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

Social liability, however, rests in the external context, where real or perceived barriers prohibit groups from effectively being able to communicate and deliver their results. Outcomes of the social structure can be viewed as a social liability; the structure prohibits and obstructs action, which in this case is the structure that limits or even prohibits the processes of effective communication and delivery of monitoring results.

There is a large body of literature on the benefits of social capital (e.g. Coleman 1988, Nelson 1989, Putnam 1993, 1995, Rogers 1995), but not nearly as much describing the risks. Notable exceptions include Gabbay and Leenders (1999) and Portes and Landholt (1996). If we are to believe that social capital has the capacity to enable citizens to resolve collective problems more easily as Putnam (2001) proposes, then we must surely sort out the internal and external linkages of both task and process.

Increasing evidence "... shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable" (The World Bank 1999) and that "environmental management is as much about managing human activities as it is about managing lands and waters" (Allen 2000). The potential for social capital resulting in a vibrant civil society (comprised of volunteer organizations, NGOs, activists, scientists, researchers and professionals) has not yet reached its full recognition or capacity. So long as we still have dichotomies of task and process, internal and external, social capital and social liability, the advancement of CBM into meaningful environmental management will continue to progress slowly.

Models for CBM in Nova Scotia

There are water management organizations from other jurisdictions which may provide useful models for CBM in Nova Scotia. Local water management organizations based on surface water catchment areas are common in both North America and internationally (Ivey et al. 2002). The Conservation Authority (CA) model from the province of Ontario is often acknowledged as a desirable entity, but one that is unlikely to unfold in the near future in Nova Scotia. Ontario's Conservation Authorities are "... local, watershed management agencies that deliver services and programs that protect and manage water and other natural resources in partnership with government, landowners and other organizations" (Conservation Ontario 2005). Although the CAs have a strong track record of partnering with municipal, provincial and federal governments to deliver community-based solutions to natural resource problems, they too face challenges, including complex institutional arrangements, reduced funding and concerns related to effective communication (Shrubsole 1996, Ivey et al. 2002).

One organization that might provide a useful structure is the National Estuary Program (NEP) in the United States. Much has been learned from NEP experiences and they have been cited as succeeding because they focus on the watershed scale, use science to inform decision-making, emphasize collaborative problem solving and involve the public. Statistical models have shown that the NEP does a better job of resolving conflict and building project-level cooperation than similar estuaries without the NEP (Lubell 2004). Each NEP has a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) that is based on a scientific analysis of the estuary. Each CCMP is developed by a broad coalition of stakeholders and identifies priorities for action, research and funding (US EPA 2006).

The NEP includes a monitoring strategy, which might serve as a particularly useful model in Nova Scotia, even in the absence of the formal program. The basic elements of the monitoring strategy include: clear and realistic definitions of success, appropriate selection and measurable indicators that track with these definitions, development of a communication plan (i.e. how will the message/results be created, packaged, and distributed), and identification of the roles environmental agencies and volunteers will play in monitoring.

The need for sustainable use of natural resources is scientifically documented and understood. Regardless of the model that eventually is adopted in Nova Scotia, what remains is to "... raise awareness of this understanding over competing interests, reinforcing the need for information to emerge from within the decision-making environment" (Reynolds and Busby 1996: 14).

Community-Based Monitoring Frameworks

In order to guide CBM towards meaningful results and analyze how groups can work across sectors, a structure or framework must be established. Environment Canada's EMAN-Coordinating Office and the Canadian Nature Federation undertook a project with the assistance of the Volunteer Sector Initiative to develop, test and enhance a conceptual framework to guide CBM in support of sustainability (Pollock and Whitelaw 2005, Whitelaw et al. 2003). This conceptual framework was used as a basis for attempting to work towards a more operational framework for Nova Scotia, and preliminary results with five CBM groups have led to modification towards the framework presented here. The EMAN/Canadian Nature Federation framework was based on the evaluation of the EMAN adaptive ecological management model (Vaughan 2005) as applied to 31 Canadian communities. The four major components of the framework are community mapping (creating knowledge), participation assessment (building partnerships), capacity building (making it happen) and information delivery (effective communication) (Pollock and Whitelaw 2005). Based on detailed interviews with five CBM groups in Nova Scotia--Five Bridge Wilderness Heritage Trust (FBWHT), McIntosh Run Watershed Association (MRWA), Cow Bay Lakes Watershed Management Association (CBLWMA), Sackville Rivers Association (SRA) and Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP)--as well as experience working with many CBM groups through the CBEMN, it was found that groups in Nova Scotia tend to focus on information gathering at the potential expense of capacity building and information delivery. Of the five groups interviewed, two have frameworks, and four specifically indicated that there is limited commitment on the part of different levels of government.

The framework that is presented in Figure 1 is based on preliminary meeting results with the five CBM groups. Groups were independently asked to illustrate how they envisioned a framework to guide meaningful CBM and this figure is the cumulative product of those meetings where individuals drew their vision of a framework.

The central core of the framework is the goal or common vision of the CBM initiative, which is most useful if comprised of a partnership of NGOs, governments, businesses, community members and academics. One group (SRA) indicated that it was easy to lose sight of the intended goal when trying to chase funding opportunities while another indicated that the goal was always in the forefront of every action they pursued (FBWHT). All groups agreed that protection, preservation, restoration and enhancement formed central goals of their associations. All groups also strived towards partnering with as many sectors as possible, with differing levels of success, as such affiliations tended to increase perceived legitimacy, strategic direction, communication and ultimately provide a greater likelihood of accomplishing goals.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The tasks can be defined as what those involved have to do (marine, aquatic or terrestrial monitoring), while the process is concerned with how people and groups work together and maintain relationships. The need here is to link the community's goals with decision-makers' information needs and then determine the procedures and decision-making structures that will enable them to achieve influence. All five groups recognized that collaboration and partnerships are instrumental factors for achieving goals, and yet in many cases these are unfortunately ideals rather than reality. The groups that have been organized for longer lengths of time (SRA, 18 years and CARP, 16 years) speak from the greatest amount of experience and are also most realistic about the potential for meaningful partnerships and results, whereas the newest groups tend to have more optimistic outlooks, from not having had as many negative experiences to date. The President of the SRA noted that they try to work reasonably with all stakeholders and when a problem is identified (either through monitoring or mere observation) the SRA starts to address the problem. When regulators and decision-makers are notified and attempts at engagement are made, they tend to respond "if they're interested" (Regan 2006) otherwise the problem is most often ignored. On the other hand, the FBWHT is attempting to engage a number of environmental groups and different levels of government to work towards the common goal of protecting public land. This group is hopeful that their collaborative approach has potential and that open dialogue has developed (FBWHT 2006).

Evaluation involves putting CBM data to use and thus giving the data value.

All five groups acknowledged that their monitoring was either not being used at all or that they were uncertain as to the best mechanisms to deliver and evaluate their results. Regardless, the need for evaluation and delivery was foremost in the minds of all those involved. Community-Based Monitoring has led to industry, developer and government awareness, as the public's knowledge of environmental stewardship initiatives increases. This could be viewed as a successful peripheral integration of environmental monitoring initiatives into the hands of decision-makers. However, to be realistic, as Regan (2006) points out, "... the bad guys are still doing the bad stuff, but now they're looking over their shoulder."

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates