$of$the$GS$to$generate$financial,$hum

an$and$political$resources.)$

• I asked you about the main w

ays that [name of D

M body] is trying to influence people's actions in the

real world. D

oes it have the capacity to do so – the capacity to carry out this strategy? Does it have

the resources it needs? • Financial resources? • H

uman resources?

• Does it have the political resources it needs to do this – things like political w

ill, and connections, and influence?

The$M&KM


$69$

$ I&3. Linkages$(The$presence$of$appropriate$linkages$am

ong$organiza&tions$and$institutions,$especially$across$levels.)$

• There are important decisions m

ade by other bodies, for example [nam

e of some other im

portant DM

body (especially D

M bodies or processes at other levels)]. Is there com

munication or coordination

between the G

S here and that body? In what w

ay? • C

an you think of any examples of decisions taken at other levels that affected w

hat the GS here w

as doing or how

it carried out its work?

• Can you think of any exam

ples of effective coordination or cooperation or even simply inform

ation-sharing betw

een this GS and [other im

portant DM

body]? • W

hat about [another important D

M body]?

• Examples of conflict or confusion betw

een this GS and one of these other D

M bodies, or of

organizations and institutions at other levels working at cross purposes to this G

S? • W

hat other important connections are there to organizations, institutions or processes at other levels?

Fair$Governance$

I&4. Equity$(W

hether$or$not$institutional$rules$are$fair$and$take$account$of$unequal$circum

stances$in$society)$

• Are there any com

munities, sub-populations, or stakeholder groups that are not represented in the G

S? W

hich ones? • [For each of various com

munities, sub-populations or stakeholders groups]

o How

are they represented in the GS? D

o they have a seat at the table themselves?

o Can you give m

e some exam

ples of how their concerns are voiced and heard in the D

M

processes of the GS? (O

r of how their concerns are N

OT voiced and heard?)

o Do they have the capacity to represent them

selves competently? C

an you give me som

e exam

ples? • A

re the rules governing how decisions are m

ade within this G

S fair? • [If not…

] In what w

ay? • A

re there any comm

unities or stakeholder groups that have any kind of special advantage in the rules that are a part of this G

S? • D

o the rules and the way D

M is structured create a level playing field?

I&5. Responsiveness$(W

hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$show

$response$to$society)$

• Can you think of any exam

ples of issues or concerns that the general public have had, or any com

munities or stakeholders in the region have had w

hich the GS has needed to respond or react to?

How

did it respond? • C

an you think of any examples of issues or concerns that the general public, or som

e comm

unity or stakeholder group in the region w

anted the GS to do som

ething about, but which it didn't or couldn't

act on? Tell me about that.

• If someone—

some citizen or citizens, som

e comm

unity or stakeholder group—w

ants the GS to look at

some issue or concern, how

can they do that? I&6.

Legitimacy$(W

hether$there$is$public$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS)$

• As far as you know

, do the various comm

unities and stakeholder groups and segments of society

accept this GS as legitim

ate? Do they support it?

• Do you/the group you represent?

• Why or w

hy not?

The$M&KM


$70$

$

I&7. Accountability$(W

hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$provide$accountability$procedures)$

• Who is the m

ain DM

body accountable to? How

are they accountable/what m

echanisms are in place

for it to be held to account? • A

re the responsibilities of the DM

body clear? Are the responsibilities of other bodies in the G

S (com

mittees, etc.) clearly assigned?

Assessment!of!Governance!Capacities$

Effective$Decision&Making$

I&8. Clear$scope,$goals$and$objectives$

• Do the key D

M bodies in this G

S have clear goals and objectives? • Is the scope of w

hat the key DM

bodies are and are not responsible for clear? • D

o the goals and objectives provide guidance on decisions? Can you think of any exam

ples? I&9.

Efficiency$(of$DM$processes$

themselves.)$

• Does it typically take a long tim

e for a decision to be made?

