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

This research has attempted to examine the participation of civil society stakeholders in LRMP processes in British Columbia and uncover barriers and lessons for these participants. While the results support the principles and benefits of CP, this study only represents opinions of those civil society stakeholders that participated in the land use planning tables. Many other citizens were involved in some way, or affected by the LRMP process, but were not able to participate due to time or financial constraints. These people are not considered in this study. Nor does this study examine the attitudes of organizations or groups who purposely chose not to participate in such land use planning processes, such as some larger NGOs that chose to effect change using more traditional dispute resolution techniques. Many participants may have concluded their participation in land use planning some years ago, in processes that may have been conducted several years before the survey that was administered in 2002. Perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the process are useful to retrospective studies. But this research could be supplemented with further triangulation such as personal interviews, case studies, or other qualitative analyses, as well as further disaggregation of responses by type of civil society stakeholders group and geographic location. In addition, research that examines civil society organizations that have an interest in land use planning but that did not participate in the LRMP processes would greatly complement this study. This could confirm some of the barriers and incentives to participation that may have been missed in this survey.

Conclusion

Collaborative planning has emerged as an effective process for resolving environmental conflicts and preparing management plans that meet the public interest. The success of CP is contingent on the effective participation of a broad array of stakeholders. This study has examined the role of one key stakeholder group: civil society. The study shows that while civil society stakeholders face special challenges when participating in CP processes, the overall benefit-cost equation strongly favors civil society involvement. This study suggests that although civil society stakeholders did not perceive the processes to be entirely equitable, they were just as supportive of the outcomes, and of the process, as other stakeholders. The results show that if CP is well designed, and efforts are made to mitigate the obstacles to civil society involvement, collaborative planning can be an effective forum for civil society to achieve its goals. Table 3 A Comparison of Civil Society Stakeholders and Other Stakeholders as Categorized in this Study

Civil Society * Other

Federal Government

Members of the Public

First Nations

Conservation Groups

(Environmental NGOs) Provincial Government Tourism / Recreation Groups ** Local Government

Community Associations Forest Industry

Mining Industry

Energy Industry

Agricultural Industry

Fishing Industry

Tourism / Recreation Groups **

Hunting / Trapping / Guiding

Labor Groups *** * The types of members relate closely to how participants self-identified in the survey. ** Tourism/Recreation participants were categorized under the civil group if their activities were considered nonconsumptive of natural resources such as hiking, paddling, or under the other group if their activities were consumptive in nature such as hunting. The rationale for this division is that it is assumed that consumptive activities relate more closely to those stakeholders with a direct financial interest in the outcome of a process. *** While labor groups could be categorized as part of civil society, for this study they are included in the resource group since often they represent workers involved in resource extraction Table 4: Process Criteria Satisfied for the Civil Society Respondent Group

Criteria Score Satisfied Process Criteria

Yes Part 1.12 [check] 1. Purpose and Incentives: The process is

driven by a shared purpose and provides

incentives to participate and to work towards

consensus in the process. 0.54 [check] 2. Inclusive Representation: All parties with

a significant interest in the issues and

outcome are involved throughout the process. 0.79 [check] 3. Commitment: The parties who are affected or

interested participate voluntarily and are

committed to the process. 0.72 [check] 4. Self-Design: The parties involved work

together to design the process to suit the

individual needs of that process and its

participants. 0.66 [check] 5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules:

Clear terms of reference and ground rules are

to be established. 0.05 [check] 6. Equal Opportunity and Resources: The

process provides for equal and balanced

opportunity for effective participation of all

parties. 0.46 [check] 7. Principled Negotiation and Respect: The

process operates according to the conditions

of principled negotiation including mutual

respect, trust, and understanding. 0.31 [check] 8. Accountability: The process and its

participants are accountable to the broader

public, to their constituents, and to the

process itself. 0.57 [check] 9. Flexible, Adaptive, and Creative:

Flexibility is designed into the process to

allow for adaptation and creativity in problem

solving. 0.27 [check] 10. High-Quality Information: The process

incorporates high-quality information into

decision making. 0.16 [check] 11. Time Limits: Realistic milestones and

deadlines are established and managed

throughout the process. 0.11 [check] 12. Implementation and Monitoring: The process

and final agreement include clear commitments

to implementation and monitoring. 0.70 [check] 13. Effective Process Management: The process

is coordinated and managed effectively and in

a neutral manner. 0.93 [check] 14. Independent Facilitation: The process uses

an independent, trained facilitator throughout

the process. Table 5: Outcome Criteria Satisfied for Civil Society Respondent Group

Criteria

Satisfied Score Outcome Criteria

Yes Part n.a. [check] 1. Agreement: The process reaches an agreement 0.25- [check] 2. Perceived as Successful: Stakeholders

- perceive the process as successful.

Stakeholders are satisfied with the outcomes of

the process and view their involvement as a

positive experience.. -0.25 [check] 3. Conflict Reduced: The process and its

outcomes reduced conflict in the area regarding

the issues addressed. 0.60 [check] 4. Superior to Other Methods: The process was

superior to other planning or decision methods

in terms of costs and benefits. Costs include

time and resources for process support and

management, and participation for all parties.

Benefits include the positive outcomes of the

process. 0.62 [check] 5. Creative and Innovative: The process

produced creative ideas for action. Innovative

ideas will be tested and learned from; even

those that are not successfully implemented can

provide opportunities for learning and growth

and change ways of thinking that led to a

conflict. 1.32 [check] 6. Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills:

Stakeholders gained knowledge, understanding,

and skills by participating in the process. 0.87 [check] 7. Relationships and Social Capital: The

process created new personal and working