BEST PRACTICES
ECOSYSTEM-BASED PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT IN CANADA August 2015
“Integrated watershed planning combines scientific and technical information with cultural and social values to resolve conflicts and identify a desirable future outcome.” – Fraser Basin Council 0
Introduction This report highlights the major organizations at the forefront of current best practices in watershed planning and management in Canada. It is hoped that this report will help to build a body of knowledge to support evidence-based watershed management in the Philippines. This report falls within an output of a project called Improving Evidence-based Planning for Watersheds in the Philippines. The objective of the project, which was financially supported by Canada’s International Research and Development Center (IDRC) and managed by the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI), was to build capacity for evidence-based planning on a watershed basis. The initiative was undertaken in the Province of Iloilo, with the idea that it could then be used as a model for other local governments across the Philippines to reduce the risk of natural disasters. The project delivery partners are the Iloilo Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) and the University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV). The project commenced in March 2015 and expected to be completed in mid-2016. The principal author of this document is Emily Rosen, a Master of Arts in Planning Student at the University of British Columbia’s School of Community and Regional Planning.
Governance and Policy Framework Over the past several decades, there has been a shift in such practices, away from the traditional top-down approach. Canadian governments have been increasingly moving towards adopting ecosystem-based management strategies and approaches, causing the emergence of a new framework for sustainable water management governance and policy. According to Environment Canada, these approaches draw on sustainable development principals and are designed to ensure that decision-making reflects the interests of many stakeholders, and balances a range of goals – these include sustainable water resource management; protection of the ecosystem; and reduction of disaster risks (Environment Canada, 2013). The Canada Water Act (1970) has been a cornerstone policy in enabling the cooperation and collaboration between the federal, provincial, territorial, First Nations (indigenous peoples), and municipal governments, but also with other major organizations and communities for an integrated approach to the management of water resources.
INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Watersheds are integrated systems and important units for planning and managing water: the various resources that interact within a watershed: the land, the surface and ground water, the air, and the organisms within the watershed, cannot be considered in isolation (Fraser Basin Council, 2011b). By recognizing the interconnections between the components of a watershed and by integrating this understanding into planning and decision making within and across watershed boundaries, negative human impacts on watershed health are more likely to be more managed effectively (Fraser Basin Council, 2011b).
1
Historically, water quality and quantity have been managed separately, and decision-making around water resources has been governed by political boundaries rather than by natural ones (Fraser Basin Council, 2011b). Given that Canada’s Federal Water Policy now adopts the watershed level as the spatial unit for water resource
Fraser Basin Council
The Fraser Basin Council is a non-profit organization that works to advance sustainability in the Fraser River Basin and across British Columbia (BC). The organization’s goals are to increase public awareness and understanding about sustainability; identify critical issues and responses to improve progress; inform decisions and influence actions; and increase the sustainability and resiliency of the region. One of the Council’s current initiatives is Rethinking our Water Ways, a guide that highlights the challenges of managing BC’s watersheds and water resources sustainably, particularly in the face of climate change and the increasing demand for water. How is it funded? The FBC is predominantly funded through projects. Approximately 50% of the FBC is funded by the Provincial Government, through different ministries including the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Community and Rural Development, Ministry of Forests and Range, etc. The other half comes from comes from public and private organizations that contract with the FBC to perform a study, and /or organize an event or program. For more information: http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca
planning, it has become mainstream practice. Integrated watershed planning enables the coordination of decisions among government and private agencies in land use and resource management through multistakeholder collaborative planning; through monitoring, research and consultation; by negotiating consensus; and by ensuring accountability through open communication, education and public access to information (Fraser Basin Council, 2011b). A Blueprint for Watershed Governance in British Columbia is a recent POLIS Project publication that explores how the watershed can become a more formal focal point of decision-making and why it is generally the appropriate scale and space for integration and whole-system thinking. For healthy and functioning watersheds, POLIS encourages the watershed as the primary scale for water-based decision-making, including: watershed and related land-use planning, riparian management, agriculture, urban growth and development, restoration, green infrastructure, and certain types of resource development activities, such as forestry and fisheries (Brandes & O’Riordan, 2014). The central premise of this Blueprint is to fundamentally change the scale at which critical decisions that impact watersheds are made. It envisions an integrated whole-system thinking with communitybased functions and activities that include CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION watershed visioning and planning; monitoring and New challenges for water and watershed reporting on local conditions; integrating mandates planning are the changes in weather across levels of government; reducing and resolving patterns conflicts; and education and building awareness Climate change impacts hydrology, (Brandes & O’Riordan, 2014). POLIS recognizes that ecosystems and communities this governance model must apply to the broader Identifying, understanding and preparing provincial government’s policies on land and for these changes should become an resource management in order to have the most important component, or a relevant lens to effective and sustainable watersheds. apply, within water and watershed planning processes
2
POLIS Project on Ecological Governance
The POLIS Project on Ecological Governance is a center for trans-disciplinary research at the University of Victoria in British Columbia that investigates and promotes sustainability. POLIS researchers work with a diversity of people in different ways – urban and rural communities, Aboriginal organizations, businesses, co-operatives, public officials and the non-profit sector – to seek and foster alternative systems of governance that reduce urban demands on distant and local ecosystems. POLIS is a place where academic and community researchers work with the community to dismantle the notion of the environment as merely another sector, and to make ecological thinking and practice a core value and practice in all aspects of society. A Blueprint for Watershed Governance in British Columbia is a key document produced by the POLIS project in 2014. It focuses on watershed governance in British Columbia and sets out a 10-year program for effectively managing and governing fresh water in the context of functioning and healthy watersheds. It represents a potentially transformative change for watershed governance in the province, and focuses on the reform and transformation of watershed governance to enable more socially and ecologically resilient, and ultimately sustainable, outcomes for the province. POLIS believes that water and functioning watersheds are the imperative for the coming generation, and that the status quo system is not serving our social, ecological, or even our long-term economic needs. How is it funded? The core operating budget of the POLIS Project comes from an endowment fund held at the University of Victoria. Alternatively, research and policy advocacy projects carried out by POLIS researchers are financed mainly by funds raised from research granting agencies and private foundations in Canada. For more information: http://poliswaterproject.org/blueprint
LEGISLATION In 2014, the Province of British Columbia approved the proposal for a new Water Sustainability Act. The act involved the participation from a number of groups – including First Nations, industry, local government, research think-tanks, professional associations, and environmental non-governmental organizations – which all provided detailed analyses and offered specific recommendations. The five key management and governance policies (representing a departure from past approaches to water management in the province) identified in the Province’s proposal include (Brandes & O’Riordan, 2014): 1. Protection of stream and aquifer health - Protecting ecological flows and basic in-stream requirements for new licenses, including extending to the groundwater water license regime and restricting uses to essential household and agricultural needs under critical flow conditions - The potential for developing water sustainability plans and area-based regulations to alter conditions in both new and existing licenses to protect environmental flow needs 2. Water allocation and groundwater regulation - Promoting conservation and ensuring all new water decisions are subject to meeting provincially established water objectives - Restricting water use during droughts to protect critical flow needs - Enabling water sustainability plans in critical watersheds - Licensing existing groundwater use and all new major users (exempting smaller domestic users) - Authorizing water supply wells - Potentially constraining approval of wells under area-based regulation or water sustainability plans 3. Water sustainability plans and area-based regulations - Providing area-based approaches to water management covering: critical environmental flows; drought management; efficiency and conservation measures; environmental flow needs; special
3
orders; and differing priority-based allocation systems 4. Monitoring and Reporting - Monitoring actual water use (both surface and groundwater) for major users - Requiring all users to monitor actual use under area- based regulations or water sustainability plans - Measuring ecological flows where prescribed - Establishing environmental water quality standards to meet provincial objectives 5. Governance - Delegating some responsibilities of governance to formal or informal watershed governance arrangements (and ensuring they are accountable for those decisions) with delegated functions meeting standards set in the Act and regulations - Applying the integrated decision-making model in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to link water decisions with other resource decisions in the same watershed - Delegating additional, specific governance functions (some advisory) that meet provincial objectives through water sustainability plans or area-based regulations
4
Governance Structures There are a wide range of regulatory and non-regulatory roles, responsibilities and jurisdictions that span federal, provincial, local and First Nations governments, particularly as water user groups, watershed stewards, the general public and other stakeholders are increasingly becoming involved in planning, management and decision-making for Canadian water resources (Fraser Basin Council, 2011b).
