Planning in the public interest: an evaluation of civil society participation in collaborative land use planning in British Columbia.

Analysis of whether the process provided equal opportunity to all stakeholders was based on five of the questions. A majority of respondents agreed that they had received sufficient training. However, the majority also agreed that there was insufficient funding to support participants, inequalities among stakeholders' influence, and an inability of the process to reduce power imbalances. Surprisingly, there was strong agreement that despite these inequities, each stakeholder was able to make a difference in the outcomes. Accountability was divided into two types: accountability of stakeholders to their own constituency and accountability to the public. Civil society stakeholders strongly agreed that they were accountable to their constituencies. This suggests that they were able to overcome the "two table" problem of participating effectively in their own constituency table and the broader LRMP table. However, civil society stakeholders did not agree that the process was accountable to the broader public. The other process criteria that were only partially met include high-quality information, time limits, and implementation. While there was strong support for techniques such as biophysical overlay techniques used to analyse spatial information, only a small majority agreed that enough high-quality information about the plan area was available in the process. A small majority of respondents agreed that time limits for completing the process were unrealistic and that the process did not develop a clear plan for implementation. All eleven of the outcome criteria were either met (eight) or partially met (three criteria). The key outcome criterion that was met was the ability to reach an agreement. As stated, fourteen of the nineteen processes resulted in a consensus agreement (defined as full consensus of consensus minus one) and the five remaining processes created the conditions for an eventual agreement brokered by government. The processes were also very successful in generating additional secondary, or social capital, benefits including improved stakeholder knowledge and skills, improved stakeholder relationships, and information.

The three outcome criteria that were only partially met include: perceived as successful, reduction in conflict, and second-round initiatives (Table 5). Four questions were used to test whether the agreement was perceived as successful. A majority of respondents agreed with the statements that the process was a success and that the process was a positive experience. However, disagreement with the outcome is not necessarily a deficiency of the process. Almost all stakeholders formally agreed with the approval of the plans in the consensus-based process. The lack of agreement that the plan met the objectives of the individual constituency represented by the stakeholder is therefore more likely an indicator of the inevitable compromises that must be made in any negotiation process. Clearly, no group is able to meet all of its objectives. This finding reveals an important qualification: consensus agreements with the outcome should not be interpreted as full stakeholder support.

A third outcome criterion not met was reduction of conflict. Slightly less than one-half of civil society stakeholders agreed that conflict was reduced as a result of the process. There was no difference in responses between them and other stakeholders to this question. The low agreement that conflict was reduced is likely due to the fact that LRMPs are strategic plans that deferred a large number of contentious resource management issues to a subsequent, more detailed, planning process. A fourth outcome criterion, only partially satisfied, was the issue of second-round initiatives. Respondents only partially agreed that they had witnessed changes in behaviors and new partnerships as a result of the process. However, these are difficult factors to assess and may only be manifest years after a process has concluded.

Table 6 summarizes differences between civil society stakeholders and other respondents in the survey. Differences in the average responses for each question were defined based on a t-test at a 95% confidence level. Equal variance in responses for these stakeholders and other respondents were assumed for all t-tests. The results show a remarkable agreement in responses between them and other stakeholders, with no statistically significant differences in 66 out of 71 questions used in the survey. The five questions where there was a difference are as follows. Civil society stakeholders agreed more strongly than other stakeholders that consensus-based decision making is an effective way of planning, that the public should be involved in resource planning, that the LRMP process was the best way of developing a land use plan, that they had been involved in the design of the process, and that there was inadequate funding for stakeholder participation (Table 6).

Implications of Findings for Civil Society Participation in Collaborative Planning

What are the implications of the findings from this study for the arguments for and against civil society stakeholder participation in collaborative planning? First, the findings confirm that CP provides important opportunities for civil society to affect resource and environmental decisions. Civil society stakeholders agreed that they were able to affect the outcomes and the design of the planning process and a majority agreed that the process was a success and achieved the public interest. Second, the findings confirm that there are significant social capital benefits to the participation of civil society stakeholders in CP--including improved knowledge, skills, and relationships with other stakeholders--that ultimately enhance the role of civil society stakeholders in other facets of resource and environmental management beyond the specific preparation of an LRMP. Third, these stakeholders were able to overcome the "two table" problem of participating in a multistakeholder land use table and their own constituency table. There was strong agreement from them that they were able to obtain direction and were accountable to their own organizations. Fourth, the findings confirm that these stakeholders face a greater handicap in resources to participate in CP than other stakeholders. Interestingly, inferior resources do not seem to reduce civil society effectiveness in cooperative planning. Civil society stakeholders felt that they had more influence than other stakeholders on the design of the planning process and just as much influence on the outcomes. Further, they were also as satisfied as other stakeholders with the outcomes of the process. This conclusion of the benefits to civil society participating in collaborative planning is further shown by stronger support from these stakeholders than from other stakeholders for CP processes and their overwhelming agreement that they would participate in a similar process again.

But while the results support civil society stakeholder participation in CP, several qualifications should be noted. One qualification is that participation in CP should be viewed as a complement, and not an alternative, to other means to meet the objectives of civil society. The initiation of the CP process in B.C. was contingent on effective lobbying by civil society stakeholders in support of forest product export bans and antilogging blockades, which were necessary to convince the resource sector to participate in good faith (Gunton 1998).

A second qualification is that civil society stakeholders have a significant handicap in terms of time and resources relative to other CP stakeholders. Simply put, stakeholders from civil society do not always have the capacity to participate. Clearly, sponsors of collaborative processes must ensure that these barriers are removed.

The basic caveat for participants from civil society who are considering involvement in collaborative planning processes seems to be "know what you're getting into." This may seem like a straightforward recommendation, but it is worth emphasizing. Therefore, a checklist of conditions that should be in place before getting involved could be a useful tool for civil society. This checklist approach does not dissuade participation, particularly if the checklist of conditions is something that participants can affect in the process design phase of a planning process. Understanding the demands that civil society will face in collaborative planning processes will allow such stakeholders to better manage their own resources, budgets, and staffs. For civil society stakeholders and designers of collaborative processes who wish to enhance participation of civil society, the checklist outlined in Table 7 should be considered carefully.

Limitations of the Research