Achieving effective implementation: an evaluation of a collaborative land use planning process.

The first task of the KLRM Planning Table was to identify key issues and information requirements. The table then developed land use scenarios and evaluated them using multiple accounts analysis to compare outcomes related to planning objectives. After extensive negotiations over more than three years, the KLRM Planning Table reached a consensus minus one agreement on a proposed land use plan on 7 February 1995. The proposed plan was submitted to the provincial government and approved in July of that year.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The principal component of the KLRMP is zoning of land to alternative uses. The plan contains three key zones: protected areas; special management zones, which provide a higher level of environmental controls over resource extraction to protect important environmental assets; and, general resource extraction zones. Special management zones are further divided into three subzones to reflect the nature of environmental resources requiring special consideration. These subzones are community watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation/tourism areas. The plan increased protected areas from 18.7 to 22.6 percent of the regional land base, established 18.9 percent of the land as special management zones, and reduced areas available for enhanced resource extraction from 80.6 to 57.8 percent (Pierce Lefebvre Consulting 2001). In addition to the land use changes, the plan included over 300 strategies to achieve 150 objectives.

Kamloops LRMP Implementation and Monitoring

Implementation of the KLRM Plan is overseen by a Crown corporation--Land and Water B.C. Inc.--and five provincial agencies: the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; the Ministry of Forestry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the Ministry of Energy and Mines; and, the Ministry of Water, Lands, and Air Protection. A monitoring report on implementation progress is prepared every five years although implementation is an ongoing process. Overall, coordination of implementation activities and evaluation of progress is the responsibility of the Kamloops Interagency Management Committee (KIAMC). The committee consists of regional managers or directors of resource management agencies that have responsibility within the Kamloops Region LRMP and representatives from the Fraser Basin Council and the Forest Practices Board (Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table 1998). KIAMC interprets plan objectives and strategies, assists with plan implementation and resolution of issues, reviews recommendations for amendments, develops a system for long-term monitoring of land use plan implementation, and monitors implementation progress and compliance by agencies and resource users (BC 1999b).

The IAMC work is complemented by the Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table (KMT). It is a multistakeholder group with about 49 active members that includes many of the original KLRM Planning Table representatives. The table provides recommendations on annual agency work plans and progress reports, and reviews results of the implementation and effectiveness assessments--part of a mandated five-year monitoring report. Advice provided by KMT includes: interpretation of land use plan objectives and strategies and clarification of original intent, suggestions on the implementation and effectiveness of monitoring processes, and recommendations on the results of the implementation and effectiveness assessments. The table does not oversee implementation and its role is advisory. And while "a consensus recommendation from [the] table (KMT) carries significant weight, ... there are no guarantees of Cabinet approval. The final decision makers on all land use issues are Cabinet" (Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table 1998).

Principal mechanisms for plan implementation are designation of the protected areas under the Parks Act to prohibit any activity such as resource extraction inconsistent with protected status and the Forest Practices Code, which specifies regulations on resource extraction to meet plan objectives. In January 1996, the KLRMP was legally designated as a higher-level plan under the Forest Practices Code. This means that all government agency operational policies that pertain to forest resources and rangelands must be consistent with the strategies and objectives specified in the KLRMP.

Evaluating Implementation

Evaluation of implementation of the KLRMP involved three components:

* an objective assessment of progress in implementing KLRMP recommendations;

* an objective assessment of progress in achieving KLRMP objectives (plan effectiveness); and,

* a subjective assessment based on key actors' perceptions of implementation success.

Progress in implementing KLRMP recommendations was assessed in the five-year monitoring report by the KIAMC (B.C. 1999a, B.C. 2001). The monitoring report tracked all KLRMP planning strategies to determine implementation success. Implementation success was measured on a five-point scale that includes not started (NS), initiated (I), midway (M), substantially complete (SC), and complete (C). The 2000 implementation assessment shows that all eleven LRMP projects had been initiated, eight were midway complete; and three projects were substantially complete (Table 1).

The monitoring report also assessed the effectiveness of implementation in meeting the plan's objectives. To simplify effectiveness assessment, the 150 objectives and over 300 strategies in the KLRMP were condensed into a list of thirty desired outcomes, twenty for human activities and ten for the environment (BC 1995: 24 and 49). Desired outcomes attempt to capture the intent of KLRMP objectives. The effectiveness assessment determined whether the LRMP goals and objectives have been achieved by measuring progress against a set of indicators identified for each desired outcome. The monitoring report showed that, by the end of 1999, twenty-five of the desired outcomes were met, two were partially met, and three were not met (Appendix 1). The three outcomes that had not been met were: (1) healthy grassland ecosystems with representation of grassland-dependent species, (2) a diversity and abundance of native fish populations and habitats, and (3) clean drinking water and a stable community water supply (BC 1999a: iv).

Implementation progress was also assessed by surveying the members of the monitoring table. Responses were received from a representative sample of 24 of the 49 table members (Figure 2). All 32 table members were contacted as well as 17 active alternates and active consultative members identified by the table coordinator. In total, 24 people responded to the questionnaire. First Nations did not choose to take part in the monitoring table. There was no significant government-nongovernment split in the survey responses. The "multiple nongovernmental: conservation, recreation, resource, tourism" sector refers to 4 interviewees who represented more than one interest group at the table.

Respondents used a five-point scale ranging from unsuccessful to very successful to answer four questions on implementation progress. The different possible responses along this scale were assigned scores from 1 to 5 (i.e. unsuccessful received a score of 1, not very successful a score of 2, etc). These totals were summed and then divided by the total number of respondents to arrive at a mean score for each question. The mean responses show that stakeholders viewed implementation as successful in reaching the KLRMP goals, in reaching the goals of the individual respondents' sectors, and in reaching the respondents' personal expectations (Figure 3). Respondents considered implementation only somewhat successful in meeting the timelines in the implementation work plans, suggesting that either implementation was lagging or the timelines were too ambitious.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

In sum, implementation of the KLRMP has been successful in terms of implementing the recommendations, meeting plan objectives, and meeting expectations of stakeholders. The following section identifies the factors that account for this success.

Factors Determining Successful Implementation

Identifying factors affecting plan implementation success was done in several steps. First, a list of factors affecting implementation success was prepared based on a review of the policy and planning implementation literature, including Goggin et al. (1990), Gray (1989), Innes and Booher (1999), Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989), Margerum (1999), Pressman and Wildavsky (1973), Vedung (1997), Yaffee and Wondolleck (2000), and Susskind and Cruikshank (1987). Next, the importance of these criteria in the KLRMP was tested by asking the KMT members to rank each criterion on a five-point scale ranging from not important at all to very important. Respondents were also asked to add additional criteria they considered important for implementation success that had not been identified by the authors. As in the questions testing respondents' views of the overall success of the KLRMP, each point along the five-point scale received a score between 1 and 5 (i.e. not important at all received a score of 1, not very important, a score of 2, etc.). The criteria were then ranked according to their mean scores. The survey was sent to the 49 active members of the KMT and responses were received from a representative sample of 24 members (Figure 3).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]