• What kind of resources and efforts—

in terms of new

research, consulting stakeholders, and so on—go

into making a decision? D

oes it seem that the level of resources and effort expended to reach

decisions is appropriate? • A

re large amounts of tim

e spent on reaching decisions that would seem

to be straightforward?

I&10. Fit$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$

fits$the$SES)$• Is the spatial scale of the G

S appropriate? Does its geographic scope allow

it deal with som

e of the key issues, problem

s and decisions that you mentioned? Is it perhaps too large or too sm

all? • The issues and problem

s that you mentioned also happen on a tem

poral scale [mention an exam

ple – e.g., "Y

ou mentioned clim

ate change, which requires anticipating consequences and planning w

ith a perspective that looks decades into the future. Y

ou also mentioned fish stocks w

hich vary greatly from

year to year]. Is the GS able to function quickly enough for the short-term

problems [like fluctuations

in fish stocks]? • Is it able to do long-term

planning and to follow through for issues that happen on a long tim

e-scale? • A

re there procedures in place to study and monitor and to take into account any connections betw

een the local econom

y and ecosystems? A

re there efforts to assess the ability of the ecosystem and the

natural resources to support various stakeholders' socio-economic needs?

• Is the GS system

able to make appropriate decisions for the unique characteristics of this ecosystem

? W

hy or why not?

I&11. Learning$capacity$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$prom

otes$learning)$• H

as the level of trust among the various individuals w

ho have been involved increased over time?

• What about at an organizational/institutional level – has the level of trust changed over tim

e? Do you

have a sense of why or w

hy not? • H

as the GS im

proved in any ways over tim

e? • H

ave the people involved changed the way they understand each other or understand issues? C

hanged im

portant assumptions in any w

ay? Have you?

• Is there flow and exchange of inform

ation and experiences and so on? • A

re there ways in w

hich lessons that are learned and knowledge that is gained are passed on as there

are changes in personnel? Is the learning institutionalized in any way?

The$M&KM


$71$

$ I&12. Leadership$(The$extent$to$which$the$

GS$makes$room

$for$the$emergence$of$

leadership$of$various$kinds—visionary,$entrepreneurial,$and$collaborative)$

• I have a few questions about leadership. A

nd I'm talking about various kinds and styles of leadership

that might em

erge among the com

munities and stakeholders in the region: visionary leaders w

ho inspire people and prom

ote progressive change, entrepreneurial leaders who go out and m

ake things happen, people w

ho are connectors and help to facilitate new kinds of partnerships or collaboration.

Can you think of any w

ays in which the G

S has facilitated the emergence of leaders and leadership in

the region? Leaders who w

ere able to do what they did in part because of this G

S? • C

an you think of any ways the G

S has stifled leadership? Assessm

ent!of!Governance!Outcom

es$

I&13. Resolving$Tradeoffs$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$has$resolved$tradeoffs—

including$tradeoffs$among$social,$

economic$and$environm

ental$needs,$and$tradeoffs$am

ong$different$social$groups—

in$a$way$that$is$equitable$

and$fair,$that$is$economically$rational,$

and$that$protects$the$environment.)$

• Can you give m

e some exam

ples of the kinds of competing interests that have had to be balanced or

tradeoffs that have had to be made?

• Have the decisions that have com

e out of this GS m

ade economic sense? In w

hat way?

• Have they been equitable and fair? W

hy or why not?

• Has the G

S, in the decisions that it has produced, sufficiently protected the environment?

I&14. Contributing$to$just$power$relations$

(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$has$

placed$limits$on$the$use$of$coercive$

power,$and$to$w

hich$it$has$enhanced$pow

er$as$capacity)$

• When there is lack of consensus, do som

e stakeholders have more ability than others to push their

agendas forward? C

an you give an example?

• How

does the GS does allow

individual agendas to be constrained or predominate in relation to

collective goals? • Is the G

S doing anything to address needs for developing the capacity of the most m

arginalized stakeholders?