“The challenge of navigating highly complex water and land use issues is pointing to the need for an integrated and collaborative approach to watershed planning and governance. Integrated planning involves a broad-based analysis of local and regional water quantity, water quality and other watershed issues, as well as the interconnections between these issues.” - Fraser Basin Council
This Table 1 represents some of the key roles and responsibilities in water management and planning in Canada: -
Federal
Environment Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Health Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Transport Canada Natural Resources Canada
-
Provincial
Ministry of Environment Ministry of Health Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Energy Oil and Gas Commission Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Ministry of Public Safety and the Solicitor General Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Environmental Assessment Office
-
Other
Industry / Corporations Academic Institutions Professional Associations Community Organizations and Individuals
Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities in Water Management in Canada
The provincial governments across Canada legally have the primary responsibility for making decisions about water and watersheds; they have the most direct constitutional powers related to land use, water management, and control over local government (Brandes & O’Riordan, 2014). In British Columbia, local governments are gaining more power over local matters. The following are some of the key local government roles and responsibilities in water management and planning (Fraser Basin Council, 2011a): Development and management of municipal water supplies, including treatment and distribution systems (this includes provision of safe drinking water in accordance with the public health act) Development and management of municipal drainage and wastewater treatment systems Responsibility for floodplain management under the flood hazard statutes amendment act Delivery of local water conservation programs Responsibility for local land use planning and development on private lands, including the protection and management of riparian areas, wetlands and other sensitive habitats Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of flood protection infrastructure in their local areas Water and watershed planning Local governments have contributed to water management planning across the province by initiating, managing and participating in various activities related to water management and planning, including:
Developing water conservation plans and drought management plans Participating in or leading multi-sector water planning initiatives Developing floodplain management plans and strategies Developing liquid waste management plans and integrated stormwater management plans
5
Developing integrated watershed management plans Developing official community plans and regional growth strategies Table 2 (see Appendix) provides a very detailed summary of the practical steps to implement an ecosystembased approach of land-use planning within a Canadian watershed. Included are the steps that correspond to the roles and responsibilities of specific governance structures, the obstacles and challenges of such steps, and finally the recommendations to meet and overcome such challenges.
Conservation Ontario
Conservation Ontario, a non-profit organization, is a network of 36 Conservation Authorities that are organized on a watershed basis to promote an integrated watershed management approach that balances human, environmental and economic needs. Each Conservation Authority is a nonprofit organization with its own Board of Directors consisting of members appointed by local municipalities. They are local watershed management agencies that deliver services and programs that protect and manage water and other natural resources in partnership with government, landowners and other organizations. Conservation Authorities monitor the health of natural resources in Ontario's watersheds because it helps them to better understand the local environmental issues, to focus actions where they are needed the most, and to track progress over time. In 2013, Conservation Authorities began creating a set of standardized Watershed Report Cards based on guidelines developed by Conservation Ontario. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) works with its partners to ensure that the Toronto region is built on a natural foundation of healthy rivers and shorelines, green space and biodiversity, and sustainable communities. The TRCA has a strong history in watershed management and leadership in applying sustainability practices. Owning more than 40,000 acres of land in the Toronto region today, the TRCA works with governments, businesses, and individuals to build a greener, cleaner healthier place to live. How is it funded? Funding for Conservation Authorities is derived from a variety of sources. On the average 48% is provided through municipal levies; 40% comes from self generated revenues; 10% comes from provincial grants and special projects, and 2% is provided by federal grants or contracts. For more information: http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca & http://www.trca.on.ca
Planning Approaches
“As policy makers analyze and adjust management strategies with the current social, political, economic and environmental context, and as managers strategize to resolve conflicts between human and ecosystem needs, communities are learning to live water smart.” - Fraser Basin Council
Approaches used in planning processes across Canada vary greatly, and are often determined by the characteristics of the planning area, the specific issues being addressed, the needs and interests of the community, and the individuals involved (Fraser Basin Council, 2011a). A watershed planning approach is a flexible framework for managing water resources within a specific watershed. The Fraser Basin Council in British Columbia follows a watershed planning process that works within a flexible framework by drawing on a series of collaborative, iterative steps to characterize existing conditions, identify and prioritize problems, define management objectives, develop protection or remediation strategies, and implement and adapt selected actions when necessary (Fraser Basil Council, 2011a). The outcome of this process is a watershed management plan – the strategy to assess the state of a watershed and present detailed management information in terms of analyses, actions, participants and resources required for developing and implementing the plan (Fraser Basil Council, 2011a). With every context being different, there is no uniform template to follow for a watershed planning process; there are, however, many elements that are critical to
6
the success of watershed plans (Fraser Basin Council, 2011a). The Fraser Basin Council plans for complex environmental, social, and economic problems that typically require a process design that integrates the following recommended guidelines: Develop a clear vision, goals, objectives and action items, and set priorities Seek involvement and support from elected decision-makers and those with legislative or regulatory responsibilities Ensure full representation of all stakeholders and involve all decision-makers Ensure that the planning process is understood, used, and broadly supported Provide access to appropriate technical and analytical skills and information resources Obtain sustainable funding Strive for planning that is done before further development will undermine the effectiveness of the plan Factor in the impacts of climate change Include socio-economic analyses to inform planning Monitor and evaluate the success of the plan and its implementation, and modify the plan as required Collaborative planning processes benefit significantly from good leadership. Having a champion behind a planning initiative can really help motivate a group, and keep it focused on the end goal. This can be particularly important to sustaining interest, support, and momentum over the long term during the development and implementation of the plan. Planning can take time, patience and persistence, and a committed and passionate champion can help build and maintain the necessary momentum (Fraser Basil Council, 2011b).
Coordination, Collaboration & Partnerships
“Good governance—which is more than government—inevitably involves not only these formal players, but also collaboration with key knowledge holders and players on the ground. This includes civil society, academia, business, industry, and professional associations. If promises are to be followed by action, it also involves power sharing with those that must face the consequences of decision-making, including communities of all shapes and sizes.”
Most Canadian provinces have historically relied on a top-down, government-led approach to environmental management and decision-making. The increasing complexity associated with addressing the challenges affecting our watersheds, - POLIS Project coupled with a rapid decrease in the on-the-ground capacity of the provincial government, has created a demand for more direct civic and community engagement around critical environmental and resource management decisions (Brandes & O’Riordan, 2014). The move to formalizing more collaborative and distributed approaches to decision-making is already underway, including legally embedded community or watershed-based institutions, such as the Fraser Basin Council, as key implementers or drivers of action.
7
The following list, extracted from A Blueprint for Watershed Governance in British Columbia (Brandes & O’Riordan, 2014), highlights many of the different forms of governance and coordination surrounding water resources and management: Local-Provincial Partnerships The most iconic and well-known Canadian example of regional watershed bodies are Ontario’s Conservation Authorities, which are mandated to further the conservation, restoration development and management of water and natural resources within the context of their local watershed. Beginning in 1946, the Province of Ontario delegated a broad suite of management activities and formal responsibilities to these authorities. Activities range from managing recreation and wildlife areas and reviewing and approving development proposals, to overseeing reservoir operations and development in flood plains. More recently, as part of Ontario’s Clean Water Act, key planning powers are being delegated to local stakeholder committees for the production of locally developed, sciencebased drinking water source protection assessment reports and source protection plans. Provincial-Federal Power Sharing Under Part 11 of the Canada Water Act, Water Quality Management Areas can be established. Although this part of the Act has never been used, it remains in force and offers an opportunity to embed watershed governance. If used, such agencies would have considerable independent authority, including, for example, levying fines, setting effluent discharge fees, and making loans and grants. Land and Water Boards In Canada’s territories, a number of boards exist that represent innovative examples of delegated resource decision-making. Resulting from land-claim negotiations, legislation explicitly provides these independent boards with powers to issue licenses for water use and to regulate pollution or impacts, with a mandate to keep the quality, quantity, and rate flow of water “substantially unaltered.” International Decision-Making The Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty enables the International Joint Commission (IJC) to establish (independently from government) orders of approval for the operation of regulatory works on boundary waters. The IJC generally delegates day-to-day-operations to basin level Boards of Control, which can create a decision-making body that is independent from government.
