!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area: A governance system
assessment of landscape-level
ecosystem-based management
Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Working Paper no. 1
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!
This!project!is!partly!funded!by!the!Social!Sciences!and!Humanities!Research!Council!of!Canada!(SSHRC)
!
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! i!
!
The Muskw-Kechika Management Area: A governance assessment of landscape-level
ecosystem-based management !
LLEBM!Working!Paper!no.!1!!!!!!!
A graduating thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honours degree of Bachelor of Science
University of Victoria
2013
!!!!!!
Citation:!Law,!L.!(2013).!The!Muskwa=Kechika!Management!Area:!A!governance!assessment!of!landscape=level!ecosystem=based!management.!!Landscape=Level!Ecosystem=Based!Management!Working!Paper!no.!1.![online]!!URL:!http://www.viu.ca/landscapelevel/.!!
A!Governance!Assessment!Framework!for!Landscape=Level!Ecosystem=Based!Management!
Institute!for!Coastal!Research!Vancouver!Island!University!
900!Fifth!St.!Nanaimo,!BC!V9R!5S5!Canada!
Email:[email protected]! Web:!www.viu.ca/landscapelevel!!
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! ii!
!
This thesis is dedicated to my mother for all her love and support, to Ryan for listening and advising me through my rough moments during my thesis writing, and to all my room mates for
coping with my frenzy, stress, and all-nighters it took to finish this thesis. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! iii!
!
Table of Contents
Dedication…………………………………..………………………………………...…..ii Table of Contents……………………………....……………………………………..….iii List of Figures………………………….…………………………………..……………..iv Acknowledgements…………………….………………..………………………….…….v Executive Summary……………………………………..……...………...…………..….vi Preface………..……………………………………………..………………………..…..vii Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………….……………………………...1-11
1.1 Putting Things into Context…………………….…………………………...1-3 1.2 The LLEBM Project…………………………….…………………………...4-7 1.3 The Study Area………………………………….…………………………...7-11
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………..12-26 2.1 Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change…………………………………....12-14 2.2 Protected Areas Systems and Categories…………………….……………14-17 2.3 Ecosystem-Based Management at the Landscape-Level………………...17-21 2.4 Protected Areas Governance……………………..………….…………......21-24 2.5 Collaborative Multi-stakeholder Decision-making………….…………....25-26
Chapter 3: Study Design & Methods…………………………………………………..27-35 3.1 Study Design……………………………………………………………...…27-28 3.2 Participant Selection………………………………………………...……...28-33 3.3 Interviews………………………………….…….…………………………..33 3.4 N.Vivo Analysis……………………………………………….…………….33-35
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………..……………………..36-60 4.1 Overview…………………………………………………………………......36-43 4.2 Description of the SES……………………………………….…………..….45-46 4.3 Governance Processes in the SES………………………………..………....45-46 4.4 Assessment of the Governance Process…………..…………..………….....47-60
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion……………………………………..………..…61-66 5.1 Discussion and Recommendations………………………………………....61-65 5.2 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………65-66
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………....67-76 References………………………………………………………………………………..77-79
List of Figures
Figure 1. The M-KMA & Species Objective Strategic Units.…………….……..…..…..8 Figure 2. Elements of Governance for Assessing LLEBM ……………….………..…..24 Figure 3. Differentiation Between Indicator Scores…………..…………………….…..39 Figure 4. Frequency of Responses to Structured Questionnaire …………..…………..43
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! iv!
!
List of Tables
Table 1. IUCN PA Categories ……………………………………………….………...15-16 Table 2. Governance Assessment Interview Questions……………………….....Appendix Table 3. Key Informants and Affiliation to the M-KMA……………………………...34 Table 4. Indicator Scoring Criterion…………………………………………....…Appendix Table 5. Summary of Perceived and Desired Benefits of SES and Governance
System...........................................................................................................36-37 Table 6. Summary of Perceived Weaknesses of SES and Governance System….......37 Table 7. Summary of Personal Values Shaped by SES and Governance System....…37-38 Table 8. Summary and Justification for Indicator Scores……………………………..40-42
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! v!
!!
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Dr. Phil Dearden, Dr. Lance Robinson, Nathan Bennett, Luba Reshtinyk, and all the members of both the University of Victoria MPARG lab and the LLEBM research team. A special thanks goes to Phil for being more than just a supervisor, but also a mentor and a friend.
Thank you for your patience, life lessons, and believing in me more than I believed in myself.
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! vi!
!
Abstract
Environmental management approaches are beginning to look beyond the protected areas level to larger landscapes for conservation and sustainability planning. However, governance at the landscape-level can involve more stakeholder groups, several communities, protected areas of various types, and varying levels of governments. As a result, landscape-level ecosystem-based management is more challenging and complex than it is for individual protected areas. Until now, landscape-level ecosystem-based management has received relatively little attention from researchers. This case study looks to better understand governance for landscape-level ecosystem-based management in the M-KMA in northeastern British Columbia. A newly developed framework was utilized to examine the effects of governance infrastructure on landscape-level ecosystem based management. This draft assessment framework was comprised of 8 questions and 16 indicators. The framework guided analysis of interviews conducted with Advisory Board members who represent one of the governing bodies of the M-KMA. The governance model was been proven to be struggling under a changing financial and political climate. It does not have the capacity to balance the competing stakeholder interests in the area and the Board is struggling to improve the governance model that is currently in place. This report provides insight and reflection on the LLEBM governance assessment framework and can help guide similar assessments conducted on large-scale environmental governance arrangements.
The M-KMA: A governance assessment of LLEBM vii
Preface
Before I ever visited the area in northern British Columbia known as the Muskwa-Kechika, I had been told that it was someplace unique. It is an amazing expanse of wilderness, the likes of which still exist in only a handful of places in the world. On my first visit there I realized that the word “unique” can hardly convey the awe-inspiring vastness and rugged beauty that the Muskwa-Kechika is. But one cannot refer to the Muskwa-Kechika as a wilderness without also expressing a caveat. There are communities around it, and a couple within it, and although it has parks within it and although it is a wilderness, it is, as the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area’s motto says, a working wilderness.
The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (M-KMA) is a unique response to the growing recognition around the world that neither the conservation objectives of parks nor the social and economic objectives of resource-based communities can be achieved without looking beyond, municipal, protected area and other administrative boundaries. If conservation within protected areas is to be effective and if development outside of protected areas is to be sustainable, there needs to be landscape level planning and management. The approach to large-scale sustainability planning embodied in the M-KMA was ambitious, aiming to develop plans in several resource sectors that would guide sustainable development and use of region’s natural resources while still completely maintaining its wilderness character. The M-KMA is a model that holds lessons for other parts of Canada and for the world on how to simultaneously achieve these various kinds of objectives.
In this report, Lauren Law examines the M-KMA through the lens of governance. Whereas management is related to how decisions are carried out and implemented, governance is concerned with the who, how and why of decision-making. With the growing interest in ecosystem-based management and sustainable development planning at the landscape level, there is a need for assessment tools that can help local communities, policymakers and other stakeholders to make sense of governance at that level.
For this reason, members of the landscape-level ecosystem-based management project have developed a draft version of an assessment framework for the evaluation of landscape-level governance systems. The assessment framework is a flexible tool comprised of a set of questions to guide mixed-methods research, and a set of steps for feeding both that research and other types of knowledge (existing research, new research, practitioner experience, and traditional, indigenous and local knowledge) into stakeholder deliberation and planning. It includes the following five conceptual tasks: description of the broader social-ecosystem, description of governance processes, assessment of governance processes, assessment of governance capacities, and assessment of governance outcomes. Those tasks are broken down into eight
The M-KMA: A governance assessment of LLEBM viii
descriptive questions and 16 evaluative indicators. The evaluative indicators are assessed according to criteria that are outlined in the annex to this report.
The report that follows presents findings from an assessment, based on this framework. Lauren’s analysis provides insights which stakeholders who live in and near the Muskwa-Kechika or who are concerned about it will find useful.
Lance W. Robinson
Governance Assessment Framework for Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Project
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 1!
!
Chapter(1:((Introduction(and(Background( 1.1 Putting Things into Context
Life on earth is disappearing at an outstanding rate and will continue to do so unless
urgent action is taken. The establishment of well designed and effectively managed systems of
protected areas (PAs) is a vital tool for reducing biodiversity loss and achieving the aims of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Ervin et al., 2010). At the tenth Conference of the
Parties (CoP10) of the CBD, the 2011-2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets were set. The objective of
Target 11 is to significantly reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2020. The conservation of
biological diversity will be accomplished using effective equitable management and well
connected ecologically representative systems of PAs (CBD, 2012). While there has been
significant progress in conserving the world’s representative terrestrial ecosystems, recent
assessments indicate that conservation of marine and terrestrial biodiversity is still woefully
inadequate (Butchart et al., 2010).
Canada falls well below the global average when it comes to PA establishments (Lee &
Cheng, 2011). Canada holds vast expanses of intact natural areas, however, less than 10% of
Canada’s land has been set aside for protection (Lee & Cheng, 2011). Canada is ranked 13th of 29
countries on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) list,
falling below the worldwide average of 12.6% of land protected (Lee & Cheng, 2011).
Considering only the IUCN’s strict conservation categories I-III, where industrial resource
extraction is prohibited, the percentage of land protected in Canada drops even lower to just over
4% (Lee & Cheng, 2011). Many of the areas protected in Canada allow industries such as mining,
forestry, or energy development (Lee & Cheng, 2011). Human land use threatens PA’s ecological
function. When PAs become fragmented and isolated they no longer are able to meet their CBD
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 2!
!
targets.
PAs are faced with several problems including poorly represented habitats, lack of
funds for management, lack of connectivity between PAs, and human pressures such as
urbanization, logging, and mining (Naughton-treves, Holland, & Brandon, 2005). Much of the
human impact occurs outside the administrative boundaries of existing PAs and results in
increasing landscape fragmentation and ecological isolation (Naughton-treves, Holland, &
Brandon, 2005). Most of the world’s PAs are smaller than 10,000 hectares (Naughton-treves et
al., 2005). These PAs are not large enough to maintain adequate populations of rare or far-
ranging species and are unable to maintain ecosystem-level processes that sustain biodiversity
(Naughton-treves et al., 2005). Small PAs have significant importance, but research suggests that
only PAs greater than 10,000 hectares have the potential to slow long-term species loss
(Naughton-treves et al., 2005). To add further complexity to the problem, the effects of climate
change and other broad-scale anthropogenic influences such as pollution, nitrogen deposition,
and introductions of invasive species are anticipated to increase in the coming years (Glicksman
& Cumming, 2012). These influences are expected to alter both the structure and functioning of
natural systems, making it impossible for PAs to function as they have in the past (Glicksman &
Cumming, 2012).
Landscape-level conservation combined with ecosystem-based management (EBM)
emerged to address today’s deepening biodiversity crisis (Price, Roburn, & MacKinnon, 2009).
Landscape-level ecosystem-based management (LLEBM) is an integrated approach to natural
resource management that considers the needs of wildlife at a broader landscape-level when
implementing conservation initiatives (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). This approach goes
beyond traditional management based on single species and single sectors and recognizes a deep
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 3!
!
connectivity amongst all elements of the ecosystems, including humans (Espinosa-Romero et al.,
2011).
Defining clear and concise goals for LLEBM is one of the most important steps in
effective EBM implementation (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). There have been various efforts
to define the key aspects, principles and guidelines of LLEBM and what it requires, however,
there is still a gap between theory and practice (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). Managers face
political, legal, social and scientific difficulties in implementing LLEBM, which has come to be
seen as daunting and expensive (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). The main challenges for the
implementation of LLEBM include building a unified vision of the objectives for LLEBM,
designing metrics to evaluate the accomplishment of the objectives, and creating governance
frameworks (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). There have been successful initiatives aimed at
implementing EBM in the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, Puget Sound in United States, and
Raja Ampat in Indonesia. Although not at the landscape level, their initiatives meaningful engage
stakeholders in the definition of objectives and in monitoring processes (Espinosa-Romero et al.,
2011). In other words, the human value articulated and pursued within appropriate governance
processes are at the heart of why LLEBM is important and defines what LLEBM should achieve
(Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). In turn, governance success around LLEBM has been identified
as a central factor affecting the ability of protected areas to achieve their goals (Dearden et al.,
2005). The Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Project was created in order to guide
assessments of governance systems in place for landscape-level social ecological systems (SES).
The LLEBM project utilizes a newly developed governance assessment framework, which is
meant to provide a succinct overview of processes and structures of governance for EBM at the
landscape-level.
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 4!
!
1.2 The LLEBM Project
There is now widespread recognition that ecosystems extend beyond the boundaries of
PAs into the larger landscape (Robinson et al., 2012). EBM at the landscape-level is a common
approach adopted by PA managers to help them manage and maintain the ecological integrity of
PA systems (Grumbine, 1994). However, selecting an appropriate management approach is only
half the struggle of PA conservation. There is a growing realization that governance plays an
important factor in PA effectiveness and their ability to achieve conservation goals (Robinson et
al., 2012). Governance at the landscape level is challenging and complex and involves potentially
more stakeholder groups, several communities, PAs of various types, varying levels of
governments, private land-owners, resource extractive industries, and natural resource users to
sustain all or part of their livelihood (Robinson et al., 2012). Collaborative stakeholder
participation and consensus-based decision-making has emerged in association with growing
interest in PA governance at the landscape level. There has been relatively little research in
assessing the governance of LLEBM for parks and other types of PAs, thus research in this area
is overdue.
There is no governance assessment framework currently established that assesses the status
and trends of PA governance at the landscape-level for EBM. A research team from Vancouver
Island University and the University of Victoria developed a draft version of an assessment
framework to fill this void (Robinson et al., 2012). The framework for LLEBM is a flexible tool
comprised of a set of questions to guide the research and a set of steps for feeding research into
stakeholder deliberation and planning. The framework includes the following five conceptual
tasks: descriptions of the broader SES, description of governance processes, assessments of
governance processes, assessment of governance capacities, and assessment of governance
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 5!
!
outcomes (Robinson et al., 2012). These tasks are broken down into 8 questions, and 16
indicators (Robinson et al., 2012).
This research project adapts the LLEBM governance assessment framework to examine the
system of governance and decision-making in the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (M-KMA)
in north-eastern British Columbia. The M-KMA project is part of a larger initiative under the
Protected Areas and Poverty Reduction (PAPR) Canada-Africa Research and Learning Alliance,
which seeks to address the challenges of rural poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability
through a focus on PAs in Canada, Tanzania, and Ghana (PAPR, 2013). The PAPR recognizes
the inextricable linkage between extreme poverty and environmental degradation. These issues
can result from PAs that lead to marginalized local communities, increased human-wildlife
conflicts, the erosion of support for conservation, and inequity in flows of economic benefits and
costs (PAPR, 2013). To understand the complex issues involved with PAs, there are four main
research objectives explored under the PAPR, including:
1) Analyzing the flows of a broad suite of benefits and costs (social, economic, cultural, and
environmental) related to PAs.
2) Understanding human-wildlife interactions in and around PAs.
3) Re-conceptualizing and improving PA governance models within the broader, multi-scalar
social-ecological system in order to better address both the poverty reduction and
conservation agendas.
4) Mobilizing new and existing information among and between academic researchers,
community organizations, visitors and managers in a cross-cultural context.
The LLEBM project focuses on how governance can be re-conceptualized and improved
for PA systems. To examine this question, the M-KMA was identified as an appropriate
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 6!
!
Canadian case study for assessing LLEBM governance because of the multi-dimensional nature
of the region and governance structure.
The M-KMA has been widely viewed as the “high water mark” in terms of the 1990’s
approach to consensus-based land use planning development and implementation (Griggs &
Luff, 2009). An Advisory Board comprised of individuals from various stakeholder groups, First
Nations, local communities, and various levels of government is mandated with advising the
government on natural resource management in the M-KMA (Griggs & Luff, 2009). While the
M-KMA has conventional PAs within it, the area as a whole is meant to be “a working
wilderness” where resource extraction and other economic activities can proceed as long as the
wilderness character of the region is maintained. In theory this may be an ideal design for the M-
KMA, however, there are potential challenges when balancing human land use needs with the
ecological function of the PA. It becomes difficult to achieve collective decision-making on the
Advisory Board when diverse values, interests, and goals come into conflict. Budget cuts and
development pressure also present uncertainties regarding the future success and legitimacy of
the governance structure currently in place.
This paper reports the results from interviews conducted with Advisory Board members
under the guidelines of the LLEBM framework. The framework provides reflection on the
current governance structure in place for the M-KMA, the extent to which it has balanced the
needs and interests of various communities and stakeholder groups, and whether it has met the
M-KMA’s goals. The LLEBM governance assessment framework helps determine how decisions
are made; in particular, how to manage discrepancies in power, and differences in overall vision.
This analysis will give local communities and various stakeholder groups insight into possible
improvements to the governance structure currently in place. At the same time, this is a pilot
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 7!