• Is the GS helping to facilitate m

utual support and sharing of expertise and knowledge am

ong stakeholders? In w

hat way – can you give som

e examples?

I&15. Setting$Direction$(The$extent$to$which$

governance$has$established$a$com

mon$vision$or$direction.)$

• Is there a vision or strategic plan that has been articulated? • D

oes it have wide support?

• Are there general goals and targets created or adopted by the G

S for things like environmental

protection or sustainable development?

• Is the GS providing guidance for subsidiary D

M bodies and for other stakeholders in the system

that can help them

to set priorities and decide amongst com

peting priorities? I&16. Building$Com

munity$(The$extent$to$

GS$is$helping$stakeholders$to$identify,$or$create,$shared$values$and$shared$identities)$

• Has the G

S contributed to some kind of collective identity?

• Has the sense of com

munity am

ong people of the various comm

unities and stakeholders involved changed? W

hat role did the GS play in those changes?

• Has your involvem

ent in DM

processes and various aspects of the GS affected your priorities? H

as it helped you to articulate values in a different w

ay?

The$M&KM


$72$

$ Table 4: G

overnance Indicators – Criteria for Scoring

Indicator!Criteria!for!a!Score!O

f…!

1$2$

3$4$

Assessment!of!Governance!Processes$

$$

$I&1.

Deliberation$(The$extent$to$w

hich$stakeholders$and$decision&m

akers$engage$in$genuine$deliberation$on$important$issues.)$

Many$im

portant$kinds$of$decisions$in$the$planning/$DM

$cycle$are$made$w

ithout$serious$deliberation,$exploration$and$dialogue$am

ongst$participants/stakeholders$

Some$deliberation$on$key$

decisions$in$the$planning/$DM

$cycle$takes$place,$but$som

e$of$that$deliberation$is$disconnected$from

$where$

decisions$are$actually$taken$

Participants$in$the$GS$engage$in$profound$deliberation,$exploration$and$dialogue$on$problem

$definition,$analysis,$and$alternative/com

peting$perspectives,$including$at$most$m

ajor$stages$of$the$planning/$DM

$cycle$

Participants$in$the$GS$engage$in$profound$deliberation,$exploration$and$dialogue$on$problem

$definition,$analysis,$and$alternative/com

peting$perspectives,$including$at$all$major$stages$of$the$

planning/DM$cycle$

I&2. Resources$(Ability$to$generate,$and$access$of$the$GS$to,$financial,$hum

an$and$political$resources)$

The$political,$human$and$

financial$resources$available$to$the$GS$to$change$rules$or$norm

s,$to$influence$actions,$and$to$solve$problem

s$is$usually$insufficient.$

The$political,$human$and$

financial$resources$available$to$the$GS$to$change$rules$or$norm

s,$to$influence$actions,$and$to$solve$problem

s$is$som

etimes$insufficient.$

The$GS$has$political,$human$

and$financial$resources$available$to$it.$$H

owever,$it$is$

limited$ability$to$generate$its$

own$resources$for$changing$

rules$and$norms,$influencing$

actions,$and$solving$problem

s.$

The$GS$has$political,$human$

and$financial$resources$available$to$it.$$It$is$able$to$generate$such$resources$for$changing$rules$and$norm

