VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 52 POSTED ON: 5/26/2013
Binational Management of the Georgia Basin— Puget Sound Ecosystem Simon Fraser University Resource and Environmental Management PLANNING, MANAGEMENT, IMPLEMENTATION • 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 outcomes – 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 decision-making” ”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 Problems • 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 Cooperation 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 ecosystems/communities – 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 challenges • 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 revision • 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 funding? • Financing • $3.0 U.S./yr/5 years ($26.8- $91) • Leadership • Agencies secretive, discretionary, aloof • Sustainability • Degradation, slow remediation, Salish Sea low priority FRASER BASIN COUNCIL Scorecard • Legislation • None, use council partners • Adaptive • Completely • Representation • Consensus-based decision making • Financing • Innovative and growing • Leadership • Influential and effective, strong political support • Sustainability • Fundamental CALFED Bay-Delta Program • Largest west coast estuary Problems – Ecosystem quality – Water supply and quality – Levee reliability – North-south transfers 1995 FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION – 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 Babbitt,Terminator) • Time will tell? Too late? Strategic Land Use Planning in British Columbia Land and Resource Management Planning Process 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 tables 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 communities • Prevent -reduce land use disputes • Provide land use certainty and stability • Guide future land and resource decisions LRMP PLANNING PROCESS 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 Participation 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 Status…. “Results” • Protected areas increased • Consensus or near consensus • Resource stewardship improved Land Resource Management Plan Scorecard • Legislation • Clear, effective • Adaptive process • Fully + indicators • Representation • Stakeholders, agencies • Financing • Adequate • Leadership • Outstanding • Sustainability • Trying hard to achieve?
Pages to are hidden for
"6_GeorgiaBPugetSdEco.. - Simon Fraser University"Please download to view full document