!
project to test whether the LLEBM governance assessment framework can be feasibly applied to
similar assessments of other large-scale environmental governance arrangements. The paper ends
with a synthesizing discussion and recommendation for the future of the M-KMA and the
governance assessment framework.
1.3 The Study Area
The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area lies in the traditional territories of the Kaska
Dena, Treaty 8, and Carrier-Sekani First Nations. The region covers 6.4 million hectares and
stretches from the Rocky Mountain foothills north of the Peace River down to the south-eastern
Cassiar Mountains (Figure 1). Four biogeoclimatic zones are found within the M-KMA including
the alpine tundra, spruce-willow-birch, boreal white and black spruce, and englemann spruce-
subalpine fir (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The forested terrain is home to
significant populations of grizzly bears, mountain goats, stone sheep, wolves, martens, and
caribou (Chester, Hilty, & Francis, 2012). The M-KMA’s rich natural resources and grizzly bear
populations make this region one of the key priorities of the Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y)
Conservation Initiative (Chester et al., 2012). The Y2Y region starts in the south in Yellowstone
National Park and moves north crossing over five US states and two Canadian provinces until it
reaches northern Yukon (Chester et al., 2012). The Y2Y represents a movement towards
landscape-level conservation that recognizes the importance of connectivity between PAs as an
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 8!
!
Figure(1. The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area and Species Objective/Strategy Units (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013)
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 9!
!
adaptive strategy for biodiversity conservation. The M-KMA constitutes a large portion of the
Y2Y corridor and keeping this region intact is critical to the success of achieving Y2Y’s
landscape-level vision. Hence, studying governance around LLEBM for the M-KMA benefits not
only the region itself but will serve a larger role to support connecting networks of large intact
ecosystems.
The BC government established the M-KMA in 1998 during the BC Land and Resource
Management Planning (LRMP) process. The LRMP was a “consensus building process…[which]
established direction for land use and specified broad resource management objectives and
strategies” (Day & Tamblyn, 1998). The LRMPs were guided by provincial policies and regional
plans and included processes such as open public participation with consideration of all resource
stakeholder interests. Federal, provincial and local resource management agencies were involved
with decision making based on resource sustainability (Day & Tamblyn, 1998). Through the
resource planning tables in Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and Mackenzie, it was agreed the M-KMA
would be regarded as a special management area allowing for resource development to continue
while recognizing, accommodating, and protecting important wildlife and environmental values
in the area. The management plan for the M-KMA attempts to balance resource management
with conservation, making it an excellent example of how competing interests are striving to co-
exist on the land.
Unlike many PAs, the M-KMA has its own Act and Management Plan. The goal of the
Management Plan is to establish a world standard for environmental sustainability and economic
stability, with development conducted in a way that maintains wildlife and wilderness values
(Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The M-KMA was the first, and remains one of the
only models in which theories of conservation biology are applied to real-world development
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 10!
!
(Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The M-KMA Act and M-KMA Management Plan
require the development of 5 “local strategic plans” to direct the appropriate management of the
following areas:
• Wildlife (M-KMA Wildlife Management Plan)
• Oil and Gas (Pre-tenure Plans)
• Recreation (Recreation Management Plan)
• Forestry (Landscape Unit Objectives)
• Provincial Parks (Park Management Plans)
The unique arrangements in place for the M-KMA may offer the possibility for a greater level of
management than would be possible for individual PAs, municipalities, and First Nations.
The Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board (M-KAB) is an advisory body appointed by the
Premier of BC that advises the government on natural resource management in the M-KMA and
ensures that activities within the area are consistent with the objectives of the Muskwa-Kechika
Management Plan. Advisory Board members reflect a diversity of perspectives with members
representing the following groups: First Nations, conservation, oil and gas, forestry, mining, local
government, guide outfitting, commercial recreation, wilderness tourism, trapping and labour. M-
KAB members provide their services voluntarily and are responsible for preparing an annual
report to the Premier and Public outlining their funding expenditures, submitting advice to the
government, and reporting on Board and Committee work. However, the diversity of interests
and values of stakeholder representatives on the Advisory Board creates conflicts of interests.
This research comes at a pivotal time when the region will face economic, political, and
environmental challenges in the upcoming years. Although the area itself is largely unchanged
from a decade ago, there have been many adjustments in the governance arrangements for the
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 11!
!
M-KMA itself that have undermined confidence and raised questions over the commitments
made to conservation for the long term. In particular, the BC government has reduced the
funding support available for the M-KMA and has cut back severely on agency resources and
commitments. Over several years, the provincial government has also struggled to define an
appropriate role for the M-KAB, which now has less than 10% of the funding that was originally
available (Griggs & Luff, 2009). In addition, some of the key changes needed to keep the M-
KMA Act and regulation up to date have yet to be completed and work is needed to maintain an
effective management regime.
This paper opened by establishing the context for why PAs are important. It discussed the
LLEBM governance assessment framework and described the framework’s application for
assessing governance in the M-KMA. In the following chapter, governance for LLEBM is
explained in greater detail through a review of available literature concerning biodiversity, PA
systems and categories, EBM theory and governance concepts. Preceding this section is an
outline of the study design and methods to conduct this research. This paper ends with a
synthesizing discussion of the assessment results and recommendations for the future.
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 12!
!
Chapter(2:((Literature(Review(!
This chapter contains a review of critically analyzed academic literature. The literature
review begins by describing the current state of biodiversity and the pressures reinforcing
biodiversity loss. PAs are then described as an important approach to biodiversity conservation,
with mention about the gaps associated with PA establishments. The history of the International
Union for Conservation Nature (IUCN) PA categories systems is explained, including the current
process of revising the guidelines. EBM at the landscape-level is identified as an appropriate
approach in an effort to mitigate issues around PA systems based on its history and theory. The
role of governance in achieving PA conservation goals is explained by looking at participative
management and collaborative multi-stakeholder decision-making in the governance structure for
LLEBM.
2.1 Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change
Biodiversity is the foundation of life on earth. It describes the wide variety of animals,
plants, habitats and ecological complexes in existence (Buchart et al., 2010). Biodiversity is crucial
for the functioning of ecosystems, which provides humans with essential products and services
(Mulongoy & Chape, 2004). Oxygen, food, fresh water, fertile soil, medicines, shelter, stable
climate and recreation all have their source in healthy ecosystems (Mulongoy & Chape, 2004). By
changing biodiversity we strongly affect human well-being and the well-being of all life on earth
(Ervin et al., 2010).
Loss of biodiversity is one of the world’s most pressing crises (Ervin et al., 2010). The
IUCN estimates that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher
than it would be naturally (Ervin et al., 2010). 18,788 species out of 52,017 so far assessed are
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 13!
!
threatened with extinction of which 618 mammals and 1,895 amphibians are endangered or
extinct (Ervin et al., 2010). The main threats to these populations involve converting natural areas
to farming and urban development, introducing invasive alien species, polluting or over-
exploiting resources, and harvesting wild plants and animals at unsustainable levels (Ervin et al.,
2010). Above all impacts, climate change will be one of the biggest issues for biodiversity.
Our understanding of climate change comes primarily from the results of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report
on Climate Change, global temperatures are projected to increase 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by
the end of the century (Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007). This temperature rise will be accompanied
by changes in sea level, extreme weather events, and habitat distributions (Pachauri & Reisinger,
2007). Species and ecosystems will be forced to adapt as climate change disrupts their migratory
paths by altering habitat, resource availability, and phenology (Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007).
Furthermore, extreme warming is anticipated to cause major shifts in the ranges of organisms
and in the timing of their biological cycles (Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007).
In response to the world’s deepening biodiversity crisis, PA establishment has been the
cornerstone of global conservation strategies to reduce biodiversity loss (Dearden et al., 2005).
This approach to conserving biodiversity through PAs has been the foundation of conservation
for many centuries, but this approach is far from perfect with notable gaps in PA systems
(Dearden et al., 2005). While the rate of growth in PA establishment has been impressive, many
PAs have been set up in remote, unpopulated or sparsely populated areas such as mountains, ice-
fields and tundra (Dudley, 2008). Many of the world’s wild plant and animal species do not have
viable populations in PAs and a substantial proportion remain completely outside (Dudley, 2008).
The emerging threat of climate change will exacerbate these issues by pushing species further out
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 14!
!
of their range and out of PA boundaries.
The role of PAs and their effectiveness need to be examined if there is any hope for the
future in mitigating harmful effects of climate change on biodiversity. Data on the geographic
location and spatial extent of PAs is commonly used as the key determinant for understanding
“effectiveness” in conserving biodiversity (Chape et al., 2005). However, neither indicators of
areal extent nor the current global PA dataset tell us if PAs are achieving conservation objectives
(Chape et al., 2005). Therefore, understanding PA management and governance is needed to
assess real progress in meeting the 2010 biodiversity targets of the CBD.
2.2 Protected Areas Systems and Categories
Since the 1960s, conservation science and principles for establishing and managing
protected areas have developed enormously (Chape et al., 2005). Over the past 40 years, there has
been a paradigm shift in the role of PAs as an important strategy for biodiversity conservation
(Chape et al., 2005). The IUCN and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WPCA) have
been instrumental in guiding this paradigm shift, and have defined a protected area as a
“….clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or
other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem
services and cultural values” (Locke & Dearden, 2005).
The IUCN definition of PAs is the standard used by the United Nations Environment
Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and by over 188 countries
currently part of the CBD (Dudley, 2008). Despite the growth in global agreements on nature
conservation and the establishment of PAs, the PA designations used by countries are not
necessarily directly comparable across countries because of potentially different legislative
regimes (Dudley, 2008). Hence, the need for internationally standardized PA nomenclature and
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 15!
!
definitions was a concern raised at the First World Conference on National Parks in 1962
(Dudley, 2008). In 1994, an agreement was reached on a management objective-based system of
six categories (Dudley, 2008).
Of the six categories of PAs recognized by the IUCN (Table 1), categories I-IV fit
comfortably within the definition and purpose of PA goals aimed at biodiversity conservation.
However, categories V and VI pose potential conflicts of interest between environmental
conservation and resource extraction. Catagories V and VI arose in 1992 following the World
Parks Congress and were heralded a “new paradigm” (Locke & Dearden, 2005). This new
approach to PA systems focuses on benefits to local people to alleviate poverty and draw a
greater emphasis on the interaction between humans and nature (Locke & Dearden, 2005). Some
argue categories V and VI devalue conservation biology, undermine the creation of strictly
protected reserves, and inflate the amount of area in reserves that place people at the centre of
the protected area agenda at the expense of wild biodiversity (Locke & Dearden, 2005). Despite
the argument against categories V and VI, the social profile of communities and the social
implications of PA establishment cannot be disregarded. Poverty alleviation and improving
human welfare are large reasons behind PA establishment along with the ecosystem goods and
services that come out of them. The broadening of PA categories to include categories V and VI
is a noteworthy effort to recognize the human and livelihood dimensions of PA systems.
Table 1. The six categories of protected areas recognized by the IUCN (Dudley, 2008). Categories Description
I (a and b)
Strict nature reserve, wilderness protection area, or wilderness area managed mainly for science or wilderness protection.
II
National park, managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation.
III
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 16!
!
National monument, managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features
IV
Habitat/species management area, managed mainly for conservation through management intervention
V
Protected landscape/seascape, managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation or recreation
VI
Managed resource protected area, managed mainly for sustainable use of natural resources.
In many ways, the M-KMA reflects characteristics similar to PA category VI. The M-
KMA was established with the intent to establish a world standard for environmental
sustainability and economic stability, serving as a model that balances human activities (namely,
resource extraction and tourism) with conserving its environmental values and wilderness state
over time (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area, 2013). The M-KMA Act states the region is
intended to: “Maintain in perpetuity the wilderness quality, and the diversity and abundance of wildlife and the
ecosystems on which it depends, while allowing resource development and use in parts of the M-KMA designated for
those purposes including recreation, hunting, trapping, timber harvesting, mineral exploration and mining, and oil
and gas exploration and development” (Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, 1998). Under the M-
KMA Management Plans, the land is divided into different zones, with varying levels of
protection. The original plan calls for 25% of the land to be turned into provincial parks, 60% to
become “special management zones” where mining and oil and gas drilling are to be allowed, and
15% to become “special wildland zones” where logging is prohibited (Muskwa-Kechika
Management Area Act, 1998). Whether the M-KMA has struck this appropriate balance is still up
for question, but economic opportunities available for industry in the region threaten and devalue
its perceived environmental significance.
With such a multi-faceted zoning scheme, the governance structure for an area like this
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 17!
!
can become incredibly complex as various stakeholders compete on the land-base for space. This
becomes a challenge for managers and decision-makers to foster agreements amongst a diverse
suite of stakeholders. To deal with some of these challenges, EBM and integrated resource
management as well as collaborative multi-stakeholder and consensus-based decision-making
have been adapted in governance models that manage PAs of this type. These conservation and
decision-making approaches are positive movements for PAs, however they are relatively new PA
governing concepts with weaknesses that lack understanding. Research and exploration in these
gaps are necessary if PA systems are to be managed effectively and sustainably in the future.
2.3 Ecosystem-Based Management at the Landscape-Level
In the rush to establish PAs to save fragments of natural land and water from the sudden
onslaught of development, PAs are often set aside without careful analysis of the skills and
capacities needed to maintain them. Despite impressively rapid growth of protected land and
marine areas worldwide, biodiversity is still in steep decline. Is biodiversity loss related to
inadequacies in PA systems? If so, what is lacking in PA management and effectiveness and what
can be done to improve them?
PAs are too few, too small, and too isolated. In Canada, federal and provincial PA system
plans adopt natural regions or ecoregion representation approaches and, like PA systems around
the world, are designed to protect specific natural features, species, and communities in situ
(Lemieux & Scott, 2005). This approach to biodiversity protection does not account for
landscape-level shifts in ecosystem distribution and structure that will be induced by climate
change (Lemieux & Scott, 2005). Protection of this kind lacks consideration for species
movement and migration, and makes PAs susceptible to progressive isolation as surrounding
land use changes. Hence, EBM emerged in the mid 1930’s from concerns made by conservation
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 18!
!
biologists, ecologists, and scientists who recognized parks were not fully functional ecosystems
and did not accurately reflect the biotic of large mammals (Grumbine, 1994). Landscape-level
conservation arose in conjunction with EBM and involves the consideration of broad scale
interconnected ecological systems (Linehan et al., 1995). LLEBM is carried out in a number of
ways, one of which is wildlife corridors. Wildlife corridors connect between isolated habitat
patches as a solution to habitat fragmentation. The Y2Y is one of the best-known examples of a
wildlife corridor and the M-KMA forms a large portion of the region (Krysko & Ewing, 2011).
Y2Y connects the mountain ecosystems from Yellowstone National Park in northern United
States up to the Yukon in northern Canada (Krysko & Ewing, 2011). Y2Y’s primary goal is to
retain connected, well-managed and good quality wildlife habitat so that animals can safely travel
between PAs (Krysko & Ewing, 2011). The LLEBM concept has permeated land management
discussion worldwide. LLEBM not only addresses issues related to loss of biodiversity and of the
intrinsic value of ecosystems, but it has also expanded to the realization that stakeholder
participation in management is crucial to successfully achieve conservation goals (Jones, 2013).
Debates about how to govern human uses of PA’s are taking place in the much wider
context of debates about how we should go about managing people and the social, economic,
political, and bureaucratic systems of which they are a part (Jones, 2013). The main debate
surrounding EBM focuses on its implementation and on the difficulty in decision-making
regarding entire ecosystems, inter-agency jurisdictional challenges and complexities, cost
effectiveness of new management schemes, and the role of top-down and bottom-up governance
approaches (Gelcich et al., 2009). According to Grumbine (1994), there are ten dominant themes
critical to the definition, implementation, or overall comprehension of EBM. The ten dominant
themes emerged repeatedly through his literature review and are as follows:
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 19!
!
1. Hierarchical Context. Focusing on any one level of the biodiversity hierarchy (genes,
species, populations, ecosystems, and landscapes) is not sufficient. PA managers need to adopt a
“systems” perspective. This means, when working at a problem at any one level, managers need
to seek a connection between all levels.
2. Ecological Boundaries. Management requires working across administrative and
political boundaries (i.e., national forest, national parks) and defining ecological boundaries at
appropriate scales.
3. Ecological Integrity. Management for ecological integrity is defined as protecting
total native diversity (species, populations, ecosystems) and the ecological patterns and process
that maintain that diversity. This can be discussed as conservation of viable populations of native
species, maintaining natural disturbance regimes, reintroduction of native, extirpated species,
representation of ecosystems across natural ranges of variation, etc.
4. Data Collection. EBM requires more research and data collection (i.e. habitat
inventory/classification, disturbance regime dynamics, baseline species and population
assessment) as well as better management and use of existing data.
5. Monitoring. Managers must track the result of their actions so that success or failure
may be evaluated quantitatively. Monitoring creates ongoing feedback loops of useful
information. However, a baseline of information is required to make monitoring effective.
6. Adaptive Management. Adaptive management assumes scientific knowledge is
provisional. Management is a learning process or continuous experiment where incorporating the
result of previous actions allows managers to remain flexible and adapt to uncertainties.