LESSONS LEARNED Context is everything: successful models are strongly influenced by local priorities, geography, history, culture, and economics (Hunter et al., 2014). Still, there is no need to build or redesign institutions if there are lessons to be learned from other regions that are undertaking new practices and processes, embracing new ways of working together, and attempting to consider the environmental and social needs of their watershed in integrated ways. For example, the Cowichan Watershed Board, established in 2010 after the recommendation from the Cowichan Basin Water Management Plan, has learnt from the experiences, successes, and failures of other watersheds across Canada (Hunter et al., 2014). As new techniques or processes are piloted in one watershed, it is extremely beneficial for other regions considering similar reforms to seek out and learn from what currently exists.
8
The Cowichan Watershed Board
The Cowichan Watershed Board (CWB) is a non-profit organization formed after the recommendation from the Cowichan Basin Water Management Plan, completed in 2007. The CWB’s mandate is to provide leadership for sustainable water management to protect and enhance environmental quality and the quality of life in the Cowichan, British Columbia watershed and adjoining areas. While the CWB does not have regulatory authority, its job is to promote wise water management practices throughout the watershed by advocating for the well-being of the watershed; guiding and coordinating the implementation of the Plan; providing timely, balanced and thoughtful advice to First Nations, federal, provincial and local government; securing stable funding sources to support water management activities; engaging local stakeholders in water management decisions; gathering information on and monitoring the health of the watershed; providing and accessing specialized expertise and knowledge for sustainable water management in the Cowichan watershed; and developing outreach and educational tools to enhance watershed thinking and increase understanding of water science, stewardship and management activities. How it is funded? The Cowichan Watershed Board is funded primarily through its partners at multiple levels of government and private non-profit organizations, all with an interest in water and other natural resources within the watershed. This includes the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Catalyst Paper, Cowichan Tribes, and the Pacific Salmon Commission. For more information: http://www.cowichanwatershedboard.ca
Community and Stakeholder Engagement
“Everyone has a role to play and a responsibility to fulfill when it comes to the use, protection and sustainable management of water resources and healthy watersheds.� - Fraser Basin Council
The collaboration and engagement with different levels of government, different water-use sectors, stewardship organizations, and the multitude of community stakeholders is increasingly becoming a key success factor in ecosystem-based planning and management. Across Canada over the past two decades, a growing interest and willingness has emerged within communities to become involved in watershed planning. At the community level, a greater emphasis on collaborative planning for watersheds has put local governments in touch with a wide range of partners from different government organizations as well as representatives from both the business and stewardship communities (Fraser Basin Council, 2011). According to the Fraser Basin Council, bringing the right people together to discuss the myriad of issues within a watershed is no easy task, but when done well, it can be an efficient, credible, and cost effective way of developing integrated and robust solutions (Fraser Basin Council, 2011). There is no single approach to designing a multi-stakeholder process, but a broad set of principles and practices that contribute to successful outcomes of collaborative decision-making processes is emerging across Canada. In collaboration with local governments, organizations and individuals, the Fraser Basin Council aims to foster an environment in which its residents are actively engaged, share ideas, and help make effective decisions. The Council uses a variety of forms and levels of community engagement, such as: surveys, interviews, workshops, open houses, public events, and other creative methods.
9
Table 4 (see Appendix) highlights the current trends and key elements of success in watershed management in Canada, which can be applicable to ecosystem-based planning worldwide. To draw out some examples from the table:
-
Involve key partners from the beginning of the process in a Steering Committee and/or other committees or watershed groups (i.e., Technical Committee) - Seek strong leadership at the political and staff level from key partners Partnership - Forge strong links to other programs and processes to maximize the use of Approaches information - Use consensus-based approaches to develop a shared vision - Adopt a philosophy of collaboration in planning and implementation - Include the participation of local universities to help address emerging issues and keep pace with the evolving science of watershed management - Involve the public in determining the study objectives, goals, and selection of the preferred plan - Be inclusive, open, and unbiased Public Involvement - Aim to create "local ambassadors" - public participants in the process who can educate, motivate and serve as watchdogs in their own neighbourhoods - Find a strong, enthusiastic, and respected citizen to chair the project Table 4. A portion of the Current Trends and Key Elements of Success in Watershed Management
Measuring and Management
“Integrated watershed management is the process of managing human activities and natural resources in an area defined by watershed boundaries. It is an evolving and continuous process through which decisions are made for the sustainable use, development, restoration and protection of ecosystem features, functions and linkages. Integrated watershed management allows us to address multiple issues and objectives; and enables us to plan within a very complex and uncertain environment.�
Managing water and ecosystem information is critical to adaptive watershed management: each component in this process requires trained staff, standards, and tools to be effectively implemented (Conservation Ontario, 2003). Investing appropriate effort into each component of water information management is fundamental for a local Conservation Authority in Ontario to develop and evaluate management for continuous improvement. To - Conservation Ontario characterize and manage a watershed and surface water and groundwater quality conditions, a consistent approach to monitoring is required by appropriate agencies. The resulting data must be interpreted and reported to local and provincial water managers, and to the public, to ensure the access to adequate and scientific information regarding water quality that will support effective decisions in this province. While Conservation Ontario (2013) recommends consistent monitoring by all of the provincial Conservation Authorities, individual Authorities are expected to build upon their network to address specific and unique water quality concerns within the specific context of their watersheds. Environment Canada (2013) is currently arguing that water management information and reporting systems are needed to help guide and assess priorities and emerging integrated watershed management issues – jurisdictions have collaborated in many ways by developing guidelines to assess water quality, building data collection networks, modeling, and developing indicators to report on water resource trends. DATA COLLECTION In Canada, the availability of data varies across and within each province. According to Environment Canada (2010), Canadian researchers and watershed management agencies use baseline data from databases developed
10
from national surveys of water and climate and maintained by the federal government. In many cases, data collected by provincial agencies are maintained by the provinces and contribute to the federal database. Research and development efforts made by governments, businesses, universities, NGOs, and community stewardship groups have resulted in the introduction of data collection and monitoring techniques that help address various water issues and concerns. The Fraser Basin Council (FBC) published an Indicators Report in 2011 entitled Measuring & Reporting on Sustainability: A Report on Lessons Learned that presents a wide range of good practices and lessons learned from the field of sustainability indicators and reporting. It includes information of the FBC’s experience in data collection that involves the use of databases and spreadsheets to manage and analyze data for each indicator theme. Data comes in different types from a variety of sources: large centralized databases (ex: Statistics Canada); specialized or targeted data sources (ex: various other federal and provincial government departments, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations); one-time studies (ex: particular projects); and local and traditional ecological knowledge. Once indicators have been selected for a specific project, the planners contact providers of the corresponding data sources to acquire the indicator data (Fraser Basin Council, 2011). Data is generally sorted into suitable geographies, but often is only available at the provincewide scale and cannot be separated into sub-regional data. In addition to sorting into similar geographies, the Fraser Basin Council (2011) sorts data into similar time periods, generally aiming for a ten-year time period to analyze indicator trends. 
 INDICATORS The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, a leader at the forefront of watershed management in Canada, uses the following criteria for picking indicators: Validity: - Is the indicator relevant to regional land use planning and development system? - Is it useful at an appropriate scale? - Is it sensitive enough to detect changes in the system? Understandability: - Is the indicator understandable to decision makers and the public? - Is it simple and direct? - Can it be used to present information in a way that is useful? Interpretability: - Is there a benchmark or baseline against which measurements can be interpreted? - Is it replicable? Will it allow an analysis of trends? - Is there a commonly understood method of collecting and analyzing the data? Information Richness: - Does the indicator give information about more than one environmental component? Data Availability: - Are data currently available? - Will data be available in the future? Timeliness: - Does the indicator detect environmental/social/environmental changes in a timely manner? - Does it anticipate future changes? Cost and Effort: - Can the data be obtained and interpreted with reasonable cost and effort? Sufficient: - Is the suite of indicators sufficient to assess the overall health of the landscape?
