· core index volume1 why sustainability is important sustainability initiatives, 1910 - 1987...

CORE Index Volume1

-->

The Provincial Land Use Strategy

A Sustainability Act for British Columbia

Volume 1

A Sustainability Act For British Columbia

November 1994 - Volume One

Volume 2 Volume 3 Volume 4

Table of Contents

CIP

Introduction

Summary of Recommendations

1 - Sustainability in British Columbia: Past and Present

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts/corereport/vol1/index.htm (1 of 3)2/22/2005 6:54:16 AM

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/index.htm

http://www.gov.bc.ca/


http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/news

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/search.htm

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts

CORE Index Volume1

Why Sustainability Is ImportantSustainability Initiatives, 1910 - 1987

Timber SupplyOther Environmental and Economic Values

The Impact of Brundtland, 1987-1994Why a Sustainability Act Is Needed

2 - The Provincial Land Use Strategy: Progress to Date

Components of the StrategyContinuity of the Provincial Land Use StrategyCurrent Initiatives

Provincial DirectionThe Provincial Land Use Charter

Interagency CoordinationParticipatory PlanningIndependent OversightDispute Resolution

Public ParticipationThe Coming Challenge

3 - A Sustainability Act - Consolidating the Progress

The Need for LegislationIntegrationContinuityCommitment

Provincial Direction

PrinciplesGoals

Participatory PlanningStrategic Land Use PlansAccountability and Consistency in Strategic PlanningAccommodation of Local and Aboriginal InterestsPublic Participation in Planning

Coordination and IntegrationIndependent OversightDispute ResolutionConclusion


CORE Index Volume1


vol1

A Sustainability Act For British Columbia - Volume 1

Table of contents

British Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment.Provincial land use strategy : a sustainability act for British Columbia

ISBN 0-7726-2326-0

1. Land use - Government policy - British Columbia.2. Land use - Law and legislation - British Columbia.3. Crown lands - Law and legislation - British Columbia.4. Sustainable development - British Columbia.5. Land use - British Columbia - Planning.

I. Title. II. Title: A sustainability act for British Columbia.HD319.B7B74, 1994 333.73$kd09711 C95-960004-3

Cover illustration:, Sophia RosenbergDesign: Arifin A. Graham, Alaris DesignTypesetting: Brenda and Neil West, BN Typographics West

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts/corereport/vol1/vol1.htm2/22/2005 6:54:22 AM







vol1


Table of contents

Introduction

The Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) was given the legal responsibility in 1992 to "develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia-wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management'' (CORE Act, s.4 (1)). Following two years of extensive public consultation and research, the recommended provincial land use strategy, supported by a Sustainability Act for British Columbia, is set out in this report and in three companion volumes (Volume 2 - Planning for Sustainability, Volume 3 - Community Participation and Volume 4 - Dispute Resolution).

The conclusion of this report is that British Columbians must make a formal and enduring commitment to social, environmental and economic sustainability. It is time to make sustainability the law in British Columbia.

In recent years, British Columbia has moved rapidly towards establishing a world-leading strategy for sustainability. However, without a formal, statutory commitment we put ourselves and the future at risk. While we may not be able to measure this risk exactly, it is as real as the national debt. It will continue to increase and pass on an enormous burden to future generations without a comprehensive and strong response.

In British Columbia's recent past we have witnessed how government policies for sustainability and public participation can be weakened in the face of short-term trends. Yet sustainability requires a long-term social commitment and an institutional framework that spans economic and political cycles. Without this commitment, we can expect the ultimate loss of sustainability for future generations. We should also expect repeated and intensifying future conflict over land and resource use.

Much of the conflict of the past arose because there was no statutory guarantee that sustainability concerns would guide all resource decision-making, or that all interested parties, including workers, environmentalists, industry, communities, First Nations, all levels of government and others, would have their concerns heard and considered in a meaningful way. Many current government initiatives will help reduce the potential for

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts/corereport/vol1/vol1-01.htm (1 of 3)2/22/2005 6:54:27 AM







vol1

conflict. But conflict itself - and this is true of all recent land use conflicts in British Columbia - is merely the symptom of a broader problem, the lack of sustainable jobs, environment and quality of life. The Sustainability Act will confirm and continue our success at moving beyond conflict to long-term sustainability and participatory democracy.

Seventh Floor, 1802 Douglas StreetVictoria B.C. V8V 1X4Telephone (604) 387-1210Facsimile (604) 356-6385

The Sustainability Act, confirming the provincial land use strategy, is also needed to show a watchful global community that British Columbia is committed to the principles of Brundtland and Rio. The new law will help the international community understand the overall scope of our many ambitious initiatives - the Protected Areas Strategy, the Forest Practices Code, Forest Renewal B.C., CORE's regional land use plans, the Land Use Charter, the B.C. Treaty Commission, the Environmental Assessment Act, the proposed Environmental Protection and Growth Strategies Acts, air and water quality programs, fisheries management and many others.

The Sustainability Act will clearly announce to the world that British Columbia intends to be a leader on the path to a sustainable common future. The obligations under the Sustainability Act

● to develop and comply with sustainability principles, goals and policies● to develop balanced land and resource use plans● to involve the diverse interests of society in decision-making● to reach just settlements with First Nations, and● to monitor and adapt our responses to achieve sustainability

will signal this province's dedication to our international, national and local responsibilities.

Action on the provincial land use strategy and Sustainability Act is not a matter of more or less government, it is to ensure that government is directed and constrained to act responsibly now and in the future. More than 93% of the province is publicly owned land and it requires government leadership to ensure its sustainable use. We, as British Columbians, have the need, the chance and the responsibility to act now. We can consolidate the progress and secure the future direction by committing with determination and pride to a provincial land use strategy, set out in a Sustainability Act for British Columbia.

The illustration on the cover of this report symbolizes sustainability. The earth is a fragile and threatened treasure that we hold in trust for our children and future generations beyond. It should be inconceivable to all of us that we could fail to respect this trust.

Stephen Owen,Commissioner


vol1


vol1 02


Table of contents


1. That the Province enact a Sustainability Act as an essential part of its provincial land use strategy to● place in plain statutory language the province's vision of environmental, social and economic

sustainability and its commitment to participatory decision-making● provide a legal framework for stable and balanced land use management and an orderly

response to complex and changing demands.2. That the provincial Land Use Charter be incorporated into the Sustainability Act to describe the

general statutory purposes.3. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to approve integrated land use goals and policies in

order to● give effect to the principles of the Land Use Charter● direct ministries in the development and administration of strategic land use policies and plans● signal the provincial interest in the land use planning function of local government.

4. That the Sustainability Act require that strategic land use plans● be prepared for all areas of the province● apply provincial strategic policies in the context of local interests and circumstances so as to

ensure a reasonable balance of social, environmental and economic interests● designate zones of different intensity of use and establish management objectives for each

zone● provide direction on economic transition and implementation related to the plan● advise on priorities for local and operational resource planning.

5. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to● approve strategic land use plans in order to give legal status to designated zones and

management objectives, and cause the plans to be filed and available to the public in regional registries

● approve a standardized strategic land use designation system and management objectives.6. That the Sustainability Act require that








vol1 02

● local resource and operational plans be consistent with strategic land use plans● local resource plans be approved by regional inter-agency management committees (IAMCs),

with referral to cabinet for decision in cases of impasse.7. That the provincial land use strategy promote the effective coordination between provincial

government resource planning and local government settlement planning, and among local, regional and provincial interests, by

● encouraging direct participation in strategic land use and local resource planning by local government representatives

● restoring regional district authority to undertake regional growth-management planning, in partnership with other local governments, First Nations, third-party interests and the provincial government

● re-establishing technical planning committees in order to demonstrate the Provincial commitment to regional growth-management planning, and

● providing for statutory approval of regional growth-management plans by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to ensure conformity with provincial goals and strategic policies, to facilitate commitment of provincial agencies, and to assist integration and mediation of differences among local, regional and provincial interests.

8. That the provincial land use strategy ensure● the right of participation of First Nations in strategic land use and local resource planning

processes● access by First Nations to resource information and analysis during and after planning

processes● consultations with First Nations prior to formal approval of plans by cabinet in order to

identify potential prejudice to aboriginal rights or treaty negotiations and to seek interim agreements where necessary

● full public disclosure of the details of any interim agreements● that cabinet-approved plans express the provincial interest without limiting the provincial

bargaining position in treaty negotiations.9. That the Sustainability Act state the general right of members of the public to participate

meaningfully in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making. Where such a decision may have a significant impact on a person's interests, the provincial land use strategy, as a matter of fair administration, should ensure the right of public access to relevant information, notice, a fair hearing and reasons for decisions.

10. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to approve a public participation Code of Conduct as a Schedule to the Act to serve as a self-regulating set of responsibilities expected of participants in public decision-making processes.

11. That the provincial land use strategy● require provincial government encouragement and administrative support for community

resource boards to participate in the development of and oversee the implementation of strategic land use plans and local resource plans and to provide advice on a variety of local economic, social and environmental issues

● provide that community resource boards be voluntary, inclusive of all parties with a significant interest, accountable to the community, purpose-driven, advisory to government and consensus-seeking.

12. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to provide a legal mandate to a secretariat (headed by a deputy minister and reporting directly to cabinet), a separate ministry or an independent commission to ensure effective and balanced inter-ministerial coordination in the approval, implementation,


vol1 02

administration, review and amendment of strategic land use policies and plans related to achieving sustainability.

13. That the Sustainability Act direct the Commission on Resources and Environment to exercise its statutory mandate to provide independent oversight, ongoing advice and public reports on the progress towards achieving the purposes of the Sustainability Act and the development and implementation of the provincial land use strategy.

14. That the Sustainability Act establish a land use appeal board to● hear appeals regarding the administration of strategic, local resource and other land use plans,

including issues related to their interpretation, implementation, enforcement and other technical details

● provide policy advice to cabinet from time to time, based on the board's appeal experience.15. That the provincial land use strategy require cabinet to give direction on

● establishing common rules of standing, notice, grounds for review and appeal, mediation procedures, hearing process, and decision reporting

● a common secretariat, and● the formal merger into a comprehensive Sustainability Appeal Board for all boards dealing

with land use, and related resource and environmental management issues.16. That the provincial land use strategy ensure the ongoing development, refinement and adjustment of

land use goals, strategic policies and plans, and sustainability indicators, assisted by public participation, inter-ministerial coordination, independent oversight and dispute resolution processes.


vol1 03


Table of contents

1 - Sustainability in British Columbia: Past and Present

Why Sustainability Is Important

The integrated and interdependent nature of the new challenges and issues contrasts sharply with the nature of the institutions that exist today. These institutions tend to be independent, fragmented, and working to relatively narrow mandates with closed decision processes. Those responsible for managing natural resources and protecting the environment are institutionally separated from those responsible for managing the economy. The real world of interlocked economic and ecological systems will not change; the policies and institutions concerned must.- World Commission on Environment and Development

Harmony with land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left.- Aldo Leopold

The management of public lands and natural resources is a matter of vital importance to every British Columbian. Forestry, mining, fishing and cattle-ranching are mainstays of the provincial economy, and the recent rapid growth of the tourism industry owes much to the spectacular beauty of B.C. landscapes.

Our public lands also have value that may be less obvious in economic terms, but just as important. A comment by Chief Justice Gordon Sloan, the head of a Royal Commission on Forest Resources in 1945, when forests in the province were far more abundant than now, is just as relevant a half century later." To the hunter, fisherman and tourist, the forest offers sport and recreation. The tired and troubled mind seeks rest and solace in its quietude and from the tranquil beauty of its shadowed lakes finds peace and strength.'' In








vol1 03

addition, what wasn't as obvious in 1945 but is known today is the importance of the relationship among all the different species - both plants and animals - that inhabit the landscape.

The "seamless web'' of ecological relationships is important not just for its own sake but also for human uses, both consumptive and non-consumptive. As an example, the nutrients needed by growing trees depend on a complex relationship of species that may range from birds and wildlife to fungi to microorganisms; and a threat to any one of these can have an impact on the health of the forest and ultimately on the production of timber.

Much is still unknown about the value of individual species for human use and species considered without value at one stage in our history may assume unexpected importance as scientific knowledge increases. One example is the Pacific yew tree, long valued by aboriginal people but dismissed by general society as a "weed species'' until it was recognized to contain taxol - a chemical now believed to hold great promise in the treatment of cancer.

Some species have already become extinct and others are dangerously diminished by human demands. On the east coast of Canada, the commercial cod fishery appears to have come to an end with catastrophic consequences. On the west coast, the salmon fishery has been closed in Washington and Oregon and is in jeopardy in B.C. Our growing understanding of the importance of ecological relationships has led to an appreciation of the need to protect entire ecosystems as well as single resources. It has also caused caution and concern about natural and human impacts that may still be unknown - an issue highlighted recently by the mysterious "disappearance'' of over a million spawning salmon, and the unexplained death of sturgeon in large numbers, in the Fraser River.

We still have much to learn about the relationships among species and the importance of each. In the words of Paul Ehrlich, the planet is like a plane: the loss of a few rivets may go unnoticed, but at a certain point the plane may begin to fall apart.

Human uses of land and resources can have an impact not only for a long time but also over a long distance. The quality, quantity and timing of the flow of water we use for domestic and agricultural purposes may be affected by activities on land many miles upstream. The habitat and migration needs of different wildlife species vary greatly. Animals such as caribou and grizzly bears, for instance, move over great distances, and a disturbance of their environments can have a direct impact on the health of their populations. Salmon swim hundreds of miles to spawn - some travel all the way from the mouth of the Fraser River to the Rockies - and seemingly small damage to the creeks in which they spawn can have a significant impact on both commercial and sports ocean fishing. These long-distance impacts add to the challenge of managing land and resources because of the fact that areas far removed from development sites can be directly affected by the type of activities and the care with which they are conducted.

In recent years, B.C. has experienced many bitter conflicts about the way our lands and resources are managed. Often these conflicts have been described in a way that suggests the interests of the different sides to a dispute - "environmentalists against loggers'' or "conservationists against miners'' - are opposite, when in fact, as we are increasingly coming to realize, both sides have common interests. A forest worker may also use the forest for hunting and fishing, and may take domestic water supply from a creek downstream from a timber-harvesting site; an environmentalist's job and quality of life may exist because of the economic


vol1 03

contribution of the forest industry to community prosperity.

The long-term health of the resource economy can be maintained only through careful management of all components of the ecosystems - including soils, water and plant and animal species - that are important to the reproduction of renewable resources; and the commitment and ability of society to protect our environment is strengthened when the economy is also strong. Finally, both economic prosperity and environmental well-being contribute to the quality of life of communities and the society as a whole. Social, economic and environmental objectives therefore depend on each other, and whatever acts as a threat to any one of these is a threat to all.

Land use conflicts are economically expensive (they are a drain on industry and workers as well as representing a significant cost in the government resources needed to address them) and socially expensive (they divide communities and may lead to lasting animosity). Their focus on specific areas (for example, Carmanah, Walbran, the Stein Valley) is often based on a public perception that land use decisions are made with insufficient public participation and poor coordination among government ministries with apparently conflicting mandates.

Conflicts about land use in B.C. have increased in number and severity over the last couple of decades as competition for limited land and resources has dramatically increased.

Figure 1 - The Three Foundations of Sustainability

To remain competitive, forest companies have introduced technologies that create fewer jobs per unit of timber cut while increasing their demand for timber; decades of overcutting in remote areas have pushed the demand for new supplies into populated valleys and spectacular landscapes that were previously untouched. A larger and more mobile population is increasingly seeking out recreational opportunities in areas previously considered relatively inaccessible except for resource extraction - the Kitlope Valley is a prime example.

Sustainability is a central theme in concerns such as these - sustainability - of employment opportunities, of land and landscapes for tourism and recreation, and of environmental integrity. Little used a decade ago, "sustainable" is a term now central in discussions about the direction the government should take in the management of public lands and resources. Sustainable means "capable of being maintained indefinitely", and the term applies equally to the economy, the environment, and society as a whole. Achieving sustainability means that the central thrust of government planning for the future should be to maintain

● a prosperous and diverse economy that maximizes the jobs created through resource use without compromising the ability of the land to replenish renewable resources


http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts/corereport/vol1/images/vol1-3.jpg

vol1 03

● the integrity of the natural environment, including biological diversity; quality of soil, water and air; and special natural features

● the quality of life, for both individuals and communities throughout British Columbia.

The issue of sustainability came to prominence in 1987 with the publication of Our Common Future by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. The commission described a growing crisis of worldwide proportions: intensive, inadequately planned resource development has so depleted renewable resources that the ability of the land to continue to support long-term development is severely compromised, threatening both future economic well-being and the integrity of the world environment. Our Common Future identified an urgent need on the part of all nations to move towards sustainable development, which the commission defined as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

Both provocative and disconcerting, the conclusions of the World Commission on Environment and Development provided a catalyst for change that has had a profound impact on perspectives on land and resource planning throughout the world. Since the publication of Our Common Future, sustainability has become a central theme in land and resource planning. This reflects not so much a change of values as an intensity of focus. While that shift in focus has often been attributed to the Brundtland report, the work of the World Commission was simply the point at which long-standing concerns began to crystallize, and the point at which it became clear that the longer the world delays, the sooner the opportunity to plan for a sustainable future will be lost.

Sustainability Initiatives, 1910 - 1987

If we had been wise enough to have introduced effective forest management at the time [1900], we could have ensured a "perpetual'' minimum annual harvest of perhaps 1,000 million cubic feet, which could have been increased ... to 2,000 million cubic feet....

If our fathers had instituted such a policy at the time, British Columbia today could be cutting an estimated 1,300 million cubic feet, or a safe 50 percent more than our actual present cut of 880 million cubic feet which is bordering on the danger line....

Our bank account is being withdrawn in increasingly large amounts.... Retrenchment, whether it be in the family budget, the national budget, or the forest budget, is always a painful process; but to balance income against expenditure, growth against harvest, is the only way to keep out of the poorhouse.- C.D.Orchard, Chief Forester of British Columbia, 1949

Every generation addresses the important issues of its time with the latest technology and most up-to-date knowledge, and it is tempting to assume that "modern" tools are capable of offering lasting solutions to whatever problems are perceived to be priorities. But the most fundamental problems facing society require ongoing attention, and the solutions require refinement as understanding grows and society's needs evolve. What is modern today may seem out-of-date by the standards of the future.


vol1 03

Sustainability is not a new issue in British Columbia. The scope of the problem has rapidly broadened in recent times, and the need to address it has increased, but the issue itself has caused concern for almost a century. Solutions have been confidently proposed for almost as long a time, but have constantly fallen short. The solutions of the past offer a lesson for the present: our ability to achieve sustainability depends on an enduring provincial land use strategy that adapts to changing circumstances. There can be no quick fix, and ongoing commitment will be required.

Timber Supply

Forestry contributes more than any other resource industry to British Columbia's economy, and has done so for many decades. Thus it is hardly surprising that, until recent times, sustainability concerns focused almost exclusively on the future of British Columbia's forests.

When British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871, eastern Canada often dismissed the province as an impenetrable "sea of mountains", with little value other than that it was needed to fulfill the vision of building a nation extending from sea to sea. But within a few years it became dramatically evident that British Columbia contained previously unimagined riches: abundant stores of marketable coal and other minerals, vast grasslands ideal for cattle-ranging, rich fisheries, and fertile agricultural lands made even more abundant by a favourable climate. But above all, B.C. had seemingly unlimited supplies of fine timber for which the demand in several countries was constantly growing.

The rush for "green gold" after 1890, notably by American entrepreneurs such as Weyerhaeuser, Bloedel and the Rockefellers, was a growing source of B.C.'s early prosperity. Two decades later, government optimism had become tempered by concern about wasted wood and the uncontrolled fires that were sparked by locomotives on logging railways. In 1910, a Royal Commission on Forestry called attention to the need to

safeguard the growing forests that will provide the future crop.... British Columbia occupies a position of great advantage among the forest countries of the world, for she can undertake the care of her timber resources before - instead of after - fire and waste have squandered the bulk of them.[1]

Noting that the rights to harvest two-thirds of the province's merchantable timber had already been granted, the commission on forestry recommended that the remaining timber be held in reserve or controlled through short-term timber sales. The commission proposed legislation to set up a Forest Service and to protect and manage the forest resource. The cabinet minister who introduced the province's first Forest Act in 1912 told the legislature that the legislation was "not only for the needs of this day and this generation, but also, and no less, for our children's children, and for all posterity - that we may hand down to them their vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

As the prosperity brought by timber continued in B.C., it was difficult to maintain strong public concern about the future of the forests; nevertheless, it became apparent that the Forest Act was not achieving the objectives envisioned by the commission that had proposed it. A 1937 B.C. Forest Service report on the forest resources of the province noted:


vol1 03

Until recently, public indifference to forestry would almost lead one to believe that America has been regarded as a place for temporary residence while its treasures were rifled as quickly as possible; that there would always be somewhere else for the 'pioneers' to go, leaving a trail of devastated forest behind them. Even so, where the denuded land could be put to other uses a sound social structure could still be built up; but where, as in British Columbia, four-fifths of the productive land is suitable only for forestry, permanent communities can only be maintained upon permanent industries sustained by the yield of well-managed forests.... It is time to institute active measures providing for more successful reforestation. It is also time to prepare for some regulation of the cut so that the great store of virgin timber on the accessible areas may not all be used up before sufficient second-growth is ready to take its place.[2]

This note of caution was repeated more forcefully eight years later in 1945 by the Chief Justice of British Columbia, Gordon Sloan. Appointed to head a royal commission on the forest resources of the province, largely because of the government's concern about the rate at which they were being cut, Sloan confirmed the need to act quickly to ensure the management of forests for a sustained yield:

Our basic, fundamental and vital forest problem, in this province, is to see to it that our forests are perpetuated for the use, profit and pleasure of future generations. If we fail in this objective, then the economic future of British Columbia will, indeed, present a very dark and dismal picture. Fortunately, it is not too late to plan now for the future, but the sands are running out and the time is now upon us when the present policy of unmanaged liquidation of our forest wealth must give way to the imperative concept of a planned forest policy designed to maintain our forests upon the principle of sustained-yield production.[3]

In a submission to the Sloan commission, H.R. MacMillan, who headed one of the province's largest forest companies, noted the importance of not underestimating the challenge of ensuring sustainability in B.C.'s most important industry: "If we begin now, we shall require until 1960, or probably longer, to initiate and develop the changes necessary to convert our present policy of forest exploitation to the essential policy of working to a sustained annual yield." Despite - or perhaps because of - his considerable experience in the forest industry (he had been the province's chief forester before forming his own company), MacMillan said of his own submission, "Because we are all so short of facts respecting our forests, the matter herein is opinion and as such may be partially wrong."[4] It was an expression of humility and of wisdom rarely heard from parties involved in land use conflicts a few decades later.

In the years following the recommendations of the Sloan report, the government began to parcel forest lands into large units to be managed for perpetual timber yields. Some of these parcels evolved into tree farm licences, managed by private companies; others were administered by the Forest Service through timber sales. The fundamental difference in management after Sloan, as compared to the 1910 commission, was that companies would have long-term tenure in public timber, providing some incentive to manage it carefully to protect future timber supplies. This change was seen as the breakthrough needed to resolve once and for all


vol1 03

the growing problem of sustainability of timber yield.

Justice Sloan and the government of the time, although working with the best information available to them, had no way of foreseeing the future developments that would create entirely new challenges in the sustainable management of forests. The period of the Great Depression and World War II was followed in the 1950s and 1960s by an era of unprecedented growth and modernization of industry. Technological advances and the transformation of the forest industry into a few massive, vertically integrated companies made possible not only the use of vast amounts of timber that had previously been considered unmerchantable, but also the harvesting and processing of much higher volumes. In the two decades between 1956 and 1976, the annual cut in B.C. increased by 400 percent. This rich harvest was the primary source of the unprecedented prosperity during these decades. It also set the stage for increased public concerns not only about the impact on timber stands, but also about non-timber forest values.

Other Environmental and Economic Values

The 1976 Royal Commission on Forest Resources, headed by Dr. Peter Pearse, noted considerable improvements in policies and practices for sustained-yield management of timber in the years since the Sloan reports of 1946 and 1956. Pearse also noted developments with disturbing implications for other values, most notably the integrity of the environment. Pearse found that the "massive assault on the province's forests" during the previous two decades had been accompanied by the construction of extensive road networks into areas that had previously been wilderness, and that increasingly expanded operations were taking place on "environmentally sensitive sites - on steeper terrain where soils are often unstable, at high elevations where regeneration and growth are slow, and on rugged ground where road-building leaves deep scars on the landscape".5 In earlier years, Pearse noted, environmental concerns had not been a major issue for two reasons: forestry operations had not been of the type to cause much lasting ecological damage, and the general public had been largely indifferent. But these factors had changed dramatically, to the point where environmental protection had to become a major focus in government policy direction and forest administration.

Public interest in forest management issues had increased significantly since the 1960s. Tourism, a rapidly growing industry, depended in part on maintaining the appearance of untouched natural landscapes. Interest in outdoor recreation was flourishing, partly because of the mobility afforded by roads originally built for timber access. Fish and wildlife protection had become a significant public concern. But above all, interest in environmental protection in B.C. reflected growing concerns worldwide about the environmental impacts, many of them still little understood, of urban and industrial development. Interest was accompanied by increasing demands for more public involvement in the resolution of such issues, and increasing distrust of the powers of large government and large industry.

The Pearse report was followed by a major restructuring of the Forest Act in 1978 and enactment of a Ministry of Forests Act. Section 4 (c) of the Ministry of Forests Act addressed the concern raised by Pearse by making it a responsibility of the ministry not just to manage for timber production, but also to

plan the use of the forest and range resources of the Crown so that the production of timber and forage, the harvesting of timber, the grazing of livestock and the realization of fisheries, wildlife, water, outdoor recreation


vol1 03

and other natural resource values are coordinated and integrated, in consultation and coordination with other ministries and agencies of the Crown and with the private sector.[6]

With the passage of the Ministry of Forests Act, "integrated resource management" - an emphasis on sustainability of a broad range of values - became a statutory obligation of the ministry. However, a variety of factors presented major challenges to the fulfilment of the task.

Coordination among government ministries was hampered by institutional structures that had developed decades before, when economic and social needs had been both simpler and more readily defined. In earlier decades, the emphasis had been on resource extraction and land development, administered by separate departments for each resource: forests, mines, agriculture, lands. The titles of new ministries included components that had never before in the province's history been seen as important enough to merit separate branches or departments: tourism, recreation, environment, small business. As well as limited resources, these new ministries had responsibilities that were evolving as social needs evolved. Because the vast majority of land in B.C. was designated as provincial forest under the general administration of the Forests ministry, that ministry continued to play the dominant role. The problem facing the Forests ministry and other ministries was how to bring about the coordination called for in the Ministry of Forests Act. Many people saw an apparent conflict between the ministry's new integrated resource management responsibilities and the traditional role of the Forest Service in maximizing timber production.

Government coordination had become an increasingly vexing problem in B.C. as the years passed. In the early 1970s, the provincial government established the Environment and Land Use Committee (ELUC) of cabinet to provide an element of coordination, and that committee and its supporting secretariat demonstrated significant success in resolving land use issues involving conflicting government agencies. In 1980, however, in the midst of economic recession, the ELUC secretariat was disbanded, and the province entered an era of "sympathetic administration" in forest management, during which requirements for environmental protection by forest companies were relaxed. The government "downsizing" that occurred during this era further hampered interministry coordination and reduced the ability of ministries to focus on sustainability concerns. Well into the late 1980s and early 1990s, for example, regional offices of the Ministry of Environment found themselves unable to effectively review forestry development plans because of staff shortages.

Meanwhile, growing public anger over land use issues was reflected in increasingly bitter conflicts. The Ministry of Forests was frequently accused of having a timber bias, and of paying lip service to public involvement in land use issues affecting communities. "Integrated resource management" was viewed by many people to be a token gesture, and forest companies, to which many responsibilities for sustainable management had been transferred, were accused of ignoring or destroying non-timber values. On the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii), a coalition of groups angered by logging practices on South Moresby Island drew national attention to forest management in B.C. and successfully carried out a campaign to turn "the Galapagos of the north" into a national park. A new level of conflict began in 1987 with the publication of Our Common Future by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (commonly known as "the Brundtland report"). Calling for sustainable development in all nations, the report acted as a catalyst, with sustainability as the rallying call.

The Impact of Brundtland, 1987-1994


vol1 03

Following the publication of Our Common Future in 1987, existing land use conflicts in B.C. intensified and new ones came to prominence. The list of contentious areas began to seem endless: Clayoquot Sound, Walbran, Carmanah, Hasty Creek, Cariboo Mountains, Caren Range, Nahmint, Khutzeymateen, Kitlope, Tatshenshini. Forest companies expressed increasing frustration that their efforts to manage for non-timber values were going unacknowledged, and their ability to operate profitably was being compromised by both bureaucratic restrictions and difficulty in attracting investors made nervous by controversy. Some residents of resource-dependent communities, angered by the apparent disregard of their economic future by environmental groups, organized SHARE groups to represent their views on land disputes. And First Nations became increasingly organized in their demands for recognition of aboriginal rights, including rights to land, on their traditional territories.

The underlying issue behind each of these and other interests is sustainability, whether in terms of jobs, biodiversity, natural beauty, community stability, or traditional land uses. But in the absence of clear government objectives for land use in these areas, with apparently conflicting ministry mandates and inadequate provision for public participation in planning processes as well as no provision for a dispute resolution system other than by an assortment of appeal provisions throughout different statutes, the government struggled to address these conflicts effectively.

The Canadian government responded to the Brundtland report by setting up a task force that recommended the creation of federal and provincial strategies for achieving sustainable development. The federal strategy included the establishment of a National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Canada's Green Plan, and subsequent initiatives such as a new Canadian Environmental Protection Act, an Environmental Assessment Act, and the signing of an international convention on biodiversity, ozone depletion, and climate change. At the provincial level, governments across the country began to review their land and resource planning systems, and most provinces undertook initiatives to increase the protection of representative ecosystems.

In British Columbia, conflicts over land use and resource management were becoming increasingly destructive and costly, both economically and socially. The need to address these conflicts and the sustainability issues popularized by the Brundtland report provided a focus for several private and government initiatives.

Dunsmuir IIn 1988, 51 private citizens and 34 agencies and public and private interest groups met at Dunsmuir Lodge on Vancouver Island and drafted the Dunsmuir Agreement on the need for a comprehensive land use and water management strategy for British Columbia, including key elements for such a strategy.

Forest Resources CommissionSet up in 1989 to advise the Minister of Forests on the management of provincial forest lands, the Forest Resources Commission drew on broad public consultation in recommending the development of a comprehensive land use planning system to reduce conflicts, increase the credibility of decision-making processes and identify sustainable land uses.

B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the EconomyThe Round Table was established in 1990 to foster the creation of, and seek consensus on, a sustainable


vol1 03

development strategy for British Columbia. The Round Table produced a series of reports designed to provide direction on achieving various aspects of sustainability.

Parks and Wilderness for the '90sIn 1990, the Ministries of Forests and Parks began a comprehensive process of soliciting public advice on the creation of new parks and wilderness areas. The objective was to secure adequate representation, in protected areas, of the full range of ecosections across the diverse geography of the province, in line with the Brundtland report's identification of the urgent need to take steps to ensure the continued existence of all ecosystems. This initiative was later incorporated into the provincial Protected Areas Strategy.

Old-Growth StrategyInitiated by government and representing a broad range of interests, the Old-Growth Strategy provided a framework for managing old-growth forests for a variety of values. The results of the Old Growth Strategy were later incorporated into the Protected Areas Strategy.

Dunsmuir IIIn 1991, the original Dunsmuir Agreement was expanded to identify the particulars needed to develop a provincial land use strategy. The Dunsmuir II agreement provided broad recommendations regarding goals, resource inventory, decision-making, and other requirements.

In 1992, the government responded to these initiatives, and to the need to address conflict and sustainability issues, by establishing the Commission on Resources and Environment as a permanent statutory commission to develop a provincial land use strategy for government and public consideration.

A land use strategy for B.C. is now well underway with the completion of, or substantial progress on, a number of initiatives across a broad range of land use and resource management issues, including the Protected Areas Strategy, Forest Practices Code, Forest Renewal B.C., B.C. Treaty Commission Act, Environmental Assessment Act, Fraser Basin and Georgia Basin initiatives, proposed Growth Strategies Act, CORE regional land use plans and government-initiated Land and Resource Management Plans, and the provincial Land Use Charter.

Why a Sustainability Act Is Needed

More than any other province, B.C. has a history of polarization of interests - in politics, in the economy, and in our society as a whole. In recent years, this polarization has surfaced dramatically in land use conflicts across the province. While polarization has often contributed richly to the dynamic growth we have seen over the last century, it must not become an obstacle in meeting the most fundamental challenge facing us today.

Concern about sustainability is not a fad that will give way to other issues over time. It is as real and enduring as the national debt: easy to downplay in day-to-day life, but ever-increasing if ignored and not addressed in a decisive manner. Unlike the national debt, the debt we create by failing to address sustainability issues cannot be measured in precise terms. This is all the more reason why determination to meet the challenge is needed, and why we must replace conflict and self-interest with unity and commitment, recognizing that that is the only way all our interests will be addressed.


vol1 03

This is not to say that individual interests should not be respected or expressed, for indeed they must be, but the reality has become clear that, with finite land and resources, the way to ensure that the needs of any one interest are met is to respect and accommodate the interests of others. This is the central concept of economic, environmental and social sustainability.

The long history of government efforts to achieve sustainability in land use and resource management in British Columbia provides several compelling reasons why a Sustainability Act is needed to consolidate the provincial land use strategy:

1. The history of the efforts of successive governments over the greater part of a century to achieve sustainability shows a pattern of limited success - a result of altered priorities, lack of coordination, and unforeseen social and economic developments. A firm and continuing direction is needed to ensure an ongoing commitment to meeting a challenge that will continue to grow.

2. The commitment to sustainability in land and resource use must be expressed through a legislative framework that strengthens institutional structures required to deliver the key components of the provincial land use strategy: provincial direction, coordination of government initiatives, participatory planning, independent oversight of land use planning and resource management administration, and a comprehensive and accessible dispute resolution system.

3. Although significant progress has been made in the development of the provincial land use strategy, many initiatives have independently developed out of necessity, to begin to address urgent sustainability needs and land use conflicts. Legislative consolidation of these initiatives is required to provide overall guidance and clarity of purpose to the strategy.

4. The challenge of steering the province towards economic, environmental and social sustainability will continually evolve as economic and social conditions change and as our understanding of sustainability issues increases. The lesson of history is clear: we must not assume that our current knowledge is sufficient to provide permanent solutions. The provincial land use strategy must endure and evolve, and it must be supported by legislation to ensure that, over time, the administration of the strategy will adhere to the sustainability principles set out in the Land Use Charter. Rather than constraining government, a Sustainability Act will provide the direction and focus for innovation and dynamic initiatives to meet changing needs.

5. The recommended ingredients of a Sustainability Act reflect several years of a developing and broad public consensus on the need for, and elements of, an effective provincial land use strategy. This consensus has been apparent not only during a variety of initiatives conducted during the past two and a half years, it has also been expressed consistently through a range of government and public initiatives in the years preceding the establishment of CORE

6. British Columbia's strong resource economy, its rich biophysical diversity and its lengthy history of innovation in land and resource management place it in an ideal position to demonstrate leadership in establishing a legislative foundation for the achievement of economic, environmental and social sustainability. The developing provincial land use strategy is attracting national and international interest, as other governments begin to address the need for sustainability. A Sustainability Act can provide a clear and comprehensive model for other jurisdictions proceeding on the path to sustainability.

A Sustainability Act for British Columbia should provide for a land use system that is

Sustainable


vol1 03

The Act would direct that all decisions aim for a healthy environment, a sound economy and for social well-being. In addition, decision makers would be directed to consider the economic and environmental needs of future generations as well as our own. In short, the Sustainability Act would assist government agencies to make balanced and farseeing decisions.

OpenLand and resource decisions must be open to the participation of all interests, and address the full range of environmental, social and economic values. Workers, environmentalists, industry, communities, aboriginal peoples, and others should have a say in decisions. The Sustainability Act will ensure this.

IntegratedThe Act would ensure that government agencies are working together for sustainability and openness. The conflicting mandates of development agencies and protection agencies would be guided towards a common mandate - the mandate for sustainability. This would provide a more clear legal foundation for the coordination of resource agencies in developing integrated and consistant resource policies. It would also reduce conflicts between agencies, and make them more efficient in their pursuit of a healthy economy, environment, and society.

EnduringAn enduring framework must be established to ensure that the system remains sustainable, open and integrated. This framework will provide a legal status for sustainable planning in B.C. that will override short-term economic and political trends.

1. Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Timber and Forestry, 1909-1910 (Victoria, 1910), p. D66.

2. British Columbia Forest Service, The Forest Resources of British Columbia (Victoria, 1937), p. 10.

3. Report of the Commissioner Relating to the Forest Resources of British Columbia (Sloan report) (Victoria, 1945), pp. 9-10.

4. H.R. MacMillan Export Company. Forests for the Future: Conditions Essential to a Sustained-Yield Policy for Management of British Columbia Coast Forests (Vancouver, 1945), pp. 4, 1.

5. Royal Commission of Forest Resources, Timber Rights and Forest Policy in British Columbia (Pearse report) (Victoria, 1976), p. 5.

6. Ministry of Forests Act, R.S.B.C. Chap.272.


vol1 03


vol1


Table of contents

2 - The Provincial Land Use Strategy: Progress to Date

Section 4 (1) of the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act directs CORE to "develop for public and government consideration a British-Columbia wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management". Prior to the passage of the Act, the need for such a strategy had been expressed, for several years, by a broad range of public interests concerned about the need for improved government coordination in the administration of provincial lands, and about escalating and unresolved land use conflicts in several parts of the province.

This chapter describes the progress that has been made during the last two years in the development of the provincial land use strategy.

Components of the Strategy

In simple terms, a strategy is created by establishing an objective and the steps required to achieve that objective. The objective of the provincial land use strategy is the creation of a sustainable future in British Columbia.

The provincial land use strategy is designed to provide a framework for a sustainable future through the dynamic interaction of its five primary components: provincial direction, participatory planning, interagency and intergovernmental coordination, independent oversight and dispute resolution.

Provincial direction brings together the principles, land use goals and related strategic policies that define British Columbia's vision for social, economic and environmental sustainability and how it is going to be achieved. This direction defines the provincial interest in resource management and thereby provides critical guidance to all levels of decision-making.








vol1

Participatory planning processes provide the public with meaningful opportunities to help shape land use and related resource and environmental decisions that reconcile competing goals, policies, community aspirations and biophysical realities. The establishment of these processes is a necessary step in the transition from short-term, reactive decision-making to the long-term strategic decision-making needed to achieve economic, environmental and social sustainability.

Coordination between levels of government and among government ministries, agencies and initiatives facilitates comprehensive and integrated decision-making and balance in the preparation, administration, review and amendment of strategic policies and plans. Effective coordination improves mutual accountability and encourages the consideration and accommodation of all values and interests.

Independent oversight monitors the overall performance of the provincial land use and environmental management system to ensure fairness and effectiveness and accountability to the vision of sustainability. Independent public reporting and review supports neutral analysis and balanced considerations.

An effective dispute resolution system ensures meaningful public participation in decision-making processes, appropriate inter-agency coordination in decision-making, and simple and accessible review and appeal mechanisms to enable decisions to be challenged by individuals or groups with grievances.

The components of the provincial land use strategy are dynamic and interdependent. The nature, scope and effectiveness of each is largely determined by the nature, scope and effectiveness of the others. The inadequacy or failure of any one element will compromise the others. Complementing one another, they support a fully functional, finely tuned decision-making system. Permanent and adaptive, they provide the essential tools to manage for sustainability.

Figure 2. Components of the Provincial Land Use Strategy

Continuity of the Provincial Land Use Strategy

The development of the provincial land use strategy has made significant progress, but it is not complete. It is essential that the strategy continuously adapt to keep pace with evolving needs and knowledge.

We know that economic, environmental and social sustainability is an increasingly pressing consideration in the administration of public lands and natural resources. We also must presume that this will likely remain the case for future generations as the population of British Columbia continues to grow, placing increasing demands on a finite land base. And we must have the humility to recognize that, despite our best intentions and our growing awareness of the close relationship among economic, environmental and social needs, our knowledge regarding land use management will continue to change over time, as, inevitably, will the needs of British Columbians.

A half century ago, the need for sustainability was seen almost entirely in the context of ensuring continuity



vol1

of timber supply. Thirty years ago, the need to preserve other values such as scenic views, fish and wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities was barely beginning to be generally appreciated, simply because these values seemed to exist in such abundance. Two decades ago, the impact of development activities on the environment was beginning to cause concern, but there was little scientific understanding of the importance of ecosystems and the interdependence of species. Nor did we have much understanding of how to maintain a strong resource economy in a manner that maintained both environmental integrity and jobs, or an understanding of the importance of public participation in the development of stable land use plans. We have come a long way. However, it is fundamental to the progress of the land use strategy to acknowledge that we still have far to go.

The development of the provincial land strategy has much in common with the making of laws; regardless of the achievements of parliaments, the need to make new laws and amend old ones has less to do with changing governments than it does with altered economic, environmental and social conditions and advancements in knowledge. Like the law, the provincial land use strategy must be both organic and enduring. The only constant is likely to be the sustainability principles of the Land Use Charter, and, to a lesser degree, the more specific land use goals currently being refined by government. These Charter principles and Goals are designed to be as relevant for the long-term future as they are today, while providing sufficient flexibility for policies and plans to adapt according to the priorities of any given time, yet being clear enough to provide direction and serve as a basis for decisions.

Current Initiatives

Many parts of the provincial land use strategy are developing or already in place.


Provincial direction is developing through the Land Use Charter, Goals and Policies and a variety of recent government initiatives including: the Protected Areas Strategy (PAS), the recently legislated Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (FPC), B.C. Forest Renewal Act (FRBC), Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), the B.C. Treaty Commission Act (BCTC) and Forest Land Reserve Act (FLR). Other new provincial policies and legislative reforms that are being prepared include initiatives to strengthen urban growth management, environmental protection, water stewardship, air quality, waste reduction, and fisheries management. The government has also begun timber supply reviews which will guide the resetting of harvesting levels over the next few years to meet long-term sustainable yield for the whole provincial forest.

Land Use Charter, Goals and Policies

The Charter and land use Goals state what the people of the province seek to achieve, and specific strategic policies provide the detail on how government intends to get there. Strategic policies can be expressed in legislation, regulation or major policies and program initiatives of government. They provide the policy framework for developing strategic plans like those for Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, West Kootenay-Boundary and East Kootenay regions, and those being developed in Land and Resource Management Planning processes in many parts of the province. The Land Use Charter was developed by CORE in consultation with the government and public, published in Report on a Land Use Strategy for British Columbia,(1) and later adopted in principle by the government. With similarly broad consultation, CORE


vol1

developed (and published in Finding Common Ground(2)) a set of integrated land use Goals that are being refined and used as the basis for the development of strategic policies by an interministry committee. The Charter and Goals are included as Appendices 2 and 3 of this report.

Protected Areas Strategy

A major purpose of strategic plans is to identify the number, size and location of new parks needed to meet the goals of the provincial Protected Areas Strategy (PAS). The primary objective of the strategy is to protect representative examples of the ecological, cultural heritage and recreational diversity of the province's land base, including special features, wilderness areas and predator/prey systems to a target of 12%. To meet this policy objective, the PAS provides for the protection of "more or less than 12%" in each of the province's regions, allowing for variation related to overriding provincial commitments or existing land use commitments - including consideration of socio-economic impacts, existing protected area commitments and opportunities to protect large wilderness areas and predator/prey systems.

Forest Practices Code

The Forest Practices Code (FPC) was passed by the legislature in the spring 1994 session. The FPC revises forestry regulations, policies and practices to ensure good stewardship of all forests. Intended to provide management flexibility to achieve the goals and objectives identified for forest land, the FPC will be further developed and applied over the next few years.

Environmental Assessment Act

The Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), also passed by the legislature in the spring 1994 session, establishes a single, comprehensive process for the identification of the potential effects of major projects and the evaluation of the means to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts. The process seeks to ensure that projects are constructed and operated in a manner that avoids or reduces environmental and other adverse impacts and provide economic and social benefits over the long term, thereby supporting sustainability.

B.C. Treaty Commission

In the 1991 Report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force , which ultimately gave birth to the B.C. Treaty Commission (BCTC), the authors identified the need for fair and honourable modern-day treaties between the First Nations of B.C. and the governments of Canada and British Columbia. By summer 1994 the BCTC had accepted 42 "Statements of Intent" to negotiate from First Nations. After 140 years of inaction, the important process of negotiating just settlements of aboriginal claims has commenced in British Columbia. As these proceed, the province's strategic policies that underlie its negotiating mandate will need to be developed carefully and shared properly with the public in order to build confidence and long-term certainty into this vitally important aspect of sustainable land use in British Columbia.

Growth Strategies Act

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs issued a Discussion Paper in September 1994 as part of the consultation


vol1

process proposing a Growth Strategies Act . This initiative is intended to form a partnership with the local government planning system to deal effectively with the problems associated with rapid growth, such as air pollution, traffic congestion, loss of green areas and agricultural land, and lack of affordable housing. It has become clear over the last few years that a fair and flexible planning process for strategic issues of regional importance that cross geographic and jurisdictional boundaries should be introduced.

Environmental Protection

In 1992 the government released a discussion paper proposing major revision to existing environmental legislation. An advisory committee of 40 stakeholders was formed and extensive consultations occurred throughout 1993, resulting in draft legislation in 1994. The proposed B.C. Environmental Protection Act will group together provisions that apply to all environmental legislation - such as the general principles of environmental management, enforcement, appeals and emergency measures. As well, the Act will establish the legislative basis for programs related to pollution prevention, air quality, water quality, pesticides and waste management.

Water Stewardship

In 1993 the province released a discussion paper, "Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia". It identified a vision for future water management in eight subject areas: groundwater management, water pricing, management of activities in and around streams, water management planning, water allocation, floodplain management, water quality, and water conservation. Water export regulation and groundwater management have been the main focus of the first phase. The second phase will deal primarily with implementation of initiatives for water quality.

Air Quality

The Clean Air amendment to the Waste Management Act, passed in June 1994, gives the province the authority to regulate vehicles and fuels in the province. At the same time, a low-sulfur diesel regulation was passed as a first step in implementing the clean air amendment. This program targets the reduction of vehicle emissions in the province, especially in the lower Fraser Valley, where vehicles account for 75% of air pollution. It also provides authority for the regulation of smoke and particulate discharge which have implications for human health.

Forest Renewal Plan

This is a long-term plan for investment in B.C.'s forests designed to enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers, and strengthen forest dependent communities. The plan is financed through increases in stumpage charged for harvest of public timber, and investments are distributed across the province according to the needs of particular regions. These investments are managed by a new Crown corporation, Forest Renewal B.C.

Solid Waste Reduction


vol1

The provincial goal is to reduce municipal solid waste by 50% by the year 2000, with emphasis on the "three Rs" of waste management - reduce, reuse and recycle. Two primary initiatives underway are to develop a beverage container strategy to expand the deposit/refund system; and a product and packaging stewardship program to reduce the volume of packaging materials that end up as waste in landfills.

Fisheries Management

The provincial government has recently established a priority for strengthened salmon fisheries management. To protect salmon habitat, $16 million, funded through Forest Renewal B.C., is targeted for watershed restoration in the 1994/95 fiscal year. Restoration projects are designed to accelerate the recovery of watersheds that have been adversely affected by past timber harvesting and road building. As well, funding is allocated through BC 21 for small-scale restoration and enhancement projects at the local level, led by community volunteers. On another front, the province has recently proposed the creation of a Pacific resource conservation council. The proposed council would be a partnership among government, the scientific community and all user groups, bringing together the expertise required to make recommendations on conservation measures for Pacific fisheries.

Timber Supply Reviews

The Ministry of Forests is conducting timber supply reviews (TSRs) in each of the timber supply areas throughout the province. Using the information gathered in the reviews, the Chief Forester is making appropriate adjustments in the allowable annual cuts for each area. The TSR process is designed to stimulate public comment through the release of reports and discussion papers, and to accommodate new information, techniques and ideas. It is designed to ensure that current harvest rates and practices ensure long-term sustainable yield of our forests, while taking into account social and economic consequences of declining harvests. TSRs will be conducted for each area every five years.


vol1 05


Table of contents

The Provincial Land Use Charter

The full text of the Land Use Charter is found in Appendix 2. The following is a discussion of the major elements of the Charter.

The Provincial Commitment

The Charter begins by stating a "Provincial Commitment" to protecting the environment and securing a sound and prosperous economy for present and future generations. This statement does two very important things:

1. It recognizes that a healthy environment and a healthy economy are inextricably linked. As Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Brundtland has stated: "The 'environment' is where we all live; and 'development' is what we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The two are inseparable." The challenge is to create development that enhances the health of both.

2. It recognizes the fundamental principle of intergenerational equity - that our decisions today must take into account the environmental and economic needs of future generations.

Sustainable Environment Principles

The Charter recognizes that a healthy environment is the foundation upon which a sound economy and society depend. It states a fundamental commitment to maintain the life-supporting capacity of land, air, water and ecosystems, and to conserve biological diversity.

The Charter articulates the Precautionary Principle - that we should attempt to anticipate and prevent adverse environmental impacts. In doing so, we should recognize our incomplete knowledge of nature, and therefore exercise caution and special concern for natural values.








vol1 05

The Charter also articulates the principle of full-cost accounting. In the past, decisions were sometimes made based only on an accounting of short-term financial returns, without taking into account the environmental (and long-term economic and social) impacts of the decision. Environmental and social costs of decisions were considered "externalities" that were not crucial to decision making. The Charter states that environmental and social costs should be accounted for, whenever we make land and resource decisions.

The Charter also recognizes that British Columbia has a global environmental responsibility. This means that we must make our land use decisions in the global context. We should be aware that decisions we make can have implications in other parts of the world. If we reduce production of resources, that may encourage unsustainable production in other parts of the world. On the other hand, if our production affects globally significant environmental features, that too, should be considered in a global context.

Of course, reducing our consumption to sustainable levels is also part of global responsibility.

The Charter recognizes that nature is to be respected for its own sake, not just for its utility to humans. Human use and enjoyment of nature is important, but aside from that, nature is inherently, intrinsically important and valuable.

Sustainable Economy Principles

A sustainable economy is one that can be sustained indefinitely. The Charter states that the Province will maintain a dynamic and competitive economy that will maintain options for future land and resource uses.

A sustainable economy is one that increases the benefits derived from a given stock of resources. As the B.C. Round Table put it: "We need a new economic ethic of making better use of what we have." The Charter commits the Province to encourage this kind of optimization of benefits.

The Charter states that the Province will encourage development that reduces waste and makes efficient use of resources. B.C. Hydro's Power Smart Program is an excellent example of how we can reduce consumption of natural assets while increasing human benefits. The thousands of companies worldwide who have adopted "Pollution Prevention Pays" programs - where "wastes" are recaptured and utilized as resources - provide other examples. Numerous British Columbia entrepreneurs who are making more efficient use of materials, and reducing wastage, are already putting this principle to work."

The Charter also calls for matching land uses with the inherent capability of the land. In the past, inappropriate lands uses have sometimes degraded soil and water, undermining the long-term economic and environmental viability of an area. If we want to optimize the long-term use of such areas, we will have to consider the inherent capability (or inability) of the land and water to sustain certain uses.

A sustainable economy will consider the needs of future generations for resources. As the Brundtland Commission pointed out, society must avoid borrowing environmental "capital" from future generations, and start to live off of the "interest" that natural resources produce. The Charter states that renewable resources will have to be managed for long-term sustainable use. In addition, the use of non-renewable resources must avoid their exhaustion, and address the needs of future generations.


vol1 05

The Charter supports the proposition that we should make it profitable for enterprises to operate sustainably - it states that economic instruments should be use to develop environmentally sound economic activities.

One of the hardest things for business to cope with is uncertainty. It is difficult to make long-term investments and business decisions when things are uncertain. The Charter recognizes that the Province can make a big contribution to economic prosperity by establishing a regulatory framework (including planning) which promotes stability and predictability.

Social Sustainability Principles

The Charter recognizes that the concerns of individuals and communities must be respected as environmental and economic needs are balanced.

The Charter also recognizes that land and resource decisions must be fair. A critical part of fairness is to ensure that the costs and benefits of land use decisions should be fairly distributed. For example, if urban British Columbians want an expanded park system, they cannot expect rural British Columbians to bear a disproportionate economic burden as a result of new parks being established. All British Columbians will have to assist those adversely affected.

The Charter states a provincial commitment to social stability, and to economic and social measures to address the economic effects of land use decisions.

The Charter commits the Province to fostering opportunities to earn a living; to obtain education and training; to access social, cultural and recreational services; and to enjoy a quality environment.

Decision Making Principles

The Charter calls for decision-making processes to be neutrally administered and open to the participation of all interests. The processes are to promote decision-making through the building of consensus among diverse perspectives and stakeholders.

The processes are also to be:

● Comprehensive and integrated;● Fair, providing for full access to information and for administrative fairness;● Efficient and effective;● Accountable;● Enforceable;● Adaptive and flexible, to respond to changing information and social preferences;● Respectful, encouraging respect for diverse values.

Aboriginal Peoples


vol1 05

The Charter recognizes Aboriginal title and the inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples to self-government.

Shared Responsibility

Finally, the Charter recognizes that government cannot achieve a sustainable society by itself. In fact, sustainability of land use will only occur when it becomes a way of business for industry, and a way of life for individuals. The Charter recognizes that achieving a sustainable society is everyone's responsibility - from individuals, business, and non-government organizations, to all levels of government, Aboriginal peoples, and the global community. It goes on to encourage independent and cooperative initiatives of all concerned, to achieve sustainable land use.

Interagency Coordination

Interagency coordination is being facilitated through the recently established provincial Resource Management Division (RMD) and integrating committees such as the Inter-ministry Policy Committee (IMPC), the Integrated Resource Planning Committee (IRPC), and regional Inter-agency Management Committees (IAMCs). Collection of resource inventory information is being coordinated through the Resources Inventory Committee(RIC) and the Corporate Resources Inventory Initiative (CRII).

Resource Management Division

RMD has been established to facilitate interagency coordination with respect to provincial land use policy development, land use planning, and the implementation and monitoring of land use plans. This office provides direction and support for the provincial Resources Inventory Committee, which is responsible for establishing common standards and conventions for the collection of natural resource/land use inventories; as well as for the Corporate Resources Inventory Initiative, which is the inter-agency program to collect, store and distribute inventory information for the full range of natural resource inventories. Working with RMD on the implementation of regional land use plans is a boundary refinement task force headed by a deputy minister. RMD also provides overall coordination services for the IMPC, IRPC and IAMCs, described below.

Inter-Ministry Policy Committee

The IMPC, which has representation from 20 different agencies of government and CORE, is further developing proposed cross-ministry policies and sustainability indicators to implement the proposed provincial land use Goals. It is intended that these cross-ministry policies will provide:

● government policies and plans that are integrated, making a contribution to the stated sustainability goals

● strong, clear and coordinated land use policy to direct the development of land use plans and government programs

● a basis for reexamining current government policies, as well as guidance for future policy development.

Integrated Resource Planning Committee


vol1 05

The IRPC comprises representatives of provincial and federal natural resource agencies and has developed the subregional Land and Resource Management Planning process and related planning tools to enable comprehensive subregional planning and plan implementation.

Inter-Agency Management Committees

IAMCs exist in each of the province's regions to promote cross-ministry coordination. They are responsible for facilitating implementation of the provincial protected area strategy, oversight of land and resource management planning processes, and communication with other orders of government respecting land use and environmental management issues.

Participatory Planning

Participatory planning, with the support of provincial direction and interagency coordination, has led to the preparation of CORE regional land use plans and interagency Land and Resource Management Plans. In addition, community resource boards are starting to provide expanded opportunities for public participation in decision-making at the local level. These and other land use planning initiatives are:

● contributing to the completion of the Protected Areas Strategy, with the creation of such internationally significant parks as the Tatshenshini/Alsek, the Cariboo Mountains, the Kitlope, Ts'yl-os, Walbran and Upper Carmanah

● establishing special management (low-intensity resource management) areas, and● establishing areas dedicated to intensive resource development.

Land Use Plans

Land use planning provides an opportunity to achieve a sustainable balance of broad social, economic and environmental interests. It addresses the need to bring certainty and stability to resource management, to respond to changing social values with respect to resource use, to reconcile an ever-increasing demand for a limited supply of resources and to provide strategic direction and coordination across a full spectrum of resource interests.

Due to the high level of conflict over land use in many parts of British Columbia, CORE was asked by cabinet to in 1992 to begin regional land use planning processes in four major regions of the province (Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, East Kootenay and West Kootenay - Boundary). These regional processes have delivered strategic plans to resolve long-standing land use conflicts in the province. In addition to the CORE regional plans, strategic plans are being developed through land and resource management planning (LRMP) processes in 12 subregions of the province. These are being led by inter-ministerial planning teams supported by consensus-seeking, public participation processes. Together, the four CORE regional plans and the 12 LRMPs cover over 50 percent of the provincial land base (see Figure 3) and a significant portion of the areas of resource and environmental conflict.

These strategic plans draw on provincial principles (Charter), goals and strategic policies; the needs, ideas and information provided by the widest possible range of local and regional sectors of interest; and technical


vol1 05

data and expertise provided by provincial agency officials in the region. Major elements of strategic land use plans are a land use designation system mapping areas of different intensity of use including protected, special management, general management, intensive use and settlement areas; management objectives for each area; policy direction on economic transition and development, plan implementation and monitoring; and priority direction for local planning.

Community Resource Boards and Local Round Tables

Many communities through out the province have established resource boards or round tables to advise on resource management and environmental issues. The government's land use plan for Vancouver Island included the commitment to establish four community resource boards, and these are in the process of being formed. In addition, CORE has conducted community participation pilot projects in the Anahim Lake area and the Slocan Valley, and is participating, at the request of the regional IAMC, in an advisory and monitoring role at the Robson Valley Round Table, which is developing a Land and Resource Management Plan. The CORE Anahim Round Table, comprising all levels of government, the Ulkatcho First Nation and the full range of local interest groups, has recently completed a consensus land use plan for 650,000 hectares of the West Chilcotin. All of these efforts are aimed at more effective community participation in resource management decisions. CORE is publishing, as Volume 3 of this provincial land use strategy, a report that draws on these and other experiences to make recommendations and suggest guidelines for participation at the community level.(3)

Figure 3 - Strategic Land Use Plans in British Columbia

Independent Oversight

A fundamental safeguard in our society is that there be independent oversight of the fairness and effectiveness of government administration. This is reflected in the establishment of such offices as the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and special purpose commissions of inquiry. In the highly sensitive area of land use and resource and environmental management, such independent oversight is necessary to create the required level of public confidence.

CORE was given specific statutory powers of public inquiry and reporting which equip it to play this role when required and after internal review processes have been exhausted. It also has the duty to advise government in a public and independent manner on land use and related resource and environmental issues and on the need for legislation, policies and practices respecting these issues. Sustainability indicators, currently being developed by the government to measure progress towards sustainability goals over time, will facilitate the monitoring and oversight function.



vol1 05

Dispute Resolution

B.C.'s land use and related resource and environmental dispute resolution system is evolving from an assortment of limited participation, uncoordinated review and narrow appeal mechanisms towards a more integrated set of preventative and adjudicative dispute resolution tools.

The participatory planning and inter-agency coordination initiatives described above will play an increasingly strategic role in preventing land use disputes. These initiatives will ensure more fully informed and balanced decisions. Better decisions will mean fewer disputes regarding the interpretation and implementation of decisions.

New and proposed legislation creating review and appeal opportunities demonstrates both change and the need for more progress towards simple, consistent and accessible review and appeal processes. The new Forest Practices Code establishes a Forest Practices Board to perform independent audits of forestry operations, investigate public complaints and launch appeals to a Forest Appeals Commission on the public's behalf. An Environmental Assessment Board, created under the Environmental Assessment Act, will consider proposals for major mining, construction and other projects. And the role of the Environmental Appeal Board, which hears formal appeals from persons affected by administrative decisions related to wildlife, water and waste management and pesticide use, is being expanded under the proposed Environmental Protection Act.

Confusing procedural inconsistencies and gaps that still exist throughout the review and appeal system need to be addressed. In keeping with its statutory responsibility to advise on the development of a dispute resolution system for land and related resource and environmental issues in B.C., CORE is publishing a report containing recommendations for such a system as part of this provincial land use strategy.(4)

Figure 4 - Public Participation

Public Participation

CORE's work in the development of the provincial land use strategy has been based on and integrated with a variety of government initiatives that have preceded CORE or have been developed in consultation with CORE. The recommendation for a comprehensive provincial land use strategy built around a Sustainability Act is the result of social consensus expressed through years of direct public participation in the sustainability debate. The Pearse Commission, Wilderness Advisory Committee, Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Forest Resources Commission, Dunsmuir II, Old Growth Strategy and Parks and Wilderness for the 90s were all highly dependent on widespread public consultation. National high-level, multi-party



vol1 05

negotiations have led to a National Forest Accord and the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. International commissions and agreements such as the Brundtland report(5) and the Rio Accords(6) have stressed the importance of global participation in addressing the issues of sustainability.

The provincial land use strategy touches on all aspects of our life in this province and our relationship to the global environment, community and economy. In this context, developing the strategy requires a series of essential steps:

● identifying values of importance to British Columbians and describing a vision of a future in which those values will be met

● describing and integrating the specific goals that need to be met for the vision to be realized over time● setting strategic policies that indicate priorities in achieving those goals● linking these policies with local knowledge and interest, provided through effective public

participation, in order to develop both strategic (broadly based) regional and detailed local land use and resource management plans

● creating an efficient and dynamic system in which the administration of lands and resources is effectively supported by up-to-date and comprehensive technical information, meaningful public participation, accountability for decisions, coordination of government initiatives, independent monitoring, and accessible and effective dispute resolution mechanisms.

Each of these steps has been undertaken or is in progress and has involved extensive public consultation.

The CORE land use planning processes and the inter-agency Land and Resource Management Planning processes are among the most highly participatory that have ever taken place in this province. The CORE regional processes used highly participatory "shared decision-making" methods to advise government on balanced, sustainable strategic plans and policies. The provincial government negotiated directly with representatives of the widest possible range of interests, including labour, mining, forestry, fishing, tourism, agriculture, outdoor recreation, rural communities, conservation, youth and other sectors.

After dozens of CORE community and sector organizing meetings in each area, the negotiating tables spent up to 18 months of intensive discussion and negotiation, at tempting to blend provincial policy and technical data with varied local interests, information and ideas. The tables were supported by teams of technical experts from a range of government agencies. Based on the work of these tables, CORE then prepared detailed plans for public and government consideration, leading to final decisions by cabinet.

At a more local level, CORE's pilot projects tested consensus-based processes, in order to formulate guidelines to facilitate meaningful public participation in future local resource management planning processes. As in the regional processes, a broad range of interests were represented in the shared decision-making processes.

The Land Use Charter of environmental, economic and social sustainable principles, published by CORE in July 1992 and consolidating the findings of international, national and provincial initiatives and reports, received widespread public acceptance in B.C. through public distribution and response, and approval by various CORE regional and local participatory planning processes. This led to the Charter's adoption in principle by the provincial government in June 1993.


vol1 05

To develop the proposed set of integrated land use Goals, CORE brought together representatives of 11 government ministries for a lengthy series of meetings on drafting and integrating the proposed Goals. CORE also convened a Provincial Advisory Forum of 70 representatives from labour, business, federal, provincial and local governments, environmental groups, the aboriginal community, universities, recreational organizations and community groups for intensive work-shops to debate and refine the goals. A Goals Workbook was developed for wide public distribution and comment, and open houses were hosted in 10 communities throughout the province to receive advice from the public before the Goals were finalized.

Provincial Advisory Forum Workshops and public discussion papers were also used over a one and a half year period to obtain advice on desirable improvements of the provincial planning delivery system. All of these processes are reflected in this report.

In addition, CORE has worked directly with a number of local citizen groups concerned with sustainability issues. CORE co-sponsored a provincial workshop and public report7 on local round tables in May 1994 to obtain suggestions for a common framework for community resource boards which could provide local advice and oversight for land use planning and resource and environmental management on an ongoing basis.

Recent legislative initiatives in B.C. regarding forest practices, forest renewal, environmental impact assessments, and new park designations have all been developed with extensive public participation.

These many public participation initiatives, summarized in Figure 4, have provided essential information in the development of the provincial land use strategy.

The Coming Challenge

Of fundamental importance to our strategy to achieve environmental, social and economic sustainability is the realization that we are experiencing rapid change. There simply is no permanence (we can either manage the change towards sustainability or we can continue to lose jobs, environmental options, community stability, business confidence and quality of life). To choose the course of a sustainable future is to commit to a dynamic process guided by sustainability principles that will adapt our policies and plans to new circumstances, better information and experience.

Increased protection for wilderness and biodiversity, higher timber harvesting standards, greater investment in the productivity of the forest resource, economic diversity and adjustment of resource-based communities, and the just settlement of aboriginal claims are all underway in British Columbia in a determined and measurable way. A common public vision has been articulated, and provincial goals and strategic policies are being joined in highly participatory planning processes with local knowledge and initiative to manage our extraordinary resource and environment in a responsible, healthy and rewarding way. Together, these legislative policy and planning initiatives are providing a strong start towards the achievement of sustainability through the balancing of economic, environmental and social values. They represent a positive response to calls for action over the past decade, and are a major step forward in a much-needed coordination and integration of government efforts in land and resource management.

The momentum is well established, but the challenge is unlike any previously faced in the history of land and


vol1 05

resource management in B.C. It is of vital importance to build on these first steps and provide a stronger legal framework for sustainability, recognizing that the issue requires permanent attention and an effective and cost-efficient application and integration of government resources.

7. B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Local Round Tables, Realizing Their Full Potential (Victoria, 1994).


vol1


Table of contents

3 - A Sustainability Act - Consolidating the Progress

The Need for Legislation

During the past two years, considerable progress has been made in the development of the provincial land use strategy. A legislative foundation is now needed to ensure integration, continuity, and commitment in the ongoing development of the strategy and its five key components: provincial direction; participatory planning; government coordination; independent oversight; and dispute resolution . This legislation would define the governmental and public responsibilities required to ensure cooperation and efficiency in the achievement of economic, environmental and social sustainability.

Integration

Initiatives dedicated to the achievement of environmental, economic and social sustainability have been developing in B.C. for a number of years. These initiatives, described in detail in Chapter 2, are forward-looking, ambitious, and responsive to pressing concerns. Together, they are beginning to address in a comprehensive way the diverse needs of all British Columbians for a secure future. It is now important to fit the initiatives together with a framework that clearly confirms the overall direction towards sustainability.

A legislative framework for the provincial land use strategy would:

● Provide a legal foundation for the strategy's five essential components (provincial direction, participatory planning, governmental coordination, independent oversight, and dispute resolution). The Act would clearly demonstrate the relationship among these components and the relationship of current and future initiatives to each component.

● Facilitate coordination among government ministries and agencies in the development and implementation of land use initiatives. By providing a clear direction for all ministries and agencies,








vol1

the Act would ensure the efficient use of government staff and financial resources and consistency in the administration of provincial lands and resources.

● Ensure a balanced consideration of economic, environmental and social values in the administration of the provincial land use strategy.

Continuity

Sustainability is not a temporary issue. It will become increasingly important as population growth places increasing demands on a finite land base. Like the national debt, it is an issue that will require long-term vigilance and attention. Many of our current long-term resource problems result from the deviation by past governments from the path of sustainability because of short-term political and economic considerations.

Of course, we cannot assume that our current knowledge is sufficient to provide permanent solutions. The provincial land use strategy must evolve in response to changing needs and new information, yet adhere to the broad principles for sustainability set out in the Land Use Charter. Assurance that this will occur is strengthened if the principles are legislated.

The provincial land use strategy must provide the legislative tools with which to administer provincial lands and resources for economic, environmental and social sustainability. The strategy provides a general direction for that administration, based on the Charter sustainability principles, while giving the government the flexibility needed to create new policies and adjust existing ones according to the needs and knowledge of the day.

The components of the provincial land use strategy are designed to have permanent relevance in the achievement of sustainability. Enshrining of the strategy in legislation will ensure its long-term effectiveness. It is essential that the strategy itself be sustained if economic, environmental and social values in B.C. are to be sustained.

Commitment

Governments in British Columbia have expressed a commitment to sustainability in land and resource management since the early years of the century. For most of the century, that commitment was expressed primarily with regard to timber supply, which was the primary force in the province's rapid economic growth. In recent decades, concerns about sustainability have broadened to include other values, both economic and non-economic, as their importance to society has increased and the future has become less certain.

The history of sustainability, until recent years, is one of well-intentioned but inadequate initiatives. This was due in part to insufficient scientific understanding, to increasing industrial efficiency in resource extraction techniques, and to a continuing public confidence in the apparent abundance of the province's natural wealth.

The continuing failure to act effectively to ensure sustainability was recognized in the case of timber supply by a series of royal commissions spanning several decades, and in recent years has been recognized to be true for other values as well. We are now in a better position to plan for sustainability as a result of increased understanding of ecological and economic relationships and of better ways to coordinate government and public involvement in planning. Nevertheless, we must remain mindful of the lesson of history: that policies


vol1

alone are of limited value without firm and continuing resolve and effective mechanisms to deliver and improve them. A Sustainability Act would demonstrate the commitment of the Province to maintain a clear focus on sustainability and to continue to ensure that government policies and actions are directed to that important end.

A legislative commitment to sustainability would also demonstrate strong leadership to other parts of Canada and to the world. As the Brundtland report and world responses to it made clear, sustainability is an international priority. British Columbia's strong resource economy, its rich diversity of biophysical attributes and its lengthy history of innovative approaches to land and resource management create both the opportunity and the responsibility to take a strong stand on an issue that will continue to take on increasing importance throughout the world. A Sustainability Act would be a useful model for other jurisdictions that are already viewing B.C.'s provincial land use strategy with interest and looking to the province for leadership.

Figure 5 - Sustainability ActConsolidating the Progress/Securing the Future Direction

Recommendation

1. That the Province enact a Sustainability Act as an essential part of its provincial land use strategy to

● place in plain statutory language the province's vision of environmental, social and economic sustainability and its commitment to participatory decision-making; and

● provide a legal framework for stable and balanced land use management and an orderly response to complex and changing demands.

The proposed structure of the Sustainability Act and of the provincial land use strategy to which it gives legal effect is portrayed in Figure 5.



vol1


Table of contents


Principles

General principles for economic, environmental and social sustainability are needed to provide a clear direction for all government initiatives directed towards achieving sustainability.

Through extensive public consultation CORE has developed a Land Use Charter and provincial land use goals that define a common vision for a sustainable future. The Charter, published by CORE in 1992, articulates the principles needed to achieve environmental, economic and social sustainability, including open and fair decision-making and recognition of aboriginal rights. These principles are designed to be sufficiently general that they will remain relevant, and continue to be acceptable to all British Columbians, long into the future.

The Charter draws on the work of the Brundtland Commission, the British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Forest Resources Commission, the Old Growth Strategy, Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, Canada's Green Plan and other provincial, national and international public consultation processes and reports. It has received wide support on all sides of the sustainability debate. This led to the Charter's adoption in principle by the provincial government in June 1993.

The Charter forms the philosophical heart of the Sustainability Act. It expresses a vision of a sustainable society where we aim for a healthy environment, a sound economy and for social well-being. It also expresses our commitment to fairness for future generations. The Charter is included in this report as Appendix 2.

The principles of the Charter are broadly accepted by British Columbians. It has been accepted by








vol1

multisectoral round tables, and has been supported by all sides of the sustainability debate. Having adopted the Charter in principle, the government should demonstrate a firm commitment by including it in the Preamble to a Sustainability Act. While this would not create legal rights in itself, it would state the general purposes of the Act, in light of which all other sections would be read.

Recommendation

1. That the provincial Land Use Charter be incorporated into the Sustainability Act to describe the general statutory purposes.

Goals

Jurisdictions that embark upon jurisdiction-wide land use planning typically commence by defining what their land use goals are, and embedding those goals in statute or regulations. In January 1994, in a report entitled Finding Common Ground: A Shared Vision for Land Use in British Columbia, CORE recommended that the provincial government adopt a set of 45 integrated provincial land use goals. The goals summarize the "desired end states" that land use decisions should aim for with regard to resource lands, human settlement, protected areas, coastal and marine areas, transportation, energy, sustainable economic development, sustainable environment, outdoor recreation, cultural heritage and aboriginal peoples.

These goals are included in this report as Appendix 3. A broadly based interministry committee is currently refining both the goals and strategic policies to support the goals.

Land use goals describe the specific benefits and results that we as a society hope to achieve with regard to the environment, the economy and quality of life. Clearly stated province-wide goals can:

● Help ensure that the changing goals of society are properly reflected throughout the planning system;● Define what a land use strategy must accomplish, providing direction and organizing focus for the

rest of the strategy;● Provide common objectives for all land use agencies, thus focusing resources and energy and helping

make the decisions of different agencies more consistent with each other. And common goals should help government identify opportunities for integrating the efforts of various arms and levels of government;

● Make the land use decision-making process more transparent by helping everyone know what the "rules of the game" are. This should make land use decisions more efficient and predictable.

● Serve as a measuring stick to determine whether our land use system is actually accomplishing what society wants; and

● Help reduce localized land use conflicts between groups with different values, by commencing the important process of balancing environmental, economic and social objectives. Provincial goals that properly recognize and integrate these diverse objectives will set a general direction for a provincial land use system that accommodates all such objectives, on a province wide basis.


vol1

While difficult choices will still have to be made between conflicting goals and values, general agreement on broad sustainability goals can assist land use decision making. A set of goals can clarify the range of values to be satisfied; identify potential compatibilities; and stimulate consideration of provincial environmental, social, and economic needs whenever land use decisions are made.

The Sustainability Act should empower cabinet to give formal regulatory status to provincial goals, as they are fully developed and approved. These goals will assist in giving effect to the Charter principles, in balancing and integrating the objectives of provincial ministries, and in signalling the provincial interest and objectives to local government to assist them in their planning functions.

The legislated goals would:

● provide a clear indication of provincial interests● give direction to ministries in the development of strategic land use policies● provide guidance and increase efficiency for planning processes● provide a clear basis for review of government sustainability initiatives.

Through this direction, the goals would help eliminate the waste and dysfunction caused by duplication, conflict or gaps among the various legislation, policies, programs and other initiatives of the many agencies of government.

The goals should be supported by a set of strategic policies which would detail how government would achieve the desired end points defined by the goals. Such policies would direct how land and resources should be planned and managed, providing more specific guidance to land use decision makers. The strategic policies would be integrated, interministerial, and designed to meet the goals of sustainability. CORE has worked closely with an Interministry Policy Committee involving 20 government agencies in developing a draft set of such comprehensive strategic policies. (See Coordination and Integration, below.)

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to approve integrated land use goals and policies to● give effect to the principles of the Land Use Charter● direct ministries in the development and administration of strategic land use policies and

plans● signal the provincial interest in the land use planning function of local government.

Participatory Planning

Strategic Land Use Plans

Planning at a regional scale provides an opportunity to achieve a sustainable balance of broad social, economic and environmental interests. It addresses the need to bring certainty and stability to resource


vol1

management, to respond to changing social values with respect to resource use, to reconcile an ever-increasing demand for a limited supply of resources and to provide strategic direction and coordination across a full spectrum of resource interests.

CORE's regional planning initiatives have involved government, industry, communities and a range of non-government interests in structured, collaborative negotiations mediated by a neutral third party. The objective of each regional negotiation is to develop a set of consensus-based recommendations regarding the allocation of the regional land base to appropriate zones, the transition and mitigation strategies necessary to assist those affected by reallocation, and implementation and monitoring requirements.

These regional-scale strategic plans draw on provincial principles (Charter), goals and strategic policies; the needs, ideas and information provided by the widest possible range of local and regional sectors of interest; and technical data and expertise provided by provincial agency officials in the region. Major elements of strategic plans are a land use designation system mapping areas of different intensity of use including protected, special management, general management, intensive use and settlement areas; management objectives for each area; policy direction on economic transition and development, plan implementation and monitoring; and priority direction for local planning.

In addition to the CORE regional plans, strategic plans are also being developed through land and resource management planning (LRMP) processes in 12 subregions of the province. These are being led by inter-ministerial planning teams supported by consensus-based, public participation processes. Together, the four CORE regional strategic plans and the 12 LRMPs cover more than 50 percent of the land base of the province and a very significant portion of the key areas of resource and environmental conflict.

These land use planning initiatives have demonstrated that comprehensive plans can increase the certainty of all values and reduce localized conflicts while also providing critical direction to future management decisions. The completion of strategic land use plans for the entire province will significantly advance the development of the provincial land use strategy.(1)

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act require that strategic land use plans be prepared for all areas of the province

● apply provincial strategic policies in the context of local interests and circumstances so as to ensure a reasonable balance of social, environmental and economic interests

● designate zones of different intensity of use and establish management objectives for each zone

● provide direction on economic transition and implementation related to the plan● advise on priorities for local and operational resource planning.

Accountability and Consistency in Strategic Planning


vol1

Approval of strategic plans is a policy decision of cabinet. This is appropriate as it ensures political accountability. It is important that strategic plans also be given legal status so that the map designations and management objectives can be effectively implemented, monitored and enforced. A major feature of strategic plans is that they help to end the conflict in our society by bringing certainty to land use and related resource and environmental management so that, as a society, we can be satisfied that the full range of values is being respected and that we can proceed with confidence towards balanced economic, environmental and social sustainability. Providing a legal status to strategic plans is of major importance in providing this security.

The Sustainability Act should provide cabinet with the authority to approve strategic plans and give a legal status to the map designations and management objectives. The Act should also enable cabinet to approve a standardized land use designation system and management objectives. This will promote consistency and certainty as strategic plans are developed throughout the province based on regional and local interests and information. Once approved, plans should be filed in a registry, with public access at a regional office.

Because a strategic plan is approved as a matter of policy by cabinet, it would not be appealable. However, once a plan has been given legal status, the administration of the plan should be appealable on limited grounds discussed in the Dispute Resolution section, below. Amendment of a strategic plan would also be the responsibility of cabinet, which would be given the legal authority to review, revise, and rescind part or all of any strategic plan, with the appropriate level of further public participation.

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to● approve strategic land use plans in order to give legal status to designated zones and

management objectives, and cause the plans to be filed and available to the public in regional registries

● approve a standardized strategic land use designation system and management objectives.

Accommodation of Local and Aboriginal Interests

Local Resource Plans

Local and operational resource planning currently occurs through a wide range of local processes and administrative decisions, usually involving some sort of public participation. The Sustainability Act should require that local resource plans and operational plans take direction from regional strategic plans with respect to designation, management guidelines and priority direction, consistent with the requirements of the Forest Practices Code.

Approval of local resource plans should be delegated by the Sustainability Act to Inter-agency Management Committees (IAMCs), which comprise regional managers of various ministries in each region. In case of IAMC impasse, an interministerial coordination agency (presently the Resource Management Division) should attempt to resolve the issue and, if this is not possible, refer the matter to cabinet for resolution.


vol1

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act require that● local resource and operational plans be consistent with strategic land use plans● local resource plans be approved by regional Inter-agency Management Committees

(IAMCs), with referral to cabinet for decision in cases of impasse.

Local Government Plans

A comprehensive provincial land use strategy must ensure that there is an effective relationship between resource planning and settlement planning. For example, resource management of community watersheds on public or private land will have a major impact on water quality, quantity and rate of flow in settlement areas. Likewise, urban growth into resource lands will have an impact on the sustainable use of renewable resources such as agriculture, fisheries and forest harvesting.

Related to this, as discussed in the September 1994 discussion paper on growth strategies by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,(2) is the issue of responsible growth management to ensure a sustainable urban quality of life. It is clear that greater attention must be paid to growth management in high growth regions in the province, and that this must be done on a partnership basis to reflect local, regional and provincial interests.

More effective mechanisms are needed to encourage or require municipal governments to plan together, to ensure efficient and sustainable development of transportation, sewage, water, green spaces and other needs. Regional districts have not had the authority to undertake regional planning for urban growth management since 1983, and this should be restored, in partnership with municipal governments.

Coordination with provincial interests would be assisted by greater provincial support to local planning by reviving "technical planning committees" (TPCs) of provincial and local officials to bring a range of perspectives and contributions from the various local governments and provincial ministries that have direct statutory interests and responsibilities. Provincial participation on TPCs should be coordinated through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

While the responsibility and authority for settlement/private land planning should remain with local government, the regional growth management plans prepared under regional district direction should also be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs against provincial goals and policies to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Sustainability Act, to give legal status to the plans, and to ensure provincial government commitment to cooperate in areas where it is legally and financially involved such as in transportation, environmental protection and waste management.


vol1

Recommendation

1. That the provincial land use strategy promote the effective coordination between provincial government resource planning and local government settlement planning, and among local, regional and provincial interests, by

● encouraging direct participation in strategic land use and local resource planning by local government representatives

● restoring regional district authority to undertake regional growth-management planning, in partnership with other local governments, First Nations, third-party interests and the provincial government

● re-establishing technical planning committees in order to demonstrate the Provincial commitment to regional growth-management planning, and

● providing for statutory approval of regional growth-management plans by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to ensure conformity with provincial goals and strategic policies, to facilitate commitment of provincial agencies, and to assist integration and mediation of differences among local, regional and provincial interests.

Aboriginal Rights

Aboriginal rights in British Columbia have been recognized by the federal and provincial governments and the courts, and the B.C. Treaty Commission has been established to oversee negotiations of treaties with First Nations in British Columbia so as to define the nature of these rights and, in particular, the economic rights related to traditional lands and the self-government implications for resource and environmental management. This situation creates both the opportunity for correcting an historical injustice and the challenge of relating aboriginal rights to ongoing land use decision-making and the attainment of broad social, economic and environmental sustainability.

The Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act requires that the commissioner

● encourage the participation of aboriginal people in all CORE processes that might affect them● maintain strong links with negotiations on aboriginal treaties, and● ensure that CORE's work and the participation of aboriginal peoples in it is without prejudice to their

aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations.

CORE has reported publicly on the barriers to effective aboriginal participation in its processes.(3) These include inadequate resources and readiness, the fear of prejudice to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations, difficulties in representation of some First Nations by others, and a desire to deal "government-to-government". In particular, First Nations are concerned that land use decisions taken by the provincial government prior to treaty negotiations will prejudice treaties by establishing inflexible public expectations and government bargaining positions around decisions already taken; and that participation in these decisions by aboriginal people will limit their flexibility in treaty negotiations. However, land use decisions have been and continue to be made with or without strategic planning and public and aboriginal participation. In this sense, there is ongoing potential prejudice which will continue until treaties are finally settled (which at the


vol1

earliest will still be many years away). The most effective way to ensure against prejudice in the interim is to encourage the maximum sharing of information about the interests of first nations, federal, provincial and local governments, the general public and third parties as we proceed.

In a March 26, 1993 Open Letter to First Nations in B.C., the provincial government stated:

Jurisdiction and ownership to be discussed during treaty negotiations will not be limited by land use planning designations occurring in the province. In other words, the use, ownership of the land, and the jurisdiction to manage the lands in question may change as a result of negotiating treaties.

This being said, it is important to the interests of all British Columbians that the Sustainability Act clearly set out the relationship between land use planning and related resource and environmental management on the one hand, and aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations on the other. This will ensure, as much as possible, against prejudice to aboriginal rights during planning processes, and will facilitate public understanding of aboriginal interests thereby reducing the suspicion and uncertainty that otherwise might accompany treaty negotiations.

Recommendation

1. That the provincial land use strategy ensure● the right of participation of First Nations in strategic land use and local resource planning

processes● access by First Nations to resource information and analysis during and after planning

processes● consultations with First Nations prior to formal approval of plans by cabinet in order to

identify potential prejudice to aboriginal rights or treaty negotiations and to seek interim agreements where necessary

● full public disclosure of the details of any interim agreements● that cabinet-approved plans express the provincial interest without limiting the provincial

bargaining position in treaty negotiations.

Public Participation in Planning

In recent years, the public has demanded a more direct role in the development of public policy and in government decision-making that has a significant effect on their fundamental interests. This is particularly so in issues related to social, environmental and economic sustainability, and it is not likely that this demand will lessen in the future. Indeed, a key element of achieving sustainability is the balance that can only be achieved through the direct and meaningful participation of the full range of public interests in the making of important decisions.