s,$influencing$actions,$and$solving$problem

s.$

I&3. Linkages$(The$presence$of$appropriate$linkages$am

ong$organizations$and$institutions,$especially$across$levels.)$

The$flow$of$resources$and$

information$and$the$sharing$

of$knowledge$w

ith$other$organizations$and$institutions$is$m

inimal$and$ad$

hoc.$$The$GS$and$other$DM$

bodies$often$work$at$cross$

purposes.$

There$are$linkages$within$the$

GS$and$to$organizations$and$institutions$beyond$the$GS$such$that$the$flow

$of$resources$and$inform

ation$and$the$sharing$of$know

ledge$are$som

etimes$facilitated.$$

The$GS$is$sometim

es$able$to$use$its$linkages$to$other$DM

$venues$to$avoid$different$DM

$making$bodies$w

orking$at$cross$purposes.$$





ledge$are$som

etimes$facilitated.$$

The$GS$is$usually$able$to$use$its$linkages$to$other$DM

$venues$to$avoid$different$DM

$making$bodies$w

orking$at$cross$purposes.$





ledge$are$all$facilitated.$$Som

e$such$linkages$are$institutionalized.$$The$GS$is$able$to$develop$new

$linkages$w

hen$necessary.$$Linkages$are$helping$to$facilitate$coordinated$action.$

Fair$Governance$ I&4. Equity$(W

hether$or$not$institutional$rules$are$fair$and$take$account$of$unequal$circum

stances$in$society)$

Institutional$rules$favor$some$

stakeholders$or$communities$

over$others$and$perpetuate$unequal$circum

stances$that$already$exist$in$society.$

Institutional$rules$are$fair$for$most$stakeholders,$com

muni&

ties$and$sub&groups.$$How

&ever,$no$explicit$allow

ance$has$been$m

ade$or$provisions$put$in$place,$for$the$unequal$circum

stances$of$some$of$

these$groups.$

Institutional$rules$are$fair$for$most$stakeholders,$com

muni&

ties$and$sub&groups,$and$have$made$allow

ance$in$modest$

ways,$for$the$unequal$

circumstances$of$som

e$of$these$groups.$

Institutional$rules$are$fair$for$all$stakeholders,$com

munities$

and$sub&groups,$and$have$provisions$that$take$account$of$the$unequal$circum

stances$of$som

e$of$these$groups.$

The$M&KM


$73$

$

I&5. Responsiveness$(W

hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$show

$response$to$society)$

The$GS$shows$no$response$to$

the$needs$of$society$or$wishes$

of$local$communities$and$

stakeholder$groups.$$These$needs,$w

ishes,$objectives$and$concerns$are$essentially$ignored.$

The$GS$responds$to$the$needs$of$society$and$to$the$w

ishes$of$local$com

munities$and$

stakeholder$groups$some$of$

the$time.$

The$GS$responds$to$the$needs$of$society$and$to$the$w

ishes$of$local$com

munities$and$

stakeholder$groups$most$of$

the$time.$

Procedures$and$mechanism

s$are$in$place$and$are$follow

ed$to$ensure$that$the$GS$consistently$responds$to$the$needs,$w

ishes,$objectives$and$concerns$of$local$com

muni&

ties,$stakeholder$groups$and$society$generally.$

I&6. Legitim

acy$(W

hether$there$is$public$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS)$

There$are$strong$misgivings$

about$the$institutions$of$the$GS$am

ong$more$than$one$of$

the$various$communities,$

stakeholder$groups$or$segm

ents$of$the$general$public.$$The$institutions$are$not$seen$as$legitim

ate.$

One$or$more$of$the$

communities,$stakeholders$

groups$or$segments$of$the$

general$public$have$some$

misgivings$about$the$

institutions$of$the$GS.$

There$is$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS$am

ong$most$of$the$various$

communities$and$stakeholder$

groups,$and$from$general$

public.$$Few$if$any$of$these$

groups$have$more$than$m

inor$misgivings$about$the$

legitimacy$of$the$institutions.$

There$is$general$and$strong$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS$am

ong$all$the$various$com

munities$and$stakeholder$

groups,$and$from$general$

public.$$The$institutions$are$seen$as$legitim

ate.$

I&7. Accountability$(W

hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$provide$accountability$procedures)$

Responsibilities$are$not$clearly$assigned.$$M

echan&ism

s$are$not$in$place$to$hold$DM

$bodies$and$the$persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable.$

For$the$most$part,$

responsibilities$are$clearly$assigned.$$M

echanisms$to$

hold$DM$bodies$and$the$

persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable$are$lim

ited$and$implem

ented$inconsistently.$

Responsibilities$are$clearly$assigned.$$M

echanisms$are$in$

place$to$hold$DM$bodies$and$

the$persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable.$$Citizens$and$other$organizations$to$which$DM