7. Interagency Cooperation. Cooperation is required between federal, state, and local
management agencies as well as private parties. Managers must learn to work together and
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 20!
!
integrate conflicting legal mandates and management goals.
8. Organizational Change. EBM implementations require changes in the structure of
land management agencies and the way they operate. These changes may range from simple
(forming an interagency committee) to complex (changing professional norms, altering power
relationships).
9. Humans Embedded in Nature. People cannot be separated from nature. Humans
are fundamental influences on ecological patterns and processes and are in turn affected by them.
10. Values. Human values, in addition to scientific knowledge, play an important role in
ecosystem management goals.
These ten dominant themes form the basis of a working definition: “EBM integrates
scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex sociopolitical and values framework toward the
general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term” (Grumbine, 1994). Grumbine’s
outline for EBM guides our evaluation of what charters successful EBM and if its
implementation in the M-KMA governance structure adequately achieves the goals and objectives
of the area.
There are five specific goals of EBM within the overall goal of sustaining ecological
integrity: (1) maintain viable populations of native species in situ, (2) represent all native
ecosystem types within PAs, (3) maintain evolutionary and ecological process, (4) manage
ecosystems over long periods of time for the evolution potential of species and ecosystems, and
(5) accommodate human use and occupancy within these constraints (Grumbine, 1994). The first
four of these goals are value statements that aim to reduce the biodiversity crisis. The fifth goal
acknowledges the vital role that people play in all aspects of the ecosystem management debate.
These goals speak to the “balance” that is often brought up in management and governance of
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 21!
!
PAs, and is the same question that is being asked of the M-KMA. What does balance mean and
what does it look like in a PA? Does balance with human use in a PA undermine its
environmental values? Can balance in a PA be achieved through LLEBM? With these questions
in mind, this research is directed at exploring the governance system and decision-making
functions that apply LLEBM to the real world.
2.4 Protected Areas Governance
PAs only contribute to conservation if they are managed effectively, thus governance has
been identified as central to the conservation and effectiveness of PAs around the world
(Dearden et al., 2005). Government and governance are commonly confused to mean the same
thing, however these two words are not interchangeable and have been clearly distinguished in
the literature (Robinson et al., 2012). Governments can be viewed as an organization or body that
does the governing, while governance is the process of governing (Robinson et al., 2012). In this
study, governance is of greater relevancy. Governance is concerned with how power is exercised
among the different sectors or interests in society and about pathways to desired conditions or
outcomes. “Good governance” can thus be defined as a model of governance that leads to social,
environmental and economic results sought by citizens (Robinson et al., 2012). According to
Lockwood et al. (2010), good governance is a prerequisite for effective management, and is
fundamental to securing the political and community support essential to the development and
survival of the global PAs system.
Social scientists have put forth theories suggesting the eight principles to “good
governance” of natural resource management including the following: legitimacy, transparency,
accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, integration, capability, and adaptability (Lockwood et al.,
2010). A study by Lebel et al. (2008), looked at certain attributes of governance function in
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 22!
!
society to enhance the capacity to manage resiliency. They looked at three propositions in what
they define as aspects of “good governance”: (1) participation, (2) polycentric and multilayered
institutions, and (3) accountable authorities. Participation builds the trust, deliberation, and
shared understanding needed to mobilize and self-organize (Lebel et al., 2008). Polycentric and
multilayered institutions improve the fit between knowledge, action and social-ecological contexts
in ways that allow societies to respond more adaptively (Lebel et al., 2008). Accountable
authorities who pursue just distribution of benefits and involuntary risks enhance adaptive
capacity of vulnerable groups and society as a whole (Lebel et al., 2008).
In the past, “top down” government control has been the dominant model guiding
decision flow in PA management (Lockwood et al., 2010). However, as issues become more
complex the limitations of “top down” governance is more apparent as government is far from
the sole determinate of social, environmental, or economic conditions (Lockwood et al., 2010).
Important issues of public concern, such as environmental issues can be too complex to be
addressed by government acting alone (Lockwood et al., 2010). The CBD Programme of Work
on Protected Areas is bringing greater attention to the subject of improved governance for PAs
and calling for the involvement of all relevant sectors of society. (Hockings, 2003).
Governance assessments may be undertaken as part of management effectiveness
evaluations guided by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature World
Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) framework (Hockings, 2003). However, the
IUCN-WCPA framework is limited and neglects to evaluate important governance dimensions
such as legitimacy and fairness, and incompletely addresses other aspects such as accountability
(Hockings, 2003). Furthermore, there is no literature regarding evaluation frameworks for a
governance assessment for EBM at the landscape-level.
The!M=KMA:!A!governance!assessment!of!LLEBM! 23!
!
According to Robinson et al. (2012), the assessment of governance must encompass both
the social functions, and the method with which those functions are carried out. Seven indicators
for assessing governance processes was identified as: deliberation, resources, linkages, and under
fair governance – equity, responsiveness, legitimacy and society (Robinson et al., 2012).
Governance processes contribute to a variety of capacities in the community or society, three of
which are particularly relevant for the LLEBM: effective decision-making, learning, and
leadership (Robinson et al., 2012). Governance process and the capacities that they contribute to
help to carry out four main social functions: resolving tradeoffs, shaping how power is used,
setting direction, and building community (Figure 2) (Robinson et al., 2012).
Effective governance of PAs requires the cooperation and equitable treatment of
stakeholders, particularly people dependent on the resources included in PAs (Gunton et al.,
2007). Collaborative environmental management has been increasingly advocated as a desirable
approach to PA management and governance through multi-party or multi-stakeholder planning
(Griggs & Luff, 2009). The M-KMA represents an extraordinary experiment in collaboration for
the implementation of a land use agreement. While there is a growing trend towards collaborative
management in PAs, there are relatively few success stories thus far. The final section of this
chapter focuses on participatory management approaches for multi-stakeholder decision-making
in the governance model to learn how to implement collaborative management and to
understand what it means in practice.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$24$
$
Social P
henomena that
Deliver G
overnance
Governance
Capacities
Governance O
utcomes
(Social functions that are perform
ed)
R
esolving tradeoffs
O
rganizations Institutions N
etworks
Norm
s V
alues E
tc.
Governance
processes
Effective D
ecision-M
aking
Shaping how
power is used
Learning
Setting direction
Leadership
A
ssessed according to 7 indicators: deliberation, resources, linkages, equity, responsiveness, legitim
acy and accountability.
B
uilding comm
unity
!Figure!2:!!E
lements of governance for assessing LLE
BM
(Robinson et al., 2012)
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 25$
$
2.5 Collaborative Multi-stakeholder Decision-making
The success of PAs is intrinsically dependent on the behaviour of people and their use of
the land base. Therefore, it places governance and PA decision-making at the centre of this
LLEBM assessment framework. Stakeholder involvement has become axial to PA planning and
has been proposed to open debate, contribute to policy formulation, increase government
accountability, build support for agency programs, reduce community tensions, and increase the
sustainability of the actions (Gunton et al., 2007). Therefore, PA governance is increasingly
relying on collaborative planning models that engage stakeholders to develop plans through
consensus-based negotiations (Gunton et al., 2007).
In the 1970s and 1980s, several planning models emerged (Gunton et al., 2007). The most
common approach was to consult stakeholders during plan preparation by seeking feedback
through public consultations (Gunton et al., 2007). The problem with consultation, however, is
that it does not resolve disputes among competing interest groups and the outcomes of the
process do not necessarily have any impact on government policies. This approach struggles to
cope with policy problems that are complex, involve interdependent actors, and require
cooperation with non-state actors (Gunton et al., 2007). Collaboration appeared in the 1990s
primarily as a response to the limitations and failures of expert administration, an approach
heavily influenced by managerialist values such as economic efficiency, a faith in specialist skills
and knowledge, and an emphasis on control through hierarchy (Gunton et al., 2007). As
described by Koontz (2005), collaboration is characterized by diverse stakeholders working
together to resolve a conflict or develop and advance a shared vision.
The M-KMA collaborative approach engages in consensus-based decision-making, a
method by which the input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 26$
$
final decision acceptable to all. Consensus planning attempts to build consensus between the
various parties taking part in the planning process (Dressler, 2009). Consensus is a cooperative
process in which all group members develop and agree to support a decision that is in the best
interest of the whole (Dressler, 2009). In consensus, the input of every member is carefully
considered and there is a good faith effort to address all legitimate concerns. Through consensus
building, the planning process strives to reach a win-win situation and to provide a mutually
beneficial outcome.
Consensus-based approaches may be applicable in some cases, however the ‘common
ground solution’ this planning approach seeks to achieve can in fact trump progress (Mackenzie,
2008). One issue with consensus is that resulting decisions are mediocre or uninspired because
they have become watered down by compromises necessary to secure the support of every group
member (Mackenzie, 2008). There is particular concern environmental decisions are watered
down in order to win the favour of involved stakeholders (Mackenzie, 2008). Understanding the
challenging enterprise of PA management through collaboration and consensus-based decision-
making is in its infancy. Due to the highly fragmented nature of LLEBM governance and its
decision-making applications, the governance assessment carried out using this framework is
meant to provide an overview of the process and structures that help determine who decides,
how they decide, how tradeoffs are management, how power relations are managed, how
collective vision is created, and how community is built. It also provides insight into successes
and challenges of the collaborative governance arrangement currently in place for the M-KMA to
help them achieve conservation and development goals. The next chapter outlines the methods
used to conduct the governance assessment research with an overview of the indicators chosen
to guide the assessment framework.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 27$
$
Chapter(3:((Study(Design(&(Methods!
Chapter three describes the study design and methodology used to conduct research for
the LLEBM project. Advisory Board members were interviewed to gain understanding and
insights on the governance system in place for LLEBM in the M-KMA. In this chapter, the
processes and structures used to select research participants and perform interviews are
explained. A qualitative analysis software known as N.Vivo 10 was employed to critically analyze
the collected interviews. These interviews were examined under a system of codes, indices, and
scoring criterion conducted under the LLEBM Governance Assessment Framework adapted
from Robinson et al. (2012)
3.1 Study Design
The study makes use of qualitative methodology and was designed around a hybrid of
primary and secondary data. Primary data was collected through semi-structured interviews with
Advisory Boards members, land and resource managers, guide outfitters, and local community
members. To obtain these interviews, fieldwork was conducted between August 2012 and
September 2012 in Fort St. John, British Columbia. This city is situated east of the M-KMA and
was identified as a significant location to connect with some of the key stakeholders functioning
in and around the region.
Prior to data-collection, the governance assessment framework for LLEBM was reviewed
and adapted to develop three main interview guides for core people, M-KAB members, and M-
KAB non-members. The interview guide was designed following the five broad tasks of
describing the social-ecological system (SES), the landscape-level governance system, governance
process, governance capacity, and governance outcomes. For each of these tasks, there are a
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 28$
$
number of questions or indicators. The broad tasks, the 8 core descriptive questions and the 16
core indicators making up the framework are summarized in Table 2 (Appendix).
3.1.1 Descriptive Tasks and Questions
The first two tasks are descriptive in which the first task describes the SES and the
second task describes governance processes. For the task of describing the SES, there are five
core questions:
Q1. What is the “identity” of the SES?
This question can simply look at the physical extent of the LLEBM initiative and
its delineated boundaries identified on a map. However, answering this question also
involved looking at the social and/or ecological process, which occurs beyond the
boundaries.
Q2. Who are the stakeholders?
The second question looks to list and identify stakeholders formally included in
the LLEBM initiative, stakeholders who play a role in making decisions that affect the
SES, and to also identify groups that are affected by the initiative and by activities of
other human actors within the SES.
Q3. What are the main issues and problems in the SES?
This question looks to discover the ecological processes that are of greatest
concern to stakeholders as well as identify the issues that extend beyond the boundaries
of the SES.
Q4. What are the objectives, interests, and values of the stakeholders?
Q5. What are the commonalities and contradictions among the various stakeholders’ objectives, interests,
and values?
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 29$
$
These next two questions are to identify the objectives, interest, and values of
those stakeholders, and to find commonalities, contradictions, and potential conflicts
between them. These two questions involved developing narratives that capture the most
important views and feelings of the people in the SES.
The second task is to describe and summarize governance processes pertaining to the
SES. Three core questions were asked:
Q6. What are the core organizational and institution elements of the governance system?
The first question identifies the core organizational institutional elements of the
governance system such as the foundational institutions (legislation, regulations,
agreements) upon which the Advisory Board is based. If a single landscape level body was
not identified, a set of organizations and decision-making mechanisms were identified
instead.
Q7. What are the key mechanisms and strategies used for governance?
This question refers to how the decisions made within the governance system
attempt to change some aspect of human behaviour. Establishing regulations is a
common approach, but the social functions that comprise what we call “governance” can
also be carried by other means such as by providing funding, by influencing norms, or by
establishing or changing relationships among actors. Addressing this question requires
identifying the key decision-making bodies and their objectives.
Q8. What are the key decisions being made that affect the SES and the problems?
This question is concerned with collective decision-making, although certain kinds of
individual or household level decisions may also be relevant. This question should not ignore
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 30$
$
other governance processes and organizations whose decisions have an impact. Identifying the
most important among these decisions involves understanding how stakeholders have identified
their main concerns, and what their objectives, interests, and values are
3.1.2 Assessment of Governance Processes
The task of assessing governance processes involves seven indicators: I-1 Deliberation, I-
2 Resources, I-3 Linkages, I-4 Equity, I-5 Responsiveness, I-6 Legitimacy, and I-7 Accountability.
Deliberation is a key element of meaningful multi-level participation, contributing to
effective feedback and decision-making mechanisms (Robinson et al., 2012). Therefore, I-1 asks
to what extent there is deliberation among stakeholders and decision-makers on important issues.
Effective government requires resources and so I-2 assesses the ability of the system to
generate resources. Following Robinson et al., (2012), resources are grouped into three types:
financial resources, human resources, and political resources.
Interplay and linkages among organizations and institutions, both vertically across levels
and horizontally within the same level are identified as critical factors in resilient SES, especially
in the capacity of a system to adapt to change (Robinson et al., 2012). I-3 asks whether there are
appropriate linkages among organizations and institutions, and where the linkages may be lacking.
Indicators I-4, I-5, I-6, and I-7 can be grouped under the larger heading of fair governance.
Gupta et al., (2010) identify four dimensions of fair governance: equity, legitimacy, responsive,
and accountability. Equity (I-4) refers to whether or not the institutional rules embodied in the
governance system are fare and take account of unequal circumstances in society. Responsiveness
(I-5) asks whether the governance system shows a response to society and the concerns and
issues raised by people and communities. Legitimacy (I-6) refers to the extent to which there is
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 31$
$
support for the governance system among the various communities and stakeholder groups and
the general public. The fourth fair governance indicator asks whether institutional patterns
provide for accountability procedures (I-7).
3.1.3 Assessment of Governance Capacities
Three capacities of governance systems were identified for LLEBM: capacity for effective
decision-making, capacity within the system for learning, and the room created by the system for
leadership (Robinson et al., 2012). Each of these capacities has an important contribution to the
overall effectiveness of the governance system.
To assess for the capacity for effective decision-making, three indicators were proposed:
I-8 Clear scope, goals and objectives, I-9 Efficiency, and I-10 Fit (Robinson et al., 2012). I-8
suggests that effective decision-making presupposes the existence of clear goals and objectives
(Robinson et al., 2012). Stakeholders have only such time and organization have finite resources,
so I-9 looks at how the use of research, knowledge, and dialogue is balanced against the
efficiency of the process. Effective decision-making also depends on how well the governance
system matches the SES for which decision are being made (Robinson et al., 2012). To avoid
misfit, I-10 explores how the governance system responds appropriately to the spatial and
temporal characteristics of the system.
Trust, discussion of doubts, and institutional memories are identified as the aspects for
assessing how the governance system contributes to learning capacity under I-11 Learning. This
indicator asks the extent to which institutional patterns in the governance system promote
learning from past experiences and improve the way they operate, to which they promote deeper
reflection and questioning of underlying assumptions, and to which doubts and uncertainty are
openly discussed and addressed by the governance system.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 32$
$
I-12 asks about kinds of leadership that the governance system tries to promote including
visionary leaders, entrepreneurial leadership, and collaborative leadership. Without leadership,
decision-making discussion and progress has the potential to go awry.
3.1.4 Assessment of Governance Outcomes
Whereas government is a set of organizations, governance is a set of social functions
(Robinson et al., 2012). Four social functions stand out to form the following indicators for
assessing the outcomes of governance: I-13 Resolving tradeoffs, I-14 Contributing to just power
relations, I-15 Setting direction, and I-16 Building community.
Indicator I-13 asks how the governance system has performed at resolving tradeoffs in
terms of equity, efficiency, and environmental sustainability. I-14 is concerned with both coercive
power (“power over”) and power as capacity (“power to” and “power with”) (Robinson et al.,
2012). This indicator is asking at to what extent the governance system has contributed to just
power relations and if a certain stakeholder group has the ability to push their agenda forward
more easily than another.