While different public interests (for example, those of industry and conservation) may appear to vary widely and to conflict in some cases, their needs are more interdependent than is often appreciated. Without


vol1

significant conservation, for example, the long-term prospects of industry are bleak; and the benefits of conservation (such as wilderness recreation experiences) may be restricted in a society with a poor economy. This demonstrates why it is so important that all public interests be strongly represented in planning. Public participation contributes to sustainability, and sustainability in turn produces stable plans that minimize conflict because they accommodate the needs of all interests.

Public participation includes a spectrum of activities from public consultation and reporting, to open houses and town hall meetings, to intensive multi-party public negotiations. It does not involve a formal change in government's legal authority or responsibility to make decisions.

Even shared decision-making processes, in which public interests and government negotiate as equals in search of decisions that most fully meet the general public interest, are advisory insofar as government, either directly through elective representatives or indirectly through legal delegation to officials, holds the statutory authority to make decisions for the public good. And public participation does not mean that all interests must always reach consensus for the process to be a success. Rather, effective and meaningful public participation provides the opportunity for the final decision to be as well informed, balanced and stable as possible through the involvement of all those who are most interested in, knowledgeable about and affected by the outcome.

A wide range of consultation processes have led to the creation of the Charter and goals, the provincial strategic policies, the CORE regional land use plans, and this report's recommendations for consolidating the provincial land use strategy in a Sustainability Act. To ensure that this level of consultation continues, the Sustainability Act should state the general right of the public to participate meaningfully in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making. Where such a decision may have a significant impact on a person's interests, the fair administration of the provincial land use strategy should ensure public access to relevant information, notice, and the right to be heard and receive reasons for decisions.

The appropriate public participation model should be selected on a flexible basis depending on such criteria as the social, economic and environmental impact of the decision; the number of interests affected; and the degree of public interest.

The Sustainability Act should also empower cabinet to approve a public participation Code of Conduct as a Schedule to the Act, to serve as a self-regulating constraint on those wishing to share in public decision-making and to encourage accountability for such responsibilities as:

● participating in the process in good faith with the intent of reaching agreement● conducting themselves in a respectful, responsive and sincere manner to other participants● reporting back to their group/caucus and constituency on matters of information, progress, guidance

and agreement● contributing to a sustainable solution for the benefit of the broader community.

In addition, the CORE Act states that "The commissioner shall facilitate the development and implementation, and shall monitor the operation, of community-based participatory processes to consider land use and related resource and environmental management issues."(4) This mandate recognizes the fundamental importance of a decentralized component to local decision-making, to blend with the more top-down development of provincial policy.


vol1

CORE has developed a set of framework ideas for community resource boards based on its statutory mandate and its experience with community-based pilot projects in the West Chilcotin (Anahim Round Table) and the Slocan Valley (Slocan Round Table) over the past two years, and on consultations and workshops with a wide variety of local round tables and similar processes throughout the province.

In addition, the CORE regional processes and resulting plans have indicated the strong need and demand for community resource boards to oversee the implementation of approved regional plans; to participate in the development and implementation of local resource plans; and provide advice on a variety of local issues. Community resource boards could also act as the local partner for the Forest Renewal B.C. Board, oversee the operation of a community forest licence, provide advice, where sought, to local government in the development of official community plans and potential regional growth management plans; and generally assist local governments in obtaining public participation and feedback on a wide range of local initiatives related to achieving balanced economic, social and environmental sustainability.

The Sustainability Act should require provincial government encouragement and administrative support for community resource boards, including reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. While the basic framework should provide that community resource boards be voluntary, inclusive of all parties with a significant interest, accountable, purpose driven, advisory and consensus-seeking, there should also be maximum flexibility in process design, purpose, geographic scale and specific tasks in order to meet local interests and conditions properly.(5)

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act state the general right of members of the public to participate meaningfully in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making. Where such a decision may have a significant impact on a person's interests, the provincial land use strategy, as a matter of fair administration, should ensure the right of public access to relevant information, notice, a fair hearing and reasons for decisions.

2. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to approve a public participation Code of Conduct as a Schedule to the Act to serve as a self-regulating set of responsibilities expected of participants in public decision-making processes.

3. That the provincial land use strategy● require provincial government encouragement and administrative support for community

resource boards to participate in the development and oversee the implementation of strategic land use plans and local resource plans and to provide advice on a variety of local economic, social and environmental issues

● provide that community resource boards be voluntary, inclusive of all parties with a significant interest, accountable to the community, purpose-driven, advisory to government and consensus-seeking.

Coordination and Integration


vol1

Just as an integrated set of goals is required to ensure that all provincial government agencies and local governments are similarly motivated towards achieving social, economic and environmental sustainability through their wide range of mandates, it is necessary to provide effective and balanced inter-ministerial coordination in the approval, implementation, administration, review and amendment of strategic policies and plans related to sustainability.

Historically, many agencies were structured to provide support - and sometimes advocacy - for particular development sectors such as forestry, agriculture, mining, energy and transportation. Later, separate agencies were established to respond to environmental, tourism, recreational and social concerns. As a result, historically different agencies often planned independently, with different - and sometimes conflicting - mandates.

Adopting a common set of provincial land used goals will be a major step toward integrating the work of different government agencies. If ministries are to work together in a coordinated way to help build a sustainable society, it is necessary that all ministries share common sustainability goals.

In addition, agencies will also require a common set of more detailed strategic policies - a more detailed articulation of how government intends to accomplish the goals. Strategic land use policies detail how government will achieve the desired points defined by the goals. Such policies direct how land and resources should be planned and managed, providing more specific guidance to land use decision makers. The integrated strategic policies ensure that the policies of one ministry are consistent with and take into account the legitimate concerns of other ministries and other values.

In Finding Common Ground, published in January 1994, CORE recommended a set of draft strategic policies to support each of the goals, as well as sustainability indicators to help gauge over time whether progress is being made towards accomplishing the goals. In an important government initiative, CORE and some 20 different agencies of government have worked together on the Inter-ministry Policy Committee (IMPC) to further refine those strategic policies and indicators. Many of the critical components of a strategic policy set have already been established or are under development by government through such initiatives as the Protected Areas Strategy, Forest Practices Code, Environmental Assessment Act, B.C. Treaty Commission, Forest Renewal B.C., proposed Growth Strategies Act, and timber supply reviews, and air quality, waste management and fisheries management initiatives.

Over recent years, coordination among agencies has been enhanced substantially. The Protected Areas Strategy has involved numerous ministries working together, as have the CORE regional tables, the LRMP processes and others. Interagency Management Committees have provided multi-sectoral teams to deal with regional and subregional issues, and the Integrated Resource Planning Committee provides a similar coordinated approach for LRMP policies and procedures. The Resource Management Division has been set up to coordinate a variety of inter-ministry planning and inventory initiatives.

These interministry initiatives are crucial if we are to ensure, in accordance with the principles of sustainability, that all values are considered by decision makers. It is important to provide effective and balanced inter-ministerial coordination in the approval, implementation, administration, review and amendments of both strategic policies and of plans. Due to historical priorities, different ministries have vastly different resources and often apparently competing mandates. The interministry initiatives of recent


vol1

years are addressing this problem.

These interministry initiatives have carried on, for the most part, without legislative sanction. By providing statutory authorization for an interministry approach to planning, a Sustainability Act would formally encourage and strengthen the coordination and integration of government efforts that is essential for efficient and neutral administration of provincial lands and resources.

This can best be managed by an agency solely responsible for the coordination and integration of land and resource management ministries. This agency could take the form of a secretariat headed by a deputy minister and reporting directly to cabinet; a separate ministry; or an independent commission. The agency should have a statutory mandate to strengthen its role in policy direction and review, and to provide a clear indication of the importance attached to interministry coordination. The interministerial coordination role is currently handled by the Resource Management Division (RMD) without a statutory mandate.

Specific responsibilities of the statutory agency responsible for interministerial coordination should include the encouragement of strong interagency links and commitment to regional and local planning and administration of plans; providing a direct link from the regional and local level to cabinet to resolve impasses over interagency decisions developing and updating interministerial strategic policies and indicators; and reporting to cabinet on a regular basis on the progress towards the provincial commitment to social, economic and environmental sustainability.

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act empower cabinet to provide a legal mandate to a secretariat (headed by a deputy minister and reporting directly to cabinet), a separate ministry or an independent commission to ensure effective and balanced inter-ministerial coordination in the approval, implementation, administration, review and amendment of strategic land use policies and plans related to achieving sustainability.

Independent Oversight

CORE was created by statute in 1992 to provide, among other things, independent oversight and advice on the development and implementation of a provincial land use strategy, including regional strategic planning and community-based participatory processes. CORE has the statutory duty to "facilitate the development and implementation, and monitor the operation" of such plans and processes.

A fundamental safeguard in our society is that there be independent oversight of the fairness and effectiveness of government administration. This is reflected in such offices as the Auditor General, the Ombudsman and special purpose commissions of inquiry. In the highly sensitive area of land use and resource and environmental management, such independent oversight is also necessary to establish the required level of public confidence. CORE has specific statutory powers of public inquiry and reporting which equip it to play this role when required and after internal processes of review have been exhausted. It


vol1

also has the duty to advise government in a public and independent manner on land use and related resource and environmental issues and on the need for legislation, policies and practices respecting these issues.

"Oversight" is a broad term used to encompass investigations of a complaint after internal remedies have been exhausted; investigations of potential problems coming to the attention of the external agency and commenced on its own initiative; recommendations for systemic change as a result of the observation of the trend of problems over time; and perhaps spot audits to check administrative performance against stated responsibilities. Oversight does not mean the primary, ongoing or direct management of the resource or environmental issue, which remains properly within the public administration.

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act direct the Commission on Resources and Environment to exercise its statutory mandate to provide independent oversight, ongoing advice and public reports on the progress towards achieving the purposes of the Sustainability Act and the development and implementation of the provincial land use strategy.

Dispute Resolution

As part of CORE's mandate to develop a provincial land use strategy, section 4 (2) (c) of the CORE Act requires the commissioner to facilitate the development, implementation and monitoring of "a dispute resolution system for land use and related resource and environmental issues in British Columbia."(6) CORE recently conducted a detailed review of the range of issues relevant to dispute resolution set out with recommendations in Volume 4 of the provincial land use strategy.

The term "dispute resolution system" refers to a system which may involve a wide range of mechanisms including informal problem solving, mediation, internal reviews, and formal appeals to independent tribunals. In addition, intensive public participation in land use planning through shared decision-making processes is, in a sense, a preventative dispute resolution system.

Each component of the provincial land use strategy plays a vital dispute resolution role. Provincial direction balances diverse economic, environmental and social values. Interagency coordination is crucial in integrating all values in the decision-making process and ensuring implementation of decisions and plans. Participatory planning links those affected by public policy decisions to the decision-making process and, in its more intensive forms, provides an opportunity for direct participation and joint problem-solving. Traditional dispute resolution mechanisms (review and appeal) are intended to provide recourse to those affected by administrative decisions. And independent oversight maintains confidence in the decision-making system by monitoring compliance and enforcement.

Functioning in this way, each element contributes to more fully informed and balanced decisions that reduce the prospect of subsequent disputes. The "preventative" dispute resolution mechanisms must be integrated with the traditional mechanisms to complete the public dispute resolution system. The recommendations in


vol1

this report in support of fully integrated, meaningful public participation throughout the administrative decision-making process and interagency partnerships to facilitate multisectoral responses to sustainability issues will speed progress towards a more effective dispute resolution system.

On the traditional, adjudicative side of the dispute resolution system, there has been some change but not much progress towards simple and accessible review and appeal mechanisms. Fair and effective mechanisms to resolve interpretation and compliance disputes are crucial to ensuring public confidence in planning and resource management decisions. Our current system provides inadequate opportunity for dealing with disputes arising out of the implementation and administration of strategic land use plans and the specific resource plans and approvals that flow from them. In addition, existing review and appeal mechanisms are inconsistent, inadequate and difficult to access.

There is a need for simple and accessible review and appeal mechanisms to ensure efficient, consistent and comprehensive opportunities for persons whose lives are affected to seek effective recourse. Gaps in the review and appeal framework need to be filled.

The Sustainability Act should establish a land use appeal board. Since strategic plans are approved as a matter of policy by cabinet, they themselves would not be appealable. However, once a plan has been given legal status, the administration of the plan should be appealable with respect to the limited grounds of interpretation, implementation, enforcement and other technical details. Those persons who have a significant interest in the effective administration of the plan should have a right to have their concerns considered, first through internal administrative review and, if not resolved, then by an independent and specialized land use appeal board. The opportunity should also be provided for pre-hearing mediation to facilitate agreement or narrow the issues throughout the administrative review and appeal processes. The land use appeal board should also have the responsibility to issue policy advice to cabinet from time to time, based on its appeal experience, including advice on necessary amendments to plans.

The provincial land use strategy should also give direction on establishing common rules for such matters as standing, notice, grounds for review and appeal, mediation procedures, hearing process, decision reporting and, perhaps, a common secretariat with the other boards dealing with resource and environmental management issues. This should lead over time to the formal merger of these various boards into a comprehensive Sustainability Appeal Board.


vol1

Recommendation

1. That the Sustainability Act establish a land use appeal board to● hear appeals regarding the administration of strategic, local resource and other land use

plans, including issues related to their interpretation, implementation, enforcement and other technical details

● provide policy advice to cabinet from time to time, based on the board's appeal experience.2. That the provincial land use strategy require cabinet to give direction on

● establishing common rules of standing, notice, grounds for review and appeal, mediation procedures, hearing process, and decision reporting

● a common secretariat, and● the formal merger into a comprehensive Sustainability Appeal Board

3. for all boards dealing with land use, and related resource and environmental management issues.

Conclusion

Of fundamental importance in the move towards environmental, social and economic sustainability is the need to understand that we are experiencing rapid change. There simply is no permanence - we can either manage the change towards sustainability or we can continue to lose jobs, environmental options, community stability, business confidence and quality of life. To choose the course of a sustainable future, we must also realize that it will be a highly dynamic process and that we must constantly adapt the provincial land use strategy to new circumstances, better information and experience.

The structure and direction set out in the provincial land use strategy and Sustainability Act should provide for this dynamism. They must provide the flexible powers of ongoing strategic development, refinement and adjustment. The public participation, inter-ministerial coordination, independent oversight and dispute resolution provisions should provide for continuous advice and direction to this process of positive change towards sustainability. The ongoing development and use of indicators to measure progress towards sustainability will also be critical.

Recommendation

1. That the provincial land use strategy ensure the ongoing development, refinement and adjustment of land use goals, strategic policies and plans, and sustainability indicators, assisted by public participation, interministerial coordination, independent oversight and dispute resolution processes.


http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts/corereport/vol1/vol1-08.htm#TopOfPage

vol1


CORE Index Volume 2

->


Planning for Sustainability

Volume 2

November 1994


Table of Contents

CIP

Forward

Introduction

PART 1 - Land Use Planning in BC: The Context for Change

1.1 - Defining the ProblemProvincial Land Use Strategy








CORE Index Volume 2

The Role of Planning1.2 - The Current Land Use Planning System

Current Structure1.3 - Identifying Needed Improvements

Past Proposals for ReformCore ReviewReview Findings

PART 2 - A Modified Land Use Planning Framework

2.1 - OverviewProposed Planning FrameworkRecommendations

2.2 - Planning at the Provincial LevelDescriptionIssuesLand Use Goals and PoliciesRecommendationsProvincial Planning CoordinationDesign ConsiderationsLegislationInformation SupportPlan Approval and Implementation

2.3 - Strategic Land Use Planning LevelDescriptionIssuesRegional or Subregional?Government StructurePublic ParticipationCo-ordinationApproval of PlansImplementation

2.4 - Local Level Resource PlanningLocal Resource PlansIssuesDirectionApproval and Implementation

2.5 - Operational Level Resource PlanningIssuesImplementation

2.6 - Local Government PlanningIssuesFramework for Urban Regional PlanningCoordinationParticipation


CORE Index Volume 2

Plan Status and Approval

PART 3 - Other Land Use Planning Requirements

3.1 - Public Participation and Community InvolvementPlanning Decisions as Social ChoicesIssuesRange of Public Participation MethodsDefined Planning Sequence and RolesRecognizing the Right to ParticipateStructuring Participation

3.2 - First Nations InterestsDirectionEncouraging First Nations Participation

3.3 - Plan Revision and AppealReasons for Revision and AppealIssuesPlan Revision Versus AppealsExisting Structures and ProceduresPotential Appeal StructureHandling AppealsThe Role of Mediation

PART 4 - Implementing the Changes

4.1 - Implementing the ChangesHighlights of Proposed MeasuresThe Challenge Ahead

4.2 - Summary of RecommendationsOverall Planning Framework (Chapter 2.1)ApplicationProvincial Planning Level (Chapter 2.2)Strategic Land Use Plans (Chapter 2.3)Local Level Resource Planning (Chapter 2.4)Operational Level Resource Planning (Chapter 2.5)Local Government Planning (Chapter 2.6)Public Participation and Community Involvement (Chapter 3.1)First Nations Interests (Chapter 3.2)Plan Revision and Appeal (Chapter 3.3)

Glossary


CORE Index Volume 2

Appendix 1 - Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act - Chapter 34

InterpretationAppointment of the commissionerCommissioner's roleCommissioner's mandateRepresentationHearingsCommissioner as a witnessImmunity for acts or omissions in good faithFurther terms and conditions of the commissioner's employmentStaffDelegation of the commissioner's powers or dutiesYearly report to the Legislative AssemblyOffencesCommencement

Appendix 2 - Land Use Charter

EnvironmentEconomySocietyAboriginal Peoples

Appendix 3 - Land Use Goals

Resource LandsEnvironmentTransportationRecreationHuman SettlementEconomic DevelopmentProtected AreasCoastal and MarineEnergyAboriginal PeoplesCultural Heritage

Appendix 4 - Selected B.C. Land Use Statistics


CORE Index Volume 2

3.1. Land Area and Status in British Columbia - 19873.2. Land Use in British Columbia - 1987

Appendix 5 - Summary of Past Proposals for Land Use Planning Reform

Forest Land Planning

Appendix 6 - Organizations Providing Response on Land Use Planning Delivery

Appendix 7 - Interview Questionnaire on Land Use Planning Delivery System

Questionnaire on Land Use Planning Delivery System

Appendix 8 - B.C.'s Main Land Use Related Statutes

Appendix 9 - Planning Levels: Products, Methods & Responsibilities

Appendix 10 - Possible Broad Land Use Designation Framework

1 - Broad Category2 - Broad Category3 - Broad Category4 - BROAD CATEGORY

Appendix 11 - Example of "Provincial Interest" Statements

Appendix 12 - Key Comments* on Provincial Planning Coordination

Planning StructureCoordinationDecision-Making

Appendix 13 - Planning System: Design Principles and Factors

Appendix 14 - Key Comments on Regional Planning

Goals and Policies


CORE Index Volume 2

FrameworkPriority SettingInitiationCoordination and LinkageDispute ResolutionDecision Body

Appendix 15 - Key Comments on CORE's Initial Regional Planning

Goals and PoliciesFrameworkInitiationParticipationInstruments

Appendix 16 - Key Comments on Subregional Planning (LRMP)

FrameworkPriority SettingInitiationParticipationCoordination and Linkage

Appendix 17 - Preliminary Guidelines for Community Resource Boards

IntroductionPreliminary Guidelines

Appendix 18 - Conceptual Outline of Land Use Planning System Operations

1. Plan Function/Level1. Provincial1. Regional1. Subregional - LRMP1. Local Resource1. Operational1. Urban Regional1. Community2. Plan Function / Level2. Provincial


CORE Index Volume 2

2. Regional2. Subregional - LRMP2. Local Resource2. Operational2. Urban Regional2. Community3. Plan Function / Level3. Provincial3. Regional3. Subregional - LRMP3. Local Resource3. Operational3. Urban Regional3. Community4. Plan Function / Level4. Provincial4. Regional4. Subregional - LRMP4. Local Resource4. Operational4. Urban Regional4. Community


vol2


Table of contents

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication DataBritish Columbia. Commission on Resources and Environment.

Planning for sustainability: improving land use planning in British ColumbiaISBN 0-7726-2327-9

1. Land use - British Columbia - Planning.2. Land use - Government policy - British Columbia.3. Environmental policy - British Columbia.

I. Title. II. Title: Improving land use planning in British Columbia.HD319.B7B74 1994 333.7'15'09711 C95-960005-1

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts/corereport/vol2/vol2.htm2/22/2005 6:55:34 AM







vol2


Table of contents

Forward

The Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) was given the legal responsibility in 1992 to "develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia-wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management" (CORE Act, s. 4 (1)). Following two years of extensive public consultation and research, the recommended provincial land use strategy is set out in four volumes.

Volume 1: A Sustainability Act for British Columbia - describes the overall structure and purpose of the provincial land use strategy and recommends that a statute confirm the obligations

● to develop and comply with sustainability principles, goals and policies● to develop balanced land and resource use plans● to involve the diverse interests of society in decision-making● to reach just settlements with First Nations, and● to monitor and adapt our responses to achieve sustainability.

Volume 2: Planning for Sustainability - provides an in-depth review and detailed recommendations regarding legislation, structures and other measures to improve the overall land use planning system in British Columbia. The planning system is a primary part of the provincial land use strategy.

Volume 3: Public Participation - reviews the experience of public participation in land use decisions in British Columbia, and makes recommendations for a flexible framework of community resource boards that are voluntary, inclusive of all interests, accountable to the public, purpose-driven, advisory and consensus-seeking.

Volume 4: Dispute Resolution - addresses the need for simple and accessible review and appeal mechanisms to ensure efficient, consistent and comprehensive opportunities for persons whose lives are








vol2

affected by land use and related decisions to have their concerns dealt with. Specifically, this volume makes recommendations on a land use appeal system for the review of the administration of land use plans.


Stephen OwenCommissionerSeventh Floor, 1802 Douglas StreetVictoria B.C. V8V 1X4Telephone (604) 387-1210Facsimile (604) 356-6385

"We face the challenge of developing a common vision for what specifically is to be sustained (or restored or enhanced) at various geographic scales. And we face this challenge as communities of people. It is not just government's job as the final arbitrator of conflicting special interests. Nor is it a job solely for ethicists, economists, or scientists. Science does not tell us what should be sustained, only what is possible and the likely consequences of alternative choices. Economics informs us of the financial and tradeoff costs and benefits of choices, but economics alone does not tell us what is possible or desired. Neither science nor economics gives us values, and values indicate what is desired and guide our choices. But values alone will not tell us what is possible or what is affordable. Thus science, economics and ethics have useful and complementary roles in finding ways to reconcile competing interests in a pluralistic society."*

Dr. Hal Salwasser


vol2


Table of contents

Introduction

Land use is a major governance challenge in British Columbia. Different sectors hold divergent and sometimes conflicting views on which land use values should have priority in the decisions made for any particular area of the province. There have been repeated calls for a land use strategy to deal with the issue of competing demands.

The need for a provincial land use strategy is made more urgent by the acceptance of sustainability as a land use imperative. Economic and environmental values are increasingly recognized to be interdependent in ways not previously understood. Incorporating principles of sustainability into the decision-making around land use would help to resolve conflicts as well as reconcile competing demands.

In 1992, the government of British Columbia passed the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act (Appendix 1). One objective of the act is to establish a commission that will "develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia-wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management."

The legislation also mandates the development of regional planning processes "to define the uses to which areas of British Columbia may be put", and provides for "community-based participatory processes to consider land use and related resource and environmental management issues."

The objective of this report is to review British Columbia's existing land use planning system and propose changes to improve its effectiveness as an instrument of a land use strategy. The focus is on land use planning processes, in part to keep the task manageable but also in recognition of the role that planning plays in defining strategic direction for the use and management of land.

Properly done, plans are primary policy documents that express society's intentions for the use of land and








vol2

resources. A land use strategy for British Columbia must be both a statement of our hopes for the future of the province and a means for working towards their realization.


vol2


Table of contents

PART 1 - Land Use Planning in BC: The Context for Change

1.1 - Defining the Problem

Historically, land use decisions in British Columbia were driven primarily by the desire to encourage growth in a pioneer province blessed with apparently limitless resources. Early conservation efforts consisted of encouraging the replanting of logged forests and the random creation of parks. Government was organized with a view to the efficient regulation of economic development. Departments of environment and tourism were unknown until relatively recent years, and little thought was given to the promotion of such values.

Over time, almost all of the productive land base in British Columbia (B.C.) was allocated to specific uses. New demands could no longer be met by moving on to a new frontier. Thus in recent decades, B.C.'s rich resource and land base has been the focus of increasingly intense competition and conflict. New uses of the land must now compete with historic uses. The need for new parkland competes with the need to maintain mineral and forestry lands for the economic activity relied on by resource-dependent communities. The demand for new residential development competes with the need to maintain existing farmland. The demand for conservation and recreation opportunities competes with the need to maintain a secure land base for forestry.

B.C.'s rapidly expanding population has added to the pressure on the land base. Currently at 3.6 million, the population of the province increases each year by the equivalent of a city the size of Kamloops or Prince George.1 Expected continuing population growth will mean even greater demands on the land base for resources - residential and commercial development, food production, recreation, timber, minerals, energy and water.

The resulting land use conflicts have led to a lengthy search for solutions to balance economic, social and environmental demands. In recent years there have been repeated calls for a provincial land use strategy to








vol2

help achieve that balance. The B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Forest Resources Commission, the Dunsmuir II Consensus Statement and the Union of B.C. Municipalities - all have identified the need for such a strategy. Earlier, this need was identified by the Wilderness Advisory Committee and the Pearse Royal Commission on Forestry. One of the most common responses to the "Parks and Wilderness for the 90s" proposals was a call for such a strategy. Similarly, submissions to the Forest Resources Commission indicated strong support across all interest groups for a comprehensive land use strategy.2

The demand for a provincial land use strategy is related to the general issue of how best to manage growth to ensure sustainability of both the economy and the environment. In 1987 the United Nations identified sustainability as an urgent international concern. Increasingly, the world's industrialized countries are recognizing that economic and environmental values are not discrete considerations. Some industries, such as tourism, depend directly on environmental integrity. Others are equally dependent in less obvious ways: ocean fisheries depend on undisturbed salmon spawning habitat, and the integrity of ecosystems is important to the long-term health of individual species that provide various other economic benefits.

At the same time, social values are changing dramatically. Greater emphasis is given to the non-economic significance of the natural world. British Columbians expect land use planning decisions to respect these values as well as the important economic values, especially in view of the gradual depletion of resources over the last century. The qualities that British Columbians once took for granted, such as abundant and easy access to the outdoors, are increasingly treasured, especially in the more heavily populated regions of the province, and there is a growing awareness that such values will require more conscious management if they are to be retained:

Recreation, wilderness, wildlife, water quality and quantity, aesthetics - those values and others have attained a much higher standing in the minds of British Columbians. The economic benefits offered by resource development are no longer the only important values in the forests... a comprehensive Land Use Plan is required to accommodate that new, fuller range of values... The plan provides a blueprint for managing all values across the provincial landscape.3

B.C.'s land use planning and management system is being challenged in an unprecedented fashion. It is being challenged to reconcile highly divergent demands and values in the face of continuing pressure for more resources from a finite land base and limited ecosystems, and differing views on which values should have priority. It is in this context that the government of British Columbia established the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) and mandated it to "develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia-wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management."

The development of a land use strategy based on principles of sustainability is a mandate that CORE must fulfil. This includes the facilitation and development of regional planning processes, community-based participatory processes, and a dispute resolution system for land use and resource management issues. These are all components of a land use strategy.

Provincial Land Use Strategy


vol2

A land use strategy must provide an overall framework for land use planning and management decisions. CORE's concept of the elements of such a strategy is summarized by figure 1.1, which depicts a sequence that begins with defining a vision through principles and goals; providing formal direction, consistent with these principles and goals, through the development of laws and policies; applying these laws and policies to the land through plans; implementing plans by means of tenuring, approvals and development; and finishing by monitoring the results and making necessary modifications.

Figure 1.1

CORE initiated its work on a land use strategy by advancing a set of economic, environmental and social sustainability principles specific to land. These were published as a Land Use Charter (Appendix 2), which was adopted in principle by the government in June 1993. In turn, these principles were amplified as a suggested set of strategic land use goals for B.C. These goals summarize the ends to be sought from society's use of land and natural resources and include goal statements for economic development, environmental management, human settlement and other land uses (appendix 3). CORE also coordinated a set of draft strategic land use policies.4 These are statements that indicate the actions and commitments that must be taken to achieve each land use goal. The proposed policies include commitments to inventorying diverse values, developing and implementing guidelines and controls, and other measures for achieving the goals. The draft policies are accompanied by a draft set of "sustainability indicators" designed to help gauge, over time, whether progress is being made towards meeting land use goals.

In 1991, senior representatives of key industry, environmental, labour and other groups concerned about the economic and social costs of recurring land use conflicts met at Dunsmuir Lodge on Vancouver Island in an attempt to identify solutions. They forged a "consensus statement" that concluded

Now more than ever, we need an overall framework that will allow us to address... demands, to integrate economic, environmental, social, and cultural values, and to develop options so that reasoned choices can be made.

With a Common Vision of an overall framework for resource allocation and ecosystem management that integrates environmental, economic and social values, we believe that land and water use conflicts can be resolved.

- Towards a Provincial Land and Water Use Strategy: Consensus Statement.

Such a common vision was first articulated when the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, established in 1990 to generate ideas for the achievement of sustainability,5 advanced a set of principles concerned with long-term economic viability, environmental integrity and fair distribution of the



vol2

benefits and costs of development. CORE drew upon these sustainability principles as a major reference point in starting to define a land use strategy. The intent of land use goals and policies is to provide consistent direction regarding the government and to highlight factors to be considered in preparing land use plans. As such, these goals and policies are a means of keeping the overall objective of a land use strategy in sight - sustainability of land and resources and, concurrently, the economic, environmental and social vitality of communities.

1. B.C. Statistics, Ministry of Government Services, British Columbia Population Forecast 1994-2021 (Victoria, 1994), p. 36.

2. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Towards a Strategy for Sustainability (Victoria, 1992). Resources Commission, The Future of Our Forests (Victoria, 1991). of B.C. Professional Foresters et al, Towards a Provincial Land and Water Use Strategy: Consensus Statement, Dunsmuir II (Victoria, 1991). Advisory Committee, The Wilderness Mosaic: Report of the Wilderness Advisory Committee (Victoria, 1986). of the Royal Commission on Forest Resources, Timber Rights and Forest Policy in British Columbia (Victoria, 1976).

3. Forest Resources Commission, The Future of Our Forests (Victoria, 1991), p.12.4. For a fuller statement of the draft land use policies, see Commission on Resources and Environment,

Finding Common Ground: A Shared Vision for Land Use in British Columbia, Appendices (Victoria, 1994).

5. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Towards a Strategy for Sustainability (Victoria, 1992).


vol2


Table of contents

The Role of Planning

Land use planning is a primary instrument of a land use strategy. It is a principal means by which society can address the problem of competing demands on the land base. Even with a defined set of goals, difficult choices still have to be made in the development of clear and consistent government policies. While general agreement on the importance of sustainability should help shape reasonable choices, the question still remains:

"How are the goals to be delivered, and how will they be reconciled in their application to specific areas?"

In each planning situation, a balance must be found between competing goals. Planning processes undertake the technical analyses, negotiations and evaluations necessary to balance economic, social and environmental goals, assign priorities and identify decision options. Hence it is important that planning processes be properly structured and supported to operate effectively.

While conceptually simple, planning processes are inherently complex because of what they are expected to do:

● integrate economic, social and environmental values;● assist decision-making where decisions have major political, economic, social and environmental

impacts;● foster discussion and seek workable and sound accommodations where conflicts exist;● engage the public so that their needs and preferences are responded to;● plan for and maintain land and water ecosystems based on scientific understanding;● bridge jurisdictional gaps;● coordinate the management capabilities of different agencies towards common objectives.








vol2

In meeting these expectations, land use planning processes can contribute to the development of a strategy for the fair and efficient allocation of land, and for sound management of resources and the environment.

1.2 - The Current Land Use Planning System

Land use planning is done throughout B.C., on both Crown and private lands, for a variety of purposes, ranging from the determination of broad land use direction to site-specific design and location. Various departments of provincial, local and federal governments, singly and together, engage in planning, and it is a major activity of regional districts and municipalities, which are responsible for settlement planning under the Municipal Act. First Nations plan land use within their own areas, and developers prepare specific development plans for a variety of projects. Figure 1.2 shows the major organizations involved in land use planning in B.C.

The various levels of responsibility for land use planning in B.C. is sometimes described as the planning hierarchy, a term that can imply an exclusively top-down orientation; in practice, however, there is extensive interaction among the various planning levels. Strategic initiatives, for example, are often a direct response to issues arising at a local or even site-specific level. What is essential is that the system be able to respond at many levels so as to deliver effective planning. It is also important that the task of each level be clearly defined. Strategic planning means establishing broad direction, while local planning concentrates on implementation.

Given the jurisdictional complexity of land use planning in B.C., effective links are an important consideration. Federal agencies, for example, have significant regulatory functions that depend on having cooperative arrangements with other levels of government. The development of such links is driven by the need to overcome the problems of overlapping interests in order to respond to the public and to management issues.

Land use planning in B.C. takes many forms, reflecting the diversity and size of the province itself. B.C. has a total area of almost 95 million hectares, 93 million of which are land.6 Climatic conditions range from sub-boreal to hyper-marine and semi-arid. The land mass has been classified into 14 major biogeoclimatic zones, and terrain varies from coastal estuaries to high plateaus, mountain ranges, valleys and continental plains.

Figure 1.2. Major Organizations Involved in Land Use Planning and Regulation

Ninety-one percent of B.C.'s land base is provincial Crown land - that is, owned by the province. Of that amount, 78 percent is designated provincial forest under the Forest Act, and almost 7 percent is in tree farm licences. Private land accounts for approximately 6 percent, and 1 percent is federal government property. Less than one percent of B.C.'s land base is presently represented in Indian reservations, but treaty



vol2

negotiations may significantly alter aboriginal rights to land (see appendix 4).

The scope of planning in B.C. reflects the diversity of ownership as well as constitutional jurisdiction, with the province exercising regulatory authority over natural resources and environment on provincial Crown lands. Federal jurisdiction applies to federal property and also to ports and navigable waters, fisheries and oceans and areas of national or international jurisdiction such as transportation. Because many of these areas require coordinated effort, explicit co-management is increasingly common, particularly with the emerging scope of First Nations government structures. The authority to regulate the use of private land is largely delegated to local governments, with the province retaining some zoning and subdivision control, primarily in areas without municipal governments.

However, jurisdiction does not tell the full story. The 6 percent of B.C.'s land base under private ownership is in settlement and farm lands, and the majority of British Columbians live on these 5.7 million hectares. B.C.'s growing population, now at 3.6 million, is concentrated in a few urban regions. Approximately 80 percent of British Columbians live in three areas of the province: the lower mainland, 54 percent; greater Victoria region and eastern Vancouver Island, 17 percent; and the Okanagan Valley, 8 percent. Other areas of the province are also growing, but at a slower rate.

The comment is sometimes made that there are two B.C.'s - the populous and growing urbanized areas and the less populous resource based regions. In the former, growth management is a central theme of planning and governance; in the latter, the focus is more on resource use planning. While the emphasis differs, the basic functions of resource and settlement planning are required in both kinds of regions, including appropriate links between them.

Current Structure

The current land use planning system in B.C. operates at provincial, regional, subregional, local and site-specific levels in two broad streams, one for local government, which generally plans and regulates private land, and another for Crown lands. This structure is depicted by figure 1.3. A brief description of each level follows.

Provincial

Many provincial government ministries produce strategic plans to direct their responses to the major challenges and issues facing the sector or the resources that they manage. These strategic plans characteristically outline broad responses such as program priorities and new program directions, legislation, funding requirements and reallocations, and research. Some plans are comprehensive, while others focus more on land use aspects. In either case, they set the direction for implementation plans designed to address the issues.

For example the Ministry of Transportation and Highways developed a highways system plan to guide its priority setting. Another example is agricultural land, where government declared a strategic provincial interest in its use and brought in the Agricultural Land Commission Act, authorizing the appointment of a commission to zone for agricultural use in B.C.


vol2

Increasingly, the provincial government has recognized the need to undertake planning on a more corporate and cooperative basis, with initiatives shared by a number of agencies B.C.'s protected areas strategy exemplifies how relevant programs and objectives can be integrated into an interministerial land use strategy. An example in the area of economic development is the Forest Renewal Plan, which combines labour skills training, research, land management and investment agencies to enhance the benefits of long-term forest development and deal with necessary short-term adjustments.

Figure 1.3. Existing Land Use Planning System: Generalized Diagram

Regional/Subregional

Regional planning focuses on land use allocation and establishing management objectives for large areas of land. Regional planning processes, facilitated by CORE, involve consensus-seeking negotiations among those interests that are significantly and directly affected, including industry representatives, community groups, local governments, environmental and recreation groups, and the provincial government. First Nations have been encouraged to participate. Federal agencies have participated primarily through liaison with the provincial government.

Subregional planning guides resource management decision-making for generally small areas of Crown land. The Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) program, which grew out of a timber supply area planning process, has evolved into an interagency process for integrated resource planning by regional and district offices of provincial resource management agencies. Resource managers provide technical direction and support to land and resource management planning processes that involve the public in the preparation of plans, on a consensus basis where possible.

Detailed resource management plans are prepared for smaller, more local areas, to address a variety of needs, such as coordinated development, area management, or watershed protection. These local resource plans are coordinated by either an agency or an interagency team, depending on the resource values and issues in question. Resource users and the public are consulted and may participate directly in the planning process.

Area/Site

Operational plans are prepared at either an area or site-specific level as a basis for obtaining development permits, and they are guided by the plans prepared at "higher" levels in the structure.

* * *

In addition to the levels described above, the planning structure provides for integrative projects such as the



vol2

Fraser Basin Management Program, a joint initiative of the federal, provincial and local governments designed to promote sustainable development in the Fraser River Basin. And CORE has been given the statutory responsibility to develop a British Columbia-wide land use strategy for public and government consideration, giving due consideration to local, provincial and federal responsibilities.

Local Government

Regional district and municipalities are empowered under the Municipal Act to prepare official community plans, which outline the general patterns of land use and provide the basis for the regulation of both use and development. Although the powers of regional districts and municipalities do not extend to resource management, their land use regulations can affect certain private uses of Crown land, such as foreshore areas. For this reason links between Crown land planning and private land planning are necessary.

First Nations

Government has recognized that First Nations have a unique legal interest in land, and fundamental shifts in planning and management are taking place to give effect to that interest. For example, government-to-government protocols with First Nations are developing. Also, interim measures and area-specific agreements are beginning to form the framework of the relationship between the provincial government and First Nations. These are seen as pre-treaty processes for planning and management of land and resources.

6. For these and other land use statistics, see Ministry of Crown Lands, British Columbia Land Use Statistics (Victoria, 1989).


vol2


Table of contents

1.3 - Identifying Needed Improvements

Past Proposals for Reform

CORE is not the first organization to consider how planning should be done for Crown lands in British Columbia. Government-sponsored initiatives such as the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (RTEE), the Forest Resources Commission (FRC), the Old-Growth Strategy Project (OGS) and Parks and Wilderness (PW) for the 90's have made suggestions to improve the planning system. As well there are industry commentaries such as the B.C. Forest Industry Land Use Task Force (FITF); collaborative ventures that led to the Dunsmuir II Agreement (DA); and, community-based initiatives exemplified by those in the Bulkley Valley (BV). These past proposals are summarized in appendix 5.

While offering a diversity of ideas, all of these examinations of planning in B.C. reached similar conclusions about how the planning system should operate:

● It should offer direction in terms of goals and policies to foster sustainability● It should be comprehensive in scope and consider economic, social and environmental issues, with the

aim of reaching balanced solutions● The planning process should be clear, fair, efficient and responsive● Decision-making must be open and responsive to feedback, and provide for flexibility in terms of

application to diverse management problems, but ultimately be accountable● Participation opportunities should be clear and supported by accessible, value-neutral and appropriate

data and analysis, and encourage First Nations participation● Consensus should be encouraged in planning processes; dispute resolution methods should be

available where necessary● Efforts to integrate the various planning levels, jurisdictions and sector strategies should be enhanced● Neutrality in the design and delivery of planning must exist if fair and balanced results are to be

achieved








vol2

● Monitoring of planning results should take place.

In addition to these common themes, those previous proposals identified a number of similar options in terms of planning system structures. Most favoured a system that included new or adjusted organizations at the provincial, regional and local levels. Some key suggestions for each of these levels are summarized below.

Provincial

● A provincial land use commission with appointed commissioners and professional staff. The commission would chair a provincial land use coordinating committee to coordinate policies, planning support and plan reviews (FRC)

● A provincial land use committee with appointed members to facilitate broad goals and strategy (DA)● A provincial land use body to develop goals and coordinate regional and local bodies (OGS)● A province wide process for planning and decision-making (PW)● A permanent land use commission that would report on goals to cabinet (FITF).

Regional

● Greater devolution of responsibility to regional offices (RTEE)● Regional land use bodies (OGS)● Regional directors from a land use commission chairing regional committees and supported by

regional staff (FRC)● Regional land use committees to develop land use objectives (FITF).

Local

● Greater devolution of responsibility to district offices (RTEE)● Local land use bodies to deal with land management issues (OGS)● Local planning groups for each forest district, with permanently seconded staff, an interagency group

and a larger district land use committee or alternative, such as a community resource board (FRC)● Advisory round tables initiated by the community or local government (RTEE)● Stakeholder participation through more informal community resource boards working in a

cooperative advisory capacity (BV)● Formal resource boards, established as legal entities or by devolution contracts, to guide and regulate

development (Hazelton proposal).

In addition to suggestions for changes in planning system structures, proposals were made for appeals and dispute resolution provisions:

● An independent resource appeal board "for review of decisions and due process" (FRC)7

● A formal three-member appeal board to resolve operational disagreements when staff efforts towards mediated solutions are not successful (FRC).

Figure 1.4 presents all of these proposals in the context of existing planning structures to show some of the


vol2

major structural options for a changed planning system.

In the time that has elapsed since the above proposals were made CORE has been created and has undertaken regional planning processes; substantial progress has been made on subregional land and resource management plans. Consensus-seeking processes have been used in both instances. Inter agency management committees (IAMCs) comprising senior staff at the regional level have been reconstituted, and a formal provincial Resource Management Division (RMD), under an assistant deputy minister, has been created to direct the IAMCs.

Notwithstanding recent changes to the planning system in B.C., the various structural proposals raise a number of major questions.

Provincially, is there a need for an independent land use commission to establish land use goals and approve plans, or should such functions be assigned to a ministry? What body should take on the functions of coordinating policy, planning support and plan review? Should these functions be assigned to a commission? Is there a need for a formal appeal body? If so, what should be its scope and structure?

Figure 1.4. Land Use Planning System: Structural Options

Regionally, is there a need for neutral planning structure? If so, to whom should it report? Should stakeholder participation be formalized? Is there a need for a formal structure for plan implementation and monitoring?

Locally, is neutral planning capacity best provided by a ministry, a commission, a secretariat, or by some other body? What roles should community resource boards play? What is required to enhance the links between planning on Crown resource lands and on private land?

Core Review

The previous examinations that identified the need for a land use strategy identified improved land use planning as an essential means of ensuring its delivery. Reviewing the effectiveness of current land use planning delivery was, therefore, identified in CORE's workplan as a key component in developing advice on an overall land use strategy.

In addition to the above questions about planning bodies, CORE was faced with more general questions regarding existing processes including:

● How adequate and clear are the planning structures and processes?● How adequate are planning methods and procedures?



vol2

● How do the various levels of planning relate?● How can planning coordination be improved?● How effective and fair are public participation provisions?● Is the status of plans evident, and are the methods of plan implementation, monitoring and review

clear?

In addition to reviewing previous reform proposals and the questions that they posed, CORE also wanted more recent information about planning system issues. CORE began its information-gathering by convening a multi-sectoral provincial advisory forum comprising representatives from diverse sectors with a known interest in land use. Invited representatives from aboriginal, academic, government, environmental, industry, labour and professional groups met at an initial workshop where the following issues and concerns were raised.

Direction

● Inconsistent guiding policies● Duplication or overlapping jurisdiction.

Structure

● Unclear planning responsibilities and mandates● Difficult to understand "the fit of the pieces"● Non-enforceability of plan results.

Product

● Unclear and inconsistent products● Too much reliance on inadequate referral systems.

Process

● Lack of neutrality by planning process managers● Too much centralization● Inequities in the mandate, staffing and funding for participating agencies● Inadequate delegation of responsibilities● Insufficient analysis of impacts of planning options● Inadequate interim protection of resource values while planning is underway.

Participation

● Need to reflect local values● Lack of meaningful involvement in decision-making● Unclear role of First Nations in planning processes.


vol2

Decision-Making

● Need to clarify authority for decision-making - where do the tough decisions get made?

CORE heard considerable consensus from the provincial advisory forum. The need for a system with a top-down and bottom-up approach is accepted. There is a willingness to accept more delegation for plan-making on the basis of provincial goals and policies, with the proviso that they are open to constructive changes as needed. Regionalized involvement in plan-making and monitoring is preferred, as are consensus and collaborative problem-solving approaches. There is also an acknowledged need for flexibility in applying provincial interest criteria to the diverse range of regional and local applications in B.C.

CORE determined that an outreach program was required to elicit more specific views and suggestions. In addition to producing a discussion paper,8 CORE consulted key provincial stakeholder groups. Recognizing the complexity of the land use field, considerable effort was made to involve a broad cross-section of major groups with known interest in land use. The groups that provided advice are shown in appendix 6. The interviews included a questionnaire (appendix 7) that posed some of the key questions regarding each component of the planning system, and which was designed to elicit further information on the following issues:

● Needs to be met through planning● How land use planning should be guided● Whether or not the overall framework for planning is appropriate or requires modest or substantial

improvement/change● How regional, subregional and local resource planning might be improved● Required improvements to operational planning● How to obtain better coordination between plans● How to encourage participation by First Nations● Measures to improve implementation and monitoring.

Review Findings

CORE consulted over 40 major stakeholder groups, and the key findings were summarized by the interview team. Some consistent themes emerged from the diverse comments, including:

● The province is responsible for defining the provincial interest through clear, attainable land use goals, policies and guidelines for land use.

● Mechanisms are needed to clarify goals and produce integrated provincial interest and priority statements.

● While planning processes must reflect local interests, this must be balanced with representation and a consideration of the provincial interest.

● The land use planning system must demonstrate greater coordination and links● between levels of planning and levels of government;● with land use, economic development planning; and● with treaty-making as well as other processes related to First Nations.● Land use planning should be delivered, monitored, and reviewed by neutral organizations committed


vol2

to planning.● The planning system must be more understandable and its practice made more consistent.● A consistent and legally binding land designation/zoning system is needed.● Political decision-making at the cabinet level is desirable because it offers accountability.● Planning at all levels should provide opportunities for direct, fair and balanced public participation

and have well defined participant guidelines; opportunities for communication and consultation with the general public and local governments; and appropriate provisions for blending participation with professional and technical analysis.

● The planning system should be made more efficient by● ensuring a greater readiness for stakeholder processes by defining a predictable planning sequence

methods and available resources;● a consistent land designation framework;● uniform data standards and systems;● more consistency in boundaries of planning units;● a better defined planning sequence; and,● defined priorities to reduce the burden on participants.● Planning should be given more legal formality, but with enough flexibility to reflect regional and

local variations.

The following chapters present a brief tabulation of the key comments that emerged during the CORE consultations and discuss some of the specifics of the underlying concerns, together with some related recommendations.

7. T. Gunton and I. Vertinsky, Reforming the Decision Making Process for Forest Land Planning in British Columbia (Victoria, 1990). Prepared for the Forest Resources Commission.

8. CORE Land Use Strategy Framework, Goals and Planning Options: Draft Discussion Paper (Background Report 93-05), (Victoria, 1993).


vol2


Table of contents

PART 2 - A Modified Land Use Planning Framework

2.1 - Overview

British Columbia's existing planning system comprises a number of levels to accommodate the need for a range of plans, from those that set broad strategic direction to detailed site development plans. The current system has evolved under a variety of statutes (see appendix 8) in response to the practical need to address a wide variety of land use and development issues. Consequently, it is not surprising that observers, noting the difficulty in understanding "the fit of the pieces", have asked for a clearer, more understandable framework. Concerns about the current planning system as expressed in CORE's consultations are summarized in table 2.1.

Proposed Planning Framework

Table 2.2 describes the planning levels in a proposed land use planning system framework for B.C. Presenting the various levels as separate logical blocks is not meant to imply that the system is static or inflexible or that every level of plan is always necessary. Land use plans are undertaken in response to real planning issues, and the nature and magnitude of the issues should determine the level and type of planning process that is adopted. Flexibility and innovation in the design of individual planning processes and products, subject to complying with policies, is reasonable, considering the diversity of planning situations in B.C.

A consideration of mapping scale helps to illustrate the need for a "tiered" planning framework. Provincial strategies may only require an understanding of broad geographic capabilities and factors, and can be supported by generalized mapping. The detail necessary for a specific project development, however, will require more specific mapping in order to show important location particulars. Mapping broad zones at the strategic planning level allows the main features of the landscape to be portrayed with a rough level of








vol2

precision; the specifics must be refined and developed at a more local scale. Commonly used map scales and the degree of resolution possible at the various planning levels are shown in figure 2.1.

Three important topics need to be addressed in the development of a modified planning framework: relationships among planning levels; supporting products; and zoning.

Table 2.1Key Comments* on Overall Planning System

Framework

● Lack of understanding of how general and specific planning levels relate● Province should set guidelines and framework for planning, including sustainability standards and

indicators● "A lot of agencies don't know where they want to be"● Acknowledge the links between the levels and "blur the lines"; all levels need to be coordinated● How are differences in plans at two levels resolved?● Mechanisms are needed to ensure consistency between plans and outcomes● Fit between region and subregion is confusing; need a well-defined and "nested" hierarchy● Clarify the relationship between planning initiatives

Zoning System

● "Zoning that's the law." (zones with a legal basis)● Need a system that provides for zones which recognize recreation values and resources● More consistency in the zoning system; consistent land use designation system

* Throughout this report, key comments from CORE's consultations (see chapter 1.3) are summarized in similar tables. Attempts were made to group the points from the discussions and submissions logically and to reflect recurring themes or viewpoints considered to have particular significance, including divergent views on the same topic.

Relationships Among Planning Levels

Planners often refer to the hierarchy of plans, the inference being that lower level plans must fit with the goals of higher level plans. While this consistency is desirable in principle, the reality is that the planning system must offer fairly wide scope in how the planning levels interact with and inform each other. The term "planning continuum" perhaps better reflects the reality of the give and take between planning levels. For example, although the strategic direction provided by provincial land use policy statements or regional level land use plans offer context and guidance for local level plans, there must be sufficient opportunity at the local level to interpret that strategic direction in terms of local conditions and priorities. Just as a regional strategic land use plan will inform and guide a local level plan, so can local level plans inform or help refine


vol2

strategic plans.

Another issue around planning relationships concerns land use planning for Crown lands, typically undertaken to address resource management, and community planning, typically undertaken to address settlement issues. These two planning streams vary in terms of basic planning responsibilities. Crown land planning is the primary responsibility of provincial agencies, while responsibility for community planning has been delegated to regional districts and municipalities. Further details on their respective planning products, methods and responsibilities is presented in appendix 9. CORE's consultations revealed the need to clarify the basic relationships between the planning for Crown lands and the planning for private lands.

Table 2.2Proposed Land Use Planning System Framework for British Columbia

Provincial Planning Level Overview: At the provincial level, political land use priorities are interpreted into more specific government policy direction and programs, normally with application to the entire province. Administrative systems to undertake land use and resource planning programs are enabled/established, often with a statutory basis. Priorities are assigned and capacity to prepare and implement plans is established through the budget process. Relationships with other orders of government respecting land use are maintained. Coordination among land use planning processes and related policy initiatives is overseen. Political decision-making authority is exercised through approval of major land use plans, and through the resolution of major land use issues / disputes, as they arise. The main products at the provincial planning level are legislation and regulations, policy and program statements, standards, guidelines, major land use decisions and appeals, and resource inventories.

Land Use Planning Functions Land Use Planning Products


vol2

1. Established Policy Direction

● design planning system framework● define provincial land use principles,

goals, strategic policies, guidelines● design institutions, programs and

procedures to prepare and implement land use plans and policies

● develop land use and resource management legislation and regulations

● develop sector-specific strategies (e.g.'s, protected area strategy, biodiversity strategy, forest sector strategy, mining sector strategy)

● define resource management standards (e.g.'s, forest practices, water and air quality criteria)

● develop sustainability indicators (for measuring progress towards land use goals)

● legislation and regulations● policy and program statements/descriptions● resource management standards● sector-specific plans● sustainability indicators and targets

2. Coordinate and Integrate

● reconcile land use plans and resource management policies

● liaise with other orders of government (international, federal, First Nations, local)

● coordinate land use planning outcomes with socioeconomic programs

● interagency coordination● provincial planning budgets● intergovernmental and interagency protocol

agreements

3. Make Decisions

● approve major land use plans and plan amendments

● decide on appeals of land use issues● decide priorities for planning processes

● approved land use plans● records of decision


vol2

4. Implement and Monitor

● monitor overall effectiveness of planning system

● monitor progress towards land use goals (using sustainability indicators)

● monitor relationships among land use planning processes and initiatives

● review strategic level land use plans for conformance with provincial land use goals and policies

● public monitoring and audit reports● land use trends reports

5. Collect and Distribute Information

● define land information collection standards and conventions

● compile and maintain land use and resource management inventories

● distribute land information● develop technical evaluation

methodologies for application in planning● initiate and contribute to research and

development re: land use and resource management

● inform/communicate with the public

● information collection standards and conventions

● land use and resource inventories● land use statistics● registry of land use plans / plan designations● methodological guidelines for planning and

planning analysis● public information materials

Strategic Land Use Planning Level(Regional and Subregional Plans)

Overview: Regional and subregional level plans reconcile and interpret provincial land use goals into strategic land use direction for large geographic areas. Regional planning area size will vary, depending on the nature and scope of issues and objectives. The range of strategic land use planning scales includes:

● major drainage basins where the goal is to produce an integrated strategy for land and water management. (e.g., Fraser Basin Management Program)

● major ecosystems where the goal is to produce a strategy to maintain the 'quality of life' in areas experiencing rapid urban growth. (Georgia Basin Initiative)

● major socioeconomic regions where the goal is to designate land into several broad


vol2

categories and identify socioeconomic transition policies. (e.g., CORE regional plans)

● timber supply areas or variations on those areas, where the goal is to identify resource management objectives and guidelines for specific land areas by designating resource management zones. (e.g., Land and Resource Management Plans)

● regional districts or groups of regional districts, where the goal is to establish policies and mechanisms for urban growth management. (e.g., Liveable Region plan in the Greater Vancouver Regional District)

Because regional plans contain general land use policy direction and broad land use designations, plan implementation invariably involves further local level planning at more refined scales. The main planning products at this level are strategic land use plans containing broad land use zoning, policy guide books, socioeconomic transition strategies, resource management objectives and guidelines, and growth management plans.


Provincial Government Local Government

1. Prepare and Implement Strategic Plans

● Initiate and oversee approved regional planning processes, including public participation

● prepare regional plans, identifying recommended regional land use strategies, allocation zoning, management guidelines

● implement approved regional plans

● sustainable development strategies; broad land use allocation

● regional land use plans

● subregional Land and Resource Management Plans

● urban regional plans (regional level Official Community Plans)

● regional growth management strategies


vol2


● advise on provincial land use policies● advise on priorities for further planning● coordinate local level plans● maintain Crown land planning community

planning links● maintain links with First Nations

● planning budgets● operating

agreements/ understandings with local governments, First Nations, and community organizations (e.g., Community Resource Boards)

● operating agreements/ understandings with provincial agencies, First Nations, and community organizations (e.g., Community Resource Boards)

3. Make Decisions

● approve minor amendments to strategic plans interpret plan intent

● approve plans● records of decision

● approved plans● records of decision


● periodic review of plans● monitoring of plan● implementation activities

● revised regional & subregional plans

● status reports● reports on

monitoring results

● revised Official Community Plans

● status reports● reports on

monitoring results


● support planning processes with information and analysis

● inform/ communicate with public

● mapping and impact analysis

● public information materials




vol2

Local Planning Level Overview: Local level plans are prepared for Crown lands and private lands to provide a more specific context for land use development activity than can be provided at the strategic planning level. On Crown lands, provincial agency staff oversee the preparation of local level plans for areas of particular sensitivity or conflict, and where relatively detailed resource management guidelines and prescriptions are needed to integrate uses and guide development. The planning area might comprise a single watershed, or some similarly sized landscape unit experiencing resource development pressure. Local level plans of local governments for a portion of a regional district or a municipality are normally prepared to provide land use direction for settlement uses (rural, suburban and urban). The primary products at the local planning level are "integrated resource management" plans in the case of Crown land; and Official Community Plans in the case of plans prepared by local governments.



1. Prepare and Implement Local Plans

● initiate and oversee local planning processes, including public participation

● prepare local level plans, identifying land use / resource management objectives, zones, management policies

● implement approved local plans

● Local Resource Use Plans; e.g.

❍ local resource use plans

❍ total resource plans

❍ coordinated range management plans

❍ integrated watershed management plans

❍ park master plans

❍ wilderness area management plans

❍ wildlife management area plans

❍ major timber

● Official Community Plans; e.g.

❍ rural land use bylaws and area plan bylaws for part of a regional district or municipality


vol2

tenure management plans

❍ coastal and marine area plans


● integrate local plans with provincial /regional plans

● coordinate operational level plans● maintain Crown land planning -

community planning links● maintain links with First Nations● coordinate among Official

Community Plans

● operating agreements/ understandings with local governments, First Nations, and local round tables

● operating agreements/ understanding with provincial agencies, First Nations, and local round tables

3. Make Decisions

● approve local level land use plans and amendments

● interpret local plan intent

● approved local level plans and plan amendments

● records of decision

● approved Official Community Plans and bylaws


4. Oversee and Monitor

● periodic review of plans● monitoring plan implementation

● revised local plans● status reports● reports on monitoring

results

● revised Official Community Plans

● status reports● reports on monitoring

results


● support planning processes with information and analysis

● inform/communicate with public






vol2

Operational and Development Planning Level

Overview: Operational and development plans are prepared for relatively small land areas or sites to specify or regulate the details of land use and development. These plans are often prepared by the development proponent, as a basis for obtaining specific approvals or permits. Assessment of environmental and socioeconomic impacts of specific proposals, and identification of methods for mitigating impacts, may be required at this level. In the case of operational plans for Crown land, the main planning products are large scale maps and associated written commitments identifying the location of development and improvements, the development schedule, and specific impact mitigation methods. At the local government level, main products include bylaws to regulate land use in individual neighborhoods, zoning and subdivision control bylaws, building design guidelines, and plans of subdivision.



1. Prepare and Implement Operational/Development Plans

● oversee/direct the preparation (often by development proponents) of operational/ development plans

● implement approved operational/development plans

● neighborhood level development plans e.g.

❍ forest development plans

❍ logging plans ❍ silviculture plans ❍ access plans ❍ range

management plans

❍ management plans associated with Land Act tenures

❍ mining plans/ reclamation plans

❍ environmental assessment reports and impact mitigation plans

❍ foreshore /

● Official Community Plans

● zoning control bylaws

● subdivision control bylaws

● design guidelines

● subdivision plans


vol2

coastal zones plans


● integrate operational/ development plans with land use direction in local or regional plans

● maintains links with agencies, communities, First Nations

● various communications communications materials

various communication systems

3. Make Decisions

● approve operational/ development plans and amendments

● approved operational/ development plans and permits


● land use control bylaws, and subdivision control



● monitor operational/ development plans● enforce operational/ development

provisions of tenures and approvals

● monitoring reports● letters of notice, orders,

legal proceedings

● monitoring reports

● letters of notice, orders, legal proceedings


● support planning process with information

● inform/communicate with public (often responsibility of development proponent)

● mapping● public information

materials

● mapping● public

information materials

Figure 2.1. The Significance of Scale in Planning


vol2

Supporting Products

An effective land use planning system requires a variety of supporting materials.

● Operating policies and guidelines (policy and procedures statements, handbooks, manuals, etc.) that describe the suggested purpose, sequence and timing of steps and outputs of planning processes, as well as participants' roles, responsibilities and relationships

● Methodologies for analyzing biophysical resource values, incorporating socioeconomic assessment into planning analysis and evaluating the implications of land use planning options

● Land use zoning systems, including nomenclature and conventions for designating land, at the various planning levels in the system

● Basic resource management standards for plan designations and associated land/resource management policies

● Key data to use in preparing plans as well as monitoring progress towards achieving provincial land use goals and policies

● Standards and conventions for collecting and maintaining resource inventory information at various scales of resolution

● Intergovernmental and interagency protocol agreements on joint commitments for land use planning and plan implementation that provide clear responsibilities and procedures.

Supporting products and other administrative tools and mechanisms are essential ingredients for operation of an effective land use planning system. Many of these have been developed or are under development to support current land use planning. Distribution of materials to interested parties, both inside and outside government, will improve the general level of understanding of the components, procedures and methods of land use planning. This will also make the planning system more consistent, clear and efficient.

Zoning

A consistent zoning system is a key product in an effective planning system. One of the primary purposes of planning is to address uncertainty and conflict and to recommend a pattern of land use allocation that accommodates the full range of demands and interests. To meet this objective, planning must identify compatible activities that match the capabilities and features of the land. Compatible land use activities are typically grouped and defined by individual zones; land use zones, therefore, represent the objectives of the land use plan and define them on a map. Because zone categories express social priorities, a zoning system must respond to new land use needs and insights; the need for consistency and security must be reconciled with the need for responsiveness to change. A variety of zoning classifications have been developed to



vol2

support strategic plans. Synthesis of these into a common framework would clarify planning initiatives and reduce public confusion. A general land designation or zoning framework for strategic land use planning on Crown land (appendix 10) is presented as a general guideline which is open to subcategorization to meet various local needs, as well as to adaptation.

Recommendations

1. The framework of B.C.'s land use planning system should be officially recognized as comprising:● four basic levels of planning - provincial, strategic, local and operational● two broad categories: Crown land planning, emphasizing land and resource management; and

local government planning, emphasizing settlement management● provisions for coordination between these levels and categories.

2. The planning levels, functions and products described in the land use planning framework should be affirmed and published as the land use planning system framework for British Columbia.

3. Land use plans at any level of the system should be demand driven, that is, prepared in response to the need to address land use and related resource and environmental issues. However, strategic plans - either regional or subregional - should be prepared for all areas of the province.

4. Flexibility should be applied in selecting and applying the various elements of the planning system framework in order to respond to the nature and magnitude of the land use issues at hand.

5. Products needed to support and implement land use planning (land use policies, resource management standards, procedural guidelines, interagency protocol agreements, analytical methodologies, land use designation systems, land use inventories, etc.) should continue to be developed, published and distributed by the responsible agencies, working collaboratively as required. Greater standardization of the land designation system is a particularly important need.


vol2


Table of contents

2.2 - Planning at the Provincial Level

Direction and coordination essential to a land use strategy are provided at the provincial level. There, government's land use priorities are interpreted into more specific government policy direction and programs, normally with application to the entire province. Administrative systems are enabled or established, often with a statutory basis, to undertake land use and resource planning programs. Priorities are assigned, and capacity to prepare and implement plans is established through the budget process. Political decision-making authority is exercised through the approval of major land use plans and through the resolution of land use issues or disputes as they arise.

Description

Under the Canadian constitution, land and resource management is, with specific exceptions, a provincial responsibility. Each province must establish a management system appropriate to its specific character and requirements, which is done primarily through legislation.

The provincial land use functions, therefore, provide

● Direction, including the establishment of goals and policies● Structures and processes● Legal provisions and review systems● Plan review and approval● Implementation systems and information support.

Issues

Two questions posed during the CORE's consultation process concerned planning at the provincial level:








vol2

"What are the most critical goals for land use planning?"

"What are the key features of a provincial land use planning system that you feel are essential?"

Other questions were specific to the need for and the nature of guiding goals and policies. Table 2.3 summarizes the key responses to question about the provincial planning level.

Table 2.3Key Comments On Provincial Planning Level

Goals

● Set provincial interest principles (economic/environmental/social) and objectives defining the public interest

● Focus on definable, attainable and measurable goals● "We must define where we want to be"● Lead with the goals necessary for sustainability● Need a technically reliable definition of sustainability on which to base resource use

Guidance Required

● Adopt goals as policy; it is difficult to enshrine motherhood goals as legislation; issue broad guidelines at provincial level

● Need to give consistent guidelines to the regions● Allow for flexibility● Recognize that the system is evolutionary● Need provincial guidelines to protect fish habitat (riparian zones, estuaries)

Goals Integration

● A means to translate overall land use goals into an integrated provincial interest statement is required

● Recognize goals conflict; therefore, spell out scenarios, implications and trade-offs for the public● Be clear about the provincial interest aspects of any process● Balanced and fair disposition of the resource base among stakeholders is the intent● Land use planning should not be isolated from other land use factors, e.g., tenure, forest practices,

etc.


vol2

Policies

● Clear strategic policies are needed● Policies to govern urban development and minimize impact on resource● sustainability are needed● Ensure private land is considered

Link To Economic Development

● Recognize that land use is part of economic development● Need land use certainty ● Link land use planning with economic development targets● Consider commodities as well as land use● Need greater analysis of the effects of resource management on communities● Regional economic planning is non-existent

Legislation

● Consider a planning act● Enshrine planning system in legislation (charter, goals, etc.)● Don't emphasize goals in legislation● Enact legislation for planning; be flexible because of regional variations

Linkage Between Governments

● More coordination is required between province and local governments; link settlement and resource planning to consider reciprocal impacts

● Elevate the roles and status of municipal government in resource planning● Local government participation in local resource management plans and regional plans?● Improve First Nations involvement through liaison staff, a federal/provincial protocol?

Planning Support

● Insufficient and scattered data; uniform systems of data collection are needed● Link databases● A common land information system is needed


vol2

Planning Areas

● Planning inefficiency due to different areas● Are planning regions identified in advance or "self-identified"?● Resident population identifies with areas because of economic dependency

Land Use Goals and Policies

The CORE consultation results, while diverse, offered useful insights. Most respondents consider clear and comprehensive goals and policies important but opinion is divided on whether or not they should have formal status in legislation. Goals must be broad enough to convey provincial interests but flexible enough to apply to diverse conditions. It was recognized that some land use goals inherently conflict and that trade-offs will be required. Mechanisms are necessary in order to translate goals into an integrated "on balance" statement of provincial interest. The difficulty of achieving this was recognized, as was the necessity to exercise political judgment in assessing the appropriate mix of goals in disparate situations.

Clear goals and policy guidelines are seen as contributing to the overall efficiency and effectiveness of individual planning tasks because they provide consistent direction. They also form the basis for effective delegation by outlining the expected results, thus allowing for more effective delegation and decentralization.

CORE's concept of a land use strategy includes a set of basic principles on environmental, economic and social sustainability. These principles appear in Appendix 2 as the Land Use Charter, which has been accepted in principle by the provincial government. These principles should be accompanied by a more specific set of land use goals articulating the general public interest in land and its use, and covering resource lands, human settlement, protected areas, coastal and marine systems, transportation, energy, economic development, the environment, outdoor recreation, cultural heritage and First Nations.9 More detailed land use policies and sustainability indicators related to each goal category were developed to provide guidance to all agencies. These were advanced as a consultation draft designed to illustrate policies required to achieve each land use goal. CORE has recommended that the Land Use Charter and related land use goals should guide land use and related resource and environmental management. It is instructive to examine parallel changes in Ontario, where the government recently reviewed the legislation that guides local government land use planning. As a result of its review, Ontario is amending the legislation to include a section on purposes that will

● promote sustainable development "within the policy and by means provided under this act";● "provide for a land use planning system led by provincial policy"; and● "integrate matters of provincial interest in provincial and municipal planning decisions".

These amendments will serve to define provincial interest by requiring the minister and local governments to

have regard to ...matters of provincial interest such as...the protection of ecological systems...; the protection of agricultural resources...' the


vol2

conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base...10

Provincial interests will be clarified by provincial policy statements, and the legislation would require municipal plans to be consistent with these policy statements. The statements indicate what uses will, should or may be permitted on an interim or conditional basis, what resources shall be protected, and where development will not be permitted.

9. See Appendix 2 for a more detailed summary of these goals.

10. See Appendix 11 which presents an example of provincial interest statements drawn from proposed Ontario's, Bill 163, 1994, An Act to Amend the Planning Act.


vol2


Table of contents

Recommendations

1. Land use goals should be formally adopted through supporting legislation to guide the land use planning and management decisions of provincial agencies and local governments.

2. Land use policies associated with the land use goals should also be formally adopted. They can be "field tested" by using them to guide the land use planning processes currently being undertaken in British Columbia, with evaluation forming the basis for their ongoing development and improvement.

3. Prior to approval, strategic land use plans should be evaluated to determine their consistency with provincial goals and policies. Initial evaluation should also examine how well the goals and policies function as guidelines for planning, thus forming a basis for any necessary refinement to them.

Provincial Planning Coordination

The provincial government has taken significant steps towards improving land use planning and coordination, including:

● Creation of CORE, with responsibility for regional planning● Establishment of a Resource Management Division (RMD) to assist cabinet and deputy ministers

with major land use policy and planning initiatives● Establishment of regional interagency management committees comprised of senior officials from

provincial resource ministries● Formation of various provincial level committees to advance, coordinate and support planning

initiatives● Reaffirmation of the agricultural land reserve policy, together with a strengthened decision-making

role for the agricultural land commission● Development of new legislation to regulate environmental assessment and forest practices, establish a

forest land reserve and undertake forest renewal and diversification● Proposed legislation in the form of a Growth Strategies Act to respond to urban growth management








vol2

and coordination issues.

However, even with these changes there are still some major questions. Is the provincial government optimally organized for effective land use planning delivery? What type of structure is best able to foster the preparation and approval of plans?

In previous proposals for reform, one recurring concern has been the lack of specifically assigned planning responsibilities. This concern, along with those concerning the need for neutrality and better coordination, were mirrored in the comments received in CORE's consultations. Neutrality, in the sense of not being structurally aligned to a single sector or not being concerned with any sector-specific land management and implementation duties, is considered an important feature for a provincial planning body. Also the lines of accountability should be clear, as should the procedures for integrating the various planning initiatives. Key comments on the topic of provincial planning coordination are summarized in appendix 12.

Design Considerations

Throughout CORE's consultations, there was considerable discussion of both organizational criteria and alternative structural models for planning delivery, including building on existing structures, establishing a new ministry, or forming a new commission. Potential objectives and criteria for assessing these alternative ways of improving the provincial planning structure included sustainability, comprehensiveness, coordination, fairness, effectiveness, accountability, enforceability, adaptiveness and respect (appendix 13). All options or models should contribute to sustainability, be adaptive and provide for enforceability and participation. For this reason, the criteria of fairness, coordination, accountability and cost-effectiveness were selected as key criteria against which to assess alternative structural models for organizing land use planning at the provincial level.

Fairness: To what extent is the structural model capable of performing the required land use planning functions in a neutral and unbiased manner, free of alignment with any particular perspective that constrains inclusiveness and balance in planning processes and decision-making?

The most common concern about past Crown land planning processes is their perceived lack of neutrality and balance. Crown land planning processes have typically been led by agencies with legislated responsibility to manage and regulate particular resources or to provide particular services. These duties are seen as having the potential to inhibit organizations from fairly considering the full range of planning options because of their institutional perspectives or commitments. The Forest Resources Commission concluded unequivocally that Crown land planning structures must be separate from any agencies that are responsible for the day-to-day administration of land use and natural resources.

This problem is less evident in settlement planning, as local governments usually maintain separate planning departments or retain independent planning consultants to prepare official community plans.

Coordination: In performing the land use planning functions of integrating top-down direction with bottom-up practicality, to what extent is the structural model capable of effectively linking the various orders of government, and of linking planning with the operational agencies that implement land use plans?


vol2

Because land use planning is an inherently complex undertaking, effective coordination among agencies and governments is critical. The institutions that are responsible for land use planning cannot be disconnected from the management structures that are responsible for implementing plans.

Accountability: Can the planning structures be held accountable for delivery of their planning responsibilities?

Roles, responsibilities and reporting relationships within the planning system need to be clearly understood. Accountability for decision-making is particularly important, but the lines of accountability with regard to plan preparation, implementation and responsiveness to the full range of concerns should also be evident to those who are affected.

Cost-effectiveness: How well can the structural model perform the planning functions given a reasonable amount of time and financial resources?

A planning organization must be capable of delivering consistently good products at the least possible cost. No duplication of effort or large expenditure should be incurred to set up and maintain the structures.

Evaluating the Models

Three possible structural models for provincial government land use planning were discussed in CORE's consultations and these are described below. All three models make certain assumptions:

● There is a basic capacity, in terms of staff and financial resources, to perform the planning functions and to deliver the planning products

● Public participation is a requirement of land use planning and plan implementation● The major planning structures, together with their respective roles and responsibilities, will be

recognized in future land use planning legislation in order to clarify structural assignments and provide a stable and enduring environment for land use planning in B.C.

● Dispute resolution mechanisms are available to ensure administrative fairness and accountability in the planning system.

Model 1: Enhance Existing Structures

Model 1 for a provincial planning structure would build on existing structures, with some changes to improve coordination, especially between Crown land and private land planning functions. Resources and energies would be directed towards enhancing the capability and effectiveness of the evolving system, without precluding the possibility of further restructuring.

More effective coordination would require enhancing of the staff complement of RMD, the current designated coordinating group. It would also see establishing regional coordinators reporting to the land use coordinating office, who would facilitate the coordinating function of the regional interagency management committees.


vol2

The significant features of Model 1 are that the structures responsible for planning are internal to government. No single ministry has primary responsibility for land use planning; planning responsibilities remain dispersed among a number of agencies, with mechanisms to ensure that activities are harmonized. Cabinet would maintain responsibility for strategic land use plan approval and resolution of major land use issues.

It may prove difficult to prepare Crown land plans that fully reflect fairness and balance because, relative to the other options, the main coordinating vehicle for planning would be committees of provincial agencies. Although these committees are intended to operate with a corporate perspective, member agencies have program responsibilities, such as economic development or environmental management, that may potentially interfere with their ability to remain neutral or agree to trade-offs during plan development. As well, not all agencies are represented at the regional level, which means that their perspectives may not have an effective presence in regional or local level planning processes. However, it may not be feasible to address all imbalances in agency planning resources by establishing a field capacity for all resource agencies or by reallocating already scarce planning budgets.

On the positive side, Model 1 would ensure a high degree of coordination because the primary planning structures include personnel who are also responsible for resource management and plan implementation on the designated lands. However, coordination would only be as strong as the mandate to arrive at a plan which accommodates the many interests.

The land use coordinating office currently reports to the Deputy Minister of Forests and the Deputy Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. The effectiveness of this reporting relationship may have to be broadened to include all deputy ministers who participate in land use planning. The land use coordinating office's authority may also have to be strengthened. The former Environment and Land Use Committee Secretariat which once chaired a committee made up of deputy ministers involved in land use could be an appropriate model. Another possibility would be to provide CORE with this function, although this would not be fully compatible with its statutory independence and advisory roles.

Accountability under Model 1 would be high, in that elected politicians retain responsibility for major land use decision-making. A drawback is that a planning structure comprised of multiple bodies can result in a diffused and scattered accountability for planning delivery unless responsibilities are well defined and coordinated.

Model 1 would probably be the most cost-effective option in the short term, in that it involves the least disruption of established structures and administrative systems. There would also be a certain efficiency associated with the close linkage of planning and plan implementation responsibilities, and with the flexibility to adapt structures and processes. Long-term cost-effectiveness would depend on the extent to which overall coordination could be established and maintained.



vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Recommendations

1. As a starting point, the existing provincial agencies responsible for land use planning in B.C. should be used as the structural model for the provincial land use planning system. The system should be strengthened by formalizing the Resource Management Division as a secretariat reporting to cabinet, and providing it with adequate staff dedicated to improving coordination, policy development, planning methods, and public involvement in land use planning.

2. Planning structures should be adjusted to facilitate greater coordination between agencies. This includes establishing regional coordinators to facilitate the work of interagency management committees (recommendation 19), reestablishing technical planning committees to improve provincial - local government planning linkages (recommendation 34), and recognizing the role of community resource boards in land use planning (recommendations 21 and 44).

3. CORE should monitor the overall performance of the evolving land use planning delivery system, using the criteria of fairness, coordination and integration, accountability and cost-effectiveness. The results should form a basis for recommendations on the ongoing improvement of planning delivery system structures, including consideration of further structural adjustments as necessary.

Legislation

Is specific land use legislation, such as a planning act or sustainable land use act, necessary if provincial interest goals are to be met?

Historically, settlement planning has been addressed by the Municipal Act. Resource planning, on the other hand, has been covered by a number of statutes administered by various agencies. This separation of planning responsibilities was reinforced by the geographic reality of the "two B.C.'s" referred to earlier: the urban regions, where growth management is a central issue; and the resource-dependent regions, where resource management is the dominant concern.








vol2

A planning or sustainability land use act has the appeal combining the presentation of common provincial interest land use goals and strategic policies in a single statute.

Added to the appeal of simplicity is the fact that settlement and resource planning needs are often connected. For example, activities on Crown land may affect interests on private land, such as water supply and recreation opportunities; conversely, settlement growth may have an impact on what can be done on neighbouring Crown land.

While simple in concept, in practice an effective land use planning act would be difficult to achieve, given the rapid recent evolution of the land use planning system itself. However, it is this very complexity which speaks to its need. The system now features regional planning initiatives, intergovernmental initiatives such as the Fraser Basin management agreement, and major redirection of subregional planning and review of urban growth management issues such as those in the Georgia Basin. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act authorizes the Chief Forester to establish or vary resource management zones and a district manager of Forests to establish landscape units with the approval of a designated environment official. Published plans presumably guide such determinations. There would be benefits in more explicitly affirming the status and role of approved strategic plans as guidelines for such decisions. At present there is no single statute under which a resource plan might receive approval, although individual sectoral plans could be supported by sector specific statutes.11

Figure 2.2. Proposed General Structure for Land Use Planning Delivery and Decision-Making

In general terms, legislation to support planning could

● formalize planning goals and policies to provide consistent guidance● require the production of plans● define mandates for the preparation and review of plans● outline the general scope of plans and the general procedures for their production● clarify the status of plans● outline provisions for plan approval, amendment, review and appeal.● Provisions for guiding local governments on planning procedures and general scope are outlined in

the Municipal Act, although formal provincial interest goals are not defined in that act. Resource planning powers are less explicitly defined than in the Municipal Act.

Options for making these powers more explicit include

● status quo, i.e., retain the Municipal Act for local government land use planning and vest general provisions in various other statutes, such as the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, for resource planning;



vol2

● separate statutes, one set for community planning (Municipal Act or other) and another for resource planning; and

● a single act covering both community and resource planning.

Despite the evolutionary nature of planning, statutory provisions would help to clarify the status of plans for those who prepare them and those who use them.

Separate statutes for community and resource planning would match the current statutory separation of municipal and resource plans. The broad goals of sustainable land use would be common to legislation for both resource planning and community/urban regional planning.

Recommendations

1. Legislation, in the form of a Sustainability Act, should be developed to authorize the formal establishment of coordinating planning structures; to clarify the status and effect of plans; and to formalize strategic land use planning requirements, including provisions regarding plan preparation, approval, amendment and appeal.

2. Land use goals and policies, refined as necessary by field testing, should be included in the legislation to provide consistent direction regarding the provincial interests to be met in land use planning by ministries and local governments.

Further detail respecting the rationale and scope of proposed legislation to enable the key parts of a provincial land use planning system is provided in the November 1994 CORE report, "A Sustainability Act for British Columbia".

11. A possible exception is the Environment and Land Use Act.



vol2


Table of contents

Information Support

Information support was identified as an area where greater efficiency and effectiveness is possible in the planning system. The number of jurisdictions tends to hamper efficiency by making coordination and information-sharing difficult. Joint administrative boundaries could help with data exchange and communication, although information technology reduces barriers because it allows the flexible manipulation and transfer of data. Its adoption is fostered by ongoing initiatives (e.g., the Resource Inventory Committee, the Corporate Resources Inventory Initiative, Land Data B.C., etc.) aimed at agreement on standards and uniform systems for data storage, retrieval and mapping. These initiatives warrant ongoing support because of the long-term efficiency and effectiveness they can foster.

What is also required, however, is a systematic examination of the information actually used to support planning decisions. Data collected for operational purposes and aggregated to support higher level planning is possibly not meeting the needs of users.

Recommendation

1. The Resource Management Division, in conjunction with CORE, should monitor recent planning to assess the information used at different planning levels, with the intent of evaluating its effectiveness and adjusting inventory standards and priorities to fit with identified planning requirements.

Plan Approval and Implementation

The recommendations that plan-making be guided by goals and policies and have legal status raise a question about the approval process and how to accomplish compliance with provincial goals. This question would be of particular importance for higher level strategic plans, which set the direction for operational planning and decision-making. Review and approval procedures may differ for each level. Any potential tension between








vol2

provincial and local interests might be most pronounced at the strategic level. (The need to represent provincial interests was generally supported in CORE's consultations, although some considered land use plans as matters for local determination). The preferred solution is to have sufficient partnership and interagency linkages so that maximum reconciliation of provincial interests and local needs and desires is possible. Improved impact analysis methods can help planning teams evaluate potential land use options and bring these considerations into the negotiation and reconciliation process.

Political decision-making was accepted as necessary for a number of reasons: adjudicating between plan alternatives where necessary; gauging compliance with provincial interest goals; and lending formal status to plans to ensure they are effectively implemented. Such decision-making can be assisted by evaluation of plan options and the degree to which provincial goals are met in the preferred plan. Opportunities are needed for the general public, as well as those more closely involved in plan-making, to have input during the final plan approval process. Public consultations or hearings are possibilities, but other less formal methods, including those aimed at fostering dialogue and community awareness, should also be employed.

Under any structure, it is inevitable that many agencies have responsibility for implementing the intended objectives of a plan. A major requirement, therefore, is commitment to realizing these goals and objectives. Participation in plan-making would seem to be the best vehicle for achieving interagency acceptance and linkages. While this may seem particularly important in major urban areas, and in the rapidly developing areas of the coastal zone where many jurisdictions meet and overlap, it has relevance throughout the province.12 The recent creation of the Resource Management Division demonstrates a commitment to improved corporate direction and coordination of all interministry land use planning initiatives. Prominent among its roles is ensuring that cabinet planning decisions are implemented by the ministries as intended.

Recommendations

1. Strategic level land use plans should be approved by cabinet. Political decision-making should be assisted by planning processes that have ensured:

● interagency coordination● early, direct and meaningful engagement of the public● systematic use of impact assessment/ accounting methods● provisions for informing and involving the general public throughout the planning process,

including consultations prior to approval decisions.2. Interagency linkages and consultation should be strengthened throughout the planning process to

ensure maximum reconciliation of provincial land use goals and policies with local objectives and aspirations, as well as commitment to plan implementation. Interagency linkage and consultation should be facilitated through interagency management committees (IAMCs).

3. Monitoring should take place to ensure that plan objectives are being met, to identify ways to improve implementation, and to identify areas for potential plan revision and amendment. A monitoring program should exist for each approved strategic level plan; monitoring should be coordinated by the appropriate regional interagency management committee in cooperation with community resource boards where they exist.

2.3 - Strategic Land Use Planning Level


vol2

At the regional and subregional levels, provincial land use goals are interpreted into strategic land use direction for large geographic areas. The size of planning areas will vary, depending on the nature and scope of issues and objectives. Because strategic land use plans present general land use policies direction and broad land use designations, implementation usually involves further local level planning at more refined scales.

Strategic land use planning is done for large land units such as:

● major drainage basins, where the goal is to produce an integrated strategy for land and water management (e.g., Fraser Basin management program)

● major ecosystems, where the goal is to maintain the quality of life in areas experiencing rapid urban growth (e.g., Georgia Basin Initiative)

● major socioeconomic regions, where the goal is to designate land into several broad categories and to identify socioeconomic transition policies (e.g., CORE regional plans)

● forest districts, where the goal is to identify resource management objectives and guidelines for specific land areas by designating resource management zones (e.g., land and resource management plans)

● regional districts or groups of regional districts, where the goal is to establish policies and mechanisms for urban growth management (e.g., the liveable region plan for the Greater Vancouver Regional District).

