Towards meaningful community-based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: where are we versus where we would like to be.

Abstract

Although the merit of public participation in environmental monitoring and management has been recognized, the need to move from simple participation to that which is meaningful and linked to relevant decision-makers remains. For those groups in Nova Scotia that have been actively involved and successful in collecting scientifically valid monitoring data, there has been little or no opportunity to participate in the meaningful management of their watersheds. This situation has led to the creation of both social capital and social liability. The current situation with regards to community-based monitoring (CBM) in Nova Scotia is described, barriers to meaningful integration into the decision-making structure and the implications of those barriers are explained, and a proposed CBM framework is presented. The adaptive management model is advocated while acknowledging the institutional barriers that continue to limit its full potential.

Bien que l'on reconnaisse le merite de la participation du public a la surveillance et a la gestion environnementales, il reste encore a passer de la simple participation a une participation concrete qui se rapporte aux decideurs pertinents. Ceux des groupes de la Nouvelle Ecosse qui ont participe activement et avec succes a la collecte de donnees de surveillance scientifiquement valides n'ont eu que peu, voire aucune, occasion de participer concretement a la gestion de leurs bassins hydrographiques. Cette situation a mene a la creation d'un capital social et d'une responsabilite sociale. On decrit dans cet article la situation actuelle en ce qui a trait a la surveillance communautaire en Nouvelle-Ecosse, on y explique les obstacles a une integration concrete a la structure decisionnelle, ainsi que les consequences que peuvent avoir ces obstacles, et on propose un cadre de travail de surveillance communautaire. On preconise le modele de gestion adaptative tout en reconnaissant les obstacles institutionnels qui continuent d'en limiter le plein potentiel.

Key Words

Community-based ecological monitoring, decision-making, adaptive management

Introduction and Purpose

It has been well documented that the integration of meaningful public participation into environmental management is not only important (Au et al. 2000), but critical for sustainable development (The World Bank 1999, Cuthill 2000) and perhaps even one of the most significant developments in resource management since the environmental movement itself (Kenney 1999). Recent research (Overdevest et al. 2004) indicates that stewardship-driven environmental monitoring initiatives improve community environmental and civic capacity, while adding substantial social capacity that can have measurable beneficial impacts.

Public participation in environmental monitoring has emerged in an effort to work towards informing society's decisions. In order for this to occur, there is a need for new approaches to environmental policy and ecosystem management (Capacity 21 Programme 1996, Allen 2000). The need to move from simple participation to that which is meaningful and linked to the appropriate decision-makers remains. For those groups in Nova Scotia that have been actively involved and successful in collecting scientifically valid monitoring data, there has been little or no opportunity to participate in the meaningful management of their watersheds (Sharpe and Conrad 2006). This is not unique to Nova Scotia, however. The lack of integration and use of information collected by community-based groups in decision-making can be traced to social and organizational barriers, as opposed to technical barriers, meaning that "... investments in ecological research and its supporting information technology alone will not provide a solution" (Reynolds and Busby 1996: 13).

When information and data gathered via community-based monitoring (CBM) initiatives fail to be integrated into mainstream decision-making processes, the reason is that they are often developed apart from the management and policy making processes; rather than emerging from within. Although it may seem obvious, for information to be appreciated and used, "... those who are expected to use it must be aware of how and why it has been produced" (Allen 2000: 9). In Nova Scotia, organized environmental stewardship groups and watershed-based organizations abound, but have no authority or management capacity. Success stories related to the meaningful integration into the decision-making structure are minimal, and frustration over monitoring for the sake of monitoring is on the rise. The purpose of this paper is to:

* Describe the current situation with regard to CBM in Nova Scotia;

* Explain the barriers to meaningful integration and the implications of those barriers; and

* Explore a mechanism for the meaningful integration of CBM into decision-making and recommend a proposed framework to initiate a path forward.

The adaptive management model is advocated and found to have promising potential for the integration of ecological and participatory research approaches (Lee 1993, Gunderson 1995), while at the same time recognizing that substantial challenges remain (Walters 1997).

Background: Community-Based Monitoring in Nova Scotia

Community-Based Monitoring initiatives emerged in Nova Scotia much like they did in other parts of Canada. This rise can in part be attributed to an increasing mistrust of the government's care of the environment (Au et al. 2000), coupled with the continued rise in environmental consciousness (Chicoine 1996). Unlike some other Canadian provinces, Nova Scotia lacks a comprehensive policy framework for the management of watersheds and water resources. In the absence of conservation authorities and government agencies mandated with the monitoring and protection of watersheds, numerous stewardship groups undertaking baseline monitoring activities abound. Stewardship groups are active in more than ten of Nova Scotia's watersheds and since the early 1990s have gathered in excess of 55 monitoring-years of water quality data at over 200 sampling sites. The extent to which these stewardship groups are capable of linking their monitoring initiatives to the relevant decision-makers or those involved in watershed management, however, is extremely limited (Sharpe and Conrad 2006).

The Clean Annapolis River Project's (CARP) Annapolis River Guardian Program has increased public awareness but has had little direct impact on local policy and decision-making (Sharpe and Sullivan 2004). It can be argued that many groups that have benefited from Environment Canada's Atlantic Coastal Action Plan have had a greater degree of success with influencing decision-makers (Rousseau et al. 2005) and yet the specific examples of influence in Nova Scotia are more uncommon than not. A non-ACAP group, the Kings County Lake Monitoring Program, which involves CBM of ten lakes, provides one unique example where municipal planners and elected officials use the information gathered by volunteers to guide land use decisions (Sharpe and Conrad 2006).

This scenario is not unique to Nova Scotia. The majority of CBM groups tend to focus on monitoring tasks as opposed to undertaking analyses of what the processes to meaningfully integrate their tasks into the decision-making structure might be. In this context, a task would be a particular monitoring protocol (e.g. terrestrial, aquatic or marine) or a problem that is being addressed (e.g. sedimentation), while the process would be how the relevant groups and individuals work together in the effort to protect, enhance, preserve or restore some environmental component. For collaboration to be effective, there should not be over-emphasis on tasks and avoidance of process, which has been the traditional tendency in CBM. It has been advocated that since task and process are linked in this way progress of both should be measured (Allen 2005). This is currently not the case in Nova Scotia, or in many parts of the country where CBM activities are being undertaken.

It is not unreasonable, from the community group's perspective, to focus on tasks. Emphasis is placed on activities that involve hands-on participation, that are often enjoyable, with resources available to support such activities (e.g., CBM monitoring protocols, facilitation). The work is tangible and does not require the involvement of many groups or organizations and it is often outdoors, in the very environments that groups endeavor to protect. Facilitation involves assisting groups in accessing standardized monitoring protocols, and the training and equipment that are required to conduct effective and scientifically valid monitoring. There are numerous resources available to groups, for example, the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN), and the Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Network (CBEMN); however, quality assurance and quality control are an on-going concern for all those involved. Funding remains a chronic issue for many groups wishing to undertake monitoring work. There is simply not enough funding available for the magnitude of CBM that is being undertaken.

When groups who have had active participation start to realize that the results of their efforts are not being considered or utilized by decision-makers, frustration and burn-out can emerge. Engaging members of the public will remain a challenge so long as this persists.

Social Capital and Social Liability

In and of itself, monitoring for the sake of monitoring is a nearly useless and expensive exercise.

To conceive of knowledge as a collection of information seems to rob