A governance system cannot progress and improve without a set of clearly established
goals and visions. I-15, therefore, asks to what extent governance has established a vision or
common direction for steering and guiding the societies and organizations involved.
Finally, I-16 recognizes one of the key constituents of well-being is social connectedness
and sense of community (Robinson et al., 2012). This last indicator in this section relates to
building community and asks the extent to which the governance system helps stakeholders
identify, create, and share values and identities.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 33$
$
3.1.5 Structured Questionnaire
Each interview was comprised of a structured questionnaire with twelve question
statements (Appendix). For each statement, key informants were asked to respond as strongly
disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, or don’t know. In some cases, further explanation for a
response was inquired. This questionnaire was intended to quickly capture some of the values
and themes related to core questions no. Q4, Q7, and Q8.
3.2 Participant Selection
The study sought to document information on specific issues around LLEBM
governance, which would be known by those with extensive knowledge and experience with the
M-KMA governance structure. Hence, particular interest was directed towards speaking with
members of the M-KAB, while other focus groups included land and resource managers, First
Nations, government ministers, guide outfitters, and local community members in the region.
The goal was to interview individuals with significant impacts on decision-making processes and
outcomes, and who represented stakeholders currently functioning in and around the M-KMA.
Individuals considered for an interview were identified from a contact list compiled by the M-K
Secretariat, while additional contacts were suggested by word-of-mouth. LLEBM project
brochures were distributed to key informants through email with a request for their participation
in an interview. Willing participants then engaged in in-person interviews or phone interviews.
3.3 Interviews
A total of 9 M-KAB interviews, 3 BC government interviews, and 2 non-M-KAB
interviews were completed (Table 3). Past and present M-KAB members were interviewed who
had more than 7 years experience on the Board, or were newly appointed in 2012. Government
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 34$
$
officials interviewed included a Land and Resource Specialist, the Executive Director of Forest,
Lands, and Natural Resource Operations, and the Land and Resource Manager for the West
Moberly First Nations. Non-MK-AB interviews were held with a Fort St. John local and a guide
outfitter. Interviews were recorded using a digital RCA audio recorder and the times ranged from
45 min to 1.5 h.
Table 3. Key informants, their institutional affiliations, professional backgrounds, and involvement with the MKMA Affiliation Key Informants History & Background M-KAB Chair Stephanie Killam District of Mackenzie mayor M-K Secretariat Don Roberts M-K Program Manager Karrilyn Vince District of Mackenzie mayor Advisory Board member Wayne Sawchuk Founder of M-KMA
Advisory Board member
Gavin Dirom
President of the Association for Mineral Exploration BC
Advisory Board member Juergen Puetter President of Aeolis Wind Power Advisory Board member Bob Peart 05-07 M-KAB member Advisory Board member Barry Holland BC Wildlife Federation Advisory Board member Reg Gardner Board Representative Bruce Muir
West Moberly First Nations Land Manager
BC Government Butch Morningstar
Executive Director Regional Operations FLNR
BC Government Rod Backmeyer Land & Resource Specialist FLNR Guide Outfitter Chris Shippmann Liard River Guide Outfitting Adventure Fort St. John local Anne Mackenzie Hotel Manager
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 35$
$
3.4 N.Vivo Analysis
Interview recordings were emailed to a professional transcription service and then
transferred to NVivo 10. NVivo is a computer software package produced by QSR International
and designed for qualitative researchers working with rich text-based or multimedia information.
In NVivo, a preliminary analysis of the interviews involved coding the responses under nodes
representing the descriptive tasks and indicator questions as mentioned in the study design
section. Nodes organized commonalities and contradictions mentioned among the various
stakeholders about objectives, interests, and values of the LLEBM governance structure. For the
evaluative tasks, the nodes were scored from 1 to 4, 1 being poor/weak and 4 being good/strong.
In an attempt to make scoring as transparent and objective as possible, Table 4 in the appendix
outlines the criterion for each indicator describing what would constitute a score of “1”, “2”, “3”,
or “4”. The scores were then compiled in Microsoft Excel and summarized visually using tables
and figures in the Results section below.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 36$
$
Chapter(4:((Results(!
The findings from the interviews are compiled here in Chapter Four. This chapter begins
with a brief overview of the results using tables and figures. The next section then describes how
the key informants perceived the SES and the governance processes of the SES system. The 8
core questions were used to find the identity of the SES, the main issues and problems in the
SES, the stakeholders of the SES, and the main objectives, interests, and values of the
stakeholders and the governance processes pertaining to the SES. Following this are the results
for the assessment of the governance system under the 16 evaluative indicators. The indicators
scored an average value of 2, suggesting the M-KMA is currently governed under a weak model.
4.1 Overview The following figures and tables provide a succinct overview of the results of the LLEBM
governance assessment framework. Tables 5-7 provide a summary of the common responses
grouped into perceived and desired benefits, perceived weaknesses, and personal values
associated with the SES and the SES governance system. An in-depth analysis of interview
responses showed the environment and economy dichotomy as a recurrent theme. In all tables,
the environment juxtaposes economic factors, which suggests the importance of this dichotomy
in how successes, weakness, and personal values are shaped for the SES and governance system.
Table 5: Summary of perceived and desired benefits for the SES and governance system. Description/Result Quotation Establishing the M-KMA
“The fact we got the [M-KMA] in there is a huge success. The fact it’s still alive is an accomplishment. That the Board has managed to fight despite all its idiosyncrasies or whatever to make sure that it stays alive."
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 37$
$
Show conservation and development can co-exist
“ One of the major accomplishments was finding ways to allow some of those resource activities to take place, within the management area...to figure out a way for that to happen I think was really important"
Bring together various stakeholders to the table
“It includes all the stakeholders including First Nations at the table...It also provided a forum for all those groups to liaise amongst themselves but also with government.”
Learning opportunity for how to manage land resources
“In today’s world a lighter footprint is what everybody is looking to find”. So there is some huge lessons to be learned from the M-KMA that can apply outside...”
Set a world standard for “working wilderness” approach (environment vs. economy dichotomy)
“There is nowhere else in North America that I am aware of that managed to put in some different planning landscape type of things [for one region] beyond just parks versus no parks.”
Maintain a healthy land base
“Another success is that the land base is really healthy right now. You know there’s some management question about this species or that species but from a general sense, the M-K is extremely healthy from an ecological perspective.”
Table 6: Summary of perceived weaknesses for the SES and the governance system. Description/Result Quotation Uncertain about roles and responsibilities for AB
“One of the greatest challenges is to figure out...how the AB is going to provide useful advice to the government...by that I mean the ability to make decisions that are durable decisions.”
Poor communication between First Nations and government
“ The government to government discussions between First Nations and government has been a huge weakness"
Diminishing financial and political resources
“I think a major challenge facing [the M-K] is just...the inability for government to really have enough resources to really finish some of the plans that could be done.”
Biases in how trade-offs are made (environment vs. economy dichotomy)
“There is too much emphasis placed on the environmental protection and not enough weighting of the input on the social economic side...it would be disastrous to see all those resources and people just go on a social side, or just go to the economic side...we’re trying to find the balance...but it’s got a long ways to go.”
Consensus-based approach weaknesses
“It’s a consensus-based process, that’s it strength. But at the same time it can also be thrown out of whack by people who aren’t playing by the game...if someone brings their political agendas to the table or personal agendas it can be an issue.”
Lack of public awareness
“A major challenge is just people’s awareness of [the M-K]. Some people still thinks it’s a big park. And so I don’t think we in the North East have done a good job about educating to people what [the M-K] is and what it’s for.”
Table 7: Summary of personal values shaped by the SES and the governance system. Description/Result Quotation Maintaining an intact ecosystem
“If there’s resources in [the M-K] that are needed, you should be managing them in a manner that will retain those...The values that you’re looking for or trying to retain like the wilderness and the same or similar level of ecosystems.”
Conservation of wilderness and wildlife
“[The M-K] is a big chunk of wilderness that isn’t messed up. It still exists. Worldwide wilderness is disappearing at a alarming rate...so [PA] are becoming rarer all the time. We have a responsibility here on a global level to protected this chunk of ground."
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 38$
$
Community and livelihood identity
“I’m an avid outdoors recreation person. I make a living off the land hunting and fishing and travelling around in the mountains on horseback. My kids grew up doing that with me and in the last few years, we’ve taken the grandkids to head of the Prophet on horseback...that has been a real interesting experience...the intrinsic value of being out there with family and friends”
Striking a balance (environment vs. economy dichotomy)
“How can we be smart as we go and explore and develop the world in certain areas that are very special? Arguably every area is sort of special in a way. So, [the M-K] is a gift, here’s an opportunity to kind of think about it more than we ever have. That’s fund, That’s exciting. That’s interesting to be part of that dynamic.”
Sustainability existence for the future
“I kept thinking what a wonderful thing to leave our kids. Our kids and their kids are going to actually be able to trail ride through three and be able to experience that area and its vast ecosystem...I assume that is the purpose of the AB and the purpose of having things set up to protect it and make sure that it is there for a long time to come.”
The scores for each of the 16 indicators were compiled into Figure 3, and colour coded
into the groups governance processes, governance capacities, and governance outcomes. Recall
that governance processes are the processes by means which social functions are carried out. In
turn, governance processes contribute to a variety of capacities in a community or society, and
together governance processes and the capacities that they contribute help to carry out the
resolution of tradeoffs, shaping of power relations, setting direction for governance, and building
community. On average, all indicators scored 2 out of a scale from 1 to 4, which suggests the
governance processes, governance capacities, and governance outcomes of the governance
system are generally weak. The indicators for responsiveness, learning capacity, and contributions
to just power relations were the highest scoring indicators, while resources and leadership were
the lowest scoring indicators. Table 8 summarizes each indicator, the score it received, and a brief
justification for why it was scored that value. At glance, the LLEBM governance system in place
for the M-KMA appears to be fairly weak, however, the accuracy and redundancy of the
assessment framework must be considered before any presumptions can be made about the
governance quality.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 39$
$
Figure 3. The scores on a scale from 1 to 4 to assess the 16 governance indicators. Green bars represent indicators for the assessment of governance processes (I-1 to I-7). Red bars represent indicators for the assessment of governance capacities (I-8 to I-12). Blue bars represent the indicators for the assessment of governance outcomes (I-13 to I-16).
0$ 1$ 2$ 3$ 4$
Deliberation$Resources$Linkages$Equity$
Responsiveness$Legitimacy$
Accountability$Clear$scope,$goals$and$objectives$
EfPiciency$of$the$decision&making$processes$Fit$
Learning$capacity$Leadership$
Resolving$tradeoffs$Contributing$to$just$power$relations$
Setting$direction$Building$community$
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$40$
$ Table 8: Sum
mary of findings for each indicator.
Task
Questions/Indicators
Score E
xplanation Assessment of Governance Processes
I-1. D
eliberation 2
The consensus-based approach establishes the platform
that encourages AB
m
embers to engage in detailed deliberation. H
owever, conversations around larger
issues (e.g. First Nations issues and renew
able energy projects) are fettered by the C
hair to avoid dealing with som
e of the tougher discussions. There are concerns the
inventory about the SES is inadequate to appropriately inform
decision-making.
Board m
embers also m
eet only a handful of times during the year, w
hich makes
effective deliberation difficult and drawn-out.
I-2. R
esources 1
A dim
inishing financial and political climate is having negative effects on the A
B.
There is lack of political w
ill and interest into the M-K
MA
after a recent shift in governm
ent power. T
he government is not offering any m
ore money for the A
B
Trust Fund and alternative funding opportunities have been w
eakly explored. These
resource shortages have caused AB
mem
bers to become disengaged and reluctant in
decision-making processes.
I-3. Institutional Linkages
2 T
here is a strong linkage to UN
BC
through the endowm
ent for supporting scientific research. B
eyond this, linkages with the governm
ent and ministries are
weak. T
he government has not provided the necessary support for the m
anagement
of the region and the functioning of the AB
. The governm
ent has failed to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the A
B and has been unable to define “advice”.
There is poor linkages w
ith the First Nations com
munities and this been a source of
conflict between the A
B and First N
ations, and First Nations and the governm
ent.
Fair G
overnance
I-4. E
quity 2
While a good diversity of stakeholder groups sit on the A
B, equity m
erits more than
formal seating at the discussion table. First N
ations are poorly represented on the A
B and lack a legal voice in the decision-m
aking process. The governm
ent is currently w
orking on a government-to-governm
ent model w
ith First Nations, but
little progress has been made. T
he environment versus the econom
y dichotomy has
also been unequally balanced in decision-making processes, and this has pitted
industrial representatives against environmental representatives on the B
oard. I-5.
Responsiveness
3 T
he AB
does not have a direct role in managing concerns or issues, how
ever, the A
B helps direct inquiries to the governm
ent and appropriate Ministries. T
he governance system
is fairly responsive to concerns and issues raised by the general public and local com
munities. H
owever, this indicator is difficult to assess due to
lack of examples w
here the responsiveness of the governance system has been
adequately tested
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$41$
$
I-6. Legitim
acy 2
Local comm
unities including Mackenzie, Fort N
elson, Fort St. John, and the Liard R
iver areas are supportive of the governance system. D
espite strong local support, there are few
individuals who heard and know
about the M-K
MA
. Thus, legitim
acy is difficult to assess w
hen very few individuals are aw
are of the region and its significance. T
here is poor support from a couple T
reaty 8 First Nations
comm
unities who have felt the area lacks respect for First N
ations ownership of the
land and their decision-making rights.
I-7. A
ccountability 2
There are clearly assigned responsibilities through the M
-KM
A A
ct about the purpose of the M
-KM
A and the role of the A
B. H
owever, there are no m
echanisms
in place that hold AB
mem
bers accountable to uphold their responsibilities and com
mitm
ents to the Board. T
he government has failed to provide adequate
monitoring for and feedback to the A
B. T
he process of appointing AB
mem
bers through the governm
ent also lacks transparency and accountability.
Assessment of Governance Capacities
Effective
Decision-
Making
I-8. C
lear scope, goals and objectives
2 T
he goals and objectives are well defined in the legislation and strategic plans,
however, A
B m
embers still struggle w
ith understanding their roles and responsibilities. U
nclear interpretations for what “balance” looks like and w
hat “advice” m
eans have restrained decision-making progress.
I-9. E
fficiency 2
Reaching decisions has been show
n to take a great deal of time, even for sm
all tasks and sim
ple issues. Lack of engagement w
ith AB
mem
bers has made deliberation
arduous and time-consum
ing. Furthermore, lack of scientific data about the SE
S creates an inefficient approach to deliberation w
here uninformed decisions can be
made.
I-10. Fit 2
The M
-KM
A is a large, intact SE
S region. The physical size of the SE
S is appropriate for m
aintaining the ecological quality and wildlife values of the region.
How
ever, a large SES ensues a greater num
ber of stakeholder interests and resource conflicts for the area. T
he AB
currently does not have the funding capacity to support a large SE
S and to function effectively as an advisory body. I-11. Learning capacity
3 T
he round-table discussions and consensus-based planning approach creates the opportunity for the various stakeholder groups to engage in m
eaningful discussion. T
he governance model creates the space for dialogue and the sharing of concerns
that would not otherw
ise have been voiced. While there m
ay be individuals bringing forth their personal agendas that m
ay skew the decision-m
aking process, m
embers felt there w
ere still values and perspectives to be gained from these
discussions.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$42$
$
I-12. Leadership 1
The governance system
does a poor job of facilitating the emergence of leaders.
The leadership displayed by the A
B C
hair facilitates or fetters the emergence of
leadership from other B
oard mem
bers. Unfortunately, shortcom
ings of the previous C
hair has generated a placate Board. A
B participation is volunteer-based, w
hich gives little incentive for A
B m
embers to take on leadership roles. T
he government
has also weakened leadership on the A
B by re-appointing m
embers w
ho are generally less vocal and less likely to engage in conflict.
Assessment of Governance Outcomes
I-13. Resolving T
rade-offs 2
Resolving trade-offs are done on a case-by-case or decision-by-decision basis. For
smaller trade-offs, the consensus-based approach w
as effective at reaching an agreem
ent among the various stakeholders. T
rade-off agreements betw
een the environm
ent and industry sector were m
ore difficult to reach and not always
equitable. For example, environm
ental concerns were said to trum
p economic ones.
I-14. Contributing to just pow
er relations 2
The contribution to just pow
er relations is fairly neutral for this governance system.
There are opportunities w
here AB
mem
bers can exercise their power, how
ever, the consensus approach has im
peded this. The achievem
ent of just power relations is
dependent on the mem
bers being cognizant and actively condoning coercive power.
I-15. Setting Direction
2 T
he AB
has discussed and identified issues for the upcoming years. T
here is no vision on how
they will address these issues and there is lim
ited comm
unication w
ith government on w
ays they will be supported m
oving forward. T
he advisory role and responsibilities still need to be defined by governm
ent in order to give the AB
better context for w
hat providing “advice” means.