Description

Identified as part of the planning hierarchy and a required planning level, regional resource planning became recognized in 1992 with the passage of the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act. In that act, CORE is instructed to "facilitate the development and implementation, and shall monitor the operation of, regional planning processes to define the uses to which areas of British Columbia may be put...." Regional planning is now completed in the four regions (Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, West Kootenay-Boundary and East Kootenay) designated by cabinet as priorities in an attempt to move beyond valley-by-valley conflict.

Viewing land use controversies in a larger ecosystem context is intended to provide a more systematic evaluation as well as identify a broader range of options. This is helpful in implementing the province's protected areas policy in the context of competing demands to maintain "working forests".

Subregional planning is another source of strategic land use plans in B.C. Now named Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP), subregional planning has been going through a period of rapid evolution. Until recently it was known as timber supply area planning because it was primarily concerned with defining the forest land base, as part of the process for determining allowable forest harvest levels. Forest planning has a major influence on non-timber resources and recent changes, such as forming interministry committees, reflect a new broader focus. Land and resource management planning is considered a strategic level because it sets objectives for the use of large areas rather than forming the basis for permits and approvals.

In other forms of regional planning, a broad overview of the Georgia Basin was completed to examine the


vol2

governance implications of continuing urban growth. The Fraser Basin Management Program, which operates over a very large region - the Fraser River basin - aims to harmonize the initiatives of a number of jurisdictions in order to enhance efforts towards sustainability of its ecosystems.

Formal strategic planning has been lacking in most regional districts because of the removal in 1983 of the statutory mandate. Urban regional planning is now being pursued voluntarily, by single regional districts or by regional groups. Generally, local government planning initiatives are not strongly connected to resource-oriented planning on adjacent lands. A major challenge is to strengthen this linkage, as well as to incorporate provincial interests in urban-centred planning.

Many strategic initiatives of government also employ a regional perspective, the studies of candidate areas under the provincial protected areas strategy being a prime example.

Issues

In its consultations, CORE asked for general suggestions on how to improve regional and subregional planning. Specific questions were also posed around proposals for local round tables or more formal community resource boards, including possible mandate and accountabilities, whether they should be appointed or elected, and how they might relate to local governments. CORE's discussion paper13 asked:

● Is there an ongoing need for a neutral CORE presence in a region once it has facilitated regional plans?

● Are standing participatory bodies required for implementation and monitoring?● Do the steering committees for land and resource management planning require facilitation from an

independent consultant or agency?● Is "shared decision-making" or a more formal delegation of authority preferable?● Key issues and themes emerging from the interviews included● relationship of regional planning to subregional planning - are both necessary?● size of planning areas, to ensure effective participation● desirability of well-defined objectives, participation guidelines, process, planning sequence and

methodologies● support for neutral planning capacity; greater clarity for the role of the interagency management

committees and provision for their support● support for community boards with clearly defined mandates, roles and composition● need for improved linkages with local government planning.

Responses concerning regional planning are summarized in appendix 14; comments on CORE's initial regional planning efforts, appendix 15; and comments on subregional planning, appendix 16.

12. For this reason, initiatives such as the Fraser Basin management program are being supported to help identify means for improved inter-institutional cooperation.


vol2

13. CORE Land Use Strategy Framework, Goals and Planning Options Draft Discussion Paper (Background Report 93-05), (Victoria, 1993).


vol2


Table of contents

Regional or Subregional?

A fundamental question is whether regional and subregional plans are interchangeable. Both are strategic in the sense of addressing broad land use allocation and objectives, although not necessarily at the same scale. To date, regional plans have been produced for significantly larger areas than most land and resource management planning areas. Because land and resource management plans are normally done for smaller areas, they may offer more opportunity for detailed local input than is possible at the regional level, but they will require coordination to ensure that they fit with each other and with existing regional plans. In addition to size of planning area, a major difference between regional and subregional planning has been in who initiates and facilitates the process. In regional planning, CORE has provided overall direction and mediation, while in land and resource management planning, provincial ministries lead the process.

CORE has pioneered the use of interest-based negotiations in regional planning, and land and resource management planning has adopted a similar commitment to consensus-seeking methods. While regional plans more directly address economic mitigation measures related to land use, both levels use economic and social impact assessment as an evaluation tool. Given their similarities, it remains with government to determine the appropriate geographic scale of a strategic land use plan, which process to employ and how to allocate the staff and financial resources that such planning requires. Whether for subregional or regional planning, a framework of guiding provincial land use goals and policies is necessary to foster overall consistency.

Recommendation

1. Government should make case by case decisions on whether to undertake strategic land use planning on a regional or subregional basis.

Government Structure








vol2

A recurring theme has been concern about the lack of sufficient resources, including planning expertise and resource inventories, to adequately undertake planning. Irrespective of whether strategic planning is done regionally or subregionally, appropriate structures and staff capacity are required. At current staffing levels, interagency management committees will face difficulties in plan preparation and implementation. There is also the question of how smaller agencies can participate. Because many agencies cannot support staff in every region or district, concentrating specialist resources in common regional centres seems essential. While additional resources are being allocated to land use planning, competing budget demands in participating agencies will require prioritization of strategic planning tasks. The tasks of the Resource Management Division include advising on priorities for both planning areas and allocation of planning resources.

Land and resource management plans are generally initiated by forest district offices following priorities set by the interagency management committees in conjunction with the Resource Management Division. Regions with several processes proceeding concurrently may be limited by the capacity of the smaller agencies to provide support. A rotation schedule would ensure coverage of each subregion. Where neutrality in terms of non-aligned agency leadership is sought for subregional planning, existing regional or district staff may be able to assist. External chairs and/or facilitators could be provided through the proposed regional coordinators or potentially by CORE upon request.

Recommendations

1. Regional coordinators reporting to the Resource Management Division should be established to support the coordinating and planning activities of the interagency management committees. Funding for such services should be a budget function of the Resource Management Division. This would include ensuring and coordinating funding for any future regional or subregional planning and related consultation and public involvement activities - with budget provisions to support the planning work of community resource boards and other forms of public participation.

2. Ministries with significant interests in land use planning should assign or work towards assigning planning staff to common regional centres. The regional centres can also serve as local points for:

● interagency coordination, provision of information, and GIS analysis● registries where all approved plans for the region are maintained● application centres for strategic plan amendments● bases for monitoring the implementation of strategic plans.


Appropriate structures for public participation in strategic planning are an important consideration. All parties with an interest in plan results are encouraged to participate, with consensus among public participants and agencies the preferred result. The CORE consultations revealed concerns about the meaning of consensus (see appendix 15 and 16). Respondents who understood consensus to mean unanimous agreement suggested that a less absolute standard would reduce the prospect of an impasse. A different land use negotiation processes, defined consensus as "general agreement"; while the parties may not agree to all aspects of an agreement, they do not disagree enough to oppose the overall package.

Not every consensus-seeking process will result in full agreement. While external factors such as privacy, available information, and time and resources to support the process play an important part, at least as much


vol2

depends on the collective will of the participants to create opportunities for jointly supported outcomes. Where participants are seen by themselves, or by others, as able to get what they want by other means, progress towards consensus will be slow or impossible.

Where full agreement cannot be reached, participants can still agree to disagree and narrow the scope of the conflict by clarifying the alternatives. Even if agreement is not reached, the fostering of mutual understanding and working relationships has lasting value. The consensus process can therefore be viewed as an important means for the public to participate in land use decision-making.

Community resource boards could provide ongoing community input into strategic resource planning and related implementation. As the nucleus of community representatives, these volunteer boards could engage in interest-based land use planning negotiations as well as advise on local government planning, major tenuring or development proposals, and community development. This advisory role would, however, stop short of delegated responsibility for various approval and tenure issuance powers. Consultation advice suggested that community resource boards would need to involve all affected interests, and there might be value in having a membership "template" defined. Some variability should be allowed for recognizing the variation in socioeconomic profiles of communities and areas throughout B.C. The goal should be balanced representation from all sectors with land use interests, who have communication and accountability links to their constituencies. Preliminary guidelines on the purposes, structuring, procedures and accountability of community resource boards are presented in appendix 17 and will be more fully developed in CORE's companion report on community participation.

The real test is the willingness of parties in a land use planning exercise to seek solutions that will accommodate the needs of all concerned. Although some parties may believe that their best opportunity is to rely on formal regulatory and adjudicative processes, a highly participatory and negotiated approach offers the advantage of arriving at recommendations that enjoy the support of other interests.

The Bulkley Valley community resource board is cited as a good example of participation in strategic land use planning based on a multi-stakeholder approach. Membership is drawn from individuals who represent various land use perspectives but who are expected to be accountable to the community at large. In this way the board achieves broad and balanced representation without sacrificing the community perspective. The Anahim Round Table in the West Chilcotin area is another example demonstrating how a full range of interests can be brought together to arrive at consensus in an area with past land use conflict. That table includes a very broad membership and the rules of procedure maintain open access to new participants if their interests are not directly represented.

While the Bulkley and Anahim appear to be models worth looking to, a flexible approach is desirable. Community resource boards are seen as being "community based", and thus far they have tended to be synonymous with subregional or local planning areas. The concept is flexible however. The Anahim Round Table demonstrated that it is possible for a more local board to participate at a subregional table. Figure 2.3 conceptually illustrates potential relationships involving different levels of round tables.

In some cases the requirement for a regional table might be met by drawing representatives from the community resource boards. Plan preparation, periodic monitoring of progress on implementation of a regional plan or to serve as a sounding board on major amendments are possible reasons for such a table, as


vol2

also illustrated in figure 2.3.

Recommendations

1. Community resource boards (CRBs) should be officially recognized and encouraged as a vehicle for advice and consensus-seeking participation in the development of strategic land use plans, as well as to fill other advisory roles related to community economic, social and environmental development questions. Priority should be given to CRBs where there is a community will to establish them for active participation in interest-based planning negotiations.

2. Representation on CRBs should demonstrate a visible balance of the economic, social and environmental interests or perspectives on land use in the area. Representation should ensure communication and accountability links to the various constituencies, as well as to the community at large.


vol2


Table of contents

Co-ordination

Linkages with First Nations and local governments are important, for both regional and subregional strategic planning. Direct participation by First Nations and local government representatives should be encouraged, supplemented by periodic briefings of their full councils to facilitate understanding and information exchange.

Topics warranting particular consideration would be identified and could be made the subject of special task groups. Special communication links with the treaty negotiation process are clearly desirable, while government-to-government relationships would remain a fundamental avenue for coordination, particularly on non-technical and decision-making questions requiring political direction.

Recommendation

1. Direct participation by representatives of local and First Nations governments in strategic land use planning should continue to be actively encouraged, supplemented by periodic information briefings of full councils. Special task groups should be employed on an "as-needed" basis to deal with policy issues.

Figure 2.3. Conceptual Model: Community Resource Board Levels









vol2

Approval of Plans

Ideally, strategic land use plans would be approved at the political level of the provincial cabinet. This approval would provide a means of adjudication, help to affirm the official status of plans for those who must implement them, and ensure final accountability for major land use decisions. Plans could be given official status in several ways:

● a policy directive from cabinet or a designated minister;● a cabinet order under the Environment and Land Use Act; or● adoption under a new statute (recommendation 12).

Prior to ministerial consideration, proposed plans should have had the benefits of broader community comment through information sessions, consultations and/or hearings. As well, RMD, as a central secretariat, would provide staff review of proposed plans regarding consistency with provincial goals and policies. RMD would also advise on consistency of land and resource management planning with regional plans, offer staff advice on unresolved issues and identify suggestions for amended goals, policies, or regional plans as a result of such reviews.

The role of First Nations in the plan approval process warrants special comment. As noted above, First Nations involvement throughout the process is desired and will be encouraged. Prior to formal approval decisions, cabinet should ensure that discussions take place with First Nations in the planning area to determine whether there are any implications for aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations.

Amendments to an approved plan could be initiated where substantial new factors or findings suggest that this is advisable, such as development prospects not previously contemplated, instances of implementation that is not proving feasible, new legal or policy requirements, and so on. Amendment proposals could be initiated by a ministry or by a private interest. Private sector proposals would start at the regional or district level through the relevant ministry. Consultation with the community would be provided for, initially through community resource boards where they exist, or through other public consultation means, as appropriate. As well, provisions for more formal public consultation or hearings would be provided for before amendments are considered by cabinet. Periodic formal review of a strategic plan should also be provided for intervals of five years or less, to ensure that the plan remains current.

Recommendations

1. The land use designations and associated land and resource management objectives of strategic land use plans should be officially adopted pursuant to provincial legislation.

2. Political approval of strategic land use plans should follow opportunities for public information and comment; review by RMD for consistency with provincial goals and policies; and discussions with First Nations in the planning area regarding implications for aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations.

Implementation

Strategic land use plans provide a foundation for a number of activities, such as local resource and/or operational planning; direct ministry action on protected areas, road construction, etc.; the issuance of land


vol2

and resource tenures; and regulatory actions (e.g., review and issuance of development approvals). Once a strategic plan is approved, cabinet's intent would be conveyed to the Resource Management Division, which would be responsible for communicating it to regional and district offices and other key interests in order to start the implementation process. Regional coordinators could play a significant role in that communication and also ensure that approved plans are maintained in accessible registries, presumably in regional and district offices.

Under the broad direction established by a strategic plan, ministries would undertake implementation including preparing operational plans for each broad land use category. For example, implementation of protected area decisions will require a complex set of measures such as boundary refinement, interim measures, property negotiations, land exchanges, licence adjustments, management plans, etc. Areas identified for priority management or special management will require more detailed planning and appropriate regulatory strategies.

Any major disputes arising with respect to compliance with the strategic plan could first be considered by the appropriate interagency management committee to determine what action is necessary, including internal or external mediation. Failing resolution, the dispute could be referred to a formal appeal board, with final recourse to the courts on points of law.

The interagency management committees should prepare annual progress reports on the implementation of a regional plan, and convene existing regional tables to offer advice. District offices should do the same for land and resource management planning with advice from community resource boards where they exist.

Recommendation

1. Implementation of regional and sub-regional plans should be ensured by:● communicating, at the time of approval, government's policy intent and requirements to the

implementation agencies● maintaining the plans in accessible regional and district registries● ensuring that implementation disputes are quickly addressed by IAMCs● monitoring of implementation progress.

2.4 - Local Level Resource Planning

Local level resource use plans are prepared for Crown lands and sometimes the adjacent private lands to provide a more specific context for land use development activity than can be provided by regional or subregional planning. On Crown lands, provincial agency staff oversee the preparation of plans for areas of particular sensitivity or conflict, and for areas where relatively detailed resource management guidelines and prescriptions are needed. The planning area might comprise a single watershed or some similarly sized landscape unit experiencing resource development pressure.


Local resource plans have been a mainstay of the resource planning system for almost two decades. Known


vol2

by a variety of names to reflect the diversity of topics they address - local resource use plans; integrated watershed management plans; controlled access management plans; coordinated range management plans; coordinated resource management plans; and, total resource plans, all of them share a problem-solving orientation.14 Local resource use plan (LRUP) has often been used as the generic term to describe all such plans.

Where conflicting perspectives on land use and development exist, planning to deal with locational, timing, and management issues is undertaken with the intent of identifying solutions. In the absence of regional or subregional plans, local resource planning has to deal with significant land allocation issues. For example, habitat preservation, recreation, scenic values and community watersheds are land allocation issues that have typically been referred to local resource use planning.

In many cases, integrated resource management is seen as the land use prescription or zone, with the task being to supply particulars such as road location, development sequence, and detailed landscape design. Where there is agreement on the land use prescription, detailed design is a valuable working tool and essential step. For example, it has allowed for "designs" that establish conditions for forest harvesting in domestic watersheds; in other cases it has developed working solutions for the joint use of range resources by cattle and wildlife. Other applications have examined recreation corridors, and still others have developed location and harvesting details to accommodate several uses. In some cases, forest harvesting has been considered acceptable if road access was controlled to ensure that wildlife and other values requiring relative seclusion could be maintained. Detailed design of logging location, scale, shape and sequence has been undertaken to manage for visual values.

Local resource planning, which historically has been used to resolve resource conflicts, is increasingly seen as a means of proactively delivering integrated resource management with an "all resources considered" perspective on landscape units of up to 100,000 hectares in size.15 This change has been driven by several factors, including:

● the desire to more extensively employ a total resource perspective (e.g., looking at proposed logging in the context of an entire valley), which requires designing forest harvesting for an entire watershed before initiating logging;

● the need to develop integrated solutions that more explicitly consider non-timber values; and,● increased ecological awareness and recognition of the importance of landscape design as a tool for

maintaining forest ecosystems and biodiversity.

Issues

Noting that local resource use plans had been developed primarily to deal with issues related to development and management, CORE's questionnaire sought suggestions for improving their effectiveness. Other issues centered around methods for community participation and the cooperative resolution of conflicts, improved linkage with local governments and First Nations, and the appropriate level for plan approvals.

Table 2.4 summarizes the key comments on local resource use planning.


vol2

Table 2.4Key Comments on Local Resource Use Planning

Goals and Policies

● This planning level may not be needed; if it is required, it should be guided by provincial land use principles and goals

Framework

● Issues, concerns and topics are similar to LRMP; product should be an acceptable land use map and management policies

Initiation

● Needs a neutral chair; is BC Lands neutral enough?

Participation

● Local resource boards supported to give a bottom-up approach. These may be the same bodies as for subregional planning. Develop guidelines for their structure and operation

● Consider expenses for volunteers

Linkage

● Define ways to get better coordination and linkage with regional districts using the technical planning committee concept

● Lack of development control on managed forest lands is a specific concern; it can totally disrupt official community planning

14. Total resource plans, previously known as total development plans or total chance plans, are being looked at as a way of providing integrated planning for "landscape units", a new category established by the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act.

15. The term "landscape unit" took on specific meaning under section 4 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, which authorizes designated officials to establish these units and set objectives that are consistent with the zoning.


vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Direction

The major change that has occurred since CORE's extensive consultations on planning system improvement is the passage in 1994 of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. That act authorizes the Chief Forester to establish resource management zones (RMZs) within provincial forests upon the direction of cabinet or ministers; it also authorizes each district manager of forests, with the concurrence of a designated environment official, to establish "landscape units", together with management objectives that are consistent with those of the RMZs. Under special circumstances, the same officials can designate "sensitive areas" to conserve particular resource values.

There are two basic classes of local resource plan:

● landscape units, created under the Forest Practices Code, which enable the setting of more detailed land management objectives (including objectives for biodiversity) for defined watershed units

● local resource use plans (LRUPs), which are needed to further define land allocation under the broad resource management zones or produce more refined zoning proposals to address local issues, including the development of detailed management objectives. Thus LRUPs continue to be used as necessary for areas requiring more in-depth planning in provincial forests, as well as for similar planning exercises where forest management is not the central question, such as in coastal areas.

In either case, local resource plans are required to take guidance from the "higher level" plans that establish broad land use allocation. If higher level plans do not exist, the Land Use Charter and the provincial land use goals and strategic policies can provide consistent general direction to local resource planning.

LRUPs are not seen as necessarily distinctive, but as offering the additional detail not possible in subregional and regional plans. They may not always be required if the substantial land issues have been addressed in higher level plans. As more regional plans and LRMPs are available to provide broad land allocation direction, local resource planning should be increasingly able to focus on implementation and design issues.








vol2

Given limited staff resources, resource agencies favour focusing on the design of specific integrated solutions and related implementation issues.

Because LRUPs deal with locational specifics and have a strong emphasis on local land allocation issues, some observers favour local resource boards to ensure that community perspectives are well represented and balanced in the planning process. Such boards could serve as a touchstone and a source of community advice. The Forest Practices Code prescribes that notice of intent to establish, vary or cancel a landscape unit or objective must be published, and local boards could help to provide a community response to such proposals.

Local resource planning has been applied primarily to Crown land, although linkages with plans on adjacent private lands under local government jurisdiction are important when management and design issues cross jurisdictional lines. Linkages could be facilitated by the restoration of formal structures such as the former technical planning committees to facilitate effective coordination. First Nations participation, an important consideration for the purpose of pursuing mutually satisfactory plans, could be encouraged by financial or technical assistance where necessary to ensure effective representation of their interests.

Approval and Implementation

There is a strong belief that the agreements reached in the planning for local resource use must be "bought into". Interagency agreement is essential because it forms the basis for direct implementation, instructions to existing licensees, and conditions of permits and approvals. To date, it has been implicit that local resource use plans, once agreed upon, must conform to higher level plans. Clarifying their formal status would legitimize these plans as implementation devices. The idea of delegating authority to local bodies to approve and amend them was supported in the interviews. The IAMCs appear to be the obvious bodies for such delegated decision-making, with RMD serving as a mediator and cabinet as the final arbiter if necessary.

For landscape units, as established under the Forest Practices Code where the planning is more technical, a district manager of the Ministry of Forests and a designated environment official from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are the statutory approval offices. They can rely on district level interagency planning committees to deal with coordination beyond these two ministries.

Appeals of local resource use plans would be initiated by a developer or a citizen on grounds of inconsistency or non-compliance. The permitting agency would be the first line of appeal, and the regional interagency management committee the second. Again, an appeal board would hear unresolved administrative issues.

Compliance with specific guidelines and agreements is important, and reporting on compliance can be made a condition of permits and approvals. District offices of responsible agencies would undertake field audits and sponsor periodic reporting, possibly in conjunction with community resource boards. The Forest Practices Board is also empowered to carry out periodic independent audits with respect to compliance with forest development plans and other operational requirements under the Forest Practices Code.

Recommendations

1. Local resource plans should be consistent with strategic land use plans and formally approved under legislation. Approval authority for them should be delegated to IAMCs, with referral to cabinet for


vol2

decision in cases of impasse.2. Opportunity should be provided for community participation, particularly for local resource planning

that involves land designation considerations. This opportunity should include First Nations and local government among the participants. Formal government technical planning committees could coordinate planning where issues cross jurisdictional lines. Community resource boards should be used as a source of balanced community input into local resource use planning.

3. The objectives and guidelines established in local resource plans should be reflected in development approvals and use permits, including reporting requirements to facilitate compliance review. Community resource boards should provide community oversight.

2.5 - Operational Level Resource Planning

Operational plans direct the location and installation of facilities and specific resource management practices. Depending on the activity, operational plans will apply to either a specific site or a specific locale. Many operational plans are prepared by developers as a part of an application to proceed with resource harvesting and related activities such as road construction. Others are prepared as a condition of obtaining tenure rights for developments such as mines and major resorts. These plans are usually prepared in response to the legislative or policy guidelines of regulating ministries.

Some operational plans have extensive requirements for project impact assessment - that is, looking at the environmental, social and economic impacts and considering ways to mitigate or avoid the negative ones and ensure the positive ones. Formal environmental assessment requirements are already embodied in provincial legislation for the environmental assessment of mining and energy projects, and a more extensive group of major projects is included in the Environmental Assessment Act, 1994. Many major projects have implications for federal resources and programs, and these may be assessed under federal environmental assessment legislation. (The Environmental Assessment Act provides for coordinating provincial and federal assessments).

Government agencies are also involved in the preparation of operational plans for developments related to their programs, such as forest development and logging, parks and range use. Operational plans also cover management activities such as silviculture, range and habitat enhancement, and pest suppression. The Forest Practices Code requires that forest and range operational plans automatically classify riparian areas, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, recreation features, community watersheds, and assess soil and terrain conditions. Visual, heritage or watershed impact assessments may be required.

Issues

Suggestions made during CORE's consultations on how to improve the effectiveness of operational plans are summarized in table 2.5.

Implementation

Even with legislative streamlining, the number of statutes - and hence the number of regulatory agencies - involved in the review and approval of operational plans will remain high. Coordination is therefore essential.


vol2

It has been the traditional practice of a lead agency, typically the one issuing the major approval, to refer development proposals to other agencies. In some cases these others are named in statute; in others it is policy and practice to include them. Concerns have been expressed about the efficiency of referrals, especially relative to timeliness, and linked referral systems were suggested. This could be facilitated through using common databases and electronic systems to distribute applications, access inventories, and track and collate responses. In areas such as the Fraser River estuary, such upgrading has been used to streamline and strengthen interagency reviews. This approach should be given priority in areas with extensive interagency referrals and jurisdictional complexity, such as parts of the "coastal zone". Where preparation of an operational plan is the responsibility of a developer, local or community resource boards could assist by serving as a reference group.

Table 2.5Key Comments on Operational Planning

Goals and Policies

● Define objectives and standards as a basis for deciding on projects

Framework

● The regulatory and permitting system is seriously flawed. A fair and predictable approval process is desired. Timeliness in disposition of applications for development and use is needed

● There is a need to better define how decisions on applications for development are made under an approved plan

● Variation in development cost charges is a problem

Participation

● Local round tables should ensure that operational plans align with higher level plans

Coordination

● Aim at linked referral systems


vol2

Approvals

● Approvals must be applied consistently across plans● Land use approvals should be administered by a regional board supported by advisory groups;

ministries act as interested parties

Environmental assessment is regarded as a special form of operational planning. In the absence of area plans, environmental assessment processes have often had to carry the burden of first determining if the proposed land use is appropriate. Developers may have little guidance in making locational decisions. The increasing number of higher level plans should provide such guidance and reduce this problem. In the early stages of project design, environmental assessment processes can refer to published land use plans to assist applicants on the general suitability of their proposals. However, it is conceivable that the proposed use, while potentially acceptable, may not have been contemplated by existing plans, and the environmental assessment procedure must allow for this possibility.

Where required, cultural heritage impact assessments must be carried out to ensure that First Nations heritage resources are protected, with every attempt made to involve First Nations in preparing these assessments.

An amendment process should be provided for where a proposed land use is inconsistent with a higher level plan but is deemed potentially desirable. A developer could present an amendment application to the office of the relevant approval agency. Because a local resource use plan would likely be the plan of reference, applications for amendment could be directed to an interagency management committee as the appropriate decision body. Provision should be made for discussion of proposed amendments with the community, and a public consultation or hearing could be convened where community interest is sufficiently high. If a higher level plan is involved, the interagency management committee would prepare recommendations to assist cabinet in making a decision on the amendment proposal.

Avenues of appeal to a board should exist on questions of consistency of operational approvals with approved plans. Appeal to the courts on points of law or jurisdiction would exist as they do now.

The monitoring of plan and permit requirements is particularly significant for operational planning. Field monitoring not only encourages and establishes degrees of compliance but also presents an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of both the approval requirements and the plan. The review of operational effectiveness should be made routine. Periodic reporting to resource boards and First Nations in the area could ensure community confidence.

Recommendations

1. Linked referral systems should be used more extensively to enhance interagency coordination and timeliness in the review of proposed operational plans. These referral systems will facilitate coordination where more than one agency must provide an approval.

2. While higher level plans provide guidance, the possibility for their amendment must exist to ensure


vol2

due process and adaptiveness to new factors. Administrative decisions on operational plans should be appealable on questions regarding their consistency with the objectives of higher level plans. Internal review by the permitting agency should be the first step, interagency management committee review the second, with formal appeal as a final step if necessary.

3. Community resource boards or the equivalent should provide community perspectives during the preparation of operational plans, comments on proposed amendments and on major development proposals, and be a source of community monitoring of effectiveness.


vol2


Table of contents

2.6 - Local Government Planning

Local government undertakes land use planning at several levels. Broad strategic planning is undertaken for relatively large areas to deal with problems of regional growth management. More specific plans such as official community plans are prepared at the local level to provide guidance for urban development activity. Operational level plans are prepared for relatively small areas, such as neighbourhoods, as a basis for specifying or regulating the details of land use and development. They may include bylaws to regulate land use in individual neighbourhoods, as well as bylaws to regulate zoning, subdivision and building. Proponents often prepare specific development proposals to obtain permits under these bylaws.

Issues

Local governments in B.C. include municipalities, regional districts and the Islands Trust. In addition to their other functions, all are empowered under the Municipal Act to prepare official community plans and regulate the use and development of land, primarily private land. In addition, their servicing decisions directly affect private lands as well as land and resources under the jurisdiction of senior governments.

Since 1983, there has been no legislated mandate for regional districts to prepare official regional plans. The Greater Vancouver Regional District and its member municipalities voluntarily continue with strategic regional planning. Many organizations and groups, including those consulted by CORE, have identified the need to reinstate regional district planning powers. CORE's examination of the planning delivery system included consultations with organizations and individuals with a particular interest in urban planning. While CORE's questionnaire concentrated on questions about interjurisdictional coordination, the broader range of insights and suggestions gathered during the interviews are summarized in table 2.6. The following were identified by respondents:

● clearer definition and recognition of provincial interests in urban regions● enhanced legal and institutional capacity for regional planning in urban regions








vol2

● greater coordination between municipalities, between municipalities and non-organized areas, and between local governments and other jurisdictions

● improved response to major urban growth.

Underlying these explicit concerns are some basic demographic and geographic facts. B.C. is experiencing major urban growth, most of it heavily concentrated in a small part of the province. The lower mainland (55 percent), eastern Vancouver Island (17 percent) and the Okanagan (8 percent) account for almost 80 percent of B.C.'s total population. In a few regions of concentrated population, the management of major urban growth is a priority. Another British Columbia reality is that much of the land that is most attractive for urban purposes also has a high nonurban value for transportation, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and wildlife. Urban growth demands, therefore, come into conflict with needs that are the responsibility of a number of different agencies. Planning must take this complexity into account.

Table 2.6Key Comments on Local Government Planning

Goals and Policies

● Urban development issues of provincial interest

· provision of health and education · infrastructure funding · environmental standards · agricultural and forest land preservation · nature conservation · energy supply and use, etc.

● Developers want investment certainty and to know the rules; they also want flexibility in ways to respond to rules

● Ensure that urban growth does not eliminate, and is sensitive to, salmon habitat● More provincial input in official community plans


vol2

Framework

● Lack of regional planning direction; rise of NIMBY ("not in my back yard") concerns due to lack of broader vision

● Need enhanced planning and development control powers● Municipal government should have autonomy except for regional and provincial cross-boundary

issues● Regional planning authority needed for urban areas, also regionalized local planning● Need a clearer amalgamation/incorporation policy● Enhance the planning grants for local government● Variation in development cost charges is a problem

Plan Initiation

● Body is lacking to do overall planning in lower mainland for

· allocation of growth · town centres determination · growth target setting

● Empower regional district to set growth targets● Support a bottom-up process for growth management● Consider new options for a regional or district authority. Consider combinations of elected and

appointed officials and spell out authority in legislation; use GVRD technical staff; enhance powers

Linkage

● More coordination of provincial agencies with local government planning● Ensure that official community plans are linked to regional plans● Integration of regional district/municipal plans with Crown plans● Lack of congruence between agricultural land reserve and municipal zoning; want agriculture area

plans

Information

● Good information on urban land supply is lacking to support planning processes


vol2

Plan Status

● Regional and municipal plans should have provincial approval; municipalities should be required to comply with both kinds of plans to provide more certainty to developers

Plan Approval

● Municipal plans need to be referred to regional districts for review; they should conform● Plans should require provincial approval

Implementation

● Public needs to lead in providing infrastructure● More leadership in public use sites● Consider opportunities for private sector to get involved in infrastructure projects as partners● District Authority would oversee infrastructure needs and develop a financial plan● Assign regional districts authority to regulate subdivision

Framework for Urban Regional Planning

The major requirement at the operational/development planning level is for a legal and institutional planning framework for rapidly growing urban regions. Significantly enhanced responsiveness to growth pressures is necessary, while still respecting municipal autonomy and ensuring that there is opportunity for bottom-up approaches. The planning framework must deal with issues of coordination between municipalities, between municipalities and non-incorporated areas, and between local governments and other jurisdictions.

In terms of legal framework, there are several options, including restoration of basic regional district planning powers, enhanced powers for growth management and/or the creation of joint authorities.

OPTION 1: RESTORE BASIC POWERS

The most direct possibility is the restoration of legal authority to regional districts to initiate and prepare regional plans with a settlement management focus on private lands. Legislation would broadly define the scope and content of regional plans, their relationship to community plans and rural land use bylaws, as well as implementation, enforcement and amendment methods. Coordination with provincial interests could be made by direct provincial participation through the revival of technical planning committees. These cross-government committees would bring provincial and other governmental perspectives and contributions to local planning exercises in which various ministries have direct interests. Where a coordinated provincial position is needed, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would take the lead in coordinating provincial contributions to the technical planning committees (or their equivalent) to ensure that provincial participation


vol2

in urban regional planning is efficient and appropriate. Regional or subregional plans for Crown lands would continue to be initiated by the province, with provisions for local government participation on matters of direct interest.

Apart from technical planning committees, no new governance structures would be required. While providing linkages by cross-participation, this model does not formally integrate local government regional plans and those for Crown resource lands, but it should facilitate coordination.

OPTION 2: GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Under this option, supplementary legislative provisions would provide for more deliberate growth management planning either through enabling legislation to allow for growth management planning, or by requiring it in selectively designated areas. If done through enabling legislation, it would be designed to facilitate cooperation between adjacent regional districts and could include the establishment of a more formal joint planning board ("council of councils") appointed from participating regional districts. If mandatory, the planning might provide for ministerial or cabinet direction to establish regional growth management planning areas, either upon request or where seen to be in the provincial interest. In either case, both local initiatives and joint consultations should be encouraged, but the probability of success is higher if the initiative is locally sponsored.

Legislation, either as amendments to existing acts or as a separate growth strategies act, would generally outline the scope and content of regional growth management plans but not be unduly prescriptive.16 It would have transition provisions for bringing official community plans of member municipalities into conformity over time. It would also provide for necessary provincial and federal participation, and require congruence with provincial goals and policies. Integration would be further assisted if the province were to bring critical areas on adjacent Crown lands into regional growth management planning while continuing strategic resource planning on the remainder.

OPTION 3: JOINT AUTHORITY

Concern has been expressed about the lack of a body capable of doing overall planning and growth management/allocation for the lower mainland. This option would see stronger provisions for regional planning in rapidly growing urban regions. It would entail a legally mandated regional authority whose membership draws upon regional district boards but also provides for appointees from the province and the private sector. Its roles could extend to the coordinating of major infrastructure financing, including possible partnerships with the private sector.

As a variation on this authority model, regional planning processes for both urban and resource land use could be consolidated and placed under the regional planning authority. The intent would be to ensure a single harmonized regional plan that explicitly integrates settlement and resource planning. Such a plan would determine broad land use allocations and guide more detailed plans. While facilitating an integrated plan, this model also implies a new level of governance, raising concerns about local autonomy and accountability.


vol2

16. A proposal for a growth strategies act was advanced in a discussion paper, Growth Strategies for the 1990's and Beyond, prepared by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (Victoria, 1994).


vol2


Table of contents

Recommendations

1. Authority should be restored for regional districts to undertake regional planning for urban growth management.

2. Technical planning committees should be formally revived and empowered to improve intergovernmental coordination in managing urban growth. This will help to integrate provincial considerations with those of local government and bring provincial contributions directly into urban regional planning. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs should take the lead role in coordinating provincial participation.

3. The province should enact legislative provisions for strategic growth management planning to meet the requirements of rapidly urbanizing regions. Legislation should assist regional districts and municipalities in jointly forming larger regional groupings where required. Legislation should also enable the province to designate areas for strategic urban regional planning. (Particulars can be defined using the results of consultations underway by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on a Growth Strategies Act).

4. Legislation for both basic and enhanced strategic urban regional planning should outline the basic requirements, including:

● the general scope and content of strategic urban regional plans● whether they are required or enabled and the conditions for each● the legal status of strategic urban regional plans● provisions regarding coordination of municipal plans● plan approval, amendment, and appeal procedures● creation of technical planning commit-tees, outlining their roles and potential composition,

including the role of federal participants● public participation and advisory provisions● provisions for First Nations participation.

Coordination








vol2

No urban regional plan can succeed without the involvement and support of municipalities. Similarly, federal and provincial authorities have a major influence on land use through investments in ground, air and marine transport; they also regulate a variety of uses, such as fish habitats, conservation lands, navigation and so on, that are directly affected by local government land use, servicing and development control decisions. For these reasons, legal and informal frameworks should encourage partnership approaches whereby the various agencies come together to formulate joint objectives and to coordinate their respective contributions toward meeting these objectives. An obvious example is transportation planning that not only links up with land use objectives but also brings in the appropriate operating and approval agencies from all orders of government.

Regional districts, as federations of municipalities and adjacent unorganized areas, can directly foster the involvement of their members. Such involvement could be encouraged by strengthening the status of urban regional plans, through legislation and by requiring the needs of individual municipalities to be reconciled with those of adjacent municipalities and of the region as a whole.

Municipal autonomy must be integrated with provincial needs. This is best accomplished where the province is able to articulate its interests. In CORE's consultations, there was significant support for statements of provincial land use goals and policies to guide planning by local governments. Particular emphasis was placed on areas of definable provincial interest where these goals can be met through local government planning processes, including resource use, health, transportation and nature conservation. A prominent example of a defined provincial interest is the existing agricultural land reserve.

Opportunities should be provided for coordination with First Nations on matters of joint interest. Regional district participation in various facets of Crown land planning is also desirable to ensure effective coordination.

Recommendation

1. A partnership approach should guide arrangements for urban regional planning, with emphasis on producing strategic plans to accommodate local, regional and provincial interests. Provincial interests should be met by defining land use goals and strategic policies as general guidance, as well as through direct planning involvement on technical planning committees.

Participation

Participation by community groups in regional district planning can take many forms. There is already a range of formal bylaw hearing provisions plus a wide array of consultation and participation methods, including advisory committees and consultation programs such as those used by the GVRD.

The Round Table on the Environment and the Economy produced several publications on local round tables specifically aimed at fostering multi-stakeholder bodies. Local round tables can help to foster community consensus on diverse land use issues, both as participants in planning processes and through community outreach activities. Round tables are similar in broad function to community resource boards. With an orientation towards settlement planning, it is conceivable that the same round table could serve as a reference group for both Crown and local government planning. Regional districts could set up plan monitoring


vol2

systems based upon agreed sustainability indicators, with round tables or similar bodies helping to coordinate public participation.

Plan Status and Approval

The subject of plan status and approval inevitably raises concerns about municipal and local government autonomy. Municipalities will be concerned about the impact of an urban regional plan; regional districts may be concerned about provincial intervention. Regional district boards would have a primary responsibility, both for developing an urban regional plan and for fostering municipal concurrence. This will require interactive and cooperative relationships to ensure that municipal and regional plans are compatible.

There are several reasons to consider provincial approval of urban regional plans through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. First, such approval would ensure conformance with provincial goals and policies, which was suggested as desirable during the consultation process. Second, it would foster commitment by provincial agencies whose support is essential to the integrity of the plan. Third, it would deal with an impasse in the event of discord between provincial agencies, or between provincial agencies and local government. The Minister of Municipal Affairs would ultimately recognize urban regional plans as official under legislation. That approval would embrace the conditions agreed to by the signatory parties. An approved urban regional plan would be maintained by the regional district(s), which would manage the amendment, appeal and revision processes.

Urban regional plans and official community plans are implemented through a variety of instruments. Because much of the urban environment is built by the private sector, the primary instruments are zoning and subdivision powers to regulate the type, density and pattern of land use. Subdivision approval authority for non-incorporated areas could be transferred to regional districts. A broad set of provincial subdivision regulations or guidelines could be established, perhaps through the aegis of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Infrastructure is an essential part of any urban region. Municipalities and regional districts are responsible for much of its construction and maintenance, although senior governments fund or undertake important aspects. Interviews suggested a need for greater coordination in the setting of objectives and priorities for infrastructure in order to promote land use that supports societal goals for sustainable communities and regions. Such partnership thinking includes potential opportunities for joint venturing on capital projects. A statutory requirement for urban regional plans would foster such coordination.

Ongoing differences may require provisions for dispute resolution. Appeals on questions of non-compliance with plans are best resolved by regional districts as part of the decision process; however, access to the minister should be possible on intergovernmental policy issues. Political resolution will continue to play a major role in facilitating agreement, although other approaches, such as mediation through an appointed panel or board, may be useful. Assisting in the reconciliation of intergovernmental differences is a potentially important role for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Special study teams or panels could examine the issues technically as well as facilitate dialogue and negotiations.

Recommendation

1. The emphasis should be on all necessary parties - regional districts, municipalities, provincial and


vol2

federal agencies and involved First Nations - developing agreement on an urban regional plan.2. Locally negotiated agreement on urban regional plans should be supported with statutory approval by

the Minister of Municipal Affairs in order to● ensure conformance with provincial goals and policies● facilitate the commitment of provincial agencies● allow the minister to assist in resolving major problems involving differences by appointing

special problem-solving or mediation panels.


vol2


Table of contents

PART 3 - Other Land Use Planning Requirements

3.1 - Public Participation and Community Involvement

Planning Decisions as Social Choices

Land use planning requires a partnership of perspectives - citizens, professionals with training in planning and related disciplines, and the elected arm of government. All contribute to the dialogue about the necessary social, economic and environmental objectives for land and resource use. All play a role in determining how to integrate these objectives to achieve an acceptable balance between competing uses. Citizens, individually and through organizations, express their wishes; professionals examine various aspects of feasibility; and elected officials make the final decisions. This process is obviously eased when all parties are in agreement; however, elected officials may be required to balance local interests and objectives against those for the region or the province as a whole.

Land use decisions may require difficult social choices. There may be no technical way to know if a particular option or decision is the best choice. For that reason, it is essential that the relevant range of perspectives and interests be considered in the planning process. In this way, the political task of arbitrating the overall public interest in land use decision-making will be fully informed.

The B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy17 found that the increasing demand for inclusion in decision-making stems from some fundamental shifts in our society. The public is more knowledgeable about issues as a result of improved education, media coverage and access to information that until recently was accessible only to government or large corporations. As well, a greater diversity of values are being expressed in our society; concerns over resource depletion and the global dimensions of sustainability have mobilized more and better organization of interests eager to influence change. Consequently, planning processes that do not consider these factors can appear arbitrary or unresponsive. The








vol2

challenge is to make participatory processes in land use decision-making both efficient and effective.

Issues

Increasing involvement of the public in land use decision-making, although welcomed, also posed some difficulties. There has been concern and confusion about the role of public participants relative to the role of elected government. There has been concern about the validity of planning where it does not evidently consider technical analysis along with the public perspectives. Finally, there is the question of ensuring the proper structure and balance of public participation itself.

Many of these concerns became evident in the course of CORE's consultation processes. These are summarized in table 3.1.

Range of Public Participation Methods

Over the past two years, CORE has experimented with shared decision-making, using structured, interest-based negotiation among representatives of sectors of interest as a means of direct public participation in land use planning.18

Table 3.1Key Comments on Aspects of Public Participation

Participation

● Balanced advisory groups are needed at all levels● Concern with time and resources; more efficiency is required● Provision for more active involvement of residents (various value perspectives) in planning● Demands of many processes is a concern ("burnout" is a problem)● Priority-setting is important; problem of assignments but no new resources● Public representation on committees is sought● Larger role for "professionally informed prescriptions"; need for technical analysis of impacts of

options● Funding for both participants and research needs is required

Balance of Interests

● Need to balance provincial interest and local control; need to fit provincial interest with local interests ("marry top-down and bottom-up")

● Must ensure that the provincial interest can be injected● Strong interest in local involvement and stewardship vs. need for provincial viewpoint


vol2

Communication

● Improved consultation throughout the process and communication with the general public; more information updates on plan status

● Plans should be accessible

Preparedness

● A well-defined planning sequence and methods● More effort in defining predictable planning steps● Suitable maps and data bases● Defined end points● Terms of reference should focus on products

Although CORE's land use planning work has focused on interest-based negotiation19 as a public participation method, there is a wide range of techniques to select from, including information and education, consultations and advisory committees. Innovation is essential. The B.C. Round Table's report suggested that the design of a public participation program depends on the level of agreement over public values; the level of public readiness for government action; ability to identify the public audience; availability of information and the level of agreement on the facts; and the level of agreement between government goals and public goals. Application of these criteria will inform government agencies on the most appropriate public participation method.

Recommendation

1. Public participation processes should be a required part of all land use planning processes. The public's general right to participate in land use decision-making should be officially recognized. The public's responsibilities respecting their participation in planning processes (such as participating in good faith, respect for other participants, provision and sharing of essential information, etc.) should be set forth, as a guiding "code of conduct".

2. The selection of a public participation approach to address land use or resource management issues should be based on an assessment of each situation. No particular approach should be prescribed to the potential exclusion of any other.

17. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Public Involvement in Government Decision-Making: Choosing the Right Model (Victoria, 1994).

18. CORE has defined shared decision-making to mean that on a certain set of issues, for a defined period of time, those with authority to make a decision and those who will be affected by that decision are


vol2

empowered to seek an outcome that accommodates rather compromises the interests of all concerned.

19. For a fuller description see R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Boston, 1981).


vol2


Table of contents

Defined Planning Sequence and Roles

Concerns exist around the efficiency of public involvement in planning processes. Such concerns are inevitable as groups with differing perspectives come together to inform each other about their interests and concerns. Since much of this effort is voluntary, it is essential to respect concerns about efficiency and burnout. A better definition of planning sequence and roles should help address concerns about an effective working relationship between public and professional participants.

The task of planning is to facilitate agreement on land use goals and objectives by properly structuring the necessary technical and public involvement steps. Traditionally, this task means the following:

● defining the issues or questions at hand and the decisions required● determining the goals important to the decisions● determining a set of potentially workable alternatives● assessing the impacts of the alternatives in terms of achieving the goals● evaluating the trade-offs that result in going from one alternative to another● selecting the best alternative and refining it to make it more attractive.

The interest-based negotiation method, which endeavours to engage participants in working towards a solution, may require evaluating a series of alternatives to clarify and focus the negotiation. Planning participants are encouraged to seek agreement on a single preferred alternative. If they cannot do this, then they can define several alternatives, which runs the risk of participants becoming positional and supporting their individual option to the exclusion of others.

Table 3.2 depicts the planning sequence and associated responsibilities. Although a single table cannot capture all of the complex interactions between public, technical and political participants, it illustrates the responsibilities with an emphasis on the importance of the public's role in defining the relevant issues, identifying relevant objectives and land use agreements or alternatives, and assessment relative to identified








vol2

interests.

Table 3.2Planning Sequence and Responsibilities

Planning Requirement

1. Establish Planning Area Boundary

Explanation

● Use definable regions, subregions, and/or for administrative units appropriate to the issues

Basis of Decision

● Strategic choice

Responsibility

● Government based on staff advice and public consultation

2. Subdivide Planning Area into Component Land Units

Explanation

● Logical and understandable units suitable for analysis and interest based negotiation

Basis of Decision

● Physiographic biological and socioeconomic factors

Responsibility

● Government based on staff advice and public consultation


vol2

3. Development Technical Planning Methodology

Explanation

● Work plan/planning sequence● Participation/consultation sequence● Define information requirements● Define biophysical and socioeconomic assessment methods● Define land use designation system and criteria

Basis of Decision

● Proven planning methods● Research and analysis

Responsibility

● Professional staff● Refined by participants as necessary

4. Identify Goals and Policies

Explanation

● Define the policy objectives to be met

Basis of Decision

● Policy analysis and consultations

Responsibility

● Government based on public consultation


vol2

5. Develop Guidelines/Minimum Management Standards

Explanation

● Summarize the conditions for development and management, based on field practice and research

Basis of Decision

● Analysis of sustainable practices

Responsibility

● Government professional staff with provisions for consultation

6. Document Values and Interests

Explanation

● Identification of the principal interests to be met in the planning exercise● Identification of measures for measuring attainment of interests

Basis of Decision

● Research● Identified by participants

Responsibility

● Planning team of- Participants- Professional staff


vol2

7. Establish Management Objectives

Explanation

● These are negotiated in the planning exercise (but guided by policies and technical information)

Basis of Decision

● Values, interests and policies are all used

Responsibility


8. Develop Acceptable Land Uses

Explanation

● These too are negotiated considering:- Management objectives- Interests- Existing land use- Suitability factors- Land capability factors

Basis of Decision

● Planning analysis● Policy guidelines● Interests of participants● Impact analysis

Responsibility



vol2

9. Recommendations on Plan Designations

Explanation

● Consensus or land use alternatives for area specific land designations across the planning area identifying:- Land use objectives- Land use zones- Appropriate land uses- Management objectives- Applicable guidelines

Basis of Decision

● Negotiations (interests)● Capability factors● Policies● Designation system● Guidelines● Impact management

Responsibility


Recommendation

1. The effectiveness of public participation in land use planning should be enhanced through careful structuring of the planning sequence, including adequate time frames, clear terms of reference, defined methods, and information availability.


vol2


Table of contents

Recognizing the Right to Participate

Provincial ministries continue to refine and adapt their policies and procedures in response to the accepted need for meaningful public participation in land use planning. There is a perceptible trend within government towards policies that stress more interaction with the public in decision-making. For example, B.C.'s subregional land and resource management planning program has adopted consensus among public participants and government agencies as a primary process objective.20 A handbook of public participation guidelines has been developed to assist in designing consensus-seeking land and resource management planning processes.21 In the assessment of major development projects, B.C.'s Environmental Assessment Act, 1994, includes specific provisions to enable public participation throughout the project review process.22

In other aspects of planning for Crown land use and management, accountability is less visible and direct. Significant levels of decision-making discretion are delegated, by statute, to various provincial ministries. With over 92 percent of the B.C. land base as Crown land, the scope of this discretion can be remarkably wide. Although there are numerous administrative checks and balances on this discretion and various legislated rights to appeal decisions, the public has identified a need to increase the visibility and accountability of Crown land and resource decision-making, both of which can be achieved through more direct participation of the public in resource use planning and decision-making processes. Beyond the trend towards government policies that bring the public into the decision-making circle, it would also formalize the role of the public in Crown land planning.

In local government settlement planning, the public's right to participate is legally defined. Local councils must hold hearings on official community plans and zoning bylaws. Land use rezoning proposals must follow a clearly established procedure, with opportunity for public scrutiny. Advisory planning commissions comprised of local residents are common. Beyond the legal requirements, local government planning departments typically engage in some form of public participation during the preparation of official community plans with the result that political accountability for plans at the local level of government is








vol2

direct and visible. Although controversial land use issues often arise at the local level, the intensity of conflict rarely approaches the intensity found in Crown land planning and management, in part because there are clearly laid-out roles, responsibilities and procedures for local government planning to ensure a consideration of public perspectives before decisions are made.

Recommendation

1. Legislation enabling land use planning processes on Crown lands should contain provisions to recognize and clarify the rights, roles and responsibilities of public participants.

Structuring Participation

Opportunity for the public to take part in various advisory committees, councils or boards to work with government in developing plans and policies is not a new phenomenon. There are literally hundreds of examples of such cooperation, and many improved plans and policies have been the result. Normally, these groups are brought together by a particular sponsoring agency to accomplish a predefined task. Examples include committees to advise on environmental assessment, resource management and legislation, forest policy, land allocation, watershed management, and urban development and design.

In recent years, there has been a move towards greater self-organization of community interests who see a value in coming together as a local round table or community resource board to influence government decision-making. The motivation for organizing has sometimes arisen out of frustration with traditional decision-making processes. In other cases, provincial or local government agencies have sponsored the establishment of these bodies, recognizing the value of planning products and policies that enjoy broad support.

The B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and equivalent bodies throughout Canada, have expended considerable effort in studying and promoting the round table model. CORE's work at the regional and subregional levels has field-tested a variation of the round table model within the context of strategic land use planning. A recent report describing the current state of evolution of local round tables concludes that they provide an effective opportunity for direct community participation in a diverse range of government decision-making processes.23 The criteria for success appear to be plenty of preparation and community discussion in advance of the formation of a local round table; development of clear terms of reference that describe the scope of the group's activities; and the ability to create networks and linkages among other organizations and government agencies. The same report emphasizes that the greatest lesson to be learned from the experience of the round tables now operating in British Columbia is the need for flexibility. British Columbians are only beginning to understand the value of consensus-seeking round tables and resource boards. At the same time, we are learning about the logistical and administrative difficulties inherent in such organizations, such as ensuring the accountability of members, operationalizing the concept of consensus, and clarifying roles and relationships with government structures. Therefore, a flexible and adaptive approach should be taken to community resource board formation and management in B.C. Notwithstanding the need for flexibility and adaptability, some basic guidelines are required to define the place of community resource boards within a planning system for British Columbia. Based on past research and assessment, primarily that of the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and also on CORE's separate evaluation of its own experience in sponsoring negotiation tables as an approach to land use planning,24 it is possible to


vol2

indicate some direction on community resource board design and operation, with ongoing evaluation of results in order to improve the model.

Recommendation

1. Community resource boards (CRBs) should be encouraged as a mechanism for broadly based and balanced community involvement in the preparing and implementing of land use and resource management plans. CRB's can also act as forums for advising on other local economic, social and environmental issues. Because of the need for flexibility, adaptation and evolution, it is recommended that active, ongoing monitoring and evaluation of such boards take place to help make improvements to their operating guidelines.

"Preliminary Guidelines for Community Resource Boards" are presented in appendix 17 to help guide the general design and operation of CRBs.25 If the advice of community resource board is to be integrated successfully into government decision-making, assurances are required that their membership is representative of the regional or local interests and that their operations are fair and balanced. An organization within government could be responsible for fostering the concept of community resource boards, assisting with the establishment of individual boards, promoting communication, and sponsoring education. Duties might also include developing suitable effectiveness monitoring and a means for indicating that a community resource board is properly constituted and operates using basic principles of fairness and interest-based negotiation.

Apart from government interest and support, the idea of self-help for community resource boards is an appealing one, in part because it does not involve the imposition of policies or procedures by an external organization. Volunteerism, self-direction and bottom-up initiative are, after all, the foundation of the community resource board and local round table concept. At a recent workshop, representatives from community resource boards and round tables in B.C., identified the need for government support and a province-wide organization such as a council of boards, for purposes of sharing information, advising on structuring and operating a CRB, sponsoring training and assisting in networking.26

Recommendation

1. Community resource boards should be encouraged to consider forming a province-wide non-government organization whose goal would be to promote mutual assistance, networking and information-sharing among participating boards. Government should offer to provide logistical support to facilitate its development.

20. Integrated Resource Planning Committee, Land and Resource Management Planning: A Statement of Principles and Process (Victoria, 1993).

21. Integrated Resource Planning Committee, Land and Resource Management Planning: Public Participation Guidelines (Victoria, 1993).


vol2

22. Environmental Assessment Act, 1994.

23. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy; Commission on Resources and Environment; Fraser Basin Management Program; and National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Local Round Tables: Realizing Their Full Potential (Victoria, 1994).

24. A companion paper on community participation in British Columbia is currently in preparation by CORE.

25. CORE's companion report on community participation presents a more in-depth discussion on the development and operation of CRBs.

26. Local Round Tables: Realizing Their Full Potential (Victoria, 1994), page 55.


vol2


Table of contents

3.2 - First Nations Interests

First Nations relationships require additional discussion because of their growing significance.

The changes that are occurring in federal and provincial policy regarding relationships with First Nations are having a major bearing on the use and management of land and resources in British Columbia. Such changes have been pending for a long time. With few exceptions, treaties were not signed with aboriginal peoples when the colonial administration claimed the land in the nineteenth century. As the B.C. Treaty Commission noted,

only 15 treaties covering a small portion of the province have been signed with British Columbia First Nations, leaving the treaty-making process incomplete for 140 years and leading to an often-troubled relationship between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities.27

In August 1990, the government of British Columbia reversed a policy dating back to confederation and indicated willingness to establish a process for the negotiation of treaties.

In 1991, the report of the British Columbia Claims Task Force recommended that fair and honourable modern treaties be negotiated between the First Nations of British Columbia and the governments of Canada and British Columbia. That report, in turn, led to the 1992 B.C. Treaty Commission Agreement and the creation of the British Columbia Treaty Commission to coordinate and facilitate the treaty negotiation process. In May 1993, the Treaty Commission Act was passed by the B.C. Legislature. By June 1994, the Treaty Commission had accepted 41 statements of intent - that is, official intention to negotiate and conclude treaties.

The negotiations process, now in its initial phases, is recognized as a major challenge. Treaties may have major implications for land use as well as ownership and the distribution of revenues. Some specific joint








vol2

stewardship and interim measure agreements have already been negotiated, and the courts have recognized First Nations unique legal interest in land.28 Treaty and interim measures negotiations and self-government processes are taking place at the same time as major land use planning initiatives. Concern is being expressed about the lack of demonstrated linkages between the two and the potential for land use uncertainty. CORE's consultations revealed general concern about the need for linkage, as well as extensive support for First Nations involvement in land use planning processes in order to reach agreement on sustainable land use objectives and patterns of use. Table 3.3 summarizes the comments received. The main themes expressed by respondents include the following:

● jointly determined land use objectives are preferred● participation of First Nations in planning should be actively encouraged● planning and treaty negotiations should be coordinated● field agencies should have their roles clarified● while jointly agreed to and predictable land use is the objective of planning, the possibility of changes

as a result of treaty negotiations must be allowed for.

Direction

In a March 1993 letter to First Nations, the provincial government stated that "the use, ownership of the lands, and the jurisdiction to manage the lands in question may change as a result of negotiating treaties." Because First Nations policies are rapidly changing, In a March 1993 letter to First Nations, the provincial government stated that "the use, ownership of the lands, and the jurisdiction to manage the lands in question may change as a result of negotiating treaties." Because First Nations policies are rapidly changing, actively encouraged. For example, CORE is mandated to "encourage the participation of aboriginal peoples in all processes affecting aboriginal peoples that relate to the Commissioner's mandate," and this is specifically to be without prejudice to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations.

Table 3.3Key Comments Regarding First Nations Interests

Goals

● Can planning be advanced as a means of agreeing on common objectives?


vol2

Framework

● Encourage First Nations involvement in planning processes at all levels● Consider a formal agreement stating that First Nations involvement will not prejudice treaty

negotiations● Planning should try to develop strategies to accommodate native interests● Clarify the implications of self government● Ideally, interim measures and standards would be negotiated concurrently with planning● Joint initiatives favoured; consider protocol arrangements around data-sharing as an appropriate

first step

Preparation

● Working relationships with interagency management committees are desired

Coordination

● Coordinate proposed interim measures with the field agencies● Interagency management committees are unsure about their roles and authority relative to treaty

negotiations● Consider the possibility of negotiating First Nations representation on regional district boards

Implementation

● A fundamental uncertainty; must accept the possibility of plan revisions and enhancements coming later if First Nations participation is not possible

● The joint board established for Clayoquot is a positive example; build on this model

Thus with land use planning and treaty negotiations proceeding in tandem, the question of how to more closely link them is inescapable. In the absence of links, the incentive to plan may be low, the value of planning products will be reduced and the incentive for investment could be low. Divisiveness within the community is also a distinct possibility.

Several examples of successful joint land use planning processes exist and these demonstrate that progress is possible. For example a memorandum of agreement for managing a proposed park and surrounding zones at Chilko Lake was reached following a consensus-based negotiation by a study team that included the Nemiah Valley Indian band as a co-chair. The planning team agreed on the land use objectives and activities as a basis for more specific resource management plans in each of the proposed zones, with the proviso that this agreement would not prejudice future land claim negotiations.


vol2

In the Anahim area, a pilot project in shared decision-making sponsored by CORE and involving the Ulkatcho band and the Carrier-Chilcotin Tribal Council resulted in successful negotiation of land use units as well as management objectives and guidelines for each unit in the planning area, again without prejudice to eventual negotiations of aboriginal title and rights. These two examples illustrate that planning processes can facilitate joint agreement on sustainable land use patterns and prescriptions between First Nations and the broader community.

The encouraging finding from CORE's consultations was the general awareness of the need to encourage and foster First Nations participation in planning processes. This awareness is tempered by the recognition that First Nations are unwilling to prejudice their treaty negotiations, leading to the suggestion of invoking a formal protocol to reaffirm the commitment by both the federal and provincial governments that participation in planning will not prejudice those negotiations.

Much of the interest of First Nations in land use is to ensure that their specific interests are not prejudiced while the treaty negotiation process proceeds. In that regard, the 1994 interim measures agreement for Clayoquot Sound, which establishes a board comprised of representatives of First Nations and the province of British Columbia to undertake a joint management process for resource management and land use planning, is seen as a positive model. The explicit objectives of the Clayoquot agreement include sustainability, economic development, diversification and production of a total resource plan.

With regard to technical linkages, the regional interagency management committees expressed a need and willingness to develop working relationships with First Nations, at the same time recognizing that the policy guidelines under which they operate are subject to considerable development.

The idea of joint initiatives was greeted with favour, as this would permit relationships to evolve rather than be imposed in circumstances where time is needed and supporting policies must be developed. Data collection and data-sharing protocols were cited as potential starting points for cooperative land use planning. Making existing inventories available to First Nations as a start on a common information base for interim measures negotiations is a specific example of the possibilities for cooperation.

Both regional interagency management committees and the general community seek greater clarity on First Nations policy direction. They recognize the evolutionary nature of such policies but nonetheless want the opportunity to improve coordination in land use planning and management.

27. B.C. Treaty Commission, The First Annual Report of the B.C. Treaty Commission For the Year 1993-1994 (Vancouver, 1994).

28. The reader is referred to the judgments of the B.C. Court of Appeal (1992) between Delgamuukw et al and the Province of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada. The determination was that First Nations "have unextinguished non-exclusive aboriginal rights, other than the rights of ownership or a property right...." This decision is meant to affirm the right to occupy village sites and non-exclusive rights to engage in traditional sustenance, hunting, fishing and gathering activities elsewhere on lands they traditionally occupied. The subsistence use rights, in other words, are not


vol2

exclusive and may be shared. The exact nature of the rights is to be determined through treaty negotiations.


vol2


Table of contents

Encouraging First Nations Participation

Once First Nations have assured themselves that participation in land use planning will not prejudice their aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations, they will be in a position to develop effective mechanisms for participating. However, many First Nations may lack the necessary resources. For example, many First Nations would not be able to develop planning materials that reflect the spectrum of concerns within their communities. They may not have mapped inventory information to help in their internal decision-making, although there are examples of where such mapping is complete.

Moreover, non-aboriginal organizations may fail to recognize the significance of land use concerns to First Nations. On the other hand, First Nations representatives in a planning process may bring different values and scientific understanding to the table. Assumptions may be made, not recognizing that a cultural gap exists; therefore, experienced cross-cultural mediators may be needed.

There are also differences in decision-making processes. In most First Nations, decision-making follows long-standing community-based tradition. The process is effective for long-term decision-making, but it may conflict with the need for short-term decisions. Non-aboriginals may make the mistake of thinking that a slower community-based decision-making process with a long-term perspective indicates a lack of interest. Also, decisions on land use planning matters may compete with other decisions that have to be made by a First Nations community, and if the time-frame for land use planning is insufficient, there may not be a response.

It would appear to be in everyone's interest to support the development of First Nations capacity to deal with their growing responsibilities in land and resource management and to participate in land use planning processes.

Recommendations








vol2

1. First Nations should be actively encouraged to participate in joint land use planning processes to identify and agree on sustainable land use objectives and zoning.

2. First Nations participation in land use planning processes should be encouraged by ensuring that sufficient resources are available to support their effective participation, by making resource inventories available to them, and through protocols on data collection and sharing, including data on sustenance uses.

3. Protocol agreements between the province, local governments and First Nations should be encouraged to facilitate First Nations involvement in land use planning processes. Agreements could include provisions that clarify the "without prejudice" policy, the roles of First Nations as planning participants, interim resource management policies and procedures, and First Nations roles in data and information collection, and resources available to assist First Nations in building their capacity to participate.

4. While First Nations participation in plan-making is preferred, if such participation is not possible, then cabinet should consult with First Nations prior to formal approval of plans in order to identify potential prejudice to their aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations and to seek necessary interim agreements.

3.3 - Plan Revision and Appeal

Reasons for Revision and Appeal

Previous chapters have concentrated on the structures and processes for land use plan preparation and approval, with only passing reference to the potential for review and appeal. This emphasis has been deliberate. Land use planning concerns itself with processes for reconciling conflicts between competing, or potentially competing uses, of the land. One of its objectives, therefore, is to address and thereby prevent disputes over land use.

Increasingly, planning processes require those with land use interests to directly negotiate suitable solutions or alternatives; in this sense, planning is preventative dispute resolution. Facilitation and mediation are being increasingly used to help foster planning agreements. Many processes also provide opportunities for the general public to comment throughout the planning process, particularly prior to formal plan approval. This opportunity is important in order to reduce the possibility of misunderstandings and errors and to ensure that all the issues are addressed. It will also increase mutual understanding.

Once a plan is approved and in place, the need for amendment may arise for a variety of reasons. It is generally accepted that plans are "living documents" and as such require revision over time to remain current. The need to consider plan revision can be driven by a major new finding, policy requirement, or by a new land use proposal that was not previously contemplated. All of these can trigger reconsideration and possible amendments. Amendments are typically decided by the body that approved the plan in the first instance.

On the other hand, the review and appeal provisions centre on disagreement with operational decisions made by officials in the process of plan administration. They focus on disputes or conflicts that emerge after a plan is approved.

Internal review is often the first step in dealing with such disagreements. The process of dispute resolution


vol2

ranges from informal discussion to more formal review - usually by a more senior official. Internal review serves as a screening and quality control mechanism and provides an opportunity for efficient reconsideration of the decision, and potentially even reconsideration of the underlying policy or guideline. External appeals are often provided for in legislation. Typically, external appeals establish an independent body and define the grounds for appeal.

Characteristically, the scope of internal reviews and external appeals relate to administration matters, such as consistency with the intent of the plan or ambiguity regarding its purpose, although some jurisdictions provide for appeals of the plan itself. Mechanisms for appeal follow administrative, regulatory and political routes, all of which may employ traditional or alternative dispute resolution procedures.

Issues

Anticipating the need for revisions, CORE's consultations asked how and when plan reviews should be initiated, how disagreements in interpretation should be resolved and how appeals under the various levels of plan could be handled. Table 3.4 summarizes the comments received.

Key questions that came out of the comments include:

● How do plan revisions differ from plan appeals?● What are the appropriate structures for revision and appeal?● What are the appropriate procedures?

Table 3.4Key Comments on Plan Appeal System

Structure

● Appeals should go to an administrative tribunal with expertise in planning● Appeals of major plans should be public and political; the interagency management committees

should do the review and preparation for any hearings● Establish regional boards to approve and amend plans and to manage the application process;

advisory public groups should comment on major applications● Establish a provincial land use planning agency/board to hear appeals by "aggrieved persons

seeking developments"; that board must decide on appeal justification within a fixed period of time● Use interagency management committee or CORE, or a regional land use board if established, to

handle disagreements in plan interpretation● CORE should evolve into the coordinating agency with one of its functions overseeing appeals.

There could be a mediative step before appeals are dealt with. If local plans do not fit with regional or provincial plans, then CORE could mediate


vol2

Grounds

● Grounds for a justifiable appeal are whether or not a proposal is consistent with the intent of a regional plan

● Allow individuals to appeal a plan that is contrary to provincial goals

Dispute Resolution

● Use of mediators supported● Use mediators to resolve impasse, but only as a last resort● For resource allocation decisions, cabinet is the arbiter and will make the final decision


vol2


Table of contents

Plan Revision Versus Appeals

There are several potential grounds for plan revision and the appeal of planning decisions, including

● dissatisfaction with the plan● concern that the plan is not in compliance with provincial goals and policies● concern that administrative decisions are not in compliance with the plan and enforcement is not

occurring, or because of policy interpretation differences● concern that procedures have been inappropriate or are flawed.

It is important, however, to differentiate between questions regarding the plan itself and questions related to its administration. A plan is a policy document involving political choice and direction. It was recommended earlier in this report that initial approval of strategic land use plans be a politically accountable function. It is necessary to have a process for plan amendment, and that process appears best directed to the political body with responsibility for the plan.

The need to ensure that a plan is consistent with provincial goals and policies is addressed in the plan approval process, recognizing that any land use plan will likely have had to reconcile competing goals and policies. However, opportunities are required for "post-approval" revisions of a plan, including an opportunity for public participation before proposed revisions are submitted for consideration by ministers, cabinet or officials exercising statutory authority for plans that they initially approved.

Questions related to administrative decisions pursuant to plans are, by contrast, the appropriate focus for review and appeal. Plans are put in place to meet society's objectives for land use and set a consistent framework within which agencies manage and regulate. Specific operational plans, permits, approvals and authorizations are empowered under several statutes and administered by designated officials who make decisions to approve, reject or attach conditions to applications for land use and development. It is these administrative decisions with which a developer or affected party may disagree on the grounds that they are








vol2

inconsistent with the intent of a plan - for example, by being either overly restrictive or insufficiently restrictive - or fail to comply with procedural requirements.

Recommendations

1. Strategic land use plans should not be the subject of appeal, as they have been developed through public processes leading to politically accountable approval decisions. The approval process should ensure general conformance with provincial goals and policies. Plans should, however, be subject to revision through defined amendment procedures, including those scheduled at regular intervals (five years, for example), as well as reassessments driven by major new findings that potentially could lead to interim plan amendment.

2. Administrative decisions related to implementing the intent of an approved plan, such as decisions related to issuance or refusal of a development approval, tenure or licence, are the proper focus of land use review and appeal procedures. Such reviews and appeals should be on the basis of noncompliance or inconsistency with the plan and failure to follow procedural requirements.

Existing Structures and Procedures

There are currently several ways in which appeals related to land and resource decision-making are handled in B.C. The Environmental Appeal Board hears appeals from decisions made under five statutes administered by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks: Pesticide Control Act; Waste Management Act; Water Act; Wildlife Act; and Commercial River Rafting Safety Act. The board also hears appeals against permits for sewage disposal systems issued under the Health Act. Board members are appointed by cabinet for two-year terms, and decisions can be appealed to cabinet on public interest grounds.

Decisions of a forest officer on forest tenure or stumpage fees are appealable under the Forest Act to a temporary board with provisions for subsequent appeal to the courts on question of law or jurisdiction. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act establishes a standing forest practices board, with members appointed for up to three years, to deal with complaints from the public on prescribed matters and to carry out periodic audits and special investigations. The act provides for a forest appeals commission to hear matters appealed to it by the forest practices board or an appellant, and provides for an annual evaluation of review and appeals under the act. The function of the forest practices board includes dealing with complaints from the public respecting matters specified under the act and to determine whether they are appealable to the forest appeals commission.

Other B.C. statutes contain administrative appeals procedures similar to those of the Forest Act on topics such as the issuance of land tenures. The Land Act, for example, authorizes the minister to determine if an objection warrants a hearing and to appoint a qualified person to hold a hearing and make recommendations.

Judicial review by the courts under the Judicial Review Procedure Act is generally available for reasons such as failure of natural justice or fairness; abuse of discretion; bias; a decision outside the scope of, or contrary to, a statute, regulation or bylaw, or the Constitution; an error of law; and a decision not supported by reasonable evidence.

Under judicial review, courts normally do not make new decisions but can overturn existing ones and refer


vol2

them back for reconsideration.

Potential Appeal Structure

Given the availability of a variety of appeal instruments and options, some of the critical questions regarding land use planning appeals appear to concern whether or not to do one of the following:

● rely on internal administrative reviews● establish an independent appeal body with land use expertise, or use existing appeal bodies● combine appeal powers with judicial review powers● allow for appeals to the political arm of government.

Internal administrative review procedures for those aggrieved by land use regulation or tenuring decisions are already provided for in various statutes. Opportunity for internal review of a decision to a more senior level of a permitting agency appears to be an efficient and cost-effective first step, particularly if it has a problem-solving orientation. This initial step could include consultation by the agency handling the review, with a district level planning committee or a regional interagency management committee, if some of the decisions at issue resulted from an interagency process. The service quality potential of such administrative reviews seems high because they are usually decentralized. These administrative reviews also have the advantage of keeping regulators in touch with client concerns and problems and thus can ensure that policy is attuned to changing needs.

Internal reviews may not, however, always be successful in resolving issues. For this reason, appeal bodies such as the Environmental Appeal Board and the Forest Appeals Commission exist. These external appeal boards are intended to be specialist bodies whose members appointed on the basis of their expertise. For example, the law enables government to appoint sufficient members to the Environmental Appeal Board to ensure a broad range of expertise capable of hearing appeals under six statutes.

Expanding the membership of the Environmental Appeal Board to include land use expertise is one option for an appeal structure; the other would be to create an specialist land use appeal board. The Office of the Ombudsman has recommended that an appeal body should

be expert in the technical area being administered, and as well should have at least one member well versed in the principles of administrative law. The appeal body must be truly independent with wide powers to hear evidence, call witnesses, and, if necessary, to substitute its decision for that of the administrative body in appropriate cases.29

New South Wales, Australia, for example, has in place a planning tribunal of judges and planning assessors with appropriate backgrounds in land use.

Appeals of decisions to implement land use plans appear to be sufficiently distinct from appeals before environmental and forest practices bodies to warrant establishment of a specialist land use appeal board. To achieve administrative efficiencies, common "secretariat" support for the various appeal bodies with


vol2

functions related to land, resources and environment may be advisable.

Failure to satisfactorily resolve an appeal through internal administrative review could result in its being advanced to the proposed land use appeal board. The flexibility to appoint a panel of one, three or five members, depending on the gravity and complexity of the issue, as is done for the current Environmental Appeal Board, has merit. Decisions of the appeal board should be binding.

There is also the question of whether or not to combine appeal and judicial powers. British Columbia has generally kept them separate, allowing applications to the courts for judicial review of the decisions of appeal bodies and providing for the upholding, quashing or reconsideration of the board's decision. However, in some jurisdictions - New Zealand and Oregon, for example - specialist tribunals or boards hear the judicial aspects as well. This option has the advantage of having all of the requisite expertise in a single body. B.C.'s traditional model has the advantages of familiarity and of engaging judicial aspects only as required, which in practice is what the New Zealand system does.

Under CORE's proposal, unresolved appeals based on contravention of plans or procedural flaws would go from internal review in a ministry to an external land use appeal board, with provision for review by a court only on questions of law or jurisdiction.

Is a political role needed in the land use appeal system? The options are to preclude it or to provide cabinet with discretionary authority to vary or rescind a board order, either on the merits of the case, or on broader public policy grounds. Generally, the political role appears best exercised in regard to plan approval and policy-making. Hence, if appeal board decisions suggest that a decision or policy is deficient, then an effective place for political direction is in improving them, rather than in getting involved in particular appeal cases. Some discretion for cabinet to review decisions of the proposed land use appeal board may be advisable to ensure that the policy direction given the board is appropriate. The Resource Management Division could advise on which questions or issues might warrant such a cabinet review.

A land use appeal board could also potentially play a useful role in reviewing technical or policy questions referred to it by cabinet as well as in facilitating or mediating the resolution of conflicts referred by a designated minister or cabinet. Chapter 2.6, for example, referred to the possibility of specialist panels being appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to mediate potential conflicts between local jurisdictions related to urban regional planning issues.

29. Office of the Ombudsman, Public Report No. 15: Aquaculture and the Administration of Coastal Resources in British Columbia (Victoria, 1988).


vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Recommendations

1. Internal administrative reviews should remain a first step in the review chain because of their potential to offer service quality that is readily accessible throughout B.C. and to be cost-effective by reducing the number of more formal appeals.

2. Appeals of administrative decisions made to implement land use plans are sufficiently distinct from those directed to environmental and forest practices boards as presently mandated, to require a specialist land use appeal board. However the feasibility of common "secretariat" services for land, resources and environmental appeal bodies should be examined with a view to increased efficiencies. In addition, cabinet should give direction on the merger of all boards dealing with land use and related resource and environmental issues into a comprehensive sustainability appeal board that is capable of being divided into a series of specialist panels.

3. Generally, the political role should focus on plan approval and policy-making. However, flexibility should be provided to allow for cabinet review and response to appeal board suggestions regarding deficiencies in plans and policies.

4. In addition to hearing appeals, the land use appeal board should be enabled by statute to accept special assignments, including

● assessments of policy or technical problems related to land use● mediation of conflicts between local jurisdictions to assist in the plan approval and revision

processes.

These recommendations and other relevant issues are discussed and more fully developed in CORE's companion paper, Dispute Resolution: Developing the System.30

Handling Appeals

Who should be able to seek review and appeal, and how should this be determined? Clearly, those with a proprietary interest, such as owners or applicants who hold interests or rights, should have the opportunity.








vol2

Because land use planning processes include people and sectors that lack a direct proprietary interest but have a demonstrable interest in the use and management of land, it appears desirable to also ensure their access to the appeal system.

The following comments made with regard to the Environmental Appeal Board appear equally applicable to land use:

There should be two distinct classes of persons entitled to appeal. The first class are those persons who are those persons who are in fact personally affected by a decision.... The second class are those persons who can demonstrate that they represent a public interest affected by a decision... Arguments about frivolous appeals and unnecessary prolongation of the process can be dealt with by procedural amendments.31

The Ontario Planning Act lists explicit criteria for evaluating appeals in order to eliminate "frivolous" actions. In the first instance, the plan approval authority (the minister or regional councils) can refuse to refer all or part of a proposed decision to the municipal (appeal) board if

...the reasons set out in the referral request do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the plan or part of the plan that is the subject of the proposed decision could be approved or refused by the (Municipal) Board.32

The Ontario Municipal Board may itself dismiss an appeal without a hearing on the same grounds. Such authority is recommended for the proposed land use appeal board.

Recommendation

1. Review and appeal processes should be available to those persons directly affected, such as those holding property interests or rights, as well as those who can demonstrate that they represent a public interest related to the relevant land use decision.

The Role of Mediation

Principled negotiation and other alternative dispute resolution tools are emerging as useful mechanisms for joint problem-solving throughout the land use decision-making process. These mechanisms are a departure from traditional review and appeal means of dispute resolution in that they create an opportunity for the parties to negotiate their own solution.

Depending on the circumstances, the negotiation process is characterized as joint problem-solving, joint planning or shared decision-making; it is a structured attempt to arrive at an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all concerned. Negotiation can be assisted or unassisted. Whereas in complex multi-party public disputes, negotiation is assisted by an impartial mediator, the process is referred to as mediation. Negotiated approaches to problem-solving can thus support participatory planning and


vol2

resource decision-making within government as well as between government agencies and the public.

There are many reasons for encouraging appropriate use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution throughout the plan-making and appeal system, including cost effectiveness, efficiency, cooperation and the potential to generate innovative solutions.

Mediation can be provided in several ways. B.C.'s Environmental Appeal Board offers the option of pre-hearing conferences convened by a board member, which may lead to agreements that are confirmed by a memorandum of understanding. In New Zealand, the planning tribunal provides for collaborative dispute resolution at any stage of a proceeding. The model of the B.C. Labour Relations Code is also instructive, as its options include formal arbitration, special mediators, fact finders, inquiry commissioners and advisory councils. Recognizing the value of such mediated approaches, many U.S. states promote dispute resolution in resolving public policy disputes and provide offices for training, assistance, expertise and case management support.

Another example is provided by the Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission (ODRC), which is designed to reduce litigation and encourage mediation in land use, resource management and other policy disputes; its services can be requested by state or local government officials or by public interest groups. The natural resources section of ODRC is coordinated by Oregon's department of land conservation and development. Similar mediation services could be provided in B.C. under the authority of agencies such as CORE and RMD.

An example of how mediation might occur in the B.C. context is in section 66 of the recently enacted Environmental Assessment Act, authorizing the Environmental Assessment Board to make mediation services available to parties interested in mediating an issue or issues surrounding an application for a project certificate.

Recommendation

1. Negotiated approaches to problem-solving (facilitation, negotiation, mediation) should be enabled through legislation to foster agreement in land use appeal processes, including internal administrative reviews and proceedings of the proposed land use appeal board.

30. CORE's companion paper, Dispute Resolution: Developing the System to be released December 1994.

31. G. Letcher and M. Vanderkruyk, "Environmental Appeal Board of British Columbia: Proposals for Reform", Law Reform for Sustainable Development in British Columbia (Vancouver, 1990). Prepared by the Sustainable Development Committee of the Canadian Bar Association.

32. Bill 163, An Act to Revise the Planning and Development Act, Legislative Assembly of Ontario (Toronto, 1994).


vol2


vol2


Table of contents

PART 4 - Implementing the Changes

4.1 - Implementing the Changes

This report has reviewed B.C.'s existing land use planning system and made proposals to improve its effectiveness as an instrument of land use strategy. It has drawn upon past proposals and advice from consultations to identify the parts of the planning system considered to be in need of repair or enhancement. While recognizing that the land use planning system is evolving, the proposals call for additional ongoing improvements such as more clearly defined planning guidelines and procedures, better coordination between levels and organizations in the system, and structured public participation opportunities.

CORE has endeavoured to respond to concerns about the land use planning system by making recommendations in a number of areas, including

● clarifying the levels of planning and their functions● enhancing the planning structure by using the Resource Management Division to serve as a

coordinating secretariat and creating regional coordinators to support the work of interagency management committees

● supporting opportunities for First Nations and community participation in planning, including encouraging community resource boards as vehicles for consensus-seeking planning

● defining land use goals through legislation to provide consistent direction regarding provincial interests and the intent to be met in land use plans

● developing legislation to give official status to strategic land use plans to ensure their production, approval and implementation in a consistent way

● restoring powers to regional districts for urban regional planning and re-establishing technical planning committees

● establishing a land use appeal board to settle grievances related to the administration of plans.








vol2

These recommendation areas are summarized as a conceptual outline of land use planning system operations in appendix 18.

Highlights of Proposed Measures

The recommendations support consolidation and continued development of the planning system which requires considerable attention if it is to be effectively implemented. A brief summary of major implementation measures and issues follows.

Direction

CORE proposes that provincial interests in land use be defined through land use principles and goals. Sustainability principles in the Land Use Charter have already been adopted in principle by government to guide regional planning processes. Land use goals should also be adopted and refined through ongoing planning exercises.

Land use policies, which more specifically outline how the goals can be achieved, should be formally adopted and refined through ongoing evaluation. Adopting goals and policies will give consistent direction to planning processes now underway. Current work on sustainability indicators can be directly linked to land use policy development under the authority of the Resource Management Division.

Legislation

Legislation should be developed to formally enable adoption of broad provincial land use goals and policies. Legislation should also clarify the status of plans, define general requirements and procedures for plan preparation, enable the creation of necessary structures and set out provisions for plan amendment and appeals. Legislation should also re-establish regional district planning powers for strategic urban regional planning, enable the formation of joint planning areas for urban growth management, and revive technical planning committees.

Coordination

An enhanced Resource Management Division or similar body has been identified as a key coordinating requirement in the planning structure. An increase in its current staff will be needed if it is to effectively coordinate land use policy development initiatives, coordinate reviews of strategic plans, advise on and expedite planning priorities, develop planning methodology, and undertake land use policy development and other special projects. The effectiveness of the office's current reporting relationship should be monitored and broadened if necessary.

Regional coordinators should be established to help facilitate the management, coordination and priority setting work of the interagency management committees, as well as to maintain effective links between the regions and headquarters.

First Nations


vol2

Land use planning and First Nations treaty negotiations are occurring on parallel tracks. Plans that are prepared prior to treaty settlements are without prejudice to subsequent treaty negotiations. To minimize future uncertainty, and to ensure that First Nations interests are incorporated into land use plans, the participation of First Nations in land use planning processes must continue to be actively encouraged. Prior to adoption of land use plans, there should be a round of consultations with First nations within the planning area.

Staff Capacity

Improved planning delivery relies heavily on having adequate resources to do the job. The need for appropriately skilled and trained planning staff is a constraint; it can be partly addressed through priority setting, as well as by increased training.

Ideally, improvement of land use planning on Crown lands would see trained and experienced planning staff available in each district to facilitate and lead coordinated interagency planning. CORE also recognizes that staff costs are an important concern, which is why establishing common "regional centres" is recommended. This proposal would permit available regional planning staff and specialists to be assigned to districts within their region on a rotation schedule. CORE recognizes the difficulty that such priority setting presents; demand may exist in several places, and unexpected issues may emerge. Some flexibility would have to exist. Supplementing staff with skilled and experienced consultants is one means of providing necessary planning resources. Attention will also have to be paid to the capacity of ministries to contribute specialists to coordinated interagency planning exercises.

Re-establishing the technical planning committees should enhance coordination between local government and provincial agencies. Appropriate provisions should be made for federal, First Nations and local government participation in planning processes undertaken by provincial agencies.

Planning Process

Concern has been expressed that the planning sequence, methods and products have been insufficiently defined, particularly at the regional level. Better defined work plans, methods and procedures will make both staff and public participation more efficient.

Land use planning is going through a period of substantial evolution. Considerable innovation is evident: negotiation based processes, improved methods for ecosystem assessment, procedures for socioeconomic analysis and accounting, new land designation systems, improved on-site management and application of geographic information systems. To fully benefit from these developments, however, it is essential that the lessons learned be systematically documented and evaluated on an ongoing basis so that the planning system can be adapted as we learn from experience.