11
Conservation Ontario and the Conservation Authorities throughout the province measure and report, at minimum, on three resource categories: Surface Water Quality, Forest Conditions, and Groundwater Quality, with a set of indicators for each category. These are often reported through a Watershed Report Card (see below); however, many other factors impact environmental health and are often reported through other means. Examples of some of the main indicators used in watershed and ecosystem-based planning include: Caring for Water - Indicator 1: Flow Pattern - Indicator 2: Water Quality - Human Use - Indicator 3: Water Quality - Aquatic Habitats - Indicator 4: Stormwater Management Caring for Nature - Indicator 5: Woodlands - Indicator 6: Wetlands - Indicator 7: Meadows - Indicator 8: Riparian Habitat - Indicator 9: Frogs - Indicator 10: Fish Caring for Community - Indicator 11: Public Understanding and Support - Indicator 12: Classroom Education - Indicator 13: Responsible Use and Enjoyment Protect What is Healthy - Indicator 14: Protected Natural Areas Regenerate What is Degraded - Indicator 15: Regeneration Projects Take Responsibility for the Watershed - Indicator 16: Personal Stewardship - Indicator 17: Business and Institutional Stewardship - Indicator 18: Municipal Stewardship WATERSHED REPORT CARDS
12
In 2013, Conservation Ontario started a process of Watershed Reporting: monitoring, measuring and reporting to better understand the watershed, the progress made in protecting it, and the threats to its future health. The Report Card is a useful tool for providing the public with an evaluation of the state of a watershed, and includes the information needed to protect, restore and improve the natural resources within each watershed. Measuring helps the Conservation Authorities to focus their efforts where they are needed most, to track progress, and to identify healthy and ecologically important areas that require protection or enhancement (Watershed Checkup, 2013). The standards used in the Conservation Ontario Report Card (see Indicators above) were developed by the Conservation Authorities to ensure consistent reporting across the Province of Ontario. Alongside grades, arrows are also often included to show whether conditions are improving, decreasing, or remaining stable. While the creation of a Report Card is not a simple task, more communities across the country are beginning to see the benefits. Not only do Report Cards increase public awareness and support, but they also help identify research needs and data gaps. Ultimately, this leads to on-the-ground action – you can’t manage what you can’t measure.
CASE STUDY
The process used by the Muskoka Watershed Council to develop a set of indicators of watershed health involved a series of technical and non-technical workshops. The process began in May 2002 with a series of public consultation sessions held in a variety of locations across the watersheds. Those sessions resulted in the development of a set of public values, identified stresses in the watershed, set a “top 10” action list and ultimately resulted in the Draft Goals and Objectives for the Watershed Council. In November 2002, a group of 29 technical experts came together to provide advice on indicators that would assist the Muskoka Watershed Council and the general public in assessing the health of the watersheds of Muskoka from a technical perspective. In February 2003, the members of the Muskoka Watershed Council came together in a similar workshop and developed a list of indicators that reflected the concerns of the public with respect to the health of the watersheds. These two lists of indicators form the basis upon which the suite of indicators, detailed in their report Indicators of Watershed Health (2003), is based: swim-ability; drink-ability; fish-ability; breatheability; healthy natural areas; sustainable physical environment; and sustainable community values. For more information: http://www.muskokawatershed.org
13
APPENDIX Table 2: Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem-Based Approach of Land-use Planning within a Watershed Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
Develop a Memorandum of Understanding, partnership agreement to recognize the watershed as the primary unit for planning and to generate cooperation amongst local planning organizations
Local municipal planning agencies, watershed organizations, or Conservation Authorities in Ontario, with stakeholders serving as local "champions"
Need to take "leap of faith"; start with a "clean slate" (don't point fingers); find common ground (define common interests at the first dialogue); demonstrate regional benefits and how this has worked in the past; find "path of least resistance" and share success stories; ensure inclusive planning process
Following mapping of unique ecosystem features within the watershed, identify constraint areas from an environmental and servicing perspective (e.g. sewer lines, high erosion sites, wetlands) in order to indicate where development is and is not appropriate
Planners; public; developers; specialists; Conservation Authorities; Watershed Councils
Interagency mistrust; historical jurisdictional conflicts; human and financial resource constraints; self-interest (What am I getting out of it?); lack of knowledge of benefits; determining who are the "significant" stakeholders; prevailing attitude that government is better; concern that another layer of bureaucracy will cause delays Limited resources; perception of "low priority"; need to get everyone involved and get their input
Develop policies and establish zoning by-laws to preserve and rehabilitate key ecosystem features within the watershed (e.g. minimize runoff during construction, stop floodplain encroachment, limit impervious surface area development, establish grading limitations)
Watershed "umbrella organization" (to develop model bylaw or policy); municipalities or townships (to help with practical application)
Policies are often too broad; "loop holes" in policies and ordinances; perceived risk of new techniques; concern that policies often exceed technological capabilities; potential liability to municipalities (e.g. stormwater retention ponds, fencing)
Implement guidelines to bridge the gap between what you want addressed and how you want it addressed; use education to dispel myths; perform research and invest in new and innovative techniques
Establish techniques for implementation of policies that address types and forms of development (e.g. incentive-driven site layout and design, maximum density
Planners; developers for implementation; other experts to assess social and economic considerations in
Hesitation to accept innovation; liability and perceived risk in trying something new; technical know-how and limitations of current
Share success stories; encourage experienced ecosystem-based planners to work with less experienced ones; ensure adequate public education and information to
Communicate clearly to clarify expectations (a "level playing field of knowledge") and help municipalities focus their efforts, minimize time delays and costs, and protect key components of the watershed
14
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
allowances, municipal environmental evaluation reporting, state-of-theenvironment reporting)
developing these techniques
knowledge; need to reach other stakeholders
Perform internal full cost accounting (i.e. assess full costs of tangibles like raw material losses and product quality improvement, and of intangibles like customer satisfaction and employee safety, to help make informed decisions and help foster pollution prevention)
Voluntary acceptance by industry; fear of change and concern for confidentiality; government's concern that this approach does not conform to current command-and-control management strategies
Develop and implement toxic pollutant reduction plans to reduce potential sources of persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic substances that have been identified in ongoing programs such as lakewide management plans (LAMPs) and remedial action plans (RAPS)
Financial community should set internal full cost accounting standards; government agencies should form partnerships with industry to help develop new accounting practices and monitor effectiveness; industry is responsible for implementation after standards are set Facility owners (public and private); government (encourage or require plans, provide guidance or approval for plans); consultants (provide independent opinion and expertise)
Perform comprehensive assessments of bioregional pollutant loadings and impacts as a basis for multimedia permitting of point sources; emphasis should be
Government agencies should coordinate crossmedia assessments and communicate information to the
Cost; technical constraints (data interpretation, monitoring methods, quality assurance); data gaps (e.g. air deposition)
Concern for level playing field; ensuring plans turn into actions; convincing small businesses to take action
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
get support for pursuing innovations; assess and communicate clearly economic and other benefits; market techniques to sell "environmentally-friendly" development Establish standards for internal cost accounting; augment existing pollution prevention rewards (give an image and marketing dollar value of the award with its presentation); form government-industry partnerships; establish an industry-produced newsletter
Priority should be placed on linking individual facility plans to existing, basin-wide and lakewide strategies and objectives; greater emphasis should be placed on moving forward with a voluntary/partnership approach, then evaluating the need for mandatory requirements; when considering mandatory requirements, such as a phaseout of PCB containing equipment, regulatory agencies should conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the proposed regulation to estimate costs and identify previously unforeseen effects of the regulation prior to its promulgation Establish cost-sharing arrangements; apply existing objectives (e.g. RAPs and LAMPs) to assessments; assemble multi-media assessment teams; tie
15
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
placed on watersheds or bioregions as the primary unit for assessment, with additional consideration of a vertical dimension (including geological strata and the atmosphere)
public; industry should participate and contribute to joint monitoring activities (e.g. Lambton Industrial Society)
that lead to uncertainty; difficulty in communicating information to the public
assessments to lake basin planning, as well as land- use planning within a watershed; use clear data presentation techniques (visual aids)