I-16. Building C
omm
unity 2
There are tw
o areas of comm
unity building: the first is the building of identity and understanding w
ithin the AB
and the second is the building of the greater SES
comm
unity. First, the governance system has helped stakeholders share their values,
but it this has not meant greater acceptance or understanding betw
een stakeholders has been achieved. Second, the A
B has done a poor job of reaching out to local
comm
unities, educating the public about the M-K
MA
, and promoting public
support for the region. Hence, public aw
areness and support for the M-K
MA
is in its infancy and the B
oard has no imm
ediate plans on how they w
ill address this issue.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 43$
$
$
Recall, each interview guide contained a structured questionnaire comprised of 12
questions. Respondents answered these questions as strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly
agree, and don’t know. The frequency of each response is shown in Figure 4 and color coded for
ease of observation. According to the figure, 9 out of the 12 questions generated a high level of
agreement. However, respondents expressed disagreement with question 3 and 5. The Board did
not feel they were efficient with their time spent on reaching decisions nor did they believe the
governance model was completely fair and inclusive of all stakeholder groups. Finally, there was
a common feeling of uncertainty for questions 11 and 12 with regards to how competing interests
are balanced within the SES and governance system.
$Figure 4. The responses to the 12 questionnaire questions.
0$
2$
4$
6$
8$
10$
12$
14$
Don't$Know$
Strongly$Agree$Agree$
Disagree$
Strongly$Disagree$
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 44$
$
4.2 Description of the SES
“The Muskwa-Kechika management area as a geographic unit is an important unit because you just don’t find,
you know, that kind of high value, ecological, environmental, wilderness value. You just don’t find that scale
around very much anywhere anymore. So there certainly is value to that.” – B. Morningstar
Most respondents referred directly to the purpose for the SES as outlined in the Act or
articulated a vision for the M-KMA that was generally consistent with the purpose in the Act.
Board members were firm to establish the M-KMA was not a park, but is a “wilderness area”
comprised of parks, other types of PAs, and land available for exploration by industries such as
oil and gas, mining, and forestry. This complex arrangement of the land base brings with it
resource and stakeholder conflicts. As a result, many of the Board members voiced a large
concern for a “balance” that needs to be struck between conservation and development. There
was general agreement that an important value to the Board was keeping the M-KMA a large and
intact wild ecosystem. However, the Board recognized that the identity of the M-KMA is largely
defined by the human and social dimensions of the region. This not only includes the cultural
significance of the area, but also the support for the SES from the surrounding local communities
such as Mackenzie, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John, and other smaller communities. Many of these
communities rely heavily on the SES and its natural resources, wilderness values, economic
values, and cultural values for livelihood pursuits. Board members mentioned that they hoped to
see people continue to thrive and function off the land base sustainably so environmental values
of the region will not be jeopardized.
The stakeholders who function within the M-KMA and reflect their stakeholder
perspectives on the Board include First Nations, oil and gas, local government, conservation,
forestry, commercial recreation, labour, mining, wilderness tourism, and guide outfitting. The
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 45$
$
general feeling towards the SES was a sense of pride and respect for the region. A majority of
these stakeholders agreed one of the largest issues that will need to be addressed for the SES is to
find the balance between conservation and development goals. Achieving any sort of balance will
require efficient and effective governance, however, respondents stated that the Board is unable
to perform successfully because of insufficient funds and political resources. Many Board
members shared concern about the future of the M-KMA, particularly about how the Board
would secure alternative funds and whether or not the upcoming election would result in the
abolishment of the Board.
Among the Board members, some wanted to see greater opportunities for industrial
development in the SES. These same members felt governance in the M-KMA had been too
biased towards the environment, which has trumped many development pursuits within the
region. However, other Board members were suspicious towards the industry sector and felt oil
and gas, forestry, and mining had done enough damage outside the boundaries of the M-KMA.
These respondents wanted to see the M-KMA kept as wild and intact with as little development
as possible. Some Board members also feared allowing further development in the region would
fragment the landscape so that wildlife could not longer utilize key migratory paths.
4.3 Governance Processes in the SES $
The core organization institutional elements of the governance system is centred around
the M-KAB as well as the legislations, regulations and agreements based in the M-KMA Act, Pre-
tenure Plans, Management Plans and the Trust Fund. The Act defines the aim of the SES, the
strategic plans, the role and responsibilities of the Board, and the purpose of the Trust Fund.
Board members are appointed by the Premier of BC, in some way, making the process of
selection slightly political. Some members stated that they were unsure if their position on the
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 46$
$
Board would be renewed and this created some concern. Board members emphasized their role
was exclusively advisory, and any management or monitoring role was beyond the scope of their
responsibilities. Thus, decisions made by the Board have little direct affect on the SES. Since the
Board is an advisory body, it has no legal voice in the final decision-making of government
authorities and it has no ability to make physical changes that occur on the land base. According
to its mandate, the Board reviews and evaluates local strategic plans for oil and gas, wildlife and
recreation management. The Board then can direct planning of the local strategic plans through
developing and submitting letters of advice to the government. In this way, the Board merely
plays an advisory role to the government.
The tool used to guide discussion and deliberation at Board meetings is the consensus-
based approach. Deliberation occurs until an agreement can be reached amongst all stakeholder
representatives. If consensus is not achieved, an intermission is held for all Board members to
break off into smaller discussion groups. The members then reconvene with the hope that a final
decision can be made. A Board member stated that this technique has worked surprisingly well.
The key mechanisms in which the Board carries out its role is through the assets of the
Trust Fund. Monies of the Trust Fund finance Board meetings, research into wilderness
management, research into integrated management, promotional or educational programs,
enforcement training, and travel expenses. Beyond the Trust Fund, the Board has an endowment
fund out of a partnership with the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). This
partnership supports research in natural resources and environmental studies. A key concern
brought up by the Board members was the inadequate science and inventory available about the
SES. Therefore, respondents found their relationship with UNBC invaluable because of the
information about the land base that emerged from the university’s research.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 47$
$
4.4 Assessment of the Governance System
4.4.1 Deliberation Evaluative Indicator No. I-1, asks to what extent there is deliberation among stakeholders and decision-makers on important issues. Deliberation is a process in which people "confer, ponder, exchange views, consider evidence, reflect on matters of mutual interest, negotiate, and attempt to persuade each other" (Robinson et al., 2012). For the most part, Board members stated that the governance model allowed good
opportunities for deliberation and discussion between stakeholders. There was general agreement
that the consensus-based approach brought many issues to the forefront and encouraged Board
members to deliberate and negotiate tradeoffs. The Chair had a large role in facilitating effective
deliberation. Board members said when discussions became heated between two sectors, for
example between wildlife and industry, the M-KAB Chair sometimes fettered the discussion to
prevent the meeting from getting out of hand. However, some members felt these disputes
should be allowed to unfold in order to gain valuable discussions around some of the larger SES
issues.
Concerns were raised that the inventory about the SES was inadequate to inform
decision-making. Some Board members felt they were unable to engage in an educated and
meaningful discussion around matters that pertain to the science of the region, such as issues
around caribou migration or wind energy. As a result, these members did not see the deliberation
process being effective.
The Board meets only a handful of times during the year. Many Board members viewed
this as a negative aspect of the deliberation process. This was a common source of frustration for
the Board because it meant a lot of time was wasted on reminding members about the topics that
were discussed from the last meeting. The members agreed that they needed more Board
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 48$
$
meetings during the year in order to engage in worthwhile deliberation. However, extra funds are
not available to support this.
4.4.2 Resources Evaluative Indicator No. I-2 assesses the ability of the system to generate three types of resources: financial resources, human resources and political resources.
Human Resources
Among the Board members, many stated that there was lack of engagement among
members at meetings and beyond meetings. Board members were disparaged by the lack of
funding and lack of interest from the BC government. Others said that lack of engagement was
also entrenched in the fact their roles were volunteer-based and therefore, members felt less
inclined to engage in the governance process in a more meaningful way.
Board members mentioned that only a handful of individuals out of the Board handled
the majority of the work. They felt this was unfair for those members who were undertaking
more of the responsibility than other. There was a general agreement those members who were
not actively engaged in the Board should be placed under consideration for removal.
Some members voiced concern that the pace of turn-over on the Board was too rapid for
there to be any progress made in decision-making or projects. New members had to be re-
informed about the status of the M-KMA and the current projects the Board was involved with.
It was mention the Board requires some sort of welcome orientation to establish and guide new
members in their role and responsibilities.
Poli t i ca l Resources
Political resources relates to the support and political will available to the Board. There
was general agreement that the BC government has lost some interest in the M-KMA since shift
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 49$
$
in power from the New Democratic Party (NDP) to the Liberal Party. Part of the reason for lack
of government engagement is due to the poor fiscal climate under which the government is
currently functioning. There is little money at the government’s disposal and the M-KMA
represents one out of the many issues ranked as low priority. Another reason is the NDP
originally established the M-KMA and once the Liberal Party came to power, they felt less
obliged to support the M-KMA unless the Board could give reasons for why the government
should continue to sanction them funding. The Board members felt that there was some value
they had to offer or else the BC government would have discarded the Board long ago.
However, some members believe the Liberal Party is maintaining their role in order to save
public face.
Financial Resources
The form and function of the Board was supported primarily though the Trust Fund,
which received dividends from the BC government. There currently is little to no money
available for the government to offer the Board during these times in the recession. The Board
however, is still functioning as if its funding is what it was 10 years ago. Board members stated
that they were not adjusting appropriately to their financial situation nor have they explored
alternative funding partnerships and options. There was general agreement that lack of funding
has jeopardized their ability to perform at the capacity that is being demanded of them and they
are unable to conduct the appropriate research necessary to guide their decision-making and
advice.
4.4.3 Linkages Evaluative Indicator No. I-3 assesses whether there are appropriate linkages among organizations and institutions, especially across levels. Interplay and linkages among organizations and
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 50$
$
institutions, both vertically across levels and horizontally within the same level, are critical factors in resilient social-ecological systems and environmental governance systems. The key linkages identified in this governance model is between the Board and Ministry,
the Board and municipalities, First Nations and Ministry, and the Board and UNBC. Although
there is adequate interplay horizontally at the Board level between the various stakeholder groups,
these linkages are not maintained beyond the general meeting times. Vertical interplay between
the Board and the government, the ministries, the universities, and the municipalities are fairly
poor.
Most Board members stated that their linkage with the government was inadequate. A
large concern for the Board was the lack of communication with government and ministries. The
Board has expressed its frustration to government because it has not clarified to them what
“advice” means and what it looks like. Government has also been said to disregard the Board’s
role completely by excluding the Board during consultation with industry. However, a Board
member suggested these discussions might have accidentally resulted because the government
lacks understanding about the roles and responsibilities of the Board.
The linkage between First Nations, specifically Treaty 8, and government are among the
worst. Treaty 8 and Kaska Dena representatives have voiced concern that the governance model
undermines their rights and freedoms to control their land. First Nations do not want to be seen
as a stakeholder on the Board and they have asked repeatedly for a governance-to-governance
model with the Ministry separate from the Board. There has been substantial discussion about
establishing a government-to-government (G-to-G) structure, however, Board members stated
that there has yet to be a model of this sort established.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 51$
$
4.4.4 Equity Evaluative Indicator No. I-4 refers to whether or not the institutional rules embodied in the governance system are fair and take account of unequal circumstances in society and assesses representation and inclusivity. The general view on equity was both positive and negative. Some respondents felt the
governance system was equitable because the Board was highly inclusive of all stakeholder
groups. However, this indicator does not only imply that every imaginable stakeholder group
merits a formal seat at the table. It asks if all legitimate stakeholders, especially those most
marginalized are able to express their voice in decision-making processes in a meaningful way.
With this in mind, Board members stated that the governance system unfairly represents First
Nations. To start, the First Nations have asked for a G-to-G system, separate from the Board, to
discuss land issues directly with the BC government. The government has yet to address this
concern. As a result, conflict has arisen between First Nations representatives and other Board
members who feel the G-to-G ideology is stifling the decision-making process by hampering
meaningful deliberation from taking place.
Many Board members voiced that both environmental and economic concerns were not
equally represented at the table. Industry representatives felt targeted by Board members from
the environment side who wanted to constrain as much development as possible within the SES.
Because of this, industries such as mining as well as oil and gas have stepped down periodically
off the Board. At the same time, environmental representatives were strongly opposed to more
development in the M-KMA unless it achieves high standards of sustainability.
4.4.5 Responsiveness Evaluative Indicator No. I-5 asks whether the governance system shows a response to society and the concerns and issues raised by people and communities.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 52$
$
Many members could not think of a situation or direct example of a time when concerns
and issues were raised by a group of people and communities. They did, however, mention that if
any concerns or issues did arise, there were mechanisms in place for people to approach the
Board. Some members describe a situation when the Toad River community raised concern
about a proposed mine that was going to be placed near their community. The Board was not
directly involved in dealing with the issue, since they have little legal authority in matters, but
respondents seemed to agree that the issue was managed appropriately by the government. Since
the Toad River incident, there has not been an issue raised by the public of that magnitude, partly
because activity within the M-KMA has been fairly quiet in the last decade. Thus, it was hard to
assess whether the governance system does indeed shows adequate response to society.
4.4.6 Legitimacy Evaluative Indicator No. I-6 refers to the extent to which there is support for the governance system among the various communities and stakeholder groups and the general public.
Legitimacy was rated low for the governance system and SES. Some Board members
stated that there was strong support for the governance system and SES among the local
communities nearest to the region, which include the general public of the Mackenzie, Fort
Nelson, Fort St. John, and the Liard River areas. Despite strong local support for the M-KMA,
many respondents stated that there is still a tremendous amount of ignorance about the M-KMA.
The general public and communities beyond the immediate range of the SES have unlikely heard
about the M-KMA or know what it is. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether the governance
system indeed has the support from the various communities and stakeholder groups, and the
general public.
All stakeholder representatives on the Board supported the governance system and
agreed it was in fact legitimate. However, First Nations representatives offered the least support
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 53$
$
for the governance model. This resistance is linked to the government’s continued lack of respect
for First Nations ownership of the land base and the lack of consultation and accommodation
with First Nations at the decision-making table.
4.4.7 Accountability Evaluative Indicator No. I-7 assesses whether institutional patterns provide for accountability procedures.
The governance model is shown to lack institutional patterns that enforce accountability.
To begin, the appointment of members to the Board by the Premier is political and there is lack
of accountability for why the individuals are chosen. Some individuals, such as the past M-KAB
Chair, was said to be appointed simply because the board had not yet had a representative from
the District of Mackenzie. Another respondent stated that he was removed from the Board
because his perspectives conflicted with the government’s vision. Transparency is therefore
lacking in the appointment process and should be re-evaluated to provide some accountability to
the Board.
Many Board members voiced their frustration about the government’s lack of
accountability to the Board. Members stated that they were unsure what the Advisory role meant
and what kind of advice the government expected from them. There has been little feedback
from the government about what “advice” looks like and how advice would be used in their
decision-making. Board members shared a strong desire for government to clarify the Board’s
purpose and role, and to provide feedback on how the government would employ the Board’s
advice.
There are not institution procedures that assess Board members and their accountability
to the governance system. Board members volunteer their time to the Board and are not required
to sign any contract that keeps them beholden to the Board for a certain period of time. In turn,
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 54$
$
this has meant some members have placed more time into the Board than others. Respondents
stated that there needs to be careful consideration for who should remain on the Board. They felt
those who are not actively engaged in the governance process should be held accountable and
step down from their role. Board members also stated that they would like see the government
conduct an evaluation of the Board members and their contributions in order to guide the
Premier’s future reappointments to the Board.
4.4.8 Clear Scope, Goals and Objectives Evaluative Indicator No. I-8 assesses the extent to which decision-making bodies have clear goals and objectives.
This indicator scored poorly under the framework. Although the legislation provides clear
goals and objectives about the government structure for the Board, Trust Fund, and Management
Plans, there was a general sense of uncertainty and confusion from the respondents about their
roles and responsibilities. Board members stated that “advice” needed to be better defined by the
government in order for them to move forward in their decision-making plans.
The balance between environment and economy is an evident objective found in the M-
KMA Act. Despite having this purpose clearly stated in the legislation, there were concerns that
the idea of “balance” remains an abstract concept. Board members have raised questions about
what balance means and what it looks like on the land. These questions, however, are challenging
to address because “balance” is a theoretical concept without clearly definable answers.
The Board is currently undergoing major changes as the financial and political climates
are in a state of transition. There is little political interest in the M-KMA and this is worsened by
lack of funding at the Board’s disposal. Board members stated that they have incredibly poor and
unclear goals on how they will adapt to these changes. Currently, the board is at a standstill with a
lot of uncertainty about how they should move forward to create future funding options.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 55$
$
4.4.9 Efficiency Evaluative Indicator No. I-9 assesses efficiency of decision-making processes.
Efficiency in the decision-making process has been stifled because of lack in financial,
political, and human resources. Lack of funding has limited the Board’s ability to pursue active
research projects in the SES. The Board has thus struggled to engage in efficient decision-making
because adequate inventory and science has not been readily available to inform their
deliberations. The faltering relationship between the Board and the government has made it
difficult for the Board to obtain clear goals and objectives for their role as an advisory body. This
uncertainty has made Board members hesitant to engage in discussion, and thus has slowed the
decision-making process. Disengagement with Board members has also compromised the
efficiency of the government system. Board members stated that they sometimes spent excessive
amounts of time on decision that were not very important. Finally, Board members saw First
Nations as a large obstacle in decision-making because of the issues brought up about the G-to-
G system.
