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

the concept of all its life ... Knowledge resides in the user and

not in the collection. It is how the user reacts to a collection of

information that matters (Churchman 1971: 10).

Social cohesion can generate an important form of social capital from the very act of environmental monitoring. Alternately, the frustration which results from the inability to get results meaningfully accepted by decision-makers can lead to a breakdown in social cohesion, which might be best referred to as a form of social liability. Table 1 illustrates the internal social capital that is generated through the tasks of participating in CBM activities. Social capital consists of the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviours that bind communities and make cooperative action possible (Cohen and Prusak 2001). Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, enabling goals to be achieved that would otherwise be unattainable (Coleman 1990, Gabbay and Leenders 1999). In this context, the efforts of CBM have produced substantive internal social capital (within a particular stewardship organization) as well as among the CBM community. Social structure per se, has had a positive impact. In other words, the features of social structure that facilitate action in conducting environmental monitoring tasks has led to enhanced social capital.

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.

Evaluation is where the learning occurs, questions answered,

recommendations made, and improvements suggested. Without

monitoring, evaluation would have no foundation, have no raw

material to work with, and be limited to the realm of

speculation ... A monitoring program should not be designed without

clearly knowing how the data and information will be evaluated and

put to use (Allen 2005).

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."

Barriers to Linking to Decision-Making

The fact remains that even among established and respected CBM groups, if there is a lack of political will, perceived problems related to the rigour of the collected data, or the legitimacy of the CBM groups, the messages emerging from within CBM organizations will not be heard or acted upon. Additional barriers may include the lack of staff time and available resources for monitoring programs, unequal level of commitment to the program, and discrepancies in power and trust (Hunsberger 2004). Barriers may ultimately lie in the distrust and resistance of management agencies and the lack of broadly organized political support.

Why are the obvious win-win environmental protection and experimentation opportunities being missed by management agencies? Walters (1997) provides three organizational factors, including the belief that certainty is necessary to maintain credibility, the on-going promotion of process research approaches by scientists and inaction as a rational choice by bureaucratic decision-makers. The latter has plagued the CBM efforts in Nova Scotia. Rarely, even in obvious situations, are decisive and immediate actions made. Excuses for inaction are given on the basis of requiring more research and careful planning. The adaptive management strategy does not allow for decision-makers to hide behind this cloak, and may in fact be one reason that it has had limited success in implementation to date. "Objections provide a rich set of excuses to delay decisive action by those who can profit from, or find protection in, such delays" (Walters 1997). Adaptive management illustrates the divergence between administration and science with regard to their visions of finality. Adaptive management calls for decisions to be made in the context of uncertainty, to be tested and reevaluated as additional information becomes available (Allen 2000) but despite the appeal and logic of adaptive management, success in practice has been limited (McClain and Lee 1996).

Recommendations

There is "... no point in bewailing the philistines; it is ecologists who have the major short-term vested interest in seeing ecology used in decision making, and so it is ecologists who must go the extra mile to enable this input to be heard" (Stafford Smith et al. 1997). No matter how much monitoring we do, we will not change anything if we can not deliver the results to inform choices, decisions, and policies. Information which is timely, integrated and non-confrontational is required to support adaptive management (Vaughan 2005).

More opportunities to participate in integrated watershed and resources management are no doubt required (Sharpe and Conrad 2006) and in order for this to occur, adequate resourcing of ecological monitoring is a necessary first step. Financial and material resources need to be provided to community-based groups, via an established mechanism to provide core support for CBM. There is a need to characterize the information that a spectrum of decision-makers would use and design CBM to deliver it (Vaughn 2005). We need to improve communication and publicize examples, strategies and opportunities to enhance participation in integrated watershed management, where community groups are a meaningful partner in the process.

An adaptive management strategy will not provide the ultimate solution here but has the potential to serve as a useful guide in terms of providing a structured process of learning by doing. Most management plans contain at least passing reference to the need for an adaptive approach and it is therefore a structure which is increasingly being acknowledged by government. Business as usual is no longer an option for sustaining and restoring ecosystems. "We need to shamelessly publicize the outcomes of our commitment to the adaptive management strategy" (Walters 1997).

There is a strong need for further research on political and educational strategies to assist CBM in influencing decision-making. There is a need for creative thinking about how to make management experimentation an irresistible opportunity, rather than a threat (Walters 1997). The challenge remains to discover and define an approach whereby decision-making and sustainable actions are well balanced (Vasseur 2005) and the appropriate level of public participation is involved.

Community-Based Monitoring information intended to inform decision making should be targeted and relevant to problems, accessible and understandable, usable and timely. To be effective, the delivery and communication of CBM information should suggest a course of action, allow decision-makers to weigh consequences, and make those involved feel they are in control of the problem (Pollock et al. 2003). Without doubt, the engagement of politicians and decision-makers is required and, in order for this to unfold, it is likely that broader public interest, engagement and ultimately pressure may be a necessity.

We should exploit models (e.g. NEP) which have at least in part been successful elsewhere and propose models to local and regional governments based on these cases.

For CBM to ultimately be more meaningful, we need to work better from within and make decision-makers better aware of what is being collected and why it is useful, and foremost why we need to act on the results to ensure sustainability. Whichever model is ultimately adopted, there needs to be government support, including both financial resources and meaningful management opportunities.

References

Allen, W. 2000. Strengthening the links between research and management: from technology transfer to collaborative learning. NRM-changelinks working paper No. 1 http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/history_working.html [Accessed on January 1, 2006].