Issue multi-media discharge permits to facilities in the context of watershed or bioregion impact assessment and defined impaired uses; this should be accomplished as a joint governmentindustry process, fostered by cooperative agreements
Government agencies (provincial and federal permitting authorities must form partnerships to compile data, as well as evaluate it and set discharge criteria); the public must be consulted throughout the planning process; LAMPs; RAPs
Technical and administrative complexity; exchange of confidential information; fractured framework for achieving compliance (renewal times and fees, penalties, compliance deadlines)
Multi-media permitting will require long-term coordination of federal laws/regulations with provincial statutes; prior to forming teams, information should be evaluated from other efforts in this area, most notably the multi-media permitting/assessment pilot projects
Enhance existing regulatory systems to work towards multi-media and pollution prevention goals; these enhancements fall into two categories: behavioral/interpretive (e.g. direct contribution to cleanup activities as opposed to fines) and written regulatory change
Government (initiate and facilitate change); industry (assist in streamlining the regulatory process, as well as demonstration of benefits from the new process); public (be knowledgeable on the regulatory process and provide feedback); governmental permit writers (taking RAPs and LAMPs into account)
Institutional inertia and inflexibility; incompatibilities in regulatory requirements and other legal challenges
Facilitate and expand the exchange of technical information and provide technical assistance on pollution prevention and multi- media assessment
Municipalities (facilitate through industrial pretreatment programs); government (pollution prevention training, recognition and awards); industry (show
Confidentiality of information; cost to government and others; cost of transferring information to small businesses; possible inhibition of development of new technological applications
Start with enforcing existing regulations, with an emphasis on supporting end goals (e.g. using community services - as opposed to or in addition to fines - like public education, habitat rehabilitation, environmental monitoring); form partnerships for monitoring, technology demonstration, and ecosystem research; build these partnerships into regulatory teams that proceed with pilot projects; use data from pilot projects to add innovative provisions to selected regulations; encourage public comment and feedback Create more provincial and local awards programs; incorporate technical assistance with enforcement actions; have government and industry set vendor pollution prevention standards in procurement specifications; target industrial groups for collective efforts
16
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
leadership and set pollution prevention performance standards)
Adopt watershed or catchment as primary unit for management
All levels of government
Political boundaries; lack of understanding of hydrological systems and human alterations; lack of human and financial resources for watershed coordination
Develop watershed agreement (e.g. common vision, objectives, indicators, strategies, commitments); fund watershed coordinator; utilize volunteer monitoring
Develop site-specific, nonregulatory, ecological assessments for landowners to identify unique ecological characteristics and mechanisms for protection and enhancement
Local land conservancy, in cooperation with landowners; Soil Conservation Services; Agricultural Extension Services; Conservation Authorities
Consistent funding; meaningful and longterm participation
Using successful "champion" peer landowner who has received added value to their property to help sell the program to other landowners; ensuring flexibility in plan development and implementation; Land Trusts raise money to protect critical areas; governments provide tax incentives or additional funds to ensure priority is given to protection of critical, highvalue areas; use special assessments or purchase development rights to protect critical areas; establish donation programs where unique lands can be donated to a conservancy for protection; ensure broad-based education of economic and ecological benefits; encouraging farmers to donate development rights to ensure conservation of open space for future generations
Utilize a watershed inventory of critical high quality ecological areas to prioritize regulatory nonpoint source control actions to protect and enhance critical areas and connect them via corridors
All levels of government
Low priority for protection of high quality ecological areas and corridors (because agency priorities are often focused on narrow mandates); concern for future economic viability of farms
Provinces should define what qualifies as high quality ecological areas and corridors; local units of government should designate high quality ecological areas and corridors; sewer service areas should not be extended into high quality ecological areas or through corridors; quantify environmental, ecological, and
17
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
economic benefits of all projects
Link water infrastructure system planning with watershed planning, emphasizing secondary impacts of nonpoint source pollution
Municipal authorities; agencies responsible for Official Plans in Canada
No mandate; multiple jurisdictions
Clear responsibility and authority for coordinated planning; adequate resources for coordinated planning
Develop whole farm plans for each landowner in the watershed to: provide adequate buffering and filtering capacity to trap nonpoint source pollutants, preserve habitat and ecology, maintain stream hydrology, and enhance economic viability (primary emphasis on economics)
Ministry of Environment; Ministry of Natural Resources; District Conservation Authorities; Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food; Conservation Authorities
Consistent funding; meaningful and longterm participation; bureaucratic turf barriers
Quantify economic and ecological benefits from implementing whole farm plans; use successful "champion" peer farmer who has received added value to his/her property to help sell the program to other farmers; ensuring flexibility in plan development and implementation; ensure broadbased team approach to plan development which encourages partnerships and builds local capacity
Establish site-specific strategies, which place priority on long-term ecological and economic benefits, to reduce nonpoint source pesticide inputs
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food; Conservation Authorities
Limited extent of government programs; private sector view of sales loss; low priority; limited education
Establish quantitative target for reduction in pesticide use (e.g. Ontario's 50% reduction target) to help elevate the priority; ensure that all farm plans include a commitment for reduction in pesticide use; implement "Pesticide Amnesty"/"Clean Sweep" Programs; increase private sector delivery of technical assistance programs; quantify long-term economic and ecological benefits achieved on demonstration farms (e.g. farms using integrated pest management) and communicate broadly throughout farming community
Implement a system of incentives and local ordinances, with strong enforcement capabilities, to address urban stormwater management (emphasis
All levels of government
Adequacy of habitat inventory and loadings data base; limited knowledge of system dynamics; insufficient regulatory tools and
Place priority on quantifying nonpoint source loadings, ecological impacts, and mapping and modeling system dynamics; develop regulations which call for no net change in
18
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Develop and implement illicit connection (cross-connection) programs for urban areas to eliminate connections from industries and commercial facilities to public storm sewer systems (these are designed to help communities bring older buildings up to code, to encourage safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials, and to control contaminants at their source)
In urban areas, connect government decision-makers to the resource by providing them with first-hand experiences on problems,
should be placed on maximizing both riparian habitat protection and nonpoint source controls)
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
incentives; political boundaries
runoff volume or rate; limit impervious areas in newly developing urban areas to < 40% of watershed; develop local ordinances which address stormwater and habitat preservation and enhancement; provide greater financial incentives for programs which achieve both urban stormwater management and habitat protection and enhancement; greater emphasis on education of municipal managers, regulated community, and developers; quantify ecological and economic benefits of projects which simultaneously achieve urban stormwater control and habitat protection and enhancement (disseminate this information broadly)
County and city health departments, and city engineering departments, in cooperation with other local and provincial agencies responsible for nonpoint source pollution
Inconsistent financial support; inconsistent compliance and enforcement; insufficient education of inspectors and business owners
Initial financing should come from provincial and federal funding programs; long-term funding could be possible through charges to individual owners as a fee or charges to drainage districts as part of sewer maintenance fees. Adequate enforcement and compliance could be achieved by networking with responsible agencies and/or appealing to owners for voluntary compliance Education could be enhanced by working in partnership with nongovernmental and governmental organizations on production and distribution of materials, and sponsoring technical training sessions
Watershed councils; resource conservation districts
Single issue perspectives of government programs; lack of mandate; attitude of "we have always done it this way"
Educate and inform decisionmakers of: successes, cost of not acting, bad examples, savings through preventive programs, etc.; utilize state-ofthe-watershed events or other
19
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
potentials, projects, and benefits
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
events/workshops to foster education, stewardship, and enlightened self-interest
Promote better intermodal and ecosystem-based planning (e.g. Portland, Oregon)
Partnerships among local governments, municipal planning organizations, and non-governmental organizations
Reactive government; economic inertia (perceived losses, market downturns); "frontier" mentality; racism