4.4.10 Fit Evaluative Indicator No. I-10 assesses the extent to which the governance system fits the SES.
Fit of the governance system was ranked appropriate for the SES, however, this indicator
was difficult to assess since fit is highly dependent on scale. For example, governance of a
particular resource requires the fit to be at a finer scale while governance of an entire ecosystem
requires the fit to be much coarser and larger. Respondents generally spoke about fit in regards to
the whole M-KMA region. Many Board members stated that the M-KMA was enormous, but
they felt it needed to be large in order to achieve conservation goals. There was also shared
agreement that the M-KMA must be maintained at this large scale if LLEBM was to be applied
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 56$
$
effectively. Yet, with such a large SES comes with it a large set of challenges. Board members
stated some of these challenges were resource conflict, stakeholder disputes, and zoning
challenges. These issues were said to be further exacerbated by lack of resources, making it
difficult for the Board to function effectively at such a grand scale.
Some respondents mentioned that the fit of the governance system explicitly excludes
First Nations and their inherent rights to the land. These accusations were linked to the LRMP
processes from which First Nations were excluded. Therefore, some Board members felt the
current fit of the SES and governance structure does not account for this discrimination and
thus, boundaries of the SES needed to be re-evaluate with First Nations considerations.
4.4.11 Learning Capacity Evaluative Indicator No. I-11 assesses the extent to which the governance system promotes learning. The governance system, through the round-table discussions and consensus-based
planning approach, has created the opportunity for various stakeholder groups to engage in
meaningful discussion. Board members stated that this was a value that they gained from the
governance model. Yet, other members voiced that the governance system was too political for
learning to be achieved. Some stakeholders were accused of bringing their own agendas to Board
meetings, and because of this, these individuals did not have the M-KMA in their best interest.
However, some Board members felt that the governance system empowered stakeholders with a
platform to learn from each other. This meant concerns and issues that would not otherwise have
been voiced were put forward to the stakeholder groups. Whether the Board has taken this
information and used it in a meaningful way is still uncertain, and therefore, the learning capacity
of the SES governance system is rated fairly neutral.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 57$
$
4.4.12 Leadership Evaluative Indicator No. I-12 assesses the extent to which the governance system makes room for the emergence of leadership of various kinds—visionary, entrepreneurial, and collaborative.
The governance system facilitated leadership primarily through the role of the M-KAB
Chair. The Chair had the capacity to direct Board meetings, guide table discussion, and impede or
encourage deliberation. In this way, leadership has not been highly encouraged amongst the other
Board members. Respondents stated that many Board members chose a more passive role and
individuals who did voice their concerns often received more confrontation from the other
members. Actively vocal members on the Board said they sometimes hesitated to voice their
concerns to avoid conflict and chose instead to remain quiet.
The establishment of the governing system through the appointment of the Premier in
some ways restrains the emergence of leadership. As mentioned in accountability, vocal members
of the Board were sometimes not reappointed to avoid future conflict. A Board member stated
that this political process weakens the capacity and emergence of leadership on the Board.
4.4.13 Resolving Tradeoffs Evaluative Indicator No. I-13 assesses the extent to which the Governance Systems has resolved tradeoffs—including tradeoffs among social, economic and environmental needs, and tradeoffs among different social groups—in a way that is equitable and fair, that is economically rational, and that protects the environment.
The M-KMA is a complex SES with trade-offs occurring at all times. The Board
members described many instances when conflict arose between industry and environment as
well as between First Nations and the other stakeholder groups. There was general agreement
that the governance system created opportunities for these opposing groups to engaged in
meaningful deliberation and helped them reach a common ground.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 58$
$
For some of the smaller conflicts around hunting and guide outfitting, many Board
members stated that the consensus-base approach helped them resolve the conflict. They found
this model highly effective and regarded it as one of the successes of the SES. In some instances
where it became more challenging to achieve resolution, the Chair would call a meeting
intermission and divided the Board into smaller focus groups so that the issue could be discussed
in greater detail. The Board members would then reconvene and hopefully an agreement could
be made. Board members stated that this process was surprisingly effective at conflict resolution,
in which the outcome was generally consensus.
Despite the governance systems success in resolving trade-offs, it also comes with its own
challenges. When it came to larger conflicts around industry and the environment, there were
concerns that the Board was too biased towards the environment and the trade-offs that were
being made did not necessarily focus enough on the economic side of the SES. Industrial activity
within the M-KMA has also been fairly quiet in the past decade. It is hard to say whether trade-
offs between environment and the economy have been equitably and rationally resolved since
there are few examples that have tested this in the governance model.
4.4.14 Contributing to Just Power Relations Evaluative Indicator No. I-14 assesses the extent to which the governance system has placed limits on the use of coercive power, and to which it has enhanced power as capacity.
Many Board members stated that the governance model provides opportunities for the
members of the Board to abuse their powers, however, there was general agreement that the
Board has not functioned in that way. The consensus approach to decision-making has been the
primary mechanism that prevents a single person or stakeholder group from pushing their
agenda’s forward. Board members stated that achieving just power relations is dependent on the
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 59$
$
members themselves to be self-aware of power dynamics and take ownership of actively rebuking
individuals who do attempt to use coercive power.
4.4.15 Setting Direction Evaluative Indicator No. I-15 assesses the extent to which governance has established a common vision or direction.
The Board has recognized many shortcomings of the governance model that need
attention. These include lack of financial resources, diminishing stakeholder engagement, and
uncertainty about their role to the government. Currently, there is little vision or direction that
guides the Board as they tackle these issues in the upcoming year. Ten Board members
mentioned that the fiscal climate is not what it was a decade ago, yet the Board continues to
function as if it receives substantial monies from the provincial government. The Trust Fund is
nearly at its end, and so alternative funding options such as partnerships with non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and universities have been discussed, however, these ideas are in their
infancy and have yet to be acted upon. The Board has expressed feelings of hopelessness and
uncertainty in regards to the future of the M-KMA. This overall response to funding
inadequaceies has discouraged Board members from actively engaging in the decision making
process. Furthermore, the concept of “effective advice” is difficult to define. Thus, Board
members repeatedly voiced the need for the provincial government to define and provide
feedback on what they consider as effective advice. Without a clear definition, the Board is
unable to forecast the future changes it must achieve to strengthen the governance model. has
struggled through the decision-making process and is unable to clearly forecast its future
improvements to the Board.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 60$
$
4.4.16 Building Community Evaluative Indicator No. I-16 assess the extent to which the governance system is helping stakeholders to identify, or create, shared values and shared identities.
The MK-AB has done a poor job of reaching out to local communities and the general
public. Board members stated that there are very few people who know about the M-KMA
including those in communities closest to the SES boundaries. Farther south of the SES, the
Board predicts that even fewer people will have heard or know about the region. The Board has
invested in producing an educational DVD that outlines the SES boundary, its purpose, and its
significance. Despite these efforts, this has not been enough to gain the attention of the public
eye. Without public support for the M-KMA, some Board members are concerned there will be
no public resistance if the M-KMA and the Board were ever to be abolished.
This indicator scored higher in regards to how the governance system has helped
stakeholders identify, or create, shared valued and shared identities. The Board members stated
that the consensus-based planning approach and round-table discussions helped bring together
various stakeholder groups who would not otherwise be found sitting at the same table. This was
seen as a success of the governance model. However, while various stakeholders were able to
engage with each other in discussion, the governance system does not prevent stakeholders from
bringing their own agendas to the table.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 61$
$
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 5.1 Discussion and Recommendations $The$M&KMA$Governance$Model$
AB members were interviewed to learn whether, how, and to what extent the M-KMA
has balanced the needs and interests of various communities and stakeholder groups. According
to the results, the governance model for the M-KMA is inadequate and has done a poor job of
balancing the competing interests of the various stakeholders. This was determined by analyzing
the 8 core descriptive questions and 16 assessment indicators as outlined in the framework. The
indicators used to assess the governance processes, governance capacities, and governance
outcomes were given an average score of 2. This is a low rating considering the highest score is 4.
As stated by Robinson et al. (2012), governance capacities and processes determine governance
outcomes. In turn, the governance processes impact the governance capacities that can be
achieved. Since these three elements of governance are interlinked, any weakness in one element
will have widespread effects upon the whole governance model. Hence, if governance processes
are weak, the potential to achieve successful governance capacities and outcomes will be
compromised.
The challenges that were found associated with the implementation of LLEBM were
similar to the challenges expressed in the reviewed literature including: finding common vision
and objectives for LLEBM; designing metrics to evaluate the accomplishment of these objectives;
and obtaining funding for LLEBM implementation (Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011). As such, the
study contains few surprises, but rather re-enforces many of the suspected trends. Highlights
included:
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 62$
$
• 10 out of 12 respondents reported the representation on the Board was inequitable, 2
of which felt First Nations were under represented;
• All respondents reported they had no legal influence on decision-making at the
provincial level;
• All respondents reported that budgets had not kept pace with requirements;
• 10 out of 12 respondents felt that trade-offs were biased and unjust;
• 9 out of 12 respondents reported decreased political interest;
• All respondents felt they needed government to better define the Board’s role and
responsibilities.
To address some of the issues listed above, co-management and consensus-based
decision-making are mechanisms that have been integrated into the M-KMA’s governance model
for dealing with resource conflict. Results showed that consensus proves to be effective for
dealing with short-term and straightforward problems. However, consensus is poor at dealing
with larger issues, specifically with regards to First Nations issues and resource issues between
environment and industry. Not only has the consensus approach done nothing to hinder
individual stakeholders from bringing their own agendas to the decision-making table, it has not
performed adequately to achieve fair governance and representation on the Board. Thus, the
success of consensus for the M-KMA has been limited in scope. Although much of the academic
literature speaks highly of consensus-based planning, this study warns that consensus should not
be accepted at face value nor simply applied to all LLEBM governance arrangements. Instead,
the application of consensus is context specific and its fit for a SES should be carefully
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 63$
$
considered before being applied. Hence, this study suggests alternative planning approaches that
are more inclusive and better suited for the M-KMA should be explored in the upcoming year.
The changes necessary to improve the governance model for the M-KMA will be a
challenging and complex task. The Board requires financial and political support in order to
address some of the concerns and issues raised about the governance model. Yet, this study has
shown that finances and political will are highly curtailed. The funding available to the Board is
nowhere near what it needs to function, let alone make changes to the governance model.
Furthermore, the provincial government has recently made motions towards separating the
Board from the government’s funding responsibilities. If this is the case, the Board has
demanded that the province clarify their intended purpose for the Board as well as define what
“advice” means and what it looks like to support the government in decision-making processes.
This request has been communicated to the government, but the Board has yet to receive its
clarification. In lieu, the following recommendations may help the Board and provincial
government adjust to the diminishing financial and political climate. These are the options in
addressing the M-KMA governance model:
• The role and responsibilities of the Board need to be clarified by defining what
“advice” means and what the government would find as useful advice;
• The role of the Board can be expanded to include planning, advisory, coordination,
and funding functions;
• The government needs to develop clear expectations and accountabilities for the
Board that are contractual, transparent, and documented in an agreement;
• The government should consider downsizing the Board and removing members who
have offered minimal contributions to the Board;
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 64$
$
• The Board needs to establish clear goals and objectives for exploring alternative
funding options including partnering with universities and NGOs;
• The Board should channel efforts towards raising public awareness about the M-
KMA through promotional and educational programs.
In this list of recommendations, these suggestions are intended to help fill the financial
and political void that the Board has struggled with over the past years. Part of the problem with
the governance model is that it has placated the Board. Thus, Board members need to engage
more actively in the decision-making process. By expanding the Board’s role to include planning,
advisory, coordination, and funding functions, it can empower, give agency, and encourage the
members to take ownership of their contributions to the Board. Furthermore, the government
needs to develop clear and contractual expectations for the Board that hold the members
accountable to their commitments. If “advice” can be clarified for the Board, it will give context
for the Board to plan its next set of improvements. Finally, the Board can no longer expect
government funding and must explore funding alternatives with universities, NGOs, and
fundraising through the general public.
$
The$LLEBM$Framework$
Robinson’s et al. (2012) governance assessment framework has proven useful to show
trends and patterns of the governance arrangement for LLEBM in the M-KMA. The framework,
however, is in its early stages of development and any generalizations obtained from these
research findings should be applied with caution. There are many implications of the LLEBM
governance assessment framework that needs greater attention and revaluation. First off, the
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM$ 65$
$
qualitative results obtained from this framework provides too large of a scope for assessing
governance in a clear and concise manner. Second, the framework is too long for key informants
to engage in and also too large for a single researcher to manage. Third, in-person interviews
introduced biases into the results due to the way respondents may have perceived or trusted the
interviewer. Finally, interview responses sometimes did not fit under the scoring criterion
outlined in this framework.
To address these concerns, this framework requires more evidence-based questions that
can provide a metric for evaluating the interview responses. It is suggested that the open-ended
format of this framework should be redesigned into a questionnaire or survey type design. Not
only will this shorten the amount of time needed to conduct the assessment, it will arguably
eliminate response biases associated with interviewer and respondent interactions. A survey type
study design will also standardize the way in which the questions are asked, thus removing further
biases. Likewise, methodologies that will ground-truth the interview responses is important for
proving the results in fact correspond with what takes place in the real world.
5.2 Conclusion
EBM is an approach used to address some of the deficiencies found in current PA
systems. In the last decade, there has been movement towards conservation approaches that look
to manage PA systems at the landscape-level using EBM. LLEBM is complex, involves many
stakeholder groups, and has high potential for resource conflict. Thus, efficient and effective PA
governance is not only important to implement LLEBM, but it remains essential for achieving
biodiversity conservation goals.
To date, there is limited understanding about the governance system around LLEBM for
large and complex SES. This research is the first to apply an assessment framework that assesses
The M-KMA: A governance assessment of LLEBM 66
governance for LLEBM in the M-KMA. The results in this paper show that the LLEBM
governance structures for the M-KMA is inadequate for achieving both conservation and
economic goals in this area. Specifically, this study demonstrates how insufficient financial and
political resources have far-reaching effects on the Board and their capacity to engage in effective
decision-making processes. Thus, in light of the current limited capacity and resources of the
provincial government the answer to enhancing effective LLEBM governance in the M-KMA
may lie in clarifying the Board’s roles and responsibilities. The ultimate goal is to have the AB as a
self-functioning governing body with looser ties to the provincial government.
As EBM involves complex decisions, conflicting objectives and massive uncertainties, a
systematic framework to make decisions has significant potential as it can be repeatedly used for
any decision even in the most complex situations. The draft governance assessment framework
applied in this study is a good starting point for assessing LLEBM governance for SES. However,
there are improvements that must be made to ensure this framework has less subjective and
holistic interview questions that will eliminate biases and adequately capture the scope of LLEBM
for SES. While much work still needs to be done, the new structure of objectives, attributes and
indicators presented in this study can be considered the first of many steps in building a more
comprehensive LLEBM governance assessment framework.
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$67$
$ Appendix!T
able 2: Assessing G
overnance for LL
EB
M – Sam
ple Interview Q
uestions
$Abbreviations
DM
= "decision-making"
GS = "governance system
" $
Questions/Indicators!
Sample!Q
uestions!Description!of!the!Social7Ecological!
System!
!
Q1. What$is$the$“identity”$of$the$SES?$
• [To be asked after asking about Error! R
eference source not found.] The geographical range of [nam
e of DM
body or of GS system
] is clearly defined. But do the issues and problem
s you identified correspond to those boundaries?
Q2. Who$are$the$stakeholders?$
• Who – w
hich comm
unity or group or set of stakeholders – is having the biggest effect on the ecosystem
and natural resources in the region? • W
ho – which group or com
munity – is m
ost affected by what's happening on the land and w
ith resources?
• Are there any significant differences betw
een wom
en and men in w
ho affects and who is affected by
what happens in the ecosystem
? What about differences for different com
munities or different ethnic
groups? • [N
ame of D
M body] includes representatives of [list groups/stakeholders/com
munities represented].
Are there any other groups are significant?
Q3. What$are$the$m
ain$issues$and$problem
s$in$the$SES?$• W
hat were the m
ain issues and problems at the tim
e this GS w
as created? • A
re those the same now
? What in your assessm
ent are the main issues and problem
s now?
Q4. What$are$the$objectives,$interests,$and$
values$of$the$stakeholders?$• Y
ou represent [name of group or com
munity]. W
hat do you want from
the GS for [nam
e of group or com
munity]?
• Why is that im
portant? • Is there any kind of discrepancy betw
een your hopes and objectives for the region and that of any of the other groups that w
e've mentioned? A
re your objectives and the objectives of others at odds in som
e ways? H
ow? Som
e of the time? M
ost of the time?
