P Akins Dissertation 2017

243 Pages·2017·3.9 MB·English

by  Pip Akins

Making collaboration work: An evaluation of marine protected area planning processes on
Canada’s Pacific Coast

by

Philip Akins

Bachelor of Science, Geography, University of Victoria, 2002
Master of Arts, International Affairs, Carleton University, 2005

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Geography

© Philip Akins, 2017
University of Victoria

All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or
other means, without the permission of the author.
Supervisory Committee

Making collaboration work: An evaluation of marine protected area planning processes on
Canada’s Pacific Coast

by

Philip Akins

Bachelor of Science, Geography, University of Victoria, 2002
Master of Arts, International Affairs, Carleton University, 2005

Supervisory Committee

Dr. Rosaline Canessa, Department of Geography, University of Victoria
Supervisor

Dr. Grant Murray, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, and Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University
Departmental member

Dr. Michelle Lee-Moore, Department of Geography, University of Victoria
Departmental member

Dr. Michael Webb, Department of Political Science, University of Victoria
Outside member

ii
Abstract

It is widely agreed that marine protected areas (MPAs), which can provide long-term
protection to marine ecosystems of high ecological, economic, social and cultural value, will
only be successful if they are designed and implemented with the involvement and support of
stakeholders and other key actors. Putting a collaborative approach into practice is not easy,
though. Appropriate governance structures, which formalize and facilitate information sharing,
consensus building, and decision making are necessary, but insufficient. Also needed is a shared
interest on the part of all groups – beginning with MPA agencies themselves – to work together,
notwithstanding the often considerable investments of time, effort and material resources that are
required. Perhaps most fundamentally, effective collaboration depends on trust, and strong
interpersonal relationships.
Consistent with a global trend in favour of more inclusive and participatory approaches to
protected area planning and management, Canada’s federal government has set out to develop a
national system of MPAs in cooperation with a broad array of interest groups, including marine
resource users and other stakeholders; government actors with responsibilities and authorities for
oceans activities that relate to the objectives of MPAs; and Aboriginal communities and
organizations within whose territories MPAs are situated. The overarching goal of the study was
to understand the extent to which federal MPAs in British Columbia (BC), Canada, are
established collaboratively, and what is required to overcome obstacles to successful
collaboration. This goal was pursued through an in-depth investigation of two MPA planning
processes in BC: the proposed Race Rocks MPA, at the southern tip of Vancouver Island; and
the Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, in the
Haida Gwaii archipelago. Data for the study was collected through semi-structured interviews;
documentary research; and a participant questionnaire.
The study found that, while MPA agencies engaged with outside parties in a variety of ways
to plan Race Rocks and Gwaii Haanas, these processes fell short of expectations for genuine
collaboration in a number of respects. In the case of Race Rocks, this has resulted in the failure
(for a second time) to designate the MPA. The dissertation illuminates the challenges and
shortcomings that were encountered in both cases, and offers practical solutions to address them.
ii i
Table of Contents