Initiate demonstration projects which would foster coordinated intermodal and ecosystem-based planning and action; pass local ordinances which would establish bike parking, accessory apartments, corner stores, generic environmental impact statement for mixed used space, streamlined permits for downtown; evaluate existing successes and failures, and communicate broadly
Ensure bioregional coordination of transportation plans
Municipal planning organizations; International Joint Commission with academic support; provincial and federal transportation departments
Concern for who takes the first step; concern for insufficient resources; concern for how to institutionalize; information and planning gaps (e.g. no pedestrian plans)
Promote information exchanges through regional conferences and meetings; assign responsibility for bioregional coordination to regional planning bodies
Achieve greater multi-modal balance within bioregions
Municipal planning organizations and local governments; provincial, and federal transportation departments; transit authorities; transportation activists All levels of government; regional planning organizations; professional societies; academia
Low priority for balance among transportation modes; liability perception; institutional biases of those who control money
Establish track record with "early" wins (bike rental shops, cops on bikes, bike signs, intercity express lanes for buses; remove legal barriers for jitneys; establish more downtown crosswalks and transit stations for pedestrians; make greater use of existing rail and shipping modes) Promote successes within Canada; target planning professors (designers, architects, transportation planners) to promote successes Ensure "sense of community" designs (design livable communities/neighborhoods, use design charettes, involve landscape architects with community groups and local planners; foster greater land
Ensuring democratic planning processes with ecosystem educational component (e.g. Toronto, Ontario)
Perceived narrow mandates; limited crosstraining of planners; institutional barriers in governmental transportation and environmental a
20
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
use and transportation dialogue)
Explicitly address ecosystem transportation interface in order to achieve ecosystem integrity
All levels of government; regional planning organizations
Lack of community vision and goals; ecosystem transportation interface not recognized as a problem; transportation centered around automobile
Ensure inclusive, democratic planning process; establish broad ecosystem vision for sustainable communities and translate into policy and local actions; ensure harmonized economic, environmental, and societal goals; promote broadbased education and integrated thinking/solutions; encourage sustainable community design as opposed to automobile centered design
Utilize economic and market incentives to ensure full cost accounting on transportation - environment issues
All levels of government; transportation and environment agencies
Lack of mandate; institutional inertia (we have always done it this way); perception of economic loss for environmental gain
Implement a gas tax based on full cost accounting; implement congestion pricing; implement full cost parking; implement transportation demand management (e.g. employer sanctioned telecommuting, transit passes, car pools, cash out parking subsidies)
Ensure that fish stocking rates are determined after consideration of all trophic level interactions
Provincial resource management agencies
Insufficient information on lower trophic level linkages to forage/top predator production; lack of communication about details and objectives of Provincial mandates to reduce nutrient loadings
Conduct research in cooperation with academic institutions on trophic level interactions; communicate with water quality management agencies on fishery management needs relative to nutrients and lower trophic levels
Fisheries managers should identify a quantitative range of fish community objectives or targets with supporting ecological rationale
Provincial natural resource management agencies
Lack of human resources; values disagreements; lack of information on limits and tradeoffs; lack of time for public consultation; perceived stakeholder base is too narrow
Provide more people or more efficient use of current staff; provide more information and better dialogue, better options for trade-offs; make commitments to manpower and funds; ensure interaction with corresponding lakewide management plan (LAMP)
Identify and protect critical spawning and nursery areas
Federal, Provincial, and municipal
Lack of species-specific information on limiting
Perform research and monitoring to fill species-
21
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
to achieve self-sustaining populations when such areas have been determined to be limiting those populations
agencies with authority to limit damage to those areas
factors; potential stakeholder concerns and objections; the need for standardization of methods for identification of spawning and nursery areas for consistent application of protection measures; development community does not value areas beyond their market values
specific data gaps; ensure public involvement and education for stakeholder buyin; reach agreement on standard methods and protocols for identification of spawning and nursery areas; assess values of ecological functions of these habitats to have a more solid standing in negotiation with developers and communities conducting development
Foster volunteer programs that utilize local expertise and interest, along with governmental technical assistance, in undertaking local fishery management projects
Federal Provincial natural resource management agencies; municipalities; International Joint Commission (IJC); Remedial Action Plan (RAP) groups
Limited governmental resources; insufficient volunteers; low priority of initiative
Establish or expand challenge grant programs; seek out service clubs, school groups, and nongovernmental organizations as partners; learn from successful experiences such as Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' (MNR) Community Fisheries Improvement Program that has established partnerships to undertake hands-on fisheries management projects (Ontario MNR provides technical assistance and equipment for eligible projects, while volunteers provide the labor)
Incorporate cumulative (spatial and temporal) landuse effects into the analysis and decision-making for fish and wildlife population goals and targets
Land-use planning agencies; Provincial natural resource management agencies
Lack of and access to information on trends; lack of efficient predictive interactive modeling tools; the need for an inventory of watershed land-use; lack of understanding of cumulative effects (e.g. synergistic, non-linear activities)
Foster communication and understanding of basic ecological principles related to fish and wildlife populations for entering into negotiations with other sectors (make information available through networks); develop user- and manager-friendly modeling tools that are well tested and validated; develop geographical information system-based watershed inventories and make available on networks; address cumulative effects on fish and wildlife management in research programs
22
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
Utilize existing institutional structures (LAMPs, RAPs, SGLFMP) to implement ecosystem approach; consult other sectors when a planned action has potential to influence significantly management objectives (and vice versa); conduct State-ofthe-Lake meetings annually
Federal and Provincial agencies and other stakeholders
Limited recognition of each other's authority/influence; lack of defined procedure for consultation between planning groups; lack of a sufficient communication strategy; lack of sufficient time to support process; lack of rules of engagement and recognition of each other's authority and influence (currently no basin-wide commitment to the process)
Establish a defined procedure for consultation and an effective communication strategy; allow staff adequate time for committee involvement; establish a science-based bi-national forum, neutrally facilitated
Develop funding commitments for long-term management (i.e. support for cross-border travel; commitments in individual workplans for interagency management; development of comprehensive interagency monitoring programs)
Federal and Provincial agencies
Lack of cross-border involvement and commitments to management plans
Maintain commitment to interagency programs; develop and maintain fish community objectives; obtain and maintain political support for crossborder involvement
Improve communication among scientists, resource managers/policy makers, and elected officials (e.g. Adopt-aPolitician) in order to instill a sound understanding of ecosystem concepts with those passing legislation
Environment Canada, Provinces, legislators
Low priority; limited interest; scientists oblivious to policy information needs and policy makers oblivious to science's capabilities to support decisionmaking
Establish a special session at the annual conference of the International Association for Great Lakes Research to encourage communication among scientists, resource mangers/policy makers, and elected officials; sponsor annual state-of-the-ecosystem event for elected officials; encourage greater participation by local officials in local projects
Improve programs to impede the introduction or spread of non- indigenous species
Federal and Provincial agencies; Coast Guards
Lack of funds to implement existing nonindigenous species plans; lack of international cooperation/integration; lack of focus and prioritysetting
Shift resource priorities in the short-term to support implementation of existing non-indigenous species plans; develop enforcement capabilities and support for them
Develop and update fish and wildlife management plans within the limits of current
Provincial fish and wildlife agencies
Lack of current habitat inventories and lack of knowledge on
Update inventories; ensure current assessments of other sectoral interactions impacting
23
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
and potential conditions, recognizing trends (habitat, economics, land-use, ecology)
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
interactions with economy, land-use, etc.
fish and wildlife communities; exchange information on trends
In communicating the fish and wildlife management needs to other sectors, put fish and wildlife in the context of system function and requirements
Senior managers in Provincial resource management agencies
Need for a clear message; low priority because of resource limitations
Foster dialogue Fishery Commission, International Joint Commission
Solicit and consider knowledge and information from local stakeholders and interest groups (e.g. angler diaries, bird census, commercial harvest, etc.)