• Some of w
hat we've been talking about here relates in som
e way to values, and I'd also like to ask
about values at a personal level. What for you is im
portant about the work that the G
S is doing? Why
for you is it important to protect/sustainably m
anage [use wording of objectives already discussed] the
region?
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$68$
$ Q5. What$are$the$com
monalities$and$
contradictions$among$the$various$
stakeholders’$objectives,$interests$and$values?$
• Assessed prim
arily through analysis related to Error! R
eference source not found., rather than through direct questioning.
Description!of!the!Landscape7Level!Governance!System
!Q6. W
hat$are$the$core$organizational$and$institutional$elem
ents$of$the$governance$system
?$
• What is your understanding of w
hat the central purpose of [name of D
M body] is?
• Aside from
[list the elements w
hich the researchers have identified], is there some other D
M body that
are crucial for deciding what happens in the region? Som
e other legislation or set of regulations? Q7. W
hat$are$the$key$mechanism
s$and$strategies$used$for$governance?$
• Ultim
ately, [name of D
M body] is trying to influence people's actions in the real w
orld, maybe by
setting and enforcing rules, maybe by providing inform
ation, maybe by influencing people's norm
s and beliefs. W
hat are the main w
ays that [name of D
M body] tries to influence people's actions?
• [Nam
e of DM
body] has the power to [list key governance m
echanisms and strategies w
hich researchers have identified: setting regulations, review
ing permit applications, funding research, etc.].
Are there any other strategies or tools that it is using?
Q8. What$are$the$key$decisions$being$m
ade$that$affect$the$SES$and$the$problem
s?$• W
hat are the key decisions being made that affect the SES and the problem
s and issues that we've
talked about? • A
re there important decisions affecting the region w
hich are made at other levels? W
hat are they? Assessm
ent!of!Governance!Processes$
I&1. Deliberation$(The$extent$to$w
hich$stakeholders$and$decision&m
akers$engage$in$genuine$deliberation$on$important$issues.)$
• Are there opportunities w
ithin the DM
processes that are part of this GS for the people involved to
deliberate – to not just reach decisions but to really dialogue, and explore and analyze problems
together? Where – in w
hat venues? • A
ny kind of planning or DM
process has a number of aspects or stages: problem
definition, brainstorm
ing possible actions, setting priorities, considering alternatives, and so on. Is there, or has there been, deliberation pertaining to all of these stages? D
o any parts of any planning/DM
processes proceed w
ithout deliberation at some key stages?
I&2. Resources$(Ability$of$the$GS$to$generate$financial,$hum
an$and$political$resources.)$
• I asked you about the main w
ays that [name of D
M body] is trying to influence people's actions in the
real world. D
oes it have the capacity to do so – the capacity to carry out this strategy? Does it have
the resources it needs? • Financial resources? • H
uman resources?
• Does it have the political resources it needs to do this – things like political w
ill, and connections, and influence?
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$69$
$ I&3. Linkages$(The$presence$of$appropriate$linkages$am
ong$organiza&tions$and$institutions,$especially$across$levels.)$
• There are important decisions m
ade by other bodies, for example [nam
e of some other im
portant DM
body (especially D
M bodies or processes at other levels)]. Is there com
munication or coordination
between the G
S here and that body? In what w
ay? • C
an you think of any examples of decisions taken at other levels that affected w
hat the GS here w
as doing or how
it carried out its work?
• Can you think of any exam
ples of effective coordination or cooperation or even simply inform
ation-sharing betw
een this GS and [other im
portant DM
body]? • W
hat about [another important D
M body]?
• Examples of conflict or confusion betw
een this GS and one of these other D
M bodies, or of
organizations and institutions at other levels working at cross purposes to this G
S? • W
hat other important connections are there to organizations, institutions or processes at other levels?
Fair$Governance$
I&4. Equity$(W
hether$or$not$institutional$rules$are$fair$and$take$account$of$unequal$circum
stances$in$society)$
• Are there any com
munities, sub-populations, or stakeholder groups that are not represented in the G
S? W
hich ones? • [For each of various com
munities, sub-populations or stakeholders groups]
o How
are they represented in the GS? D
o they have a seat at the table themselves?
o Can you give m
e some exam
ples of how their concerns are voiced and heard in the D
M
processes of the GS? (O
r of how their concerns are N
OT voiced and heard?)
o Do they have the capacity to represent them
selves competently? C
an you give me som
e exam
ples? • A
re the rules governing how decisions are m
ade within this G
S fair? • [If not…
] In what w
ay? • A
re there any comm
unities or stakeholder groups that have any kind of special advantage in the rules that are a part of this G
S? • D
o the rules and the way D
M is structured create a level playing field?
I&5. Responsiveness$(W
hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$show
$response$to$society)$
• Can you think of any exam
ples of issues or concerns that the general public have had, or any com
munities or stakeholders in the region have had w
hich the GS has needed to respond or react to?
How
did it respond? • C
an you think of any examples of issues or concerns that the general public, or som
e comm
unity or stakeholder group in the region w
anted the GS to do som
ething about, but which it didn't or couldn't
act on? Tell me about that.
• If someone—
some citizen or citizens, som
e comm
unity or stakeholder group—w
ants the GS to look at
some issue or concern, how
can they do that? I&6.
Legitimacy$(W
hether$there$is$public$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS)$
• As far as you know
, do the various comm
unities and stakeholder groups and segments of society
accept this GS as legitim
ate? Do they support it?
• Do you/the group you represent?
• Why or w
hy not?
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$70$
$
I&7. Accountability$(W
hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$provide$accountability$procedures)$
• Who is the m
ain DM
body accountable to? How
are they accountable/what m
echanisms are in place
for it to be held to account? • A
re the responsibilities of the DM
body clear? Are the responsibilities of other bodies in the G
S (com
mittees, etc.) clearly assigned?
Assessment!of!Governance!Capacities$
Effective$Decision&Making$
I&8. Clear$scope,$goals$and$objectives$
• Do the key D
M bodies in this G
S have clear goals and objectives? • Is the scope of w
hat the key DM
bodies are and are not responsible for clear? • D
o the goals and objectives provide guidance on decisions? Can you think of any exam
ples? I&9.
Efficiency$(of$DM$processes$
themselves.)$
• Does it typically take a long tim
e for a decision to be made?
• What kind of resources and efforts—
in terms of new
research, consulting stakeholders, and so on—go
into making a decision? D
oes it seem that the level of resources and effort expended to reach
decisions is appropriate? • A
re large amounts of tim
e spent on reaching decisions that would seem
to be straightforward?
I&10. Fit$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$
fits$the$SES)$• Is the spatial scale of the G
S appropriate? Does its geographic scope allow
it deal with som
e of the key issues, problem
s and decisions that you mentioned? Is it perhaps too large or too sm
all? • The issues and problem
s that you mentioned also happen on a tem
poral scale [mention an exam
ple – e.g., "Y
ou mentioned clim
ate change, which requires anticipating consequences and planning w
ith a perspective that looks decades into the future. Y
ou also mentioned fish stocks w
hich vary greatly from
year to year]. Is the GS able to function quickly enough for the short-term
problems [like fluctuations
in fish stocks]? • Is it able to do long-term
planning and to follow through for issues that happen on a long tim
e-scale? • A
re there procedures in place to study and monitor and to take into account any connections betw
een the local econom
y and ecosystems? A
re there efforts to assess the ability of the ecosystem and the
natural resources to support various stakeholders' socio-economic needs?
• Is the GS system
able to make appropriate decisions for the unique characteristics of this ecosystem
? W
hy or why not?
I&11. Learning$capacity$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$prom
otes$learning)$• H
as the level of trust among the various individuals w
ho have been involved increased over time?
• What about at an organizational/institutional level – has the level of trust changed over tim
e? Do you
have a sense of why or w
hy not? • H
as the GS im
proved in any ways over tim
e? • H
ave the people involved changed the way they understand each other or understand issues? C
hanged im
portant assumptions in any w
ay? Have you?
• Is there flow and exchange of inform
ation and experiences and so on? • A
re there ways in w
hich lessons that are learned and knowledge that is gained are passed on as there
are changes in personnel? Is the learning institutionalized in any way?
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$71$
$ I&12. Leadership$(The$extent$to$which$the$
GS$makes$room
$for$the$emergence$of$
leadership$of$various$kinds—visionary,$entrepreneurial,$and$collaborative)$
• I have a few questions about leadership. A
nd I'm talking about various kinds and styles of leadership
that might em
erge among the com
munities and stakeholders in the region: visionary leaders w
ho inspire people and prom
ote progressive change, entrepreneurial leaders who go out and m
ake things happen, people w
ho are connectors and help to facilitate new kinds of partnerships or collaboration.
Can you think of any w
ays in which the G
S has facilitated the emergence of leaders and leadership in
the region? Leaders who w
ere able to do what they did in part because of this G
S? • C
an you think of any ways the G
S has stifled leadership? Assessm
ent!of!Governance!Outcom
es$
I&13. Resolving$Tradeoffs$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$has$resolved$tradeoffs—
including$tradeoffs$among$social,$
economic$and$environm
ental$needs,$and$tradeoffs$am
ong$different$social$groups—
in$a$way$that$is$equitable$
and$fair,$that$is$economically$rational,$
and$that$protects$the$environment.)$
• Can you give m
e some exam
ples of the kinds of competing interests that have had to be balanced or
tradeoffs that have had to be made?
• Have the decisions that have com
e out of this GS m
ade economic sense? In w
hat way?
• Have they been equitable and fair? W
hy or why not?
• Has the G
S, in the decisions that it has produced, sufficiently protected the environment?
I&14. Contributing$to$just$power$relations$
(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$has$
placed$limits$on$the$use$of$coercive$
power,$and$to$w
hich$it$has$enhanced$pow
er$as$capacity)$
• When there is lack of consensus, do som
e stakeholders have more ability than others to push their
agendas forward? C
an you give an example?
• How
does the GS does allow
individual agendas to be constrained or predominate in relation to
collective goals? • Is the G
S doing anything to address needs for developing the capacity of the most m
arginalized stakeholders?
• Is the GS helping to facilitate m
utual support and sharing of expertise and knowledge am
ong stakeholders? In w
hat way – can you give som
e examples?
I&15. Setting$Direction$(The$extent$to$which$
governance$has$established$a$com
mon$vision$or$direction.)$
• Is there a vision or strategic plan that has been articulated? • D
oes it have wide support?
• Are there general goals and targets created or adopted by the G
S for things like environmental
protection or sustainable development?
• Is the GS providing guidance for subsidiary D
M bodies and for other stakeholders in the system
that can help them
to set priorities and decide amongst com
peting priorities? I&16. Building$Com
munity$(The$extent$to$
GS$is$helping$stakeholders$to$identify,$or$create,$shared$values$and$shared$identities)$
• Has the G
S contributed to some kind of collective identity?
• Has the sense of com
munity am
ong people of the various comm
unities and stakeholders involved changed? W
hat role did the GS play in those changes?
• Has your involvem
ent in DM
processes and various aspects of the GS affected your priorities? H
as it helped you to articulate values in a different w
ay?
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$72$
$ Table 4: G
overnance Indicators – Criteria for Scoring
Indicator!Criteria!for!a!Score!O
f…!
1$2$
3$4$
Assessment!of!Governance!Processes$
$$
$I&1.
Deliberation$(The$extent$to$w
hich$stakeholders$and$decision&m
akers$engage$in$genuine$deliberation$on$important$issues.)$
Many$im
portant$kinds$of$decisions$in$the$planning/$DM
$cycle$are$made$w
ithout$serious$deliberation,$exploration$and$dialogue$am
ongst$participants/stakeholders$
Some$deliberation$on$key$
decisions$in$the$planning/$DM
$cycle$takes$place,$but$som
e$of$that$deliberation$is$disconnected$from
$where$
decisions$are$actually$taken$
Participants$in$the$GS$engage$in$profound$deliberation,$exploration$and$dialogue$on$problem
$definition,$analysis,$and$alternative/com
peting$perspectives,$including$at$most$m
ajor$stages$of$the$planning/$DM
$cycle$
Participants$in$the$GS$engage$in$profound$deliberation,$exploration$and$dialogue$on$problem
$definition,$analysis,$and$alternative/com
peting$perspectives,$including$at$all$major$stages$of$the$
planning/DM$cycle$
I&2. Resources$(Ability$to$generate,$and$access$of$the$GS$to,$financial,$hum
an$and$political$resources)$
The$political,$human$and$
financial$resources$available$to$the$GS$to$change$rules$or$norm
s,$to$influence$actions,$and$to$solve$problem
s$is$usually$insufficient.$
The$political,$human$and$
financial$resources$available$to$the$GS$to$change$rules$or$norm
s,$to$influence$actions,$and$to$solve$problem
s$is$som
etimes$insufficient.$
The$GS$has$political,$human$
and$financial$resources$available$to$it.$$H
owever,$it$is$
limited$ability$to$generate$its$
own$resources$for$changing$
rules$and$norms,$influencing$
actions,$and$solving$problem
s.$
The$GS$has$political,$human$
and$financial$resources$available$to$it.$$It$is$able$to$generate$such$resources$for$changing$rules$and$norm
s,$influencing$actions,$and$solving$problem
s.$
I&3. Linkages$(The$presence$of$appropriate$linkages$am
ong$organizations$and$institutions,$especially$across$levels.)$
The$flow$of$resources$and$
information$and$the$sharing$
of$knowledge$w
ith$other$organizations$and$institutions$is$m
inimal$and$ad$
hoc.$$The$GS$and$other$DM$
bodies$often$work$at$cross$
purposes.$
There$are$linkages$within$the$
GS$and$to$organizations$and$institutions$beyond$the$GS$such$that$the$flow
$of$resources$and$inform
ation$and$the$sharing$of$know
ledge$are$som
etimes$facilitated.$$
The$GS$is$sometim
es$able$to$use$its$linkages$to$other$DM
$venues$to$avoid$different$DM
$making$bodies$w
orking$at$cross$purposes.$$
There$are$linkages$within$the$
GS$and$to$organizations$and$institutions$beyond$the$GS$such$that$the$flow
$of$resources$and$inform
ation$and$the$sharing$of$know
ledge$are$som
etimes$facilitated.$$
The$GS$is$usually$able$to$use$its$linkages$to$other$DM
$venues$to$avoid$different$DM
$making$bodies$w
orking$at$cross$purposes.$
There$are$linkages$within$the$
GS$and$to$organizations$and$institutions$beyond$the$GS$such$that$the$flow
$of$resources$and$inform
ation$and$the$sharing$of$know
ledge$are$all$facilitated.$$Som
e$such$linkages$are$institutionalized.$$The$GS$is$able$to$develop$new
$linkages$w
hen$necessary.$$Linkages$are$helping$to$facilitate$coordinated$action.$
Fair$Governance$ I&4. Equity$(W
hether$or$not$institutional$rules$are$fair$and$take$account$of$unequal$circum
stances$in$society)$
Institutional$rules$favor$some$
stakeholders$or$communities$
over$others$and$perpetuate$unequal$circum
stances$that$already$exist$in$society.$
Institutional$rules$are$fair$for$most$stakeholders,$com
muni&
ties$and$sub&groups.$$How
&ever,$no$explicit$allow
ance$has$been$m
ade$or$provisions$put$in$place,$for$the$unequal$circum
stances$of$some$of$
these$groups.$
Institutional$rules$are$fair$for$most$stakeholders,$com
muni&
ties$and$sub&groups,$and$have$made$allow
ance$in$modest$
ways,$for$the$unequal$
circumstances$of$som
e$of$these$groups.$
Institutional$rules$are$fair$for$all$stakeholders,$com
munities$
and$sub&groups,$and$have$provisions$that$take$account$of$the$unequal$circum
stances$of$som
e$of$these$groups.$
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$73$
$
I&5. Responsiveness$(W
hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$show
$response$to$society)$
The$GS$shows$no$response$to$
the$needs$of$society$or$wishes$
of$local$communities$and$
stakeholder$groups.$$These$needs,$w
ishes,$objectives$and$concerns$are$essentially$ignored.$
The$GS$responds$to$the$needs$of$society$and$to$the$w
ishes$of$local$com
munities$and$
stakeholder$groups$some$of$
the$time.$
The$GS$responds$to$the$needs$of$society$and$to$the$w
ishes$of$local$com
munities$and$
stakeholder$groups$most$of$
the$time.$
Procedures$and$mechanism
s$are$in$place$and$are$follow
ed$to$ensure$that$the$GS$consistently$responds$to$the$needs,$w
ishes,$objectives$and$concerns$of$local$com
muni&
ties,$stakeholder$groups$and$society$generally.$
I&6. Legitim
acy$(W
hether$there$is$public$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS)$
There$are$strong$misgivings$
about$the$institutions$of$the$GS$am
ong$more$than$one$of$
the$various$communities,$
stakeholder$groups$or$segm
ents$of$the$general$public.$$The$institutions$are$not$seen$as$legitim
ate.$
One$or$more$of$the$
communities,$stakeholders$
groups$or$segments$of$the$
general$public$have$some$
misgivings$about$the$
institutions$of$the$GS.$
There$is$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS$am
ong$most$of$the$various$
communities$and$stakeholder$
groups,$and$from$general$
public.$$Few$if$any$of$these$
groups$have$more$than$m
inor$misgivings$about$the$
legitimacy$of$the$institutions.$
There$is$general$and$strong$support$for$the$institutions$of$the$GS$am
ong$all$the$various$com
munities$and$stakeholder$
groups,$and$from$general$
public.$$The$institutions$are$seen$as$legitim
ate.$
I&7. Accountability$(W
hether$or$not$institutional$patterns$provide$accountability$procedures)$
Responsibilities$are$not$clearly$assigned.$$M
echan&ism
s$are$not$in$place$to$hold$DM
$bodies$and$the$persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable.$
For$the$most$part,$
responsibilities$are$clearly$assigned.$$M
echanisms$to$
hold$DM$bodies$and$the$
persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable$are$lim
ited$and$implem
ented$inconsistently.$
Responsibilities$are$clearly$assigned.$$M
echanisms$are$in$
place$to$hold$DM$bodies$and$
the$persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable.$$Citizens$and$other$organizations$to$which$DM
$bodies$are$accountable$m
ake$use$of$those$m
echanisms$m
ost$of$the$tim
e.$
Responsibilities$are$clearly$assigned.$$M
echanisms$are$in$
place$to$hold$DM$bodies$and$
the$persons$serving$on$those$bodies$accountable.$$Citizens$and$other$organizations$to$which$DM
$bodies$are$accountable$consistently$make$use$of$those$
mechanism
s.$!