Supervisory Committee ............................................................................................................ ii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii
Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Overview of the problem and research contribution: putting collaboration into practice
1
2 Research Goal and Questions ......................................................................................... 4
3 Key concepts and theoretical approach ........................................................................... 5
3.1 Key concepts ........................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Theoretical framework .......................................................................................... 16
4 Case study context: Federal MPAs and interest groups in Canada .............................. 18
5 Research Process ........................................................................................................... 24
5.1 Definition of research objectives .......................................................................... 24
5.2 Case study approach and site selection ................................................................. 24
5.3 Recruitment process and study respondents ......................................................... 27
5.4 Data collection ...................................................................................................... 31
5.5 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 37
6 Limitations and researcher positionality ....................................................................... 39
7 Organization of the dissertation .................................................................................... 41
Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................. 42
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 42
2 Study sites and research approach ................................................................................ 46
2.1 Study sites ............................................................................................................. 46
2.2 Research approach ................................................................................................ 51
3 Findings ........................................................................................................................ 53
3.1 Gwaii Haanas ........................................................................................................ 54
3.2 Race Rocks ............................................................................................................ 70
4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 86
5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 95
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................. 98
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 98
2 Cases and research approach ...................................................................................... 100
2.1 Cases ................................................................................................................... 100
2.2 Research approach .............................................................................................. 102
iv
3 Findings ...................................................................................................................... 103
3.1 Who was at the table? ......................................................................................... 104
3.2 Why participate? ................................................................................................. 107
3.3 Why not participate? ........................................................................................... 115
4 Discussion and recommendations ............................................................................... 126
5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 136
Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................... 139
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 139
2 Research approach and cases ...................................................................................... 141
2.1 Research approach .............................................................................................. 141
2.2 Cases ................................................................................................................... 142
3 Findings ...................................................................................................................... 144
3.1 The function of strong interpersonal relationships for effective collaboration ... 144
3.2 Constraints on relationship building ................................................................... 152
3.3 The personal in interpersonal, and eight good practices for relationship building
156
4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 170
Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................... 175
1 Research question and objectives ............................................................................... 175
2 Key findings and practical or policy implications ...................................................... 176
2.1 Meeting First Nations expectations for “true cooperation” ................................ 176
2.2 DFO’s reputation problem .................................................................................. 181
2.3 Intergovernmental cooperation: Getting beyond the legal stuff ......................... 184
2.4 Credible multi-stakeholder collaboration in a multi-track process ..................... 186
2.5 The importance of interpersonal relationships .................................................... 189
3 Areas for future research ............................................................................................. 191
4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 194
References ............................................................................................................................. 197
Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 215
Appendix A – Certificate of Approval, University of Victoria ........................................ 215
Appendix B – Letter of introduction ................................................................................. 216
Appendix C – Project Backgrounder ................................................................................ 217
Appendix D – Consent form ............................................................................................. 220
Appendix E – Interview guide .......................................................................................... 225
Appendix F – Participant questionnaire ............................................................................ 228
Appendix G – Principle documents included in documentary research ........................... 234

v
List of Tables

Table 1 – Elements for successful collaboration, and corresponding research questions. ........... 17
Table 2 – The three core programs of Canada’s Federal MPA system ........................................ 19
Table 3 – Participant recruitment .................................................................................................. 31
Table 4 – Data collection: interviews and questionnaires ............................................................ 33
Table 5 – Case studies: key features ............................................................................................. 46
Table 6 – Interest groups identified for inclusion on the GHMAC. ........................................... 105
Table 7 – Interest groups identified for inclusion on RRPAB. ................................................... 106
Table 8 – “Why we said yes to joining this committee” – GHMAC meeting #1 ...................... 109
Table 9 – Summary of guiding principles for the RRPAB and GHMAC .................................. 125

v i
List of Figures

Figure 1 – Hierarchical representations of stakeholder participation in decision making .............. 9
Figure 2 – May’s non-hierarchical Star of Participation: five “participation stances” ................... 9
Figure 3 – Interconnected elements for effective collaboration ................................................... 18
Figure 4 – Canada’s progress towards 2020 MPA target. ............................................................ 20
Figure 5 – Study sites and other federal MPAs in BC .................................................................. 27
Figure 6 – Gwaii Haanas NMCA Reserve and Haida Heritage Site ............................................ 49
Figure 7 – Race Rocks MPA Area of Interest .............................................................................. 51
Figure 8 – Management decision making through the Archipelago Management Board ............ 60
Figure 9 – Study sites .................................................................................................................. 102
Figure 10 – Questionnaire results: stakeholder views on collaborative approach to MPA planning
and management ................................................................................................................. 109
Figure 11 – Questionnaire results: support for marine protection at Race Rocks and Gwaii
Haanas ................................................................................................................................. 111
Figure 12 – Two models of Government / First Nations management boards ........................... 179

vi i
Abbreviations

AMB Archipelago Management Board (Gwaii Haanas)
BC British Columbia
CHN Council of the Haida Nation (the elected government of the Haida Nation)
CPAWS Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada (lead agency at Race Rocks; key partner in Gwaii
Haanas)
ECC Environment and Climate Change Canada
ER Ecological Reserve (Provincial protected area designation)
GHMAC Gwaii Haanas interim Marine Advisory Committee
GoC Government of Canada
IMP Interim Management Plan (Gwaii Haanas)
MPA Marine Protected Area
NMCA National Marine Conservation Area
PC Parks Canada (lead agency at Gwaii Haanas)
RRPAB Race Rocks Public Advisory Board
ToR Terms of Reference
TC Transport Canada