Provincial fish and wildlife agencies
Low priority; limited resources; concern for precision and accuracy of data and information
Identify watersheds where programs have been successful and encourage application elsewhere; sponsor training sessions to transfer knowledge and information from successful programs
Develop uniform fish and wildlife consumption advisories on a basin-wide scale
Health Canada in cooperation with Provincial health agencies and basinwide interest groups
Differences in Provincial regulations and methodologies
Sponsor bi-national forum with follow-up actions to consider uniform methodologies in developing advisories
In the development of management plans for edible fish, relate size of fish harvested to contaminant body burdens by species to reduce human exposure (this should be done in context of fish population and community dynamics)
Provincial natural resource and health agencies
This practical step may be incompatible with where the available surplus harvest yield currently is in the foodweb; it would not be feasible if contaminant levels in fish are high at all size classes
Use foodweb models to help target optimum harvest with minimum exposure to contaminants; maintain negotiations and programs to reduce toxic inputs by incorporating the significance of fish contamination into environmental agency's rationale
For purposes of data management and communication, establish a "clearing house" and data management system; specific actions include: identify existing information management systems; determine needs of existing and potential users; and develop a vision, strategy, and actions through a partnership effort
Lead organizations could include: International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Commission, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a consortium of federal, provincial, or the Nature Conservancy
Acceptance of leadership role by one or more entities; the need to inventory and describe existing information management systems and those under development; determination of information management needs of existing and potential users; development and acceptance of a vision, strategy, and action plan;
The International Joint Commission (or alternatively one of the other entities named earlier) should be requested to: identify and describe existing information management systems in the basin; determine the information management needs of existing and potential users; conduct a forum to develop a vision, strategy, and specific actions through a partnership effort; and seek the appropriate buy-in and
24
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Incorporate habitat protection into master landuse plans, zoning ordinances, regional plans, watershed master plans, etc., thus increasing habitat protection efforts by alerting stakeholders to the presence of habitat worthy of protection
Seek permanent protection of critical habitat of ecological significance (wetlands, floodplains, etc.) by: purchasing habitat and placing appropriate perpetual restrictions on the property; purchasing development rights to restrict inappropriate development; utilizing conservation easements on lands to protect habitat values; providing tax incentives and/or breaks for protection
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
and sufficient funding and staff support for implementation
support, and then market the need and value of the endeavor.
Lead agency charged with preparing the plan (local, regional, or county planning commission; provincial or federal agency responsible for land-water resources in watershed)
Cost of undertaking habitat inventory; perception that habitat protection: has an adverse economic impact on landowners or local economy, is currently reflected in plans and zoning, or is not important in some areas ("plenty of natural areas")
Use naturalist club, local knowledge, or other resources to prepare habitat inventory; quantify economic impact of setting aside habitat (use costbenefit models to test alternative plans); update all plans with new information to ensure habitat protection is adequately addressed; review future goals of the planning unit, demonstrate the impacts various levels of development have on habitat, and ensure habitat protection and rehabilitation is adequately addressed
Partnerships need to be developed among: federal and provincial agencies (to utilize funds and provide incentives), counties-regionsmunicipalities (to utilize bond issues and landfill royalties, purchase development rights), and land trust organizations (to provide volunteers and hold third party easements) to pool resources and move forward
Securing adequate funding; developing an institutional structure which is flexible enough to respond to land protection opportunities; lack of political will; lack of understanding of the value of preserving habitat; in Canada, nongovernmental organizations are not allowed to hold easements; tax laws often discourage donation of properties
Undertake an educational program to document that purchasing land and restricting development, even if using new tax money, is cheaper than allowing urban sprawl and habitat destruction; initiate master plan, perhaps on a province-wide level, to identify critical resources and show the level of permanent resource protection which should occur; develop an appropriate institutional framework (perhaps a separate authority needs to be created which would not be overburdened with legislative requirements); develop criteria for which types of habitats are to be protected along with a priority ranking system; encourage corporations to donate lands for conservation; increase use of eminent domain/tax incentives for property acquisition; legislative reform to remove barriers to property donation
25
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
Take a regional-community wide planning perspective (greater emphasis on aquatic habitat by: 1) compiling inventory of shorelines and biotic communities; 2) ensuring public participation; 3) forming committee of interested parties; 4) developing a plan that explores options, including soft engineering to restore and enhance habitats
Federal-provincial agencies (assure environmental friendliness); federal-provincial wildlife agencies (assure maximum wildlife benefits); public organizations (assure plan meets community needs)
Money; incompatible objectives; apathy of public and governmental agencies
Explore maximum number of funding sources and liaison with provincial and federal politicians; communicate early on in the process before objectives are "engraved in stone" (priority should be placed on education); communicate importance and benefits clearly and forcefully through broad-based education
Initiate wetland restoration by first planning locations and functions of "new" wetlands (multi-function wetlands are preferred); build forested, emergent, and submergent wetlands and include upland buffers and water quality protection measures; wetland restoration efforts should include enhancement, creation, rehabilitation, regeneration, and reclamation
Public and private sector stakeholders
Technical: not all wetland types can be restored, skill level is diverse, success rate is mixed; Political: public perception of quagmire, loss of economic tax base; Economic: cost of construction or restoration may be hard to justify given other needs in the community; "pay back" on investment is long-term
Technical: concentrate on wetland types that have experienced successful efforts, use qualified contractors, planners, and designers; Political: educate (take political leaders to restored sites), plan restoration projects on undevelopable land such as floodplain, damaged wetlands; Economic: design restoration efforts within budget constraints, compare wetland restoration to alternate engineering solutions that lack ancillary benefits
Expand scope of stream rehabilitation efforts to provide benefits on an ecosystem scale; proceed stepwise from isolating noncompatible land use (livestock access) through streambank stabilization to stream channel design and restoration of flood plain attributes; design habitat complexity in flood plain, thus creating corridors to link other habitats
If stream rehabilitation is already planned, agency or nongovernmental person can revise field plans to design more diverse habitat; resource management agency is likely to initiate and coordinate implementation, but recruitment of partners, community groups, and landowners is vital
Can involve added cost in constructing pools, etc.; may have difficulty modeling annual streamflow range with respect to channel capacity, hence floodplain extent; requires empirical information (or interpret from vegetation) to correctly design habitat features; may require further landowner negotiations
Approach potential funding partners (like community groups); understand hydrology to better predict flood conditions
Establish citizen stewardship program where people are trained to help inventory
Watershed councils, conservation organizations, or
Funding; working relationships with
Support from municipalities and agencies; associations
26
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
habitat, talk to landowners about habitat values and provide advice on protection and enhancement, talk to agency people about habitat enhancement on lands which they manage
nongovernmental environmental group, with support from government agencies
experts to train people and guide the program
working with university and/or government scientists
Create environmental management councils (county level) and conservation advisory councils (township level) to focus on habitat issues at the local level (model the programs after existing ones such as the Ecological and Environmental Advisory Councils in Southern Ontario)
Introduce legislation at provincial level authorizing creation of councils; provincial and local governments should match a small amount of funds for council operations; councils serve in an advisory capacity to local governments on environment and habitat issues
In times of shrinking provincial budgets, the climate for new environmental legislation is not good; in lieu of legislation, councils could start without authorization and operate informally
Encourage education of professionals via workshops, training, etc.; establish interagency planning meetings to identify common ground and objectives; ensure on-going project development and review process
Potentially a basin commission could act as a lead; probably best achieved through multi-agency or stakeholder board or commission
Money; time; personnel; traditional role/mission conflicts
Use experience in Southern Ontario (e.g. Hamiltonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Environmentally Sensitive Areas Impact Evaluation Group) with existing programs to develop model legislation for introduction in provinces without such programs; explore non-legislative options for creating councils; hold a workshop and have council members of existing programs exchange ideas/case histories with individuals and groups interested in starting councils in their communities Encourage stewardship ideal at landowner/landholder developer and agency levels
