6_GeorgiaBPugetSdEco.. - Simon Fraser University by lanyuehua


									     Binational Management
      of the Georgia Basin—
     Puget Sound Ecosystem

Simon Fraser University
Resource and
Environmental Management
• Compare 3 modern, large-scale governance
  systems to Georgia Basin institutions

• Examples: CALFED, B.C. Land Planning
  (LRMPs), Fraser Basin Council, vis a vis
  Georgia Basin-Puget Sound institutions

• Are decision-making and management
  systems for our shared waters:

•   effective & efficient?

     Promoting sustainability?
               Evaluative Criteria
• Legislation
   –   Comprehensive, integrative
   –   Prioritized
   –   Enforceable
   –   Civics-based decisions: public involvement/preferences

• Adaptive planning, implementation, monitoring
   – Clear vision, goals, priorities, targets
   – Wide range of potential initiatives-customized design
   – Civic involvement throughout process, and evaluation of
   – Ecosystem based
                 Evaluative Criteria
•   Representation
    – All interests at decision table?
•   Collaborative Planning / Alternative Dispute Resolution
    -faster, cheaper, more flexible than courts; publics support
•   Financing
    – Sustainable and adequate?
•   Leadership
    – Innovative, political support?
•   Outcomes
    – Promote social, economic, & environmental sustainability?
   World Water Commission
 Report: A Water Secure World

“A holistic, systemic approach relying on
  integrated water . . . management must
  replace the current fragmentation in
  managing water”
   World Water Commission Report: A Water
                Secure World
“Participatory institutional mechanisms must be
  put in place to involve all sectors of society in
”The old model of “this is government’s
  business” must be replaced by a model in
  which stakeholders participate at all levels . .
  . . [E}xperience shows that this participation
  must be real and not symbolic . . .”
In the marine waters shared by B.C. and
   Washington State, Canada and British
   Columbia continue to rely on the “old model”
   of governance. The system needs to be
   redesigned based on a civics approach.
       Puget Sound Ecological
•   7million now; 9 million in 20 years
•   Marine species: 220 fish, 26 mammals, 100 birds
•   3 listed fish, many fish and birds declining
•   70% of tidal wetlands lost
•   33% shorelines changed
•   shellfish beds decreased by 25%
•   sediments contaminated in urban areas
   Puget Sound Water Quality
          Action Team
• Restore biological health and diversity
   – Wetlands & aquatic habitats
   – Pollutant elimination
• Partnership framework-all stakeholders
   – 12 counties, 122 cities, >480 stakeholder groups
• Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan
  (CWA)-6th iteration since 1987: >30 chpts
• Sound + basin
• Biannual PSWQ work plan & monitoring
• PSWQA Action Team, monitors implementation
   – Supports public education and research
    P.S. Water Quality Mgmt Plans

•   Estuary plan                 •   Pest management
•   Growth Mgmt                  •   Forestry practices
•   Local watershed progm.       •   Agriculture practices
•   Aquatic nuisance specie      •   Marinas and boaters
•   Wetlands, fish, & wildlife   •   Shellfish protection
    protection                   •   Contaminated sediments +
•   Spill prevention                 dredging
•   Monitor, research, labs      •   Municipal+industrial
•   Education+involvement            discharges
•   On-site sewage systems       •   Storm water mgmt+ combined
•   Household hazardous              sewers
      Puget Sound Water Quality
             Action Team
                                 •   Focused, clear, effective
•   Legislation
                                     comprehensive: CWA + WA

•   Adaptive                     •   Yes

•   Stakeholder Representation   •   Agencies decide, public advise,
                                     complete information

•   Financing                    •   O.K.:1999-01 Action Team $26.8MM;
                                     $64.5 nonproviso

                                 •   Innovative, inventive, adaptive
•   Leadership

                                 •   Impressive beginning,
•   Sustainability
                                     time will tell?
      B.C./WA Environmental
      Agreement/Council 1992
• Ensure high-quality environment
• Share information and cooperate
• Coordinate responses
• Develop action plan
• PS/GB International Task Force:
  status-trends in habitat, fish, shellfish,MPAs,exotics,
  toxics, spills
• GB/PS water quality, water, groundwater, flooding,
  wetlands, regional air quality
• Summary: useful initiative, filled federal void
      Georgia Basin Ecosystem
        Initiative (GBEI) 1998
•   B.C. basin population 3.6 MM by 2010
•   1995: B.C. Growth Strategies Act
•   1996 GVRD Liveable Region Strategic Plan
•   FRAP, BIEAP, Fraser Basin Council actions
•   Dec. 1998: EC + B.C. Ministry Sustainable Resource
    Mgmt created GBEI
        Georgia Basin Ecosystem
            Initiative (GBEI)
•   Jan 2000 Fisheries & Oceans Canada + B.C.
    Community Services joined forces
•   Vision: manage growth to achieve healthy, sustainable
    –   Enhance environmental health:
        air, water, habitat, species
    –   Build sustainable communities:
        science/knowledge transfer
    –   Enhance human well-being? (under development)
              GBE Initiative