$bodies$are$accountable$m

ake$use$of$those$m

echanisms$m

ost$of$the$tim

e.$

Responsibilities$are$clearly$assigned.$$M

echanisms$are$in$

place$to$hold$DM$bodies$and$

the$persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable.$$Citizens$and$other$organizations$to$which$DM

$bodies$are$accountable$consistently$make$use$of$those$

mechanism

s.$!

!

The$M&KM


$74$

$ Assessment!of!Governance!Capacities$

$$

$Effective$Decision&Making$

I&8. Clear$scope,$goals,$and$objectives$

Scope,$goals$and$objectives$for$DM

$bodies$in$the$GS$are$not$clearly$defined.$$DM

$bodies$are$left$w

ithout$broader$principles$to$guide$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$

Scope,$goals$and$objectives$have$been$articulated$but$in$a$lim

ited$way$w

ith$insufficient$detail$to$guide$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$

Scope,$goals$and$objectives$have$been$articulated$for$DM

$bodies$in$the$GS.$$There$is$enough$clarity$in$these$to$provide$som

e$guidance$for$both$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$

DM$bodies$in$the$GS$have$

clearly$articulated$goals$and$objectives$w

hich$are$brought$to$bear$on$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$$The$scope$is$clearly$defined,$providing$guidance$as$to$w

hat$issues$should$be$addressed$and$w

hat$issues$can$be$left$for$others.$

I&9. Efficiency$(of$DM

$processes$them

selves.)$

Reaching$decisions$typically$takes$a$great$deal$of$tim

e$and/or$resources,$even$w

hen$the$issue$is$urgent.$

Reaching$decisions$sometim

es$takes$a$great$deal$of$tim

e$and/or$resources,$even$w

hen$the$issue$is$urgent.$The$level$of$resources$spent$on$reaching$decisions$can$be$high$even$for$decisions$of$low

er$levels$of$importance.$

The$GS$is$usually$able$to$produce$urgent$decisions$in$a$tim

ely$way$w

hen$necessary.$$The$level$of$resources$spent$on$reaching$decisions$is$usually$proportionate$to$the$importance$of$the$decision.$

The$GS$is$able$to$produce$urgent$decisions$in$a$tim

ely$way$w

hen$necessary.$$The$level$of$resources$spent$on$reaching$decisions$is$proportionate$to$the$importance$of$the$decision.$

I&10. Fit$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$fits$the$

SES)$

Because$of$inappropriate$governance$design$or$distribution$of$authority$there$is$a$m

ismatch$betw

een$DM$

processes$and$the$temporal$

and/or$spatial$scale$of$problem

s.$$The$GS$does$not$have$the$scope$to$m

ake$decisions$tailored$to$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$social&ecological$system

.$

The$design$of$the$GS$and$distribution$of$authority$to$and$w

ithin$it$are$such$that$it$has$scope$for$m

aking$only$som

e$kinds$of$decisions$tailored$to$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$landscape&level$social&ecological$system

.$$Its$DM$

processes$are$constrained$from

$addressing$some$issues$

at$the$appropriate$time$scale$

or$geographic$scale.$



aking$appropriate$decisions$tailored$to$m

ost$of$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$landscape&level$social&ecological$system

.$$DM$

processes$are$able$to$address$issues$at$the$appropriate$tim

e$scale$and$geographic$scale$most$of$the$tim

e.$



aking$appropriate$decisions$tailored$to$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$landscape&level$social&ecological$system

.$$DM$

processes$are$able$to$address$issues$at$the$appropriate$tim

e$scale$and$geographic$scale.$

The$M&KM


$75$

$ I&11. Learning$capacity$(The$extent$to$w

hich$the$GS$prom

otes$learning)$

The$GS$has$not$helped$to$build$trust$am

ongst$stakeholders$and$show

s$little$signs$of$learning$from

$past$experiences.$$There$are$defensive$routines$that$inhibit$experim

entation,$consideration$of$doubt$and$questioning$assum

ptions.$$Institutional$m

emory$is$

minim

al.$

The$GS$has$taken$some$steps$

to$build$trust$amongst$

stakeholders.$$It$shows$m

odest$ability$to$learn$from

$past$experiences$and$im

prove$routines.$

The$GS$has$helped$to$build$up$trust$am

ongst$stakeholders.$$It$show

s$a$strong$ability$to$learn$from

$past$experiences$and$improve$routines.$$H

owever,$

DM$and$deliberation$

processes$do$not$system

atically$consider$doubts$and$uncertainties,$and$there$is$little$evidence$of$changes$in$the$assum

ptions$underlying$institutional$patterns.$$Learning$is$only$partially$entrenched$in$institutional$m

emory.$

The$GS$has$helped$to$build$trust$am

ongst$stakeholders.$$It$show

s$an$openness$toward$

uncertainties,$an$ability$to$learn$from

$past$experiences$and$im

prove$routines.$$There$is$evidence$of$changes$in$the$assum

ptions$underlying$institutional$patterns.$$Learning$is$entrenched$in$institutional$m

emory.$

I&12. Leadership$(The$extent$to$w

hich$the$GS$makes$

room$for$the$em

ergence$of$leadership$of$various$kinds—

visionary,$entrepreneurial,$and$collaborative)$

The$GS$undermines$the$

emergence$of$any$kind$of$

leadership$other$than$coercive$leadership.$

Neutral.$$On$the$w

hole,$the$governance$system

$neither$underm

ines$nor$supports$the$em

ergence$of$leadership.$

The$GS$give$modest$support$to$

the$emergence$of$leadership.$

The$GS$actively$encourages$the$em

ergence$of$leadership$(of$various$kinds)$that$is$responding$to$long&term

$challenges$and$is$acting$as$motivator$and$a$driver$for$

change.$

Assessment!of!Governance!O

utcomes$

$$

$I&13.

Resolving$Tradeoffs$(The$extent$to$w

hich$the$GS$has$resolved$tradeoffs—including$tradeoffs$am

ong$social,$economic$

and$environmental$

needs,$and$tradeoffs$am

ong$different$social$groups—

in$a$way$that$is$

equitable$and$fair,$that$is$econom

ically$rational,$and$that$protects$the$environm

ent.)$

In$resolving$tradeoffs,$the$GS$has$not$or$is$not$able$to$address$all$three$dim

ensions$of$sustainability—

social,$econom

ic$and$environmental.$$

Tradeoffs$that$are$inherent$in$the$decisions$being$m

ade$are$left$unresolved,$or$else$proceed$w

ith$one$or$more$

dimensions$unacknow

ledged$or$not$addressed.$

The$GS$deals$with$social,$

environmental$and$econom

ic$tradeoffs$on$a$case&by&case,$or$decision&by&decision$basis.$$Consideration$of$social,$environm