Allen, W. 2005. Improving the use of collaborative approaches within natural resource management; Participatory monitoring and evaluation. http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/par_eval.html [Accessed on January 31, 2006].

Au, J., Bagchi, P., Chen, B., Martinez, R., Dudley, S.A. and Sorger, G.J. 2000. Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli, and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students. Journal of Environmental Management 58: 213-230.

Capacity 21 Programme. 1996. Annual Report United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). http://www.capacity.undp.org/ [accessed on February 2, 2006].

Chicoine, G. 1996. Citizen-Science Partnerships: A Step Toward Community-based Environmental Management? Unpublished Masters' thesis, Master of Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Churchman, C.W. 1971. The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.

Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. 2001. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work, Harvard Business School Press.

Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 94: S95-S120.

Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Conservation Ontario. 2005. Conservation Ontario: Representing Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities. http://conservation-ontario.on.ca/ [Accessed February 23 2006].

Cuthill, M. 2000. An interpretive approach to developing volunteer-based coastal monitoring programmes, Local Environments 5: 127-137.

Five Bridges Wildreness Heritage Trust (FBWHT) 2006. Framework workshop leads to pilot project. The Bridge. 3(1).

Gabbay, S.M. and Leenders, R. 1999. The structure of advantage and disadvantage. In Corporate Social Capital and Liability, R. Leenders and Gabbay, eds., 1-14. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. and Light, S.S., eds. 1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hunsberger, C. 2004. Citizen environmental monitoring in Comox Valley, British Columbia. Background Paper Prepared for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Ivey, J., deLoe, R. and Kreutzwiser, R. 2002. Groundwater management by watershed agencies: an evaluation of the capacity of Ontario's conservation authorities. Journal of Environmental Management 64: 311-331.

Kenney, D.S. 1999. Are community-based watershed groups really effective? Confronting the thorny issue of measuring success. Chronicle of Community 3(2): 33-37.

Lee, K.N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.

Lubell, M. 2004. Resolving conflict and building cooperation in the National Estuary program. Environmental Management 33(5): 677-691.

McClain, R.J. and Lee, R.G. 1996. Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20:437-448.

Nelson, R.E. 1989. The strength of strong ties: social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 32(2): 377-401.

Overdevest, C., Huyck Orr, C., and Stepenuck, K. 2004. Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Research in Human Ecology 11(2): 177-185.

Pollock, R. and Whitelaw, G. 2005. Community-Based Monitoring in Support of Local Sustainability. Local Environments 10(3): 211-228.

Pollock, R., Whitelaw, G.S., and Atkinson, D.K. 2003. Linking community-based ecosystem monitoring to local decision making and policy development on sustainability. Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI_ Project. Canadian Nature Federation, Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network Coordinating Office, Environment Canada.

Portes, A., and Landolt, P. 1996. The downside of social capital. The American Prospect. May-June: 18-21, 94.

Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R.D. 1995. Bowling Alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6: 65-78.

Putnam, R.D. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon & Schuster.

Regan, W. 2006 Personal Communication

Reynolds, J. and Busby, J. 1996. Guide to information management in the context of the convention on biological diversity. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.

Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. NY: Free Press.

Rousseau, F., McNeil, C. and Hildebrand, L. 2005. Partnerships in community-based approaches to achieving sustainability: the Atlantic Coastal Action Program. http://www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/2005/camesa/page4.html [Accessed on January 24, 2006].

Sharpe, A. and Conrad, C. 2006. Community-based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: Challenges and Opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113(1-3): 395-409.

Sharpe, A. and Sullivan, D. 2004. The Effectiveness of the Annapolis River Guardians: Influences on Public Policy, Decision-Making, and Environmental Awareness. Clean Annapolis River Project, Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia.

Shrubsole, D.A. 1996. Ontario Conservation Authorities: principles, practices and challenges 50 years later. Applied Geography 16: 319-335.

Stafford Smith, M., Morton, S. and Ash, A. 1997. On the future of pastoralism in Australia's rangelands. In Frontiers in Ecology: Building the Links. Conference of the Ecological Society of Australia, 1-3 October 1997, Charles Sturt University. http://life.csu.edu.au/esa/esa97/papers/stafford/stafford.htm [Accessed February 2, 2006].

The World Bank. 1999. What is Social Capital? PovertyNet http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm [Accessed February 22, 2006].

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. National Estuary Program: Conservation and Management Plans http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ccmp/index.htm [Accessed February 23, 2006].

Vasseur, L. 2005. Science, communities and decision-making: How can we learn to dance with many partners? http://www.eman-rese.ca/eman/reports/publications/2005/camesa/page6.html [Accessed on January 24, 2006].

Vaughan, H. 2005. Consortium for Advancing Monitoring of Ecosystem Sustainability in the Americas (CAMESA) Symposium Introduction. http://www.emanrese.ca/eman/reports/publications/2005/camesa/page1.html [Accessed on January 24, 2006].

Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology [online]. 1(2):1. http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss2/art1/ [Accessed on January 24, 2006].

Whitelaw, G., Vaughan, H., Craig, B., Atkinson, D. 2003. Establishing the Canadian Community Monitoring Network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88(1-3): 409-418.

Catherine Conrad is an Associate Professor in the Department of Geography at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia and the Founder and Research Coordinator of the Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Network. Her research expertise involves stream sedimentation and water quality and community approaches to ecological monitoring. She can be reached at cconrad@smu.ca Table 1: Social capital and social liability in CBM under current conditions Facilitation, Standardization, Lack of Application, Participation, Investigation and Testing Communication and Delivery (Tasks) (Processes) Social Capital Social Liability