Information

A careful review of information actually used in planning will help in setting staff and financial priorities. A


vol2

review will also provide a better basis for allocating scarce planning and inventory budgets to the various smaller ministries that make focused but necessary contributions to coordinated planning exercises. The increased use of common information systems, which is already well underway, will enhance efficiency and timeliness in both the development of strategic plans as well as in the interagency referral and review of development applications under operational planning processes.

Planning Grants

B.C. is experiencing substantial population growth, and management strategies for handling that growth are increasingly urgent if the province's "super-natural" qualities are to be maintained. Targeted use of planning grant funds might facilitate the formation of joint planning boards in urban regions. Increased funding may be advisable to ensure that grants are also available to assist with planning in smaller centres facing growth management pressures.

Participation

Direct public participation in land use planning has been increasing, and it is expected to continue, driven in part by the changes related to population growth. Planning processes will be challenged to reconcile the demand for participation with the realities of limited budgets and the need to offer timely advice. Improved planning products, methods and workplans is one option. Another is greater clarity and improved methods for structuring and balancing community participation. Increased public participation through well structured community resource boards will help to both respond to this need and to the concern for balance. Establishing general guidelines and protocols for the operation of community resource boards should improve both understanding and efficiency. Assisting individual community resource boards to network should contribute to overall effectiveness by allowing participants to learn from each other's experience. Assisting First Nations to participate in land use planning in jointly agreed ways should also assist in reaching stable land use agreements.

Revision and Appeal

More clearly defining the provisions for approving and revising plans and appeal provisions should assist the public, developers and public officials. With more and more plans being produced, the need to codify such provisions is increasing.

A land use appeal board warrants serious consideration. Land and resource ministries should examine how an appeal board might complement their current provisions and assist in streamlining them. The efficiency of a common secretariat for all current and proposed land, resource and environmental appeal bodies should be evaluated, as should the concept of a single appeal board, with the capacity to create specialist panels to deal with the range of related issues.


vol2


vol2


Table of contents

The Challenge Ahead

CORE does not underestimate the practical challenges presented by the recommendations in this report. Good legislation comes only when there is public support, and after considerable thought. Budget resources allocated to land planning will come at the expense of other priorities. Coordination comes only when there is a willingness to form partnerships, and such willingness cannot be legislated. More open community participation also requires large doses of good will and sincerity by the participants, who must work towards harmonizing their diverse interests. Many of the objectives for an improved land use planning system can be encouraged by providing legislation, sound organizations and methods. However in the final analysis much of the improvement depends upon a spirit of willingness and commitment that only participants in planning processes can bring.

Planning processes are the mechanisms used to seek agreement on choices for the use of land, and to reflect the needs of society. Larger social needs often compete with individual or sectoral desires, so inherently, these may be in conflict. Sometimes planning can foster consensus; in other cases it may be able to focus the issues and alternatives for political decision. The suggestions in this report are presented to make that difficult decision-making task easier.

4.2 - Summary of Recommendations

The following is a consolidation of the recommendations of this report, keyed to the chapters in which they are presented.

Overall Planning Framework (Chapter 2.1)

Planning Levels








vol2

1. The framework of B.C.'s land use planning system should be officially recognized as comprising:● four basic levels of planning - provincial, strategic, local and operational● two broad categories - Crown land planning, emphasizing resource management; and local

government planning, emphasizing settlement management● provisions for coordination between these levels and categories.

2. The planning levels, functions and products described in the land use planning framework should be affirmed and published as the land use planning system framework for British Columbia.

Application

1. Land use plans at any level of the system should be demand driven, that is prepared in response to the need to address land use and related resource and environmental issues. However, strategic plans - either regional or subregional - should be prepared for all areas of the province.

2. Flexibility should be applied in selecting and applying the various elements of the planning system framework in order to respond to the nature and magnitude of the land use issues at hand.

Supporting Products

1. Products needed to support and implement land use planning (land use policies, resource management standards, procedural guidelines, interagency protocol agreements, analytical methodologies, a land use designation framework, land use inventories, etc.) should continue to be developed, published and distributed by the responsible agencies, working collaboratively as required. Greater standardization of the land designation system is a particularly important need.

Provincial Planning Level (Chapter 2.2)

Land Use Goals and Policies

1. Land use goals should be formally adopted through supporting legislation to guide land use planning and management decisions of provincial agencies and local governments.

2. Land use policies associated with the land use goals should also be formally adopted. They can be "field tested" by using them to guide the land use planning processes currently being undertaken in B.C. with evaluation forming the basis for their ongoing development and improvement.

3. Prior to approval, strategic land use plans should be evaluated to determine their consistency with provincial goals and policies. Initial evaluation should also examine how well the goals and policies function as guidelines for planning, thus forming a basis for any necessary refinement to them.

Planning Structure

1. As a starting point, existing provincial agencies responsible for land use planning in B.C. should be used as the structural model for the provincial land use planning system and strengthened by formalizing the Resource Management Division as a secretariat reporting to cabinet, and providing it with adequate staff dedicated to improving coordination, policy development, refining planning methods, and public involvement in land use planning.


vol2

2. Planning structures should be adjusted to facilitate greater coordination between agencies. This includes establishing regional coordinators to facilitate the work of interagency management committees (recommendation 19), re-establishing technical planning committees to improve provincial - local government planning linkages (recommendation 34), and recognizing the role of community resource boards in land use planning (recommendations 21 and 44).

3. CORE should monitor the overall performance of the evolving land use planning delivery system using the criteria of fairness, coordination and integration, accountability and cost-effectiveness. The results should form a basis for recommendations on the ongoing improvement of planning delivery system structures, including consideration of further structural adjustments as necessary.

Legislation

1. Legislation, in the form of a Sustainability Act, should be developed to authorize and formalize the planning structures; to clarify the status and effect of plans; and to formalize strategic land use planning requirements, including provisions regarding plan preparation, approval, amendment, and appeal.

2. Land use goals and policies, refined as necessary by field testing, should be included in the legislation to provide consistent direction regarding provincial interests to be met in land use planning by ministries and local governments.

Planning Support

1. The Resource Management Division, in conjunction with CORE, should monitor recent planning to assess the information used at different planning levels with the intent of evaluating its effectiveness and orientating inventory standards and priorities to fit with identified planning requirements.

Plan Approval

1. Strategic level land use plans should be approved by cabinet. Political decision-making should be assisted by planning processes that have ensured:

● interagency coordination● early direct engagement of the public● systematic use of impact assessment/accounting methods● provisions for informing and involving the general public throughout the planning process,

including consultations prior to approval decisions.


vol2


Table of contents

Plan Implementation

1. Interagency linkages and open consultation should be strengthened throughout the planning process to ensure maximum reconciliation of provincial land use goals and policies with local objectives and aspirations, as well as commitment to plan implementation. Interagency linkage and consultation should be facilitated through inter agency management committees (IAMCs).

2. Monitoring should take place to ensure that plan objectives are being met, to identify ways to improve implementation, and to identify areas for potential plan revision and amendment. A monitoring program should exist for each approved strategic level plan; monitoring should be coordinated by the appropriate interagency management committee, in cooperation with community resource boards where they exist.

Strategic Land Use Plans (Chapter 2.3)

1. Government should make a case by case decisions, on whether to undertake strategic land use planning on a regional or subregional basis.

Structure

1. Regional coordinators, reporting to the Resource Management Division, should be established to support the coordinating and planning activities of the interagency management committees. Funding for such services for the interagency management committees should be a budget function of the Resource Management Division. This would include ensuring and coordinating funding for any future regional or subregional planning and related consultation and public involvement activities - with budget provisions to support the planning work of community resource boards and other forms of public participation.

2. Ministries with significant interests in land use planning should assign or work towards assigning planning staff to common regional centres. The regional centres can also serve as focal points for:








vol2

● interagency coordination, provision of information and GIS analysis● registries where all approved plans for the region can be maintained● application centres for strategic plan amendments● bases for monitoring the implementation of strategic plans.


1. Community resource boards (CRBs) should be officially recognized and encouraged as a vehicle for advice and consensus-seeking participation in the development of strategic land use plans, as well as other potential advisory roles related to community economic, social and environmental development questions. Priority should be on supporting CRBs where there is a community will to establish them for active participation in interest-based planning negotiations.

2. Representation on CRBs should demonstrate a visible balance of the economic, social and environmental interests or perspectives on land use in the area. Representation should ensure communication and accountability links to the various constituencies, as well as to the community at large.

3. Direct participation by representatives of local and First Nations governments in strategic land use planning should continue to be actively encouraged, supplemented by periodic information briefings of full councils. Special task groups should be employed on an "as-needed" basis to deal with policy issues.

Plan Approval

1. The land use designations and associated land and resource management objectives of strategic land use plans should be officially adopted pursuant to provincial legislation.

2. Political approval of strategic land use plans should follow opportunities for public information and comment; review by RMD for consistency with provincial goals and policies; and discussions with First Nations in the planning area regarding implications for aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations.

Plan Implementation

1. Implementation of regional and subregional plans should be ensured by:● communicating government's policy intent and requirements at the time of approval to the

implementation agencies● maintaining the plans in accessible regional and district registries● ensuring implementation disputes are quickly addressed by IAMCs● monitoring of implementation progress.

Local Level Resource Planning (Chapter 2.4)

Plan Approval

1. Local resource plans should be consistent with strategic land use plans and formally approved under legislation. Approval authority for them should be delegated to IAMCs, with referral to Cabinet for


vol2

decision only in cases of impasse.

Plan Implementation

1. Opportunity should be provided for community participation particularly for local resource planning that involves land designation considerations. This opportunity should include First Nations and local government among the participants. Formal government technical planning committees could coordinate planning where issues cross jurisdictional lines. Community resource boards should be used as a source of balanced community input into local resource planning.

2. The objectives and guidelines established in local resource plans should be reflected in development approvals and use permits, including reporting requirements to facilitate compliance review. Community resource board should provide community oversight.

Operational Level Resource Planning (Chapter 2.5)

Plan Approval

1. Linked referral systems should be used more extensively to enhance interagency coordination and timeliness in the review of proposed operational plans. These systems should facilitate coordination where more than one agency must provide an approval.

Plan Implementation

1. While higher level plans provide guidance, the possibility of amendment should exist to ensure due process, and adaptiveness to new factors. Administrative decisions on operational plans should be appealable on questions regarding their consistency with the objectives of higher level plans. Internal review by the permitting agency should be the first step, an interagency management committee review the second, with a formal appeal as a final step if necessary.

2. Community resource boards should provide community perspectives during the preparation of operational plans, comments on proposed amendments and on major development proposals, and be a source of community monitoring of effectiveness.


vol2


Table of contents

Local Government Planning (Chapter 2.6)

Legislation

1. Authority should be restored for regional districts to undertake regional planning for urban growth management.

2. Technical planning committees should be formally revived and empowered to improve intergovernmental coordination in managing urban growth. This will help to integrate provincial considerations with those of local government and bring provincial contributions directly into urban regional planning. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs should take the lead role in coordinating provincial participation.

3. The province should enact legislative provisions for strategic "growth management" planning to meet the requirements of rapidly urbanizing regions. Legislation should assist regional districts and municipalities in jointly forming larger regional groupings where required. Legislation should also enable the province to designate areas for strategic urban regional planning. (Particulars can be defined using the results from consultations underway by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on a Growth Strategies Act).

4. Legislation for both basic and enhanced strategic urban regional planning should outline the basic requirements, including:

● the general scope and content of strategic urban regional plans● whether they are required or enabled and the conditions for each● the legal status of a strategic urban regional plan● provisions regarding coordination of municipal plans● approval, amendment, appeal and review procedures● creation of technical planning committees, outlining their roles and potential composition,

including the role of federal participants● public participation and advisory provisions● provisions for First Nations participation.








vol2

Coordination

1. A partnership approach should guide arrangements for urban regional planning, with emphasis on producing strategic plans to accommodate local, regional and provincial interests. Provincial interests should be met by defining land use goals and strategic policies as general guidance, as well as through direct planning involvement on technical planning committees.

Plan Approval

1. The emphasis should be on all necessary parties - regional districts, municipalities, provincial and federal agencies and involved First Nations - developing agreement on an urban regional plan.

2. Locally negotiated agreement on urban regional plans should be supported with statutory approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in order to:

● ensure conformance with provincial goals and policies● facilitate the commitment of provincial agencies● allow the Minister to assist in resolving major problems involving differences by appointing

special problem-solving or mediation panels.

Public Participation and Community Involvement (Chapter 3.1)

Methods

1. Public participation processes should be a required part of all land/resource use planning processes. The public's general right to participate in land use decision-making should be officially recognized. The public's responsibilities respecting their participation in planning processes (such as participating responsibilities in good faith, respect for other participants, provision and sharing of essential information, etc.) should be set forth as a "code of conduct".

2. The selection of a public participation approach to address land use or resource management issues should be based on an assessment of each situation on its merits. Certainly no particular approach should be prescribed to the potential exclusion of any other.

3. The effectiveness of public participation in land use planning should be enhanced through careful structuring of the planning sequence, including adequate time frames, clear terms of reference, defined methods, and information availability.

Legislation

1. Legislation enabling land use planning processes, particularly on Crown lands, should contain provisions to recognize and clarify the rights, roles and responsibilities of public participants.

Structures

1. Community resource boards (CRBs) should be encouraged as a mechanism for broadly based and balanced community involvement in preparing and implementing land use and resource management plans. CRBs can also act as forums for advising on other local economic, social and environmental


vol2

issues. Because of the need for flexibility, adaptation and evolution, it is recommended that active monitoring and evaluation of such boards take place to help make improvements to their operating guidelines.

2. CRBs should be encouraged to consider forming a province-wide non-government organization whose goal would be to promote networking and information-sharing among participating boards. Government should offer to provide logistical support to facilitate its development.

First Nations Interests (Chapter 3.2)

Encouraging Participation

1. First Nations should be actively encouraged to participate in joint land use planning processes to identify and agree on sustainable land use objectives and zoning.

2. First Nations participation in land use planning processes should be encouraged by ensuring that adequate resources are available for their effective participation, by making resource inventories available to them, and through protocols on data collection and sharing, including data on sustenance uses.

3. Protocol agreements between the province, local governments and First Nations should be encouraged to facilitate First Nations involvement in land use planning processes. Agreements could include provisions that clarify the "without prejudice" policy, the roles of First Nations as planning participants, interim resource management policies and procedures, First Nations roles in data and information collection, and the resources available to assist First Nations to build their capacity to participate.

Approval

1. While First Nations participation in plan-making is preferred, if such participation is not possible, then cabinet should consult with First Nations prior to formal approval of plans in order to identify potential prejudice to their aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations and to seek necessary interim agreements.

Plan Revision and Appeal (Chapter 3.3)

1. Strategic land use plans should not be the subject of appeal, as they have been developed through public processes leading to politically accountable approval decisions. The approval process should ensure general conformance with provincial goals and policies. Plans should, however, be subject to revision through defined amendment procedures, including those scheduled at regular intervals (five years for example), as well as reassessments driven by major new findings that could potentially lead to interim plan amendment.

2. Administrative decisions related to implementing the intent of an approved plan, such as decisions related to issuance or refusal of a development approval, tenure or licence, are the proper focus of land use review and appeal procedures. Such reviews and appeals should be on the basis of non-compliance or inconsistency with the plan and failure to follow procedural requirements.

3. Internal administrative reviews should, in concept, remain a first step in the review chain because of their potential to offer service quality that is more readily accessible throughout B.C. and to be cost-


vol2

effective by reducing the number of more formal appeals.4. Appeals of administrative decisions made to implement land use plans are sufficiently distinct from

those directed to environmental and forestry boards as presently mandated, to require a specialist land use appeal board. However, the feasibility of common "secretariat" services for land, resources and environmental appeal bodies should be examined with a view to increased efficiencies. In addition, cabinet should give direction on the merger of all boards dealing with land use and related resource and environmental issues into a comprehensive sustainability appeal board that is capable of being divided into a series of specialist panels.

5. Generally, the political role should focus on plan approval and policy-making. However, flexibility should be provided to allow for cabinet review and response to appeal board suggestions regarding deficiencies in plans and policies.

6. In addition to hearing appeals, the land use appeal board should also be enabled by statute to accept special assignments, including

● assessments of policy or technical problems related to land use; and● mediating conflicts between local jurisdictions to assist in the plan approval and revision

processes.7. Review and appeal processes should be available to those persons directly affected, such as those

holding property interests or rights, as well as those who can demonstrate that they represent a public interest related to the relevant land use decision.

8. Negotiated approaches to problem-solving (facilitation, negotiation, mediation) should be enabled through legislation, to foster agreement in land use appeal processes, including administrative reviews and proceedings of the proposed land use appeal board.


vol2


Table of contents

Glossary

Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR): Land designated and reserved for agriculture and compatible purposes under B.C.'s Agricultural Land Commission Act.

B.C.: A standard abbreviation for the province of British Columbia.

Cabinet: The senior coordinating and decision-making council of government comprised of the ministers appointed by the Premier as having responsibility for the various ministries of government.

Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE): An independent body established by statute in 1992 to advise on diverse aspects of land use, resource and environmental management.

Community Resource Board (CRB): A body established to facilitate community-based participation in land and resource planning and management and other related roles (see chapters 2.3 and 3.1 for details).

Consensus: A general agreement or judgment arrived at by those concerned. It assumes that participating parties accept the overall package of decisions reached, even if there is not complete concurrence on each aspect.

Crown Land: Land that is owned and managed by government. In British Columbia, these are predominately provincial, although there are important federal Crown lands.

Development: This term includes a wide variety of human changes to the landscape. Characteristically it involves physical changes to the land such as drainage or clearing, building of structures, or extraction of natural resources.








vol2

Development Permit: A general term summarizing a variety of permits, licences or approvals required under various statutes to legally authorize a development.

District: An administrative unit commonly used by provincial agencies for managing resources and providing services on a decentralized basis. Typically a district is headquartered in a community and covers surrounding Crown lands. Several districts comprise an administrative region.

Ecosystem: A functional unit comprising all living organisms in an area, including humans and all the non-living components of their environment, linked together by energy flows and ecological processes. Ecosystem thinking emphasizes integration of ecological and social factors and long term sustainability.

Environmental Assessment: A formal statute-based procedure establishing requirements to evaluate the impact of proposed developments on the natural environment. Social and cultural impact assessments are closely related and may be required to similarly determine potential impacts and make proposals for their mitigation.

Forest Practices Code: An Act passed by the B.C. legislature in 1994 establishing procedures for planning and managing development activities on designated forest lands and including timber harvesting, road construction, silviculture and other forest management activities.

GIS: An abbreviation of "geographic information system". These computerized systems allow for the ready storage, retrieval, mapping and tabulation of land and resource data which is geographically indexed using a coordinate system to create a spatial data base.

Hectare: A metric land unit of 10,000 square metres; it is approximately 2.47 acres in Imperial measure.

Higher Level Plan: This is a term used to describe plans, typically for large areas, which broadly designate or zone the area and define the general management objectives for these zones. The broad direction they define is used as the basis for more specific planning and landscape design.

Inter agency Management Committee (IAMC): A committee of senior land and resource management officials in each region of the province. Their purposes include facilitating inter-ministry coordination and cooperation, and providing coordinated advice to headquarters.

Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP): The current subregional integrated resource planning process in B.C. It considers all resource values, and requires interagency coordination, public participation, and employs consensus-building approaches.

Land Use: The way land and resources are designated, managed and actually used. CORE uses the term as broadly defined in its Act, namely "land use and related resource and environmental management".

Resource Management Division (RMD): A provincial government office established in 1994 to assist cabinet in coordinating the administration of interministry land and resource planning and policy in Victoria.


vol2

Land Use Goal: A formal statement regarding the desired end-state for the land that is to be pursued through land use planning and management.

Land Use Policy: An approved statement of procedure, course of action, or commitment indicating how a desired land use goal is to be achieved.

Landscape Unit: A unit of the total landscape that has distinguishing geographic (physical and human) features and that can be treated as a logical planning unit. Such units, of up to 100,000 hectares, can be formally designated under the Forest Practices Code.

Local Resource Use Plan (LRUP): A term describing a variety of resource planning initiatives undertaken to develop integrated approaches to land use and development. Typically they have been undertaken to resolve potential land use conflicts in local areas (or landscape units) which are smaller than LRMPs.

Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA): An elected member of the provincial legislature.

Municipality: A local jurisdiction formally incorporated under the Municipal Act and including cities, towns, villages and municipal districts.

Official Community Plan (OCP): Plans prepared and approved by municipal councils for their jurisdiction under the terms of the Municipal Act.

Provincial Forest: An area of forest land designated as a provincial forest for management purposes under section 5 of the Forest Act.

Region: Large administrative units established within the province as a basis for decentralized decision-making and management by various provincial ministries. Their boundaries are based on a combination of natural and social features such as watersheds, transportation and communities, and are generally recognized as having geographic distinctiveness. Typically they comprise several districts.

Regional District: A government unit established under the Municipal Act throughout B.C. which group municipalities and adjacent unorganized areas into contiguous areas for purposes of providing various services.

Sustainable Development: Economic and social development within the limits required to maintain the environment and natural resources, and ensure the prospects of their use in the future.

Technical Planning Committee (TPC): A term used to describe a committee of technical officials drawn from diverse agencies to assist in land use planning, and established to foster both interministry and intergovernmental coordination.

Zone: A land use classification and designation applied to a map which outlines land use intentions, objectives and permissible uses.


vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 1 - Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act - Chapter 34

1992 Commissioner on Resources and EnvironmentSBC Chap. 34, Index Chap. 55.5

Assented to June 23, 1992

Table of Contents

1. Interpretation2. Appointment of the commissioner3. Commissioner's role4. Commissioner's mandate5. Representation6. Hearings7. Commissioner as a witness8. Immunity for acts or omissions in good faith9. Further terms and conditions of the commissioner's employment

10. Staff11. Delegation of the commissioner's powers or duties12. Yearly report to the Legislative Assembly13. Offences14. Commencement

Interpretation








vol2

1. In this Act "commissioner" means the Commissioner on Resources and Environment appointed under section 2.

1992-34-1.

Appointment of the commissioner

2. (1) The Commissioner on Resources and Environment shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and is a public officer reporting to the Executive Council.

(2) An appointment under subsection (1) is for a term of 5 years and reappointments may be made.

1992-34-2.

Commissioner's role

3. (1) The commissioner shall advise the Executive Council in an independent manner on land use and related resource and environmental issues in British Columbia and on the need for legislation, policies and practices respecting these issues.

(2) If the commissioner considers that the public interest will be best served by making a report to the public on a land use and related resource or environmental issue in British Columbia or on the need for legislation, a policy or a practice respecting such an issue, the commissioner shall make this report to the public in the manner the commissioner considers most appropriate.

1992-34-3.

Commissioner's mandate

4. (1) The commissioner shall develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management.

(2) The commissioner shall facilitate the development and implementation, and shall monitor the operation, of

(a) regional planning processes to define the uses to which areas of British Columbia may be put,(b) community based participatory processes to consider land use and related resource and environmental management issues, and(c) a dispute resolution system for land use and related resource and environmental issues in British Columbia.

(3) The commissioner shall work to ensure effective and integrated management of the resources and


vol2

environment of British Columbia by

(a) facilitating the coordination of initiatives within the government, and(b) encouraging the participation of Aboriginal peoples in all processes affecting Aboriginal peoples that relate to the commissioner's mandate and by maintaining strong links with negotiations on Aboriginal treaties.

(4) The work of the commissioner and the participation of Aboriginal peoples under this Act shall be without prejudice to their Aboriginal rights and to treaty negotiations.

(5) In carrying out the mandate under this section, the commissioner shall give due consideration to

(a) economic, environmental and societal interests,(b) local, Provincial and federal governmental responsibilities, and(c) the interests of Aboriginal peoples.

1992-34-4.

Representation

5. If the commissioner believes that a person or group will be significantly and directly affected by a land use issue or related resource or environmental issue under consideration by the commissioner, the commissioner shall inform that person or group and give that person or group an opportunity to make representations to the commissioner on the issue before the development of the recommendation or report.

1992-34-5.

Hearings

6. (1) The commissioner may conduct hearings for the purposes of this Act and determine the procedures to be followed for the purposes of these hearing.

(2) No person is entitled to a hearing by the commissioner under this Act except as provided by this Act.

(3) For the purposes of this section the commissioner has the powers, protection and privileges given under sections 12, 15 and 16 of the Inquiry Act to a commissioner appointed under Part 2 of that Act and the commissioner may receive or accept, under oath or otherwise, evidence whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law.

(4) At a hearing before the commissioner a person has the same privileges respecting the giving of information, the answering of questions or the production of documents or things as that person would have in a proceeding in a court.


vol2

(5) Evidence given by a person in a hearing before the commissioner is inadmissible, insofar as the laws of the Province apply, against that person at a later date in any court or proceeding of a judicial nature except in a prosecution of an offence under this Act or in an application for judicial review.

1992-34-6.

Commissioner as a witness

7. (1) The commissioner or a person appointed, engaged or retained under section 10 shall not, insofar as the laws of the Province apply, give, or be compelled to give, evidence in a court or in proceedings of a judicial nature concerning knowledge gained in the exercise of a power or duty under this Act.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an offence under section 13.

1992-34-7.

Immunity for acts or omissions in good faith

8. (1) No action for damages lies or may be brought against the commissioner or any person appointed, engaged or retained under section 10 because of anything done or omitted in good faith

(a) in the performance or intended performance of any duty under this Act, or (b) in the exercise or intended exercise of any power under this Act.

(2) Subsection (1) does not absolve the government from vicarious liability for an act or omission for which it would be vicariously liable if this section were not in force.

1992-34-8.

Further terms and conditions of the commissioner's employment

9. (1) Subject to section 2 and this section, the Lieutenant Governor in council may establish the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of the commissioner.

(2) The Pension (Public Service) Act applies to the commissioner as an employee.

(3) The commissioner is declared to have the status of a deputy minister.

1992-34-9.

Staff


vol2

10. (1) A deputy commissioner and other employees necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the commissioner may be appointed under the Public Service Act.

(2) The commissioner may engage or retain specialists or consultants that the commissioner considers necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the office and may determine their remuneration, and the Public Service Act does apply to the retention, engagement or remuneration of these specialists or consultants.

1992-34-10.


vol2


Table of contents

Delegation of the commissioner's powers or duties

11. (1) The commissioner may delegate any of the commissioner's powers or duties, except the power to delegate a power or duty under this section or to make a recommendation or report under this Act, to any person or class of persons appointed, engaged or retained under section 10.

(2) A person appointed, engaged or retained under section 10 has only those powers of the commissioner that are specified in the delegation under subsection (1) and the commissioner continues to have all the powers and duties that are delegated to others under this section.

(3) A delegation under subsection (1) shall be in writing and is subject to the terms and conditions the commissioner specifies in the delegation.

(4) A delegation under subsection (1) does not cease by reason only that the commissioner who made the delegation ceases to hold office.

(5) A person acting under a power or duty delegated under subsection (1) shall, if so requested, show a copy of the written authority under which the delegation was made.

1992-34-11.

Yearly report to the Legislative Assembly

12. Each year the commissioner shall give to the Speaker a report to the Legislative Assembly concerning the commissioner's activities under this Act since the last report was made under this section, and the Speaker shall lay the report before the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable.








vol2

1992-34-12.

Offences

13. (1) A person commits an offence if the person

(a) impedes the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty under this Act, or (b) refuses or fails to comply with an order or summons under section 6 (3).

(2) If a corporation commits an offence under subsection (1), an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the offence commits the same offence whether or not the corporation is convicted of the offence.

1992-34-13.

Commencement

14. This Act comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

1992-34-14.

[Note: Act effective July 13, 1992 (B.C. Reg. 234/92).]


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 2 - Land Use Charter

The following is a summary of the Charter which describes the fundamental principles of sustainable land use. It commits the Government of British Columbia to:

● protecting and restoring the environment, and● securing a sound and prosperous economy

for present and future generations.

Environment

● Maintain, enhance and restore life support systems.● Conserve biological diversity.● Anticipate and prevent adverse environmental impacts.● Acknowledging our incomplete understanding of natural systems (the Precautionary Principle).● Account for environmental and social costs in all decisions● Polluter Pays Principle).● Recognize global responsibility.● Respect the intrinsic value of nature.

Economy

● Promote a dynamic economy that maintains future options.● Encourage diversification● Increase benefits from a given stock of resources.● Encourage efficient use, and reduce waste (e.g., Power Smart).








vol2

● Encourage land uses that make optimum use of the inherent capabilities of the land.● Ensure the sustainable use of renewable resources.● Ensure that use of non-renewable resources addresses future needs.● Stimulate environmentally sound economic development with economic instruments.● Promote regulatory stability and predictability.

Society

● Respect the concerns of individuals and communities.● Aim for fair distribution of benefits and costs of land use decisions.● Support economic and social measures to address the effects of decisions.● Promote opportunities to earn a living, obtain education and training, and get social, cultural and

recreational services.● Ensure that decisions are made fairly and openly.

Aboriginal Peoples

● Recognize Aboriginal title and the inherent rights of Aboriginal peoples to self government.

The full text of the Land Use Charter is available from CORE.


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 3 - Land Use Goals

The following is a summary of the land use goals proposed by CORE. A fuller statement and discussion is presented in Finding Common Ground: A Shared Vision for Land Use in British Columbia, (Victoria, 1994), which is available from CORE.

Resource Lands

● Maintain a commercial forest land base and agricultural land reserve.● Ensure opportunities for sub-surface resource development.● Provide a secure resource land base for energy, tourism, aquaculture, fisheries, trapping, hunting,

gathering, and other economic uses.● Enhance the economic productivity of appropriate areas (e.g., intensive silviculture).● Make decisions based on full consideration of:

● inherent capabilities of the land, air and water● economic, environmental and social needs● opportunities for integrated management.

Environment

● Minimize activities that cause soil degradation or loss.● Protect the quality and quantity of water.● Maintain instream flows to protect fisheries.● Encourage the conservation and efficient use of water, while meeting human needs.● Maintain the abundance and diversity of native species and habitats. Recover endangered, threatened

and vulnerable species.● Ensure the special management of sensitive areas such as wetlands, estuaries, watersheds, riparian








vol2

areas, and critical wildlife habitat areas.● Make proactive land use decisions that prevent or reduce pollution.

Transportation

● Provide an efficient transport system that:● facilitates economic and social development● reduces the need for automobile use and encourages non-motorized transport and public

transit.● avoids projects which encourage inappropriate land development (e.g., subdivisions on prime

farm and forest land).

Recreation

● Ensure a full range of outdoor recreational opportunities for all British Columbians.

Human Settlement

● Avoid settlement of valuable resource land and environmentally sensitive areas.● Avoid urban sprawl.● Encourage settlement patterns that reduce the need for automobile use and foster conservation of

energy.● Expand community natural area networks.● Identify adequate inventories of industrial and commercial land.● Promote affordable housing.● Maintain rural communities.

Economic Development

● Seek full employment and regionally balanced economic development.● Promote land uses that support value-added enterprises.● Reduce uncertainty with respect to land user rights.● Streamline regulatory and permitting mechanisms.● Coordinate economic development initiatives and infrastructure projects with land use planning.

Protected Areas

● Protect viable, representative examples of the province's major ecosystems.● Protect characteristic recreational and cultural heritage features of each ecosection.● Protect the special natural, cultural heritage and recreational features of the province.

Coastal and Marine

● Ensure that development maintains the scenic beauty and natural character of shorelines.


vol2

● Enhance public access to shorelines.● Protect significant coastal habitats.● Integrate planning among the numerous governments involved.

Energy

● Make land use decisions that promote the efficient use and conservation of energy.

Aboriginal Peoples

● Manage land cooperatively with Aboriginal Peoples, where their interests may be affected.

Cultural Heritage

● Maintain heritage lands and sites.


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 4 - Selected B.C. Land Use Statistics

3.1. Land Area and Status in British Columbia - 1987*

Land Status Category Area (ha) Percent

Federal Land

National Parks 475,999 0.5

Indian Reserves 341,077 0.4

Defence Lands 57,266 0.1

Transportation 15,477 -

Miscellaneous 31,579 -

Total Federal Land 921,398 1.0

Provincial Land

Provincial Forests 73,897,568 78.0

Tree Farm Licences 6,440,779 6.8

Community Pastures 167,699 0.2








vol2

Provincial Parks 5,364,501 5.6

Regional Parks 8,128 -

Crown Land Under 379,606 0.4

Ecological Reserves 107,321 0.1

Total Provincial Land 86,365,602 91.1

Private Land 5,686,000 6.0

Total Land Area 92,973,000 98.1

Total Water Area 1,807,000 1.9

Total Area 94,780,000 100

* From Ministry of Crown Lands (now Environment, Lands and Parks), British Columbia Land Statistics (Victoria, 1989).

3.2. Land Use in British Columbia - 1987*

Land Use Activity Area (ha) Percent

Forest (1984)

Land presently availableand suitable (TFL & TSA)

22,606,572 23.8

Not Stocked 3,560,368 3.8

Not available 2,383,746 2.5

Not Suitable 14,713,917 15.5

Total Forest (1984) 43,264,603 45.6

Grazing (1984)

Utilized Crown Range 8,322,903 8.8

Community Pastures 167,699 0.2

Total Grazing (1984) 8,490,602 9.0


vol2

Agriculture (1986)

Field Crops 570,843 0.6

Improved Pasture 206,428 0.2

Summer Fallow 81,166 0.1

Unimproved Farmland 1,356,274 1.4

Other 154,515 0.2

Total Agriculture (1986) 2,369,226 2.5

Recreation

National Parks 475,999 0.5

Provincial Parks 5,364,501 5.7

Regional Parks 8,128 -

Total Recreation 5,848,628 6.2

Settlement (1986)

Urban and Rural Settlement 295,162 0.3

Rural Transportation 227,608 0.2

Farmstead 26,230 ¾

Total Settlement (1986) 549,000 0.6

Mining (1984) 73,838 0.1

Transmission Lines (1984) 39,400 -

Pipelines (1983) 9,217 -

Ecological Reserves (Land Only) 107,321 0.1

Total Determined Land Use 60,751,835 64.1

Uncategorized (Primarily Barren) 32,221,165 34.0

Total Land Area 92,973,000 98.1


vol2

Total Water Area 1,807,000 1.9

Total Area 94,780,000 100

* From Ministry of Crown Lands (now Environment, Lands and Parks), British Columbia Land Statistics (Victoria, 1989).


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 5 - Summary of Past Proposals for Land Use Planning Reform

Various previous processes have produced thoughtful proposals that can help define options for reform of the planning delivery system. These are briefly summarized below.

Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

The Round Table (Towards a Strategy for Sustainability, 1992) proposed the "devolution of responsibility to regional and district offices of government agencies, so that they would be better positioned to respond to local concerns". They suggested "adoption of consensus-based decision-making (to complement parliamentary democracy), revisions in decision-making responsibilities and greater use of market mechanisms".

In a prior report commissioned for the Round Table and the Forest Resources Commission (Reforming the Decision-Making Process for Forest Land Planning in British Columbia, 1990), Drs. Gunton and Vertinsky presented several recommendations for improving the forest land planning process. While the focus was specific to Timber Supply Areas and Tree Farm Licenses, the general conclusions offer some more general direction.

They called for the key elements of the decision-making process to be incorporated into a legislated framework to improve clarity and accountability. Plans outlining land allocation should be official, enforceable and outline management guidelines. Planning should be facilitated by mediators and negotiation techniques to help achieve consensus. A provincial mediation centre to provide and develop expertise was proposed. Participation would be enhanced by comprehensible explanation, formal notice requirements, participation opportunities, assistance funding and greater access to information. An independent, endowed research centre to support stakeholders was proposed. Plan making should be assisted by a more systematic information assembly and a more comprehensive system for evaluating land use options.

Plans should be formally approved with the criteria and reasons for decision documented. They should provide for formal hearings if required.

Power to approve plans was the subject of special attention, recognizing the need for clear responsibility for a final decision. Four decision-making alternatives were assessed, namely:








vol2

● by the Chief Forester but with the conduct of formal hearings;● by the Chief Forester on the basis of a plan developed by a "regional resource management committee",

comprised of a broader range of stakeholder representatives who would be either appointed or locally elected;● by an independent Integrated Resource Planning Board, appointed by Cabinet, which would represent agency and

stakeholder interests. The Board would be supported by professional staff who could employ a formal hearing process;

● by decentralizing authority to the regional resource management committee described above.

These alternative concepts are shown on the following Figure A.


vol2

They recommended an appeals process through an independent "Resource Appeal Board" for stakeholders to challenge decisions that were inconsistent with prescribed objectives and guidelines or which contravene due process.

Sufficient resources to monitor the effectiveness of implementation and success of the management strategy were also recommended.

Old Growth Strategy

This project (An Old Growth Strategy for British Columbia, 1992) recommended a cooperative inter-agency use of provincial, regional and land use bodies established for integrated resource management.

A provincial land use body would be established to make recommendations on land use allocation and establish provincial land use criteria. It would develop broad provincial goals and objectives, and guidelines for making decisions. It would facilitate conflict and impasse resolution, coordinate the work of regional and local land use bodies and coordinate resource agencies to implement recommendations. Representation from provincial and stakeholder groups was proposed.

Regional and local land use bodies were proposed; the regional focus would be, "to translate provincial conservation goals to meet specific economic and ecological needs. At the local level the focus would be specifically related to management issues. The regions would be responsible for ensuring linkage, consistency and coordination between the broad provincial goals and objectives for land use allocation between the three levels". For operational requirements, "The need for sub-district planning processes will be determined by regional and local land use bodies".

Dunsmuir II

The 1991 Dunsmuir II Agreement33 recommended a provincial governmental body, such as a "Provincial Land Use Committee", be established. This body would facilitate the development of broad provincial land and water use goals along with regional and local allocation and management objectives, assemble a value-neutral body of information, expedite the preparation of appropriate integrated use plans, guide the implementation of the strategy, and monitor and audit implementation. "The process should have a top-down/bottom-up structure, being both government-led and community served, within a restored, institutional framework that will accommodate such a multi-tiered process and address present deficiencies within affected agencies."

Forest Resources Commission

In its report (The Future of Our Forests, April 1991), the FRC called for the government "to introduce comprehensive


vol2

land use planning for the total land base of the province".

They outlined a three-tiered process that featured a statutorily independent and non-sectoral Land Use Commission to "assist in developing broad goals and objectives, provide a neutral forum for information, discussion and research on Land Use Plans and make recommendations to government (through Cabinet Committee) on the range of values to be considered." That Commission would assess the capabilities of the land, and establish a classification system, and recommend "targets for each of the values desired from the land base".

The Commission would have a limited number of appointments, a staff of resource professionals and planners to develop plans and a mechanism for mediation. A formal three person Appeal Board would settle "operational" disagreements among users within an approved plan. Only those proposals not resolved by the planning and appeal process would proceed to Cabinet.

The FRC saw a role for approximately six to eight regional planning groups comprised of resource professionals, elected community and sectoral representatives, and regional leaders to communicate between the Land Use Commission and local planning groups and to mediate conflicts on site designations.

Local planning groups were proposed for each existing Forest District and would be responsible for preparing specific land use plans. They would draw heavily upon the professional and technical expertise available in government ministries, as well as that of user groups and knowledgeable individuals. Planning capacity would be provided by personnel permanently seconded from existing agencies. They would be responsible for managing the planning process.

The FRC proposed that a restructured Ministry of Crown Lands would be responsible for setting financial priorities for resource inventories, rationalizing resource boundaries for inventory development, analyzing land capability and handling requests for inventory information on Crown lands.

The FRC was asked to provide additional detail on implementation of their proposal and this was done through a consultant report Land Use Planning for British Columbia in December 1991. This report further detailed the proposed structure at provincial, regional and district levels.

At the provincial level, the proposal was for appointed Commissioners, supported by professional staff to:

● articulate goals, objectives, a land use classification system and standards to guide the preparation of district land use plans and their integration at a regional level,

● coordinate and set priorities for inventory and mapping,● sponsor and provide neutral, non-sectoral staff to support comprehensive regional and local land use planning,● chair a Provincial Land Use Coordinating Committee to coordinate multi-agency support, coordinate land use

policies and programs and review district and regional land use plans,● approve regional and district plans,● provide a land information support function to planning teams by coordinating inventories, generating neutral

information on land use and land use capability, undertaking independent environmental, economic and social analysis and providing advice on use of data to planning teams, and

● provide a dispute resolution function to respond to the need to resolve disagreements between competing interests. This would be done by providing staff to manage multi-party negotiations, provide training in negotiation-based consensus processes, provide access to mediation and opportunities for appeals to a three person panel if mediation fails.

At the regional level, the proposal was for a regional commissioner and regional office to,


vol2

● integrate communication between provincial and local levels and coordinate priorities,● provide regional interpretations and guidelines,● establish and chair "regional land use committees" comprised of representatives from resource agencies, local

governments and First Nations plus representatives from user groups and non-government organizations,● create regional plans by integrating and negotiating adjustments to district land use plans,● provide a land use dispute resolution service to the district level,● provide technical information and research capacity to assist district level planning,● assess regional impacts, and● provide land use recommendations to regional bodies.

District level planning, using forest districts as a starting point, would:

● establish and chair district land use committees comprised of an interagency core group, local government, First Nations, resource users and non-government organizations to pursue consensus-seeking negotiations. Stakeholders' participation might also come from alternatives such as the suggested community forest resource boards.

● support and facilitate negotiations to produce a plan and broad management guidelines according to objectives and standards established by the Land Use Commission, and

● provide professional information gathering and impact analysis to support the planning team.

This organization concept is diagrammed in Figure B.

These proposals reflected the FRC's earlier concept of Land Use Commission staff chairing land use committees at provincial, regional and district levels. While recognizing the need for closely related land use planning and management, the FRC again stressed the need for planning "to be separate from the line ministries whose advocacy positions are viewed as being strongly counter-productive to land use planning for all values...". They thus favoured "a totally separate Land Commission ... responsible to the Cabinet Committee on Sustainable Development or a Land Use Secretariat responsible to that same Cabinet committee".

33. Towards a Provincial Land and Water Strategy, Proceedings, Dunsmuir II (Victoria, 1991).


vol2


Table of contents

Parks and Wilderness for the 90's

In September 1991, a summary of the public response to public review of the parks and wilderness system planning programs saw some of the same themes emerge, namely integration of parallel initiatives, commitment by diverse agencies, the need for "establishment of a province-wide decision-making process, involving all affected government agencies and a wide spectrum of the users of the land base".

Commercial Backcountry Recreation

In 1991 B.C. Lands initiated a public consultation process on commercial backcountry recreation due to growth of this activity and the pressure it presented for existing land users. Respondents again stated the need for a comprehensive plan as the basis for use and tenure allocation. The planning process should be balanced and "supported by a neutral body and linked to the integrated management process of government agencies."

B.C. Forest Industry Land Use Task Force

In Toward a Land Use Strategy for British Columbia, 1990, the Task Force called for a vision statement, identification of key principles and a process to balance provincial and regional objectives. They suggested a "permanent land use commission to consult with regional land use committees to develop provincial and regional land use objectives which would be proposed to a land use committee of Cabinet..." They supported an adequate information base, a land classification system and an independent body to oversee land use research.

Proposals for Community Based Initiatives

In recent years several proposals for greater community participation into resource planning have come forward, expressing interest in increased input into decisions affecting their future. Various degrees of devolution or decentralization of control to local communities have been proposed, recognizing the inherent tension between such "local control" and the interests of the province in policy and revenue matters. This was best summarized by the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy which suggested the province "seek to enhance local and








vol2

regional decision-making mandates, where appropriate" but recognize that "devolving responsibilities requires a provincial perspective"34 They saw this being pursued by advisory local round tables seeking and advancing consensus recommendations.


vol2

Figure B

The Bulkley Valley Community Resources Board Agreement seeks to "genuinely reflect the wishes of the residents..." while recognizing the needs of the province as a whole by working in a cooperative advisory capacity with resource planners.

The Tin-Wis Coalition called for a Forest Stewardship Act to create community forest resource boards and a provincial forest resource board. The provincial board would promulgate forestry rules and standards, and the community boards would act as local forest plan and harvest approval bodies.

The Village of Hazelton proposed creating "Watershed Authorities" which would be local land use management boards established by devolution contracts with the province under which the authorities would "guide regional development, conservation and preservation".

The West Chilcotin Community Resources Board proposed a system of local approval of resource use, based on community agreement on local resource use plans. (C.O.R.E. worked with the community in evolving this initiative into the Anahim Round Table, involving representatives of all sectors along with provincial, local and First Nation governments, in a pilot planning process.)

These proposals all reflect a genuine interest in local determination of land use but also recognize an awareness of broader provincial interests.

34. See B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Towards a Strategy for Sustainability (Victoria, 1992).


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 6 - Organizations Providing Response on Land Use Planning Delivery*

* Response was through interview, written brief, or both.

Association of British Columbia Professional ForestersAssociation of Professional BiologistsBritish Columbia Agricultural Land CommissionBritish Columbia Cattleman's AssociationBritish Columbia Chamber of Commerce Board of DirectorsBritish Columbia Conservation Data CenterBritish Columbia Energy CouncilBritish Columbia Environmental NetworkBritish Columbia Federation of AgricultureBritish Columbia Federation of NaturalistsBritish Columbia HydroBritish Columbia Motorcycle FederationBritish Columbia Utilities CommissionBritish Columbia/Yukon Chamber of MinesCanadian Bar Association - Environment SectionCanadian Parks and Wilderness SocietyChilcotin Information NetworkCouncil of Tourism AssociationsEast Kootenay Environmental SocietyFederation of Mountain Clubs of British ColumbiaGovernment of Canada - Council of Senior OfficialsHorse Council of British ColumbiaHowe Sound Round Table








vol2

Inter-Agency Management Committee (Provincial Government)Lapidary, Rock and Mineral Society of British ColumbiaMining Association of British ColumbiaMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and FoodMinistry of Environment, Lands and parksMinistry of ForestsMinistry of Municipal AffairsOkanagan Similkameen Parks SocietyOutdoor Recreation CouncilPlanning Institute of British ColumbiaRegional District PlannersSchool of Community and Regional Planning, University of British ColumbiaSea Kayak Association of British ColumbiaSierra Club of Western CanadaUnion of British Columbia MunicipalitiesUrban Development InstituteVancouver Natural History SocietyWest Coast Environmental Law AssociationWestwater ResearchWorld Wildlife Fund


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 7 - Interview Questionnaire on Land Use Planning Delivery System

November 15, 1993

1. What are your (or your organizations) interests in land use that you think should be met by land use planning in British Columbia.

2. What are the key features of a provincial land use planning system that you feel are essential to meet those interests?

3. Resource planning is done at regional, sub-regional and local operational levels with a separate stream for municipal planning. What aspects of this current approach for land use planning do you feel need to be addressed or improved in order to meet your interests (or, if you prefer, broader societal interests)?

4. Recognizing that your interests must be accommodated with other interests, what features of a land use decision making system do you think are necessary to make this work?

5. What do you consider to be the most critical goals for improved land use planning in B.C.? What are their relative priorities?

6. Do you have any additional suggestions or proposals that should be considered?

Please note: We have an additional more detailed questionnaire that seeks your views on additional aspects and details of the current planning system including: products, public participation, decision making, appeal provisions, linkages, implementation and monitoring.

These questions reflect some initial options presented in a C.O.R.E. discussion paper entitled "Land Use Strategy Framework, Goals and Planning Options" (Report 93-05).

We would also welcome you taking the time to provide us with your views and suggestions on these








vol2

questions as part of this project.

Please call and we will be pleased to forward this discussion paper and questionnaire.

Questionnaire on Land Use Planning Delivery System

As part of its work on advising on a Land Use Strategy, C.O.R.E. is examining the land use "planning delivery system". This includes looking at planning direction, plan preparation, as well as approval and implementation. C.O.R.E. has presented some initial thoughts and options in a discussion paper entitled "Land Use Strategy Framework, Goals and Planning Options" (Background Report 93-05) which is available on request.

While the following questions reflect those posed in that paper, the objective is to facilitate and not limit consideration of ideas on how to improve the Province's land planning delivery system. In that spirit, we would appreciate your views and comments on as many questions as you wish.

A. Interests

1. What are the needs to be met (or outcomes to be produced) by land use planning?

B. Direction

1. C.O.R.E. is proposing that planning be guided by a set of land use principles and goals endorsed by Cabinet. (Comment is currently being obtained on these.) Once agreed, should these goals and policies be advanced as guidelines, policy or be formalized in legislation?

2. Are other kinds of provincial planning direction necessary?

C. Framework

1. A comprehensive planning system for B.C. has been suggested. What, in your view, does this entail?2. Resource planning is done at the regional, sub-regional and local (resource) levels with a separate

stream for municipal planning. In your view, what aspects, if any, of this current system need to be improved or changed?

3. What do you think are most critical information requirements to make land use planning successful?

D. Regional Planning

1. Some regional plans are currently being facilitated by C.O.R.E. using a shared decision-making (participatory) approach. Do you have any observations on how to improve these regional planning processes?

2. For regional planning:

a) What should the products (or desired results) be?


vol2

b) Who should do the planning? c) How can public participation in plan-making be improved? d) If you think legislation is necessary at this level, for what specific purposes is it needed? e) How should possible impasse in plan preparation be handled? f) Cabinet, as a politically accountable body, is to approve these plans. Are there features of the plan approval process you would recommend? g) Once plans are approved, how should disagreements in interpretation be resolved? h) How should appeals under the plan be initiated and handled (who reviews and who decides)? i) How and when should plan reviews be initiated?

3. Inter-Agency Management Committees (IAMC's) of provincial officials exist for cross-ministry coordination and support at the regional level. Is any more formal role or arrangement necessary?

E. Sub-Regional Planning

1. Sub-regional plans (called Land and Resource Management Plans) are currently being prepared or will be prepared throughout B.C. These are being prepared by inter-agency teams in cooperation with public participants and First Nations. Do you have any suggestions to improve this planning?

2. For sub-regional planning:

a) What should the products (or desired results) be? b) Who should do the planning? c) How can public participation for plan-making at this level be improved? d) If you think legislation is necessary at this level, for what specific purposes is it needed? e) How should possible impasse in plan preparation be handled? f) Cabinet, as a politically accountable body, is to approve these plans. Are there features of the approval process you would recommend? g) Once plans are approved, how should disagreements in interpretation be resolved? h) How should appeals under the plan be initiated and handled (who reviews and who decides)? i) How and when should plan reviews be initiated?

3. There are proposals for local round tables or more formal "community resource boards" to either advise on, or direct planning at this level.

a) Do you have any comments on these or other alternatives? b) If some body is formalized, what should its mandate and accountabilities be? c) If created should their bodies be appointed or elected? d) How should any proposed body be linked with local governments?



vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 8 - B.C.'s Main Land Use Related Statutes

● Agricultural Land Commission Act● BC Forest Renewal Act● BC Treaty Commission Act (not proclaimed)● Commissioner on Resources and Environment● Environmental Assessment Act● Environment and Land Use Act● Environment Management Act● Forest Act● Forest Land Reserve Act● Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act● Heritage Conservation Act● Land Act● Land Titles Act● Mineral Tenure Act● Ministry Acts (various)● Municipal Act● Petroleum and Natural Gas Act● Range Act● Soil Conservation Act● Water Act● Wildlife Act









vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 9 - Planning Levels: Products, Methods & Responsibilities

Level/Scale Main Products (A) Methods &(B) Responsibilities

Provincial ● Land use goals and policies (Crown and private land)

● Planning legislation ● Determination of priority

goals and objectives (policy integration and direction)

● Standards/indicators ● Guidelines (procedure,

process, and content, classification systems etc.)

● Priority setting for planning, inventory and analysis

● Information support systems

● Plan review ● Plan approval ● Appeal mechanisms ● Research (to support

planning) ● Effectiveness auditing

(A)

● Political direction ● Strategic planning ● Policy development and

analysis / research

(B)

● Cabinet ● Ministries ● Resource Management

Division








vol2

Strategic

• Regional

1:250,000to1:500,000

[25,000+ km2]

● Recommend broad allocation/zoning designation of Crown land base (objectives: uses and broad guidelines); either either consensus or defined options.

● Coordinate sub-regional plans

● Advise on land use policy issues

● Advise on related economic transition/mitigation strategies and implementation strategies

● Identify priorities for further planning

● Special regional overview initiatives;- Fraser Basin Program- Georgia Basin

● Protocols to link to Urban Regional Plans

● Protocols to link to Interim Measures Agreements

(A)

● Technical planning ● Resource inventory and ● analysis ● Socio-economic analysis ● Public participation/interest ● based negotiations ● Public consultation ● First Nations Consultation

(B)

● CORE ● Ministries

• Subregional

1:50,000to 1:250,000

[15,000 to25,000 km2]

● Broad allocation/zoning designation of land base (objectives, permitted uses, and emphasis) where regional plans not in place

● Refine regional plans ● Defines more specific

resource management guidelines and objectives

● Implementation strategy ● Protocols to link with Urban

Regional and Official Community Plans

● Protocols to link to Interim Measures Agreements

(A)

● Technical planning ● Resource inventory and ● analysis ● Socio-economic analysis ● Public participation/ interest ● based negotiations ● consensus building ● Public consultation ● First Nations consultations

(B)

● Cabinet ● RMD ● IAMC's ● Ministries


vol2


[1:20,000 to1:50,000]

● Typically address sensitive or complex local resource management issues

● Also provide guidance for development plans

● Specific zoning designations

● Specific management guidelines

● Protocols to link to interim Measures Agreements

● Examples ● watershed plans ● coastal and marine area

plans ● landscape units under

Forest Practices Code

(A)

● Technical planning ● Resource inventory ● Detailed design options ● Public participation ● First Nations consultations

(B)

● Ministries ● IAMC's

Operational/Development Plans

[1:5,000 to1:50,000]

● Area and site specific plans ● Specify details of land use

and activities; development location, methods and sequence as basis for permits and approvals; site site specific impact assessments

● Examples ● Forest Development Plans ● Access Management Plans ● Logging Plans ● Silviculture Plans ● Development plans for

grazing, aquaculture, commercial recreation etc.

● Environmental Assessments engaged for major projects having, in the judgement of Ministers, potential for significant impacts. These lead to issuance of a project approval, etc.

(A)

● Detailed planning, inventory and design studies

● Public consultation ● First Nations consultation

(B)

● Ministries

(A)

● Formal application ● Comprehensive scope ● Project studies ● Public consultation and

hearings ● Review documentation

(B)

● Ministers ● Environmental Assessment ● Office


vol2

Local Government

Strategic

Urban Regional Plans

● Regional objectives, policies primarily for private land

● Broad allocation/zoning designation of land base (objectives, permitted uses and emphasis)

● Major policies regarding direction and amount of growth

● Transportation network ● Implementation strategy ● Broad coordination

achieved by provision and incentives for multi-regional district accords

● Linkage of provincial and local interest to be achieved by provincial participation (Technical working groups) and sign off

(A)

● Resource analysis ● Technical planning ● Socioeconomic analysis ● Public participation ● Public consultation ● Provincial agency

participation

(B)

● Regional Districts

Local Plans35 ● Community objectives, policies primarily for private land

● Refine urban regional plans ● Specific use/zoning

designations ● Specific policies regarding

direction and amount of growth

● Transportation network ● Implementation and

strategy

(A)

● Technical planning ● Public participation ● Public consultation

(B)

● Municipalities (& Regional Districts)

35. Includes Official Community Plans, Rural Land Use Plans, Sector Plans, Neighbourhood and District Plans


vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 10 - Possible Broad Land Use Designation Framework

1 - Broad Category

Protected Areas

Intent: Resource Protection

Major Planning Categories

1. Strict preservation (P-S)2. Wilderness (P-W)3. Natural areas (P-N)4. Cultural Heritage (P-C)5. Recreation Oriented (P-R)

Guidelines/Notations

-

2 - Broad Category

Resource Development: Special Management

Intent: Identify priority resource values which shape the design of development uses and their intensity.








vol2


1. Visual amenity (SM-V)2. Recreation (SM-R)3. Ecosystem and habitat management (SM-E)4. Community watershed (SM-W)5. Special features (SM-S)


Special guidelines and notations made to ensure priority or sensitive values are identified. See below as a general guide to possible categories. Their recognition implies a lower intensity of use than in general multiple resource use zones.

3 - Broad Category

Resource Development: General

Intent: Identify areas appropriate for resource harvest and management

Resource Development: Intensive

Intent: Identify areas with priority on or dedicated to development uses and suitable for high intensity production.


1. General Multiple Resource Use● Mapping can note zone emphasis as necessary; examples

M-F (Forestry) M-F/W (Forestry/Wildlife) M-WF (Water/Forestry) M-A (Agriculture) M-G/F (Grazing/Forestry) M-etc.

2. Intensive Resource Use● Mapping can note zone emphasis as necessary; examples

I-F (Intensive Forestry) I-A (Intensive Agriculture) I-Aq (Intensive Aquaculture)


vol2

I-etc.


General guidelines and notations regarding resource values and concerns. These are to guide more localized planning and management. Map notations can be done by letters as shown below and also can be numerically keyed to supporting text as necessary. Potential guideline categories include:

(b) biodiversity (c) cultural heritage (d) fisheries (g) grassland (h) hazard (o) old growth (r) recreation (s) silviculture (t) tourism values (v) visual (wa) water (w) wildlife

4 - BROAD CATEGORY

Settlement

Intent: Identify areas with existing or potential for settlement uses under Community Plans.


1. Agricultural and Rural2. Commercial3. Industrial4. Institutional5. Recreational6. Transport and utility7. Hazard and Sensitive Lands

(NOTE: Normally these would not be mapped at broad regional and subregional resource plans but be detailed in Community Plans


Various sub-categories would be developed for each major category depending on density, use, location and other objectives. For example; commercial may have categories such as Downtown, Suburban,


vol2

Neighborhood, Local and Highway. There is considerable potential complexity and variation in possible sub-categories depending on local requirements.


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 11 - Example of "Provincial Interest" Statements

Extract from Proposed Amendments to Ontario's Planning Act, Section 2, (Bill 163, 1994)

1. the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;2. the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province;3. the conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base;4. the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or

scientific interest;5. the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;6. the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services

and waste management systems;7. the minimization of waste;8. the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;9. the adequate provision and distribution of education of educational, health, social, cultural and

recreational facilities;10. the adequate provision of a full range of housing;11. the adequate provision of employment opportunities;12. the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities;13. the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;14. the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;15. the protection of public health and safety;16. the appropriate location of growth and development;17. any other matters prescribed.








vol2


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 12 - Key Comments* on Provincial Planning Coordination

*This table is a summary of key comments from the interview process. Attempts were made to group the points logically and to reflect recurring themes, and viewpoints considered to have particular significance, including divergent views on the same topic.

Planning Structure

● There is a lack of specific responsibility for Planning● A neutral agency committed to planning (similar to Municipal model) and to manage the plan and

compliance● Lack of neutrality and competition between agencies is a problem● There is no neutral agency, there is need for an independent agency for integration● A permanent body to ensure planning is fair, balanced and consistent● Separate the "marriage" of land allocation and tenure● Separate plan making from "doing"● Desire for sectoral spokesperson

Coordination

● Process maze and lack of consistency; which planning process takes precedence? A vehicle for integration is needed.

● Lack of coordination in Provincial initiatives● Who is in charge of managing the planning process? How is consistency and coordination and linkage

assured?● A provincial mechanism to coordinate all levels and kinds of planning (who is in charge?) is needed.








vol2

● Clarify linkage between planning and environmental assessment● More internal interagency coordination in recreation sector● How is land planning and economic strategy coordinated?

Decision-Making

● Cabinet is accountable and should make final decisions (Regional)● Provincial (Cabinet) approval OK - but reasons for decisions needed● Need a coordinating body for monitoring and reviewing plans; CORE for the provincial level and

IAMC or CORE in regions● Do not support a multi-jurisdiction Commission● An independent body through which plans are "vetted" at the provincial level● Review bodies should work with those preparing the plan● Appeals to an independent tribunal● Need a Board to monitor progress


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 13 - Planning System: Design Principles and Factors

Principle Factors & Considerations

Sustainable ● considers both present future needs ● balances environmental, economic and social needs ● respects capacity of ecological systems

Comprehensive & Integrated

● considers full range of economic, environmental and ● social concerns and values ● relevant agencies participate ● oriented towards integration; promotes linkage and

coordination between- planning programs of agencies- planning levels- land use plans and resource management- planning initiatives








vol2

Fair ● planning process is neutral (independent of specific sectoral/management need)

● appropriate inter-agency participation provided for ● multi-sectoral public involvement opportunities ● access to information and public reporting ● encourages agreement; provides for conflict resolution ● clear decision making authority ● provisions for appeal of decisions ● fair treatment of those with existing rights

Efficient & Effective ● defined framework (structure, levels, products) ● defined process (procedures, roles, general sequence

and timelines) ● defined guidelines (planning area; general planning

method; land designation) ● defined planning objectives and policies ● oriented towards consensus and conflict resolution ● adequate resourced (preparation, readiness and phasing)

Accountability ● defined responsibilities for process ● defined decision responsibilities ● stakeholder accountability ● clear procedures

Enforceable ● provisions for monitoring- achievement of objectives- compliance- plans are accessible- plans are capable of implementation/enforcement

Adaptive & Flexible ● defined procedures but scope for flexibility and innovation ● provisions for amendment and updating ● provisions for transition

Respectful ● provisions for community participation, consultation and information


vol2

Without Prejudice ● considers First Nations interests ● encourages First Nations involvement


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 14 - Key Comments on Regional Planning*

*This table presents a distillation of comments on this topic received through the consultation process.

Goals and Policies

● Broad land allocation should be the product● Tables need a clear mission statement or "letter of instruction" regarding sustainability● No incentives to depart from status quo; need a compensation strategy● Map values at regional level; fill in details locally

Framework

● Have technical and impact methodology and structure defined● Focus on Provincial interest● Need for regional coordination of local processes

Priority Setting

● A decision making structure to manage the overall planning process is needed● Do we always need both regional and subregional plans?

Initiation

● Ensure regional capacity exists; establish a "secretariat"● Concept of IAMCs supported








vol2

● Planning done by a neutral body - either a regional secretariat to IAMCs or CORE ● CORE should evolve to provide coordination role (e.g., several sub-regions); need to adjust CORE

staffing● Need for regional coordination of local processes● IAMCs unsure of their role - do they lead; do they compromise; do they implement? They need a

priority setting mandate.● Make Local government members of IAMCs● Most agencies only have resources for Regionally based interagency teams

Coordination and Linkage

● Need to define who will be managing the plan● Local resource boards should report to a regional level

Dispute Resolution

● Use mediator to resolve impasse on last resort● Resolve interpretation disagreements using IAMCs or CORE

Decision Body

● Cabinet approval of plans following review/comment by an independent agency● Cabinet should decide on plans● Use a hearing process for final approval● Establish Regional Boards to approve plans and applications


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 15 - Key Comments on CORE's Initial Regional Planning*

*This table presents a distillation of comments received on this topic through the consultation process.

Goals and Policies

● Sustainability criteria are needed● Must provide scope for out-of-region interests to be represented in more local planning

Framework

● Be more directive; offer guidelines and better preparation● Define the problem and the expected product/results better● Start with defined boundaries● Areas too large, shared decision making might work on a smaller scale (graspable units)● Use a standard provincial land designation system● Forest Land Reserve concept supported● A better defined technical planning sequence (critical path) and methods e.g. impact assessment is

needed

Initiation

● Too process oriented; be more goal oriented● Sufficient time (realistic timetables) and resources are necessary

Participation








vol2

● Participant guidelines are required● Have a "good faith" test for participants● "Vested interests" may be a barrier to negotiation● Defined rules on consensus are needed● A looser definition of consensus is needed● Ensure a more role for professionals (more scope for technical planning)● Need more participant accountability; sectors require legitimate constituencies, and consistent

representation● Concern that "JQ public" left out; more opportunity for general community input is needed● Local government role at Tables is confusing● Fisheries interests require a central organization to represent them

Instruments

● Need to outline land use and economic transition strategies


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 16 - Key Comments on Subregional Planning* (LRMP)

* This table presents a distillation of comments received on this topic through the consultation process.

Framework

● Require legislated powers to plan● Subregional Plans need integration● Should be Watershed based● Province should set policy guidelines for the process

Priority Setting

● Problem of insufficient resources (for inventory, analysis, etc.)● Lack of planning expertise is a problem● Sufficiency of staff resources is a problem● It may make regional plans unnecessary

Initiation

● Concern about lack of neutrality; process should have an independent staff● Neutral chair and leadership and facilitation; CORE should provide this

Participation

● Community "will" to plan is essential








vol2

● Community Resource Board (CRB)/Local Round Table (LRT) model is OK but needs defined goals and guidelines (roles etc.)

● It is the best process for local communities● CRB model is OK but it must be multi-sectoral in composition● The participating sectors should be defined● CRB/LRT model favored; implement broadly, expand role incrementally; question industry having a

seat; flexibility for varied conditions. Selection process can vary but must be fair and balanced.● Use table ("consensus") approach at this level● Local resource boards supported; they make recommendations to the regional level● Barrier of "vested interests" unwilling to accommodate land use change

Coordination and Linkage

● Regional Districts should be given an opportunity to participate● Need informative tabloids with concise land use options presented for general public information


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 17 - Preliminary Guidelines for Community Resource Boards

Introduction

CORE is charged by statute to facilitate "community based participatory processes to consider land use and related resource and environmental management issues". The underlying intent is to foster economic, environmental, and social sustainability.

CORE is doing this through its own projects, and joint work and monitoring with other programs. It has also drawn on the work by the Canadian Round Table and the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. The Canadian Round Table36 suggested the following principles for consensus processes:

● Purpose Driven: a reason to participate,● Inclusive: all parties with a significant interest involved,● Voluntary: parties participate voluntarily,● Self Design: the parties participate in designing a consensus process;● Flexibility: provide for feedback,● Equal Opportunity: all parties have equal access to relevant information,● Respect: acceptance of diverse values and interests,● Accountability: to both their constituencies and to the process,● Time Limits: realistic deadlines are necessary, and● Implementation: commitment to implementation and monitoring.

These provide a general framework for the following preliminary guidelines. CORE has in preparation a more in-depth report which will amplify this preliminary summary.

Preliminary Guidelines








vol2

1. Purposes

● To provide a broadly based source of information and advice to assist government in various decision-making processes related to achieving sustainability.

● Active participation in land use and resource management planning processes, including identification of interests, and participation in interest based land use planning negotiations

● Monitor implementation of agreed upon land use plans● Serve as an advisory group for diverse government initiatives related to local land use resource

management, and other local issues aimed at sustainability.

2. Structure

● Multi-stakeholder; inclusive of the range of perspectives37 relevant to the task.● A balance of representation from economic, environmental and social perspectives necessary for a

sustainable solution.● Voluntary participation; representatives from parties with demonstrable interests see value in freely

coming together to advise on how to address issues and concerns.● Respect the need for involving parties with significant interest in the outcome.● Endeavor to group those with similar interests to form a grouping or caucus in order to keep number

of participants manageable.● Respect the need for relevant diverse interests to be involved in developing a creative solution.

3. Process Design

● The parties representing the various perspectives and interests have an opportunity to contribute to designing consensus processes, recognizing the need for workable solutions, clear and reasonable timelines, and the need for decisions to be made.

● Ensure understanding about the ultimate product needed, the nature of the decision to be made and the decision option if consensus is not reached.

● Ensure that the process is open to feedback, learning "as you go", and adaptation.● Ensure that participants have opportunity to mutually agree on rules of procedure and also on ways of

adapting them as needed.● Ensure that provision is made for consideration of provincial interest, as well as local interest,

perspectives.

4. Process Operation

● Provide all parties equal access to relevant information.● Ensure that information requests are demonstrably feasible and relevant tot he task.● Support the process using independent facilitation as necessary.● The sponsoring agency or agencies (for the project at hand) provide reasonable technical and

administrative support.


vol2

5. Accountability

● Individuals representing the various perspectives/interests have several accountabilities:● they are accountable for participating in the process in good faith with the intent of reaching

agreement;● they are accountable to the other participants for respectful, responsible and sincere participation;● they are accountable back to the group/caucus and constituency on matters of information, reporting,

progress guidance, and agreement; and● they are accountable to the broader community for their role in contributing to a sustainable solution.

6. Implementation

● The sponsoring agency or agencies must declare its purpose and intentions regarding implementation of agreements and monitoring of their accomplishment.

● Parties to agreements can assist by monitoring and reporting on plan implementation from an independent perspective.

These preliminary guidelines will be elaborated upon in CORE's forthcoming report on this topic.

36. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future; Guiding Principles, (Ottawa, 1993).

37. For example, the Bulkley Community Resources Board in Smithers B.C. pioneered the use of this approach in B.C. They identified, in advance, the various `perspectives' which they considered necessary to be represented in land use planning and then called for public nominations for representatives of each.


vol2


Table of contents

Appendix 18 - Conceptual Outline of Land Use Planning System Operations*

*While this conceptual outline shows all levels of the planning system; this does not mean that every level will always be used. For example, land allocation at the regional level may mean that subregional planning is not required and the converse is also true. The system will also provide for program or sector specific planning studies at any level.

1. Plan Function/Level

Direction

● Goals and Policies● Framework● Priority Setting

1. Provincial

Cabinet:

● sets goals and policies and sustainability indicators● determines goal trade-offs● legislation and guidelines● sets planning priorities

1. Regional








vol2

● applies goals and policies as broad (strategic) designations and land use guidelines● advises on trade-offs● identifies general mitigation/transition strategies● advises on planning and implementation priorities● also coordinates subregional planning

1. Subregional - LRMP

● operates under direction provided by regional plan (where completed)● applies goals and policies as broad (strategic) land use designations and guidelines● advises on trade-offs● advises on implementation and local planning priorities

1. Local Resource

● area identified in higher level plan (or by circumstances) as requiring detailed planning to address issues or define management particulars

1. Operational

● plans prepared, usually by developer consistent with broad land use designation from higher level plans

1. Urban Regional

● operates under new statutory provisions● applies provincial goals and policies in regionally managed process● identifies broad land designations (urban and rural)

1. Community

● operate under Municipal Act● guided by provincial goals and policies● guided by approved urban regional plans

2. Plan Function / Level

Plan Preparation

● Initiation● Participation● Coordination● Dispute Resolution


vol2

● Information Support

2. Provincial

● CORE advises on land use strategy (assisted by ministries)● ministries advise on legislation and policies● various arrangements for public involvement● RMD coordinates responses to CORE recommendations● RMD coordinates priority setting advice and interministry linkages to ensure policy consistency● RMD offers advice on dispute resolution

- to cabinet- to DMs- to IAMCs

● RMD coordinates information priorities and standards

2. Regional

● cabinet direction on initiation● CORE facilitates planning in cabinet approved areas and outlines/manages planning sequence● ministries assist in design of work plan and provide technical resources under RMD/IAMC guidance● IAMC supported by a regional coordinator/secretariat linked to RMD● consensus seeking multi-stakeholder participation under defined guidelines; potential regional forum

of advisory tables for ongoing advice● provisions for broader community consultation and information● special liaison with First Nations and regional districts including links with IAMCs, and participation

on team● planning phase disputes mediated at table; options can be defined for Commissioner or government if

required; interim direction from government as needed● information/analysis support by interagency team under defined work plan and methods; use regional

GIS centres


● managed by IAMCs; priorities set by RMD;● delivered by interagency "district" planning team under neutral chair/mediator (from RMD, CORE or

elsewhere)● consensus seeking public participation through:

- standing multi-stakeholder advisory - community resource boards/tables where they exist (or purpose created)

● provisions for broader community consultation and information● opportunity for regional district and First Nations representatives on planning team● planning phase disputes referred to IAMC; and to RMD if necessary for mediation● information/analysis provided via regional GIS centres

2. Local Resource


vol2

● undertaken by a district planning team (IAMC priorities)● provision for neutral chair by IAMC● public participation through local round table where it exists, or create multi-stakeholder advisory

group● provision for local government and First Nations on planning team and/or advisory group● provision for community consultation and information● IAMC provides for dispute resolution assistance as necessary● supported by specialists in regional GIS centres as required

2. Operational

● developer usually prepares; district agency(ies) guide● referred to local board/table for advice● provisions for community notice● referral systems; include local government and First Nations● provide for disputes to be handled by district managers; IAMC provides assistance if requested● major contentious project proposals are referred to environmental assessment process● agencies supply available data

2. Urban Regional

● initiated by regional district or groupings (by protocol)● led by regional district teams with provincial representation; goal is joint agreement and sign-off● coordination with resource plans via

- regional district participation- provincial participation using "technical planning committee" model

● public participation via advisory board-table, grouping of tables, or created group● provisions for community consultation● provision for external mediation; lay out options for political steering committee● regional district technical team; provision for provincial (and federal) support under initial project

agreement e.g., focused grants

2. Community

● municipalities (or regional districts)● municipal team; request inputs from other levels● regional district works with to ensure consistency with urban regional plan; also relevant ministries● public participation via advisory tables and/or other groups● provisions for community consultation● provisions for mediation; also lay out options for council consideration● regional district and ministries (dept's) provide data/assistance as required



vol2

Plan Approval

● Plan Status● Decision Body● Review Coordination● Amendment and Review

3. Provincial

● goals and policies formalized by order or act (and field tested)● cabinet decides on goal and area priorities● cabinet approves major plans

3. Regional

● plans should be adopted as policy under statute● RMD coordinates interministry review and organizes hearings if required● cabinet approves and varies plans with consultation● plans managed by IAMCs who handle amendment applications driven by major new need; major

amendments referred to cabinet through RMD● 5 year review provisions; managed by CORE and IAMC


● plan should be officially adopted as policy under statute● IAMC arranges for necessary public hearings● RMD reviews draft plan against goals, policies and regional plan● cabinet approves and varies plans after consultation● 5 year review provisions; managed by IAMCs● provision for amendments driven by major new need; IAMC receives or initiates; RMD assesses;

cabinet decides

3. Local Resource

● plans to be official and "registered"● IAMCs could approve if authorized; provide for referral to RMD; checked against goals and policies● IAMC arranges for consultation, sign-off by local government and First Nations● IAMC arranges public hearings/information● amendment requests to district agencies for review referred to IAMCs if required● 5 year review provision

3. Operational

● plans approved by officials designated in statute


vol2

● provision for community consultation and comment; potential hearings if necessary● statutory provisions for amendments

3. Urban Regional

● plan officially adopted by regional district board(s) after municipal referrals; province also signs its commitment and approval

● provincial goals and policies met through participation in process● statutory provisions for plan amendment; formal applications; reviewed and sent to regional board(s);

provincial agreement

3. Community

● plan has official status after hearings and municipal council adoption● municipality works with regional district to ensure consistency. regional district (and province as

necessary) indicate agreement● statutory provisions for plan amendment; procedures for referral


Plan Implementation

● Instruments● Monitoring● Dispute Resolution● Appeal Provisions

4. Provincial

● ministry strategic plans match land use goals● goals used as reference for funding and other decisions● CORE monitors and reports on overall sustainability progress; links with ministries on indicator

system● Cabinet arbitrates policy conflicts

4. Regional

● lower levels of planning develop consistent operational details● regulatory agencies use plan as a policy reference● major development and funding proposals checked for consistency with plan● CORE monitors implementation assisted by:

- IAMCs annual reporting- regional forum of advisory round tables/resource boards

● appeals can be made regarding consistency of regulatory decisions with plan. Initial appeal is to


vol2

licensing agency for resolution. Next step is IAMC, followed by RMD. Last step is referral to appeal board. Provision for judicial review for error in law or excess of jurisdiction.


● plan forms basis for directing operational plans and assessing development applications● major project and funding proposals checked for consistency with plan● provisions for monitoring, including community resource board oversight● appeal of regulatory decisions based on plan can be made. Initial review by agency review; IAMC

review if needed; IAMC can refer to appeal board. Provision for judicial review for error in law or excess of jurisdiction.

4. Local Resource

● establishes guidelines for operational plans● identifies direct management requirements● district monitors; oversight by local resource board/table

4. Operational

● conditions are attached to development approvals● field monitoring and auditing by agencies; ● periodic status reporting to local board/table

4. Urban Regional

● · plan guides development planning and approvals- zoning- subdivision, etc.

● plan guides capital programming● annual monitoring/reports to board(s)● applicants appeal to regional districts; staff review; also technical planning committee review;

provision for mediation; political board(s) decide; consult prov. if required; judicial review on legal aspects only

● note possibility of review of major projects under environmental assessment procedures

4. Community

● plan guides- zoning reviews- subdivision reviews

● conditions of development approval● plan guides capital programs● statutory appeal provisions for development applications; staff review; provisions for mediation;


vol2

Council decision; judicial review on legal aspects only● potential for environmental assessment of major projects

Definitions:

CORE - Commission on Resources and EnvironmentDM - Deputy MinisterIAMC - Interagency Management CommitteeRMD - Resource Management Division


CORE Index Volume 3

->



Volume 3

February 1995


Table of Contents

Foreword

Overview

Public Rights and Responsibilities (Chapter 1)A Policy for Public Participation (Chapter 2)Public Negotiation (Chapter 3)A Framework For Aboriginal Participation (Chapter 4)Defining Community Resource Boards (Chapter 5)








CORE Index Volume 3


Public Rights and ResponsibilitiesPublic Participation PolicyA Framework for Aboriginal ParticipationCommunity resource boards

Part 1 - Public Participation: Practice and Policy

1 - Public Participation: Rights and ResponsibilitiesThe Trend Towards Increased ParticipationThe Provincial Land Use StrategyThe General Right of ParticipationPublic Responsibilities

2 - A Provincial Public Participation PolicyThe Need for a Provincial Public Participation PolicyElements of a Public Participation PolicyCurrent Approached to ParticipationAdvances in Public Participation

3 - Public NegotiationWhy Negotiate?Interest-based or Positional Negotiation?MediationTrack RecordLearning from ExperienceImproving the Prospects for NegotiationOrganizational Framework for Shared Decision-MakingExamples of Multiparty Land Use Agreements in B.C.

4 - Aboriginal ParticipationHistorical ContextFramework for Aboriginal Participation in Land Use PlanningAboriginal Participation in Community PlanningConclusion

PART 2 - Community Participation

5 - Defining Community Resource BoardsCharacteristics of Community Resource BoardsOpportunities and ChallengesThe Role of Community Resource Boards in Decision-MakingThe Relationship Between Community Resource Boards and


CORE Index Volume 3

GovernmentPartners in Participation: Implementing Community Resource Boards

6 - Running Community Resource BoardsGetting StartedFeasibility AssessmentOrganizing a Community Resource BoardOperational GuidelinesSupporting the BoardsOperating a Community Resource Board

Figures

Figure 1. Public Participation ContinuumFigure 2. Possible Structure for CRB SupportFigure 3. Support for CRBs

Glossary of Terms

Appendices

Appendix 1 - CORE Pilot Projects

Appendix A - Roles of the Mediator, Commission Staff, Sector Spokespersons, and the Government Representative in the Slocan Valley Pilot Project

Appendix 2 - Potential Community Resource Board Areas


vol3

Public Participation - Volume 3

Table of contents

Foreword


Volume 1 - A Sustainability Act for British Columbia - describes the overall structure and purpose of the provincial land use strategy and recommends that a statute confirm the obligations


Volume 2 - Planning for Sustainability - provides an in-depth review and detailed recommendations regarding legislation, structures and other measures to improve the overall land use planning system in British Columbia. The planning system is a primary part of the provincial land use strategy.

Volume 3 - Public Participation - reviews the experience of public participation in land use decisions in British Columbia, and makes recommendations for a flexible framework of community resource boards that are voluntary, inclusive of all interests, accountable to the public, purpose-driven, advisory and consensus-seeking.

Volume 4 - Dispute Resolution - addresses the need for simple and accessible review and

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/rpts/corereport/vol3/vol3.htm (1 of 2)2/22/2005 6:58:57 AM







vol3

appeal mechanisms to ensure efficient, consistent and comprehensive opportunities for persons whose lives are affected by land use and related decisions to have their concerns dealt with. Specifically, this volume makes recommendations on a land use appeal system for the review of the administration of land use plans.



vol3


Table of contents

Overview

In recent years the need for public participation in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making has become particularly acute because of increasing pressures on our natural heritage, and the importance of economic, environmental and social sustainability. At the same time, public demand for participation has been strongly expressed throughout the province - especially in areas with significant competition among different values.

The absence of meaningful public participation in decisions has potentially serious consequences. Decisions which fail to balance public interests through a lack of reliable information or as a result of relevant interests not being given sufficient attention lead to instability, continuing conflict, lack of sustainability, and long-term inefficiencies in the use of government personnel and funding.

As part of its statutory mandate, the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) is developing a provincial land use strategy to promote sustainable land use and resource management. Meaningful public participation is an essential part of this strategy. This report describes the actions necessary to ensure that this occurs.

Public Rights and Responsibilities (Chapter 1)

Meaningful public participation in decision-making is both fair and essential. The principles of administrative fairness require that those affected by decisions have the opportunity to take part in making them; and achieving sustainablility requires that all interests be heard and balanced The government should now recognize the general right of participation in law as a necessary element of the provincial land use strategy.

The right of participation must be balanced by the responsibility to participate in good faith. The efficiency and effectiveness of public participation processes depends on the recognition by all who








vol3

participate that their individual interests can best be met by respecting and accommodating the interests of others. A code of conduct is required to ensure that the right of participation is exercised in a responsible manner.

A Policy for Public Participation (Chapter 2)

Meaningful participation requires knowing when and how to involve the public in decision-making. Routine decisions can often be make without consulting the public, but this is not true of decisions with a significant impact. When participation is called for, the appropriate form may range from a simple exchange of information to intensive public negotiations.

Government needs a detailed, cross-agency policy with clear criteria to guide decision-makers in the choice of participatory processes. CORE proposes to work with government in the development of the general policy and refinement of existing ministry policies for public participation.

Public Negotiation (Chapter 3)

Since the 1970s, the nature of public participation in land use and resource management decisions has been changing, with increasing emphasis on consensus-seeking, multiparty negotiations. The role of decision-makers has significantly shifted from that of arbiter of the public interest to facilitator among the range of interest groups in society that collectively help to define the public interest.

The more challenging the decision, the greater the need for intensive public negotiation processes. This has been shown in the ongoing preparation of strategic land use plans, which are now being developed or have been completed for more that half of the area of the province.

There are many recent examples of successful public negotiations, and each negotiation process provided useful lessons that are continually helping to improve the use of this vital form of participation.

A Framework For Aboriginal Participation (Chapter 4)

Respect for and accommodation of aboriginal concerns is vital in decision-making processes, as the negotiation of treaties creates a new relationship between the provincial and federal governments and First Nations.

While treaty negotiations continue, a framework for aboriginal participation in land use and resource management decisions is essential to ensure fairness to First Nations and the general community. The detailed framework described in chapter 4 will promote aboriginal involvement in public participation processes and openness and understanding between First Nations and the general community.

Defining Community Resource Boards (Chapter 5)


vol3

The impact of land use and resource management decisions is often greatest at the local level, in the communities where people work and live. This is the level where the need and demand for meaningful public participation is greatest, both in the implementation of land use plans and in addressing issues of local concern.

Many communities have formed multiparty community resource boards or round tables, representing the full range of community interests, to provide a means of working out cooperative solutions on important issues. The keen interest in this form of participation had been reflected in the agreement at all regional CORE tables to implement and support community resource boards throughout these regions.

Community resource boards provide a hands-on opportunity to reconcile competing yet legitimate interests and help shape provincial decisions, emphasizing the sustainability of jobs, the environment, and quality of life.

Community resource boards have several essential characteristics. They are voluntary and purpose-driven, open to participation of all interests and consensus seeking.

Through inclusion and cooperation, community resource boards harness democratic energy at the local level, and provide government with an efficient forum for advice on decisions that require public information, balance and support.

To make the best use of the time volunteered by citizens who participate in community resource boards, and to ensure that the boards have the means necessary to provide effective results in an efficient manner, some administrative and funding support by government is essential. In addition, communication and support among community resource boards, through a provincial network, can considerably help the smooth operation of individual boards.

As part of its mandate to facilitate the development and operation of community-based participatory processes, CORE proposes to encourage the efficiency and effectiveness of existing and potential community resource boards by:

● continuing to support pilot projects as a source of practical information on how community resource boards can be best organized, operated and supported

● hosting a provincial workshop for representatives of existing and potential community resource boards to increase understanding of the role and to support the development of a provincial network of community resource boards.

● assisting government in the design of cost effective institutional arrangements to support community resource boards in the long-term.

Together, the discussion and recommendation in this report are intended to meet democratic demands for fairness and the need for social, economic and environmental sustainability through efficient and effective public participation.

Stephen Owen


vol3

CommissionerSeventh Floor, 1802 Douglas StreetVictoria B.C. V8V 1X4Telephone (604) 387-1210Facsimile (604) 356-6385


vol3


Table of contents


Public Rights and Responsibilities

1. That government state in law the general right of members of the public to participate meaningfully in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making. Where such a decision may have a significant impact on a person's interests, the government should ensure public access to relevant information, notice, a fair hearing, and reasons for decisions.

2. That government approve a model Code of Conduct, as a schedule to the recommended Sustainability Act, to define the responsibilities expected of participants in public decision-making processes.

Public Participation Policy

1. That government formally adopt public participation goals as part of the package of provincial land use goals recommended in volumes 1 and 2 of this provincial land use strategy series. Appropriate goals of public participation are:

● to ensure meaningful and cost-effective participation of individuals, groups, and communities affected by decisions

● to ensure that all relevant considerations, including local information and knowledge, are integrated in decisions

● to give effect to the principles of administrative fairness● to offer participation processes which are appropriate to the circumstances● to build cooperative working relationships among sectors of the public and between

the public and the government● to encourage the building of consensus, stability of decisions, and avoidance of

disputes








vol3

● to ensure a balance of local and provincial interests in decisions.2. That CORE, working in consultation with the interministry policy committee, develop a cross-

agency provincial policy for public participation in land use and related resource and environmental decisions, such policy to be formally adopted by government as part of the strategic land use policies recommended in volumes 1 and 2 of this series of reports. This province-wide, strategic public participation policy would:

● ensure that the goals of public participation are achieved and that the principles of decision-making are reflected

● ensure meaningful participation of individuals and groups whose interests are affected directly or indirectly by land use and related resource and environmental decisions

● provide criteria and guidelines for determining appropriate levels of public participation● identify and arrange for the requirements needed to implement, administer monitor

and amend the policy● define the roles, rights and responsibilities of decision-makers and the public● direct and provide guidance for ministries in developing ministry-specific public

participation policies, programs, and procedures to ensure appropriate levels of participation in decision-making.

3. That the provincial strategic policy and agency policies be reviewed regularly for effectiveness and, in the case of agency policies, for conformity with the provincial policy

● the review to be conducted by the agency responsible for coordination and integration of land and resource management recommended in volumes 1 and 2 of this provincial land use strategy series, and

● the review include an evaluation of the effectiveness of public participation policies in relation to the principles and goals and suggestions for amendments to the policies.

4. That the provincial policy, agency policies and the periodic review be written in plain language and made available to the public.

A Framework for Aboriginal Participation

1. That in order to encourage aboriginal participation in community planning, the provincial government, in consultation with First Nations, formally adopt the framework for aboriginal participation in land use and resource management planning described in chapter 4.

Community resource boards

1. That community resource boards be recognized as a vehicle for supporting direct, democratic and intensive public participation in land use and resource and environmental management. This direct involvement helps improve decision-making by ensuring that local knowledge, values and experience are considered.

2. That community resource boards be voluntary, representative of the full spectrum of relevant interests, purpose-driven, advisory to government, consensus-seeking and accountable to the community.

3. That terms of reference for community resource boards be tailored to meet the needs of individual communities, consistent with broad provincial guidelines, and that general functions, undertaken in consultation with relevant provincial agencies and other orders of


vol3

governments, include:● participating in land use planning and other resource management initiatives as

appropriate, to provide advice on local interests, management objectives and strategies, and to contribute resource management information

● advising on implementation of approved plans● assisting with monitoring of approved land use plans and resource management

programs● acting as a sounding board on community economic and social initiatives including

advising on Forest Renewal B.C. proposals● serving as a body for First Nations consultations● assisting with public education and communication on local land use and resource

management issues.4. There should be flexibility in determining purposes, geographic scope and specific functions

in order to meet community interests, concerns and priorities.5. That government agencies use the advice of community resource boards in their plans and

decisions, particularly where the advice reflects a community consensus, and complies with laws and government policy direction. Where plans or decisions differ from community resource board advice, agencies should provide written reasons.

6. That while the fundamental strength of community resource boards derives from volunteer effort and community "will", they should be encouraged through the provision of reasonable support which would enable them to function efficiently and effectively. Support should come primarily from the province, with additional support from federal agencies or local governments where they use community resource board services. As well, community resource boards should be encouraged to pursue private sector, foundation and public funding and support.

7. That community resource boards be assisted with administrative, facilitation and mediation, training, communication and technical service support, as well as funding for out-of-pocket expenses, to the extent that approved budgets allow. Budgeting should be done in each administrative district of an assigned agency and consolidated into the estimates of a designated agency, such as RMD.

8. That community resource boards be encouraged to consider forming a province-wide, non-government organization to promote networking and information sharing among participating boards.

9. That interested agencies and community resource boards be encouraged to work with CORE and government in selecting priority projects. Priority projects should identify ways of improving support for community resource boards and ways of increasing the effectiveness of public involvement in land and resource management decisions.


vol3


Table of contents

Part 1 - Public Participation: Practice and Policy

1 - Public Participation: Rights and Responsibilities

In recent years the public has sought a greater say in decisions regarding land use and resource management, and government has responded to the demand by providing more opportunities for public participation.

A few decades ago, there seemed to be ample land and resources to satisfy everyone's desires and needs. Today, B.C. has a fast-growing population, the availability of uncommitted land and resources has significantly decreased, and there are many conflicting views about how land should be allocated, how resources should be used for extractive and non-extractive purposes, and how environmental issues should be addressed. In recent years, the government has been forced to spend significant time and money dealing with land use conflicts in many areas of the province.

The demand for meaningful public participation has been heightened by public doubt about the ability of government to effectively address complex issues involving a variety of competing interests and requiring the collection and evaluation of large quantities of information about values and technical matters. The public demand for participatory decision-making, and the ever-increasing government response to that demand, stems from a general recognition that complex decisions with long-lasting impacts are better, fairer and more stable when they are based on a thorough understanding of the needs of all interests and of their relationship to one another.

The Trend Towards Increased Participation

Until recent decades, there were few opportunities for public participation in decisions about land and resource management in B.C. because there was little perceived need for such involvement. The emphasis in government and throughout society generally was on the building of a strong








vol3

economy based on timber and, to a lesser extent, mining. Other values were considered secondary to the production of resources, if only because there seemed no question that a land base as large and bountiful as British Columbia's was inexhaustible. Government was structured around ministries with mandates to regulate the production of single resources such as timber and minerals. Decision-makers relied for outside advice primarily on representatives from those industries that played a central role in the B.C. economy.

By the late 1960s and early 1970s there were signs of changes in public attitudes towards the way in which government went about its business. This change was reflected in B.C., as elsewhere in North America, in increasing criticism of the remoteness of "big government" and demands for more "participatory democracy". In the area of land and resource management, criticism was coupled with a demand that greater emphasis be put on the recognition and protection of non-economic values, a concern linked to the increased public interests in outdoor recreation and increased public concern about the impact of industrial development on the environment. This period saw the appearance of advocacy groups which provided an organized voice for a range of interests that believed they were not being adequately considered in government decisions. Campaigns to protect natural areas such as Long Beach and the Nitinat Triangle foreshadowed increasingly bitter conflicts on Vancouver Island and elsewhere in the province.

Successive governments responded to the growing demand for recognition of a broader range of values with several initiatives. In 1973, for example, the government established the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet (ELUC), supported by the ELUC secretariat, to provide better coordination among land and resource ministries and to make possible a means of addressing the emerging conflicts in different parts of the province. In addition, new ministries were created with mandates related to values such as tourism and the environment.

Because the vast majority of land in B.C. is public land, most of which is provincial forest, most controversial decisions affecting public lands tended to fall within the authority of the Forest Service. In 1979 the new Ministry of Forests Act recognized the need to plan for values other than timber production; section 4 (c) stated that it was a responsibility of the ministry to

plan the use of the forest and range resources of the Crown so that the production of timber and forage, the harvesting of timber, the grazing of livestock and the realization of fisheries, wildlife, water, outdoor recreation and other natural resource values are coordinated and integrated, in consultation with other ministries and agencies of the Crown and with the private sector.

The term "integrated resource management" came into use, in recognition of the need to consider a range of values in land and resource planning, and integrated resource management branches were established in several ministries during the 1980s. The acceptance of integrated resource management as an important objective increased the complexity of decision-making; it was difficult to achieve with little means of coordination among land and resource ministries, limited staff, and often inadequate information about the various resources, the compatibility of different land and resource uses, and the impact of any given use on other values.


vol3

The public officials to whom statutory decision-making powers were delegated felt hard-pressed to deal with the demands of individuals and advocacy groups for greater participation in integrated resource management decisions. This was especially true in the Ministry of Forests, where staff bore the brunt of public anger. In 1982 the ministry published a Public Involvement Handbook to guide its regional and district managers; however, use of the handbook guidelines was discretionary and resulted in considerable variation in their application by different managers, depending on how innovative they chose to be and on the availability of staff and resources.

The challenge facing Ministry of Forests managers increased as a result of the 1980s restraint program, which considerably reduced ministry planning staff. Many Ministry of Forests district managers found themselves obliged to perform tasks beyond their traditional mandate - namely, making land use decisions rather than managing timber production and harvesting - with neither clear policy guidance nor the staff to perform these tasks adequately.

Staff of other ministries found themselves in an awkward position similar to that of the Ministry of Forests for different reasons. Because plans for the management of areas under timber licence were referred to other ministries for review to ensure the protection of non-timber values such as wildlife, the limited staff of ministries such as Environment found it virtually impossible to deal with the deluge of timber-harvesting plans.

Increasingly, citizens and advocacy groups expressed frustration at feeling shut out of a decision-making process to which, they argued, they could contribute pertinent information that government decision-makers lacked or were ignoring, or were not interpreting in a balanced manner. Industry often expressed similar concerns. Ministry of Forests efforts to broaden its consultative processes continued to meet with opposition from people who complained that the ministry had a timber bias. Institutional structures oriented to separate planning and management for each resource value (timber, minerals, tourism, wildlife) encouraged the idea that the needs of each were essentially in competition with the needs of others.

In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development warned of the danger of continuing to view environmental and developmental goals as competing or contradictory objectives. In Our Common Future (the Brundtland report), the Commission described a common focus linking the issues of population growth, resource development, and social and environmental needs. The report identified an urgent need for the world community to take steps to promote "sustainable development", which it defined as development meeting "the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". As a crucial objective towards meeting this goal, the Commission identified the need to ensure the long-term health of ecosystems by taking steps to protect representative examples from intensive use. A prerequisite to the achievement of sustainable development, the report noted, would be to ensure a meaningful voice for communities in government decisions about land and resource management.

The Brundtland report articulated many of the concerns being raised in the land use debate in B.C. and contributed to the public demands that the government act more forcefully to develop cooperative arrangements involving the public in land use decisions affecting their communities. The point was being brought home that decisions shaped by power struggles and emphasizing


vol3

single-resource values lacked effectiveness.

Although government was aware of the serious need to find a better way of dealing with conflict and sustainability issues, it was hampered by institutional decision-making structures that were inadequate to provide the cooperative planning needed to integrate and accommodate a broad range of economic, environmental and social values in a sustainable manner. During the late 1980s, as a means of obtaining comprehensive recommendations on the direction it should take, the government set up the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to provide advice on sustainability issues, and established the Forest Resources Commission to suggest improvements in the system for managing the provincial forest.

In the meantime, government continued to grapple with the dilemma of how best to involve the public in decision-making processes. In the absence of statutory provisions for public participation, the government responded pragmatically - by focusing its attention on areas where land use conflicts were most bitter. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the government was expanding the use of multiparty processes and attempting to negotiate consensus among a range of interests, as a means of addressing land use conflicts in different parts of the province.

These initiatives had mixed success, and provided useful lessons about the ingredients necessary for public negotiation of agreements on land use and resource management. They represented a significant departure from the traditional government approach of relying primarily on consultation with individual interests in the making of decisions. They also offered the promise of being the most effective means of enabling government to plan for sustainability and to address the root causes of conflict by considering and accommodating a range of values in its decisions.


vol3


Table of contents


The B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Forest Resources Commission, and initiatives such as the Dunsmuir I and II conferences - which brought together government and public points of view - all agreed on the need to develop a coordinated and comprehensive approach to land use and resource management in B.C. Such an approach was viewed as essential in order to manage growth in a sustainable manner that effectively balanced the range of interests evident in current land use conflicts.

In response, the provincial government established the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) in 1992. A significant component of CORE's mandate was the responsibility to "develop for public and government consideration a British Columbia wide strategy for land use and related resource and environmental management".1 The development of the strategy to date, through a variety of CORE and government initiatives, is described in detail in chapter 2 of A Sustainability Act for British Columbia, published by CORE in November 1994 as volume 1 of this series on the provincial land use strategy.

The provincial land use strategy developed by CORE is designed to be dynamic - that is, it will continue to evolve in response to changing conditions and needs. The strategy consists of five essential components: provincial direction, coordination, public participation, dispute resolution and independent oversight. Each component is related to the others as follows:

Provincial direction is provided by the principles, land use goals and related strategic policies needed to guide planning for sustainability, providing a clear legal framework for the other components of the strategy.

Coordination among and within levels of government (federal, provincial and local) ensures that the principles, goals and policies set by government are efficiently and effectively achieved in the








vol3

management of lands and resources.

An effective dispute resolution system not only ensures simple, accessible and consistent review and appeal mechanisms after decisions are made, but also emphasizes the prevention of disputes through meaningful public participation and interagency coordination during the making of decisions.

Independent oversight provides the monitoring function needed to ensure that all aspects of the land use and resource management system are performing effectively, and that the other four components of the strategy are achieving their objectives.

Public participation, especially through participatory planning processes, provides the public with a meaningful opportunity to help shape land use and related resource and environmental decisions in a manner that meets the broad public interest by reconciling individual interests, and ensures that government has the necessary information to make decisions that best achieve the public interest.

In 1992, as part of its work on a provincial land use strategy, CORE engaged in widespread research and consultations on the principles needed to guide various land use and resource management initiatives toward achieving environmental, economic and social sustainability. These principles were published in the form of a Land Use Charter, which was adopted in principle by the government in June 1993. The Charter recognizes the importance of public participation as crucial to the fulfillment of the sustainability principles.

In accordance with its statutory duty and at the direction of cabinet, CORE facilitated the development of regional land use negotiations, involving the full range of interests, in four regions of the province where intense land use conflicts were occurring (Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, East Kootenay and West Kootenay-Boundary). At the same time, 12 Land and Resource Management Plans, also based on consensus-seeking negotiation and initiated by the government were underway in other parts of the province. Together, the areas of land subject to these processes covered more than half the area of the province.

The strategic land use plans that have been or are being developed in the CORE and LRMP processes determine the broad allocation of land for various uses - either regionally or subregionally. The next stage is the implementation of these plans at the local level, through participatory processes in which detailed local knowledge provides the information needed to determine how to manage resources in a manner consistent with the land use allocations and objectives set by the regional and subregional plans. The current trend is to conduct negotiations at the local and subregional level through community resource boards (multiparty, advisory round tables), discussed in chapters 5 and 6 of this report. During the past two years, CORE has tested the application of negotiation principles at this level with two pilot projects, the Anahim Round Table and the Slocan Valley Round Table, described in appendix 1.

The General Right of Participation


vol3

Representative democracies recognize the general right of citizens to participate meaningfully in government decisions in which they have a significant interest. This right flows back from the delegation of authority by the public to the government to make decisions in the public interest. Government subdelegates this authority, by statute, to administrative officials in the public service. In statutory terms, administrative officials are accountable to elected representatives (generally cabinet ministers), who are in turn accountable to the electorate.

Administrative officials have an additional responsibility, however, in that they are also directly accountable to the public whose interests they represent as public servants. This accountability is met by ensuring that to the degree they exercise discretionary authority, their decisions are informed by an understanding of the wants and needs of those who are affected by them. This is most effectively ensured by guaranteeing to the public the right to be heard by the discretionary decision-maker.

The greater the number of potentially competing interests that stand to be affected by a decision, the greater the challenge faced by the decision-maker to ensure that all interests have an opportunity to be heard. Decisions regarding public lands tend by their nature to affect a variety of potentially competing interests; as support for various interests increases and their advocates become more vocal and more organized, so does the challenge of balancing competing and overlapping interests become greater.

The attitude of government regarding the importance of balanced public participation in land use and resource management decisions has changed markedly in recent years. There are broader opportunities for consultation, complemented by direct public negotiation among affected interests and government. Government's efforts to increase the effectiveness of decision-making have resulted in an increased emphasis on multiparty processes, although limited financial resources and staff cutbacks have necessitated a selective approach, with an emphasis on areas where conflict has been most severe. To a considerable degree, the accepted role of the decision-maker has shifted from arbiter of the public interest to facilitator among the full range of interests that collectively contribute to a definition of the public interest.

The change in government attitude to public participation has been a pragmatic response to public demand and to the need to develop an effective approach to the management of land use conflicts. However, increased public participation is not merely a privilege granted at the pleasure of government responding to temporary circumstances; it is a fundamental right that in the past has received inadequate recognition.

The right of public participation is rooted in the common law duty of fairness, which ensures to those affected by administrative decisions the right to be heard and the absence of bias on the part of the decision-maker. In the making of land use and resource management decisions, fairness demands that all those whose interests stand to be directly or indirectly affected by a decision have an opportunity for meaningful participation, to ensure that their interests are known and properly considered by the decision-maker.

The underlying purpose of the duty of fairness is to ensure that decisions are made with the benefit


vol3

of all relevant information, and that all relevant information is given appropriate consideration in the making of a decision. This is especially important in land use and resource management decisions, where reliable information is essential for an effective result. Many such decisions require the analysis of considerable information both of a technical nature and about values. Land use and resource management decisions have economic, environmental and social impacts. Adequate knowledge of these impacts is essential for good decisions. Public participation contributes information about these impacts in two ways. First, groups and individuals are often able to contribute factual information (for example, local knowledge of wildlife habitat) that may not be otherwise available to government. Second, they can provide information about the range of values that may be affected by a decision. Such information is essential for balanced decisions.

Well-managed public participation processes can also contribute to government efficiency. While public participation takes time and places demands on government staff, who may view it as a nuisance or even a significant problem when faced with a short time-line or personnel constraints, the expense of involving the public in complex decisions can avoid the more significant cost of continued conflict and the need to change or amend decisions that prove to be inadequately informed and unstable.

The government has acknowledged the right of public participation in land use and resource management decisions by adopting in principle the provincial Land Use Charter. The Charter, which includes a statement of environmental, economic and social principles of sustainability to guide policies and practice in land use and resource management in British Columbia, provides that these principles "shall be implemented and reconciled in neutrally administered decision-

making processes that are open to the participation of all interests".2

Although there are now increased opportunities for public participation, the application of the right to public participation is inconsistent. In the absence of statutory recognition of the right, and of clear policies to guide decision-makers regarding its application, there remains widespread confusion on the part of the public and administrative officials alike about the nature of the right. This ambiguity is reflected in inconsistency and arbitrariness in the provision of opportunities for public participation, and in the assumption held by many administrative officials that discretion in decision-making includes discretion as to whether or not to respond to public demands for participation.

Today, this discretion is becoming limited through statutory requirements such as those in the new Forest Practices Code and Environmental Assessment Act; however, the need remains for more general policy guidance about whether to involve the public, and how to do it appropriately in a variety of circumstances. The starting point for effective public participation, and the necessary foundation for the policies needed to establish criteria to enable decision-makers to determine when and how to provide for participation, is formal acknowledgment in law of the right of participation.

Recommendation

1. That government state in law the general right of members of the public to participate


vol3

meaningfully in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making. Where such a decision may have a significant impact on a person's interests, the government should ensure public access to relevant information, notice, a fair hearing, and reasons for decisions.

Public Responsibilities

The right of public participation carries with it responsibilities. In return for its recognition of the right, government has a legitimate expectation that citizens who take part in participatory processes will do so in good faith and with the public interest as well as their own interest in mind. All participants have a responsibility to ensure that government gets the information it needs to make a well-informed and balanced decision, and that participatory processes operate as efficiently as possible to keep the cost to a minimum.

These objectives are in the interest of both government and the public. To meet them, participants have an obligation to become as well informed as possible about all facts relevant to the process, to communicate information openly and fully, and to enable others to do the same.

Several recent participatory processes have emphasized this responsibility and its practical application in the rules of procedure they have drafted. These rules are often highly refined documents developed and agreed to in multi-stakeholder negotiation processes. They are also often informally defined in introductory remarks to public consultation forums (workshops, community meetings, hearings, etc.). The primary purpose of these rules is to maintain a productive working atmosphere by ensuring effective, balanced and civil communication. Where they apply to public negotiation processes, these rules often describe negotiating principles that can help participants with potentially conflicting interests work towards agreement, while reinforcing their accountability to the interests they represent.

Where rules of procedure are not established, processes often grind to a halt as one or a few individuals dominate the agenda, block progress, intimidate other participants; or, less dramatically, as participants misunderstand each other with limited opportunities and attempts at clarification. Considering the large investments of money, time and energy that are made in participatory processes, neither the government nor the participants can afford to have these processes undermined by inappropriate conduct.

Rules of procedure are used by the participants in negotiation processes to reinforce productive discussion through self-regulation. Having agreed to the rules, participants hold each other accountable to those provisions by pointing it out when a participant breaks them. This self-regulation has proven to be effective even in hostile situations that would otherwise destabilize a meeting or block progress.

Rules of procedure are used in a similar manner in other types of public participation processes (non-negotiation processes such as workshops, community meetings, etc.). In these processes the chair or meeting manager will often announce an informal procedure and establish expectations regarding participant conduct as the meeting gets underway. The chair then uses the procedure to


vol3

manage discussion during the meeting.

To ensure that the general right of participation is exercised effectively, there should be a parallel formal recognition of public responsibilities during participation in public participation processes. This may be most effectively achieved through the adoption of a Code of Conduct that describes the standards to which participants should be expected to adhere in a range of processes, and that can be adapted for inclusion in rules of procedure for negotiations. This Code of Conduct should address the need for effective, balanced and civil communication in all public participation processes and reinforce consensus-building and accountability in negotiation processes.

Enforcement of the Code should be the responsibility of those individuals that are responsible for managing public participation processes and of the participants themselves. The Code should be introduced and explained at the beginning of public discussions to establish common expectations of conduct among participants.

A draft Code of Conduct, based on the experience of a variety of past processes, appears on the following page.

Recommendation

1. That government approve a model Code of Conduct, as a schedule to the recommended Sustainability Act, to define the responsibilities expected of participants in public decision-making processes.

Public Participation: A Model Code of Conduct

This code sets out the basic responsibilities expected of those involved in public participation processes.

General Communication

Effective Communication. The objective of these provisions is to maximize the exchange of information between parties and to minimize misunderstandings.

● Speak clearly, listen carefully and ask for clarification if a point is not understood.

● Share information related to the issues at hand.● State your concerns about other participants or the process openly and

directly.● Explain your interests and why they are important to you.

Balanced Communication. The objective of these provisions is to ensure that all participants have the opportunity to speak and all perspectives are clearly expressed.


vol3

● Ensure participation of all interests.● Provide opportunities for all perspectives to be expressed before

making a decision or moving on.

Civil Communication. The objective of these provisions is to maintain a respectful atmosphere.

● Treat others with respect by avoiding stereotyping, accusatory language and rude behaviour.

● Wait for others to finish speaking and listen to what they have to say.● Seek a better understanding of other perspectives with an open mind.

Negotiating Agreement

Consensus Building. The objective of these provisions is to facilitate agreements across the full spectrum of interests.

● Negotiate in good faith, building as much agreement as possible.● Avoid participating in activities that may undermine the negotiation

process.● Focus on underlying interests or objectives rather than positions and

seek to understand the interests of others.● Recognize the legitimacy of all interests.● Treat issues as problems to be solved not as personal or sectoral

conflicts.● Allow participants the freedom to test ideas without prejudice to future

discussion or negotiations - do not hold tentative suggestions or agreements against those who made them.

● Seek creative solutions that accommodate all interests.

Accountability. The objective of these provisions is to ensure that negotiated agreements are broadly supported within constituencies and by the general public.

● Establish clear lines of accountability with other participants, with the general public and with those who are directly represented.

● Act in accordance with the authority granted by those you represent and ensure that other participants understand this authority.

● Communicate progress in the negotiations to those who are directly represented and to the general public seeking feedback and gauging support.

● Ensure that descriptions of the negotiations and the views of other participants are accurate and acceptable to all participants before


vol3

communicating them to the general public or the media.● Act quickly to raise and resolve any concerns regarding the

accountability of the process or any of the participants.

1. Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act, s. 4 (1). 2. Reproduced as Appendix 2 in A Sustainability Act for British Columbia, CORE Provincial

Land Use Strategy, Volume 1 (Victoria, 1994).


vol3


Table of contents

2 - A Provincial Public Participation Policy

The Need

Opportunities for public participation in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making are steadily increasing, in large part because government and the public recognize that the result is better, fairer and more stable decisions. Statutory recognition of the general right of participation is an important step toward securing this trend.

However, statutory recognition is not by itself sufficient to ensure effective participation. Once acknowledged in law, the general right of public participation and associated responsibilities needs to be implemented through a comprehensive policy to provide clear guidance to decision-makers and the public.

A comprehensive public participation policy is required to guide decision-makers on when, how and from whom to seek participation under the widely varying circumstances of many thousands of land use and related decisions. Most of these decisions are routine and relate to the day-to-day implementation and administration of established legislation, regulation, policies, plans and associated programs. However, many decisions involve major government policy, as in the case of the Forest Sector Strategy, new strategic land use plans and major projects. Decisions may affect only one or a few individuals, or they may affect whole sectors of interest, entire communities and the broader public. The degree to which each of these is affected also varies.

The nature of participation in decisions should vary depending on how many are affected and to what degree. For example, routine decisions with little or no impact or those made to implement earlier decisions which included public participation may not always require participation. In other circumstances, participation requirements may be satisfied by a limited number of citizens receiving notice or engaging in informal discussion. Major government policy initiatives may require extensive








vol3

consultation or multiparty negotiation processes.

A comprehensive policy should establish clear criteria for the nature and degree of public participation depending on the type and quantity of information needed by the decision-maker to reach an informed decision. While increasing participation opportunities exist, the absence of explicit standards leaves room for inconsistency or apparent arbitrariness in decision-making which can cause public uncertainty and distrust of government.

Variations in agency funding and staffing and the absence of criteria for public participation have led to widely differing approaches within and among agencies, and from one part of the province to another, sometimes even in cases where the issues, scope and potential consequences are effectively the same. For example, the public participation practices of the Ministry of Forests in the six forest regions and 43 forest districts of the province often depend on the point of view and resources available to individual regional and district managers. The absence of explicit criteria has caused variations in whether or not areas have been subject to LRMP and local resource planning processes, the nature of agency and public participation in these processes, and the approach to participation in the Protected Areas Strategy in different areas of the province.

Without established criteria it is difficult to hold decision-makers to account for consistency in their decisions related to public participation. Citizens cannot be assured that they are being treated fairly or that the recent trend toward greater public participation will continue. And decision-makers bear the unwelcome burden of judging the need for and nature of public participation without reference points.

A public participation policy should also establish the responsibilities of participants in public decision-making processes. The right to participate brings with it the responsibility to do so in good faith, to become informed and to respond in a timely manner. A code of conduct or responsibility is needed as part of the policy to define the accountability of participants to each other, to constituencies, to the community and to the broader public.

Finally, the trend to coordination and integration of land use and related decision-making should be extended to public participation initiatives. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act (not yet in force), the Environmental Assessment Act (not yet in force), and the land and resource management planning processes (LRMPs), each of which consolidate and integrate aspects of land use and management planning, are examples of this trend. However, this is not generally the case with public participation and, consequently, participation initiatives may not adequately address or reconcile relevant social, economic and environmental matters and may waste scarce human and financial resources.

The lack of coordination and integration results in difficulties such as the inability of some agencies to participate effectively in participatory initiatives due to lack of financial and staff resources. In addition, clearly related or overlapping issues may be considered in different participation processes. As the British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy noted,

there is now a bewildering array of public involvement processes at all


vol3

levels of governance.... In some instances, several public involvement processes have been going on at once with mandates that appear to overlap or duplicate one another. The public is feeling like it is being "consulted to death". Beleaguered interest groups and active citizens are having to pick and choose among processes for lack of time and

energy to respond to them all.3

The primary purpose and effect of a comprehensive and integrated policy is not necessarily to increase participation but rather to encourage more efficient use of limited government resources and more effective participation.

It is neither possible nor desirable for every interested member of the public to participate in each decision and to the same degree. Available resources need to be directed thoughtfully to have the greatest effect. A public participation policy is needed to make clear why participation is important, when and how it should occur to best complement different decisions, what is required to make the policy operate, and the roles, rights and responsibilities of the public and decision-makers. This chapter provides the basis for developing a provincial public participation policy for land use and related resource and environmental decisions.

Elements of a Public Participation Policy

Comprehensive policy provides direction by systematically setting out

● general principles establishing the social values that provide the context for a policy● goals that describe the intent and purposes of the policy● criteria for determining the need for and appropriate level of participation in keeping with the

principles and goals● requirements to implement and administer the policy● roles, rights and responsibilities of decision-makers and the public affected by the policy.

These elements are described below.

Principles

The provincial Land Use Charter, adopted in principle by the Government of British Columbia in June 1993, describes principles of economic, environmental and social sustainability to guide land use and related resource management decisions, and includes the principle of participation as a fundamental component. By articulating social values, the principles serve a dual purpose in a public participation policy framework: as touchstones in the development and implementation of the policy, and as standards against which to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy.

The Land Use Charter states that

Environmental, economic and social principles shall be implemented


vol3

and reconciled in neutrally administered decision-making processes that are open to the participation of all interests. The processes shall promote decision-making through the building of consensus among diverse perspectives and stakeholders.

The processes used for making decisions regarding land, resource and environment use must be:

Comprehensive and Integrated - Land use planning and management shall be cross-sectoral, comprehensive and integrated. The processes will address the full range of environmental, social and economic concerns and values.

Fair - The processes will adhere to the principles of administrative fairness, and shall provide full public access to relevant information.

Efficient and Effective - The processes will strive for efficient use of time and financial resources. Decision-making will be based on adequate information and assessment, so that wise and effective decisions can be made. The processes should effectively implement the principles of a sustainable society.

Accountable - Decision-makers must be accountable to all participants in the processes, as well as to the broader public. Lines of accountability should be established for participants in decision-making who represent others. Overall, the processes must be responsive to community aspirations while maintaining consistency with provincial principles, goals and policies.

Enforceable - The decisions made must be properly monitored and enforced.

Adaptive and Flexible - The processes shall be capable of modifying decisions in response to technological innovations, field experience, shifts in social preferences, and new information. These modifications will be made in a manner that maintains social, environmental and economic stability.

Respectful - The processes shall encourage respect for the diverse values, traditions, and aspirations of British Columbians and their

communities.4

Goals


vol3

In volume 1 of this provincial land use strategy series, A Sustainability Act for British Columbia (November 1994), CORE recommended the enactment of a Sustainability Act that would empower cabinet to approve an integrated set of land use goals to give effect to the principles of the Land Use Charter.5 CORE, together with a broadly based inter-ministry policy committee, has developed a draft set of goals for substantive land use and resource management issues such as resource lands, economic development, sustainable environment, transportation, energy use, human settlement and protected areas. The goals are set out in appendix 3 of volume 1.

Goals set the direction for policy development by expressing the intent or purposes of a policy. Cross-ministry goals provide a clear indication of the provincial interest, a basis for the review of initiatives, and direction, focus and common purpose for all agencies. Consequently, they increase efficiency and effectiveness of planning processes. For these reasons goals form a critical element of the public participation policy.

The goals of public participation can be expressed as



● to give effect to the principles of administrative fairness● to offer participation processes which are appropriate to the circumstances● to build cooperative working relationships among sectors of the public and between the public and the

government● to encourage the building of consensus, stability of decisions, and avoidance of disputes● to ensure a balance of local and provincial interests in decisions.

Criteria

Government policy should guide decision-makers in and ensure the public of the consistent application of the participation principles and goals. Criteria are an important part of the public participation policy because they help determine when participation is needed and what level of participation is appropriate in a given case. This section consolidates the experience of CORE and several provincial and federal agencies as a starting point for developing a set of formal criteria consistent with the principles and goals described above.

Determining the appropriate level of public participation in different decision-making situations is a matter of judgment guided generally by the nature of the decision (significance and potential consequences), the amount of public interest (level of concern and conflict), and specific fiscal or administrative constraints on the agency. Some direction may be offered in the enabling statute, regulations or agency procedure manuals, but in many cases, the participation method is largely at the discretion of the statutory decision-maker.

The decision-maker must weigh the prospective benefits against the costs of various levels of participation. These benefits include more fully informed, balanced and stable decisions, building


vol3

public knowledge about and support for a decision, and fewer subsequent delays and disputes. They must be set off against the time and resources required (from both public managers and participants) to fully support intensive consultation or negotiation processes.

Several federal and provincial agencies6 including the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO), the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), the B.C. Ministry of Forests (MOF) and the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (B.C. Round Table) have taken important steps in developing criteria for determining the appropriate level of participation in land use and related resource and environmental decisions. The experience of these agencies makes clear that there are two fundamental issues to which criteria must be applied:

● the need for public participation● the appropriate level of participation in specific situations.

Assessing the Need for Public Involvement

One of the goals of public participation is to give effect to the principles of administrative fairness. The principle dealing with public participation states that:

An opportunity for meaningful participation must be provided to those individuals or groups whose interests are affected, directly or indirectly. Meaningful participation means that individuals, groups, local government or any other party with significant and legitimate interests will be recognized in the planning, implementation and conflict resolution processes. It implies that their representations will receive careful consideration and will be accorded due regard consistent with the importance of the individual's interest. In other words, a duty is placed upon the decision-maker, insofar as is reasonably possible, to appreciate fully the significance of and the foundation for the various

individual or group interests.7

In recent years the public has given a clear message that it expects to participate to a greater extent than previously and in a manner that provides a more balanced and efficient exchange of information. This does not mean that the public either wants to or should participate in every decision. It does, however, indicate a low threshold level for triggering direct public participation.

The FEARO manual on public participation recommends public involvement when

● the decision requires making choices between important social values● positive public support for a proposed action or decision is desired● a key public perceives that it has a lot to win or lose by a decision● the results of a decision will significantly affect the economic, social, or political interests of some

people or groups more than others


vol3

● a decision will significantly affect an already-existing controversy in the community.8

A similar approach was taken by the MELP in its handbook which suggests that the public should be involved in decision-making when

● the decision requires the balancing of competing and important social values● the decision will significantly affect economic, political or social interests of some people or groups

more than others● the public perceives that it has a lot to win or lose● better policy options will result from public input● there is a political commitment to undertake a program● the decision involves a controversial subject

● the decision may potentially affect or infringe on the rights or claims of aboriginal people.9

Slightly different criteria were advocated by the B.C. Round Table which concluded that public involvement is required in government decision-making where

● public values have not coalesced or are uncertain● it is difficult to identify a specific public audience● factual information is sparse, unknown or subject to considerable dispute

● the goals of government and the perspectives of affected parties are not the same.10

All of these approaches recognize that the onus is on the decision-maker to exercise judgment in assessing the need for a public participation process. The challenge lies in developing criteria that can assist decision-makers to exercise this judgment consistently. Considering the following questions in the context of a particular situation will help in this regard.

Subject of the Decision

● is the decision being taken as a result of political commitment or direction?● does the decision require balancing conflicting interests?● is the subject of the decision controversial?● does implementation of the decision require public acceptance?

3. B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Public Involvement in Government Decision-making: Choosing the Right Model (Victoria, 1994).

4. See Commission on Resources and Environment, A Sustainability Act for British Columbia, The Provincial Land Use Strategy, Volume One, Appendix 2 (Victoria, 1994).

5. See Commission on Resources and Environment, A Sustainability Act for British Columbia, The Provincial Land Use Strategy, Volume One, Appendix 2 (Victoria, 1994). p. 43,


vol3

recommendation #3. 6. The agencies cited for the purposes of this report include: Ministry of Environment, Lands

and Parks, "A Public Involvement Handbook" (Draft), (Victoria, 1994); The B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Public Involvement in Government Decision Making: Choosing the Right Model, (Victoria, 1994); Ministry of Forests, Public Involvement Handbook, (Victoria, 1981) and, Environment Canada, Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Public Involvement: Planning and Implementing Public Involvement Programs, (Calgary, 1988). This is meant to be a sampling of the contributions of various agencies rather than an exhaustive compilation of efforts in this regard.

7. Office of the Ombudsman, 1988 Annual Report, (Victoria, 1989). 8. Environment Canada, Public Involvement: Planning and Implementing Public Involvement

Programs (Calgary, 1988), p.8. 9. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, A Public Involvement Handbook (Draft) (Victoria,

1994), p. 7. 10. B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Public Involvement in Government

Decision-Making: Choosing the Right Model (Victoria, 1994), p. 8.


vol3


Table of contents

Effects of Decision on Groups and Individuals

● will the decision significantly affect the environmental, social, or economic interests of groups or individuals?

● will the interests of some groups or individuals be affected more than the interests of others?

Clearly, there will not always be simple "yes" or "no" answers to these questions. Their purpose is to guide the decision-maker in assessing the depth of the need for a public participation program, thus aiding the exercise of discretion in the next consideration - determining the appropriate level of public involvement in a particular situation.

Determining the Appropriate Level of Participation

Public participation in land use decisions links those affected by decisions and those accountable for making the decisions. Generally, the more significant and controversial a decision, the higher the level of public participation required. Although the significance of a decision and the level of controversy surrounding it is often difficult to assess precisely, a decision-maker can account generally for these factors in determining the purpose of a particular participation process. Thinking in terms of the purpose for involving the public is helpful in determining the appropriate participation method in a specific situation. The methods include a range of activities along a continuum defined

by the purpose for seeking public participation.11

As is the case when assessing the need for public involvement, judgment must be exercised in determining what level and method of participation is appropriate for a particular situation. Consultation with prospective participants will help this.

The following is a consolidation of criteria used by CORE and the agencies referred to above in








vol3

determining the appropriate level of participation in a particular situation.

Need for Public Commitment

● Is public commitment required to effectively implement the decision?

Level of Conflict

● How controversial is the issue?● Is conflict apparent?

Nature and Complexity of the issues

● Are there many issues to resolve?● Do the issues require innovative solutions?● Will the decision have political ramifications?

Public Interest

● Is the general public interested in the issue?● Does the public expect to be involved in the decision?

Time and Resource constraints

● How much time is available to make the decision?● Are there overriding priorities for available resources?

Range of Interested parties

● Can the interested parties be identified?● How many interested parties are there?

Decision-Maker's Discretion

● How much discretion does the decision-maker have in making the decision?

Information

● Is adequate information available?● Is there disagreement over technical data and information?

Decision History


vol3

● How much participation occurred in higher-order decisions?

Provision of information by government is the lowest level of public participation. At a minimum, members of the public need to be notified of government decisions that affect them. More involvement is required where it is important that the public understands a decision, the reasons for making it and the process by which it was reached. Still higher levels of participation are necessary where the decision-maker wants information, public reaction, issue definition, advice or consensus for a decision. Figure 112 shows the public participation spectrum and some examples of participation purposes and methods.

At the intensive end of the spectrum, selecting either a consultative or a negotiated approach to participation is often a difficult decision although there are considerations that can be applied. A consultative approach, for example, presumes a willingness on behalf of the decision-maker to integrate the views of the public, but the degree of influence that various public perspectives have remains at the discretion of the decision-maker. A commitment to negotiation means that the decision-making efforts shift for a limited time to a negotiating group with the expectation that a consensus decision will be implemented by the decision-maker.

The following table presents some important considerations for the decision-maker to canvass in

selecting between the two approaches.13

Considerations Which Suggest Consultation

Considerations Which Suggest Negotiation

● non-controversial - issue a matter of public preference which can be accommodated

● straightforward (few issues affecting limited interests)

● minor impact on social, economic or environmental interests

● limited discretion being exercised

● low public expectations for involvement

● time is limited ● general agreement on data ● public commitment to

implementation not required ● interest groups unwilling to

work together

● controversial - decision requires balancing of competing values

● complex (many issues affecting range of interests)

● high impact on social, economic or environmental interests

● wide discretion being exercised

● high public expectations for involvement

● time is available● disagreement on or gaps in

data● public commitment to

implementation is required● interest groups are willing

to work together


vol3

Figure 1: Public Participation Continuum

One important factor in determining if a negotiation process is appropriate is the need for public commitment to the outcome. Experience suggests that a fair, representative and well-managed public negotiation will enhance the prospects for a better outcome and increase public support for the decision. Consequently, where public commitment is required for government to implement a decision, the benefits of a negotiated approach may outweigh the costs.

Just as public participation processes occur across a range, consultation itself ranges in intensity from passive (e.g., an opinion survey) to relatively active; a public advisory committee). Consequently, having concluded that a consultative approach is appropriate, the decision-maker has considerable latitude in determining the level of consultation required under the circumstances. The information presented above can guide the decision-maker in making these determinations.

Current Approached to Participation

Although there is not a coordinated, consistent or integrated policy for participation in British Columbia, many agencies provide opportunities for citizens to influence land use and related resource and environmental decisions. These opportunities are described below.

Citizens of British Columbia are currently able to influence land use and related decisions both before and after the discussions are made. In addition to the right to vote, opportunities range from informal exchanges with officials to well-defined legal avenues for contributing to decision-making and for redress once decisions have been made.

Dispute Resolution

Like public participation, dispute resolution ranges from the informal to the formal. It may be as simple as bringing an outstanding concern to the attention of decision-makers for reconsideration. It may involve formal and informal internal agency review procedures or the bringing of grievances to the British Columbia Ombudsman for investigation. Or it may involve statutory appeal provisions to independent tribunals and the various remedies offered through the courts, including judicial review on the basis of the duty of administrators to proceed fairly.

It is generally preferable for citizens to participate before a decision is made, reducing the need for



vol3

post-decision dispute resolution mechanisms. Nevertheless, post-decision remedies are a critical component in any system of checks and balances in a democratic society. Volume 4 in this provincial land use strategy, Dispute Resolution, (February 1995), concerns a comprehensive dispute resolution system for B.C. involving both preventive and adjudicative dispute resolution mechanisms.


Opportunities for public participation in land use and related resource and environmental decisions come from a number of sources. Provisions for participation are defined in legislation and included in resource use and development agreements. Where these occur, they generally either require or enable a decision-maker or proponent/tenure holder to provide notice or hold public hearings to give citizens a chance to comment before decisions are made on matters such as issuing rights to use resources. Examples include public advertising of a tenure or permit application to invite comment on, for example, a foreshore tenure application or a pesticide use permit application. A proponent may be responsible for placing a public advertisement notifying the public of an application to harvest resources, as in the case of pre-harvest silvicultural prescriptions (PHSPs) in the forest industry. In some cases, the government may notify the general public or affected groups or individuals. As well, there may be a requirement for proponents to consult more broadly through forums such as open-house presentations.

Legislation pertaining to land use and resource management sometimes requires or enables the establishment of citizen advisory committees. Examples include the Municipal Act, which enables citizen advisory planning commissions to provide advice on issues related to local government planning functions; and the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Recent legislation has included public participation as an express objective, as in the Environmental Assessment Act.

Some opportunities for public participation may be provided in written policy or procedural guidelines, although not all agencies have developed these. The Ministry of Forests has incorporated public involvement policies in its policy manual. A set of "Public Participation Guidelines" were developed by an integrated resource planning committee and adopted for use in Land and Resource Management Planning processes. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks recently published a procedures manual (draft) entitled "A Public Involvement Handbook" to guide its public participation initiatives. In the absence of statutory requirements or written policy, agencies may nonetheless seek public participation as a standard part of policy development and program operation. Apart from the limits imposed by the availability of resources, there is nothing to stop officials from initiating public participation, and many officials have shown great innovation in doing so.

Advances in Public Participation

The trend in land use and resource management decision-making has been toward more public participation and, in particular, toward greater use of negotiated approaches. A number of recent initiatives have considerably advanced these opportunities in British Columbia and encouraged the constructive exchange of information, the development of cooperative partnerships and the building


vol3

of consensus. The CORE regional land use negotiations, government's land and resource management planning (LRMP) processes, and the participation provisions of the new Environmental Assessment Act are examples of such initiatives.

The CORE regional processes were set up as multi-stakeholder, shared decision-making processes in four areas of the province: Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, West Kootenay-Boundary and East Kootenay regions. These regional processes provided an opportunity for representatives of the full range of interests to participate directly in the decision-making process by working together to produce consensus land use recommendations using the principles of interest-based negotiation. Similarly, the LRMP processes are interagency, subregional planning processes being conducted in 12 areas of the province on the basis of collaborative, consensus-seeking approaches to participation in land use planning. The Environmental Assessment Act includes extensive provisions for public participation, including:

● establishment of a project registry of accepted applications to give the public early notice of an application; all applications, comments, recommendations and decisions are to be filed on the registry

● requirements for the project proponent to conduct information sessions and hold consultations with the public as part of the application and project review phases of the assessment process

● approval and monitoring of public consultation programs by a project committee● establishment of advisory committees as necessary● prescribed periods for public comment● opportunities for comment at independent public hearings.

Although these advances are encouraging, a comprehensive policy is needed to ensure effective public participation in land use and related resource and environmental decisions across British Columbia. This need exists because of

● inconsistency and apparent arbitrariness in many decisions related to public participation● uncertainty about the roles, rights and responsibilities of decision-makers and the public● uncertainty about the availability of appropriate resources and institutional support for public

participation.

The following recommendations are proposed as an approach for developing a comprehensive public participation policy to address these issues.

Recommendations

1. That government formally adopt public participation goals as part of the package of provincial land use goals recommended in volumes 1 and 2 of this provincial land use strategy series. Appropriate goals of public participation are:



● to give effect to the principles of administrative fairness


vol3

● to offer participation processes which are appropriate to the circumstances● to build cooperative working relationships among sectors of the public and between

the public and the government● to encourage the building of consensus, stability of decisions, and avoidance of

disputes● to ensure a balance of local and provincial interests in decisions.

2. That CORE, working in consultation with the interministry policy committee, develop a cross-agency provincial policy for public participation in land use and related resource and environmental decisions, such policy to be formally adopted by government as part of the strategic land use policies recommended in volumes 1 and 2 of this series of reports. This province-wide, strategic public participation policy would:

● ensure that the goals of public participation are achieved and that the principles of decision-making are reflected

● ensure meaningful participation of individuals and groups whose interests are affected directly or indirectly by land use and related resource and environmental decisions

● provide criteria and guidelines for determining appropriate levels of public participation● identify and arrange for the requirements needed to implement, administer monitor

and amend the policy● define the roles, rights and responsibilities of decision-makers and the public● direct and provide guidance for ministries in developing ministry-specific public

participation policies, programs, and procedures to ensure appropriate levels of participation in decision-making.

3. That the provincial strategic policy and agency policies be reviewed regularly for effectiveness and, in the case of agency policies, for conformity with the provincial policy

● the review to be conducted by the agency responsible for coordination and integration of land and resource management recommended in volumes 1 and 2 of this provincial land use strategy series, and

● the review include an evaluation of the effectiveness of public participation policies in relation to the principles and goals and suggestions for amendments to the policies.

4. That the provincial policy, agency policies and the periodic review be written in plain language and made available to the public.

11. Ibid., p. 5. 12. Derived in part from Figure 1, Public Involvement Spectrum, The B.C. Round Table on the

Environment and the Economy, Public Involvement in Government Decision Making: Choosing the Right Model, (Victoria, 1994).

13. Derived in part from the Ministry of Forests handbook, p. 107.


vol3


vol3


Table of contents

3 - Public Negotiation

As indicated in chapters 1 and 2, negotiation among public interests and government agencies is becoming more common in B.C. as a way of resolving land use and resource management issues at all levels of decision-making - local, regional, provincial and national. Major forces driving this trend are the potential for more integrated and informed decisions, the complexity of the issues and the difficulty of implementing controversial decisions without broad public support. Experience in B.C. demonstrates that as the resources, information and policies needed to support successful negotiation are put in place, government and non-government interests are increasingly willing and able to negotiate agreements on a range of land use issues in the broad public interest.

To facilitate the development and implementation of regional land use plans, CORE set up comprehensive public land use negotiation processes in four of the most controversial regions of the province. In addition, CORE sponsored pilot projects to evaluate public negotiation approaches in local resource management conflicts. During the time that these CORE-sponsored projects were underway, two other negotiations resulted in a major provincial forest policy (the Forest Renewal Plan) and a national multiparty agreement on mining (the Whitehorse Mining Initiative). Because of these and other experiences, the public and government are developing a better understanding of when to use public negotiation to address public policy issues and disputes and of the conditions necessary to support a positive result. The lessons learned to date, together with further development of government's capacity to support public negotiation, will increase the potential to produce well-informed and broadly supported public policy decisions in the future.

Why Negotiate?

Why doesn't government just make a decision and carry on? Why not simply consult or hold public hearings to get the information needed to make a decision? Although these questions are not asked as often as they used to be, they still need answering.








vol3

The resolution of natural resource policy issues is a complex problem, with significant short- and long-term social, economic and environmental consequences. This has become evident in recent years, both in conflicts over land and resource use, and in the recognition of the need for long-term sustainable practices. The private and public interests commonly involved in resource disputes are not only politically influential, with the capacity to change or stall decisions, but they often have information and expertise that is not readily available to government. Moreover, the support of these interests may be crucial to ensure positive social, economic and environmental results, as controversial decisions imposed by government without public support have a history of being both difficult to implement and inclined to resurface and create problems for successive governments. The instability that results from these situations can lead to decision paralysis where no direction is established and all interests suffer as a result of the uncertainty.

Public negotiation provides the opportunity for all parties, including government, to reach better decisions. Whether the issue is a specific development in a watershed or the completion of a province wide protected areas strategy, negotiation is a viable alternative to ongoing conflict and instability. Negotiated solutions are aimed at producing results that integrate social, economic and environmental concerns in a manner that is broadly supported among advocacy groups as well as the general public.

In addition to supporting better decisions, public negotiation processes offer valuable forums for communication on controversial issues. In many cases public policy disputes or issues are confused, with varying interpretations of "what is actually going on" and a lack of information. Through the negotiation process all parties are able to gain a clearer understanding of what is actually at issue.

Interest-based or Positional Negotiation?

The last two decades have seen a growing awareness that in the negotiation of public policy issues, interest-based negotiation can produce more beneficial results for everyone. This approach is increasingly used in a variety of fields in both two-party and multiparty disputes. It is particularly effective in public policy disputes because of their complexity and wide impact. Interest-based negotiation may initially seem awkward and time-consuming, but those who have developed the appropriate skills find that the benefits far outweigh the initial time, effort and expense, even if the negotiation does not result in agreement on all issues.

Positional Negotiation

In positional negotiation, the parties often perceive themselves as adversaries. Negotiators are usually quick to demand the ideal outcomes they seek - their respective "positions". Parties are often suspicious and fearful of each other's motives, yet seldom aware of what is really important to each other. Common strategies include

● playing your cards close to your chest and demanding far more than you expect to receive● measuring success in terms of the other side's losses● never asking questions you don't know the answers to.


vol3

Positional bargaining tends to result in win-lose outcomes in which one party gains at the expense of another. Where no party can win outright, positional bargaining often results in compromise midway between two fixed positions, with no consideration of whether a different result would produce greater benefits for both parties.

While positional negotiation may be effective in situations involving a few parties and a small number of easily defined issues, it is less so in complex situations, such as land use and resource management conflicts, which typically involve many variables and in which long-term, stable results are essential. In these multi-interest situations there are often many opportunities to increase the benefits to one party at little or no cost to the others, but such opportunities are difficult to identify in positional negotiations because of the lack of open discussion, and they are usually held as "chips to be traded" if they do become apparent. In complex resource management conflicts, a purely positional approach tends to reduce the issues to simplistic variables that are easy to measure and trade off, but bear little relationship to the underlying biophysical, social and economic realities.

Interest-Based Negotiation

In interest-based negotiation, the parties assume that their interests are interdependent and that mutually beneficial outcomes are possible. Instead of adopting exaggerated positions, the parties identify what is really important to them (their interests) and try to develop accommodating solutions. While positions can often be stated in a sound bite - "no more clearcutting" or "no job loss" - communicating interests requires open and frank discussion between all the parties.

The strategy in an interest-based negotiation is to develop a common understanding of the needs, hopes, fears and concerns that motivate each of the parties. Once these interests are clear, they can be formulated into options that will benefit all parties. Interest-based negotiators communicate their interests to one another and treat issues as common problems. While seemingly "soft" and dependent on goodwill, the interest-based approach challenges negotiators to develop rational strategies that can stand up to detailed questioning and open discussion. For many, it takes time to realize that putting their cards on the table can be the most effective strategy for ensuring that their interests are not compromised. The only things that gets compromised in interest-based negotiations are positions, and there is nothing wrong with compromising positions as long as the underlying interests of parties are protected.

Interest-based negotiators search for ways to satisfy each other's objectives, capitalizing on opportunities to increase benefits and minimize costs. These opportunities become apparent when parties recognize that they value the same things quite differently; what is very important to one party may be of little consequence to another. As agreements take shape, the process gains momentum, creating a strong incentive for parties whose interests are being met to ensure that the interests of other parties are also accommodated, especially when final agreement is contingent on the development of a mutually beneficial package.

Interest-based negotiation is well suited to the resolution of complex land and resource management issues because of the diversity of interests and objectives, the need for open


vol3

communication, and the expectation that agreements will serve the broad public interest. In simple terms, interest-based negotiation makes the most of the situation by striving to provide some benefit to all interests while minimizing the costs. Although the negotiated outcomes may not measure up to the ideal solution of any one party, they are usually more beneficial than a continuation of the uncertainty, conflict or inadequate compromises that are often the result of positional negotiation.

Unlike positional negotiations, which often exclude the general public, interest-based negotiations usually strive for transparency by seeking public feedback on draft agreements through organized constituencies and open community meetings. Given that public policy disputes involve the reconciliation of legitimate but competing public interests and values, it is appropriate that the negotiations be accessible to the general public. Moreover, policy decisions that have broad public support are easier to implement and can substantially increase the collective goodwill within communities.

One important aspect of any negotiation is an awareness of the alternatives. Negotiation needs to be the best alternative for all parties in order to have a reasonable chance for success. In other words, negotiations involving parties that can get what they want without negotiating are unlikely to generate substantial agreements. In public policy issues, however, the apparent alternatives to negotiation (e.g., litigation, lobbying, civil disobedience) may be misleading, because the assessment of alternatives to negotiation is highly subjective and can be strongly influenced by many unknown factors (not the least of which is government's commitment to both the negotiating process and the outcome of the negotiations).

Interest-based negotiation is based on the following principles:

● separate the people and the personalities from the issues to be negotiated● identify the interests that must be accommodated to achieve agreement● translate interests into clear objectives and evaluation criteria● negotiate on the basis of accommodating or reconciling interests rather than trading positions● develop and assess options on the basis of interest-based objectives and criteria● give careful consideration to the alternatives to a negotiated agreement and recognize that these

influence the potential for agreement.14

CORE concluded that regional land use plans and local resource management plans could best be developed through interest-based negotiation among the full spectrum of resource interests in the province - because it is the method most likely to address the root causes of conflict and to result in stable plans and sustainable land and resource use. Building on experience in B.C. and the United States, CORE developed a five-phase framework for interest-based land use negotiations: preparation, assessment, process design, building agreement, and implementation and monitoring. (This framework is presented at the end of this chapter.)15 This "shared decision-making" framework creates an opportunity for decision-makers and those affected by decisions to develop solutions that accommodate rather than compromise the interests of all concerned. In this process, decision-making shifts to a negotiating team of government and non-government representatives. When consensus is reached, it is expected that the decisions will be implemented. The cornerstone


vol3

of a shared decision-making process is its cooperative, problem-solving approach.16

Shared decision-making provides an alternative means for exercising discretionary authority in the general public interest; it does not require a delegation of statutory authority, nor does it require public officials to exceed their policy direction. The shared decision-making approach enables non-government participants to gain an appreciation for the policy context of land use decisions and to shoulder some of the responsibility for the choices inherent in those decisions. As negotiations unfold, public officials are relieved of some of the responsibility for simply making trade-offs in the overall public interest - an approach in which a common yet cynical measure of success is equal dissatisfaction among those affected.

14. See R. Fisher and W. Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Boston, 1981); and see also L. Susskind and J. Cruikshank, Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes (U.S., 1987).

15. Commission on Resources and Environment, Report on a Land Use Strategy for British Columbia (Victoria, 1992), and for a full description of process and 1993/1994 CORE Annual Report (Victoria, 1994) for assessment and amendment of process.

16. CORE defines "shared decision-making" to mean that on a certain set of issues, for a defined period of time, those with authority to make a decision and those who will be affected by that decision are empowered to jointly seek an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all concerned.


vol3


Table of contents

Mediation

The potential for success in public negotiations can be significantly enhanced through the use of mediators at critical points in the process.17 A mediator's primary role is to help the parties find a mutually acceptable settlement of their differences. Mediators can provide an effective conduit for confidential discussions and negotiations that may be necessary to identify whether or not there is a potential agreement. A mediator is someone who is able to engender the trust of all parties such that all parties have the confidence in having frank discussions with them. The underlying premise of these discussions is that the mediator keeps all such discussions confidential unless specifically authorized by the involved party. Thus, the mediator provides another alternative for the group to collectively test potential agreements in a manner in which individual participants do not necessarily have to make statements that they feel might potentially compromise them in the event that agreement is not ultimately reached.

A mediator does not pass judgement or impose a solution on the parties. In public policy disputes mediators are particularly valuable for

● assessing the probability that an agreement can be reached● advising on process structure and rules of procedure● assisting the parties in evaluating their alternatives to negotiation● convening the negotiations● training participants in interest-based negotiation● brokering ideas and helping parties address difficult issues● drafting materials that address sensitive issues as a starting point for discussion.

In addition to mediators, some processes also have a chairperson who manages the meetings by maintaining the agenda and ensuring that everyone has a chance to speak. The chairperson may be the mediator, an individual from the community or a participant who is chosen by the table,








vol3

perhaps on a rotating basis.

Track Record

Although there are critics of public policy negotiations - particularly in B.C. land use disputes - who believe that the process is ineffective and agreements are unobtainable, the overall experience has proven the opposite. B.C. has seen a significant number of multiparty land use agreements during the past 10 years at the local through to the provincial and national level.

At the local or subregional level, consensus agreements involving the full spectrum of land use interests led to the establishment of a wilderness area at the Height-of-the-Rockies and a protected area at Chilko Lake, the CORE Anahim Round Table Resource Management Plan, and the sustainable development strategies of the Western Strathcona Local Advisory Council (WSLAC) and the Cariboo Local Advisory Council (CLAC).

At the regional level, substantial agreements were achieved in most of the regional CORE land use negotiations on recommendations for transition strategies, subregional planning processes and land use policies. In the East Kootenay region, participants also reached agreement on land use designations and management guidelines for 90 per cent of the area under negotiation.

At the provincial level, multiparty agreement through the forest sector strategy process resulted in the Forest Renewal Plan, including new policy and legislation. The provincial Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, a broad cross-section of interests, developed a number of consensus-based recommendations and reports, and did substantial work on the use of negotiation in public policy disputes. In addition, the Old Growth Strategy was the result of a multiparty consensus-building process.

Many British Columbians from a wide range of sectors participated in the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, a nationwide negotiation that addressed a wide spectrum of issues facing the Canadian mining industry. The Canada Forest Accord was similarly developed on the basis of multiparty agreement. (A summary of these agreements is presented at the end of this chapter.)

Learning from Experience

Just as important as the progress in negotiating land use issues in the province are the lessons learned in the process. Some of the key ones arising from the CORE experience of the past two years are as follows:

1. Consensus on some issues should be expected. If participants have a collective will to reach agreement on a set of issues, some level of agreement can be achieved. However, at some point in the negotiations they will likely identify issues they cannot agree on, thereby setting a limit on the scope of their agreement in the prevailing circumstances. In effect, where participants are collectively committed to finding common ground, the essential question is not "Is agreement possible?" but "How much agreement is possible?"


vol3

2. Impasse is not failure. Land and resource management negotiations are often seen as all-or-nothing processes in which success means full agreement on all issues. Such a perspective does not accurately reflect the majority of land and resource management negotiations in B.C., where some level of agreement is usually achieved. Moreover, impasses are sometimes treated as "agreements to disagree" where outstanding issues are described in detail, enabling government decision-makers to focus on the critical decisions.

Even the most cooperative and compatible parties to a negotiation will likely identify issues that they cannot agree on. For this reason, an important element in the process design is a set of procedures to be followed in the event of impasse. (See rules of procedure in appendix 1 for details.) These procedures may include strategies for resolving disagreements, with an ultimate fallback of "agreeing to disagree", on the basis of clearly defined issues or options. Again, the objective is to provide decision-makers with as much information as possible, thus helping to define the scope of the disagreement and the nature of the specific decision that is required. When compared to intensive political lobbying and media campaigns, structured and cooperative public negotiation that leads to specific disagreements is a major step towards better-quality decisions.

3. Keep the procedures simple. Rules of procedure should be designed to encourage open and productive discussion by

● treating ideas as proposals and agreements as tentative until acceptable packages are developed, while recognizing that the purpose of negotiations is to build as much agreement as possible

● ensuring that summaries of meetings document discussion without necessarily attributing ideas to specific individuals; these summaries should simply provide a record of what was discussed, not a lever to force future agreement

● using small groups for detailed discussion of sensitive issues. If negotiators are forced to discuss sensitive issues in front of large audiences, they will likely have to speak to their constituents as much as to the issues, which often means reinforcing positions rather than testing new and possibly risky ideas. Small groups also provide opportunities to address priority issues simultaneously

● avoiding an "all-or-nothing" approach where agreement on a single issue or package is leveraged by threats to undermine unrelated agreements.

If participants are not committed to progress, however, it is unlikely that any rules of procedure will be effective.

Appendix 1 contains the Rules of Procedure for the Anahim Round Table and the Slocan Valley Round Table, which are based on a wide range of experience with other public policy negotiation processes in B.C.

4. Negotiations cannot take place in isolation from policy. External policy developments and political circumstances often have an effect on the negotiation process. Provincial policies can influence the potential for agreement in related policy negotiations and in regional and local land use negotiations. The Protected Areas Strategy, the Forest Practices


vol3

Code, the Forest Renewal Plan and the Forest Land Reserve Act were being developed at the same time as the CORE regional negotiations were underway in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, the Kootenays and on Vancouver Island. Each of these policies significantly influenced the scope of the potential agreements in the regional negotiation processes.

When relevant policies do not exist or are in a developmental phase, there are often conflicting interpretations of their potential implications, which can influence the ability of negotiators to assess their options and reach agreements. Participants should not be expected to reach agreements that rely on an interpretation of a policy that is in the developmental phase, particularly when different interpretations favour some interests over others. Therefore government should provide as clear a statement of policy as is possible at the outset of substantive negotiations as a framework for the process.

5. Terms of reference should clearly define government policies, expectations and implementation commitments. Whenever possible, government should provide terms of reference that clearly define the issues on which it will act. This clarity will indicate government expectations and help prospective participants to decide whether or not it is in their best interests to participate. If all participants, including the relevant levels of government, are clear about their expectations early in the process, it is not only easier for all parties to assess their willingness to pursue a negotiated settlement, but where incentives to negotiate are low, costly time delays can be avoided by selecting alternative approaches to public participation.

An example of the need for clear policy direction is the Protected Areas Strategy, which does not currently define "regions", yet sets a target of "more or less than 12 per cent protected area in all regions of the province". In the Cariboo-Chilcotin, which is bordered by two of the largest parks in the province, the lack of a specified boundary and protected area target prevented the participants in the CORE process from negotiating the pivotal protected area issue, because they assumed different boundaries (including more or less of the bordering parks) for the region according to their interest. If the boundary and the amount of new protected area expected in the Cariboo Forest Region had been specified at the outset, together with the selection criteria for new protected areas, the negotiators could have either pursued their alternatives to negotiations or negotiated the distribution of the new protected areas in the region. The Cariboo-Chilcotin negotiations adjourned over this issue in March 1994, and CORE then recommended a land use plan, using a boundary based on use and access criteria including 483,000 hectares of new protected area in the region (bringing the total to 12 per cent).

Once CORE had recommended a boundary and specific protected areas, the parties were able to either focus further negotiation on the distribution of new protected areas based on CORE's recommendations, or lobby for a government decision favourable to their respective interests. Sector coalitions chose to pursue further negotiation directly with government, which resulted in the broadly supported government decision to revise CORE's recommendations on the distribution of new protected area but to maintain the overall CORE percentage allocations.


vol3

6. Government should participate directly in public policy negotiations. Effective interest-based negotiation of public policy issues requires the participation of government representatives. In many instances, neither the government nor the parties initially want government involved in the negotiations; however, the track record of negotiated agreement suggests that the likelihood of implementation is increased if government participates.

While clearly articulated government policy and specific terms of reference can define government's general interests, often there are many uncertainties that can only be clarified by participants who represent the relevant level of decision-making. If these uncertainties are not addressed by government, negotiations may falter, or the non-government participants may reach an agreement that government finds unacceptable. This would obviously result in a politically sensitive situation as well as undermine the public's confidence in negotiation as an effective method of public participation. Moreover, non-government interests are more likely to work within existing policy and financial constraints and to develop positive relationships with government if full consensus requires government agreement. Public policy negotiations that do not involve government are also more vulnerable to manipulation for political advocacy purposes.

7. The roles of sponsoring agencies must be clearly communicated and understood. A wide variety of agencies, including CORE, sponsor negotiation processes. In many cases these agencies are accountable for the decision or issue being negotiated and are therefore responsible for taking action in the event of impasse. In addition, sponsoring agencies are often involved in determining the government policies that can significantly influence the outcome of the negotiations. If these roles are not made explicit and clearly communicated to participants in negotiations, significant problems can arise which may compromise the negotiation of future issues and the relationship between the sponsoring agency and the participants. It is important therefore that sponsoring agencies clearly identify their responsibilities at the outset of the negotiations. Again, this enables the participants in the negotiation process to assess their options and decide upon their willingness to participate.

In addition to clearly communicating their role, sponsoring agencies can increase the prospects for productive negotiations by providing initial direction on process design. For example, if the sponsor provides initial rules of procedure for the process designed to facilitate discussions, the parties are not put in a position of having to develop rules at a time when there is often a high level of anxiety and fear which can be translated into rigid rules that act as a shield, inhibiting discussion rather than facilitating it. These initial rules of procedure can be subsequently revised by the parties as they become more comfortable with the process.

8. The accountability expected of participants needs to be clear. Whether participants represent self-defined sectors of interest (regional CORE tables), existing organizations (Anahim Round Table) or general community interests (Bulkley Valley Resource Board), effective communication and accountability needs to be established with the general public and between negotiators and those they represent. Participants should understand who they are accountable to and how that accountability is maintained. Negotiators can address these issues directly by conducting the negotiations in public, discussing constituencies and


vol3

accountability early in the negotiations, and undertaking community outreach for feedback on progress to date and draft agreements.

9. Open, inclusive and balanced representation of all interests is essential. Despite the experience gained thus far, some parties may still be tempted to restrict negotiations to interests that generally agree with one another. While this limitation increases the likelihood of agreement, it almost certainly will produce an agreement that is unstable, unrepresentative and cannot be effectively implemented. Moreover, if significant interests are excluded, suppressed or treated as illegitimate, they will not disappear; they will find other ways to influence the negotiation or the outcome.

In many instances, the desire to exclude or suppress interests results from fear, which is often reduced when people and sectors interact and increase their understanding of each other and the issue. The Anahim Round Table, for example, concluded that an open and inclusive approach to participation was actually empowering because it reduced the potential for external lobbying. While larger groups can be difficult to work with as a whole, they provide more participants for subcommittees, which can make it possible to get more work accomplished in a shorter period of time. Experience with large and small negotiating tables shows that success is more dependent on the collective will of the participants than the size of the group.

10. Cooperative negotiation processes will be more effective and efficient if preparation is done before the negotiation table convenes. Many tasks that are undertaken after tables are convened can and should often be completed beforehand. These tasks include

● identification and clarification of terms of reference, including relevant government policies, planning objectives and methods

● identification of policy gaps and relationships to parallel or previous processes that are relevant, including measures to address issues that may arise as a result

● collection of relevant and available information. If a computerized geographic information system (GIS) is required, it can be developed before negotiations begin

● identification of relevant issues or interests. If participating sectors are known in advance, sectoral interest statements can be developed before negotiations begin

● provision of training and orientation in interest-based negotiation to prospective participants.

11. Separate technical and information requirements from substantive negotiations. Participants in past processes have often spent many hours debating technical and information issues only to find that the eventual agreements were not significantly influenced by these discussions. This is not to say that discussion of these issues is not important; however, it can be focused by earlier consideration of the level of detail and specific subject matter. Some negotiation processes have established technical working groups to deal with information, analysis and related technical issues.

12. Ongoing improvement in the interest-based negotiation process is expected and required. While our understanding of public negotiation processes and what it takes for them to work successfully is much better today than several years ago, ongoing


vol3

improvement and development is necessary and should be actively pursued.

17. Where a negotiated agreement is achieved through the use of an independent mediator, the process is called mediation.


vol3


Table of contents

Improving the Prospects for Negotiation

The increased use of negotiated approaches to public dispute resolution is outpacing government's capacity to support them. Resource ministries are diverting already committed human and financial resources in an ad hoc and expensive manner, thus undermining the effectiveness of existing programs as well as the quality of the support dedicated to negotiations. While many government agencies are training staff to improve their ability to support negotiations, lack of expertise remains a limiting factor. In addition, each agency's experience and track record is different, yet all are faced with providing a range of administrative and technical services as well as the necessary policy direction and representation.

No clearly identifiable group or agency within the bureaucracy is responsible for supporting all the negotiated approaches to land and resource management decision-making that are taking place. The result is a wide variation in the quality and cost of government involvement in public policy negotiations. Volume 4 of this provincial land use strategy series, Dispute Resolution, analyzes these problems in some detail and recommends changes to achieve the following goals:

● consolidate the responsibility for mediation services in a neutral agency that will organize and administer service delivery, and ensure accountability, coordination and efficiency

● formalize opportunities for mediation in legislation to provide for negotiated approaches as a voluntary part of the review and appeal process

● establish a professional development program in the public service to teach negotiation and mediation skills.

Together with the establishment of community resource boards, which are discussed in detail in part 2 of this report, these institutional developments will enhance the potential for negotiation to contribute to better land and resource management decisions.








vol3

Organizational Framework for Shared Decision-Making

There are five phases to the shared decision-making process.

Preparation

The purpose of the preparation phase is to lay the groundwork for all subsequent phases.

The objectives of this first phase are to

● identify which provincial policies are needed to support the decision-making process● begin to build personal, organizational and procedural credibility between the convening authority

and the affected parties● establish the availability of information and the means of acquiring it● assemble appropriate administrative support● define terms of reference for the process● begin orientation and training in interest-based negotiation.

Assessment

The purpose of the assessment phase is for parties and government to evaluate the feasibility of using interest-based negotiation to resolve the issues. By starting with an assessment of the negotiating approach, the parties are able to determine their willingness to participate, because they must be satisfied that negotiation is the most appropriate means for addressing the issues at hand. If the parties decide that a shared decision-making process is not appropriate, a less intensive, government-led public participation process may be used.

The objectives of the assessment phase are to

● enable potential participants to assess the appropriateness and feasibility of using a shared decision-making approach

● explore alternatives to negotiations● determine constituent support and identify who must be involved● permit an objective, third-party assessment of the appropriateness and feasibility of a shared decision-

making approach● begin building constituencies and establishing communication links.

Process Design

The purpose of the process design phase is to set the stage for substantive negotiation by creating a suitable forum for shared decision-making, including procedural ground rules. The negotiation process must be tailored by the parties to fit the circumstances; having agreed that a negotiated outcome is preferred, the parties identify the issues to be resolved, develop a negotiating agenda, agree on required information and, in essence, share "ownership" of the process. The parties must


vol3

agree on a procedural framework before negotiating substantive issues. If they cannot agree on procedure, it is unlikely that they will be able to agree on substantive issues. The process of negotiating procedural issues also facilitates the necessary change from positional bargaining to more cooperative, interest-based problem-solving. However, as noted above, it is not necessary for parties to develop a procedural framework from scratch. In fact, sponsoring agencies can increase the prospects for a productive process by providing a draft procedural framework that is oriented towards open and productive discussion which the parties can use as a starting point.

The objectives of the process design phase are to

● create a forum and process for shared decision-making● promote understanding and develop working relationships among all participants● select a mediator if one is to be used● determine conditions governing the implementation of a negotiated settlement● develop an agreement to proceed● provide training in interest-based negotiation.

Building Agreement

The purpose of this stage is to identify and resolve issues by agreement. Agreements must be formalized and documented to avoid misunderstanding; they must also be submitted to the parties' constituents for ratification and to the public for general feedback. Securing broad-based support for a negotiated agreement is dependent on the quality of communication between the representatives and their constituents and the general public throughout the process.

Negotiating the substantive issues in dispute requires that the parties do the following:

● identify the issues they wish to resolve● convert positions into interests and objectives● explore solutions/options that satisfy all interests● build an agreement based on objective interest-based criteria● assess whether the agreement can be implemented● formalize the agreement● seek ratification from their constituencies and a commitment to implementation.

Implementation and Monitoring

The purpose of this stage is to establish the means by which the negotiated agreement will be implemented and monitored. Implementation and monitoring requirements are often part of the overall agreement on substantive issues. Land use agreements typically require further negotiation during the implementation phase. Effective implementation and monitoring provisions and procedures for any further negotiations are essential to the enduring success of the agreement.

The objectives of this final stage are to


vol3

● identify and agree on implementation requirements● establish a means for monitoring the implementation of the agreement and revising it as required● ensure broad participation in implementation, thus promoting shared responsibility and accountability● establish mechanisms to identify and address newly emerging issues.


vol3


Table of contents

Examples of Multiparty Land Use Agreements in B.C.

The following examples of multiparty negotiations reflect the range of potential applications of negotiation in terms of both subject matter and scale (see B.C. Round Table "Reaching Agreement", appendix III, for additional examples).

Local/Subregional

Chilko Lake Study Team

The Chilko Lake area is a relatively isolated and undeveloped part of the Chilcotin region of west central B.C. lying about 250 km north of Vancouver and 160 km west of Williams Lake. The area was designated a Deferred Planning Area in the late 1970s because of the need to resolve competing land use interests. This status, combined with the recent provincial initiative for systematic planning for parks and wilderness areas, led to the establishment of the multiparty Chilko Lake Study Team in early 1991.

The Chilko Lake Study Team met in June 1991, with a mandate to negotiate the resolution of land use issues among all affected interests and make recommendations to the Ministers of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Aided by an independent mediator the Team used the process of consensus to conduct all of its work. Interest statements were presented and compared, competing interests were identified, and a set of agreements and conditions were negotiated and packaged. The Study Team prepared a Draft Consensus Report for review by the constituencies represented on the Team, as well as by the broader public. Using the advice from this review, the Team developed its package of final recommendations for government.

In January 1994 the provincial government implemented the consensus recommendations of the








vol3

Chilko Study Team.

The primary recommendations of the Chilko Lake Study Team fell into three parts:

● detailed land use recommendations for two land units, Zones 1 and 2, which describe a proposed Protected Area (Ts'yl-os Provincial Park) and adjacent Taseko Management Zone. Together, these zones approximate the former Deferred Planning Area

● general management recommendations, for the peripheral areas, Zones 3 to 9● implementation recommendations, a central component of the agreement reached by the Study Team.

A Sustainable Development Strategy for the Western Strathcona Area of Vancouver Island

In October 1989 the provincial government and local communities initiated the Western Strathcona Local Advisory Council, to formulate a strategy for the sustainable development of natural resources in the Western Strathcona area of Vancouver Island. The Council consisted of a mediator who also acted as chair, a secretary and 26 members representing a cross-section of local resource interests and government agencies involved in the management of natural resources in the Western Strathcona area. The interests represented on the council included communities, employment, environment, fisheries, forest industries, mining, natives, independent loggers, tourism, wilderness and wildlife.

The Western Strathcona Local Advisory Council reached agreement on a sustainable development strategy for the Western Strathcona area, including specific principles and recommendations relevant to public involvement and implementation, land allocation, specific reallocations, resource analysis, resource planning and management, sustainability of timber resources, concentration of timber harvesting, timber harvesting practices, fish resources, wildlife resources, mineral resources, tourism and recreation resources, visual resources, parks, ecological reserves, wilderness areas, the native land question, communities and employment. It also identified issues that remained outstanding.

Anahim Round Table

The Anahim Round Table (ART) was established in a 650,000 hectare area of the West Chilcotin in July 1992 to address resource management conflicts that had been causing tensions and instability in several West Chilcotin communities during the previous decade. These conflicts had developed following the introduction of extensive forestry development activities in the area in the early 1980s. There was strong reaction to this development, including blockades to prevent road construction and timber harvesting. CORE sponsored the Anahim Round Table (ART) as a pilot project to test the effectiveness of shared decision-making in resolving resource management conflicts. The table consisted of 29 sectors, including seven government agencies, and CORE provided mediation services.

The ART reached consensus on a resource management plan and related recommendations in January 1994. The plan consists of resource management objectives and guidelines covering timber, recreation and tourism, land tenures, wildlife, wetlands and riparian areas, water, pine


vol3

mushrooms, access management and sports fisheries. The sports fisheries component of the plan - a quality lakes management plan - includes lakes classification, access management objectives, and commercial sports fishing quotas. In addition to the resource management plan, ART members negotiated land use allocation recommendations on proposed protected and special management planning areas for consideration in the regional land use allocation plan. The majority of these recommended allocations were subsequently incorporated in the Cariboo-Chilcotin regional land

use plan.18

Cariboo Local Advisory Council

The Cariboo Local Advisory Council was formed in September 1990 and was given the mandate to recommend a strategy for sustainable development of forest resources within the Williams Lake Timber Supply Area (TSA). Council recommendations were to be determined by consensus.

The Council consisted of a wide range of resource interests within the TSA and included representation from industry, labour, tourism, environmentalists, local governments, First Nations, cattlemen, guides/outfitters and provincial agencies, although provincial agencies were not allowed committee member status. The process was mediated by an independent chairperson.

From October 1990 to August 1991 the Cariboo Local Advisory Council met 21 times to develop a recommended strategy for sustainable development of forest resources in Williams Lake TSA. The council dealt with a broad range of resource values and socioeconomic concerns, focusing on forest management production quantities. The process did not "draw lines on the map", but instead developed by consensus strategic statements to guide integrated resource management in the area.

Height-of-the-Rockies

The Height-of-the-Rockies is an 83,000 hectare wilderness area bordering Banff National Park, Elk Lakes Provincial Park in B.C. and Kananaskis Park in Alberta. It lies in the watershed of the Kootenay River and is drained by several of its tributaries.

In January 1987 the Height-of-the-Rockies Task Force, consisting of logging, mining, municipal, outfitting, tourism and recreation representatives, was convened to determine what portion of the area warranted protected status and where the boundaries would lie.

By the end of March, agreement was reached on 95 per cent of the boundary. The logging interests were focused primarily in the downstream sections of the watershed, whereas most of the recreational/wilderness values were located in the upper sections. Hence, a geographical compromise could be found, and impacts of logging on the wilderness experience could be minimized. The remaining 5 per cent was deferred from decision pending closer investigation.

In August 1987, based on the agreement reached, an Order in Council was passed by the Legislature establishing the Height-of-the-Rockies wilderness area.


vol3

Regional

Because of the high level of conflict over land use in many parts of B.C., CORE was instructed to begin regional land use planning processes in four major regions of the province as a priority in developing the provincial land use strategy. Each regional process is discussed below.

Vancouver Island Regional Negotiation Process

The Vancouver Island regional process was convened in November 1992, following completion of the preparation and assessment phases. CORE assisted those interested in participating to form "sectors of interest", coalitions of groups with similar perspectives on land use.

The public negotiation phase of the process ended in November 1993 with a report to CORE reflecting a consensus among the sectors on a long-term vision for Vancouver Island, statements of sector interests to be accommodated in a land use plan, a draft land use designation system, and policy recommendations on the design of future planning processes, resource management direction and socioeconomic transition.

The information contained in the table report and other technical information on land and resource inventories and impact assessment were used by CORE to prepare the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan. CORE completed the Plan by balancing the technical information, government policy, sectoral interests and existing land use commitments. Government subsequently implemented the Vancouver Island Plan with some modifications.

Cariboo-Chilcotin Regional Negotiation Process

The Cariboo-Chilcotin regional process was convened in December 1992, and the 24 participating sectors negotiated the components of the plan for 14 months. While substantial agreement was developed on various components, final agreement was contingent upon a complete package. In March 1994 the table adjourned negotiations, and CORE proceeded to develop a land use plan on the basis of the information assembled during the process, including four detailed proposals prepared by individual sectors and coalitions of sectors. After CORE released its recommended plan to the public and government, direct negotiations began between the government and sector coalitions. These negotiations resulted in implementation of the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan by government, which built on the CORE recommendations.

West Kootenay-Boundary Regional Negotiation Process

The West Kootenay-Boundary regional process was convened in January 1993 as a combined East Kootenay and West Kootenay-Boundary table representing the entire Kootenay-Boundary region. However, it was decided that a more effective planning scale could be achieved by dividing the area into two regions: the West Kootenay-Boundary region and the East Kootenay region.


vol3

The West Kootenay-Boundary Table, comprised of spokespersons from 22 sectors representing a balanced cross-section of interests in the region, met between April 1993 and June 1994 in an effort to reach a negotiated agreement on a regional land use plan. Public negotiations targeted land designations, management guidelines and identification of acceptable uses for each of a number of smaller land units. Sector representatives achieved substantial completion of land use policies, as well as a socioeconomic transition strategy and recommendations for plan implementation and monitoring.

While substantial agreement was developed on various components, final consensus was not reached. The table adjourned negotiations, and CORE proceeded to develop a land use plan on the basis of information and ideas developed during the process. The CORE plan, which is based on the work of the table, awaits final decision and implementation by the provincial government.

East Kootenay Regional Negotiation Process

The East Kootenay Table, comprised of representatives from 21 sectors of interest, followed the same general approach used by the West Kootenay Table. In January 1993 the table began its work in developing key planning tools and processes, followed by comprehensive public negotiation on a land use map. Sector representatives substantially completed negotiations on a land use map and recommendations on a land use policy, a socioeconomic transition strategy and plan implementation and monitoring.

A report published by the East Kootenay Table in June 1994 reflected substantial progress toward consensus on all components of the plan. Consensus was reached on 116 out of 137 land units - comprising 90 per cent of the region's land base. The table's results provided CORE with the essential tools needed to complete the land use plan. The plan published by CORE in October 1994 incorporates the consensus advice of the East Kootenay Table regarding ways to ensure social, economic and environmental sustainability in a manner that respects all interests and values. The plan awaits final decision and implementation by the provincial government.

Provincial

An Old Growth Strategy for British Columbia

The Old Growth Strategy was prepared by representatives of citizen and environmental groups, forest industry associations, organized labour, researchers, provincial and federal resource agency staff, and individual professionals. The 18-month consensus-building process involved intensive negotiation by five teams that met both separately and in various combinations. Process facilitation and chairmanship were provided by agency staff and an independent professional.

The strategy paper, intended as a working document for both the public and the government, is open to continual refinement as knowledge of old growth forests improves, social priorities change and development occurs in the structure of resource management agencies.


vol3

B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy

In February 1990, the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy was created with representatives of a broad range of resource and environmental interests to provide advice to the provincial government on strategies for achieving sustainability.

During the three years it was in operation, the Round Table published a variety of reports and background papers based on public consultation, research and consensus-building negotiation among the Round Table members. The reports and papers dealt with major issues of sustainable development and public participation. Several of the Round Table reports addressed the need to expand the use of negotiation in public policy dispute resolution.

Forest Sector Strategy Committee

In January 1993, the Premier announced the creation of a forest sector strategy committee to address challenges facing the forest sector. The first meeting of the Forest Sector Strategy Committee (FSSC) was convened in April 1993 with a mandate to develop a long-term strategy for the forest sector which would enhance the economic and social benefits derived from the working forests of the province.