ental,$and$economic$

tradeoffs,$as$well$as$equity$and$

sustainability,$are$sometim

es$considered$but$are$not$alw

ays$made$explicit$in$the$GS.$

The$GS$has$mechanism

s$in$place$for$considering$various$dim

ensions$of$the$tradeoffs$that$are$inherent$in$the$decisions$being$m

ade.$$Consideration$of$social,$environm


tradeoffs$are$usually$made$

explicit$in$the$GS.$$There$is$evidence$that$social,$environ&mental,$and$econom

ic$factors$are$all$som

etimes$considered,$

as$are$equity$and$sustain&ability.$

The$GS$has$mechanism

s$in$place$for$considering$various$dim

ensions$of$the$tradeoffs$that$are$inherent$in$the$decisions$being$m

ade.$$Consideration$of$social,$environm


tradeoffs$are$made$explicit$in$

the$GS.$$There$is$evidence$that$social,$environm

ental,$and$econom

ic$factors$are$all$usually$considered,$as$are$equity$and$sustainability.$

The$M&KM


$76$

$ I&14. Contributing$to$just$pow

er$relations$(The$extent$to$w

hich$the$GS$has$placed$lim

its$on$the$use$of$coercive$pow

er,$and$to$w

hich$it$has$enhanced$pow

er$as$capacity)$

The$GS$facilitates/entrenches$the$pow

er$of$already$powerful$

actors$

Neutral.$$On$the$w

hole,$the$GS$has$neither$entrenched$or$increased$the$role$of$coercive$pow

er$in$decisions$nor$noticeably$reduced$it.$

The$GS$limits$the$role$of$

coercive$power$in$decisions,$

but$is$not$necessarily$facilitating$transform

ative$collaboration$am

ong$people,$com

munities$and$groups$in$

the$region.$

The$GS$limits$the$role$of$

coercive$power$in$decisions.$$It$

is$also$contributing$to$the$capacity$of$m

arginalized$or$less$pow

erful$groups$and$of$people$and$com

munities$in$the$

region$generally$to$act$on$matters$of$individual$and$

collective$concern.$I&15.

Setting$Direction$(The$extent$to$w

hich$governance$has$established$a$com

mon$

vision$or$direction.)$

No$articulated$vision$or$

common$goals.$$The$GS$

provides$little$guidance$to$help$stakeholders$prioritize$and$strategize.$

Limited$vision$articulated.$$

Insufficient$detail$to$guide$strategic$decisions$or$day&to&day$m

anagement.$

The$GS$has$articulated$a$vision$and$there$is$som

e$level$of$detail$to$guide$strategic$decisions$and$day&to&day$managem

ent$by$the$governance$system

$itself$and$by$stakeholders.$

The$GS$has$articulated$a$vision$and$there$is$sufficient$detail$to$guide$strategic$decisions$and$day&to&day$m

anagement$by$

the$governance$system$itself$

and$by$stakeholders.$

I&16. Building$Com

munity$

(The$extent$to$which$the$

GS$is$helping$stakeholders$to$identify,$or$create,$shared$values$and$shared$identities)$

The$GS$is$undermining$

community$am

ong$diverse$com

munities$and$

stakeholders.$

Neutral.$$On$the$w

hole,$the$GS$is$neither$building$nor$underm

ining$community.$

The$GS$is$helping$diverse$com

munities$and$stakeholders$

to$find$common$ground$that$

may$already$exist,$but$is$not$

necessarily$shaping$new$

shared$values$or$identities.$

The$GS$is$helping$to$create$shared$values$and/or$identities$and$to$build$com

munity$am

ong$diverse$com

munities$and$

stakeholders.$$$$$$$$

The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$for$LLEBM$ 77$

$

References! Butchart, S., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Striend, A.V., Scharlemann, J., Almond, R.,…Watson, R.

(2012). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328 (5982), 1164-1168 Convention on Biological Diversity. (2012). Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity

2011-2020, Strategic Goal C: Target 11. Chape, S., Harrion, J., Spalding, M., and Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the extent and

effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, 260, 443-455. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1592

Chester, C.C., Hilty, J.A., & Francis, W.L. (2012). Yellowstone to Yukon, North America. Climate

and Conservation: Landscape and Seascape Science, Planning, and Action, 240-252. Day, J.C. & Tamblyn, G.C. (1998). Land Resource Management Planning: the Kamloops

experience. Environments, 26(2), 1-19. Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Johnston, J. (2005). Trends in global protected area governance,

1992-2002. Environmental management, 36(1), 89–100. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0131-9 Dressler, L. (2009). Consensus Through Conservation: How to Achieve High-commitment Decisions. New

York, US: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland:

IUCN. Ervin, J., Mulongoy, K.J., Lawrence, K., Game, E., Sheppard, D., Bridgewater, P., Bennett, G.,

Gidda, S.B., and Bos, P. (2010). Making Protected Areas Relevant: A guide to integrating protected areas into wider landscapes, seascapes and sectoral plans and strategies. CBD Technical Series No. 44. Montreal, Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity.