!
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$74$
$ Assessment!of!Governance!Capacities$
$$
$Effective$Decision&Making$
I&8. Clear$scope,$goals,$and$objectives$
Scope,$goals$and$objectives$for$DM
$bodies$in$the$GS$are$not$clearly$defined.$$DM
$bodies$are$left$w
ithout$broader$principles$to$guide$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$
Scope,$goals$and$objectives$have$been$articulated$but$in$a$lim
ited$way$w
ith$insufficient$detail$to$guide$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$
Scope,$goals$and$objectives$have$been$articulated$for$DM
$bodies$in$the$GS.$$There$is$enough$clarity$in$these$to$provide$som
e$guidance$for$both$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$
DM$bodies$in$the$GS$have$
clearly$articulated$goals$and$objectives$w
hich$are$brought$to$bear$on$strategic$and$day&to&day$decisions.$$The$scope$is$clearly$defined,$providing$guidance$as$to$w
hat$issues$should$be$addressed$and$w
hat$issues$can$be$left$for$others.$
I&9. Efficiency$(of$DM
$processes$them
selves.)$
Reaching$decisions$typically$takes$a$great$deal$of$tim
e$and/or$resources,$even$w
hen$the$issue$is$urgent.$
Reaching$decisions$sometim
es$takes$a$great$deal$of$tim
e$and/or$resources,$even$w
hen$the$issue$is$urgent.$The$level$of$resources$spent$on$reaching$decisions$can$be$high$even$for$decisions$of$low
er$levels$of$importance.$
The$GS$is$usually$able$to$produce$urgent$decisions$in$a$tim
ely$way$w
hen$necessary.$$The$level$of$resources$spent$on$reaching$decisions$is$usually$proportionate$to$the$importance$of$the$decision.$
The$GS$is$able$to$produce$urgent$decisions$in$a$tim
ely$way$w
hen$necessary.$$The$level$of$resources$spent$on$reaching$decisions$is$proportionate$to$the$importance$of$the$decision.$
I&10. Fit$(The$extent$to$which$the$GS$fits$the$
SES)$
Because$of$inappropriate$governance$design$or$distribution$of$authority$there$is$a$m
ismatch$betw
een$DM$
processes$and$the$temporal$
and/or$spatial$scale$of$problem
s.$$The$GS$does$not$have$the$scope$to$m
ake$decisions$tailored$to$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$social&ecological$system
.$
The$design$of$the$GS$and$distribution$of$authority$to$and$w
ithin$it$are$such$that$it$has$scope$for$m
aking$only$som
e$kinds$of$decisions$tailored$to$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$landscape&level$social&ecological$system
.$$Its$DM$
processes$are$constrained$from
$addressing$some$issues$
at$the$appropriate$time$scale$
or$geographic$scale.$
The$design$of$the$GS$and$distribution$of$authority$to$and$w
ithin$it$are$such$that$it$has$scope$for$m
aking$appropriate$decisions$tailored$to$m
ost$of$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$landscape&level$social&ecological$system
.$$DM$
processes$are$able$to$address$issues$at$the$appropriate$tim
e$scale$and$geographic$scale$most$of$the$tim
e.$
The$design$of$the$GS$and$distribution$of$authority$to$and$w
ithin$it$are$such$that$it$has$scope$for$m
aking$appropriate$decisions$tailored$to$the$unique$characteristics$of$the$landscape&level$social&ecological$system
.$$DM$
processes$are$able$to$address$issues$at$the$appropriate$tim
e$scale$and$geographic$scale.$
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$75$
$ I&11. Learning$capacity$(The$extent$to$w
hich$the$GS$prom
otes$learning)$
The$GS$has$not$helped$to$build$trust$am
ongst$stakeholders$and$show
s$little$signs$of$learning$from
$past$experiences.$$There$are$defensive$routines$that$inhibit$experim
entation,$consideration$of$doubt$and$questioning$assum
ptions.$$Institutional$m
emory$is$
minim
al.$
The$GS$has$taken$some$steps$
to$build$trust$amongst$
stakeholders.$$It$shows$m
odest$ability$to$learn$from
$past$experiences$and$im
prove$routines.$
The$GS$has$helped$to$build$up$trust$am
ongst$stakeholders.$$It$show
s$a$strong$ability$to$learn$from
$past$experiences$and$improve$routines.$$H
owever,$
DM$and$deliberation$
processes$do$not$system
atically$consider$doubts$and$uncertainties,$and$there$is$little$evidence$of$changes$in$the$assum
ptions$underlying$institutional$patterns.$$Learning$is$only$partially$entrenched$in$institutional$m
emory.$
The$GS$has$helped$to$build$trust$am
ongst$stakeholders.$$It$show
s$an$openness$toward$
uncertainties,$an$ability$to$learn$from
$past$experiences$and$im
prove$routines.$$There$is$evidence$of$changes$in$the$assum
ptions$underlying$institutional$patterns.$$Learning$is$entrenched$in$institutional$m
emory.$
I&12. Leadership$(The$extent$to$w
hich$the$GS$makes$
room$for$the$em
ergence$of$leadership$of$various$kinds—
visionary,$entrepreneurial,$and$collaborative)$
The$GS$undermines$the$
emergence$of$any$kind$of$
leadership$other$than$coercive$leadership.$
Neutral.$$On$the$w
hole,$the$governance$system
$neither$underm
ines$nor$supports$the$em
ergence$of$leadership.$
The$GS$give$modest$support$to$
the$emergence$of$leadership.$
The$GS$actively$encourages$the$em
ergence$of$leadership$(of$various$kinds)$that$is$responding$to$long&term
$challenges$and$is$acting$as$motivator$and$a$driver$for$
change.$
Assessment!of!Governance!O
utcomes$
$$
$I&13.
Resolving$Tradeoffs$(The$extent$to$w
hich$the$GS$has$resolved$tradeoffs—including$tradeoffs$am
ong$social,$economic$
and$environmental$
needs,$and$tradeoffs$am
ong$different$social$groups—
in$a$way$that$is$
equitable$and$fair,$that$is$econom
ically$rational,$and$that$protects$the$environm
ent.)$
In$resolving$tradeoffs,$the$GS$has$not$or$is$not$able$to$address$all$three$dim
ensions$of$sustainability—
social,$econom
ic$and$environmental.$$
Tradeoffs$that$are$inherent$in$the$decisions$being$m
ade$are$left$unresolved,$or$else$proceed$w
ith$one$or$more$
dimensions$unacknow
ledged$or$not$addressed.$
The$GS$deals$with$social,$
environmental$and$econom
ic$tradeoffs$on$a$case&by&case,$or$decision&by&decision$basis.$$Consideration$of$social,$environm
ental,$and$economic$
tradeoffs,$as$well$as$equity$and$
sustainability,$are$sometim
es$considered$but$are$not$alw
ays$made$explicit$in$the$GS.$
The$GS$has$mechanism
s$in$place$for$considering$various$dim
ensions$of$the$tradeoffs$that$are$inherent$in$the$decisions$being$m
ade.$$Consideration$of$social,$environm
ental,$and$economic$
tradeoffs$are$usually$made$
explicit$in$the$GS.$$There$is$evidence$that$social,$environ&mental,$and$econom
ic$factors$are$all$som
etimes$considered,$
as$are$equity$and$sustain&ability.$
The$GS$has$mechanism
s$in$place$for$considering$various$dim
ensions$of$the$tradeoffs$that$are$inherent$in$the$decisions$being$m
ade.$$Consideration$of$social,$environm
ental,$and$economic$
tradeoffs$are$made$explicit$in$
the$GS.$$There$is$evidence$that$social,$environm
ental,$and$econom
ic$factors$are$all$usually$considered,$as$are$equity$and$sustainability.$
The$M&KM
A:$A$governance$assessment$of$LLEBM
$76$
$ I&14. Contributing$to$just$pow
er$relations$(The$extent$to$w
hich$the$GS$has$placed$lim
its$on$the$use$of$coercive$pow
er,$and$to$w
hich$it$has$enhanced$pow
er$as$capacity)$
The$GS$facilitates/entrenches$the$pow
er$of$already$powerful$
actors$
Neutral.$$On$the$w
hole,$the$GS$has$neither$entrenched$or$increased$the$role$of$coercive$pow
er$in$decisions$nor$noticeably$reduced$it.$
The$GS$limits$the$role$of$
coercive$power$in$decisions,$
but$is$not$necessarily$facilitating$transform
ative$collaboration$am
ong$people,$com
munities$and$groups$in$
the$region.$
The$GS$limits$the$role$of$
coercive$power$in$decisions.$$It$
is$also$contributing$to$the$capacity$of$m
arginalized$or$less$pow
erful$groups$and$of$people$and$com
munities$in$the$
region$generally$to$act$on$matters$of$individual$and$
collective$concern.$I&15.
Setting$Direction$(The$extent$to$w
hich$governance$has$established$a$com
mon$
vision$or$direction.)$
No$articulated$vision$or$
common$goals.$$The$GS$
provides$little$guidance$to$help$stakeholders$prioritize$and$strategize.$
Limited$vision$articulated.$$
Insufficient$detail$to$guide$strategic$decisions$or$day&to&day$m
anagement.$
The$GS$has$articulated$a$vision$and$there$is$som
e$level$of$detail$to$guide$strategic$decisions$and$day&to&day$managem
ent$by$the$governance$system
$itself$and$by$stakeholders.$
The$GS$has$articulated$a$vision$and$there$is$sufficient$detail$to$guide$strategic$decisions$and$day&to&day$m
anagement$by$
the$governance$system$itself$
and$by$stakeholders.$
I&16. Building$Com
munity$
(The$extent$to$which$the$
GS$is$helping$stakeholders$to$identify,$or$create,$shared$values$and$shared$identities)$
The$GS$is$undermining$
community$am
ong$diverse$com
munities$and$
stakeholders.$
Neutral.$$On$the$w
hole,$the$GS$is$neither$building$nor$underm
ining$community.$
The$GS$is$helping$diverse$com
munities$and$stakeholders$
to$find$common$ground$that$
may$already$exist,$but$is$not$
necessarily$shaping$new$
shared$values$or$identities.$
The$GS$is$helping$to$create$shared$values$and/or$identities$and$to$build$com
munity$am
ong$diverse$com
munities$and$
stakeholders.$$$$$$$$
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$for$LLEBM$ 77$
$
References! Butchart, S., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Striend, A.V., Scharlemann, J., Almond, R.,…Watson, R.
(2012). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328 (5982), 1164-1168 Convention on Biological Diversity. (2012). Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011-2020, Strategic Goal C: Target 11. Chape, S., Harrion, J., Spalding, M., and Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the extent and
effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, 260, 443-455. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2004.1592
Chester, C.C., Hilty, J.A., & Francis, W.L. (2012). Yellowstone to Yukon, North America. Climate
and Conservation: Landscape and Seascape Science, Planning, and Action, 240-252. Day, J.C. & Tamblyn, G.C. (1998). Land Resource Management Planning: the Kamloops
experience. Environments, 26(2), 1-19. Dearden, P., Bennett, M., & Johnston, J. (2005). Trends in global protected area governance,
1992-2002. Environmental management, 36(1), 89–100. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0131-9 Dressler, L. (2009). Consensus Through Conservation: How to Achieve High-commitment Decisions. New
York, US: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN. Ervin, J., Mulongoy, K.J., Lawrence, K., Game, E., Sheppard, D., Bridgewater, P., Bennett, G.,
Gidda, S.B., and Bos, P. (2010). Making Protected Areas Relevant: A guide to integrating protected areas into wider landscapes, seascapes and sectoral plans and strategies. CBD Technical Series No. 44. Montreal, Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity.
Espinosa-Romero, M.J., Chan, K.M, McDaniels, T., & Dalmer, D.M. (2011). Structuring
decision-making for ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy, 35, 575-583. Gelcich, S., Defeo, O., Iribarne, O., Carpio, G.D., DuBois, R., Horta, S., Isacch, J.P., Godoy, N.,
Penaloza, P.C., & Castilla, J.C. (2009). Marine ecosystem-based management in the Southern Cone of South America: Stakeholder perceptions and lessons for implementation. Marine Policy, 33, 801-806.
Glicksman, R.L. & Cumming, G.S. (2012). Landscape Level Management of Parks, Refuges, and
Preserves for Ecosystem Resilience. The George Washington University Law School, Public Law and Legal Theory Paper No. 2012-76.
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$for$LLEBM$ 78$
$
Griggs, J., & Luff, D. (2009). Conservation Planning The Muskwa-Kechika Management Area. Grumbine, R. E. (1994). What Is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology, 8(1), 27-38. Gunton, T., Peter, P., & Day, J.C. (2007). Evaluating Collaborative Planning: A Case Study of a
Land and Resource Management Planning Process. Environments, 34(3), 19-37.
Gupta, J., C. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, S. Nooteboom, and E. Bergsma. 2010. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: A Method to Assess the Inherent Characteristics of Institutions to Enable the Adaptive Capacity of Society. Environmental Science & Policy 13(6):459-471.
Hockings, M. (2003). Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected Areas. BioScience, 53(9), 823-832.
Jones, P.J.S. (2013). Governing protected areas to fulfill biodiversity conservation obligations:
from Habermasian ideals to a more instrumental reality. Environment, Development, and Sustainability, 15, 39-50.
Koontz, T. M. (2005). We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative
Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 459–481. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00125.x
Krysko, R. & Ewing, S. (2011). Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative: 2011 Annual
Report. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 495-503. Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J.
(2006). Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems, 11(1), 19-39.
Lee, P. & Cheng, R. (2011). Canada's Terrestrial Protected Areas Status Report 2010: Number,
Area and Naturalness. Global Forest Watch Canada, 5, 1-68. Lemieux, C.J., & Scott, D.J. (2005). Climate change, biodiversity conservation and protected area
planning in Canada. Canadian Geographer, 49(4), 384-399. Locke, H., & Dearden, P. (2005). Rethinking protected area categories and the new paradigm.
Environmental Conservation, 32(1), 1–10. doi:10.1017/S0376892905001852 Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2010). Governance
Principles for Natural Resource Management. Society & Natural Resources, 23(10), 986–1001. doi:10.1080/08941920802178214
Mulongoy, K.J. and Chape, S. (2004). Protected Areas and Biodiversity: An Overview of Key Issues. Kuala
Lumpur: INEP-WCMC and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
The$M&KMA:$A$governance$assessment$for$LLEBM$ 79$
$
Muskwa-Kechika Management Area Act, Bill-37, 3rd Sess 36th Parl.,
http://www.leg.bc.ca/36th3rd/3rd_read/gov37-3.htm (1998) (enacted). Muskwa-Kechika Management Area. (2013, February 19). Retrieved October, 2013, from
http://www.muskwa-kechika.com/. Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B., and Brandon, K. (2005). The Role of Protected Areas in
Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 219-252.
Pachauri, R.K. & Reisinger, A. (Eds.) (2007). Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Price, K., Roburn, A., & MacKinnon, A. (2009). Ecosystem-based management in the Great Bear
Rainforest. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 495-503. Protected Areas and Poverty Reduction (PAPR): Canada-Africa Research and Learning Alliance. (2013,
March 25). Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://www.paprproject.com/. Robinson, L. W., Dearden, P., & Orozco, A. (2012). Framework for Assessing Governance for
Landscape-Level Ecosystem-Based Management Draft 2 . 1 Lance W . Robinson , Philip Dearden and June 2012, (June).
$