• Steering Committee 3 meetings annually
  – One open to public, stakeholders, other levels of
    government to provide input and receive information
    on progress to date
• Water Quality Data not one station with a long
  -term record in data set in Georgia Basin
• No reports to public on water quality
• Stakeholders generally ignorant by design
• Impossible to support environmental agencies
Joint Statement of Cooperation:
  Georgia Basin-Puget Sound
      Ecosystem Initiative
• 21 June 2000
• Federal cooperation: Environment Canada & U.S. EPA
• Recognized existing efforts underway
• Transboundary, transpacific, global environmental
• Annual action plan + report to public
• 2001 tasks: Air Q, Sustainability, Tribes-First Nations
  Georgia Basin/Puget Sound
      Institutional Needs
• Without a strong, eclectic stakeholder advisory
  body, little hope of meaningful progress
• EPA will work closely with its stakeholders; EC
  adheres to the “old approach” and needs
• Deficiencies: legislation, consistency,
  integration, environmental understanding,
  involvement, infrastructure, financing, planning,
  and implementation
       Georgia Basin Ecosystem
           Initiative (GBEI)
                                 •   Policy only, Cda Environment Act
•   Legislation
•   Adaptive                     •   Enough data? only beginning

                                 •   public information sessions, not enough
•   Stakeholder Representation

•   Financing                    •   $3.0 U.S./yr/5 years ($26.8- $91)

•   Leadership                   •   Agencies secretive, discretionary,

•   Sustainability               •   Degradation, slow remediation, Salish Sea low

• Legislation      •   None, use council partners

• Adaptive         •   Completely

• Representation   •   Consensus-based decision

• Financing        •   Innovative and growing

• Leadership       •   Influential and effective,
                       strong political support

• Sustainability   •   Fundamental
      CALFED Bay-Delta Program

•      Largest west coast estuary
    – Ecosystem quality
    – Water supply and quality
    – Levee reliability
    – North-south transfers
    – coordinated mgmt approach to CA
     economy, water, & environment
                  CALFED Scorecard
•   Legislation              •   Promising program
                                  New fed-state commission
•   Adaptive                 •   Yes

•   Civics representation    •   Governments decide
                                 Stakeholders advise
•   Collaborative Planning
                             •   Not yet
•   Financing
                             •   $8.6BB in 7-year stage 1
                                 (28-30-30% fed-st-local+users)
•   Leadership
                             •   Strong political support
                                 (Gray Davis, Bruce
•   Sustainability
                             •   Time will tell? Too late?
Strategic Land Use Planning
     in British Columbia

                 Land and Resource
                Management Planning

          An Example of Shared
  Decision Making in Land Use Planning
Background and Context
pre 1992        haphazard planning         Escalating conflicts
       lack of interdepartmental coordination in government
1992 CORE established
        Commission on Resources and Environment
    –   B.C. Land Use Strategy
    –   Land Use Charter
    –   Regional and Subregional Planning began

1994 LUCO created
    •           Land Use Coordination Office
1994-5 CORE Regional Plans completed
1996  CORE disbanded…. devolved all planning to LRMP
2001 MSRM created
        Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
“a comprehensive land use strategy
to balance and integrate all values
and achieve the long-term objective
 of economic, environmental, and
      social sustainability.”
  Strategic Land Use Planning

Provincial Level

          Regional Level

                    Subregional Level

                              Local Level
       What is an LRMP?
Strategic land use plan developed over years by
  representative group of stakeholders, First
  Nations, and local governments.
• agencies advisors only
• directs the management of Crown land and
  resource values by provincial agencies
• establishes protected areas
• establishes strategic resource management
  direction through….
  – Zoning (mapping)
  – Written reports (objectives and strategies)
            LRMP Goals

•   Promote sustainable resource use and
•   Prevent -reduce land use disputes
•   Provide land use certainty and stability
•   Guide future land and resource
    Consensus-Based Land Use Planning

•    Widely inclusive of stakeholder groups
•    Acceptance of legitimacy of other’s
     values and knowledge
•    Focus on underlying interests
•    Self-design
•    Fairness
•    Search for integrating solutions
•    Time limited
    Publics           First Nations          Governments
•   environmental                  •   agriculture
•   outdoor recreation             •   aquaculture
•   labor                          •   tourism
•   economic development           •   guiding
•   youth
                                   •   trapping
•   local planning organizations
                                   •   fishery
•   forestry
•   mining
                                   •   transport
•   energy                         •   first nations, fed, prov,
                                       regional, local gov’ts
Parties at the Table
      Intended Outcomes

• Balanced solutions
• Public participation and support
• Improved communication
• Improved coordination
• Efficient resource & environmental use &
  decision making

• Protected areas increased
• Consensus or near consensus
• Resource stewardship improved
    Land Resource Management Plan

• Legislation        • Clear, effective

• Adaptive process   • Fully + indicators

• Representation     • Stakeholders, agencies

• Financing          • Adequate

• Leadership         • Outstanding

• Sustainability     • Trying hard to achieve?

To top