The FSSC is independently chaired and has a membership of 28, including the Minister of Forests, eight deputy ministers, the chief executive officers or presidents of ten forest sector companies, the presidents of three forest sector unions and senior representatives from the aboriginal community, the environmental community, the coastal and interior logging sector, the academic and research community, and municipalities.

Between December 1993 and April 1994, the FSSC met five times to discuss and deal with the five immediate priorities. These discussions led to development of the Forest Renewal Plan, announced by the government on April 13, 1994.

The Forest Renewal Plan brings a new approach to forest management in British Columbia. The objective is to protect thousands of forest-dependent jobs, to get more value from each tree harvested, and to invest in the productivity of the forest resource. Over the next five years, an estimated $2 billion in stumpage revenues will be invested in provincial forests, forestry workers and forest-based communities.

National

National Forest Accord

Four forums on the forest sector in the mid-1980s, sponsored by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM), culminated in a National Forest Congress in 1986. The results of these meetings provided the basis for a national forest sector strategy in 1987, produced under the direction of the CCFM. This strategy was Canada's first truly national statement on a comprehensive list of


vol3

strategic concerns in forestry. While progress has been made on key recommendations of the 1987 strategy, the CCFM, recognizing society's changing attitudes towards its forests, set out in 1990 to achieve consensus on broad new directions for forest management. Views were sought from a wide range of Canadians by means of regional meetings, a national workshop and workbook commentaries. Successive drafts were reviewed and Canadians, by means of hundreds of letters, phone calls and faxes, helped to shape the final form and content of the Forest Accord.

Whitehorse Mining Initiative

Because of global competition, the Canadian mining industry needed to develop a new strategic vision. At the September 1992 mines ministers' conference in Whitehorse, the Mining Association of Canada proposed a multi-stakeholder process to help the industry develop such a vision within a non-adversarial framework. The ministers agreed to become co-sponsors and trustees of a consensus-based multi-stakeholder process that was subsequently named the Whitehorse Mining Initiative. Representatives of the mining industry, senior governments, labour unions, aboriginal peoples and the environmental community agreed to participate.

Full-scale discussions began in February 1993, and by September 1994 the Whitehorse Mining Accord was developed and agreed to by all participants. The Accord, adopted in September 1994, contains a vision statement, 16 principles, 65 goals, and a statement of commitment to follow-up action. The Accord also calls for improving the investment climate; streamlining and harmonizing regulatory and tax regimes; ensuring the participation of aboriginal peoples in all aspects of mining; adopting sound environmental practices; establishing an ecologically based system of protected areas; providing workers with healthy and safe environments and a continued high standard of living; recognition and respect for aboriginal treaty rights; settling aboriginal land claims; guaranteeing stakeholder participation where the public interest is affected; and creating a climate for innovative and effective responses to change.

18. A more detailed description of the ART process is provided in appendix 1.


vol3


Table of contents

4 - Aboriginal Participation

The government of British Columbia has stated that land use plans will be "an opening position" in its treaty negotiations with First Nations peoples. It has also said that treaty negotiations will not be limited by land use planning and that "the use, and ownership of the lands and the jurisdiction to manage the lands in question may change as a result of negotiating treaties". These statements by the provincial government demonstrate the close interdependency between land use planning and treaty negotiations; they also highlight the importance of First Nations and community groups working together to develop land use plans that sustain all values and support better and more stable community relationships.

Historical Context

Long before confederation, the British government had a policy of making treaties with aboriginal people. Following confederation, Canada's federal government continued the policy of treaty-making. Between 1680 and 1929 a total of 80 treaty agreements were signed with First Nations in Canada; since 1973, when the federal government first announced its claims policy, six additional "modern" treaties have been concluded. All of these treaties share a common feature: they recognize that aboriginal people lived on and used the land long before European society arrived. They recognize that aboriginal people have rights to the land and resources and that these rights had to be dealt with before the newcomers could rightfully use and occupy the same land.

However, more than a century after confederation, British Columbia is one of the few provinces in Canada where treaties have not been resolved. Throughout the past century, First Nations have struggled to persuade successive provincial governments that their aboriginal rights still exist.

In August 1990, the B.C. government reversed its 119-year policy and indicated its willingness to establish a process for negotiating treaties. In December 1990, the B.C. Claims Task Force was








vol3

established through the agreement of Canada, B.C. and the majority of First Nations in B.C. to make recommendations on how to proceed with treaties in B.C. In 1991, all 19 recommendations of the Task Force were accepted, and the provincial government announced its commitment to a new relationship with aboriginal people by recognizing aboriginal title and the inherent right of First Nations to self-government. The historic signing ceremony for the creation of the B.C. Treaty Commission took place in September 1992. Since the Treaty Commission opened its doors on December 15, 1993, 42 First Nations have filed and accepted, statements of intent to commence treaty negotiations.

In 1993, the B.C. Court of Appeal, in the case of Delgamuukw v. B.C., confirmed that aboriginal title and rights exist in B.C. These rights were held to be sui generis, or unique, and constitute a legal right protected by the Canadian constitution.

When CORE was established in 1992 to develop a province wide land use strategy, its enabling legislation mandated it to encourage aboriginal participation and ensure that its work was without prejudice to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations.

The historical tradition of treaty-making, the new commitment to resolve outstanding issues with aboriginal people in a fair and honourable way, the legal obligation to correct past injustices through negotiations, and the need for sustainable land use practices all create opportunities for British Columbia. Although the term "aboriginal rights" will likely not receive final clarification until treaties are settled, in the interim there are opportunities to work with First Nations to develop relationships that are beneficial to everyone.

Framework for Aboriginal Participation in Land Use Planning

When CORE first began its work, there were many unanswered questions regarding land use planning and how it could be done in a manner that respected aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations. However, over the past two years, through a combination of direct discussions between First Nations and the provincial government, community support, government policy development and recommendations by CORE, a clearer framework has developed in which land use planning can include aboriginal participation. The following sections outline the work that has been done to date.

Land Use Charter

In August 1992, CORE published its first report on a land use strategy for British Columbia. That report proposed a Land Use Charter (subsequently adopted by the provincial government in June 1993), which included as one of its six principles the following statement:

Aboriginal title and inherent rights of aboriginal people to self-government will be recognized.

The statement of this principle formalized, in the context of land use planning, what until then had been only a political commitment by the government of B.C. Like the principles on broad


vol3

sustainability contained in the charter, it informs everyone involved with land use planning that decision-making shall incorporate, support and not interfere with negotiations on aboriginal self-government and treaties and that aboriginal peoples shall be encouraged to be active participants in decision-making.

Aboriginal involvement in land use decision-making, however, extends beyond direct participation in regional and local planning processes, to a direct government-to-government relationship between First Nations and the province of British Columbia.

The provincial government formalized this government-to-government relationship through a protocol and memorandum of understanding with First Nations in the summer of 1993. These agreements specifically provide that interim measures negotiations may deal with the jurisdiction and authority of First Nations over the protection, management, use, allocation and development of lands, water and resources within their traditional territories. This political acknowledgment set the stage for interim measures negotiations to take place both before and during the treaty negotiation process to address aboriginal concerns regarding land and resource use in traditional territories. It also set the stage for linking interim measures negotiations with land use planning.

In subsequent reports19, CORE expanded upon the need for a government-to-government relationship between First Nations and British Columbia and identified a number of concerns raised by First Nations, including the need to address land and resource issues through interim measures agreements. CORE also stated that land use issues involve an unavoidable interdependency among a wide range of the public, aboriginal, industrial, labour, environmental and other interests and that in a very real sense, wise and sustainable land use policies and plans are "ownership neutral", with the conclusion that open and inclusive land use planning processes are therefore essential.

Land Use Goals and Strategic Policies

In January 1994, CORE published Finding Common Ground which articulated a shared vision for land use in B.C., including a broad set of land use goals that defined the desired end results from use of land and water. Together, the charter and goals provide standards against which to measure all land use decisions. They establish criteria for evaluating land use plans, management decisions and guidelines or codes. CORE's recommendations include two goals that apply to aboriginal people:

● ensure that land use decisions do not infringe on aboriginal rights or prejudice treaty negotiations● ensure that planning and management is conducted cooperatively with aboriginal peoples where their

rights or interests may be affected.

The charter and the goals establish the context for more specific strategic land use policies that describe how government intends to achieve the desired goals. Such policies direct how land and resources should be planned and managed, providing more specific guidance to land use decision-makers. Under the heading "Aboriginal Peoples", the intent of the goals was stated as follows:


vol3

Aboriginal rights have been recognized by the provincial government, and will be protected through treaty negotiations and pre-treaty agreements. The government has stated that treaty negotiations will not be limited by land use planning designations, and that the use, ownership of the land, and the jurisdiction to manage the lands in question may change as a result of negotiating treaties.

Since treaties will be paramount over land use planning designations, it is imperative to encourage aboriginal planning and management decisions where their rights or interests may be affected. By obtaining early aboriginal participation, and by identifying and addressing, where possible, their concerns and interests, land use decisions will be more stable and will lead to less conflict in the subsequent treaty process.

To meet this goal, the following draft strategic policies were developed:

Aboriginal title and the inherent rights of aboriginal people to self-government have been recognized by the government of B.C. Aboriginal rights exist in law and are recognized and affirmed under the Constitution Act (1982). As such, they cannot be unjustifiably infringed by activities of the Crown or activities authorized by the Crown (for example, through the sale of Crown land, issuance of tenures, leases, licenses and permits). Since the scope and content of aboriginal rights may vary in accordance with the distinct historical use and occupancy of the land, consultation with local aboriginal people must occur in order to ascertain what aboriginal rights may exist. Through government-to-government discussions and negotiations with those aboriginal peoples affected by the activity, it is the policy of the government of B.C. to find mutually agreeable solutions when an activity impacts on an aboriginal

right. The following policies will embody this approach.20

● the government of B.C. will work cooperatively with First Nations to identify and map their traditional territories or areas they wish to be consulted on

● common land and resource inventories, when gathered in traditional territories, should include aboriginal peoples' knowledge and participation

● land use planning and management processes will respect the provincial government's commitment to work with First Nations on a government-to-government basis and will be without prejudice to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations

● planning decisions should be made on a cooperative or shared decision-making basis with major impasses reviewed at the government-to-government level

● management of land and resources within traditional territories should be conducted on a cooperative basis, recognizing aboriginal peoples' knowledge and practices relevant to sustainable use and conservation of biological diversity

● approval, tenuring and permitting decisions in traditional territories must demonstrate how aboriginal rights have been accommodated


vol3

● First Nations will be encouraged to play a direct role in the implementation and monitoring of plans, decisions and practices

● training and skills development related to land use planning and management should be available to First Nations.

Regional and Local Planning

CORE has had a variety of experience with the participation of aboriginal peoples in land use planning. In some cases the First Nation has been instrumental in establishing the planning process21; at the other end of the spectrum, the First Nation has refused to participate in CORE's land use planning processes. In the four regional land use plans, CORE made recommendations concerning aboriginal rights as follows:22

To protect aboriginal rights, CORE recommends:

That discussions be entered into with First Nations in the region to determine:

● the implications of the plan for aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations ● how to accommodate affected aboriginal interests ● the need for interim measures agreements.

That interim measures negotiations be conducted as necessary before assigning any formal land use designations under the plan to cover such matters as:

● the continuation of traditional uses ● joint planning and decision-making processes ● jobs and skills training ● economic development opportunities, including resource harvesting rights ● protection of special areas ● protection of sacred areas ● land use deferrals if required.

That adequate resources be made available to First Nations to ensure that consultation and interim measures negotiations relating to the land use plan are meaningful and balanced.

To ensure that First Nations have sufficient land and resource information, CORE recommends:

That the information gathered for the regional planning process and compiled into the geographic information system be made available, on request and at no cost, to First Nations in the region.

That a joint government-to-government land information centre be established to


vol3

facilitate the sharing of land and resource information. This land information centre should be provided with adequate resources to provide training for First Nations in using the information and to facilitate the gathering of additional information required for interim measures negotiations.

That First Nations be invited to participate in the design of land use planning.

That the boundaries of traditional First Nations territories be taken into account when determining local process boundaries.

That consideration be given, in the course of local planning processes, to designating certain areas as special management areas for First Nations. Pending finalization of treaty negotiations, areas having special significance for First Nations should be identified as potential special management areas.

19. See Commission on Resources and Environment, 1992-93 Annual Report, Interim Measures Related to Aboriginal Interest in Land and Resources (December 1992), and Aboriginal Participation in Regional Planning (July 1993).

20. These policies were developed by CORE together with an interministry committee and referenced in Commission on Resources and Environment, Finding Common Ground: A Shared Vision for Land Use in British Columbia, (Victoria, 1994).

21. The Ulkatcho Band played a significant role in the establishment of the Anahim Round Table.22. Vancouver Island Regional Process (February 1994); Cariboo-Chilcotin Regional Process

(July 1994); West Kootenay-Boundary Regional Process (October 1994); and East Kootenay Regional Process (October 1994).


vol3


Table of contents

Aboriginal Participation in Community Planning

Three options are available to First Nations when an area is being considered for a community planning process. Each option is described below.

Option 1. No Participation

If First Nations decide that they do not want to participate, the community planning process may choose to go ahead without their involvement. If it does so and a plan is developed, government will need to review the plan with the First Nations who will be affected to determine the implications for aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations. This review of the plan should also discuss how to accommodate affected aboriginal interests and determine the need for interim measures agreements. If interim measures negotiations take place and a government-to-government agreement is reached, then current government policy requires that government consult with the stakeholders and those members of the public who are affected by the agreement.

Option 2. Partial Participation

Partial participation may take the form of observer status or periodic participation. Periodic participation creates difficulties for both the process and the First Nations, since the lack of continuity of one significant party's presence at the table means that issues may need to be revisited. Despite the drawbacks, partial participation does provide the potential for some aboriginal interests to be addressed in the plan, although government must still review the plan on a government-to-government basis with the affected First Nations.

Option 3. Full Participation

Some First Nations may decide to involve themselves fully in the community planning process.








vol3

CORE has recommended that First Nations be invited to participate in the design of the process; in some cases, such as the Anahim Round Table in the Chilcotin, they may want to initiate the process. Full participation has the best potential for ensuring that aboriginal interests are addressed. It also offers the best chance of producing a stable plan. If aboriginal interests have been adequately addressed in the development of the plan, there will likely be less need to adjust it because of implications for aboriginal rights or treaty negotiations. Whether or not aboriginal interests are addressed in the plan, government cannot assume that First Nations participation constitutes agreement and should review the plan in a formal way on a government-to-government basis for the reasons noted above in options 1 and 2. However, with full participation by First Nations, the government-to-government review is likely to be a straightforward matter.

Whichever of the three options First Nations decide upon, two consistent themes are common to all of them. First, the plan developed through the community planning process must be reviewed on a government-to-government basis to determine the implications for aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations. Second, if an interim measures agreement is required to accommodate aboriginal interests until treaty settlements, government should consult with stakeholders and members of the public affected by the proposed interim measures agreement before it is ratified. In both cases, the onus is on government to consult with First Nations and other interests, usually separately and independently of the other.

Although it is important that these channels remain open, it may be a better use of resources to provide full support for aboriginal participation in community planning processes at an early stage. (See chapters 5 and 6, for further discussions of First Nations involvement.)

Conclusion

The recommendations in this chapter constitute a framework for addressing aboriginal issues in the context of community planning. The charter and goals provide the standards; the strategic policies detail how the government and First Nations can achieve the desired end points defined by the goals. The regional and local planning recommendations offer ways to address potential prejudice through interim measures agreements negotiated on a government-to-government basis; they also advance pragmatic methods for encouraging and supporting aboriginal participation in land use planning processes.

The framework defined above provides the opportunity for First Nations to become involved in the community planning processes. The more that First Nations participate, the greater the opportunity to share their knowledge of the land. Increased participation also provides the opportunity to accommodate First Nations concerns in the plan. At the same time, the framework allows the government-to-government relationship to continue in order to deal with issues at that level. Once a community-level plan has been developed, First Nations with outstanding aboriginal rights and the provincial government, which has an obligation not to infringe upon those rights, have a supplementary opportunity to discuss the plan on a government-to-government level to ensure against prejudice and to accommodate aboriginal interests.

From CORE's perspective, the benefits of participation for First Nations include the following:


vol3

● Sustainability. Sustainability is an essential protection against prejudice. Today's land use decisions and plans need to ensure sustainability. All aboriginal participants in CORE processes to date have expressed a fundamental interest in sustainable resource use, as current use, will determine what is available to negotiate and pass on to the future.

● Refining objectives to be achieved in treaties. As previously stated, the provincial government has indicated that land use plans will be "an opening position" in treaty negotiations. If First Nations have participated in the creation of these plans, the number of objectives they need to achieve in treaties should be reduced. Moreover, the legislative and political commitment to "without prejudice" land use planning negotiations may help First Nations refine objectives and approaches for treaty-making.

● Land use planning processes provide First Nations with an opportunity to express their interests to third parties, who are often confused by and afraid of the prospect of treaties. New cultural relationships and communication channels can be established in these processes. The model for community planning provides First Nations with an early opportunity to discuss their issues with a full complement of the community, a group not unlike the one that will be established to parallel the treaty negotiation process, thereby ensuring better use of time and resources and a reduction of tensions.

● Land use planning processes are assembling information to support First Nations in the management of their traditional territories.

If First Nations conclude that these or other benefits of their participation in land use planning are worthy of pursuit, and if satisfactory provisions against prejudice are provided, then ways can and will be found to overcome the other barriers to participation. While this is not a simple task, if participation is based on sound objectives and increases the sustainability of the resources that everyone depends on, it is worth the effort to make it work.

Recommendation

1. That in order to encourage aboriginal participation in community planning, the provincial government, in consultation with First Nations, formally adopt the following framework for aboriginal participation in land use and resource management planning:

Framework for Aboriginal Participation in Land Use Planning

Land Use Charter

Aboriginal title and the inherent rights of aboriginal people to self-government will be recognized.

Land Use Goals

To ensure that land use decisions do not infringe on aboriginal rights or prejudice treaty negotiations.

To ensure that planning and management is conducted cooperatively with aboriginal people, where their rights or interests may be affected.


vol3

Strategic Policies

The government of B.C. has recognized aboriginal rights, and they will be protected through treaty negotiations and pre-treaty agreements. The government has stated that treaty negotiations will not be limited by land use planning designations, and that the use of the lands, the ownership of the lands and the jurisdiction to manage the lands in question may change as a result of the treaty negotiations.

Because treaties will take precedence over land use planning designations, it is imperative to encourage aboriginal planning and management decisions in situations where their rights or interests may be affected. Securing early aboriginal participation and identifying and addressing, where possible, their concerns and interests, will lead to more stable land use decisions and less conflict in the subsequent treaty process.

Aboriginal title and the inherent rights of aboriginal people to self-government have been recognized by the government of B.C. Aboriginal rights exist in law and are recognized and affirmed under the Constitution Act of 1982. These rights cannot be unjustifiably infringed on by activities of the Crown or by activities authorized by the Crown. Since the scope and content of aboriginal rights may vary in accordance with the distinct historical use and occupancy of the land, consultation with local aboriginal people must take place in order to ascertain what aboriginal rights may exist. Through government-to-government discussions and negotiations with those aboriginal peoples affected by the activity, it is the policy of the government of B.C. to find mutually agreeable solutions when an activity impacts on an aboriginal right. The following policies will embody this approach.

● The government of B.C. will work cooperatively with First Nations to identify and map their traditional territories or the areas they wish to be consulted on

● Common land and resource inventories, when gathered in traditional territories, should include aboriginal peoples' knowledge and participation

● Land use planning and management processes will respect the provincial government's commitment to work with First Nations on a government-to-government basis and will be without prejudice to aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations

● Planning decisions should be made on a cooperative or shared decision-making basis with major impasses reviewed at the government-to-government level

● Management of land and resources within traditional territories should be conducted on a cooperative basis, recognizing aboriginal peoples' knowledge and practices relevant to sustainable use and conservation of biological diversity

● Approval, tenuring and permitting decisions in traditional territories must demonstrate how aboriginal rights have been accommodated

● First Nations will be encouraged to play a direct role in the implementation and monitoring of plans, decisions and practices

● Training and skills development related to land use planning and management should be available to First Nations.

Regional and Local Planning


vol3

● That discussions be entered with First Nations to determine:● the implications of land use plans for aboriginal rights and treaty negotiations● how to accommodate affected aboriginal interests● the need for interim measures agreements.

● That interim measures negotiations be conducted as necessary before assigning any formal land use designations under the plan to cover such matters as:

● the continuation of traditional uses● joint planning and decision-making processes● jobs and skills training● economic development opportunities, including resource harvesting rights● protection of special areas● protection of sacred areas● land use deferrals if required in special cases.

● That adequate resources be made available to First Nations to ensure that consultation and interim measures negotiations relating to the land use plan are meaningful and balanced.

● That the information gathered for regional and local planning processes be made available, on request and at no cost, to First Nations in the planning area.

● That joint government-to-government land information centres be established to facilitate the sharing of land and resource information. These land information centres should be provided with adequate resources to provide training for First Nations in using the information and to facilitate the gathering of additional information required for interim measures negotiations.

● That First Nations be invited to participate in the design of local land use planning.● That the boundaries of traditional First Nations territories be taken into account when determining

local process boundaries.● That consideration be given, in the course of local planning processes, to designating certain areas as

special management areas for First Nations. Pending finalization of treaty negotiations, areas having special significance for First Nations should be identified as potential special management areas.


vol3


Table of contents

PART 2 - Community Participation

Part I of this report describes the growing trend towards public participation in land use and resource management decision-making through the use of interest-based, consensus-seeking negotiations. These kinds of public participation processes provide an efficient means of balancing environmental, social and economic concerns while incorporating the values and interest of many diverse sectors in society.

The desire by the public to participate in decision-making is expressed perhaps most strongly at the community level. This reflects the fact that decisions at this level have a direct impact on members of the community and can fundamentally shape a community's future. Citizens also tend to be intimately familiar with the full range of land and resource values in the areas surrounding their community and are therefore regarded as valuable sources of information by government decision-makers. The growing demand by communities and government for increased public involvement in decision-making is being expressed for several reasons.

First, decisions are becoming increasingly challenging and complex in terms of their need to reconcile and integrate a wide range of social, economic and environmental values. To develop decisions that are balanced, decision-makers require detailed information on a full range of values and interests. In many cases, this information is best provided by members of the public, who also want assurance that their interests and views have been taken into consideration before a decision is reached.

Second, strategic land use plans are either complete or close to completion over a large area of the province as a result of CORE regional processes and government-initiated Land and Resource Management Plans. In simple terms, these plans determine which areas should be protected to fulfil the objectives of the Protected Areas Strategy, and how remaining areas should be managed to accommodate a full range of economic, social and environmental values. The implementation of








vol3

these plans will require community advice on matters such as refinements to the plan, the application of resource management guidelines, the preparation of more detailed plans and the development of economic transition initiatives.

Third, community-level participation is needed to provide monitoring and oversight to ensure that the direction set out in regional level plans is carried through in their implementation and in the development of more detailed plans.

Finally, community-level processes can provide an effective means of addressing a variety of significant issues that affect communities -- for example, timber supply reviews, land use tenure applications, and the initiation of projects under the Forest Renewal Plan.

The purpose of Part II is to explain how community resource boards can be used as a vehicle to support public participation in land use and resource management decision-making and to develop recommendations based on past experience that will improve support for community resource boards and make them even more effective as consultative bodies.

Chapter 5 explains what a community resource board is, describes the common characteristics of existing community resource boards, summarizes the opportunities and challenges they have faced and suggests a number of important roles they could play in supporting land use and resource management decision-making. The chapter also provides a number of recommendations for supporting and implementing community resource boards, including the continuation of pilot projects and the establishment of a province-wide non-government organization to promote coordination and information exchange.

Chapter 6 provides a detailed description on how to establish and organize a community resource board including recommendations on how to conduct a feasibility assessment, how to structure membership to ensure that a full range of community perspectives is included and how to support a board on an ongoing basis.

The recommendations in Part II reflect CORE's belief that community resource boards are an appropriate vehicle for ensuring balanced, community-based participation and advice on land use and resource management issues. This is not to say that community resource boards are the only means for providing effective public advice. However, for decisions that must balance a wide range of values at a local level, community resource boards that are well organized and supported and represent a full range of community perspectives can be an excellent forum for developing public advice and recommendations.

5 - Defining Community Resource Boards

Community resource boards, local round tables and other community based public advisory groups have emerged in B.C. as a highly effective means of providing public advice and recommendations on complex land and resource decisions. These groups provide a forum in which diverse community perspectives are brought together to help negotiate or otherwise develop resource management solutions that balance economic, social and environmental interests in keeping with


vol3

the best overall long-term interests of the community. They provide an opportunity for communities to shape their future in a way that balances competing values and contributes to stability and maintaining or enhancing the quality of life. Decisions which arise out of community resource boards create a sense of shared responsibility and collective welfare which leads to better, fairer and longer lasting decisions.

To date, there are an estimated 40 community resource boards or round tables,23 in British Columbia - most being grass roots initiatives to which citizens volunteer time and resources to develop advice on various land and resource decisions and to promote sustainability in their communities.

In establishing community resource boards across the province, citizens from a wide array of interests have signaled their support for open, negotiated approaches to resolving land use and resource management problems. The development of consensus recommendations by the Chilko Planning Team, the Anahim Round Table, and in recent years by the Cariboo Local Advisory Council, the West Strathcona Local Advisory Committee and the Height of the Rockies Committee, demonstrate that community-based groups can reach agreements on land and resource use that accommodate a diverse range of interests. (See chapter 3 for a discussion of this experience.)

The Concept of Community

The term "community" has broad definition. It can refer to all life (the global village), to the nation (a community of communities), to an administrative area defined by boundaries established for the purpose of governance (cities, villages, regional districts, provinces), to a group of people who all identify with the same place or to those who share common interests and values (a religious group, professional organization).

For an individual, "community" may serve as a way to identify with a larger group of which he or she is part while the larger group itself may be defined and joined by the identifying features of its members. Most often, community means shared values and interests and a common sense of identity.

Different people experience their sense of community in different ways. People may feel strong bonds to their neighbors or they may share little else other than a common desire to live and work in the same area.

It can sometimes be difficult for people to agree that they are a community, especially when the only interest in common is the interest in a place. For example, during two years of discussions at the Slocan Valley CORE pilot project, the participants were never able to agree on a definition of community. They were not brought together by a sense of shared identity, but instead by the recognition that they each felt


vol3

affected by the matters under consideration, and had a common interest in working together to address those matters.

A recognition of the value and benefit of community resource boards has been reflected in the recommendations put forward by participants in the CORE regional land use planning processes. The East Kootenay and West Kootenay-Boundary CORE tables for example, both recommended the creation of community resource boards to oversee implementation of their plans. As well, the groups established by CORE as community-based pilot projects in the Slocan Valley and the West Chilcotin have expressed a commitment to playing an ongoing role in planning for sustainability at the community level.

In developing its decision for the Vancouver Island and Cariboo-Chilcotin regional land use plans, the provincial government also recognized the benefit of initiating resource boards as ongoing public advisory bodies for implementing these plans. The decision on the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan for example calls for the establishment of a regional resource board to "provide local involvement in the implementation of the land use plan and to identify impacts of land-use decisions." The government is supporting the creation of five community resource boards on Vancouver Island to participate in the implementation of the Vancouver Island plan.

CORE also recommended in volume 1 of the Provincial Land Use Strategy that a legal foundation for community resource boards be included as part of the proposed Sustainability Act.

King Arthur's Round Table

The use of the term "round table" to describe negotiated multiparty agreements appears to have originated with the legend of King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table in the sixth century. Determined to gain dominance, the knights resorted to slaying each other. King Arthur responded with still more violence, slaughtering the relatives of the offending knights.

An ingenious remedy to end the violence was attributed, in some versions of the legend, to a wise carpenter from Cornwall. Realizing that violence would only perpetuate the conflict, he offered to build an enormous table, capable of seating a large number of knights, where they could gather and have a say in matters at hand. He suggested, moreover, that the table be round to symbolize the equality of its members-no head of the table to covet, no hierarchy in the kingdom to climb.

King Arthur agreed, and the massive round table was built. The round table did more than end the violence - it inspired a feeling of brotherhood among the knights. They came to see themselves as belonging to a community of knights whose interests were shared and whose welfare was the responsibility of all. An era of cooperation


vol3

followed and Arthur was credited with uniting the Celtic tribes through his innovative rule.

With King Arthur's legend as its beginning, the idea of a round table has come to symbolize peace, unity and egalitarian decision-making through inclusion of all and dominance of none.

Characteristics of Community Resource Boards

A community resource board is a group of people structured in such a way as to represent a full range of the resource interests and values in a community and who come together to develop advice and recommendations on land use and resource management issues. Community resource boards serve as a valuable touchstone for government agencies who are seeking advice on complex decisions. They provide a forum where community representatives can identify and develop objectives and strategies for resource management which balance environmental, social and economic interests. To fulfill this role effectively, community resource boards must ensure that they include the full range of community perspectives. At the point where community resource boards fail to provide adequate representation, it will be necessary for government to seek other sources of public advice.

Community resource boards can vary considerably in how they are organized and in the roles they play. They can operate as standing bodies that provide advice to government agencies and other organizations on an ongoing basis. The Creston Public Advisory Committee, which was established in 1977 as a community group to provide advice on forestry and land use issues, is an example of a community resource board that serves as a standing body.

Community resource boards can be appointed as representative bodies to oversee the implementation of approved land use plans as is the case for Vancouver Island and the Cariboo-Chilcotin and as was recommended by the participants in the East Kootenay and West Kootenay-Boundary planning processes.

Community resource boards can also be established to provide public advice and input to a specific project such as a resource management plan. The Anahim Round Table and the Slocan Round Table are both examples of community resource boards that were established to provide advice on the completion of resource management plans. Advice and recommendations in these kinds of processes are usually developed through intensive interest-based negotiation continuing over an extended period of time. Frequently these processes are supported by administrative funding, technical information and government staff. Participants contribute their time and perspectives, determine areas of common ground on an issue or policy area, and then work with government to incorporate the outcome into a final decision. The intent is to develop as much agreement as possible at the local level, where the implications of land use are most directly experienced.

While community resource boards are intended to provide a good representation of the public interest at a community level, they are by no means the only vehicle that can be used to achieve this kind of public advice. Open houses, public hearings, written submissions and public surveys


vol3

are all examples of other methods that can be used to acquire public input. However, the following circumstances are examples where community resource boards are likely to be the most appropriate form of public consultation:

● a number of different interest sectors are affected by a resource management decision and express a desire to participate in the development of the decision

● government planners are preparing a comprehensive land or resource use plan for an area which will set management objectives and strategies that integrate diverse values

● there is a high level of community commitment to and interest in participating in major land use planning initiatives or economic initiatives such as those under Forest Renewal B.C.

● an approved strategic plan is being implemented in an area with a requirement for public oversight and advice

● there is a history of land and resource use conflict arising from commercial development or other industrial activities and there is a need to integrate diverse perspectives.

Although community resource boards vary significantly in the way they are organized and the functions they carry out, there are a number of common features that contribute to their success.

Voluntary, purpose-driven

A community resource board is a representative group of community interests formed to address resource management issues of common concern to the members of the community. Individuals and organizations elect to participate in community resource boards by their own choice. While government should encourage and support community resource boards, the impetus must come from members of the community who want to participate in decisions being made about land use and resource management. Participants volunteer time and energy to work together to establish a community resource board in a way that meets specific local needs.

Community resource boards often are established for a specific purpose and then carry on to provide an ongoing role in overseeing the implementation of land use plans and providing advice on resource management issues that affect community interests.

Representative of the full spectrum of relevant interests

One of the key features of a community resource board is balanced representation of all affected interests. It is not a closed group, but instead seeks to have representation from the full range of community perspectives. Those with recognized interests in the use of land and resources work together to develop recommendations that satisfy the range of needs and are also acceptable to the larger community. In this way a more enduring agreement is likely to emerge.

A community resource board that doesn't include a full range of representation is unlikely to have legitimacy in the eyes of the community it seeks to represent. Instead it will be seen as a "stacked" or "special interest" group whose input needs to be counterbalanced by other groups or perspectives missing from its membership. If a community resource board comprises only a few single-interest groups, its work may lack credibility, fail to gain public acceptance or lead to


vol3

decisions that are controversial, thereby continuing community conflict instead of resolving it.

Consensus-building, integrative, interest-based

Recommendations by community resource boards are developed through an interactive, problem-solving approach known as interest-based negotiation. The motivation for different interest groups to participate is based on the assumption that each one will see more of their issues addressed in a satisfactory way if they work together than would be the case if each group gave its ideas separately to government planners to work out the plan in isolation. When apparent incompatibility of values and goals make it uncomfortable for people to work face-to-face, interest-based negotiation makes it easier to find common ground and build a solution everyone can accept. Further discussion of negotiated approaches to problem-solving is contained in chapter 3.

Full consensus on all issues need not be reached for a process to result in better, fairer decisions. Board members have an opportunity to fully air their values and ideas so that other interest groups and government staff understand them and the reasons they are considered important. Recent experience has demonstrated that the parties may resolve some issues by agreement and agree to disagree on others. On matters where consensus is not possible, a community resource board can still narrow the scope of disagreement and suggest the range of solutions which accommodate the most interests possible, richly informing those who are then responsible for making decisions.

Advisory to government

One of the strengths of community resource boards is their potential to promote communication and forge connections between community interests and all levels of government. Citizens contribute to the boards by identifying issues and bringing information and know-how to the table; and the various levels of government undertake to participate in a multiparty process to develop advice and recommendations that meet as broad a range of interests as possible.

Community resource boards enable people to work with representatives of governments and to develop advice for government decision-makers about community preferences and priorities for land use and resource management. Participation in planning and implementation may be very structured or very informal, but in either case the board is linked in an advisory way to the decision-making process.

Government staff responsible for planning and decision-making are not always able to balance and integrate the diversity of public values. A community resource board allows a full range of public perspectives to be applied to the issues during the development and implementation of a plan or decision. At the same time, it provides an opportunity to develop better and more stable decisions by incorporating local knowledge, experience and values. The emphasis of resource management is shifting away from a narrow often single use perspective to a much broader perspective that includes the interests and values of the whole community.

Community resource boards are an ideal mechanism to express the interests and values of the whole community and to achieve social, environmental and economic objectives by merging


vol3

technical information with the different values and interests put forward in land use or resource management decision-making processes.

Accountable to the Public

Community resource boards seek to inject a wide range of public values into land use and resource management decision-making through participants who represent diverse community interests. There are a variety of ways in which representation can be achieved, and one of the key responsibilities of board members is to be accountable to the people or values they represent and to the general public. If members lose touch with their constituencies or the values they are promoting, or if the community resource board itself becomes remote from the community, this can quickly compromise the credibility of the board as a vehicle for representing public values in resource planning and management decisions.

Accountability may be reinforced by ensuring an open process that is widely accessible to the general public. Holding meetings that are open to the public, providing media briefings, developing public mail-outs, communicating regularly with constituent groups attached to the process, and making arrangements for citizens to address community resource board meetings will all increase public awareness and understanding of the issues that are being addressed and the decisions that will be made.

23. British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Commission on Resources and Environment, and Fraser Basin Management Program and National Round Table, Local Round Tables: Realizing Their Full Potential (June, 1994) p. 20.


vol3


Table of contents

Opportunities and Challenges

Over the past three years, CORE has gained considerable experience in managing public participation processes - the Anahim and Slocan Valley local round tables and the Vancouver Island, Cariboo-Chilcotin, West Kootenay-Boundary and East Kootenay regional planning tables.

Each of these experiences has provided important lessons on the opportunities and challenges that present themselves in an intensive public participation planning process. A summary of the strengths and weaknesses experienced in these planning processes is as follows:

Strengths

● increased awareness, understanding and appreciation by participants of one another's interests and values

● development of a framework for completing land use plans (land use designation system, management guidelines, resource valuation tools, mapping techniques, etc.)

● consensus on recommendations in some cases and a narrowing of the issues and conflict in others● an understanding and appreciation of land use planning processes and the information and analysis

required to support in decision-making● compilation of vast amounts of technical information and information on sector values and interests● improved coordination among government agencies● improved relationships and respect between members of the public and public officials

Weaknesses

● lack of a clarity in aspects of the planning framework including clear terms of reference, project milestones and supporting tools (e.g., a defined land use designation system)

● too much time devoted to working out process details and not enough dedicated to negotiating








vol3

specific land and resource interests● lack of clear policies respecting protected area targets and the fit between local and regional planning

processes with other policy initiatives (e.g., Forest Practices Code, Forest Renewal B.C., and timber supply reviews)

● lack of familiarity with interest-based negotiation techniques and complex land use planning processes● inadequate communication with the broader public.

These strengths and weaknesses provide important lessons for the future design of community resource boards and planning processes.

Notwithstanding the weaknesses identified in these past processes, consensus-seeking approaches have proven to be effective in addressing and resolving sustainability issues at the community level and in providing advice on land and resource management. Whether or not full consensus was reached by the participants in these processes, they did make a significant contribution to the quality of land and resource management decisions based largely on the following features.

Democratic and Fair

Community resource boards provide an opportunity for a full range of interests to be heard and for decision-makers to receive balanced information and, where possible, for community interests to develop consensus recommendations. Community members are empowered to participate directly in developing solutions which meet their needs, and decision-makers are empowered as those community members take responsibility for reconciling their own, often conflicting, needs and reaching integrated solutions. Widespread support makes the solutions easier for government to implement.

Effective

Community resource boards can produce more stable and longer-term decisions because when participants resolve issues they take ownership of the outcome. Decisions to create a new park or approve a new development are usually broadly supported when they are based on a consensus decision of a broadly represented community resource board. Even if they reach impasse on some points, participants will have had an opportunity to narrow their differences and gain a full understanding of each other's interests in a respectful forum. Government decision-makers can then build on the agreements achieved and have the advantage of working with as much information as possible when addressing the unresolved issues.

Integrated

Reconciling social, economic and environmental values is essential to sustainability, and community resource boards are a means of reconciling these values while building public support for the outcome. They provide an opportunity for members of the community to discuss related issues and to develop stable, balanced and enduring solutions.


vol3

Community resource boards enable government agencies to seek public advice on specific initiatives, and offer opportunities for coordination and cooperation of government agencies, thereby avoiding separate and repetitive public consultation processes for each resource management decision. For example, a community resource board can provide focused and comprehensive advice to government on a variety of different decisions ranging from fish and wildlife quotas to access development plans to forest harvesting plans to commercial backcountry recreation tenure allocations. Typically, these decisions have been dealt with as separate processes, limiting the capacity to address interrelated issues and placing a greater burden on government resources.

Efficient

Community resource boards may appear to take more time, effort and resources than some other public involvement processes. However, a single multi-stakeholder process can be more efficient in time, cost, staff and volunteer resources than processes that produce conflicting results and require constant revision or review. They become time- and cost-effective because they generate more stable results that are supported across a broad range of interests. And once established, channels of communication remain open so that changed circumstances or new information can be factored into updated decisions, and problems that arise can be addressed quickly and efficiently.

Informed

Participants in community resource boards bring together a vast amount of experience and local knowledge. When working collaboratively, participants are able to more clearly define the issues that require resolution as well as potential solutions that will work in the local circumstances. Community resource boards also offer participants an opportunity to assist in mutually identifying issues and testing critical assumptions and give access to a wide range of analytical tools and methods which can be used to measure and balance these values.

Community resource boards provide a forum where technical information can be presented and explained and understood by all participants. To the extent that participants communicate with constituency groups, this understanding can also be extended out into the larger community.

Enhanced Communication

Conflicts over public policy and sustainability issues are often based on genuine fears, distrust and a lack of understanding. Simple decisions or actions may be misinterpreted or developed without an understanding or consideration of community interests which in turn may lead to anxiety throughout a community or within specific sectors. Community resource boards provide an effective public forum for communicating beliefs and concerns. They also provide a forum where participants who have traditionally been in conflict can begin to gain an understanding and appreciation of one another's interests and values.

In many cases the apparent actions of government agencies are at issue, and round table discussions can help clear the air and provide everyone with a similar level of understanding.


vol3

Moreover, the policies and procedures that direct public servants are not always clearly understood and round table discussions can provide an opportunity for clarification.

Increased Accountability

Often when citizens visit a government office or attend a public meeting to discuss issues of importance to them, it is difficult to follow through with a public official to ensure their concerns are addressed. Community resource board discussions provide public officials with an opportunity to establish ongoing relationships with citizens and to make their decisions and actions transparent, and thereby enhance the accountability of government. By discussing issues and working towards their resolution, participants have an opportunity to understand how they have been addressed. Where other interests must be taken into account, citizens and government officials can be clear about the steps they have taken to balance responsibilities and meet multiple needs.

Community resource boards can also enhance accountability among participants. If, as is recommended in chapter 1, there is an obligation for participants in a public process to adhere to a code of conduct, then it can be expected that participants will hold one another accountable to that standard. To the extent that the members of a community resource board do not maintain appropriate standards of conduct and broad representation, governments may elect to pursue other avenues of consultation.

The Role of Community Resource Boards in Decision-Making

Community resource boards can serve as valuable public participation bodies for a variety of land use and resource management processes including:

● land and resource plans● other resource management initiatives● community and settlement planning● consultation with First Nations.

Land and Resource Planning

Land use planning occurs at a variety of geographic levels ranging from broad regional land use plans to detailed site specific development plans. Larger scale plans generally provide guidance and strategic direction to more detailed plans. For example, where regional land use plans have been completed, they provide direction in terms of broad land use designations and management objectives to local resource plans. Similarly, where local resource use plans have been completed, they provide direction to site specific development plans in terms of specifying the objectives and targets that govern development activities.

Community resource boards can play a key role in the development of land and resource use plans by serving as a multi-stakeholder forum to provide advice and recommendations on issues involving multiple resource values. They can serve as standing bodies that provide advice on an ongoing basis or they can be organized as a project-specific advisory group mandated to develop


vol3

recommendations through an interest-based negotiation process.

Community resource boards can also play an important role in implementation and oversight once land use plans have been completed. For example, when strategic management objectives are translated into directions for operational development plans, a board can provide on-going oversight to help ensure that the strategic intent is implemented on the ground and also to assist in the resolution of site-specific problems that may arise in the practice of integrated resource management.

Land use planning processes that would benefit from input by community resource boards could include any of the following:

● regional and subregional plans● local resource plans● park management plans● plan implementation and oversight.

Regional and Subregional Plans

Regional and subregional plans are large scale strategic plans that provide land use designations and management guidance for more detailed levels of planning.24 These plans encompass large areas of land and often include many communities (e.g., Vancouver Island). Accordingly, the role of a community resource board in regional or subregional planning may be to provide advice and recommendations on land use and resource management for specific areas within the larger area, to have one or more members of the community resource board represent the community's interests at a regional or subregional planning table, or to assist with the implementation of a larger scale plan once it has been approved by providing local level advice and oversight.


Community resource boards can play an essential role in developing local resource plans. These plans, while conforming with higher-level plans, establish strategic objectives in a smaller area in order to provide specific direction for operational activities. Local resource plans seek to resolve conflicts for areas such as watersheds, groups of watersheds, travel corridors, recreation areas and wildlife areas. The process usually involves integrating and prioritizing resource values to address issues such as coordinated resource development or management plans for watersheds, ecological reserves, and wildlife management areas. These plans cover areas as large as several hundred thousand hectares or as small as a watershed with a drainage of a few square kilometers.

A community resource board can also provide advice on total resource plans which are very detailed and specific and are guided by the strategic directions set out in higher level plans. Total resource plans are usually prepared by technical specialists who seek public review and comment once the plan has been drafted. Standing community resource boards can serve as a valuable advisory group for review and comment on draft plans. In highly contentious areas, community


vol3

resource boards can provide advice and develop recommendations aimed at resolving conflict.

With the introduction of the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act, local resource planning will become more systematic and public involvement will likely take on increased significance. A community resource board is an effective means of meeting the Code's requirement to involve members of the public in forest planning processes.

The Forest Practices Code

The Forest Practices Code legislates a planning framework for all provincial forest lands, prescribing strategic and operational planning processes to establish management objectives as well as forest practices designed to achieve those objectives. The Code specifies that planning processes should be guided by the principle of integrated resource management - that is, the consideration of social, economic, and environmental needs - and that forest planning should incorporate these values by conserving biological diversity, maintaining ecosystem productivity, and meeting the needs of an economically viable and sustainable forest industry.

Whereas, in the past, planning was left to the discretion of government resource agencies, in particular the Ministry of Forests, it is now a requirement under the Forest Practices Code. Broad-scale land-use decisions and management objectives must be determined through government-approved strategic planning processes and documented in strategic plans. Landscape-level objectives and practices must be established through government-approved operational planning processes and ensure the application of the management objectives specified in strategic plans.

A guiding principle of the Forest Practices Code is that public involvement is a key element of the planning process. At the strategic planning level, public participation can assist with evaluating and assigning resource use and establishing integrated resource management objectives and priorities; at the operational level, where strategic direction is translated into field practices, public review and input can help ensure consistency with strategic plan objectives.

The Forest Practices Code also addresses the management of community watersheds for which regulations and field guides are currently being prepared. Under the proposed regulations, the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks will coordinate total resource planning for community watersheds where resource development is contemplated. Community watershed management plans would assess the natural characteristics of the land, existing uses and the sensitivity of the area, and then set landscape objectives, define watershed rehabilitation requirements, and identify areas for timber production and long-term development.


vol3

While much of the community watershed management planning process may be more technical than strategic in nature, a community resource board could provide valuable information about different values in the planning area. Although the planning emphasis might be on protecting domestic water supplies while permitting resource development, members of the public could bring other considerations to the process. For example, logging that does not affect water quality, quantity or timing of flow could affect a visual corridor or wildlife winter range. As well, few issues cause more conflict than the concerns of private landowners about their water supply. Logging, grazing or other activities on Crown land that affect stream headwaters or the aquifer have the potential to polarize a community, and a community resource board could play an important part by distributing accurate information, explaining technical assessments in lay terms and carrying out other public outreach initiatives.

Protected Area Designations and Management Plans

The provincial Protected Areas Strategy calls for the protection of areas that represent the natural diversity of the province and areas that contain special natural, cultural heritage and recreational features such as rock cairns, abandoned village sites, or hot springs.

Protected area recommendations are made with advice provided by the public either through consultation by a group of government officials known as the regional protected areas team (RPAT) or through regional and subregional planning processes such as government sponsored land and resource management plans (LRMPs) or the CORE regional land use planning processes. By working through a community resource board, the planning process can incorporate local knowledge about possible sites and the values that exist there.

Once a decision has been made to designate a specific protected area, there is still a requirement to develop a management plan. Such a management plan sets out the land use priorities, objectives and guidelines which in turn form the basis for establishing appropriate uses within the area. As the Protected Area Strategy states, "the public will have a critical role to play in determining the management of these areas."25 Accordingly, community resource boards can make a valuable contribution to the planning for new protected areas.

24. Subregional plans are often referred to as land and resource management plans (LRMPs). LRMP plans guide more detailed planning such as local resource plans and operational plans. Twelve LRMPs currently are being prepared or have been completed by bodies whose membership comprises government resource managers, timber and other resource licensees, public interest stakeholders and local governments. Some LRMPs operate using community resource boards - for example, Bulkley Valley and Robson Valley. Land and Resource Management Plans cover an area of approximately 15,000 to 25,000 square kilometers (typically the size of a forest district), and participants in the LRMP program include eight provincial ministries and two federal departments. The provincial ministries are Aboriginal Affairs; Agriculture; Fisheries and Food; Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources;


vol3

Environment, Lands and Parks; Forests; Municipal Affairs; Small Business, Tourism and Culture; and Transportation and Highways. The federal agencies are Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Wildlife Service.

25. Province of British Columbia, A Protected Areas Strategy for British Columbia, (Victoria, 1993).



vol3


Table of contents

The Relationship Between Community Resource Boards and Government

Governments have a moral and in many instances a legal responsibility to ensure that the public interest is represented in the decisions it makes. For many types of resource management decisions, community resource boards provide an opportunity to help define the public interest.

Federal, provincial and local governments are all currently involved with community resource boards. Each level of government has a different mandate, which shapes its relationship with a community resource board and how it may choose to participate at a planning table. Where a particular government or agency is the decision-maker, it may choose to sponsor a community resource board to provide advice and recommendations with respect to a required resource management decision. In other matters where it does not have direct jurisdiction and authority, a government or agency may wish to participate as an interested stakeholder. A government agency's role as a sponsor or initiator of a community resource board usually entails support in terms of providing staff, technical information and administrative resources.

When a government or government agency has decision-making authority for an issue being addressed by a community resource board, its participation in the process is critical. This does not necessarily mean that government needs to participate directly as a stakeholder, but rather that it should be involved with the process to ensure that participants have a clear understanding of their role in the process and are equipped with the resources necessary to develop their input. In a process where the community resource board is responsible for developing a plan through a shared decision-making process, government may choose to participate directly as one of the sectors at the table attempting to achieve consensus. If the sponsoring government agency is absent from the process, participants may negotiate an agreement that does not comply with existing government policy or fails to address government's fiscal or administrative interests and constraints. This in turn may result in an inability on the part of government to proceed with the agreement, thereby creating resentment and conflict with participants.








vol3

How government participates in a community resource board can vary based on the circumstances. One option in a complex land and resource planning processes is to have each participating federal and provincial agency designate a resource manager as a representative and as part of a technical team supporting the process. This method is used in many of the LRMP processes and at the CORE Anahim Round Table.

Another option is to use the above approach, but to select a limited number of government staff to represent all the agencies and to provide technical support. A third option is for government to designate a "corporate" representative who speaks on behalf of all government agencies and who is supported by a technical team. This method was used for the CORE regional tables and the Slocan Valley pilot project.

In other less complex resource decisions, government does not need to be as directly involved with a community resource board. Government staff may find it efficient and useful to rely on the participants as a source of specific information or a sounding board; for example, Forest Renewal B.C. could seek advice on applications for funding, or the agency staff carrying out the timber supply analysis in the area might wish to present the draft analysis to the board for feedback.

One of the most important benefits of government's involvement with a community resource board is the development of an on-going relationship which ensures effective two-way communication. Such a relationship provides an opportunity for an understanding by participants about the resource use issues that government must address, and an understanding by government of the full range of perspectives that exist within a community.

The more that government is involved in encouraging, supporting, and participating in a community resource board's activities, the more likely that conflict between government and the public will be prevented or resolved since community resource boards provide an opportunity for developing good communication by engaging in candid, face-to-face discussion and understanding the needs and interests of different community perspectives. Citizens can also benefit from understanding the decision-making process - including laws, regulations, policy and financial considerations - that supports government decision-making. It is also useful for citizens to understand the consequences of resource management decisions and to share in the responsibility for making them.

Partners in Participation: Implementing Community Resource Boards

Community resource boards are comprised of community representatives who are committed to dedicating their time and efforts to advise on and be involved in negotiating recommendations on various aspects of land use and resource management.

Community "will" is clearly the most essential ingredient for success of community resource boards which derive their energy from grass-roots interest and dedication by citizens. To complement this local democratic energy, CORE has recommended in previous volumes of this Provincial Land Use Strategy that implementing community resource boards might be encouraged by providing them with the support necessary to function successfully. The specific types of support that have been provided in the past to facilitate constructive involvement, and which are likely to be required in


vol3

future, include the following:

● administrative (secretarial, etc.)● facilitation and mediation (at critical points in negotiations)● orientation and training (for example in interest-based negotiation and planning processes)● communication (for newsletters, etc.)● technical support (for GIS, inventory, etc.)● funding (for participant out-of-pocket expenses).

Discussion of support presents the issue of how this can be reconciled with the "grass-roots" nature of community resource boards as well as with concerns about financial efficiency and limitations. Specifically, it raises a series of questions such as:

● What level of service is adequate, reasonable and affordable?● How and where can these services be most efficiently and affordably delivered?● How should these services be budgeted for?

Supporting Community Resource Boards

Because the answers to the above questions are not clear, the following sections present concepts for how these support services might be provided as part of a "partnership" between communities and sponsoring agencies. While experience with community resource boards to date has provided an indication of how they can be most effectively structured and the range of tasks they can usefully engage in, the most efficient and effective means of support for them can benefit from further consideration. Accordingly, CORE proposes to continue to support selected community resource boards on a pilot project basis while continuing to work with government to refine ways of most effectively supporting them on an ongoing basis. Presented below are preliminary ideas on how support for community resource boards might be provided through government agencies, together with a preliminary outline of how the next phase of pilot projects can proceed.

Administrative Support

Community resource boards, like any other organization, require sound administrative support if they are to operate efficiently and effectively. They require the range of services that any type of committee requires - meeting organization, notices, agendas, minutes, proceedings, word processing and report preparation, report distribution, follow up, communications and so on.

Given that the primary purpose of community resource boards is to advise on various aspects of local land use and resource management, a suitable local organization that can efficiently provide support for them seems necessary. Because land use and resource management plans are typically undertaken at the "district" level of provincial agencies, the use of well distributed offices such as those of the Ministry of Forests or, alternatively, Government Agents to provide reasonable administrative support services appears logical. This is not to imply that community resource boards are necessarily geographically the same as current administrative districts. Community structure and other needs within an administrative district might indicate that two or more


vol3

community resource boards are appropriate. However, districts have the practical advantages of known locations, structures, agency contacts, available facilities and links to the regional and provincial levels of the decision system.

Demands for support services will typically compete with other priorities in a district office. Hence, it would seem necessary to designate a planning officer or other official to work with the community resource board to ensure that service requirements can be coordinated and kept at a feasible level. A community resource board will likely incrementally increase work loads of both professional and office staff in district offices - especially when major planning or other projects are particularly active - and that will have to be considered in internal budgeting. To ensure budgeting occurs, it will be necessary to identify the responsible agency. Where community resource boards act as advisory bodies for local governments or federal agencies, presumably those bodies would provide or contribute to necessary administrative support. It is anticipated that the community resource board itself would also be volunteering the services of its representatives and their organizations, wherever possible.

Facilitating Establishment of Community Resource Boards

As noted earlier in this report, many community resource boards or equivalent bodies have been organized by communities in response to their own instincts. "Community will" has been the driving force behind their formation and activities and this initiative is fundamental to their success.

Nonetheless, advice may be required to help facilitate the establishment of new community resource boards where there is either a desire or a need. The need might be identified by various agencies, a local government, or the community itself. Agencies might actively seek the formation of a standing, multi-stakeholder advisory group to assist them with their planning processes and other activities. Existing bodies might potentially want guidance as how to best broaden or adapt their functions to become a community resource board.

A couple of approaches to initial facilitation are possible. One would be to establish a small unit with a modest staff which conceivably could be attached to an existing body like the Resource Management Division (RMD) or CORE, to serve as a source of advice and information. The second would be to convene information workshops. For example, after some initial contact and exploration in each district, representatives from existing and potential community resource boards could be brought together in regional workshops. These citizen representatives could sit down with interagency management committees (IAMCs), ministry and CORE representatives to

● review the community resource board concept and proposals for their operation● identify priority issues● identify priority needs regarding formation, support and establishment of individual community

resource boards.

This would offer some guidance on overall program direction and also help community resource boards, interested parties and agencies to more specifically define support requirements.


vol3

Mediation

Where community resource boards are engaged in interest-based negotiations, it is possible that mediation services may be required periodically throughout the course of the project. Consultants or specialist staff might be drawn upon for these services or they could be budgeted as a requirement of a specific project - such as developing a strategic land use plan.

Orientation and Training

Orientation and training flow from the facilitation and mediation roles. Once a community has a firm interest in a community resource board, orientation and training could be provided to review the concepts, roles, responsibilities, available support and all other aspects of community resource boards with potential participants.

An orientation workshop would be a hands-on activity that would help deal with applying the guidelines for balanced membership, selection of representatives, provisions for community outreach and consultation, and other topics. It would also deal with the important question - "Does this community want a community resource board or would other public consultation methods be more appropriate?" Initial workshops would confirm a willingness of prospective participants to "buy in" to the goals of a proposed community resource board, and its proposed procedures and guidelines for conduct.

If the decision is to proceed with a government supported community resource board, and if interest-based negotiations are to be used, training needs could be jointly assessed with the participants. Based on the findings, specific training in interest-based negotiation as well as overview training on essential aspects of land use planning and management could also be provided - with emphasis on identifying key areas where the community resource board would contribute to the project.

Communications

Community resource boards have communication needs, both internal and external, with both the various constituencies and the broader community. Proper attention to these needs, and particularly communication with the general public, is fundamental to legitimacy and success.

Community resource board projects and negotiations will also entail internal exchange of working documents and committee reports, and will thus require administrative support. While participating as representatives of various sectoral perspectives, community resource board members may require access to fax, e-mail, postal services and telephone services to reach constituency members, both to report and obtain advice or direction. To minimize cost it should utilize rather than duplicate, existing channels.

A community resource board, while endeavoring to represent the full range of community perspectives, also has specific needs to reach the community as a whole. Regular columns in the local press, newsletters or broadsheets on key projects are all possible. A community resource


vol3

board may also sponsor workshops, open houses or other forums which could entail expenses. These can be anticipated and budgeted for in the planning of individual projects.



vol3


Table of contents

6 - Running Community Resource Boards

This section is a guide for those who want to know how to set up a community resource board or adapt an existing citizens' group to become one. It is intended to provide a practical understanding of how a board is structured and operates, drawing on ideas and experience gained by CORE in its pilot projects and from a wide variety of other sources.

Getting Started

Any person or group can initiate the process of setting up a board - community members, a coordinating government agency working with community members, or an interagency team from those ministries that have responsibility for resource management. Whatever group or individual takes on the role of convener and does the groundwork to get the board started needs to be aware that significant time and resources are required to carry out the work, and the degree of success is likely to correspond to the extent of the efforts that can be made at this start-up stage. The project will benefit from a team approach in which tasks can be shared and options canvassed before decisions are made.

The conveners of the process to set up a community resource board will have three main tasks: complete a feasibility assessment, carry out organizational work, and develop operational guidelines. These tasks are described below. While they are discussed sequentially, in practice progress is made on each of them concurrently, and the outcome in one task affects the other tasks. For example, determining who should be involved and whether they want to participate (the feasibility assessment) is affected by the structure of the process (operational guidelines) and information gathered during the organizing process (organizational work).

Feasibility Assessment








vol3

A feasibility assessment is used to determine that several important prerequisites are in place in the community before the community resource board goes ahead:

● the government is carrying out work and seeks public involvement● a community resource board is the appropriate model for public participation● there is public support for a community resource board● the key participants have been identified and are prepared to become involved.

Assessing the feasibility of establishing a community resource board is probably the most important step in the start-up process because it will reveal whether there is the support that is necessary for it to succeed. If the assessment reveals critical gaps, efforts may need to be redirected towards doing more groundwork, or determining that another form of public involvement may be more appropriate in the situation.

The conveners will have some important questions when conducting a feasibility assessment. These questions can be raised with potential participants while the initial organizing work is being carried out.

Identify the purpose for which the community resource board is to be formed

Community resource boards are purpose-driven. In order to sustain the significant commitment needed from participants and the support of government, everyone must understand the purpose for which the board is being set up and how that purpose will be accomplished. Government can justify an allocation of staff and financial resources to assist in organizing a board when there is a clear link between the tasks proposed for the board to deal with and how the government's work will be enhanced by public involvement.

Government staff make decisions about resource management issues all the time. They develop policies and plans to provide direction for day-to-day operations, strategic plans for resource management, operational plans that implement strategic direction on the ground, and settlement plans. Government also carries out day-to-day management and decision-making on a wide range of permitting, tenuring and regulatory matters. Some of these activities are obvious candidates for public involvement through a community resource board and indeed many existing boards are actively involved in addressing them. Particularly where government planning processes are being organized, or a completed plan is being implemented, public participation is sought. Even more site-specific or one-time decisions may be efficiently addressed by a community resource board.

Where citizens take the initiative in forming a community resource board, the initial contact with government can be to seek support in principle for forming the board and to explore avenues for providing input into future planning and decision-making. It is vital to set up strong lines of communication early so that the participants can tap into established avenues of public participation and integrate them into the potential board initiatives.

Confirm support for the community resource board model


vol3

Another assessment question to consider is whether members of the public are prepared to commit the energy and time needed to make a community resource board successful. Work or family responsibilities may prevent people from committing to a process that requires frequent constituency meetings and monthly board meetings, and which may carry on for an extended period of time. A related question is the level, degree and type of participation that will be most effective and efficient given the desired outcome, as there are other ways to provide an opportunity for meaningful participation in decisions about resource management without taking on the amount of work involved in a community resource board. The report of the B.C. Round Table on public involvement in decision-making32 and the discussion in chapter 2 of this report can offer guidance when considering which model is best in a specific situation.

Gauge support of all necessary parties to the process

A community resource board usually has three different kinds of participants: those with formal responsibility for the decision; those affected by or concerned about the possible outcome; and those with the ability to obstruct or influence a possible outcome. One way to identify participants is to ask potential participants to identify problems that they believe need to be addressed, and whether other people are concerned about the same problems, even if they do not agree. It is also useful to ask people whether they think an issue could be addressed most effectively by face-to-face discussions with other stakeholders.

The conveners should encourage participation by any group which could prevent a consensus decision from being reached. In order to motivate such people to participate and negotiate with other members, they need to believe that the board is the most effective and efficient way to achieve their goal; if they can achieve this outcome without having to negotiate a solution with others, they are not likely to be motivated to participate. On the other hand, if they were blocked in achieving their objectives by stakeholders wanting a different outcome, or if not participating increased the possibility that an undesirable (to them) outcome might result, they could decide to try working out a solution at the table.

The conveners can also communicate with anyone who is dubious about the value of participating in a community resource board. Potential stakeholders could engage in a joint analysis to identify the forums currently available for negotiation and problem-solving in order to see if the community resource board can be shaped to meet their needs. The reluctance of key stakeholders to participate can preclude the ability of a balanced board forming. If they choose not to come to the table, it may be appropriate to abandon the community resource board model temporarily rather than try to work with an incomplete or unbalanced group.

A significant milestone in the assessment is the point at which different individuals, groups and organizations who have come together in preliminary organizing meetings confirm their willingness to work on a community resource board. Some participants make a tentative commitment and take a "wait and see" approach. If some sectors remain uncertain about making a commitment, the group may establish milestone dates to serve as opportunities for participants to review the agreed-upon timetable, or the progress that has been made towards achieving objectives within the given time frame, and whether it is useful to continue negotiations.


vol3

Organizing a Community Resource Board

Concurrently with the feasibility assessment, the conveners may carry out organizational work such as public outreach and lining up commitments for financial, technical and other support. Many tasks support both assessment and organization, such as doing public outreach to identify stakeholders, gauge their support and bring them into the process. While the assessment indicates whether a community resource board is feasible and appropriate, the organizational steps prepare the parties to design the process they will use to carry out the substantive projects envisioned by participants and embark upon negotiations.

The main organizational steps include:

● carrying out public outreach● making contact with First Nations in the area● bringing together interested parties in organizing meetings● doing training in public participation.

Public Outreach

The organization phase is a time of extensive outreach. Before setting up a community resource board, the key organizers need to inform stakeholders about the purpose and structure of a community resource board, identify issues of importance that the various stakeholders would want to bring to a negotiating table, and describe the process of working with other interest groups on a community resource board. This contact enables people to gain an understanding about what community resource boards do and to consider whether that avenue is the most effective way to achieve their desired outcome.

The conveners of the process should attempt to identify and communicate with every organization, group and individual in the community with an interest in Crown land and resource management. Obvious stakeholders are licensed users of Crown resources (timber, trapping, guide-outfitters), environmental groups, community associations and social service networks, outdoor recreation clubs, forest industry employees and contractors who work in mills or in the woods, wildcrafters33 and local government. People who may not have a direct stake in the issues at hand but who represent key segments of the community can provide a broader perspective on how outcomes would benefit a community. As well, such representation can give credibility to the board and foster broader support in the community.

A good place to start public outreach is with resource ministry offices, which may be able to provide a list of contacts. Other levels of government (municipal, regional and village elected officials) should also be contacted so that they can integrate the work of the community resource board into their activities. Local social, economic and business organizations can provide access to persons concerned about economic sustainability issues. Meetings with groups and individuals will widen the net by making available the names of others who might be affected by the establishment of a community resource board. If there is an existing group already working on related issues, for


vol3

example, on a Local Resource Use Plan,34 it can serve as an important resource or the two groups may even explore the possibility of amalgamating.

Reach out as widely as possible; hold public meetings, and make sure that sign-up sheets are available as another opportunity for outreach. The local newspaper may be willing to run an article on the efforts being made to establish a board, or the conveners can offer to write a story to run in the newsletters of local organizations.

Contact First Nations in the Proposed Board Area

Information on the First Nation(s) who have traditional territory in the area covered by the community resource board can be obtained through either the provincial Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, the B.C. Treaty Commission, or from the First Nation, band or tribal council itself. Be sure that all First Nations who have an interest are contacted, as in some cases there is shared or overlapping traditional territory.

Once the conveners are familiar with the various First Nations and their tribal affiliation a meeting should be requested; speak initially to the person responsible for this territory within the First Nation or tribal council. The conveners will request the correct protocol for approaching the First Nation to ask if they would like to begin discussions regarding possible participation in the community resource boards. When a meeting has been arranged, the conveners should provide a copy of the framework for aboriginal participation in land use planning, referred to in chapter 4, and ask that a representative discuss possible participation by the First Nations.

If appropriate, the conveners might ask whether the First Nation is interested in co-sponsoring or co-chairing the board, a recognition of their rights that may encourage First Nation participation. Early First Nation involvement in the design of a planning process, for example, or matching local planning boundaries with traditional territories, may also help.

If the First Nation decides not to participate, the community resource board should attempt to establish a communication link so that the First Nation is aware of table proceedings. Observers could be sent, and invitations extended periodically to have the First Nation make presentations. A presentation made near the beginning of the process, and others later on when more specific recommendations are being developed, may assist the table in accommodating some of their concerns prior to a review of the completed plan by the First Nation and the provincial government.

Hold organizing/convening meetings

It may require one or more organizing meetings of stakeholders interested in participating on a community resource board to generate a basic agreement to proceed. At this time, participants need to consider the sectors or other groupings that have been tentatively identified and the associated interests; they can then determine whether any stakeholders are missing from the table, whether a different configuration of representative interests might be more appropriate for a particular community, or whether some sectors might be consolidated. These meetings provide an opportunity to gain insights into the problems at hand and to learn more about other visions for a


vol3

community resource board. It is helpful to set out the key issues and tasks that have been identified, as some individuals or groups may have preconceived ideas of how a community resource board should operate. The objective is to provide everyone with an opportunity to describe what they hope to see from a community resource board and to hear what others have to say.

A number of administrative matters may be raised at the initial organizational meetings. The group should agree on the frequency, length and location of meetings, and on the preliminary ground rules that will guide them in matters of procedure. They also can select or endorse the facilitator, if one is being used. Groups and individuals who share common interests and perspectives can be introduced to government agencies with parallel interests.

When one or more organizing meetings have been held, the key participants may find it useful to make an explicit decision to proceed. Before making a full commitment to undertake the work of a board, they should check for common agreement about the purpose of the board and ensure that there are sufficient resources to generate an expectation of success.

Offer training sessions in public participation

People interested in particular resource issues, but unsure about being involved in a process that addresses the interests of a range of stakeholders, may benefit from training sessions that explain the fundamentals of public participation. For example, a facilitator could identify the different methods used for involving the public in resource management decisions or plan development and then carry out orientation on community resource boards as one of the options identified. In another training session, a facilitator could describe shared decision-making and negotiated approaches to developing consensus and possibly do some skills development in using interest-based negotiation. The group might discuss methods for process design and the kinds of ground rules that contribute to effective interaction; it could also be introduced to the concept of issue identification and perhaps begin to develop interest statements.

Training sessions could be offered several times to accommodate peoples' availability and in order to reach those who might be reticent about becoming involved. Repeating the sessions might also assist the conveners in identifying the range of possible participants and potential groupings of interests at the table.

32. B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Public Involvement in Government Decisionmaking: Choosing the Right Model, (Victoria, 1994).

33. Wildcrafters collect botanical forest products for personal use and sale, e.g., mushrooms, herbs and handicraft materials.

34. A Local Resource Use Plan is a planning process carried out by the Ministry of Forests which establishes integrated resource management guidelines for areas where resource development is proposed.


vol3


vol3


Table of contents

Operational Guidelines

Operational guidelines establish the structure of the board and its operating procedures. They serve as the building blocks of the organization, helping it to engage in process design and to function effectively in carrying out its work. During the start-up process, people in the community who have different perspectives and interests may want to contribute ideas about how the community resource board should be structured, how it should operate and what tasks should be undertaken. Some issues, such as the following, will be a priority for developing guidelines:

● terms of reference● geographic scope● composition of the board● procedures for the selection of board members● definition of the consensus process● dealing with impasse● working groups or committees● accountability● communications● rules of procedure.

Terms of reference

The terms of reference are the backbone of the board's structure. They enable the board to understand its role in, and relationship to, other processes and bodies. Terms of reference can be developed in draft form based on information gathered during the assessment phase from members of the public, and on government's intentions for use of the community resource board. Discussions during the organizing process may lead to a review of the terms of reference and to their amendment as necessary. If government is looking to the board to be the public participation component in a decision-making process, potential members will benefit from an awareness of any








vol3

constraints, such as timelines for completing the work, the scope of the decisions to be made and the products that will be created, and what will happen if the board does not reach agreement. Knowing in advance about such constraints is especially important if they are not subject to negotiation.

The terms of reference for community resource boards frequently contain the following provisions regarding board structure:

● geographic scope of interest area● purpose and objectives● sequence of tasks to be completed and time frame or schedule● intended product/description of deliverables● interim products● protocol for liaison with other processes● approval process for the intended final product(s)● description of any interim measures that may be in effect, e.g., to protect aboriginal rights, or where

there is public controversy concerning land and resource management● roles and responsibilities of participants (spokespersons, steering committees, caucuses or

constituents), government representatives, facilitator/mediator and project manager.

Some of these provisions may be placed in either the terms of reference or the rules of procedure.

Geographic Scope

The geographic boundaries for a community resource board should be established early in the process and set out an area that reflects and fosters a sense of natural community or common purpose. The size of the area and the exact placement of boundaries are not crucial considerations, as long as the area is compact enough to enable the board's work to proceed efficiently and the area has a logical connection to the issues and decisions under consideration. For example, local government boundaries for regional districts or municipalities, or traditional community-identified boundaries such as First Nations territories or non-native settlement may be used. When a primary objective of the board is to participate in a government planning process or address forest management, it makes sense to refer to geographic or biophysical attributes that correspond to the technical boundaries used for data compilation. The government agency is preparing the plan may have a tentative boundary established already.

Ideally, the boundaries of a community resource board should be decided jointly by the board and government staff at an early point in the process. Boundary setting is not intended to be a contentious issue whereby some advantage is gained by including or excluding areas. Where there is disagreement, the board should canvas the underlying issues and possibly delay proceeding with other work until the boundary is finalized.

A major consideration with setting of boundaries is that all relevant interests within them must have the opportunity to take part. Communications and accountability within any particular sector of interest will be enhanced if its membership is made up of "natural" consistency. Geographic scope


vol3

can have an important influence on this naturalness or on whether artificial relationships have to be created and maintained.

Board Composition

The composition of a community resource board should reflect the community it represents. The basis for participation is not of major importance as long as there is a balanced and adequate representation of all significant interests or stakeholders who want a voice in land and resource management. For example, board members could represent people whose interests they promote in negotiations and to whom they are accountable (constituencies), or they could represent particular values in the community without being connected to an identifiable group of citizens. The objective is to get representation from all broad economic, environmental and social interests, at the same time grouping similar interests together with a single representative.

Since the board works by consensus instead of a "majority vote" basis, there is no need to have a number of similar interest groups on the board. It is important that participants perceive the different groupings as legitimate constituencies, rather than being motivated by a desire to outweigh or reduce the effectiveness of any other stakeholder.

Using interest-based representation as an organizing principle keeps the board from becoming unmanageably large. Experience indicates that the ideal size for a workable group ranges from 10 to 20 persons; discussion and negotiation are more efficient and there is less repetition. Consolidated representation is also less taxing on members of the community who are volunteering their time and efforts.

One approach to organizing participants is to arrange a board into sectors whose members have a common interest in how land is managed. The Slocan Valley pilot project used this sectoral model, bringing together persons with shared interests who wanted similar outcomes. Each sector was represented by a spokesperson who worked closely with a steering committee, and this group was in turn responsible to the constituency members. The sectors in the Slocan pilot were: Forest Independents, IWA, Local Enterprise, Local Government, Mining, Outdoor Recreation, Slocan Forest Products, Tourism, Watershed, Wildcraft, and Wilderness. The Arrow Lakes First Nation observed the process but did not participate.

Each potential sector or group at a negotiating table can also choose a steering committee comprising of persons able to commit the necessary time to the community resource board and to represent the range of views that exist within the constituency. For example, everyone interested in outdoor recreation has an interest in seeing land available and accessible for recreational use, but the recreational activities may range from hunting to mountain-biking to snowmobiling to bird-watching. The interests of this sector could be accommodated by membership on a steering committee, with one representative or two co-representatives participating at the negotiating table.

Another approach is to give seats to existing organizations or individuals who represent different values in the community and are acceptable to the group as a whole. The Anahim Round Table was based on broad membership, and its rules of procedure maintained open access to new


vol3

participants if their interests were not already directly represented. The Bulkley Valley Community Resource Board, on the other hand, draws its membership from individuals who, although they represent various land use perspectives, are expected to be accountable to the community at large.

As the conveners develop a sense of the community's interests, it may be possible to make a tentative assessment of how a board might be configured so that its members will be able to operate efficiently as a small group. The conveners can arrange organizing meetings with persons who share common interests in order to discuss the different approaches to representation. Organizing meetings also allow people to assess the extent to which others share their views or interests in how land should be used and managed. Remember, however, that groupings of interests may be tentative until the community resource board convenes and has considered whether any essential interests are missing. Once agreement is reached that all necessary interests are represented, the board can confirm its membership.



vol3


Table of contents

Supporting the Boards

The preparatory work for a community resource board includes setting up several kinds of support to draw upon during the organizing phase and after the board is convened. Support in training, facilitation, project coordination, and allocation of financial and staff resources from agencies will increase the likelihood that the board members can reach agreement in the negotiations they undertake.

Training

Both public participants and government agency staff can benefit from training related to different aspects of community resource boards. Training already has been instituted in the LRMP program for subregional land and resource management planning in both procedural and substantive aspects of the process. The LRMP training modules that are available, under development or proposed include: orientation to LRMP, project management, public participation, resource analysis, scenario development, First Nations, and social and economic analysis. The training program has application beyond LRMP and could readily be adapted for use by participants in local resource planning at the community level, including those organized as community resource boards.

Training is still useful where a community resource board is doing work other than planning, particularly training related to orientation to the community resource board, interest-based negotiation, First Nations, and substantive information about the work that is underway and the required product. Periodically the board can consider whether the projects it has undertaken could proceed more smoothly if supported by training or a training refresher. For example, a facilitator or trainer can deliver sessions on interest-based negotiation at each step of the board's work, to solidify and build on the skills being acquired by the participants and assist them in negotiating agreement on a substantive product.








vol3

Facilitation

It is useful for a mediator or chairperson tentatively selected by the conveners to meet with potential participants during the organization phase to explain what the process is about and to help them begin to define their interests. A facilitator can also lead the table at the organizing meetings, encouraging effective communication. After the board is convened, its members should define the role of the mediator, facilitator, or chair and either confirm the incumbent in the position or take steps to find a replacement.

The role of facilitator, mediator or chair calls for special skills. When considering a candidate, it may be helpful to consider the following criteria used by the Slocan Valley pilot project:

● solid commitment to see the project through● affordable● experienced in interest-based negotiation● experienced in land use disputes● knowledge of the community or of similar communities (e.g., rural)● available for extended period of time● perceived as neutral or as impartial● good at working with table to develop a structure (e.g., ground rules)● has a clear understanding of the history and issues in the area.

Project coordination

Where a government agency undertakes a project working with a community resource board, it should provide reasonable logistical assistance including provision for project management. The project manager is integral to the support of the community resource board and should have experience in planning (in the case of a planning project), in the technical aspects of resource management, and in community organizing.

Depending on the projects undertaken by the community resource board, different agencies may provide staff assistance in project management or funds to retain someone from the community. This work may be carried out by more than one person and the project manager may also fill the role of mediator/facilitator.

The project management function may include:

● designing the planning process that the table uses to generate a work product● organizing the process, technical information and staff● coordinating the tasks taken on by board members and the technical support team, plus working with

the mediator, facilitator or chair to meet their requirements● maintaining close contact with the members of the board to help them learn the planning steps● determining the board's needs for technical information and arranging for this information to be

provided


vol3

● arranging for access to government databases and GIS support● assisting the board members in building and maintaining contact with their sector constituencies● working with the government representatives who are part of the community resource board in order

to coordinate their involvement and make work flow efficiently● leading the board members to work through the steps needed to generate a plan● carrying out publicity or public outreach which the table might direct● overseeing participant assistance● handling the community resource board budget and administrative tasks such as arranging for

meeting space and preparing meeting summary notes to keep a record of decisions reached● directing the administrative arrangements that enable the board to operate efficiently and effectively,

such as typing, mailing and fax services.

Financial resources and agency commitments

It is critical to provide a community resource board with sufficient resources right from the outset; not only is much hard work wasted when a board fails from lack of resources, but public cynicism in response to the failure can do more damage than not having had a board at all.

The budget for a community resource board should be established in advance, and the conveners can then confirm commitments from the sponsoring agency and any participating ministries to allocate funds. If government is providing overhead items such as staff time, staff travel expenses, office services, preparation and distribution of meeting summary notes, and so on, then commitments for these allocations need to be confirmed. Participant assistance should be allocated in accordance with current government policy which generally covers out-of-pocket expenses such as meals, mileage to travel to meetings, and charges for photocopying, faxing, and telephone calls. Because community resource boards operate locally, participants usually do not need to travel long distances or arrange for overnight accommodation, and meetings can be scheduled for evenings and weekends.

Operating a Community Resource Board

A community resource board that has developed organizational guidelines, been assessed as worthwhile and viable, completed initial preparation and obtained necessary support is in a position to get underway with designing the process that will be used to accomplish substantive work and to successfully implement the results. A discussion of the process design, agreement building, and implementation and monitoring phases suitable for a community resource board's operation is set out in chapter 3.

While some community resource boards may cease to meet after they have completed their work, others may move on to related tasks or new projects. In either case, it is important for all participants to shoulder some of the responsibility for ensuring that the implementation and monitoring objectives are achieved.



vol3


vol3


Table of contents

Technical Support

While community resource boards generally would not have technical staff assigned directly to support the various land and resource planning and management roles, they will require access to a range of technical support including:

● inventories● biophysical and socioeconomic analysis● production and distribution of information and reports.

Normally, it would be expected that such information and technical support would be provided through regional and district offices, and added to as necessary by specialists brought in from regional or headquarters offices. Again, precise requirements could be jointly identified in the course of individual project planning, using general procedural guidelines such as those for preparing land and resource management plans. Providing community resource boards with the information necessary to support development of thoughtful advice is one of the most important services that can be offered to support their effective operation.

Funding

Community resource boards are volunteer bodies, which exercise a democratic commitment to contribute to determining what is in the public interest for their community. For that reason, community resource board representatives are not salaried. However, out-of-pocket expenses associated with board activities should not be a barrier to citizen involvement. Interim participant assistance guidelines were developed by CORE for expenses in regional land use negotiations, where travel distances and costs as well as time commitments were extensive. Government subsequently adopted interim assistance guidelines for government sponsored projects which noted that participant funding








vol3

● is not intended to cover all costs● is intended to assist participants who have exhausted other alternatives● is discretionary, and may vary in its application depending on the specific requirements of each

process● is contingent upon proven financial need.

Several guidelines regarding eligibility were set forth. These were intended to reflect the practical limitations on financial resources and to assist in their fair allocation.

Because community resource boards are community based, it is anticipated that financial support would most typically come in the form of modest disbursements to cover local travel costs related to board activities.

There are direct or indirect budget implications for the supporting agencies related to participant assistance, administrative services, training, communication with the general community, access to agreed upon technical expertise, and facilitation services. It is appropriate that this support be provided by the various government agencies that most significantly benefit from the advice produced by the board; for example, where local governments and federal agencies which may wish to use community resource boards as reference bodies on various issues, they presumably would contribute to supporting these services.

In volumes 1 and 2 of this Provincial Land Use Strategy, CORE proposed that land use planning and related resource management activities be strengthened by:

● an enhanced Resource Management Division (RMD)29

● reinforcing the roles of interagency management committees (IAMCs) and supporting their activities through regional coordinators attached to RMD

● assisting district level planning activities through means such as priority reallocation of specialist staff to local projects as required.

The linked district/regional/provincial structure which was proposed, illustrated in figure 2, could serve as a suitable base for organizing funding and other support for community resource boards.

Figure 3, following, further illustrates the general support relationships which could be developed between district, regional and provincial levels of B.C. agencies and community resource boards. This structure obviously does not preclude community resource board relationships with federal agencies or local governments.

It illustrates, however, that responsibility for budgeting or support to community resource boards can perhaps most logically be assigned to the district level. A "base" budget level might cover assistance to more routine community resource board operations (details below), whereas "project" budgets would be developed for the more substantial expenses associated with intensive participation efforts, such as those required for a strategic planning project. Obvious "base" budget funds would only be used where the community resource board has viable ongoing activities.


vol3

District level provincial agency planning teams would be primarily responsible for developing project budgets. In practice, that would likely require assigning specific responsibility to a planning office of a designated agency.

Figure 2. Possible Structure For Community Resource Board Support

Government Non-Government

Provincial RMDCORE

Province-wide "Council"

Regional IAMC andRegional Coordinator

Regional Table(drawn from communityresource boards)

District District Office/Planning Committee

community resource board(s)

Regional IAMCs are responsible for broad corporate direction regarding budget priorities of their component districts, given that major projects will not usually be concurrently feasible in every district of a region, due to financial and staff resource constraints. Regions both advise and are directed by RMD regarding overall priorities. RMD, because of its interagency coordinating role, is a possible body which could be assigned responsibility for consolidating funding estimates to support community resource boards and subsequently for allocating approved funds.

CORE's provincial land use strategy volume 2, Planning for Sustainability, (November 1994) proposes that community resource boards based at the district level form the building blocks for regional tables which might be periodically constituted to help implement and monitor previously developed regional plans.30 In addition, these regional tables can provide a forum for information distribution, discussion and dispute resolution between community resource boards within the region. Appropriate support for such regional tables (or similar organization) would be budgeted for by the regional coordinator, proposed by CORE to be attached to each IAMC.

This organizational concept ensures that community resource boards have an identified source of financial assistance at district, regional and provincial levels. Of course, actual funding would vary and have to be determined relative to other needs through the provincial budget process. While government can assume responsibility for ensuring that community resource boards have basic resources to provide effective advice, they should also be encouraged to seek out private funding sources, including corporations, foundations and the general public. These sources could presumably be motivated to support the work of community resource boards on account of their


vol3

public commitment to the general well-being of their communities.

Conceptual Support Structure: Summary

Figure 3 conceptually illustrates the general relationships between community resource boards and district offices engaged in various aspects of delivering the provincial land use strategy. Subject to regional and provincial guidelines, districts are where basic budget and administrative support would be most required. IAMCs at the regional level could support regional advisory tables drawn from community resource boards to provide public consultation and advice at a regional level. It illustrates that provincial budgeting for community resource board support could logically be assigned to RMD, although other arrangements are possible. Finally, it illustrates how a province-wide coordinating and networking body for community resource boards might generally relate to and be supported by CORE.

Figure 3. Support for CRBs

Implementation

The above sections have described the general nature of required support and how it might best be delivered. This addresses concerns with respect to efficiency and affordability. These suggestions are intended to initiate discussions and development of the most efficient and affordable means to support community resource boards in the long-term.

As a next step in implementation and evaluation CORE proposes two initiatives under its legislative mandate to "facilitate the development and implementation of community based participatory processes", namely:

● a provincial "networking workshop"; and● continuation of pilot projects to evaluate long-term support requirements of community resource

boards.

Networking Workshop

Planning for Sustainability, volume 2 of CORE's proposed Provincial Land Use Strategy, recommends that "community resource boards should be encouraged to consider forming a province-wide non-government organization whose goal would be to promote networking and



vol3

information-sharing among participating boards".31 At a 1994 workshop of community resource boards and round tables, CORE expressed a willingness to participate in the sponsorship of such an organization. This is in keeping with CORE's statutory mandate. CORE plans to host a similar provincial workshop as a follow-up to this report. It will provide opportunities for current community resource boards and round tables to share their experiences as well as further consider the need and potential for a provincial organization and how it might operate. It could also provide response to the proposals and questions in this report.