Espinosa-Romero, M.J., Chan, K.M, McDaniels, T., & Dalmer, D.M. (2011). Structuring

decision-making for ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy, 35, 575-583. Gelcich, S., Defeo, O., Iribarne, O., Carpio, G.D., DuBois, R., Horta, S., Isacch, J.P., Godoy, N.,

Penaloza, P.C., & Castilla, J.C. (2009). Marine ecosystem-based management in the Southern Cone of South America: Stakeholder perceptions and lessons for implementation. Marine Policy, 33, 801-806.

Glicksman, R.L. & Cumming, G.S. (2012). Landscape Level Management of Parks, Refuges, and

Preserves for Ecosystem Resilience. The George Washington University Law School, Public Law and Legal Theory Paper No. 2012-76.


$

Griggs, J., & Luff, D. (2009). Conservation Planning The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area. Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What Is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-38. Gunton, T., Peter, P., & Day, J.C. (2007). Evaluating Collaborative Planning: A Case Study of a

Land and Resource Management Planning Process. Environments, 34(3), 19-37.

Gupta, J., C. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, S. Nooteboom, and E. Bergsma. 2010. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: A Method to Assess the Inherent Characteristics of Institutions to Enable the Adaptive Capacity of Society. Environmental Science & Policy 13(6):459-471.

Hockings, M. (2003). Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected Areas. BioScience, 53(9), 823-832.

Jones, P.J.S. (2013). Governing protected areas to fulfill biodiversity conservation obligations:

from Habermasian ideals to a more instrumental reality. Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 15, 39-50.

Koontz, T. M. (2005). We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative

Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 459–481. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00125.x

Krysko, R. & Ewing, S. (2011). Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative: 2011 Annual

Report. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 495-503. Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J.

(2006). Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems, 11(1), 19-39.

Lee, P. & Cheng, R. (2011). Canada's Terrestrial Protected Areas Status Report 2010: Number,

Area and Naturalness. Global Forest Watch Canada, 5, 1-68. Lemieux, C.J., & Scott, D.J. (2005). Climate change, biodiversity conservation and protected area

planning in Canada. Canadian Geographer, 49(4), 384-399. Locke, H., & Dearden, P. (2005). Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm.

Environmental Conservation, 32(1), 1–10. doi:10.1017/S0376892905001852 Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2010). Governance

Principles for Natural Resource Management. Society & Natural Resources, 23(10), 986–1001. doi:10.1080/08941920802178214

Mulongoy, K.J. and Chape, S. (2004). Protected Areas and Biodiversity: An Overview of Key Issues. Kuala

Lumpur: INEP-WCMC and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity


$

Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, Bill-37, 3rd Sess 36th Parl.,

http://www.leg.bc.ca/36th3rd/3rd_read/gov37-3.htm (1998) (enacted). Muskwa-Kechika Management Area. (2013, February 19). Retrieved October, 2013, from

http://www.muskwa-kechika.com/. Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B., and Brandon, K. (2005). The Role of Protected Areas in

Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 219-252.

Pachauri, R.K. & Reisinger, A. (Eds.) (2007). Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear

Rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 495-503. Protected Areas and Poverty Reduction (PAPR): Canada-Africa Research and Learning Alliance. (2013,

March 25). Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://www.paprproject.com/. Robinson, L. W., Dearden, P., & Orozco, A. (2012). Framework for Assessing Governance for

Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Draft 2 . 1 Lance W . Robinson , Philip Dearden and June 2012, (June).

$

the muskwa-kechika management area: a …...considering only the iucn’s strict conservation...

Documents