Encourage landowner contact program to protect private land with significant habitat by providing educational materials to landowners; voluntary stewardship agreements are used to protect property
In Ontario, this program was begun by University of Guelph and later taken up by government agencies; recently the establishment of non-government land trusts have proven effective
Resistance from some landowners; lack of trust; limited funding of nongovernmental organizations; moving from voluntary stewardship agreements to more formal arrangements
True partnerships between nongovernmental organizations and governments (e.g. Hamilton Harbour Watershed Stewardship Program; Bay Area Restoration Council initiates contact with landowner and Hamilton Region Conservation Authority provides technical expertise and logistical and program support); governments must provide seed money to nongovernmental organizations to help run these programs
Municipalities with responsibilities for land use
Local nature clubs in partnership with
Lack of availability of Naturalist Clubs with
Local groups must be given more responsibility by
27
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
development must make better use of community volunteers with expertise, skills, and information; Naturalist Clubs can provide knowledge, skill, expertise, and high quality data, and can act as catalysts to attract other partners, including governments and foundations
planning agencies (e.g. the Hamilton Naturalist Club conducted a $250,000 inventory of natural areas in HamiltonWentworth; a multistakeholder steering committee coordinated the effort; funds were provided by numerous partners (one municipality provided $70,000)
skills and drive; willingness of government to share control of projects; building relationships and trust among partners; using data collected by Naturalist Clubs haphazardly; attracting new, younger, more active members to Naturalist Clubs
governments and must be empowered to accomplish specific projects; build trust between local groups and governments by joint involvement in projects (true partnerships); attract more "birders" to the process of protection and rehabilitation of habitat; place greater emphasis on training of volunteers; design standardized data collection forms for "birders" and formalize data collection practices
Ensure that all construction and maintenance projects for structures (e.g. breakwalls, piers) address secondary benefits of incidental habitat
Canada Department of Public Works, in cooperation with provincial agencies, and other stakeholders
Low priority; limited funding; slowing down project implementation; broadening the required disciplinary expertise on project teams
Establish multi-disciplinary teams early on in a project; quantify full ecological benefits expected from each project; perform adequate assessment and monitoring to evaluate effectiveness; disseminate broadly all information on effectiveness and benefits
Ensure that full costs and benefits are assessed for each project in the watershed or bioregion, with explicit consideration of natural capital and intrinsic values
Project proponent within welldeveloped guidelines and with multistakeholder input
No mandate or requirement; time constraints, lack of adequate tools and techniques; limited resources; falling into "more research" trap
Re-evaluate cost-benefit framework; improve existing and develop new valuation tools and techniques (considering natural capital and intrinsic values); apply immediately to all public works projects; amend all environmental legislation to address explicitly full costs and benefits of projects; redirect existing economic capabilities within agencies with respect to guidelines; ensure "proponent pays"; develop tools and techniques that are focused on action planning
Establish the watershed or bioregion as the primary unit for visioning, planning, and management for environmentally- sustainable economic development
Canada: Conservation Authorities with local and regional municipalities
Time constraints; lack of requirement or mandate; lack or resources; political boundaries; limited information base;
Set target date for establishment of institutional partnership; pool resources and use volunteers; amend Provincial legislation and Water Quality Management Plans to
28
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
Responsibility
Ensure that "best management plan" manuals and guidance documents incorporate economic and non-economic benefits and costs for affected parties (e.g. farmers, landowners, developers)
Obstacles and Challenges
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
availability of synthesis tools
empower institutional structures within watersheds or bioregions; collect and analyze economic, environmental, and societal data on watershed scale (prioritize data gathering); prioritize actions within the watershed; establish geographical information system capability at watershed/bioregion level; establish locally-based roundtables on sustainable development; perform stateof-the-environment and economy reporting at the watershed level
Provinces with multistakeholder input
Difficulty in assessing benefits (limited tools and techniques); slow process; know-how not there in many cases
Encourage sharing of success stories; perform post-project evaluation of effectiveness (such quantitative information on effectiveness can provide compelling rationale for action elsewhere); place higher priority on development of adequate tools and techniques (will have to redirect resources)
Governments should demonstrate environmental leadership by fostering demand for "green" products and services
All levels of government
Lack of priority; lack of full cost pricing (true cost of paper, gasoline, etc.); pressure from industry to maintain status quo and competitiveness
Governments should establish broad policy to purchase and use "green" products and services; educate public on value of using "green" products and services; develop procurement protocol that considers environmental and economic costs; educate purchasing and procurement agents; perform environmental management audits
Governments should make greater use of economic instruments to achieve "winwin" solutions for environment and economy (e.g. tradable permits,
All levels of government
Politically unpopular; perception of "license to pollute"; primary emphasis on end-of-pipe, command-and-control solutions; lack of public awareness of long-term
Focus government instruments toward prevention (e.g. gas tax, tax incentive); more focused public education on the value, benefits, and effectiveness of economic instruments; greater emphasis
29
Practical Steps to Implement an Ecosystem Approach
product charges, effluent fees, user fees)
Responsibility
Obstacles and Challenges benefits (e.g. fee structures); uncompetitiveness
Recommendations to Overcome Obstacles and Meet Challenges
on education of senior government managers and elected officials; establish programs which encourage development of "green" technologies for global competitiveness
Table 3: Current Trends Key Elements of Success in Watershed Management Aspect
Watershed / Subwatershed Planning
Implementing Watershed Plans
Trends and Key Elements for Success -
Monitoring and Reporting Periodic Review of Plans
Partnership Approaches
Public Involvement
-
-
Tailor planning process to particular watershed Develop clear Terms of Reference that define process, roles, and responsibilities Build understanding and support of Steering Committee Collect baseline data up front Effectively characterize the system by integrating information from each discipline Use GIS to communicate data, information, and recommendations Set clear, understandable goals, objectives, and targets Consider a range of alternatives Have expertise and decision support tools for evaluating alternatives Identify clear, discrete actions, and responsibilities Ensure clear accountability of deliverables Ensure "buy in" from key partners from the beginning Gain support of municipal politicians and staff Include actions at different scales (i.e., watershed, subwatershed, site, and individual actions) Set "do-able" short term milestones as well as longer-term targets Celebrate success Report on a regular basis Involve the public in developing monitoring plans, monitoring, and reporting Link monitoring to watershed goals, objectives and targets Update at 5-10 year intervals to reflect changes in environmental conditions, stressors, and public preferences Involve key partners from the beginning of the process in a Steering Committee and/or other committees or watershed groups (i.e., Technical Committee) Seek strong leadership at the political and staff level from key partners Forge strong links to other programs and processes to maximize the use of information Use consensus-based approaches to develop a shared vision Adopt a philosophy of collaboration in planning and implementation Include the participation of local universities to help address emerging issues and keep pace with the evolving science of watershed management Involve the public in determining the study objectives, goals, and selection of the preferred plan Be inclusive, open, and unbiased Aim to create "local ambassadors" - public participants in the process who can educate, motivate and serve as watchdogs in their own neighbourhoods Find a strong, enthusiastic, and respected citizen to chair the project
30
Communication
Institutional Aspects
-
Use effective visual tools such as GIS mapping and photos Develop reports that are engaging, easy to read and appealing Consider the needs of users (e.g., make Implementation Plans standalone documents) Celebrate successes Have strong coordination at the local level Have watershed managers develop watershed/subwatershed plans Set an ambitious schedule and keep to it Find dedicated staff to develop the watershed/subwatershed plan
REFERENCES Brandes, O. and O’Riordan, J. 2014. “A Blueprint for Watershed Governance in British Columbia”. Retrieved from: http://poliswaterproject.org/blueprint Conservation Ontario. 2003. “Conservation Ontario Discussion Paper: Recommendations for Monitoring Ontario’s Water Quality”. Retrieved from: http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/projects/pdf/CO_Water_Quality.pdf Environment Canada. 2013. “Water Management”. Retrieved from: https://www.ec.gc.ca/eauwater/default.asp?lang=En&n=DF9EE875-1 Fraser Basin Council. 2011a. “Measuring & Reporting on Sustainability: A Report on Lessons Learned”. Retrieved from: http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca/_Library/Comm_Indicators/report_indicators_lessons_2011.pdf Fraser Basin Council. 2011b. “Rethinking our Water Ways: A Guide To Water And Watershed Planning For BC Communities In The Face Of Climate Change And Other Challenges”. Retrieved from: http://www.rethinkingwater.ca Hunter, R., Brandes, O., Moore, M., and Brandes, L. 2014. “The Cowichan Watershed Board: An Evolution of Collaborative Watershed Governance”. Retrieved from: http://poliswaterproject.org/sites/default/files/CWBCaseStudy_WebFINAL_0.pdf Muskoka Watershed Council. 2003. “Indicators of Watershed Health”. Retrieved from: http://www.muskokawatershed.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/MWC_Indicators_Report1.pdf
31