Pilot Projects

CORE also plans to continue supporting pilot projects related to the diverse roles that community resource boards can and do play, which will not only support the selected projects themselves, but also help answer some of the operational questions related to support requirements and arrangements generally.

The experience gained through these pilot projects will help all levels of government, communities and CORE further refine approaches to community resource boards to maximize their efficiency and effectiveness.

CORE proposes to work in conjunction with RMD and relevant resource ministries to identify and select specific projects which reflect government priorities for land use planning, community economic development, and which would benefit from public involvement from community resource boards.

In concept, an existing or proposed community resource board could develop and submit proposals describing a potential project and how it accords with the roles and criteria identified for community resource boards (voluntary, purpose driven, representative, consensus-oriented, etc., as described above).

Pilot project proposals should include:

● specific task(s) to be undertaken and objectives to be met, together with the known guiding policies● a list of all participants that will be involved, including the government agency or agencies

responsible for the decision(s) that the initiative is seeking to shape● a general work plan and terms of reference, including milestones and a schedule, setting out how the

task(s) will be undertaken● an indication of how the community resource board proposes to deal with impasse should it arise in

the course of the project● an outline of the financial, administrative and technical resources that participating government

agencies and other non-government sources are prepared to commit to the initiative (i.e., a budget proposal)

● the nature and extent of support sought from CORE and where that support would be applied (e.g., to mediation, facilitation, training, etc.)

● a communication plan including what would be done to establish general public knowledge of the project


vol3

● an indication of how efficiency and effectiveness of the project can be monitored.

While projects would generally be focused on joint problem-solving among the public and government agencies, private sector initiatives could also be considered, provided that relevant government agencies were supportive. For example, a tree farm licence holder may seek to develop a management and working plan in cooperation with a community resource board as a pilot project.

Sponsors of projects would agree to monitoring and evaluation so that lessons learned could be systematically documented and built into answering the key administrative questions identified at the start of this section, thus contributing to steadily improving the community resource board model of community participation.

In summary, the objective is to continue supporting pilot projects which directly engage community resource boards in land use and resource management processes that require effective public participation. Lessons learned in each of these projects on improving land use planning, processes and enhancing public participation would be summarized by CORE and built into an evolving set of guidelines for distribution to all community resource boards and agencies as a basis for improving public involvement in government decision-making.

Recommendations

1. That community resource boards be recognized as a vehicle for supporting direct, democratic and intensive participation by the public as a means of providing advice to statutory decision-makers on diverse aspects of land use and resource and environmental management. This direct involvement helps improve decision-making by ensuring that local knowledge, values and experience are considered.

2. That community resource boards be voluntary, representative of the full spectrum of relevant interests, purpose-driven, advisory to government, consensus-seeking and accountable to the community.

3. That terms of reference for community resource boards be tailored to meet the needs of individual communities, consistent with broad provincial guidelines, and that general functions, undertaken in consultation with relevant provincial agencies and other orders of governments, include:

● participating in land use planning and resource management processes, and other resource management initiatives as appropriate, including advising on local interests, management objectives and strategies, and contributing resource management information

● advising on implementation of approved plans● assisting with monitoring of approved land use plans and resource management

programs● acting as a sounding board on community economic and social initiatives including

advising on Forest Renewal B.C. proposals● serving as a body for First Nations consultations● assisting with public education and communication on local land use and resource

management issues.


vol3

4. should be flexibility in determining purposes, geographic scope and specific functions in order to meet community interests, concerns and priorities.

5. That government agencies use the advice of community resource boards in their plans and decisions, particularly where the advice reflects a community consensus, and complies with laws and government policy direction. Where plans or decisions differ from community resource board advice, agencies should provide written reasons.

6. That while the fundamental strength of community resource boards derives from volunteer effort and community "will", they should be encouraged through the provision of reasonable support which would enable them to function efficiently and effectively. Support should come primarily from the province, with federal agencies or local governments where they use community resource board services. As well, community resource boards should be encouraged to pursue private sector, foundation and public funding and support.

7. That community resource boards be assisted with administrative, facilitation and mediation, training, communication and technical service support, as well as funding for out-of-pocket expenses, to the extent that approved budgets allow. Budgeting should be done in each administrative district of an assigned agency and consolidated into the estimates of a designated agency, such as RMD.

8. That community resource boards be encouraged to consider forming a province-wide, non-government organization to promote networking and information sharing among participating boards.

9. That interested agencies and community resource boards be encouraged to work with CORE and government in selecting priority projects. Priority projects should identify ways of improving support for community resource boards and ways of increasing the effectiveness of public involvement in land and resource management decisions.

29. The Resource Management Division was established in 1994 to assist cabinet in coordinating the administration of interministry land and resource planning initiatives. CORE's report Planning for Sustainability (volume 2 of Provincial Land Use Strategy) proposed that it be strengthened (recommendation 9).

30. See figure 2.3 in Planning for Sustainability which illustrates this concept.31. See recommendation 45 in Planning for Sustainability.


vol3


Table of contents

Glossary of Terms

B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy - The Round Table was formed in 1990 to foster the creation of, and seek consensus on, a strategy for sustainable development for the province of British Columbia. The Round Table was mandated as a result of the findings of a task force - "The B.C. Task Force on Environment and Economy". Members of the Round Table came from various sectoral and philosophical backgrounds and geographic regions of the province. From 1990 until its demise in 1994, the Round Table produced a number of background papers and consensus-based documents suggesting strategies for sustainable development, sustainable communities, sustainable energy use, a sustainable economic framework, and a report on urban sustainability and containment, among others.

B.C. Treaty Commission - This commission was established in September 1992 by agreement among the governments of Canada and British Columbia and the First Nations Summit. The role of the Commission is to facilitate the negotiation of treaties and, where the parties agree, other related agreements in British Columbia. In carrying out that role, the Commission acts as a neutral, independent facilitator of the treaty negotiation process.

Brundtland Commission - The World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) was established in 1983 by the United Nations as an independent body to re-examine the critical environment and development problems on the planet and to formulate realistic solutions. The Commission was asked to formulate a global agenda for change which ensured that human progress could be sustained through development while considering the needs of future generations. The Commission was headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway. The Commission's 1988 report, Our Common Future, served notice that the environment and the economy are inextricably linked and that nations must take responsibility for environmental damage. The report stressed the urgency of immediate global action.








vol3

Dunsmuir Agreements

Dunsmuir I - In 1988 51 individuals and 34 agencies and public and private interest groups met at Dunsmuir Lodge to draft an agreement on the need for, and key elements of, a provincial land and water use strategy to guide the elected officials of British Columbia. The group achieved, through consensus, a mission statement, a set of objectives and several key implementation points for a land use strategy which became known as the Dunsmuir Agreement on a Provincial Land Use Strategy.

Dunsmuir II - After the signing of Dunsmuir I, the need for an overall strategy to link the growing number of processes established to look at land use (e.g., B.C. Forest Resources Commission; B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy; Parks and Wilderness for the 90s, etc.) became apparent. In May 1991, a larger group of individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds, including those from Dunsmuir I, participated in Dunsmuir II. The specific goals of this second workshop were to revisit and update the findings of Dunsmuir I, to determine and clearly identify "what a land use strategy would look like for B.C...", and "to determine and identify information, resource needs, inventories, etc., that would be required to implement a land use strategy". The consensus-based, Dunsmuir II Agreement provided a framework for the development of a provincial land and water use strategy.

Environmental Assessment Act - An Act legislated in 1994 that provides a consistent, systematic, comprehensive review procedure for evaluation of the potential effects (environmental, social, economic, cultural, heritage, and health) of proposed major developments in a large number of different sectors - industry, mining, energy, water use, waste disposal, urban, aquaculture, transportation, food processing, and tourism.

Forest Land Reserve - Land designated under the Forest Land Reserve Act, 1994. This land includes private land that is within a tree farm licence and private land that is managed forest land, as well as designated Crown forest land. Removal of land from the Reserve is restricted, as is use and subdivision of the land. The purpose of the reserve is to maintain the commercial working forest of British Columbia.

Forest Practices Code - Recently enacted legislation that provides for the statutory regulation of forest and range operations.

Forest Renewal B.C. - A crown corporation which is responsible for managing the Forest Renewal Plan's investments in forest enhancement, rehabilitation and diversification.

Forest Renewal Plan - A long-term plan for investment in B.C.'s forests designed to enhance the productive capacity and environmental value of forest lands, create jobs, provide training for forest workers, and strengthen forest dependent communities. The plan is financed through increases in stumpage charged for harvest of public timber, and investments are distributed across the province according to the needs of particular regions.

Forest Resources Commission - This commission was established in 1989 as an advisory body


vol3

to the Minister of Forests and given a mandate to review aspects of forest land management, including tenure, forest practices and planning. Following a public consultation process, the Commission submitted an April 1991 report that included a recommendation that the province develop a comprehensive land use planning system designed to reduce conflict over the forest land base, improve credibility of decision-making and identify sustainable land uses. The Forest Resources Commission was subsequently asked to provide more details on its ideas regarding land use planning. Their later report which was publicly released in January 1992 provided detailed recommendations for a land use planning system for the province.

Goals - Jurisdictions that embark upon jurisdiction-wide land use planning typically commence by defining their land use goals. Land use goals define the desired-end states that land use decisions should aim for. In January, 1994, CORE recommended that the provincial government adopt a comprehensive set of Land Use Goals to guide land use decisions in British Columbia.

Growth Strategies Act - An Act that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has proposed to develop, in order to respond to the problems of urban growth, sprawl and related issues.

Integrated Resource Planning Committee (IRPC) - The inter-ministry committee that provides process, technical and policy support for the development of the land and resource management plan (LRMP) program. For example, it has developed the components of the LRMP planning process, training and communications strategies, and inter-ministry budget submissions. The committee reports to the Resource Management Division.

Inter-Agency Management Committee (IAMC) - The inter-ministry committee of senior officials in land and resource ministries in each region in B.C. that is responsible for integrating all resource planning and protected areas work in a region, and for setting regional planning priorities.

Inter-Ministry Policy Committee (IMPC) - The inter-ministry committee is comprised of representatives from numerous different government agencies that is developing and refining provincial land use goals, strategic policies, and sustainability indicators, as well as dealing with other issues that arise from CORE's work. The committee reports to the Resource Management Division.

Interest-Based Negotiation - A structured deliberate attempt by the parties to a dispute to cooperatively seek an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all concerned.

Interest - The goals and objectives (i.e., the needs, desires, concerns and fears) that underlie the positions that negotiators take.

Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) - LRMP is the sub-regional integrated land and resource planning process for British Columbia. LRMP considers all resource values and requires public participation, interagency coordination and consensus-building in land and resource management decisions.


vol3

Local Resource Plans - These are district or landscape level plans providing objectives and guidelines for use and protection of valued resources. Examples include integrated watershed management plans, coordinated access management plans and wilderness/recreation plans.

Land Use Charter - The Charter is the set of principles on economic, environmental and social sustainability proposed by CORE to set a strategic direction for a British Columbia land use strategy. The Charter was approved in principle by the provincial government in June 1993.

Resource Management Division (RMD) - RMD is the provincial government office established to coordinate both the administration of inter-agency land use planning, and to coordinate between government agencies and the Commission on Resources and Environment.

National Forest Accord - In 1992 the Canada Forest Accord articulated a sustainability vision for Canadian forests. The Accord was signed by the forests ministers of Canada and the provinces, as well as by a broad spectrum of stakeholder groups.

Old Growth Strategy - This strategy was prepared by a group of participants representing the views of citizen and environmental groups, forest industry associations, organized labour, researchers, provincial and federal resource agency staff, and individual professionals. The consensus-based strategy, developed over 18 months, provided a recommended framework for managing old-growth forests in British Columbia.

Operational Plans - Within the context of area-specific management guidelines, operational plans detail the logistics for development. Methods, schedules, and responsibilities for accessing, harvesting, renewing, and protecting the resource are set out to enable site-specific operations to proceed.

Protected Areas Strategy - This is the strategy in place to meet British Columbia's commitment to develop and expand the protected areas system to protect 12 percent of the province by the year 2000. The goals of the Strategy are to protect viable, representative examples of natural diversity in the province, characteristic backcountry recreational and cultural heritage features, and special natural, cultural heritage and recreational features.

Shared Decision-Making - A framework approach to participation in public decision-making in which, on a certain set of issues for a defined period of time, those with authority to make a decision and those affected by that decision are empowered jointly to seek an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all concerned.

Strategic Plans - Strategic plans are plans that provide objectives and strategies for land allocation and/or resource management, and include regional plans, subregional plans, and many local resource plans.

Strategic Policies - Provincial level policies that detail how government would achieve the desired end points defined by the land use goals. Such policies direct how land and resources should be


vol3

planned and managed, providing more specific guidance to land use decision-makers. Such policies are integrated and interministerial.

Sustainability - A state or process that can be maintained indefinitely. The principles of sustainability integrate three closely interlinked elements -- the environment, the economy and the social system -- into a system that can be maintained in a healthy state indefinitely.

Sustainability Principles - The fundamental principles of economic, environmental, and social sustainability. The sustainability principles are found in the Land Use Charter.

Timber Supply Review - A Ministry of Forests' program to update and assess the timber supply situation for each Timber Supply Area (TSA) in B.C., based on current information and analytical methods. Following a review of each TSA, an allowable annual cut (AAC) decision for individual TSAs is made by the Chief Forester (pursuant to the Forest Act), on the basis of technical timber supply analysis information, an assessment of socio-economic implications of AAC alternatives and political direction on the economic and social objectives of the government, and public input. Timber supply reviews are expected to occur for each TSA every five years.

Whitehorse Mining Initiative - A 1994 accord that expresses a strategic vision for mining in Canada. This agreement was reached by a broad spectrum multi-stakeholder group (including industry, labour, government, environmentalists and First Nations) that considered issues of mining competitiveness, taxation, labour and the workplace, the environment, and land access.

Wilderness Advisory Committee - The committee appointed by the provincial government in 1986 to advise on wilderness areas in British Columbia. The committee's findings are recorded in the March 1986 report "The Wilderness Mosaic".


vol3


Table of contents

Appendix 1 - CORE Pilot Projects

CORE has a statutory responsibility to "facilitate the development and implementation of, and monitor the operation of community-based participatory processes to consider land use and related resource and environmental issues" (s. 4 (2) (b) Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act) in the province. In order to fulfil this responsibility CORE initiated pilot projects to test the shared decision-making approach to resolving resource management conflicts at the subregional and local levels, involving representatives of all affected stakeholder groups as well as decision makers.

Many community groups across the province had expressed interest in pilot project status for their initiatives. CORE was able to financially support only a limited number. Pilot projects were selected on the basis of criteria which included involving representatives of all affected stakeholder groups that share an interest in the community, while demonstrating the shared decision-making approach. The candidates included existing innovative public involvement processes established by government; non-government-initiated local round table planning processes; and new round table planning initiatives.

Experience gained from the pilot projects has provided evidence that this approach can work for local planning over the long term and province wide. Examples include the Anahim Round Table and Slocan Valley pilot projects, which are described below. In addition, CORE is currently participating in an advisory capacity at the Robson Valley Round Table, one of 12 Land and Resource Management Planning processes in the province.

CORE selected the Anahim Lake area for a pilot project because the West-Chilcotin community was highly interested in natural resource management issues and wanted to involve all interest groups in a negotiation process to cooperatively resolve these issues. The Anahim Round Table was able to reach consensus on a resource management plan (Anahim Round Table Resource








vol3

Management Plan: A Consensus Document) which contains three components: a resource management plan, a "quality lakes" management plan and a set of land use recommendations to the Cariboo-Chilcotin Regional Table.

The Slocan Valley pilot project developed as an opportunity for members of a local West Kootenay community to work together to resolve long-standing disputes about forest and water resource use, and to provide CORE with a working model that combines shared decision-making with more conventional planning processes in the management of Crown land and resources. The Slocan Valley Round Table was unable to complete its negotiations during the pilot period, but agreed to continue to work together as a group to develop land use management guidelines and strategies where possible, and to leave areas of disagreement for resolution by government staff. Willingness to trust government decision-makers where the Table could not reach consensus was a significant indication of the solid working relationships that developed among sectors and government resource ministry personnel.

Anahim Round Table

The Anahim Round Table (ART) was initiated in the West Chilcotin at Anahim Lake in July of 1992 to address resource management conflicts that had been causing tensions and instability in several West Chilcotin communities for the previous decade. These conflicts developed following the introduction of extensive forestry development activities in the area in the early 1980s. The strong reaction to this development included blockades to prevent road construction and timber harvesting. The negative atmosphere generated by the conflict made Anahim area residents feel their rural lifestyle and businesses were in jeopardy. The many interest groups concerned included environmentalists, the forest company and its contractors and employees, fishing resort and other tourism operators, ranchers, several community associations, and First Nations.

Searching for a resolution of these conflicts, representatives of the West Chilcotin Community Resource Association (WCCRA), the Ulkatcho Band and the Kluskus Band approached the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) to inquire whether CORE's mandate to improve community participation and dispute resolution in resource management might apply.

CORE offered to assist with conflict resolution in the area provided that the process would be supported by the community and include all affected interests and that the "shared decision-making" approach developed by the Commission would be applied. After the initial discussion with CORE, the WCCRA submitted a pilot project proposal to CORE aimed at negotiating a sustainable forest use plan for the Anahim area including preparation of a land use strategy for the Beeftrail and Corkscrew drainages within the area and the delivery of a detailed plan for sustainable, short-term harvesting in these watersheds.

An open community meeting attended by CORE and the full spectrum of interests in the area was held on June 17, 1992 to discuss the prospect of the pilot project and to assess the support of the community. The community was broadly supportive of the initiative, yet skeptical about its prospects for success. CORE then sponsored a workshop on July 15 and 16, to provide orientation on shared decision-making and to discuss further what the project would involve. Participants at the


vol3

workshop reached consensus on a goal for the pilot project - "to jointly create a community based resource management plan which sustains social, environmental and economic values".

On July 29, 1992 the Anahim Round Table (ART) was officially established by the participants with the support and endorsement of CORE. The Table agreed to proceed with a resource management planning process based on shared decision-making and refined their goal with the following objectives:

1. To maintain consistency with the principles of sustainability published by CORE.2. To make decisions by consensus.3. For the native and non-native communities to work together to solve local resource

management issues.4. To develop a database/inventory relevant to priority issues that is locally accessible and

addresses all values.5. To develop guidelines and resource management plans (maps) for all resource users based

on the goal statement.6. To establish a forum for decision-making that will resolve resource management conflicts on

an ongoing basis.7. To monitor the implementation of the guidelines and resource management plans.

Initial negotiations focused on the boundaries of the interest area, issue definition, rules of procedure and work plan. By the autumn the Table had agreed upon: rules of procedure and terms of reference; the planning area boundary with internal subdivisions or resource units; issues and concerns to be addressed; and a protocol to ensure the direct involvement of all affected interests in the northern portion of the interest area, where a parallel planning process was being initiated.

During the following eight months the participants developed resource management objectives, guidelines and recommendations to resolve resource use conflicts and sought broader public input on a draft report. In September 1993 the Table reached agreement on an Interim Report. Impact assessments were then undertaken by working groups made up of government and non-government members of the ART and the results were used to negotiate the final ART Resource Management Plan. Full agreement on the Resource Management Plan was achieved by January 1994, 18 months after the ART was established.

Substance of the Plan

The ART Resource Management Plan achieved its goal ("to jointly create a community based resource management plan which sustains social, environmental and economic values") by establishing:

● general resource management objectives for the interest area● specific resource management guidelines for geographic units within the area● a quality lakes management plan to classify and manage the lake fisheries in the area● a variety of recommendations related to specific resource management issues such as hunting

regulations


vol3

● implementation requirements.

In addition to the Resource Management Plan, the majority of ART members participated in an agreement on a set of land use allocation recommendations to the regional planning process, which was planning for the larger Cariboo-Chilcotin region. Many of these recommendations were implemented in the Cariboo-Chilcotin Regional Land Use Plan.

Resource Management Objectives

Resource management objectives were established to address broad resource management issues and concerns in the Anahim Interest Area (AIA). These general objectives addressed management issues related to: access; timber; range; water; fish; wildlife and habitat; recreation/tourism; Land Act applications; mushrooms; archaeological and historical sites; subsurface resources; process; resource utilization; and streams and riparian areas. The objectives provided a framework for more specific resource management guidelines.

Resource Management Guidelines

Resource management guidelines were developed for eight geographic units within the AIA based on the general interest area objectives. The management guidelines consisted of the following categories:

Access Management Guidelines

These guidelines are intended to

● ensure enhanced access management and planning including ongoing consultation with all stakeholders

● address issues such as proposed road locations, control measures, conflicts with wildlife and livestock, parallel road systems, and road closure requirements.

Timber Management Guidelines


● maintain the opportunity for a sustainable timber industry in the AIA● protect and maintain structural and functional diversity over the landscape● ensure harvesting of timber resources has no significant negative impact on other resource uses● minimize loss of productive timber land and reduce site degradation● protect wetlands, riparian zones and sub-alpine areas● promote harvest systems, rotation ages and prescriptions that reflect the scale and frequency of

natural processes● maximize timber utilization within guidelines, and maximize recovery and value added opportunities● contribute to a long term, sustainable local economy


vol3

● retain old growth characteristics in the forest● prevent epidemic insect infestations.

Range Management Guidelines


● sustain the livestock industry through continued access to crown range and water● enhance native forage species● promote integrated use to sustain forage production for livestock● provide for reclamation of disturbed sites to forage species useful to livestock and wildlife● ensure that range burning is authorized through issuance of burning permits● ensure historical grazing use and forage production in riparian areas while maintaining other special

values● plan fireguard locations where prescribed burning is applied.

Water Management Guidelines


● ensure water quality is not degraded by other uses● maintain aquatic habitat quality for native rainbow trout and other fish populations● ensure that the effects of resource development on water flow and quality are assessed prior to the

resource development● ensure special resource management guidelines are developed for riparian areas● protect water for domestic irrigation use on private and public land● protect user access to water supplies.

Fish, Wildlife and Habitat Management Guidelines


● manage for the widest possible biodiversity and conservation of sustainable fish and wildlife populations

● protect and maintain structural and functional diversity over the landscape● maintain traditional sustenance use of fish and wildlife● enhance opportunity for local input into the setting of hunting regulations and overall management of

fish and wildlife resources● manage human access so as to protect wildlife values.

Recreation/Tourism Management Guidelines



vol3

● · maintain existing diversity and quality of recreational and tourism opportunities, including the internationally significant recreation and tourism opportunities associated with the Dean River System

● retain opportunities and qualities for wilderness recreation experience● maintain visual quality along travel corridors and adjacent recreational features and tourism attractions● ensure that new recreation/tourism uses are compatible with existing land and water uses● resolve garbage or waste disposal concerns related to recreation/tourism site use.

Mushroom Management


● facilitate sustainable level of harvest and ensure that habitat for pine mushrooms is protected● determine the effect on mushroom ecology of targeting the "button" stage for harvesting● compile information on the location, quality and quantity of pine mushrooms● design harvesting guidelines to maximize economic and social benefits to the local community● develop educational material to raise the level of awareness of those involved in the mushroom

industry.

Historical and Archaeological Site Management Guidelines


● locate and identify important archaeological and historical areas for preliminary planning● identify such areas on planning, development and operational maps to ensure sites are not disturbed

by any type of industrial activity in consultation with the responsible provincial agency and the aboriginal community

● ensure that any new archaeological or historical sites are referred to the provincial agency responsible and the Ulkatcho Band for their comment and recommendations on protective measures required.

Subsurface Resource Management


● maintain access to lands and subsurface tenure for the exploration of subsurface resources subject to provincial environment and reclamation guidelines.

Quality Lakes Management Plan

The ART created a Quality Lakes Management Plan to classify and manage the lake fisheries in the area. The Anahim Interest Area (AIA) includes a large number of lakes that provide a diversity of angling opportunities including pristine wilderness fishing. In order to address conservation needs and potential over-crowding, the Area Lakes were classified and fisheries management objectives established for each class of lake. These objectives addressed harvesting levels, fishing pressure, access, commercial land development issues and native interests and concerns. A total


vol3

of 73 lakes in the AIA were classified.

The access plans developed for each category of lake included: rural two-wheel drive, roaded two-wheel drive, roaded four-wheel drive, or a walk-in/fly in lake. Current and potential use of each lake was identified and guide quotas established for commercial use on each lake. Native interests in each lake were identified by the Ulkatcho Band and a total of 10 per cent of the desired commercial use on each lake set aside for future native use. Additionally, no further guide allocations were made on several lakes with immediate potential use by the Ulkatcho Band, at their request. Nineteen of the 73 lakes were identified as having no more available days for guide quotas. Future timber extraction in the area surrounding each class of lake was reviewed, and guidelines, including no visible logging within the immediate viewshed of Quality Lakes, were established.

The Quality Lakes Management Plan is reviewed yearly by the Sport Fishery Advisory Board, a committee that reports directly to ART.

Recommendations to the Regional Planning Process

ART participants also developed land use recommendations which were forwarded to the Cariboo-Chilcotin regional planning process. These recommendations addressed broad land use allocation issues such as the establishment of Protected Areas and other broad zones. In addition to specific protected areas and special management area recommendations, ART recommended that the Regional Planning Table review the Anahim Round Table Resource Management Plan and associated land use recommendations and establish land use designations that were consistent with the relevant recommendations, objectives and guidelines ART participants had agreed to.

In October 1994, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan did incorporate many of the ART recommendations.



vol3


Table of contents

Appendix A - Roles of the Mediator, Commission Staff, Sector Spokespersons, and the Government Representative in the Slocan Valley Pilot Project

Mediator

The mediator provides mediation services for the Slocan Valley pilot project by:

● acting as mediator for the negotiation Table with the objective of facilitating consensus;● communicating with sector representatives;● providing orientation to the Table designed to provide participants with an understanding of the

Commission's shared decision-making process and the set of skills necessary for effective participation, as needed;

● facilitating meetings and integrating results of smaller working groups/task forces, as needed.

In conjunction with Commission professional staff, the mediator develops and implements strategies to facilitate the mediation process for the pilot project.

Specific tasks of the mediator are as follows:

● assist Table to keep focused and on track with procedural and substantive discussions● assist with creation of procedural framework for discussions● guide Table with framework for interest-based negotiations, including defining of goals, clarification

of issues, the development and expression of interests (and conversion of positions to interests), formation of options, consensus decisions and packaging of agreements

● assist Table to identify principles and criteria that will guide decision-making● assist with establishing realistic and attainable meeting objectives








vol3

● establish and maintain productive and supportive tone for the process● assist Table to communicate effectively with each other● ensure that areas of misunderstanding or confusion are clarified, and that information flow is accurate

and constructive● ensure ground rules are followed● attend to emotions as they arise● keep track of Table consensus decisions made throughout the process● assist spokespersons in negotiations with their respective sectors in a way that maintains flow of

information and facilitates sector commitment to decisions● initiate and manage between-meeting contacts in a manner that moves negotiations forward● respond to crisis situations effectively● monitor group and individual needs related to the work, during and between Table meetings● remain unbiased in all contacts with parties to the negotiation and not advance the interests of one

party over the other● respond to the media on behalf of the Table as required● assist with coordination of working groups and other sub-committees of the Table● assist Table to reach the highest degree of consensus, and ensure closure on issues● maintain contact and coordination between all parties to the negotiations

Commission Associate

The Commission has the responsibility, under the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act, to facilitate the development, implementation and monitoring of community-based participatory processes to consider land use and related resource and environmental issues.

The Associate is responsible for the pilot project design, implementation and evaluation, and coordinates the pilot project in all aspects, including the following areas specifically in support of the Table:

● liaison with outside contractors and government staff involved with the pilot● provision of sector organization services● coordination of information assembly● coordination of and provision of required technical support services● monitoring and administration of the budget● administration of participant assistance● provision of necessary administrative support services● logistical coordination of meetings● preparation of meeting summary notes (issues and decisions)● assistance with mediation and/or facilitation of the Table or working groups as required.

The Associate also communicates the Commission's interests to the Table when there is a need to do so, including the following needs:

● the pilot project is completed in a way which builds public and government confidence in the process and its outcome, and generates products which actively address the substantive issues and are capable


vol3

of implementation● the pilot project is completed in a focused, timely and cost-effective manner;● the pilot project proceeds in a manner that is consistent with the legislated obligations of the

Commissioner● the Commission supports the negotiation process by providing an organizational and technical

framework to guide the participants● the Commission respects the different values and perspectives of the participants while facilitating a

common, task-oriented agenda● the Commission works effectively in partnership with the negotiation Table without either imposing

on the Table or compromising the Commission's statutory mandate, independence and impartiality.

Sector Spokesperson

The sector spokespersons are chosen by sectoral steering groups and constituencies to represent the perspectives of sectors at the Table. Their role is as follows:

● work to build trust, seek common ground, clarify and facilitate productive communication● shift from positions to interests and encourage others to do so● look for mutually acceptable outcomes● clarify and assert interests of their sectors and listen while others do the same● represent Table's work to their sector and the public in the spirit of collaboration● negotiate with other sectors toward consensus at the Table● ensure communication flow between their sector and Table● negotiate in good faith, offer relevant information● read and keep up to date on information being exchanged● communicate any problems to the Table and mediator● come to the Table prepared● participate in working groups and other sub-committees of the Table● participate in public outreach events● respond to the media on behalf of their own sector.

Government Representative

The role of the government representative at the Table is different from sector spokespersons' role. The role is as follows:

● serve as a conduit for information to and from the Table and Cabinet;● act as a sounding board for Cabinet;● provide the Table with information on:

a. provincial policy, for example, the Forest Practices Code, PAS, tenures compensation, viable forestry industry, joint stewardship/treaty negotiations;

b. financial feasibility;● serve in a corporate role as representative of government:

a. communicate "government interests" - e.g., conservation, community stability (all levels), healthy economy and environment;


vol3

b. integrate interests of agencies/ministries. Integration happens at corporate (Cabinet) level;

● provide technical support within financial and staffing constraints, e.g., information collection, option analysis (not evaluation of options), and describe opportunities and constraints to aid effective dialogue and negotiation at the Table.



vol3


Table of contents

Appendix 2 - Potential Community Resource Board Areas

The following list provides a preliminary indication of the possible number of community resource boards which might emerge throughout B.C. It was developed by listing communities in each forest district which might require and support a community resource board. While it is obviously not definitive because it was not developed through dialogue with communities, it helps provide an indication of scope and potential support requirements. The total number of community resource boards could eventually be more or less than the number shown on this illustrative list, depending on government priorities, community wishes, and the nature of evolving land use and resource management issues.

Forest District Community/Communities

Kootenay Region 15

Cranbrook Cranbrook, Kimberley, Fernie, Sparwood/Elkford 4

Invermere Invermere/Radium, Canal Flats 2

Golden Golden 1

Kootenay Lake Nelson, Creston, Kaslo/Argenta 3








vol3

Revelstoke Revelstoke 1

Arrow Castlegar, New Denver, Nakusp 3

Boundary Grand Forks 1

Thompson-Okanagan Region (18)- (19)

Clearwater Blue River 1

Kamloops Kamloops, Ashcroft, Logan Lake, (Barriere) 3-4

Salmon Arm Salmon Arm, Sicamous 2

Vernon Vernon, Armstrong, Enderby 3

Penticton Kelowna, Penticton, Osoyoos, Keremeos 4

Merritt Merritt, Princeton 2

Lillooet Lillooet, Lytton 2

Cariboo Region 7-(9)

Quesnel Quesnel (Nasko) (Barkerville) 1-3

Williams Lake Williams Lake 1

Horsefly Horsefly-Likely 1


vol3

100 Mile House 100 Mile House, Clinton 2

Chilcotin Alexis Creek, Anahim 2

Prince George Region 10-(12)

Prince George Prince George 1

Robson Valley McBride (Valemount) 1-(2)

Vanderhoof Vanderhoof (Fraser Lake) 1-(2)

Fort St. James Fort St. James 1

Mackenzie Mackenzie 1

Dawson Creek Dawson Creek, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge 3

Fort St. John Fort St. John 1

Fort Nelson Fort Nelson 1

Prince Rupert Region 11-(12)

Lakes Burns Lake 1

Morice Houston (Granisle) 1-2

Bulkley Smithers 1


vol3

Kispiox Hazelton 1

Kalum Terrace, Kitimat, New Aiyansh 3

North Coast Prince Rupert 1

Cassiar Dease Lake, Cassiar, Atlin 3

Vancouver Forest Region 22-(23)

Chilliwack Align with Regional Districts or Electoral Areas

3

Squamish Squamish, Whistler (Pemberton) 2-(3)

Sunshine Coast Sechelt, Powell River/Lund 2

Duncan C.R.D., C.V.R.D., Islands Trust 3

Port Alberni Alberni, Parksville, Clayoquot 3

Campbell River Courtenay-Comox, Campbell River, Gold River, Tahsis

4

Port McNeill Port McNeill, Port Hardy 2

Mid Coast Bella Coola 1

Queen Charlotte Graham Island, Moresby Island 2

*Parentheses indicate possible options, depending on community interest and other factors.


vol3


Resource Management Division Contacts

MSRM Home > Resource Management Division

Resource Management Division Contacts

Resource Management Division - Headquarters

● Divisional Operations● Forests, Lands, and Marine Branch● Sustainable Resource Development Branch

Resource Management Division - Regional Operations

● Resource Management Regions - Cariboo● Resource Management Regions - Kootenay● Resource Management Regions - Omineca-Peace● Resource Management Regions - Skeena● Resource Management Regions - Southern Interior● Resource Management Regions - Vancouver Island/Lower Mainland

. This page was last modified: October 21, 2004

.

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/contact/index.html2/22/2005 7:00:00 AM



http://www.gov.bc.ca/srm/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/srm/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/bvprd/bc/content.do?brwId=%4020YUa%7C0YQtuW&navId=NAV_ID_-8393

http://www.gov.bc.ca/srm/news/

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/search/search.htm

http://www.publications.gov.bc.ca/

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/


http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=RESORMGT

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=VICCENTRE

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=FLMB

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=SRDB

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=REGPLANOPS#OUFOCUS

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=CARIB#OUFOCUS

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=RESPLKOOT#OUFOCUS

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=OMIPEACE#OUFOCUS

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=SKEENA#OUFOCUS

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=SOUTHINT#OUFOCUS

http://www.dir.gov.bc.ca/gtds.cgi?show=Branch&organizationCode=SRM&organizationalUnitCode=VAN%26LM#OUFOCUS

http://www.gov.bc.ca/../com/copy/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/../com/disc/

http://www.gov.bc.ca/../com/priv/


http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/contact/feedback.htm

Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management - Resource Management Division

Privacy Statement

What personal information we collect

When you visit a government website, our web server automatically collects a limited amount of information essential for the operation and security of our website. Some of this information (e.g.,browser type) does not identify who you are, while other information, such as your Internet domain name or IP address may identify you. The extent of personal identification depends, in large part, on the "naming standards" followed by your Internet Service Provider.

Some government websites may distribute small pieces of information (called "cookies") to web browsers to assist you when you return to specific areas on the site. If you have concerns about this, you can change your web browser to not accept this information or display warning messages.

When you voluntarily send us electronic mail or complete an electronic form that includes identifying information about you, we will keep a record of this information so that we can respond to you.

How we protect and use the personal information that we collect

Collection, use, disclosure and retention of information must comply with provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Document Disposal Act. Collected personal information will only be used by authorized government staff to fulfill the purpose for which it was originally collected or for a use consistent with that purpose. We do not disclose your information to other public bodies or individuals except as authorized by law. We keep the information only for the length of time necessary to fulfill the purpose(s) for which it was collected.

A government website may contain links to other websites. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of such websites.

Questions or concerns?

For more information about this policy, please contact BC Internet Services, Queen's Printer, by e-mail at: [email protected] by telephone at: (250) 952-6033 or by fax at: (250) 356-5576.

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/privacy.htm (1 of 2)2/22/2005 7:00:00 AM




http://www.news.gov.bc.ca/default.asp?organisation_obj_id=0b00921e80002ca0



mailto:[email protected]


Questions or Comments? Web Administrator

Last Updated: 07/20/98

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/privacy.htm (2 of 2)2/22/2005 7:00:00 AM



Warranty Disclaimer

This information is provided as a public service by the Government of British Columbia, Box 9411, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 9V1.

This Web site and all of the information it contains are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, whether express or implied. All implied warranties, including, without limitation, implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement, are hereby expressly disclaimed.

Limitation of Liabilities

Under no circumstances will the Government of British Columbia be liable to any person or business entity for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other damages based on any use of this Web site or any other Web site to which this site is linked, including, without limitation, any lost profits, business interruption, or loss of programs or information, even if the Government of British Columbia has been specifically advised of the possibility of such damages.

Users should be aware that this method of making documents electronically available involves a new use of technology, which inevitably causes grammatical and textual errors. Although every effort has been made to accurately translate our hard-copy documents to HTML, information found here should not be used for making financial or any other commitments. Clarification on these documents can be obtained by contacting:

Resource Management DivisionSecond Floor, 836 Yates Street Victoria, B.C. V8V lX4 Phone: (250) 387-3942 Fax: (250) 356-6464

British Columbia residents may call toll free by calling Enquiry BC and requesting a transer to 387-3942. From Vancouver call 660-2421 Elsewhere in B.C. call 1-800-663-7867


http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/disclaimer.htm (1 of 2)2/22/2005 7:00:01 AM










http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/disclaimer.htm (2 of 2)2/22/2005 7:00:01 AM


Copyright

The following policy governs the operation and management of the government's main Web site, and all Web sites of ministries, and agencies reporting to ministries.

Copyright © 2001, Province of British ColumbiaAll rights reserved

This material is owned by the Government of British Columbia and protected by copyright law. It may not be reproduced or redistributed without the prior written permission of the Province of British Columbia.

For requests relating to the reproduction of provincial legislation, permission is subject to the conditions outlined here.

Permission

To request permission to reproduce all or part of the material on this Web site, please complete the Copyright Permission Request Form.

Questions or concerns?

For more information, please contact the Intellectual Property Program.

● e-mail: [email protected]● fax: (250) 356-0846

Resource Management DivisionSecond Floor, 836 Yates Street Victoria, B.C. V8V lX4 Phone: (250) 387-3942 Fax: (250) 356-6464

British Columbia residents may call toll free by calling Enquiry BC and requesting a transer to 387-3942. From Vancouver call 660-2421 Elsewhere in B.C. call 1-800-663-7867

http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/copyright.htm (1 of 2)2/22/2005 7:00:02 AM







http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/copy/guide.htm

http://www.gov.bc.ca/com/copy/req/



Download Netscape Navigator

Download Microsoft Internet Explorer

Please make sure your browser supports tables.



http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/rmd/copyright.htm (2 of 2)2/22/2005 7:00:02 AM

http://home.netscape.com/comprod/mirror/index.html



http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/




CORE Index Volume 3

->


Dispute Resolution

Volume 4

February 1995


Table of Contents

Foreword

Overview

Preventive Dispute ResolutionAdjudicative Dispute ResolutionNegotiated ApproachesSummary of Recommendations








CORE Index Volume 3

1 - Introduction

Managing for SustainabilityThe Provincial Land Use StrategyBarriers to Effective Land Use Dispute Resolution

Public Alienation from the Decision-Making ProcessIsolated Decision-Making StructuresInadequate or Non-Existent Review and Appeal MechanismsLimited Joint Problem-Solving Capacity

The Way Ahead

2 - The Nature and Purpose of a Dispute Resolution System

Administrative Land and Resource Management DecisionsHow Administrative Decisions Are MadeDiscretion in Administrative Decision-Making

The Need for a Comprehensive Dispute Resolution SystemAdministrative FairnessThe Objectives of a Dispute Resolution System

Key Components of a Dispute Resolution SystemPreventive MechanismsAdjudicative MechanismsNegotiated Approaches to Dispute Resolution

3 - Preventing Public Disputes

Coordinated Decision-MakingPublic Participation

Enhancing the Status of Public ParticipationEnhancing the Opportunity to ParticipateEnhanced Institutional Support for ParticipationRecommendation

4 - Adjudicating Public Disputes

Internal ReviewExternal AppealJudicial Review

Gaps and Weaknesses in the Existing Review and Appeal SystemIllustrating the Problem

Recommendation


CORE Index Volume 3

5 - Integrating Negotiation into the Dispute Resolution System

The Role of NegotiationWhat is Interest-Based Negotiation?

MediationWhy Do We Need Interest-Based Negotiation?

Negotiation and Public ParticipationNegotiation and Coordinated Decision-MakingNegotiation in the Review and Appeal System

Management ConstraintsExpertiseFinancial and Human ResourcesInstitutional FrameworkCorporate Culture and ValuesLimited Mandates

Providing Support for Negotiated Approaches to Decision-Making and Dispute Resolution

Coordinating the Delivery of Mediation ServicesFormalizing Negotiated ApproachesTraining

6 - Implementing a Dispute Resolution System

Summary of NeedsImplementation Strategies

Dispute PreventionLegislation Review and Public ConsultationInterpretation and Compliance with Land Use PlansCommon Secretariat Support ServicesConsolidation of Appeal Functions

Figures

Figure 1. Main Statutes Governing Land Use and Related Resource and Environmental Management in B.C.Figure 2. Land Use Dispute Resolution System

Appendix - Statutory Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in B.C.

Land, Resource and Environmental Management


CORE Index Volume 3

Agricultural Land CommissionForest Land CommissionLandEnvironmental Appeal Board (established under Environment Management Act)Mediation and Arbitration Board (established under Petroleum and Natural Gas Act)Utilities CommissionOmbudsman

Emerging Dispute Resolution Provisions (Environment and Forestry)Environmental Assessment BoardForest Practices Board and Forest Appeals CommissionEnvironmental Protection

Non Land or Resource Use StatutesLabour Relations BoardWorkers' Compensation SystemInformation and Privacy CommissionerInternational Commercial ArbitrationCommercial ArbitrationResidential Tenancy Branch


vol4

Dispute Resolution - Volume 4

Table of contents

Foreword


Volume 1 - A Sustainability Act for British Columbia - describes the overall structure and purpose of the provincial land use strategy and recommends that a statute confirm the obligations


Volume 2 - Planning For Sustainability - provides an in-depth review and detailed recommendations regarding legislation, structures and other measures to improve the overall land use planning system in British Columbia. The planning system is a primary part of the provincial land use strategy.

Volume 3 - Community Participation - reviews the experience of public participation in land use decisions in British Columbia, and makes recommendations for a flexible framework of community resource boards that are voluntary, inclusive of all parties with a significant interest, accountable to the community, purpose-driven, advisory and consensus-seeking.

Volume 4 - Dispute Resolution - addresses the need for simple and accessible review and appeal








vol4

mechanisms to ensure efficient, consistent and comprehensive opportunities for persons whose lives are affected by land use and related decisions to have their concerns dealt with. Specifically, this volume makes recommendations on a land use appeal system for the review of the administration of land use plans.



vol4


Table of contents

Overview

This report presents the case for a comprehensive system for resolving land and resource management disputes in B.C. that includes preventive and adjudicative approaches, both of which must be supported by increased opportunity for negotiated solutions to land and resource use problems.

The underlying objectives that must guide the scope and nature of preventive and adjudicative strategies are fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. The duty of public officials with delegated decision authority to be fair is well established in administrative law, and serves to ensure accountability of these individuals and to reduce social conflict. The efficiency objective requires that land use and resource management decision-making and dispute resolution processes proceed in a timely way with reasonable support of human and financial resources. The system must be effective at preventing disputes where possible, resolving them as quickly as possible when they do arise, and enabling better decisions to be reached throughout.

Preventive Dispute Resolution

Preventive strategies for dispute resolution must focus on:

● coordinated decision-making among the complex array of government agencies with various responsibilities for land use and resource management, and

● increased opportunity for meaningful public participation in decision-making.

Improved coordination among land use and resource management agencies, as a means of ensuring the integration of all agencies' priorities and information in decision-making, requires permanent coordinating bodies at the provincial and field levels. Adequate involvement of a variety of agencies will ensure balanced decisions that better reflect the variety of public interests. There








vol4

also need to be continued corporate government efforts to assemble natural resource inventory information that reflects the priorities of all mandated agencies, which will help ensure balanced opportunity for these interests to enter planning and other decision-making processes.

Seventh Floor, 1802 Douglas StreetVictoria B.C. V8V 1X4Telephone (604) 387-1210Facsimile (604) 356-6385

A stronger commitment to public participation in land use and resource management decision-making will help ensure the integration of key public values and interests into government decisions - thereby reducing the potential for subsequent conflict. Actions needed to support this strategy include formal recognition of the public's general right to participate in decision-making, creation of consistent opportunities for public participation in decision-making, and the removal of institutional barriers to effective participation.

Adjudicative Dispute Resolution

Adjudicative strategies for settling land use and resource management disputes closely examine existing review and appeal mechanisms. At present, there are over 40 separate pieces of relevant legislation for B.C. (Figure 1) with little consistency in the opportunities they provide for review and appeal of administrative decisions. Some provisions are fair and effective while others are inadequate, very few are consistent with each other and most operate in isolation from the others. A set of simplified, common, general rules and procedures that apply to all review and appeal situations are needed to ensure fairness, reduce complexity, uncertainty and cost, and establish consistency.

These common rules and procedures should:

● provide specific opportunities for the internal, informal review and the external, formal appeal of administrative decisions

● define criteria for determining who should be notified of individual decisions, and methods and procedures of notification

● identify criteria for determining who should have standing to appeal decisions, upon what grounds should appeals be permitted, and what subjects should be eligible for appeal

● clarify jurisdiction of appeal bodies● expand of opportunities for pre-hearing mediation to supplement review and appeal processes● increase public awareness of review and appeal opportunities through expanded availability of policy

and procedures materials, and ensure the distribution of written review and appeal findings and reasons for decisions.

Negotiated Approaches

The integration of interest-based negotiation on both the preventive and adjudicative sides of a dispute resolution system is needed to enhance cost-effective opportunities for lasting solutions to


vol4

land and resource management problems.


Regarding land use and related resource and environmental decision-making , this report recommends that:

1. Government should integrate public participation by recognizing in law the general right of members of the public to participate meaningfully, and by setting out the responsibilities of participants in a code of conduct.

2. Government should encourage and support appropriate and consistent levels of public participation in decision-making processes.

3. Government should modify the institutional framework to support and respond to the requirement for public participation more effectively.

4. The rules governing the review and appeal of such decisions should be amended to standardize and consolidate procedures where appropriate throughout the system. The amendment process should address the need to:

● ensure that notice of decisions is provided in a manner that ensures that all significantly affected persons are notified, recognizing that the more directly affected a person is by a decision, the more direct the manner of notice should be

● ensure that review and appeal provisions within legislation provide standing to those persons who can show they represent a public interest, as well as those who are significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the decision

● ensure that persons significantly affected should have the opportunity for a timely internal review as a first opportunity for dispute resolution

● ensure that internal reviews are structured as informal and cost-effective processes with a problem-solving orientation

● ensure that all relevant legislation provide clear and consistent direction as to what constitutes sufficient grounds for filing an appeal

● require that an appellant present accurate and concise grounds at the time of filing an appeal

● ensure that external appeal bodies have adequate budgets, members with technical expertise, and training for board members in administrative law responsibilities, conduct of hearings and decision writing

● require that the policies and procedures of boards of appeal be written in clear, concise language and be publicly available; and, where fairness requires, authorize boards to set aside a board policy or procedure

● authorize external appeal bodies toa. hear all relevant matters and determine the procedures to be followed in the

course of hearing the appealb. determine the matters in issue in the appeal and make any order that appears

just, including the authority to substitute its own decision for the appealed


vol4

decisionc. provide policy advice to cabinet from time to time, based on the board's appeal

experienced. apply negotiated-approaches where appropriatee. require appeal bodies to provide decisions in writing, stating full reasons for

the decision.

5. The responsibility for the organization, administration and delivery of mediation services should be consolidated in a neutral office of mediation to ensure accountability, coordination and efficiency. This could be part of a coordinating secretariat or ministry within government, an independent commission, or the sustainability appeal board.

6. Opportunities for negotiation and mediation should be formalized in legislation as part of the review and appeal process.

7. A professional development program should be established to build negotiation and mediation skills in the public service through formal training and field experience opportunities.

8. Public managers should be encouraged to build a commitment to accessibility and public accountability in agency hiring practices, training and staff performance evaluation systems.

9. A legislative review and public consultation process should be undertaken to develop a set of common rules and procedures to guide the review and appeal process.

10. An independent land use appeal body should be established to hear appeals regarding the administration of strategic, local resource and other land use plans, including issues relating to their interpretation, implementation, and enforcement and other technical details.

11. Common secretariat services should be established for land use, resource and environmental appeal bodies in order to increase efficiencies, ensure greater standardization of practices and increase accessibility to the public.

12. All boards dealing with land use, resource and environmental appeals should over time be merged into a comprehensive sustainability appeal board.

Laws, policies and structures promoting interagency coordination and integration, and opportunities for meaningful public participation in planning and administrative decision-making, including interest-based negotiation, should be adopted to speed progress towards an effective dispute resolution system. Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the Provincial Land Use Strategy provide specific recommendations for addressing these needs.

Stephen OwenCommissioner


vol4


vol4


Table of contents

1 - Introduction

Managing for Sustainability

British Columbia has embarked on the path to a more sustainable society. Faced with the loss of environmental options, traditional resource jobs, rural community stability and business certainty, the province is acting on a range of issues - environmental, social and economic - to meet the needs of current and future generations.

The people of B.C., in a variety of forums, have recognized the need for change and have advocated a transition to sustainability. There is wide agreement that healthy economies and healthy ecosystems are an integral part of a sustainable society, and that we must act decisively and together to ensure the vitality of both. Not surprisingly, however, conflict continues over the use and management of our rich resources and extraordinary environment. The precise way ahead is unclear and there is disagreement about how far we have to go and at what pace, as demonstrated by recent protests against current land use practices and reaction against suggested changes.

B.C.'s progress towards sustainable land use can be demonstrated by several significant steps. The general principles of sustainability have been well documented and widely accepted. Strategic goals based on those principles have been defined and a range of policies adopted to begin the process of change.1 Growing public support for land use planning together with new and proposed legislation dealing with forest practices and renewal, environmental assessment, environmental protection and growth management reflects the commitment of British Columbians to practice sustainable land use. Further progress depends in part on B.C.'s ability to successfully manage for sustainability in a turbulent world characterized by change, complexity, uncertainty and conflict.

Managing for sustainability is an ambitious and extraordinarily complex process, involving the need to reconcile economic and environmental goals at the international, national, provincial and local








vol4

levels. At each level, decision-makers face difficult choices that have far-reaching consequences. The seamless nature of our environment and the interdependence of national economies make the challenge global in scope. However, effective planning and management on a worldwide or even national scale are beyond the capacity of our political, organizational and information systems. It is clear that we must act at all levels, by exploring many possible solutions and by monitoring their impacts on other initiatives. Progress at local, regional and provincial levels will contribute to national and global objectives. We are discovering, however, that "thinking globally and acting locally" is a daunting management task. To address this challenge, we must improve the way we use our system of representative democracy to make land use decisions and resolve resource and environmental conflicts. This is a prime task of the Provincial land use strategy.


As part of CORE's mandate to develop a provincial land use strategy, section 4 (2) of the CORE Act requires the Commissioner to facilitate the development, implementation and monitoring of a dispute resolution system for land use and related resource and environmental issues in British Columbia. This report focuses on the need to develop a land use dispute resolution system that will help ensure better decisions and deal with conflicts in a fair and effective manner.

British Columbia is seeking to set a new global standard for sustainable land use and related resource and environmental management. Central to this effort is a land use strategy designed to provide the necessary dynamic through five interdependent components: provincial direction, participatory planning, interagency and intergovernmental coordination, independent oversight and dispute resolution.

Provincial direction brings together land use principles, strategic land and resource use goals and policies that define British Columbia's vision for social, economic and environmental sustainability, and how it is going to be achieved. This direction defines the provincial interest in land use and resource management thereby providing critical guidance to all levels of decision-making.

Participatory planning processes provide the public with opportunities to help shape specific land use plans and decisions. These processes must reconcile competing goals, policies, community aspirations and biophysical realities to define suitable land uses. The adoption of plans through these processes is a necessary step in the transition from short-term, reactive decision-making to the long term strategic decision-making needed to achieve economic, environmental and social sustainability.

Coordination between levels of government and among government ministries, agencies and initiatives ensures comprehensive and integrated decision-making and balance in the implementation, administration, review and amendment of strategic land and resource use policies and plans. Effective coordination improves accountability and encourages the consideration and accommodation of all values and interests in decision-making.

Independent oversight monitors the overall performance of the provincial land use and environmental management system to ensure fairness and effectiveness, and accountability to the


vol4

vision of sustainability. Independent public reporting and review supports neutrality and balance.

An effective dispute resolution system ensures meaningful public participation in decision-making processes and appropriate interagency coordination in decision-making; it also provides for simple and accessible review and appeal mechanisms so that administrative decisions can be challenged by individuals or groups.

The components of the Provincial land use strategy are dynamic and interdependent. The nature, scope and effectiveness of each is largely determined by the nature, scope and effectiveness of the others. The inadequacy or failure of any one element will compromise the others. Complementing one another, they support a fully functional, finely tuned land use and related resource and environmental decision-making system. Permanent but adaptive, they provide the essential tools to manage for sustainability.

Barriers to Effective Land Use Dispute Resolution

B.C.'s current decision-making and dispute resolution mechanisms do not meet the standard of efficiency and effectiveness required to achieve our sustainability objectives. Although significant advances have been made and there is a growing appreciation of the need for further improvement, significant barriers stand in the way of progress, as described below.

Public Alienation from the Decision-Making Process

The public has high expectations for meaningful participation in land use and resource management decisions. Where those expectations are not met, public alienation from the decision-making process threatens our ability to reach balanced and enduring land use decisions. This alienation is often expressed in widespread public cynicism about government effectiveness and fairness, and dissatisfaction with the actions and decisions of government.

Isolated Decision-Making Structures

To achieve sustainability objectives, land use and related resource and environmental decisions must accommodate a range of competing values, a task not well suited to vertically aligned, single purpose agencies, in the absence of coordinating mechanisms. Policy and institutional compartmentalization compromises efforts to identify and reconcile divergent economic, social and environmental interests.

Inadequate or Non-Existent Review and Appeal Mechanisms

Fair and effective mechanisms for resolving disputes over planning and resource management decisions are needed to ensure accountability and public confidence. Existing review and appeal mechanisms are confusing and difficult to access. In addition, there are limited mechanisms to hear appeals regarding the administration of strategic, local resource and other land use plans, including issues related to their interpretation, implementation and enforcement.


vol4

Limited Joint Problem-Solving Capacity

Our governance system is intended to make and implement decisions in the public interest. The legislative branch makes laws and regulations to deal with issues of public concern while the executive branch administers and enforces the legislation. Public administrators develop and implement programs. The judicial branch independently determines if laws have been broken. Although these institutions form the backbone of our democratic system, they cannot by themselves achieve sustainability. The legislature, the bureaucracy and the courts are not alone sufficient to create long-lasting solutions to conflicts that arise from legitimate but competing values. Negotiated approaches to problem-solving can help to resolve conflicts by directly involving the people affected by decisions in working out their differences together. Negotiation can lead to creative solutions that maximize environmental, economic and social benefits. However, such approaches are not widely mandated and there is no system for the delivery of negotiation support services.

The Way Ahead

To help overcome procedural and institutional barriers to creative decision-making and dispute resolution, B.C. needs both a comprehensive land use dispute resolution system based in legislation, and an institutional framework that will support and respond to public participation processes.

This report makes recommendations to:

● reinforce the role of public participation and coordinated administrative decision-making in preventing land use disputes

● address inconsistencies, gaps and inefficiencies in the review and appeal system● integrate negotiated approaches to problem-solving into the administrative decision-making

framework● define structural approaches for implementing a comprehensive dispute resolution system.

The recommendations - dealing with the need for both preventive and adjudicative dispute resolution - address not only more fair and accessible mechanisms for dispute resolution, but also cost-savings for all parties concerned.

1. Commission on Resources and Environment, Finding Common Ground: A Shared Vision for Land Use in British Columbia (Victoria, 1994).


vol4


vol4


Table of contents

2 - The Nature and Purpose of a Dispute Resolution System

Administrative Land and Resource Management Decisions

In B.C. a large and diverse body of legislation provides the basis for the management and regulation of the public interest in land use and related resource and environmental management. Thousands of decisions are made each year in the day-to-day implementation and administration of this legislation. These include major government policy decisions such as the adoption of a sector-specific strategy (e.g., heli-skiing regulations) or a regional land use plan, as well as administrative decisions required to implement programs, policies and plans and the many provisions of individual statutes. Figure 1 lists the main statutes under which the majority of these decisions are made. The list includes statutes that allocate, manage and regulate such things as water, air, surface rights in land, fish and wildlife, habitat protection, waste, pesticides, forestry, energy, minerals, recreation, heritage resources, protected areas, noxious pests, agricultural land, utilities, highways, municipal land use, and environmental health.

Administrative decisions made pursuant to these statutes involve the interpretation and application of legislation and policy to individual situations. The size of the province and the magnitude of government business require extensive delegation of administrative decision-making power to public officials. These delegated powers may be duties (e.g., to enforce rules) or they may involve the power to do or not do something at the discretion of the administrative decision-maker.

Figure 1Main Statutes Governing Land Use and Related Resource and

Environmental Management in B.C.








vol4

Name of Legislation Responsible Ministry

1. Agricultural Land Commission Act Agriculture and Food

2. Soil Conservation Act Agriculture and Food

3. Grasshopper Control Act Agriculture and Food

4. Plant Protection Act Agriculture and Food

5. Weed Control Act Agriculture and Food

6. Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act

7. Ecological Reserve Act Environment, Lands and Parks

8. Environment and Land Use Act Environment, Lands and Parks

9. Land Act Environment, Lands and Parks

10. Park Act Environment, Lands and Parks

11. Pesticide Control Act Environment, Lands and Parks

12. Waste Management Act Environment, Lands and Parks

13. Water Act Environment, Lands and Parks

14. Wildlife Act Environment, Lands and Parks


vol4

15. Environment Management Act Environment, Lands and Parks

16. Environmental Assessment Act Environment, Lands and Parks

17. Drainage, Ditch and Dyke Act Environment, Lands and Parks

18. Commercial River Rafting and Safety Act

Environment, Lands and Parks

19. Energy Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

20. Petroleum and Natural Gas Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

21. Coal Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

22. Utilities Commission Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

23. Geothermal Resources Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

24. Mine Development Assessment Act

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

25. Mineral Tenure Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

26. Mineral Prospector Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources


vol4

27. Mines Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

28. Mining Right of Way Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

29. Pipeline Act Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

30. BC Transit Act Finance

31. Assessment Act Finance

32. Range Act Forests

33. Forest Act Forests

34. BC Forest Renewal Act Forests

35. Forest Land Reserve Act Forests

36. Forest Practices Code Act Forests

37. Health Act Health

38. Municipal Act Municipal Affairs, Recreation & Heritage

39. Heritage Conservation Act Small Business, Tourism and Culture

40. Highway Act Transportation and Highways


vol4

41. Railway Act Transportation and Highways

42. Highway (Industrial) Act Transportation and Highways

43. Riverbank Protection Act Transportation and Highways

How Administrative Decisions Are Made

The implementation of land use and related resource and environmental programs, policies and plans is carried out primarily through the regional and district offices of resource ministries. In some cases, administrative responsibility is provided through a separate body, such as the Agricultural Land Commission or the Forest Land Reserve Commission. Decentralized administrative units are normally supported by a headquarters policy and procedures group that coordinates the development of programs, policies, procedures and legal documentation in support of consistent field operations.

Some of the steps that may precede an administrative land use or resource management decision include:

● public advertising (notice) of a tenure or permit application to invite expressions of public opinion on the proposal (e.g., a foreshore tenure application or a pesticide use permit application). Often the proponent is responsible for placing an advertisement to notify the public of the application. In some cases, the government may notify the public or specific interest groups. As well, there may be requirements for proponents to consult more broadly through forums such as open-house presentations.

● evaluation of proponent eligibility to acquire a tenure or permit under the program or policy in question (e.g., qualification criteria, such as a requirement to be a small business forest company, or to confirm possession of an environmental assessment certificate.)

● assessment of the legal status of the lands or resources in question to determine if there are conflicting legal interests that would prevent or complicate the issuance of an approval. This assessment is often achieved through referral processes, and/or by reference to government registries that contain information on existing legal interests, such as the Crown land registry administered by B.C. Lands and Ministry of Forests' tenure registry systems.

● assessment of conformity with relevant laws and regulations, policies and plans, or related approvals (e.g., conformity of the proposal with designated resource management zone objectives, agricultural land reserve regulations, or mitigation requirements contained in an environmental assessment certificate approval). The information that is required to assess conformity is often assembled through referral of the proposal to appropriate agencies, and by reference to registry information. In some cases, the proponent may be requested to provide information.

● assessment of suitability of the proposal in relation to specific physical or socio-economic attributes of the area in question as well as the surrounding area (e.g., capability of land or water to accommodate the proposed use, or potential implications for neighbouring land uses). Sources of this


vol4

type of information are referrals, existing or newly developed plans and studies, resource inventory and sensitivity mapping, and field inspections. The objective is to determine whether the proposal will result in negative effects to other resource values, and whether or not these effects may be mitigated in some way.

● determination of the specific type and nature of conditions that should be incorporated into an approval as a way of protecting resource values and the interests of other tenure holders, resource users and the public. The kinds of conditions that might be placed upon a tenure authorization could include a requirement to post a performance bond, develop and comply with detailed management plans, and conduct further inventories and assessments of resources in and around the area.

Administrative decisions respecting enforcement of regulations or the enforcement of provisions within individual tenure or permit agreements normally involve information collection through monitoring, surveillance, field inspections, random audits and citizen reports. In some cases, tenure holders are required to supply certain information (e.g., effluent discharge information) which is used as a basis for enforcement decisions.

Administrative decisions on enforcement of environmental regulations and tenure provisions often involve less exercise of discretion than do decisions, for example, to allocate a tenure or establish a resource use harvest limit, as there is less inherent subjectivity in these decisions. Usually, more clearly identified criteria, such as measurable effluent discharge limits, hunting bag limits or harvest quotas, serve as a basis for objective decisions on enforcement.

Those who violate the provisions of a legal tenure, permit or regulation may be subject to a range of actions including tenure cancellation, forfeiture of a performance bond, payment of a penalty, abatement or restraining orders, ministerial or cabinet performance orders, court injunctions, ticketing or formal prosecution.

Discretion in Administrative Decision-Making

Public servants with delegated responsibility to perform the land and resource management functions identified in the preceding section are typically required to make administrative decisions that require significant interpretation and judgment, including:

● the intent or meaning of a regulation, policy or plan● eligibility of parties to qualify for programs● conformity of individual proposals with laws, regulations, policies and plans● the kinds of information that should or should not be collected● individuals, groups or agencies whose opinions should be solicited and considered● the acceptability of potential impacts associated with individual proposals● the nature and scope of conditions that should precede the issuance of an approval● specific provisions to mitigate impacts that should be incorporated within a proposed approval as

ongoing management requirements.

The administrative discretion of public servants is normally limited. Limits prescribed in legislation, regulation or policy and procedure statements outline basic procedural requirements, or serve to


vol4

identify the matters to be considered by administrative decision-makers. For example, requirements are often prescribed to supply notice of a pending decision, to consult with other agencies or public interests, or to obtain and consider specific information or issues prior to making an administrative decision. Such requirements help ensure fairness and balance in decision-making and lessen the potential for subsequent conflict. However, post-decision review and appeal provisions (adjudicative mechanisms) are also necessary to ensure that administrative decisions are made in accordance with the limits on discretionary authority. The preventive and adjudicative components of a comprehensive dispute resolution system are described later in this chapter.

The Need for a Comprehensive Dispute Resolution System

Administrative Fairness

A public official exercising discretionary decision-making authority under a statute has a duty to proceed fairly. The Law Reform Commission of Canada has defined fairness as "according appropriate recognition to the interests that may be affected by an administrative decision."2 What amounts to appropriate recognition varies over time and circumstances. The criteria that the courts apply in determining whether an administrative procedure was fair include the nature of the decision, the relationship between the decision-making body and the individual, and the effect of the decision on the individual's rights.3

As is pointed out in section 2.1, the responsibility to interpret and apply public policy in land use and resource management situations must of necessity be delegated to public officials. Consequently, achieving fairness depends to a large extent on ensuring the quality of administrative decisions, actions and practices. The quality of administrative decisions is controlled principally through accountability, which the Law Reform Commission of Canada defines as "having to answer for the exercise of what is essentially governmental authority to affect public and private

interests."4

A primary means of holding a public official accountable for the exercise of discretionary authority is through the review and appeal provisions in the enabling statute. Having evolved at different times and under different circumstances, the opportunities for review and appeal vary significantly from one statute to another. Subject to constraints on standing and grounds for appeal, a person seeking to dispute an administrative decision may have access to an internal review in which a public official not involved in the original decision reconsiders the matter, and/or to an external appeal in which an independent tribunal conducts a hearing and decides whether the decision was correct. After the review and appeal opportunities have been exhausted, a person may request that

an administrative action or decision be reviewed by the Ombudsman.5

The review and appeal procedures provided in most land use and related resource statutes were designed to help ensure administrative accountability at a time when public officials were widely accepted as primary guardians of the public interest. Today, widespread cynicism about government effectiveness and fairness has resulted in a public demand for additional mechanisms


vol4

to ensure administrative fairness and accountability. Meaningful public participation in the decision-making process is one mechanism that can be used to meet these demands.

The following principles of administrative fairness6 should guide public officials in making decisions and resolving disputes related to land and resource allocation and enforcement decisions.

1. In matters affecting the rights and interests of provincial residents, fairness, certainty, and predictability are best served through a comprehensive legislative foundation. Where it is foreseeable that the rights of individuals and communities will be in conflict, the legal framework should be established by statutes and regulations to which interested parties can refer in planning their affairs or resolving their disputes. Government performance and accountability then become measurable.

2. An opportunity for meaningful participation must be provided to those individuals or groups whose interests are affected, directly or indirectly. Meaningful participation means that individuals, groups, local government or any other party with significant and legitimate interests will be recognized in the planning, implementation and conflict resolution processes. It implies that their representations will receive careful consideration and will be accorded due regard consistent with the importance of the individual's interest. In other words, a duty is placed upon the decision-maker, insofar as is reasonably possible, to appreciate fully the significance of and the foundation for the various individual or group interests.

3. A structured framework is required for the exercise of discretion. The structuring of administrative discretion in decision-making is essential to assure public confidence and is most effectively achieved through the application of objective assessment criteria which are set out in legislation, regulations, and published official ministry policy documents. When administrative discretion is exercised in areas where potential conflict exists between individual, industrial and public interests, there can be suspicion that either the "vested interests" or the "squeaky wheels" have inordinately or improperly influenced the system for decision-making. The publication of clearly defined criteria by which discretion is to be exercised is essential, so that the public can have confidence that similar situations are treated consistently and different situations are treated individually.

4. Policy guidelines, rules and regulations issued by ministries must be clearly defined in plain language and publicly available. Public confidence is bolstered when the public knows and understands the decision-making process.

5. Adequate and appropriate reasons for significant administrative decisions should be provided in written form, whether required by law or not. This enables parties to measure performance against policy accurately. Individuals are able to determine clearly the basis upon which the decision was reached and are less likely to challenge the decision, particularly if the reasons provided make it clear that the available evidence was considered fairly. The decision that is made and explained is also more likely to withstand later scrutiny by an independent review agency or tribunal.

6. Internal review procedures that allow an affected individual to understand clearly the basis for the original decision and to advance opposing views quickly and efficiently to an individual who has power to act are required. They ensure that apparent errors, such as incorrect or inappropriate interpretation of policy and regulatory requirements, are either quickly corrected or openly justified to the satisfaction of all parties. Whenever


vol4

administrative decisions are made which are not consistent with the desires of parties who have legitimate interests, there exists the possibility of suspicion and resentment that the process was biased in favour of the party whose interests won out. An effective internal review system in which individuals can participate and by which the rationale for a decision can be made known is important in avoiding or dispelling such suspicions.

7. External review procedures (appeals). An independent, statutory appeal process which is available without excessive cost is a vital aspect of assuring public confidence in the integrity of any process which regulates fundamental interests. The appeal body should be expert in the technical area being administered and, as well, should have at least one member experienced in the principles of administrative fairness. The appeal body must be truly independent with wide powers to hear evidence, call witnesses, and, if necessary, to substitute its decision for that of the administrative agency in appropriate cases.

8. An integrated, inter-disciplinary, and inter-ministerial planning process, based on a specific enabling statute and incorporating a long-range conception of the physical areas being administered or managed and which makes ample allowance for meaningful public participation at the beginning of the land allocation process, is basic to the achievement of administrative fairness. Its application should extend not only to maximizing benefits from the development of a particular industry but also to avoiding, rather than the more difficult and time-consuming resolving, of conflicts. Integrated planning allows each party to participate in the decisions which will affect its interests. In the case of industrial or commercial development in areas where such development has previously been rare, the planning component becomes critical. The time period allowed for publication of an application for Crown land, or even a public hearing, can be entirely inadequate for communities to address properly issues and concerns which may extend over the life of the industrial or commercial project. Since most developments of this nature are established with a long-term private plan, so also should the local community be able to engage in long-term planning on a cooperative basis with provincial authorities. This will help to ensure that industrial developments on Crown land do not occur without the careful consideration that a planning process can provide, by way of sufficient lead time and a measure of informed anticipation.

9. An efficient mechanism for the independent assessment of environmental or social impact is needed in instances where the ability of the parties to make accurate impact predictions is limited and the magnitude of an unexpected adverse impact may be significant. Administratively fair systems of impact assessment should be directed at the unbiased gathering of the best available data and predictions, which can then be applied to the critical questions of where, when, how, and whether or not to proceed with a project. Integral to the process and useful in enhancing its cost-effectiveness is the establishment of a threshold level at which a social or environmental impact assessment should be conducted.

The provincial Land Use Charter provides that the processes used for making land use and related resource and environment decisions must adhere to the principles of administrative fairness and also be efficient, accountable, adaptive and flexible. In June 1993, the government accepted the Charter in principle.


vol4

2. Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report on Independent Administrative Agencies: A Framework for Decision-Making ( Ottawa, 1985), p. 9.

3. Jones, D.P. and A.S. de Villars, Principles of Administrative Law, (Carswell, 2nd edition, 1994), p. 207.

4. Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report on Independent Administrative Agencies: A Framework for Decision-Making, (Ottawa, 1985), p. 8.

5. Ombudsman Act, RSBC Chap. 306, 1979, Section 11 (1) (a).6. Office of the Ombudsman, 1988 Annual Report, (Victoria, 1989), p. 30-31.


vol4


Table of contents

The Objectives of a Dispute Resolution System

In British Columbia, an aggrieved citizen seeking recourse from an administrative decision regarding a land use or related resource or environmental management matter has limited access to a narrow range of primarily adjudicative (i.e. post-decision review and appeal procedures) dispute resolution mechanisms. The range of review and appeal provisions under various statutes offer inconsistent opportunities for management review and, subject to constraints on standing, grounds and jurisdiction, an appeal to an independent tribunal.7 While perhaps adequate in the past, these post-decision review and appeal mechanisms are not capable of resolving the intensely polarized conflicts that characterize the land use and resource management debate in B.C.; nor do they replace the need for mechanisms that encourage parties to resolve disputes before going to adjudication.

Guided by the principles of administrative fairness, a land use dispute resolution system should provide a means for decision-makers and those affected by decisions to work through problems in all phases of decision-making and to deal with disputes arising after a decision is made. The aim is to make better decisions which avoid disputes and to deal with unavoidable disputes efficiently, peacefully and at minimum cost. A comprehensive system of dispute resolution should achieve the following objectives:

● provide expertise and administrative support for investigating and mediating disputes throughout the system

● standardize and streamline mechanisms for internal review of administrative decisions● ensure consistent rights of access to and common rules of procedure for all appeal boards dealing with

land use and related resource and environmental management issues● ensure an institutional framework to support and respond to public participation processes● overcome procedural and institutional barriers● increase effectiveness and efficiency● inspire public confidence, and








vol4

● support B.C.'s provincial land use strategy.

Accordingly, a dispute resolution system may involve a wide range of mechanisms, including participatory planning processes, coordinated interagency decision-making, informal problem-solving, mediation, management reviews and appeals to independent tribunals.

Key Components of a Dispute Resolution System

The components of a dispute resolution system must include mechanisms to prevent disputes from developing and to successfully adjudicate those disputes that do occur. Preventive dispute resolution mechanisms will build understanding and commitment to decisions and the decision-making process; adjudicative dispute resolution mechanisms will effectively resolve disagreements arising from the decision-making process. Figure 2 describes a comprehensive system that integrates preventive and adjudicative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Preventive Mechanisms

Mechanisms to prevent or narrow the scope of public disputes include:

Coordinated Decision-Making

Coordination among levels and agencies of government ensures integrated decision-making and balance in the implementation, administration, review and amendment of strategic policies and plans. Effective coordination improves decision-making efficiency by encouraging the simultaneous consideration and accommodation of all values and interests in the decision-making process. Interagency decision-making partnerships help to minimize disputes by ensuring balanced and fully informed decisions.

Participatory planning and interagency coordination are cornerstones of the provincial land use strategy, and they are also essential elements of a comprehensive dispute resolution system. In fulfilling their planning and coordination responsibilities, agencies perform a vital role in preventing disputes and generating the understanding, creative solutions and long-term relationships necessary to achieve sustainability.

Meaningful Public Participation in the Decision-Making Process

Public participation in land and resource management decision-making provides a link between those affected by decisions and those accountable for making the decisions. It provides decision-makers with direct knowledge about public priorities and other important information that make decisions more acceptable. As the Brundtland Commission8 pointed out, sustainability cannot be achieved without the commitment and support of the public. Meaningful participation, whereby participants can see that their contributions have helped shape the decision - be it a land use planning process, a decision to set an allowable annual cut, or a decision to issue a foreshore tenure - builds this commitment and produces more balanced and stable decisions. Better


vol4

decisions will prevent or at least narrow the scope of public disputes over administrative land use and related resource management decisions.

Public participation may take a variety of forms ranging from discussion with affected interests, to broad-based public consultation and participation in complex negotiated planning processes.

Figure 2. Land Use Dispute Resolution System

Adjudicative Mechanisms

Adjudicative mechanisms include the post-decision review and appeal procedures that provide opportunity for individuals to challenge administrative actions. They may range from informal problem-solving procedures by agency officials to formal appeals before independent tribunals such as the Environmental Appeal Board and the Forest Appeals Commission,9 or the courts.

Fair and effective mechanisms to resolve administrative disputes are crucial to ensure public confidence in planning and resource management decisions. Existing mechanisms to resolve disagreements arising from administrative decisions have grown incrementally under a variety of statutes (see Figure 1), resulting in a confusing array of rights and procedures in the review and appeal system. Specific problems are discussed in chapter 4. Such confusion can generate frustration and cynicism, which undermines public trust in the system.

Negotiated Approaches to Dispute Resolution

Interest-based negotiation is emerging as an increasingly useful method for resolving disputes that emerge at any stage in land use decision-making and dispute resolution. This technique supports high levels of public participation in the administrative decision-making process, provides a means of joint problem solving within government, and supplements adjudicative processes.

Coordinated decision-making, meaningful participation, review and appeal mechanisms, and negotiated approaches form the basis of a comprehensive dispute resolution system. The following chapters describe each of the key components and make recommendations to address deficiencies and complete the system.

7. See chapter 4.8. See Commission on Resources and Environmental, A Sustainability Act for British Columbia,



vol4

Provincial Land Use Strategy, vol. 1 (Victoria, 1994), p. 35.9. Established under the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act, given Royal Assent on July 8,

1994; not yet proclaimed.


vol4


Table of contents

3 - Preventing Public Disputes

Coordinated Decision-Making

Disputes over land and resource use often arise in situations where there has been inadequate opportunity for people with differing perspectives on issues to express their concerns. The structure and organization of resource management agencies in B.C. and the way that the bureaucracy makes land use and resource decisions have, in the past, contributed to the occurrence and intensity of disputes - in part because of the lack of opportunity for balanced participation in decision-making.

Provincial resource ministries are vertically organized, specialist agencies duty-bound to make decisions to execute their specific mandates as expressed in legislation. In many cases, agencies comprise a relatively homogeneous group of professionals who share common values and act as advocates for the resources that they manage or regulate. These attitudes, and the structures of agencies, reflect the origins of resource ministries during periods in the province's history when there was less diversity of and conflict among values. As a result, these professionals often share similar values and perspectives with the client groups that the agencies are responsible for regulating. This can reinforce their advocacy behavior, making the accommodation of different and competing mandates a difficult objective to achieve.

The need to integrate the range of agency perspectives has been acknowledged in many ways during the evolution of B.C.'s resource management system. Legal and policy requirements for interagency consultation, interagency referral, integrated planning processes, impact review guidelines, public participation in decision-making, inter-ministry coordinating committees, natural resource inventory programs, and many other examples, point to the significant efforts that have been made to establish and maintain links among vertically organized agencies. Despite these initiatives, not enough horizontal integration has occurred among them to eliminate dysfunction.








vol4

Effective integration among agencies at all decision-making levels - provincial, regional and local - would help to prevent disputes over land and natural resource management.

The philosophy of integrated resource management, which is a cornerstone of B.C.'s natural resource management policy, includes the requirement to bring together the various government agencies, along with technical information and the viewpoints of outside interests, so that the range of resource values, management responsibilities and professional perspectives can be considered in determining objectives and strategies for land use and resource management which yield optimum overall benefits. If the decision-making process is comprehensive, we can expect better decisions to result.

During the evolution of B.C.'s resource management system, many types of institutional arrangements have been incorporated into the process of land use and resource management decision-making, to improve both the extent to which the full range of perspectives is represented, and the information base that supports the decision-making. Over time, the sophistication of these arrangements has increased in rough proportion to our improved appreciation of an ecosystem view of resource relationships, and also in accordance with an increasing public interest in resource management. For example, forest resource development guidelines, used primarily by forest companies in the preparation of harvesting plans, were, until very recently, a primary way of integrating non-timber values into decision-making on forest development. These guidelines have been replaced by the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act10 to improve the process through which forest development decisions are made by formalizing and making more explicit performance requirements and non-timber considerations.

In the early 1970s the Environment and Land Use Act came into effect together with a secretariat responsible for coordinating the various resource agencies of government to produce plans and advice for political decision-makers. The initiatives of this secretariat included the development of policies and guidelines for review of linear (e.g., pipeline) development, coal mining and hydro-electric power projects; the preparation of compensation, mitigation and cost-benefit analysis guidelines; the development of integrated plans; and, the preparation of land and resource inventories. During this same period, interagency regional resource management committees and technical planning committees coordinated the work of Crown land ministries with settlement planning. A Crown land planning program operated for several years in the early 1980s under the authority of the then Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing. The Environment and Land Use Secretariat, regional resource management committees, technical planning committees, and the Crown land planning program were all discontinued in the early 1980s.

Successive resource management cabinet committees such as the environment and land use committee, the cabinet committee on sustainable development, and the current planning board of cabinet (with a separate land use planning working group) have been established to coordinate political decision-making. Deputy minister committees have followed the same path.

Recently, there has been a reappearance of integrating and coordinating institutions within the land and resource management bureaucracy in recognition of the need to support a provincial land use strategy. The major initiatives include CORE, the B.C. Treaty Commission, a Resource


vol4

Management Division (RMD), an inter-ministry policy committee (IMPC), an interagency resource planning committee, regional interagency management committees (IAMC), and the corporate resources inventory initiative. Recent legislation governing the assessment of major project proposals11 and forestry practices12 is specifically aimed at strengthening obligations to integrate a full range of values and perspectives into decision-making, as are land and resource use planning processes (LRUPs) that give the public an opportunity for meaningful and direct participation.

Adoption of a set of provincial goals and strategic policies13 will help guide the coordinated and balanced development of government programs and land use plans, as a means of preventing disputes.

These initiatives are all headed in the right direction. They recognize the requirement to improve the quality of the decision-making processes that precede land and resource use decisions; they are also a recognition that fairness is a necessary component to reduce the potential for subsequent disputes.

Although each of these recent initiatives is sound in its own right, their adoption reflects an ad hoc - and historically short-lived - government response. Government structure and organization is constantly changing - the creation , reorganization and dismantling of agencies, committees and groups occur regularly. While this is often for necessary and valid reasons, the requirement for a strong, long-term commitment to integration, coordination and team-oriented approaches among the range of government land and resource management mandates and interests is an essential part of an effective provincial land use strategy. For this reason, CORE made specific recommendations in volumes 1 and 2 of the Provincial Land Use Strategy to establish permanent interagency coordinating bodies at provincial and field levels, including mechanisms to coordinate Crown land management initiatives with settlement planning.


British Columbia's land use and related resource and environmental management decision-making is becoming an increasingly "hands-on" process, with citizens demanding and getting a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Until recent years, access to the decision-making process was limited. Agencies acting on behalf of the public interest made decisions under their statutory authority with little meaningful opportunity for public comment. Involvement was frequently limited to established legal interests, or was obtained by "proxy" through referral to other agencies or local governments. Dissatisfaction with this approach, heightened by inconsistency and by the perception of favouritism, resulted in widespread cynicism about government effectiveness and fairness. Today, a concerned citizen often has a range of opportunities for consultation and participation before a decision is made. Traditional agency decision-making and public consultation processes are being replaced by initiatives designed to exchange information, create partnerships and seek consensus reflecting the trend towards more open and direct public participation in the administrative decision-making process. Recent examples of the more open and direct approach include the CORE regional land use negotiations and the government's land and resource management planning (LRMP)


vol4

processes, which together have completed or are developing land use plans over more than half the land base of the province.

The CORE regional processes are set up to promote shared decision-making, based on the principles of interest-based negotiation. These processes provide an opportunity for representatives of broad-based sectors to participate in decision-making by working together to produce a set of land use recommendations to accommodate all of their respective interests.

Similarly, the LRMP processes currently underway in many parts of the province are based on a participatory, collaborative approach to land use planning.

The move to more participatory decision-making is being driven by a shift in public values. Concerned about the ability and will of public servants and elected officials to effectively represent all values in determining the public interest, citizens are seeking a more active role in public decision-making. Despite the complexities of sustainable land use planning, public expectations for direct and effective involvement in decision-making remain high. While geographic and agency differences with respect to levels of participation must be addressed, attention now needs to shift from the fundamental issue of "more" participation to that of "better" participation, and the need for continuing improvement in the delivery of participatory processes. Better participation can be described as more effectively structured, administered and informed public involvement in the decision-making process.

To enhance the effectiveness of public participation as a preventive dispute resolution tool, the following problems need to be addressed:

● uncertainty about the status of public participation in the administrative decision-making process● confusion about when and how concerned citizens may help shape a land use or resource

management decision● inadequate institutional support for participatory decision-making processes.

Enhancing the Status of Public Participation

A significant amount of government decision-making is undertaken by public officials through statutory delegation of authority.14 The dominance exercised by unelected officials in land use and related resource and environmental decision-making and a concern that the bureaucracy cannot be sufficiently held to account for its actions are driving forces behind the demand for more meaningful public participation.

Effective and consistent opportunities for public participation in administrative decision-making help to ensure accountability and protect against arbitrariness. Other benefits include the opportunity to link decisions to evolving public values, build working relationships with concerned constituencies, broaden the public's understanding of complex issues, and improve decisions through local knowledge, expertise and dialogue between those with different values. A well managed public process will likely result in a more balanced and stable outcome, which minimizes conflict by accommodating the needs of all concerned. It also builds public confidence in government.


vol4

Although it is widely accepted as a matter of principle that meaningful public participation is an essential component of good representative government, the obligation in B.C. to give concerned citizens a full and fair say in shaping decisions that impact them exists only as a matter of general policy. The demand for more participatory public decision-making has been acknowledged by government, but there is no formal commitment. The uncertain status of public participation in the decision-making framework does not inspire public confidence.