vi ii
Chapter 1
Introduction
1 Overview of the problem and research contribution: putting collaboration into
practice
As a result of over-fishing, land-based pollution, climate change and other factors, the
deterioration of marine ecosystems and accompanying social, cultural and economic impacts are
growing global concerns (Canessa & Dearden, 2016; Cinner, Daw, & McClanahan, 2009;
Ricketts & Hildebrand, 2011). Studies have shown that marine protected areas (MPAs) can help
address both of these issues, effectively protecting habitats and organisms while delivering
economic and other social benefits (Caselle, Rassweiler, Hamilton, & Warner, 2015; Leisher,
van Beukering, & Scherl, 2007). The World Conservation Union (IUCN) defines an MPA
generically as “any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and
associated flora, fauna, historical, or cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other
effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher & Kenchington,
1992, p. 7). Specifically, MPA designations vary widely according to their purpose, legal status,
governance framework, and management approach.
Oceans have immense spiritual, cultural, recreational, subsistence, and commercial value,
and they are used in many different ways. MPAs will align well with the interests and objectives
of some – perhaps even most – resource users and interest groups, but by imposing new
restrictions or prohibitions on current and future activities, disagreement, conflict and opposition
are inevitable. The commercial fishing industry on Canada’s Pacific coast, for example, has
stated that it has no objection to temporary fishery closures for conservation purposes; but the
industry was opposed to a new National Marine Conservation Areas Act, which came into force
in 2002, because it threatened to close areas to harvesting in perpetuity without any requirement
to compensate fishermen for their economic losses (Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,
2001a). To design MPAs that advance social and economic as well as ecological objectives,
MPA agencies need to understand and address the needs and perspectives of a diversity of
stakeholders, including commercial, recreational and subsistence resource harvesters, tourism
operators, recreationists, educators, and researchers. In many countries, furthermore, oceans
governance – “the processes and institutions by which coastal and ocean areas are managed”
1
(Alley & Topelko, 2007, p. 2) – are a tangled web of overlapping authorities, mandates, rights
and responsibilities (Bicego, 2003; Borrini-Feyerabend, Farvar, Renard, Pimbert, & Kothari,
2007; Canada, 2002; P. Jones, Qiu, & De Santo, 2011a). To integrate MPAs into broader
governance frameworks, therefore, MPA agencies must also work closely with other government
organizations, and with indigenous groups that may have unique rights respecting the use and
management of marine areas.
There is little dispute in the MPA and marine planning literature that all interested parties
need to be involved in MPA decision making, and a clear preference has emerged in the
literature for greater collaboration to ensure the success of these conservation tools (Dickinson,
Rutherford, & Gunton, 2010; Jentoft, van Son, & Bjørkan, 2007; P. Jones, De Santo, Qiu, &
Vestergaard, 2013; Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). There is no single answer to how this can best
be achieved, however, and what ‘collaborative’ MPA planning and management looks like in
practice varies widely (Dickinson et al., 2010; Jentoft, 2000). It is also well understood that
actually doing collaboration is difficult; that it incurs costs as well as benefits; and that it
introduces risks as well as opportunities (Bodin & Crona, 2009; Daniels & Walker, 1996;
Fennell, Plummer, & Marschke, 2008; Frame, Gunton, & Day, 2004; Jentoft, 2000; Yaffee &
Wondolleck, 2003). Collaborative processes “are extremely difficult to bring off, frustrating and
demanding to participate in, often lengthy and expensive for their members, and they can easily
fail” (William Ruckelshaus in Sigurdson, Stuart, & Bratty, 2011, p. 29). Getting collaboration
wrong has consequences, moreover (P. Jones et al., 2011a; Yaffee & Wondolleck, 2003). “Even
proponents are coming to realize that collaborative approaches to natural resource management
can but do not always work and that at times failure comes at a heavy cost of time and effort
(and, perhaps more significantly, in social capital consumed rather than built)” (Conley &
Moote, 2003, pp. 373–374).
Putting a collaborative approach into practice means opening decision-making processes up
to more actors; taking into account more issues, interests and perspectives; and undertaking
complex negotiations and trade-offs where unilateral decisions would once have sufficed
(Huppé, Creech, & Knoblauch, 2012). This requires structures and processes for people and
organizations to come together to exchange information, deliberate, problem solve, and work
towards consensus decisions. Just as importantly, it requires a willingness and an ability on the
part of all interested parties to do so. Existing scholarship indicates that more attention needs to
2