In most cases the nature and scope of public participation is at the discretion of the statutory decision-maker. Governed only by a general, common law duty to proceed fairly, a decision-maker usually has considerable latitude in determining the nature of public involvement. Generally, the scope and potential consequences of a particular administrative decision should influence the nature and extent of the associated public participation opportunities. Guidance may be offered in the regulations or in an agency procedure manual, but for the most part it is up to the decision-maker as to how to proceed in a given case. Policy guidance on public participation varies considerably among ministries, ranging from non-existent to highly detailed. A primary difficulty faced by public officials, especially with regard to issues that involve several agencies, is the absence of clear and consistent guidelines, both in individual ministries and across ministries.

Some agencies are reluctant to support mechanisms that create a new level of public accountability in the exercise of discretionary authority. Some politicians and senior bureaucrats see public demand for direct participation as inefficient, uninformed and politically motivated. Others, comfortable with their traditional role as arbiters of public values, interpret the public desire to be closer to the action as a demand for devolution of decision-making authority from informed, impartial public servants to special interest groups, and they worry that the seemingly insatiable appetite for participation will compromise the need for efficient and expert decision-making under the direction of elected officials, and may place an unmanageable strain on thinly stretched staff resources.

However, in the midst of growing environmental, economic and social pressures, people clearly want to have a say in defining the public interest, particularly where decisions affect them directly. Giving a voice to people affected by decisions will lead to more balanced and better informed decisions.

Although government policy may currently support higher levels of participation, there is neither formal commitment to a new standard nor definition of what the standard is. If meaningful public participation is to become an effective means of holding decision-makers accountable, the opportunity needs to be stated in legislation. The delegation of statutory authority to public officials must be balanced by a general right of public participation, and participants should be guided by a

code of conduct to promote maximum efficiency and effectiveness of participation programs.15

Recommendation

1. Government should integrate public participation into land use and related resource and


vol4

environmental decision-making by recognizing in law the general right of members of the public to participate meaningfully, and by setting out the responsibilities of participants in a code of conduct.

Enhancing the Opportunity to Participate

The transition to more participatory public decision-making processes has been a series of mostly uncoordinated efforts motivated by various objectives often in reaction to anxious and mistrustful citizens demanding immediate action. The willingness and ability of resource ministries to respond to public demand for a greater role has varied, with some agencies supporting leading-edge processes and others offering only limited opportunities. There is also great variation in the implementation of public participation strategies. For example, some land use issues have been addressed through very high levels of participation while related matters, perhaps separated only by geography, have had relatively limited public involvement. Not surprisingly, the inconsistent pace of change has resulted in uncertainty.

While "public involvement" has been an integral part of land use and resource decision-making for years, it has in the past provided few actual opportunities to affect the outcome of the decision-making process. Today, there are a growing number of initiatives aimed at creating real opportunities for the public to exercise real influence. However, there is little certainty about when and how concerned citizens may help to shape a land or resource use decision. There is no consistency in approach and few widely endorsed criteria to determine the appropriate level of public participation in a given situation. It is difficult for decision-makers to predict what the public will accept as meaningful participation in a particular situation. To enhance the effectiveness of public participation as a preventive dispute resolution mechanism, there is a need to ensure appropriate and consistent levels of public participation throughout the decision-making process.

Public expectations for direct participation are high. However, this does not mean that the public must be involved in every administrative decision - clearly this would not be efficient, cost-effective or necessary. Routine, day-to-day decisions which have little or no significant impact on individual citizens or communities, or which are made to implement higher order decisions which included public participation, may require only the appropriate notice or informal discussion. Similarly, technical decisions that are monitored by independent oversight and audit programs may not require direct public involvement.

A primary question is what is the appropriate level of public participation in different policy and decision-making situations. The B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy16 tackled this question and concluded that more intensive and interactive levels of participation are in order where:

● public values have not coalesced or are uncertain● it is difficult to identify a specific public audience● factual information is sparse, unknown or subject to consider-able dispute● the goals of government and the perspectives of affected parties are not the same.


vol4

A handbook published recently by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP)17 characterizes public involvement along a continuum and categorizes public involvement projects as major or minor consultations, which in turn are further classified. The MELP handbook makes a distinction between routine ministry decisions that do not require significant public involvement and more significant or controversial decisions which invite a major public involvement program. The Handbook suggests that such a program should be considered in the following circumstances:

● the decision requires the balancing of competing and important social values● the decision will significantly affect economic, political or social interests of some people or groups

more than others● the public perceives that it has a lot to win or lose● better policy options will result from public input● there is a political commitment to undertake a program● the decision involves a controversial subject● the decision may potentially affect or infringe on the rights or claims of aboriginal people.

The Ministry of Forests' (MOF) Public Participation Handbook (1981)18 describes three principal methods for public involvement: public information, consultation and extended involvement. The Handbook notes that the appropriate level of public involvement is a matter of "judgment" and that the "seriousness and complexity of resource situations" help determine the appropriate level of involvement in a given case. The Handbook provides the following guidelines in choosing a public involvement method.

Considerations Which Suggest Consultative Methods:

● issues have minor impact on the resource base, or are mainly a matter of public preferences which can be accommodated by changes in the design of plans

● narrow range of resources are involved; usually a direct conflict between logging and one or two other resource options

● a small number of people are interested in the situation, generally focused on a special area of interest● issues are urgent and must be dealt with within a short period of time (weeks or two to three months)● the public is concerned but is not demanding an extensive formal involvement program● the Forest Service has the capacity to support a modest program.

Considerations Which Suggest Extended Involvement Methods:

● issues have serious implications for the resource base; significant economic and/or social impacts, with trade-offs, are likely

● wide range of resources are involved; complex resource use interactions are expected● many public and agency groups are concerned with the issues; concerns shared by diverse advocates● issues are important but there is time available for planning (six months to one or two years)● the public strongly desires a formal public involvement program● the Forest Service has the capacity to support a complex program.


vol4

While the Round Table, MELP and MOF criteria provide useful guidance in determining the appropriate level of participation, they also demonstrate the practical difficulty in applying the criteria. For example, how does a resource manager know if public values have or have not coalesced on a particular issue? Consultation and judgment are required when deciding the public participation model to be used in a specific situation.

While shared decision-making processes have attracted a lot of attention at the high end of the participation spectrum, there is a need to reinforce quality communication and more inclusive consultation at all levels of the administrative decision-making process. In less intensive participation processes, such as open houses or community workshops, people who will be affected by a decision need to be satisfied that they have been heard and that their statements will be considered in the outcome. At higher levels of participation, including in particular shared decision-making processes, the parties are encouraged to jointly assess the appropriateness of the proposed approach to their involvement in the decision-making process. This helps to develop shared ownership of the process and support for the outcome. The parties should design the

participation process within established policy guidelines and the organizational framework.19

Recommendation

1. Government should integrate public participation into land use and related resource and environmental decision-making by encouraging and supporting appropriate and consistent levels of public participation in decision-making processes.

Enhanced Institutional Support for Participation

Highly participatory decision-making processes are evolving independently of the administrative structures necessary to support them. Adjusting to a more participatory mode of democracy is challenging for both decision-makers and the public.

To manage effectively for sustainability, a major shift in our way of thinking is required. Government leadership must be supported by a bureaucracy committed to meaningful public participation. The shift to more open and participatory decision-making has not been uniformly embraced by all government agencies. Public demand, not agency policy direction, is driving change. Consequently, administrative structures to support highly participatory decision-making processes have been slow to develop.

Limited infrastructure within line resource ministries to support the growing participation in the decision-making framework is a major difficulty. This unstable situation has placed a tremendous burden on public servants caught between their mandated program delivery role and the need to support and respond to public expectations through highly participatory processes. For example, technical and analytical support for the CORE regional land use negotiation processes was provided by ad hoc technical working groups comprising experts from a cross-section of government ministries. A significant time commitment over and above regular workloads was required to meet the demands of the negotiation process. While effective in meeting the needs of


vol4

the regional negotiations, this approach cannot be sustained. Dedicated institutional support is required.

Many agencies lack the personnel and expertise to effectively integrate technical and scientific knowledge with public expectations in a complex negotiation process. Commitments to staff training in public participation methods, dedicated budgets for information collection and analysis and participant assistance funding, and effective interagency coordinating structures are all necessary supports for successful public participation initiatives. The issue here is not necessarily the need for more resources, but the need to spend resources more effectively.

Recommendation

1. Government, in integrating public participation into land use and related resource and environmental decision-making, should modify the institutional framework to support and respond to the requirement for public participation more effectively.

10. Given Royal Assent on July 8, 1994, but not yet proclaimed11. Environmental Assessment Act, given Royal Assent on July 8, 1994, but not yet proclaimed12. Forest Practices Code Act, given Royal Assent on July 8, 1994, but not yet proclaimed13. See Commission on Resources and Environmental, A Sustainability Act for British Columbia,

Provincial Land Use Strategy, vol. 1 (Victoria, 1994), p. 35.14. See chapter 2.15. See Commission on Resources and Environment, A Sustainability Act for British Columbia,

and Public Participation, Provincial Land Use Strategy, vol. 1 and vol. 3, (Victoria, 1994) which provide more detailed discussions of initiatives needed to ensure meaningful public participation in land use and environmental decision-making, with an emphasis on participation at the community level through community resource boards.

16. B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Public Involvement in Government Decision-Making: Choosing the Right Model, (Victoria, 1994), p. 8.

17. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, A Public Involvement Handbook (Draft), (Victoria, 1994), p. 7.

18. Ministry of Forests, Public Involvement Handbook, (Victoria, 1981), p. 107.19. See Commission on Resources and Environment, Public Participation, Provincial Land Use

Strategy, vol. 3, (Victoria, 1995), for a discussion of the development of guidelines and framework.


vol4


vol4


Table of contents

4 - Adjudicating Public Disputes

As discussed in chapter 2, post-decision review and appeal mechanisms serve as a check on administrative discretion. Because the review and appeal processes help ensure public accountability in decision-making, it is crucial that they be fair and effective.

Accountability in these processes has been generally achieved through:

● internal review to provide quality control over the decision and its implementation● appeal to an external, independent board to determine whether the proper decision was made● judicial review to determine whether the decision was made according to the law.

While these categories are not necessarily exhaustive, each has its own role and place in the hierarchy.

Internal Review

Internal reviews are often the first step in dealing with disputes that arise from administrative decisions and are intended to serve as a quality control mechanism and to provide the opportunity for efficient reconsideration of a decision. Because such reconsideration can involve an examination of the underlying policy or guideline that led to the dispute, it helps to keep regulators and policy makers in touch with public concerns and ensures that policy is adjusted to meet changing needs. Where these reviews are conducted informally with a problem-solving orientation, they can be effective and efficient. Significant issues that remain outstanding following a review should, subject to standing, grounds and jurisdiction, proceed to an independent, external appeal body for adjudication.

External Appeal








vol4

The second - and usually final - step for addressing substantive concerns related to administrative decisions is the hearing of an appeal by an independent, quasi-judicial administrative board (tribunal) or by the court, under provisions of a statute. Tribunals are judicial in the sense that their decisions affect the rights of parties and are often final; they are quasi-judicial in that they are not intended to be as formal as the court system and consequently are not necessarily bound by the same rules of evidence and procedure. They are administrative in that many of their decisions include elements of policy and discretion. In making decisions, appeal boards are bound by the statute that gives them authority to hear the appeal, relevant case law and the rules of natural justice. As such, in considering a matter, tribunals cannot ignore the law; they can, however, examine the policy and procedures as well as the substantive technical matters that formed the basis for the disputed decision.

In order to fulfil their role of resolving disputes in a fair, impartial and independent manner, appeal boards must be credible. One fundamental component of credibility is accessibility. Accessibility requires more than the existence of an appeal provision; it means ensuring that those who need and are entitled to use an appeal board can in fact access one without unreasonable cost. It also requires that the mandates, policies and procedures of the boards are written in plain language and are readily available to the public. Another component of credibility is independence. Independence requires that board members be free from interference on the part of the executive branch of government, and from external influences such as corporate interests or specific pressure groups. A third component of credibility has to do with quality, in that the quality of an appeal board is determined by the competence and expertise of its members. The members must have the technical knowledge and ability to consider and decide the issues before them in a sound, fair, timely, efficient and consistent fashion.

This issue has been commented on by the Office of the B.C. Ombudsman which has stated that: "The appeal body should be expert in the technical area being administered, and as well should have at least one member well versed in the principles of administrative law. The appeal body must be truly independent with wide powers to hear evidence, to call witnesses, and, if necessary, to

substitute its decision for that of the administrative body in appropriate cases."20

Judicial Review

Administrative law represents the fundamental concept that the powers of the executive branch of government are limited by and must be exercised in accordance with the law. The role of the court in judicial review (as distinct from a statutory right of appeal to a court on the merits of the decision) is to review administrative decisions to ensure that the public authority exercised its powers in a lawful manner. In other words, the role of the court in judicial review is like that of a referee in a football game - to ensure that the rules of the game are followed. In practical terms, a court can review decisions to ensure that the appeal board acted within its jurisdiction, that there was no abuse of discretion or bias, and that the process used by the board was otherwise fair. However, because courts in judicial review are confined to looking back at the decision-making process rather than forward to what is necessary to solve the problem, they are usually not the appropriate vehicle to resolve conflicts over the legitimate, competing values and ongoing interests that are


vol4

often the root cause of land use disputes. Although the role of the courts is limited, it is important. Just as administrative decision-makers are accountable to those they serve through appeal boards, both the decision-maker and the board are accountable through the courts. The judicial review process is necessary to ensure that legal standards of fairness are present in the administrative and appeal systems.

Gaps and Weaknesses in the Existing Review and Appeal System

Governance relies on decision-making. The rules defining which decisions can be challenged, and how it must be done, are provided in legislation. Given that more than 40 British Columbia statutes (Figure 1) address land use and related resource and environmental matters, and considering the number and types of decisions that are made daily, it is not surprising that there are many different processes used to make, review and challenge decisions. As a result, provincial legislation governing the review and appeal of land use and related resource and environmental decisions is unsatisfactory in the following major respects.

Administrative Fairness

Some of the provisions within existing statutes respecting administrative review and appeal are lacking when evaluated against basic principles of administrative fairness (chapter 2). In some cases, individuals potentially affected by an administrative decision are prevented from accessing review or appeal mechanisms; in others there are insufficient notice provisions; while in others, opportunities for independent external appeal are non-existent. This issue is discussed more fully in the following sections.

Consistency

The provisions in the various land use and resource management statutes respecting public accessibility to review and appeal, notice of administrative decisions, grounds for appeal, appeal body jurisdiction, etc. differ from statute to statute. Where these differences are necessary to properly reflect different circumstances, they are appropriate; where, however, the differences are not so necessary, they should be made consistent. The existing system contains extensive in appropriate inconsistencies. This chapter identifies specific examples of this variability which can lead to confusion and unfairness and underscore the importance of developing a comprehensive and integrated system for dispute resolution.

Illustrating the Problem

The gaps, inconsistencies and inefficiencies in the dispute resolution system create a perception of unfairness that is compromising B.C.'s ability to manage for sustainability. As an illustration of the problem, consider the following scenario in which a hypothetical guide outfitter discovers the inconsistencies in the current review and appeal system. A guide outfitter is used in this example because her (or his) livelihood is affected by the full spectrum of land use and resource management issues. Other similarly affected persons would face the same inconsistencies.


vol4

Introduction

Non-aboriginal hunters in British Columbia are divided into two groups: residents and non-residents. In order to hunt for certain species in the province, a non-resident hunter must be accompanied by a guide outfitter. Each guide outfitter is authorized through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to guide in a specified area and may also hold a quota authorizing the guide outfitter's clients to kill up to a set number of a particular species over a given period of time. Many territories cover large areas of Crown land in which guide outfitters often have substantial investments of time and money.

Quota Establishment

Following an assessment of the wildlife populations in a certain area, the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks decided on the advice of staff to close the grizzly bear harvest. In addition, the annual allowable harvest of several other species has been revised downward by the Wildlife Branch Regional Manager. After holding discussions with representatives of the non-resident (guide outfitter) and resident hunter groups, the Regional Manager amended a guide outfitter's quota to reflect the grizzly bear closure and annual allowable harvest decisions. The guide outfitter is concerned that the quota reductions will severely affect business. Many members of the public, however, are concerned that the animal populations in the area cannot withstand even limited hunting pressures and feel that the guide outfitter should not be permitted to hunt in the area at all.

Because the Wildlife Act does not provide for appeals or reviews of decisions made by the Minister, the grizzly bear closure, which resulted from the Minister's administrative decision, is neither appealable nor reviewable. The Wildlife Act does enable the guide outfitter to appeal the quota reductions that arose from the Regional Manager's administrative decision to the Director of Wildlife. The Director, after conducting a hearing, can dismiss the appeal or make a new decision. If the guide outfitter is not satisfied with the Director's decision, she may appeal to the Environmental Appeal Board. The Environmental Appeal Board's powers on appeal differ from those of the Director in that the Board may only dismiss the appeal or return it to the Director or Regional Manager with directions. There is, however, no direct appeal or review mechanism available to those members of the public who are concerned with the decisions that resulted in the guide's quota.

Water Licences


vol4

Meanwhile, as part of their plans to log the area, a logging company decides to establish a logging camp immediately upstream of the guide outfitter's territory. The company applies for and receives a water licence on the major waterway flowing through the guide's territory. The guide outfitter learns of this development through chit-chat in town one day and is concerned that the amount of water the company will remove from the stream will negatively affect the wildlife in the area and thus her territory's value. Because the guide outfitter does not own the property affected or hold a water licence on the stream, there is no requirement to notify or consult her prior to the decision on the water licence being made, and there is no provision under the Water Act for the guide outfitter to appeal the issuance of the water licence.

Logging Activities

The logging company intends to log a portion of the guide outfitter's territory. The guide outfitter has been concerned for a number of years that logging and its associated road building activities will negatively affect access and the area's wildlife, and thus her business. She advised the logging company of these concerns during the management and working plan approval process and is disappointed when the Ministry of Forests issues the cutting permit without the logging company addressing her concerns. The Forest Act does not provide the guide outfitter with a review or appeal opportunity. Proclamation of the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act may provide the guide outfitter with an avenue of complaint to the Forest Practices Board. If the logging plan was seen to contravene the operational plan and if, on receipt of the guide outfitter's complaint, the Forest Practices Board chose to investigate, the Board could file an appeal with the Forest Appeals Commission. The guide outfitter has no direct right of appeal to the Commission.

Pesticide Use Permits


vol4

One day while in town, the guide outfitter learns that the logging company intends to use the herbicide VISION on the logged areas to enhance the growing conditions for the newly planted seedlings. The guide outfitter understands that herbicide will reduce the availability of browse and cover species to wildlife and is concerned that this will negatively affect the area's wildlife population and thus her business. The guide outfitter advises the logging company and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks of her concerns and is dismayed to learn that the pesticide use permit had been issued a month and a half ago. As a result the guide outfitter has missed the 30 day statutory appeal period and she is unable to appeal the decision to issue the permit. There were members of the public, however, who although they had no direct interest in the area, filed an appeal within the statutory period with the Environmental Appeal Board. Although the Pesticide Control Act allows the Board to accept an appeal filed by any person, it does not permit the Board to extend the appeal period. After hearing the appeal, the Board can uphold, vary or rescind the permit, and may also order the participants to pay costs associated with hearing the appeal.

Highway Route Selection

Sometime later, the government decides, as part of the provincial transportation strategy, to build a major highway. While attending an information open house sponsored by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the guide outfitter learns that although the final route has not been chosen, the preliminary design sketch shows the road passing through her territory. The guide outfitter advises the Ministry that locating the highway in her territory will seriously impact wildlife and thus her territory's value. The guide outfitter later learns that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, on completing an internal environmental review, has chosen the final route location and that the highway will bisect her territory. There is no appeal/review mechanism available to the guide. Had the Environmental Assessment Act been in effect prior to the route selection, this project may have been subject to a public process which could have involved the guide although the ultimate decision arising from this process would not be appealable.

Protected Areas and Parks


vol4

At another government sponsored open house, the guide outfitter learns that because of the increased access and development that will occur because of the new highway, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has decided to create a new protected area somewhere in this region. The guide outfitter is surprised to learn that the unlogged portion of her territory is under consideration for inclusion in the protected area and is concerned as to the effect this will have on her guiding business. The guide outfitter becomes involved in the regional land use planning process. Before a consensus is reached, however, public pressure mounts and the area is designated by government as a park where hunting is deemed to be a non-compatible use. There is no review or appeal mechanism available to the guide outfitter.

Summary

This scenario illustrates that under the existing system the same person with the same interests has different rights of review and appeal under different statutes. Provincial legislation governing the review and appeal of land use and related resource and environmental decisions is inconsistent in many areas including how and when notice of decisions is given, who is entitled to be notified of decisions (both pending and made), who can be involved in the review and appeal process, and the authority of the body that makes the decision on appeal. While it is recognized that certain differences or inconsistencies exist as a result of ensuring that different needs and situations can be appropriately addressed, the basis for the inconsistencies in the present system is not always reasonable. This can result in a system of review and appeal that loses credibility with the public and thus is not accepted as providing sufficient accountability.

20. Office of the Ombudsman, 1988 Annual Report, (Victoria, 1989), p. 30-31.


vol4


Table of contents

Addressing the Problem

The following sections of this chapter address specific areas of inconsistency that need to be addressed to ensure fair and efficient review and appeal processes.

Notice Provisions

The term "notice" refers to the manner in which the public and interested parties are informed that an administrative decision is being considered or has been made. Notice is a critical part of the review and appeal process, because those who are affected by a decision must be aware of it if they are to participate in or subsequently challenge it. From a perspective of fairness, it is important that those who may be significantly affected by a decision not only know that a decision is pending, but also understand the nature of and reasons for the result.

There are differences in legislation regarding when, how and to whom notice of administrative decisions is provided. The Pesticide Control Act, for example, requires that applications for pesticide use permits be advertised in the local press but does not require publication of the decision on the application. The Water Act requires that those holding licences on the water source that is the subject of an application, or those who own affected property, be contacted before and after a decision regarding a water licence application. The Waste Management Act categorizes the type of application being considered and, depending on this categorization, may require a specific or general notice advertisement before and after a decision is made. Under the Land Act someone applying to purchase or lease Crown land must, where the Minister considers it "advisable in the public interest", publish the intent in a local newspaper and/or the B.C. Gazette for a time period required by the Minister.

The manner in which notice is given depends on the applicable statute and the type of decision being made, and varies from posting a notice in a public place, to formal notice in the legal section








vol4

of newspapers with local distribution, to being personally served with the notice. Notice provisions often depend on the nature of the decision and its impacts.

While some variability in notice provisions is appropriate and necessary, basic guidelines are needed to ensure that administrative decision-makers are consistent in exercising judgment around this variability. These guidelines should be communicated and available to the public and should reflect the general principle that the more direct the interest or potential impact, the more personally directed the notice should be. As a result, directly affected parties should be individually served with notice before and after significant decisions; all other potentially affected parties should be provided general notice of pending and final decisions through public advertisement or perhaps through access to a public registry of notice and decisions.

While a public registry of notice and decisions is not a substitute for other forms of notice, it would provide a consolidated and simplified mechanism for accessing decisions and tracing them through the administrative system. Such a process is envisioned in the Environmental Assessment Act (not yet proclaimed) which provides for a registry of all documents and decisions related to the review of major development projects. Another means of accomplishing this is provided under the Forest Act where the Chief Forester publishes allowable annual cut decisions and their rationale. The idea of ministry-specific decision registries, or a consolidated registry of significant decisions, merits further consideration in the interest of administrative fairness and efficiency. The challenge would be to determine which information should be included in the registry, and effective mechanisms to distribute registry information. The decisions selected for inclusion in the registry could, for example, be filed electronically according to statute and region which would result in a system that was easily updated and accessed through government offices.

Kinds of Decisions that can Be Reviewed and Appealed

The statute under which a decision is made sets out the kinds of decisions that may be appealed. Existing legislative provisions vary from the Waste Management Act and the Water Act, which allow appeal from any decision of a director or district director, to the Wildlife Act which allows appeals only from decisions affecting holders of, or applicants for, a license, permit, trapline registration or guide outfitter certificates. The Land Act in certain circumstances provides a limited right of appeal to an ad hoc body at the Minister's discretion followed by an appeal to the court on judicial review, while the Agricultural Land Commission Act provides only for judicial review. Under the Coal Act, a free miner, licensee, lessee or permit holder may appeal a decision or order of the Minister to Cabinet whose decision is not subject to review or appeal to any court. In addition, there is no mechanism for review and appeal from administrative decisions that arise from the interpretation of strategic land use plans unless the plans themselves are implemented through various individual statutes such as the Forest Practices Code of B.C. Act (not yet proclaimed).

The issue of administrative fairness is an important consideration in determining which decisions should be reviewable or appealable. There must be a reasonable opportunity to have a decision, including those concerning administrative penalties, reconsidered where it will have significant impact on a person. Decisions having the greatest impact are those centered around the issuance or denial of rights or privileges to access and use land and resources. As such, decisions to grant or deny access or use, to adjust an existing right or privilege, to establish various conditions of


vol4

approval, to enforce conditions that are attached to rights and privileges, and the enforcement of regulations and standards that can significantly impact an individual or the public, should be subject to review and appeal. In addition, those who could be significantly affected should be informed of the review and appeal opportunities.

Standing

The right to initiate or take part in a review or appeal, referred to as "standing", is determined by the legislation under which the administrative decision was made. However, statutes vary in the provision of standing for directly and indirectly affected groups, as well as for those claiming to represent the public interest. As noted in the guide outfitter scenario (see page 37), there are situations where a person who is directly affected by a land use decision has no opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process and has limited or no access to a review or appeal mechanism while, conversely, there are situations where any person has the right to appeal. For example, anyone may appeal any decision made under the Pesticide Control Act, but under the Forest Act only those holding licences or agreements affected by the decision have a right of appeal. The Waste Management Act allows an appeal by "a person who considers himself aggrieved", the Mines Act allows appeals by a person who is adversely affected by a decision, order or ruling, while the Wildlife Act restricts appeals to holders of, or applicants for, licences, permits, traplines or guide outfitter certificates.

As discussed above, decisions that cause significant impacts should be subject to review and appeal. In judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, the common law grants standing to two groups: those with a direct interest, such the holders of affected licences or property; and those who can demonstrate they represent a public interest in a matter that is subject to judicial interpretation and that cannot be addressed in any other way. Although the common law applies when a statute does not specifically define who may be involved in an appeal, statutes should contain consistent standing criteria so the intent of the legislation is clear and the application is fair.

Standing to appeal an administrative decision to a tribunal should reflect the principle that in matters of public policy significant public rights may be at stake and, consequently, citizens should have the benefit of broad standing provisions. For example, just because someone does not have legal rights in an affected property does not mean they are unaffected by an administrative decision. Aquaculture development on the foreshore, logging on Crown land and the siting of a waste treatment facility are situations where a person without economic or property rights may have strong but indirect interests in the decision.

To meet the standards of administrative fairness, land use and related resource and environmental legislation should ensure that standing provisions for review and appeal are broad enough to include those who are significantly affected by an administrative decision. Within this context, "significantly affected" should include those who have a demonstrable public interest as well as those with either a direct or an indirect interest in the decision.

Grounds for Appeal


vol4

Existing legislation is consistent in requiring an appellant to submit the reasons (grounds) for filing an appeal. Generally, the reasons for dissatisfaction with administrative decisions include:

● adverse impacts● concerns that decisions are not in compliance with legislation or with a land or resource plan● enforcement is not occurring● the decision-making procedures were inappropriate or flawed● disagreement with interpretations on the intent of the policy or plan on which the decision is based.

Existing legislation, however, does not provide consistent direction to either the review and appeal agencies or to potential appellants on what constitutes sufficient grounds for filing an appeal, and this may result in the application of differing standards. While this variation may not in itself be inappropriate, it is important to ensure that the standards are not arbitrary or undefined and, as a result, open to different interpretations.

One of the reasons for requiring grounds to be presented in advance of an appeal is to give other parties the opportunity to prepare a response. Focused appeals can result in well-canvassed issues and lead to the presentation of comprehensive information that will form the basis for better decisions reached in a more efficient way. This requires that grounds be presented accurately and concisely. General statements such as "the decision is contrary to the intent of the plan" or "the terms of the permit are against the weight of the evidence" are of little value and may require more detail before the parties to the appeal can address them. Although it is preferable that the grounds and supporting evidence be submitted well in advance of the hearing, this may not always be possible. Procedural guidelines must be developed that encourage the distribution of statements setting out grounds and evidence in advance wherever possible, and that give the review or appeal body discretion with regard to the last minute raising of new issues. It should also be clear in the guidelines that the emphasis in an administrative appeal must be on content rather than form.

Another reason to require the presentation of grounds in advance of a hearing is to allow the appeal body to determine whether the matters in question are within its jurisdiction to address. Appeal bodies are created by statute and, therefore, may do only those things that are provided for in the enabling statute. So as not to set up unrealistic expectations - that is, create the impression that the body can address an issue over which it has no jurisdiction - and to ensure that resources are not wasted on an improper process, it is important to determine as early as possible that the matters in dispute fall within the appeal body's jurisdiction.

Decisions

Decisions, while not precedent setting, must be consistent as applicants are entitled to expect that similar facts will result in similar decisions. It is, therefore, important that decision-makers be aware of decisions made by others on similar matters. It is also important that decisions be in writing and contain reasons to show clearly why a particular decision was made, linking the decision to the relevant evidence and laws. Besides being of benefit to other decision-makers, written reasons provide guidance to applicants in how to structure future presentations. They help potential applicants to understand the types of issues they must address and the kind of information the


vol4

decision-maker will need to be aware of, and to develop reasons to argue for different results in situations that on the surface may appear similar. Reasons can also help prospective applicants make informed decisions as to their chances of success.

Although it is desirable and feasible to require that all decisions arising from the review and appeal of administrative decisions should be in writing and contain reasons, it is not practical to require that all administrative decisions should be accompanied by reasons. The Ombudsman's office addressed this issue by recommending that significant administrative decisions should have written reasons.21 This would enable interested parties to determine how a decision was reached and to weigh the decision against the applicable policy. In addition, the knowledge by decision-makers, be they government officials or members of appeal boards, that they will have to provide full reasons for their decisions should serve to remind them of their obligations of fairness throughout the process.

Internal Review

Internal reviews should be informal, timely, cost effective and oriented towards practical problem-solving. This view was supported by the Ombudsman's office which found that "internal review procedures (should) allow an affected individual to understand clearly the basis for the original decision and to advance opposing views quickly and efficiently to an individual who has power to act..."22 Typically, however, the first-level challenges of administrative decisions authorized in B.C. resource legislation are labelled "appeals" and provide for relatively structured processes. Consequently, these processes tend to be formal, expensive and adjudicatory and may in fact be seen as a duplication of the appeal process. Appellants may find their resources, both emotional and financial, exhausted and, as a result, may not proceed with a subsequent appeal to the independent body, even if they remain aggrieved.

Reviews are usually undertaken within the decision-making agency by someone more senior than the original decision-maker. Because of conflict of interest concerns, senior officials may be reluctant to offer specific technical or policy guidance to subordinates making decisions that may later lead to a formal internal appeal to themselves. Aside from the potential impacts on decision quality, this can result in staff morale problems. Also, because it is not necessarily accepted by the parties that the ministry official conducting the review is impartial, a formal internal appeal may taint the subsequent independent, external appeal.

The opportunity for informal, timely, cost efficient, problem-solving, policy-linked internal reviews should be provided in legislation as the initial means of resolving disputes. This would ensure that the mechanisms for review remain consistent with the intent that these processes should not resemble or replace the formal appeal.

Appeal Boards

Independence


vol4

The rules governing appeal boards must reflect the intended purpose of these tribunals - that is, to adjudicate disputes independently in an impartial, fair and expert manner. In order for appeal bodies to fulfil this role, they must be credible. An important aspect of credibility is independence. Appeal bodies must be structured in such a way as to be free of interference from the executive branch of government, and also from external forces such as corporate interests and specific pressure groups. Independence requires that the agency have the necessary resources, both financial and personnel, to accomplish its mandate. It also requires that appeal bodies charged with making decisions on technical matters have access to the specific expertise relevant to the subject matter of the disputes that will come before them. It is, therefore, necessary for those who make the appointments to ensure that membership eligibility is based on technical ability, including knowledge of administrative law responsibilities.

Jurisdiction

Currently, the jurisdiction and authority of appeal boards varies with different legislation. For example, the Environmental Appeal Board has the authority under the Water Act to "determine the matters involved", whereas boards created under the Forest Act operate using terms of reference set by Cabinet. Under the Wildlife Act, the Environmental Appeal Board may dismiss an appeal or send it back to the regional manager or director with instructions to adjust or change the decision whereas, the same board under the Pesticide Control Act may make "any decision it considers appropriate". In conducting appeals under the Forest Practices Code, the Forest Appeals Commission has the authority to "confirm, vary or rescind the decision appealed from, make any decision that the person whose decision is appealed could have made, or may refer the matter back to the person who made the determination with or without directions". The Utilities Commission has the means to enforce its decisions and the power of reconsideration whereas the Environmental Appeal Board does not. Another area of inconsistency is in the provision for the appeal body to stay matters under appeal. Under the Pesticide Control Act and the Waste Management Act an order on appeal may be stayed but no such provision exists under the Water Act. The inconsistencies in the legislated authority of appeal boards can cause confusion for those who are involved in the appeal process, and unfairness for parties facing different rules in similar circumstances.

For the appeal process to have credibility, the jurisdiction of appeal bodies must be sufficiently broad to include the authority to hear all relevant procedural and substantive matters, and to issue final decisions and orders upholding, amending or overturning the decision under appeal. It should be clear that where a decision involves the interpretation of policy, it is subject to review and appeal unless specifically precluded by statute. If jurisdiction is so narrow, however, as to prevent an appeal body from hearing certain classes of complaints, then appeal bodies may be viewed as mechanisms only to legitimize government decisions.

It would not be appropriate for boards to set policy for the agencies making the decisions that are appealed to the boards. Boards should, however, be in a position to contribute policy advice to government based on experience gained during the appeal process.

Appeal Period


vol4

The period for filing appeals is also variable. Under the Waste Management Act the appeal period is 21 days, although this may be extended upon request; the Pesticide Control Act provides a 30 day non-extendible appeal period and the Forest Act a 21 day non-extendible appeal period; the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act provides for an appeal but does not stipulate an appeal period.

Appeal periods should be consistent and sufficient to ensure appellants a realistic time frame within which to file appeals. In addition, appeal bodies should have the authority to extend appeal periods where it is reasonable in the circumstances and does not cause unfairness to other parties.

Procedural Rules

In addition to the inconsistencies found in legislation, there are also procedural inconsistencies that can create confusion and make credibility difficult to maintain. The problem of procedural inconsistency generally does not arise in court proceedings, as the rules are well defined and the participants are knowledgeable about their application. Because of the way in which administrative review and appeal mechanisms have evolved, the rules are not so well defined and those who may need to access administrative appeal bodies are not necessarily knowledgeable about the rules or their application. In the present legislative context, several different boards operate under different procedural guidelines; in addition, different members of the same board may handle proceedings in a different manner.

In order for the process to be fair, the participants must know and understand the rules that define and underlie the process. For the appeal process to be publicly accessible, the rules should not be so stylized and formal that special training is needed to understand them. The need for consistent procedural rules, however, must be tempered by the tribunal's need for flexibility within the appeal process. An appeal board must have the authority to amend or set aside its policies or procedures if required to ensure a proceeding is fair in specific circumstances.

The policies and procedures of the decision-making body must be written in clear, understandable language and those who apply the policies must be knowledgeable in their application. It, therefore, becomes essential that board members have access to training, especially in how to apply the concepts of administrative law and fairness within the quasi-judicial setting.

Negotiated Approaches

Just as administrators are expanding their job skills to include negotiated problem solving techniques, appeal boards need expanded mandates to implement alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. This could be accomplished by mandating negotiation powers in legislation and by ensuring that boards have access to negotiation support services to effectively employ these mechanisms.

The lack of collaborative dispute resolution processes such as negotiation and mediation within the present review and appeal process is a weakness in the system. Not only does negotiation create


vol4

the potential to foster innovative solutions but, where used appropriately, alternative mechanisms can be very cost effective. Within the traditional review and appeal framework, negotiated approaches can be used in pre-hearing mediation to settle or at least narrow the issues in dispute. The Environmental Appeal Board, for example, has in the past conducted pre-hearing conferences that have resulted in agreements between parties and thus a better focus on the issues under appeal and, in some cases, the abandonment of appeals. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act establishes the Mediation and Arbitration Board which facilitates negotiations between industry and landowners regarding access to petroleum, natural gas, and coal and mineral bearing lands, and mediates disputes between industry and surface landowners.

Recommendation

In order to deal with the problems in the review and appeal process, there is a need to undertake a review of existing and proposed legislation to comprehensively identify where statutory changes are required. There is also a need to consult with those who stand to be affected by the review process - public and government - to determine what types of changes are required to ensure the review and appeal process is fair, efficient and effective.

Recommendation

1. The rules governing the review and appeal of land use and related resource and environmental decisions should be amended to standardize and consolidate procedures where appropriate throughout the system. The amendment process should address the need to:

● ensure that notice of decisions is provided in a manner that ensures that all significantly affected persons are notified, recognizing that the more directly affected a person is by a decision, the more direct the manner of notice should be

● ensure that review and appeal provisions within legislation provide standing to those persons who can show they represent a public interest, as well as those who are significantly affected either directly or indirectly by the decision

● ensure that persons significantly affected should have the opportunity for a timely internal review as a first opportunity for dispute resolution

● ensure that internal reviews are structured as informal and cost-effective processes with a problem-solving orientation

● ensure that all relevant legislation provide clear and consistent direction as to what constitutes sufficient grounds for filing an appeal

● require that an appellant present accurate and concise grounds at the time of filing an appeal● ensure that external appeal bodies have adequate budgets, members with technical expertise,

and training for board members in administrative law responsibilities, conduct of hearings and decision writing

● require that the policies and procedures of boards of appeal be written in clear, concise language and be publicly available; and where fairness requires, authorize boards to set aside a board policy or procedure

● authorize external appeal bodies to`. hear all relevant matters and determine the procedures to be followed in the

course of hearing the appeal


vol4

`. determine the matters in issue in the appeal and make any order that appears just, including the authority to substitute its own decision for the appealed decision

`. provide policy advice to cabinet from time to time, based on the board's appeal experience

`. apply negotiated-approaches where appropriate`. require appeal bodies to provide decisions in writing, stating full reasons for

the decision

21. Office of the Ombudsman, 1988 Annual Report, (Victoria, 1989), p. 30-31.22. Office of the Ombudsman, 1988 Annual Report, (Victoria, 1989), p. 30-31.


vol4


Table of contents

5 - Integrating Negotiation into the Dispute Resolution System

The Role of Negotiation

Negotiation is a process in which the parties to a dispute design their own solution. On both the preventive and adjudicative sides of the land use dispute resolution system, negotiation is playing an increasingly important role in narrowing the scope of issues, informing decisions, solving problems and crafting agreements. Together with improved communication and consultation at all levels among ministries and between ministries and the public, negotiation helps to ensure that the voice of the public is heard throughout the decision-making process. This chapter reviews the fundamentals of interest-based negotiation, discusses the need for negotiated approaches to public decision-making, identifies the constraints on integrating negotiated approaches into the dispute resolution system, and describes the potential means of overcoming these constraints.

Although negotiation processes are not yet commonplace on the public decision-making landscape, there is a growing appreciation of their significance and value, particularly where public commitment to a decision is required.

Properly managed and supported, negotiation processes can fairly and effectively:

● ensure broadly based, inclusive public participation in decision-making processes● facilitate collaborative problem solving among agencies and provide a means of resolving inter-

governmental disputes● supplement adjudicative review and appeal processes.

The need to link government, business and community in new partnerships to achieve sustainability objectives is now widely accepted. The B.C. government has endorsed negotiated approaches to land use planning as a means of delivering more direct and open decision-making.








vol4

There have been important achievements, ranging from concurrence on problem definition to outright agreement on controversial issues.

Despite the complexities of sustainable land use planning, public expectations for direct and effective involvement in decision-making remain high. Discussion has shifted from whether or not high levels of participation are required to issues of what level of involvement is appropriate in a given case and how process quality can be maximized. Many participants have emphasized the need for better structured, administered and informed processes to ensure that the full potential of negotiated approaches to public decision-making is realized. No one has suggested that less public participation or a return to reliance on traditional forms of "top down" decision-making by government will generate better outcomes.

Central to the successful evolution of negotiated approaches to public decision-making is the need for effective management. Political leadership must be augmented by a public administration oriented towards negotiation and resourced to meet the needs of negotiated approaches. The quality of a negotiation process depends largely on the willingness and ability of the responsible agency or tribunal to support the process.

The management of a public negotiation process includes:

● the delivery of mediation services● training for participants in the fundamentals of interest-based negotiation● information gathering, technical advice and analysis● administrative support and participant funding assistance.

In public disputes, the government must assume responsibility for process management in a way that clearly distinguishes that task from its role as a stakeholder in the negotiation.

What is Interest-Based Negotiation?

Negotiation may take the form of competitive, positional bargaining (which focuses on "winning" and "losing" and often results in either deadlock or compromise) or it may involve a cooperative, problem solving approach referred to as interest-based negotiation.

An interest-based negotiation process is a structured, deliberate attempt by the parties to a dispute to cooperatively seek an outcome that accommodates (rather than compromises) the interests of all concerned.

The parties in a negotiation are usually quick to state the ideal outcomes they seek. These ideal outcomes are the negotiators' respective positions. Negotiating over positions requires compromises which no side wants to make, particularly where important social, environmental and economic values are seen to be at stake. Interest-based negotiation offers an alternative approach.

Interests are the motivating goals and objectives (i.e., the needs, desires, concerns and fears) that


vol4

motivate the positions negotiators take. Interest-based negotiation encourages the parties to set aside their bargaining positions in favour of their underlying interests and work together to package those interests into an agreement which best satisfies the concerns of all.

In a complex land use negotiation, the process will generally proceed through a number of phases including reaching an initial agreement on process and procedure, assembling necessary information, setting a common planning direction, defining sectoral interests, and developing and evaluating scenarios to accommodate the needs of the participants. This is seldom a step-by-step progression. The negotiation will more often follow an irregular path as the participants seek to deal with the dynamics of conflict and the complexity of the task.

The goal of interest-based negotiation is to identify options for mutual gain and make a decision based on objective criteria, rather than compromise - an outcome in which invariably everyone loses something. The process creates an opportunity for the participants to agree to seek an outcome acceptable to all and presumes a commitment to act on the terms of the agreement reached.

The cornerstone of interest-based negotiation is its cooperative, problem solving orientation. The motivation for cooperation lies in the realization that the parties' goals are interdependent. Invariably, one party cannot get what it wants without the support or action of the others. The presumption underlying the process is that by working together to solve a jointly defined problem, each party will gain more than it could by relying on positional bargaining techniques.

Mediation

Negotiation may be unassisted (managed by the parties to the dispute) or assisted (managed by a neutral third party). Assisted negotiation is called mediation. Mediation is distinguished from adjudication in which a neutral third party determines the outcome, in either a binding or non-binding decision.

A mediator is independent and neutral, whose primary role is to assist the parties find some derived and mutually acceptable settlement of their differences through negotiation. A mediator does not pass judgment or impose a solution on the parties.

Why Do We Need Interest-Based Negotiation?

Experience indicates that our traditional public dispute resolution mechanisms - the legislature, the administration and the courts - are not effective at creating long-lasting solutions to conflicts that arise from legitimate but competing values. These institutions are better suited to deciding issues rather than resolving differences among parties with dynamic relationships. Legislative and judicial processes provide very little opportunity for direct public participation. Majority votes and unilateral judgments seldom resolve controversies or generate consensus outcomes. Negotiation complements legislative and judicial processes in the overall dispute resolution system.

Interest-based negotiation is needed on both the preventive and adjudicative sides of the dispute


vol4

resolution system to:

● provide an effective means of including the public, business and communities in the administrative decision-making process

● ensure better quality outcomes to land use and resource management disputes in which one side cannot prevail over others or where compromise is unacceptable

● provide flexibility and efficiency in the review and appeal system.

Managing for sustainability is a continual process of innovation. Mechanisms to support innovation are required. Interest-based negotiation is one such mechanism. It can help resolve conflicts by directly involving the people affected by decisions in creatively and cooperatively working out their differences.

Negotiation and Public Participation

Due to the extraordinary demands on government and the increasing complexity of society over the last several decades, we have delegated more and more authority to our elected and appointed representatives. While there are many practical reasons for this, the public is now demanding a shift towards greater participation in government decisions. In the midst of growing environmental, economic and social pressures, people want to be closer to the action, and to have a more equitable say in defining the public interest, particularly where decisions affect them directly and significantly. Contributing to a sense of public alienation from government decision-making is the limited ability of institutional and administrative structures to address individual needs. To many, our political system appears increasingly unrepresentative, as parliamentary authority is subordinated to executive control supported by a governing party which may represent significantly less than a majority of the population. Our judicial system has become irrelevant to many citizens because of the excessive cost and delay of participation and its inability to deal with dynamic, multiparty, public policy disputes which cannot be adjudicated on a "right versus wrong" basis. And, our administrative agencies are often seen as hierarchical structures that are insensitive to the individual needs of citizens and that focus the attention of public servants upwards towards the source of authority and accountability, rather than towards the individuals directly affected by the discretionary decisions.

The dysfunction arising from this increasing alienation must be addressed through processes which provide the opportunity for meaningful participation in government decisions by those most directly affected by them. For some categories of decisions that affect a broad spectrum of interests, a fair hearing is no longer sufficient to achieve a lasting and equitable result. Direct participation in the decision-making process is often necessary.

Properly managed and supported, interest-based negotiation offers the open, inclusive, integrated approach demanded by citizens alienated from the public decision-making process, and offers the prospect of more balanced and stable decisions.

Negotiation and Coordinated Decision-Making


vol4

Within and among government agencies, negotiation is often informal and unassisted - and may not even be characterized as negotiation. Whether formal or informal, the general trend is appropriately away from adversarial approaches and towards collaborative, mutually beneficial outcomes. This trend is crucial to the effectiveness of coordinated decision-making as a preventative dispute resolution mechanism. Interagency relationships do not lend themselves to unilateral decision-making or command and control management styles. Interest-based negotiation provides an opportunity to build cooperative working relationships between ministries and between different levels of government.

B.C.'s resource ministries have recognized the need to establish "partnerships"- through technical working groups, task groups and multi-disciplinary teams - to tackle issues beyond the scope of any one agency or discipline. Interest-based negotiation provides a structured process and collaborative techniques to enable public managers to reconcile competing priorities, integrate diverse technical and scientific knowledge and resolve disputes.

A good example of an interagency decision-making partnership that has emerged to address sustainability objectives, and which depends on negotiated approaches to decision-making, is the regional Interagency Management Committees (IAMCs). There are eight IAMCs throughout B.C that coordinate planning and implementation of land use and resource management programs. Other examples are the Inter-Ministry Policy Committee (IMPC), where CORE has facilitated discussion and negotiation on provincial policy direction and the Integrated Resource Planning Committee (IRPC) which directs land and resource management planning.

Negotiation in the Review and Appeal System

On the adjudicative side of the dispute resolution spectrum, there are few mandated opportunities for interest-based negotiation. This is not surprising given that negotiation has long been described as an alternative to adjudication. However, as noted in chapter 4, the growing need for innovative solutions and administrative efficiencies supports the use of negotiation as an adjunct to formal review and appeal processes. For example, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act establishes the Mediation and Arbitration Board to mediate and where necessary arbitrate certain matters, and the proposed Environmental Protection Act provides for mediation as the first phase of the dispute resolution process. The Mine Development Assessment Act authorizes the Minister to require an applicant for a mine development certificate to participate in mediation.

Adjudication processes are effective at deciding specific issues. They are much less effective at resolving differences in fundamental values. Negotiation can supplement the adjudication process by creating an opportunity for the disputants to find their own solution.

Management Constraints

Our resource ministries are limited in their capacity to support negotiated approaches to decision-making. Public demand for participation in the decision-making process is outpacing the ability of most agencies to provide or enhance organizational support. The constraints include limited negotiation and mediation expertise, competing demands on staff and budgets, and uncertain


vol4

support mechanisms. Other issues include the need to strengthen the commitment within the public service to collaborative problem-solving, and the need to amend legislation to permit greater use of negotiation in the review and appeal system. These constraints need to be addressed as part of the overall process of developing a comprehensive dispute resolution system.

The ability of public agencies to support negotiated approaches to decision-making and dispute resolution is limited by a number of related factors, including:

Expertise

Adjusting to a more participatory mode of democracy is challenging for both decision-makers and the public. Few resource agencies have sufficient staff with the knowledge, skill and ability to:

● analyze a dispute, assess the appropriateness of a negotiated approach, and then design, implement and manage a negotiation process

● facilitate or mediate a negotiation● familiarize participants with interest-based negotiation skills and concepts● integrate technical and scientific knowledge with public expectations in a shared decision-making

context.

Financial and Human Resources

Negotiated approaches to decision-making and dispute resolution require a commitment of staff time and budgets. Although this commitment may be justified to ensure the quality of decisions, it is often difficult to re-direct already committed resources to support unplanned public participation or unanticipated dispute resolution processes. Currently, considerable financial and human resources across government are being diverted in a reactive way to various processes, which can be inefficient and costly. Resources need to be coordinated and systematically dedicated to:

● hire facilitators and mediators, where necessary● pay participant assistance, where appropriate● collect special information● prepare effective public communication materials.

Institutional Framework

Negotiation participants and process managers are learning that a high state of administrative readiness is required to maximize opportunities for negotiated outcomes. These readiness requirements range from relatively straightforward but time-consuming logistical and organizational needs to more challenging policy and information development. Currently, the onus is on the sponsoring agencies to deliver negotiation assistance, administrative and technical support, information needs and policy direction as required. For example, technical and analytical support for the CORE regional land use negotiation processes was provided by technical working groups comprising experts from a cross-section of government ministries. A significant time commitment over and above regular workloads was required to meet the demands of the negotiation process.


vol4

While effective in meeting the needs of the regional negotiations, this approach cannot be sustained. Dedicated institutional support with clearly established roles and responsibilities, and thus accountability, is required to integrate negotiation into the decision-making framework.

There is no clearly identifiable group or agency within government that is responsible for supporting negotiated approaches to decision-making or dispute resolution. Managers faced with, for example, determining the appropriate level of participation for a particular decision have nowhere to go for authoritative guidance and assistance. This gap has placed a burden on public servants caught between their mandated program delivery role and the need to support and respond to public expectations through highly participatory processes.

Corporate Culture and Values

Our system of public administration has not historically encouraged individual responsibility and accountability for collaborative approaches to problem-solving. Public managers generally have the freedom to solve problems by informally obtaining advice from individuals or groups, establishing advisory groups and encouraging other participation mechanisms. But managers have to see the benefit in actively and innovatively addressing problems in these ways. Agencies need to reinforce these values in their managers. Leadership must come from the most senior levels of government. Corporate strategic planning should focus on the service quality orientation of accessibility and accountability to the public, and entrepreneurial problem-solving. Today's professional resource managers often need to know as much about interest-based negotiation as they do about the technical aspects of program delivery. Agencies should strive to build this requirement into their hiring, training and staff performance evaluation systems.

Limited Mandates

In the review and appeal system, negotiation is not widely mandated and few boards have the expertise to support even small-scale negotiation processes.


vol4


Table of contents

Providing Support for Negotiated Approaches to Decision-Making and Dispute Resolution

Public demand for a greater role in government decision-making has provided the impetus for the increased use of negotiated approaches. However, momentum is being slowed by the lack of an institutional framework to coordinate, administer and reduce the cost of providing negotiation support services.

An organizational framework is required to:

● make interest-based negotiation more accessible and efficient● increase the likelihood that disputes will be resolved successfully● ensure the quality of negotiation processes● reduce costs and utilize less rather than more government resources.

These goals can be achieved by:

● consolidating the responsibility for mediation services in a neutral provincial agency (independent of ministries with direct responsibilities for allocating and regulating land use and related resource and environmental matters) to organize and administer service delivery and quality, and ensure coordination and efficiency

● formalizing opportunities for mediation in legislation enabling negotiated approaches as a voluntary part of the review and appeal process.

● establishing a professional development program to build negotiation and mediation skills in the public service.

Coordinating the Delivery of Mediation Services








vol4

Currently, services to support public decision-making and dispute resolution processes are mostly on a reactive basis23 - with logistical and administrative support provided by the sponsoring agency and, subject to agency budget constraints, with mediation services delivered by independent contractors. This approach has the benefit of being flexible but it does not make mediation services widely available or cost-effective, nor does it build mediation capacity within the public service.

These objectives could be met by consolidating responsibility for negotiation and mediation support services in a neutral office of mediation. Some of the potential benefits include:

● creating institutional legitimacy for the use of mediation● ensuring coordination, service quality and cost efficiency● supporting flexible approaches to the design and delivery of negotiation processes within a consistent

organizational framework● providing a vehicle for negotiation training and building public awareness

The mediation office's role might include:

● promoting the use of negotiation and mediation to resolve public policy disputes● assisting ministries in evaluating which cases are appropriate for a negotiated approach and setting up

the appropriate dispute resolution processes● mediating decision-making processes and public disputes (or, helping ministries obtain the services of

facilitators or mediators)● providing administrative support for particular dispute resolution processes● informing government officials, interest groups, and the general public about dispute resolution

alternatives● training ministry personnel● generally, building a commitment to collaborative dispute resolution within government, business and

communities.

The mediation office's services could be available to provincial ministries, local government, legislators and public interest groups. The neutrality of government-initiated mediation services would have to be established and maintained through appropriate legal and administrative structures.

A number of U.S. states have established offices designed to promote the use of negotiation and other alternative dispute resolution tools to settle public policy disputes. These offices promote the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, work to resolve public policy disputes, train state agency personnel, and generally try to introduce a dispute resolution outlook into government infrastructure. These offices are also in a position to oversee implementation of mediated or negotiated agreements. Location within government varies from offices within the judicial and executive branches of the state, to independent offices with state funding and sanction.

An office of dispute resolution could be an arm of an independent and neutral commission or board, it could be a single office devoted to land use and resource management disputes, or it could be more like the Public Policy Dispute Resolution Program of the Oregon Dispute Resolution


vol4

Commission - a dispute resolution program for all of government with a branch devoted to land use and resource management disputes.

Recommendation

1. The responsibility for the organization, administration and delivery of mediation services should be consolidated in a neutral office of mediation to ensure accountability, coordination and efficiency. This could be part of a coordinating secretariat or ministry within government, an independent commission, or the sustainability appeal board.

Formalizing Negotiated Approaches

Negotiated approaches to dispute resolution can be made a more regular part of public decision-making by incorporating the opportunity into legislation.

The lack of legislated negotiation and mediation opportunities within the review and appeal process is a weakness in the system. Not only does cooperation create the potential to foster innovative solutions but, where used appropriately, alternative mechanisms can save money. Within the traditional review and appeal framework, negotiated approaches can be used in pre-hearing mediation to facilitate agreement or to narrow the issues throughout the process. The Environmental Appeal Board and the British Columbia Utilities Commission, for example, have conducted pre-hearing conferences that have resulted in agreements between parties and thus a better focus on the issues under appeal, and in some cases, the abandonment of appeals.

A number of jurisdictions encourage the use of interest-based negotiation in their legislation. In Canada, the federal Environmental Assessment Act allows mediation to be used as a supplement to a panel review or as an alternative to panel review if all interested parties agree.

The United States recently passed legislation which encourages the use of collaborative dispute resolution techniques by government agencies. The Negotiated Rule-Making Act of 1990 encourages the use of collaborative dispute resolution in federal agency processes for formulating, amending and repealing rules. It calls for federal agencies to appoint dispute-resolution specialists for improving public decision-making and authorizes training in alternative dispute resolution techniques for federal agency employees. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 requires federal agencies to consider using collaborative dispute resolution techniques in connection with rule-making, litigation, enforcement actions, licensing and permitting, and formal and informal adjudication. It also requires that government agencies designate a senior dispute resolution specialist to implement the Act, provide training to employees involved in implementing the Act, and undertake other activities which will likely lead to the increased use of collaborative dispute resolution techniques by federal agencies.

Many states have similar legislation. Oregon's Civil Penalties, Administrative Procedures and Rules of State Agencies Act allows agencies, unless precluded by law, to use alternative means of dispute resolution in rule-making proceedings, contested case proceedings, judicial proceedings in which the agency is a party and any other decision-making process in which conflicts may arise.


vol4

The means of dispute resolution may be mediation or any other collaborative problem-solving process. Agencies are encouraged to adopt policy on the use of alternative means of dispute resolution.

Recommendation

1. Opportunities for negotiation and mediation should be formalized in legislation as part of the review and appeal process.

Training

The nature of public service is changing in response to public demand for higher levels of participation in the decision-making process. The directly affected public now expects an opportunity to work with public officials to resolve complex problems. Increasingly, public officials are being thrust into the role of formally or informally facilitating public participation in decision-making in addition to other responsibilities. This requires new skills and institutional support.

The development of the expertise required to design, administer and mediate public processes requires training and field experience. These components are inter-dependent. While coursework is a fundamental prerequisite, classroom experience seldom fully prepares the learner for immediate responsibility for dispute resolution in the field. And, new practitioners seldom have an opportunity to develop field skills under the guidance of an experienced practitioner. This problem could be addressed through a mentoring program in which ministry staff would have opportunity to gain "hands-on" mediation training by working with an experienced public policy mediator.

Recommendations

1. A professional development program should be established to build negotiation and mediation skills in the public service through formal training and field experience opportunities.

2. Public managers should be encouraged to build a commitment to accessibility and public accountability in agency hiring practices, training and staff performance evaluation systems.

23. An exception is the LRMP program which provides for negotiated approaches as a matter of policy.


vol4


vol4


Table of contents

6 - Implementing a Dispute Resolution System

Summary of Needs

Previous chapters make the case for a comprehensive system for resolving land and resource management disputes in B.C. that includes preventive and adjudicative approaches, both of which must be supported by increased opportunity for negotiated solutions to land and resource use problems.

The underlying objectives that must guide the scope and nature of preventive and adjudicative strategies are fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. The duty of public officials with delegated decision authority to be fair is well-established in administrative law, and serves to ensure accountability of these individuals and to reduce societal conflict. The efficiency objective requires that land and resource management decision-making and dispute resolution processes proceed in a timely way with reasonable support of human and financial resources. The system must be effective at preventing disputes where possible, resolving them as quickly as possible when they do arise, and enabling better decisions to be reached throughout.

Implementation Strategies

There are a number of ways that the needs identified above may be addressed. Recommended implementation strategies are provided in the following section.

Dispute Prevention

Laws, policies and structures promoting interagency coordination and integration, and reinforcing opportunities for meaningful public participation in planning and administrative decision-making,








vol4

including interest-based negotiation in planning, should be adopted to speed progress towards an effective dispute resolution system. Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the Provincial Land Use Strategy provide

specific recommendations to address these needs.24

Legislation Review and Public Consultation

Chapter 4 of this report contains general proposals regarding the nature of a set of common rules and procedures that should be prepared to guide the review and appeal of administrative land and resource management decisions. Steps that should be undertaken in developing the set of common rules and procedures include consultation with key public groups on the specific design of the rules and procedures, and detailed review of all existing legal provisions respecting review and appeal of land and resource management decisions to determine specific amendments that would be needed to implement final rules and procedures. In addition to those issues identified in chapter 4, the review should address the issue of costs, both from the participant perspective (participant and intervenor funding) and the jurisdiction of boards to award costs against unsuccessful parties.

Recommendation

1. A legislative review and public consultation process should be undertaken to determine the nature of a set of common rules and procedures to guide the review and appeal process.

Interpretation and Compliance with Land Use Plans

British Columbia has recently made extensive commitments to land use planning, as evidenced by CORE regional plans, sub-regional land and resource management plans, and provisions within the Forest Practices Code Act that enable implementation of forest land use plans through resource management zone designations. Strategic Crown land use plans are in place or are under development for more than 50 percent of the provincial land base and future planning is contemplated for other areas.

Clearly, there is an expectation that administrative decisions respecting management of land and resources located within planning areas will be consistent with the direction established by approved land use plans.25 Administrative decision-makers must be accountable to that expectation and, therefore, there must be opportunity for review and appeal of their decisions.

At present, there are some limited opportunities for review and appeal of land use plan interpretation and enforcement disputes. Where land and resource tenures are issued within a land use plan area, there are existing provisions for review and appeal pursuant to the statute under which the tenure was issued. It is by no means clear under these statutes, however, if concerns about interpretation and enforcement of land use plans are eligible subjects for review and appeal. As well, the rights of the general public to file a request for review or appeal of interpretation and enforcement decisions are either limited or non-existent.

The recently enacted Forest Practices Code Act (not yet proclaimed) establishes a closer link


vol4

between land use planning and forest management decision-making. The Act enables the designation of resource management zones that conform with Cabinet-approved land use plans, as well as the establishment of objectives for resource management zones, landscape units, and sensitive areas. Forest development plans, logging plans, silviculture plans, access management plans and range use plans must all be consistent with "higher level plans". Provisions in the Act provide for review and appeal of administrative decisions made under the Act and presumably these opportunities extend to disputes over interpretation and compliance with higher level plans. These opportunities, however, are specific to forest practices within provincial forests - not all administrative decisions and not all types of land are captured by the review and appeal provisions of the Act. In addition, the Act contains provisions that exclude some parties from appeal, at the discretion of the Board that is responsible for considering review and appeal proposals.

Land use plans are developed with extensive commitment to public participation. Stakeholders must have assurances that finalized land use plans will be implemented fairly and consistently over time. There needs to be a clear and direct link established between approved land use plans, the requirement for decisions of resource managers to conform with those plans, and the opportunity for review and appeal of those decisions in order to ensure the accountability of resource managers. A land use appeal body would fill a gap in the overall land use planning delivery system and would supplement existing processes to hear forest and environmental management appeals.

Recommendation

1. An independent land use appeal body should be established to hear appeals regarding the administration of strategic, local resource and other land use plans, including issues relating to their interpretation, implementation, and enforcement and other technical details.

Common Secretariat Support Services

A further structural change, aimed at administrative cost-savings and improved standardization and consistency in land use, resource and environmental appeal processes, would be to consolidate all existing appeal board support services into a single secretariat. This support group would be responsible for serving the administrative requirements of the boards.

Housing the administrative functions of these boards under one roof would provide, in effect, a "one stop window" for those trying to determine with which board an appeal should be filed. It would also provide a mechanism to track legislative amendments to ensure that procedures remain consistent. In addition, cost-savings would be realized, while providing a higher level of administrative back-up than is presently available to appeal bodies. As discussed earlier, the provision of adequate administrative services is an important part of maintaining board independence and credibility.

A common secretariat would benefit both appeal board members and those who use appeal mechanisms. With a single, common secretariat it would be relatively easy for board members and others to access decisions of similar bodies, thus providing a mechanism to check consistency in decision-making. The secretariat could act as the repository for appeal decisions, providing the framework for a common registry, contributing to process simplification as well as improvement of


vol4

the overall quality of appeal board decisions.

Recommendation

1. Common secretariat services should be established for land use, resource and environmental appeal bodies in order to increase efficiencies, ensure greater standardization of practices and increase accessibility to the public.

Consolidation of Appeal Functions

The rationale for establishing a common secretariat to serve the requirements of all appeal bodies hearing administrative appeals related to a land use, resource and environmental matters also supports the merger of all such bodies into a single "sustainability appeal board".

In addition to expected cost-savings, standardization and consistency, and reduced complexity, a primary reason for merging all such appeal functions into a single body is the opportunity for integration of all necessary perspectives into the hearing of appeals. Appeal panels, drawn as appropriate from a diverse list of experts with social, economic and environmental experience in the fields of forestry, land use, and environmental and resource management will contribute to an informed and balanced response to a variety of disputed decisions. It is necessary that the appeal body have both the expertise and jurisdiction to examine all of the elements of disputed decisions. Just as interagency coordination is crucial in integrating all key values into the administrative decision-making process, the bodies charged with making the final decision on matters under appeal should be able to draw on a range of expertise in order to apply a comprehensive approach.

The need to address significant procedural inconsistencies and inadequacies in the jurisdictional framework of the existing review and appeal systems provides a compelling opportunity to merge all appeal bodies. A single land use and resource management appeal body replacing all existing appeal structures would provide the ability to respond effectively to changing regulatory requirements without significant disruption and cost, provide consistency in appeal policies and procedures, result in better-utilized and more broadly-based expertise, and reduce potential duplication in procedural decision-making.

Implementation of a comprehensive sustainability board would require significant analysis and should be phased in concurrent with a rationalization of the wide range of existing, separate legislative provisions and references respecting land use, resource and environmental appeals, and the adoption of a single piece of legislation enabling the creation and operation of a sustainability appeal board.

Recommendation

1. All boards dealing with land use, resource and environmental appeals should over time be merged into a comprehensive sustainability appeal board.


vol4

24. See the foreword of this report for a description of the other volumes.25. The Commission has recommended that strategic plans be given formal status. See

Commission on Resources and Environment, A Sustainability Act for British Columbia and Planning for Sustainability, Provincial Land Use Strategy, vol. 1 and vol. 2, (Victoria, 1994).


vol4


Table of contents

Appendix - Statutory Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in B.C.

This appendix summarizes the main review and appeal provisions contained within primary existing and proposed legislation related to land use and related resource and environmental management in B.C., and other key, non-land, resource legislation.

Land, Resource and Environmental Management

Agricultural Land Commission

Agricultural Land Commission Act

The object of the provincial agricultural land commission is to preserve agricultural land, encourage the establishment and maintenance of farms and assist municipalities and regional districts in preparing land reserve plans. Every regional district board must develop an agricultural land reserve plan setting out areas that are agricultural land reserve, adopt this plan by bylaw and file it with the commission.

There are provisions throughout the Act for public involvement in advance of a decision being made on the designation, exclusion, or use of agricultural land. The legislation provides for the Commission to hold a hearing and decide a matter on its own authority, and also for the government to refer matters to the Commission. Where the matter is referred to the Commission, the Commission makes recommendations to government who makes the final decision; where the hearing is conducted on its own authority, the Commission is the decision making body. Decisions of the Commission refusing permission for a use other than a farm use or imposing terms on permission for that use, may be appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law or excess of jurisdiction.








vol4

Forest Land Commission

Forest Land Reserve Act

This act provides for the designation of land as "forest land reserve" to protect the commercial forest land base of B.C. Land classed as private managed forest land pursuant to the Assessment Act is automatically designated as forest land reserve; and, Crown land may be designated by Cabinet as forest land reserve following land use planning processes.

The Act provides opportunities for owners of affected lands, municipalities and regional districts to be involved in the decision making processes surrounding forest reserve lands. In addition, the Forest Land Commission has discretionary authority to involve organizations representing a community of interests. As is the situation in the Agricultural Land Commission Act, where the Commission conducts a hearing on its own authority, it has decision making authority; where the Commission considers a matter referred to it by government, the Commission makes a recommendation to government who will make the decision. There is no appeal from decisions of the Commission except for the judicial review process.

Land

Land Act

The Land Act provides for the administration of Crown land and sets out the rules and regulations governing the disposition of Crown land through Crown grants, leases, permits, licenses, easements and rights-of-way. The Act also enables the survey of Crown land, pursuant to instructions from the Surveyor General of British Columbia.

Any person may object to an application for a Crown land disposition by filing a notice of objection before the disposition decision is made. Where in the minister's opinion the objection warrants a hearing, the minister appoints someone to hold a hearing and submit a report for the minister's consideration. The minister may make any order that to the minister is "just". A person affected by the minister's order may appeal to the Supreme Court on a question of law.

The Act does provide a right of appeal for any person adversely affected by a land re-survey. The Surveyor General or designate is empowered to, on appeal, confirm a plan of re-survey or order supplementary work. The order, subject to appeal to the minister, is final and binding. Where a re-survey results in someone acquiring land and improvements, the minister is responsible for deciding the appropriate compensation. If there is disagreement with the amount of compensation, the matter proceeds to arbitration.

Environmental Appeal Board (established under Environment Management Act)

Commercial River Rafting Safety ActPesticide Control Act


vol4

Waste Management ActWater ActWildlife Act

Health Act

The Environmental Appeal Board hears appeals from decisions made under the above statutes. Standing to appeal and subjects of appeal vary with the statutes. In most cases, the board can confirm, reverse or vary the decision being appealed, or make another order that it considers appropriate. A decision of the board can be reviewed and changed by Cabinet and may be appealed to the court through judicial review.

Commercial River Rafting Safety Act

This Act provides for the regulation of commercial river rafting operations in the interest of public safety. A Registrar appointed under the Act is responsible for registering and licensing river rafting operators. Decisions of the Registrar suspending or canceling a registration, license or permit, or the Registrar's refusal to register or issue a licence may be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board. Standing to file an appeal is limited to the holder of the canceled or suspended registration, or the license applicant. On hearing the appeal, the board may confirm, reverse or vary the Registrar's decision.

Pesticide Control Act

This Act regulates the sale and use of pesticides in B.C., and provides administrative decision-making powers to an Administrator named under the Act. Any action, decision or order of the Administrator or any other person under the Act may be appealed to the Environmental Appeal Board by any person within a 30 day statutory appeal period. The Board has the authority to issue a stay and to order an appellant to deposit an amount of money the Board considers sufficient to cover the reasonable expenses of the Board and the respondent. After hearing an appeal, the Board has the authority to make an order it considers appropriate including an order for costs.

Waste Management Act

Under this Act, "managers" within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks are delegated powers to issue or withhold permits to discharge waste products into the environment. Persons who consider themselves aggrieved may appeal a manager's decision to a director, and a decision of the director or, in the case of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, a district director, to the Environmental Appeal Board. Both the director and the Board have the authority to extend the appeal period, may stay a matter under appeal, and may confirm, reverse or vary the decision appealed from.

Water Act


vol4

A licence under the Water Act entitles its holder to divert, store and use water, to construct works, to alter a stream and to construct fences, screen and fish or game guards across streams to conserve fish or wildlife. Regional water managers or engineers have authority under the Act to receive water use applications and to decide licence allocation. The Act provides a licensee or applicant for a license, a riparian owner, an owner of an affected property, or the recipient of an order with a right of appeal from a decision of a regional water manager or engineer to the Comptroller, and from the Comptroller to the Environmental Appeal Board. The Board may require the appellant to deposit sufficient money to cover the reasonable costs of the Board and the respondent, and the Board may dispose of those funds. The Board has the authority to determine the matters involved and make any order that the tribunal considers just.

Wildlife Act

B.C.'s wildlife resources, including the issuance of licences and permits by Regional Managers to use wildlife, are regulated under this Act. The Act provides a right of appeal to holders of or applicants for licences, permits, trapline registrations or guide outfitter's certificates to the director from decision of the regional manager and to the Environmental Appeal Board from the director. While the director on appeal has the authority to substitute a decision for the one appealed from, the Board may only dismiss an appeal or return the matter to the director or regional manager with directions.

Health Act

The Health Act requires that the location, design, installation, construction, operation and maintenance of sewage disposal systems be authorized by a permit. Under the Act, a person aggrieved by the issuance or refusal of a permit for a sewage disposal system may within 30 days of the decision, appeal the decision to the Environmental Appeal Board. The Board has the authority to confirm, vary or rescind the ruling under appeal.

Forest Act and Range Act Boards

Under the Forest Act, those who are the recipients of decisions regarding licences, allowable annual cuts, scaling, timber marketing and rate of harvest have a right of appeal. To whom that appeal is directed depends on the type of decision under appeal, and who made it. There is provision for appeals to the regional manager from decisions of a forest officer or a district manager; to the chief forester from decisions of the regional manager; and to an appeal board from the chief forester. Where an appeal is to an appeal board, notice of appeal is to be served on the minister. The Lieutenant Governor in Council must appoint up to three persons to the appeal board and the minister must set the terms of reference. The board may order that either party pay costs associated with the appeal, and may uphold, vary, reverse, or refer back the matter under appeal. Decisions of the board may be appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law or jurisdiction, and then to the Court of Appeal with leave of a justice from that court. Amendments to the Forest Act in 1994 clarify the powers of the chief forester to obtain information and set allowable annual cuts for tree farm licences.


vol4

Appeals of decisions made under the Range Act follow the same basic policy as under the Forest Act.

Mediation and Arbitration Board (established underPetroleum and Natural Gas Act)

Coal ActMineral Tenure ActMining Right of Way ActPetroleum and Natural Gas Act

Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act

The board facilitates negotiations between industry and landowners regarding access to petroleum, natural gas, and coal and mineral bearing lands. In disputes between industry and surface landowners the board mediates and if necessary, arbitrates. The board also arbitrates user-fee disputes between owners of access roads and parties wanting to use these roads to access petroleum, natural gas and minerals. In order to instigate a review by the board, one of the parties must apply to it for a resolution of the dispute. Orders of the board may be appealed to the Supreme Court on a point or question of law that was raised before the board.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, Coal Act and the Mineral Tenure Act also provide for other avenues of appeal in certain circumstances.

Petroleum and Natural Gas Act

In addition to appeals to the Mediation and Arbitration Board, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act also provides for appeals to the minister from a commissioner's decision regarding permit classifications, and to the Supreme Court from decisions of the minister regarding the cancellation of exploration permits, drilling licences and leases.

Coal Act

The Coal Act authorizes the exploration and development of coal on certain lands through a system of leases, permits, licences and certificates issued by the minister. A free miner, licensee, lessee or permit holder under this act may appeal a decision or order of the minister to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Decisions of the Lieutenant Governor in Council are not subject to review or appeal by any court.

Mineral Tenure Act

The Mineral Tenure Act established the authority to administer mineral claims, titles and leases in B.C. In addition providing for the Mediation and Arbitration Board to address disputes regarding such matters as entry on private land and associated compensation, this Act provides for appeals to the


vol4

court from decisions of the minister regarding suspensions and cancellations of a free miner's certificate. The Act also establishes the chief gold commissioner who issues decisions on mineral classification and on statutory rights of recorded holders.

Utilities Commission

Utilities Commission Act

The Utilities Commission Act establishes a commission that has the authority to conduct hearings on application or complaint by an interested party or referral by the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Commission addresses such matters as the issuance of energy project certificates and energy removal certificates, while also being responsible for the general supervision of public utilities. The Commission has the authority to decide whether or not to inquire into a matter or conduct a hearing. Where a matter has been referred to the commission, the Commission is charged with making a recommendation to the appropriate body. The Commission has the authority under the Act to reconsider, vary or rescind a decision, order, rule or regulation it has made. Decisions and orders of the Commission may be appealed to the Court of Appeal with leave of a justice of that court.

Ombudsman

Ombudsman Act

Appointed by the Legislative Assembly, the Ombudsman may investigate a decision or recommendation, an act done or omitted, or a procedure used by an authority that "aggrieves or may aggrieve a person" with respect to a matter of administration. Generally the Ombudsman investigates complaints by individuals who feel wronged by the process of administrative decision-making. An investigation may be initiated by a complaint, by a referral of the Legislative Assembly or any of its committees, or independently by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter until all rights of appeal to a court or tribunal have been exercised.

Where the Ombudsman believes that a decision, recommendation, act or omission was contrary to law, unjust etc. that opinion, the reasons for it, and recommendations are reported to the appropriate authority. The Ombudsman may also issue a report and recommendations to the Legislative Assembly or directly to the public.

In the past, the Ombudsman's office has been involved in natural resources management through reviews of complaints about government administration of natural resources, and its involvement in developing models for integrated resource management and consensual dispute resolution processes for land use planning.


vol4


vol4


Table of contents

Emerging Dispute Resolution Provisions (Environment and Forestry)

Environmental Assessment Board

Environmental Assessment Act

Bill 29 establishes a single process for the assessment of the environmental, economic, social, cultural, heritage and health effects of "reviewable projects". Reviewable projects include significant projects related to tourism, aquaculture/food processing, transportation, waste disposal, water containment and diversion, mining, and energy. An independent Environmental Assessment Board will, on referral from the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and the resource minister responsible, review complex and contentious projects and make recommendations to Cabinet. A referral to the board will be accompanied by terms of reference for the review. Upon review, the board will make recommendations to Cabinet and Cabinet will decide whether a Project Approval Certificate should be issued for the project.

If it is thought that mediation will be help settle one or more issues related to the review of an application, the board or the executive director of the Environmental Assessment Office may make the services of a mediator available to applicants for Project Approval Certificates, and to parties interested in the outcome of the application.

Forest Practices Board and Forest Appeals Commission

Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, 1994

The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act, 1994 establishes three new agencies to monitor compliance, standards and hear formal appeals: the Forest Practices Board, the Forest Appeals Commission and the Forest Practices Advisory Council.








vol4

The Forest Practices Board is mandated to undertake independent audits of forest practices and investigate public complaints regarding compliance and the appropriateness of government enforcement. The Board is also empowered to request the review of "determinations" related to the approval of forest development or range use plans. In addition, the Board provides the means of public access to the Forest Appeals Commission. While the Board has no authority to make binding decisions, it can make recommendations followed by reports to Cabinet.

The Forest Appeals Commission is the body established under the Forest Practices Code to hear appeals against decisions that have been reviewed by a designated official. Standing to bring an appeal is limited to the recipient of a determination, or the Forest Practices Board. During the hearing of an appeal, party status may also be extended at the Commission's discretion to the government and any body the Commission considers may be affected by the appeal. On appeal, the Commission may award costs to parties, and may confirm, vary, rescind the decision under appeal, or refer the matter back. The Commission may also apply to the Supreme Court for compliance orders. Decisions of the Commission may be appealed to the Supreme Court on a question of law or jurisdiction, with a further appeal to the Court of Appeal with leave of a justice of the Court of Appeal.

The Forest Practices Advisory Council is to undertake periodic reviews of the operational planning and forest practices requirements under the Act, regulations and standards. The Council may also make recommendations to the appropriate body on matters referred by the Ministers of Forests and Environment, Lands and Parks, and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Environmental Protection

British Columbia Environmental Protection Act (Proposed)

The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is currently consolidating and reforming its environmental protection legislation. The British Columbia Environmental Protection Act (BCEPA) will group together the provisions that apply to all environmental legislation - such as the general principles of environmental management, enforcement, appeals, and emergency measures. It will also establish the legislative basis for programs related to pollution prevention and control, air quality, water quality, pesticides and waste management.

The ministry's 1992 legislation discussion paper New Approaches to Environmental Protection in British Columbia recommends that a new British Columbia Environmental Protection Act (BCEPA) consolidate and integrate the appeal process for all environmental management decision made in the ministry. In particular the discussion paper recommends that the issue of standing be harmonized and that methods and opportunities for alternative dispute resolution be established in the decision making process.

Non Land or Resource Use Statutes


vol4

Labour Relations Board

Labour Relations Code

The Labour Relations Board, established under the Labour Relations Code, is responsible for promoting conditions favorable to the constructive settlement of disputes, encouraging voluntary dispute resolution and tracking collective agreements. The board has two divisions: mediation and arbitration.

● Mediation: Either party can make a written request to the Associate Chair of the Mediation Division for a mediation officer to assist the parties to conclude/renew/revise a collective agreement. The minister may appoint a mediator at any time during collective bargaining if he or she thinks it likely to facilitate concluding/renewing/revising a collective agreement In a collective bargaining dispute, the Associate Chair may also appoint a fact finder to consult with the parties and make a report setting out matters agreed to by parties and the matters still remaining in dispute.

● Arbitration: The Labour Relations Code creates a Collective Agreement Arbitration Bureau which maintains a register of arbitrators. The director of the Bureau is advised by a joint advisory committee appointed by the minister with representatives from trade unions, employers, and arbitrators. An arbitration board established under a collective agreement or appointed by the director has the authority to provide a final settlement of a dispute arising under a collective agreement. An arbitration board may refer a question of labour relations policy or interpretation of the Labour Relations Code to the Labour Relations Board for a binding opinion and decision. A decision of an arbitration board can be appealed to the Labour Relations Board which can set aside the decision, remit the matters back to the arbitration board, stay proceedings or substitute the decision or award.

The Court of Appeal can review the decision of the board where it is an issue of general law.

Expedited Arbitration

Under special circumstances, a party to a collective agreement can refer a matter under dispute to the director for resolution by expedited arbitration.

Consensual Mediation-Arbitration

Parties can also agree to refer a matter to a single mediator-arbitrator. If they cannot settle the grievance by mediation, the mediator-arbitrator helps the parties agree on the material facts in dispute and then determines the grievance by arbitration.

Special Officer

The minister may appoint a special officer if there is, or is likely to be, a dispute or difference arising out of or relating to a collective agreement. The officer investigates the dispute and may hold hearings, make recommendations, and make orders respecting the process for settling disputes, or arbitrate the dispute.


vol4

Industrial Inquiry Commission

If a dispute exists or is likely to arise between employers and employees, the minister may refer the matter to an industrial inquiry commission for investigation and report with recommendations.

Industry Advisory Councils

These councils are established by the minister to examine labour management relations and recommend measures that may contribute to their improvement, including measures to achieve more effective collective bargaining and procedures for settling disputes.

Employment Standards Branch

The Employment Standards Branch of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour investigates violations of collective agreements, applications for certification and other matters under the Labour Relations Code for the Labour Relations Board. The branch also investigates complaints and appeals regarding unpaid wages or other matters under the Employment Standards Act. The director of the branch can refuse to investigate complaints or can use initiative to instigate an investigation.

Workers' Compensation System

Workers' Compensation Board (WCB)

The board administers the Workers' Compensation Act and the adjudication of all matters under it. Its primary responsibilities are the prevention of industrial injury and disease and the payment of compensation benefits to workers or their dependents. Initially a claim will be managed by a claims officer or adjudicator who will decide if the worker is eligible for payments for wage loss, medical expenses, rehabilitation, or disability.

Workers' Compensation Review Board

The review board provides an appeal agency comprised of Cabinet appointed members who are independent of the WCB. Appeals to the review board may be made by a worker, employer or dependent concerning any decision rendered by an officer of the WCB with respect to a worker.

Medical Review Panels (MRP)

A medical review panel will be convened when a worker is dissatisfied with a medical decision made by the WCB or the WCRB. A decision by the MRP is final.

Workers' Compensation Commissioners' Appeal Division


vol4

Appeal panels are the final level for appeals of all non-medical issues. Decisions of both the WCB or the WCRB are appealed to this body. Panels are composed of commissioners appointed by the governors of the WCB and consist of one or three commissioners.

Information and Privacy Commissioner

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

The commissioner is appointed by the Legislative Assembly and is generally responsible for monitoring the administration of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Commissioner has a broad range of powers to ensure that the purposes of the Act are being achieved including the power to conduct investigations and audits, and to make orders whether or not a review has been requested.

The commissioner may authorize a mediator to investigate and to try to settle matter under review. If the matter is not referred to a mediator or is not settled, the commissioner must conduct an inquiry and decide all questions of fact and law. On completion of the inquiry the commissioner must dispose of issues by making an order.

Cabinet can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court to act as an adjudicator and investigate complaints made against the commissioner for any decision, act or failure to act.

International Commercial Arbitration

International Commercial Arbitration Act

The International Commercial Arbitration Act applies to disputes regarding international commercial agreements and is based on the UN Commission on International Trade Law's Model Arbitration Law. Under the Act parties are free to agree on the procedures, place and language of arbitration and the composition of an arbitration tribunal.

The tribunal can appoint experts to testify about a matter under dispute. It may also encourage the settlement of the dispute and, with the agreement of the parties, may use mediation, conciliation or other procedures at any time during the arbitration proceedings.

The Act also establishes an International Commercial Arbitration Centre in Vancouver which parties can use to administer and hear their arbitrations.

Commercial Arbitration

Commercial Arbitration Act

The Commercial Arbitration Act governs arbitrations relating to arbitration agreements in


vol4

commercial agreements, arbitration under an enactment that refers to the Commercial Arbitration Act (the Act does not apply to the Labour Relations Code), and any other arbitration agreement.

The Act authorizes the arbitrator(s) to make interim and final awards, order specific performance, and award costs. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the court can appoint one. The court also has the power to remove an arbitrator. There is very limited scope for judicial review of arbitration decisions.

There are no provisions in the Act for other forms of dispute resolution, although the commercial agreements themselves may provide for it.

Residential Tenancy Branch

Residential Tenancy Act

The branch administers an arbitration system for landlord-tenant disputes under the Residential Tenancy Act. The landlord and tenant may agree to designate an arbitrator to arbitrate a tenancy agreement or either party may apply to the registrar of the branch to designate one. The minister appoints arbitrators who may be designated by the registrar to conduct arbitrations or hear appeals of landlord payment orders. The decision of the arbitrator is final.


· core index volume1 why sustainability is important sustainability initiatives, 1910 - 1987...

Documents