Governance for Sustainability – Lessons from Canada
Submitted by: Kelly Vodden, Simon Fraser University, Centre for Coastal Studies
8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6
Traditional policy approaches and models are inadequate to meet today’s economic, social
and ecological challenges (Walter, 1996). The Canadian experience of coastal governance reform
over the 1990s highlights the difficulty of moving from philosophy/intent to implementation,
demonstrates some promising avenues for sustainable governance and provides valuable lessons for
how governance reforms may (or may not) be brought about. The decade since the Rio Summit has
been a period of significant policy change in Canada, particularly in coastal, resource-based regions.
These changes have primarily been a response to the negative impacts of unemployment, income
disparity, resource depletion (e.g. cod in the Atlantic, old growth timber in British Columbia) and
related losses of culture, identity and self-reliance. As decision-makers faced the shortcomings of the
past they were provided with an opportunity (and a need) for policy change. The simple
development equation tying growth to resource extraction lost much of its currency. New
approaches increasingly articulated a vision of resource stewardship alongside commodity
production, incorporating the key concepts of conservation, preservation, diversification and
decentralization. Real progress toward a vision of sustainable development, however, has been
thwarted by a number of factors.
First, although the ecological imperative gained ground in the policy arena over the 1990s
consideration has not been evenly applied, nor sufficient to prevent degradation of natural capital.
Aquaculture development in coastal British Columbia and an expanded snow crab fishery in
Newfoundland provide examples. Multiple studies have shown that open net-cage aquaculture
causes serious environmental damage and an Auditor General’s Report to Parliament (2001)
suggests that the federal agency “Fisheries and Oceans is not fully meeting its obligations under the
Fisheries Act while participating in the regulation of salmon farming in BC (Abbott Strategies
2001).” In Newfoundland, despite the lesson of the collapsed northern cod, the number of crab
fishermen rose from 1,200 to 2,800 from 1995 to 1996 and by March 2000 crab stocks were
reported to be in serious trouble (Whiffen and Hilliard 2000; Harris 1999).
Second, despite a stated commitment to an integrated, ecosystem management approach
through legislation such as The Oceans Act and initiatives such as the Model Forest Network,
planning and decision making remains fragmented. An integrated approach to development seeks to
balance traditionally opposing development paradigms, including bottom-up and top-down, small
and large-scale, local and global development (House 2001). The task of reconciling these paradigms
in the interest of ecological, social and economic sustainability remains largely unexplored from a
policy perspective. The narrow economic interpretation of the benefits from British Columbia’s
forests provides an example. The province’s primarily timber focused management system continues
to exclude meaningful consideration of non-timber values, although some improvements have been
made. Community forest pilot projects have provided opportunities for incorporating multiple
perspectives and bottom-up involvement, yet the future of these projects remains uncertain. Only
recently have initial attempts been made at integrated coastal zone management in the province.
Third, Canadian resource policy has been primarily reactive (Hessing and Howlett 1998).
Crisis aid responds to calls for assistance but fails to correct long-term structural and capacity issues
(Markey et al 2001). The absence of proactive analysis of the social impacts of either the cod
moratorium or fleet reduction in the British Columbia salmon fishery provides further illustration
(Vodden 1999). Environmental assessments may provide useful model for proactive analysis of
environmental and social implications of development, although their limited application to federal
lands, policies and projects and criticisms that they are unrealistically onerous must be taken into
account if such assessments are to be more broadly applied.
Fourth, to date change has been more symbolic than real. An engrained legal and
bureaucratic framework is in part to blame. Past policies have created a rigid policy-making
network and “layered” effect, slowing and reducing the impact of any single change (Blunden et
al 1995). Further, resource management agencies are often captured by the industries they
regulate (Clapp 1998). A concerted and sustained effort, driven by a strong commitment will be
required to implement structural change. At the same time it is necessary to recognize that
significant change does take time. Social processes involve in negotiation, implementation and
renegotiation of sustainability. Not allowing for new approaches to evolve over time can
discourage valuable efforts (e.g. funding agencies requiring NGOs to produce measurable results
within an unrealistic timeframe). The key question that must be asked is whether there is a genuine
commitment to the implementation of a sustainable development agenda and an ability to identify
and overcome implementation barriers such as political and bureaucratic resistance.
Fifth, Canada is a large country with multiple jurisdictions and interests. Fostering
cooperation is between these policy actors is essential to effective change. Although the role of
government is particularly significant, provincial and federal governments have been reducing their
role in environmental and economic matters, resulting in fundamental changes in relations between
the state and civil society. The result has been a transition towards cooperative resource and
environmental management, with industry, communities and NGOs assuming a greater role in
decision-making and implementation. The post-productivist landscape has introduced new
stakeholder groups, resulting in a dramatic reinterpretation of the values and rights associated with
terrestrial and marine based ecosystems (Gill and Reed 1999). Experiments in building local,
multistakeholder governance models include the establishment of regional economic development
boards in Newfoundland, fisheries program delivery organizations in British Columbia and
numerous others. However, many cases exist where those impacted are still not involved fully in the
decision-making process. Continued effort is needed to better balance interests and responsibilities
between senior and local governments and organizations, along with industry and international
commitments and interests (matching responsibilities to appropriate scale).
Capacity has been an important factor in the success of new governance models. Local
actors and actor networks often have limited human, financial and organizational resources,
although local capacity is increasing (Markey et al 2000, Bryant 1999). The capacity of government
agencies to play a new role of enabler also needs to be strengthened, along with their ability to
manage an increasingly complex policy environment. The distinction between supportive
development and downloading is critical. Although offloading responsibilities to the local level may
appear attractive to government agencies, ideas about how this shift should occur have generally not
been solicited from the communities, municipalities and NGOs that experience the impacts.
Further, responsibility is often transferred without real decision-making power or a clear mandate or
definition of roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis other organizations and agencies (McTiernan 1999,
Phillips and Graham 2000, Mitchell et al. 2001). Despite increasing complexity, varying and often
limited local capabilities have rarely been measured or taken into account when planning
responsibility transfer. Nor have adequate financial resources been put in place to facilitate the
transition and build capacity where it is needed (Proux 1997, Savoie et al. 1998, House 1999).
Despite an established awareness of the spatial and temporal impacts of development in
Canada and the importance of context (e.g. transportation, geography, institutions) (Innis, 1933),
government policy has traditionally adopted a homogenous/macro-level approach that ignores
regional differences (Pierce 1998). Public control of coastal resources has been exercised through
highly centralized bureaucracies. Sustainable policy designs must be more sensitive to the realities of
landscape and culture. The incorporation of stakeholders into decision-making will help bring
attention to context but its importance deserves higher-level recognition. The role of informal
regulation, customary practices, and the integration of local knowledge within their geographic and
historical contexts also require further consideration. An example of the importance of context is
the recognition of inequality and the need to take steps to ensure less powerful interests are
represented in decision-making processes. Globalization and the new economy have exacerbated
uneven levels of development and social, economic and spatial inequalities (e.g. marginalization of
rural areas, unskilled workers, Aboriginal peoples) (Nozick 1999; Petrella 2000). Careful design of
decision-making processes is critical to ensure these interests are not further marginalized.
Finally, new policy approaches and governance structures require new kinds of information
to feed into their decision-making processes. A recent report by the Task Force on a Canadian
Information System for the Environment (Government of Canada 2001) concluded that: Canadians
lack confidence in governments’ commitment and effectiveness in protecting their environment,
health and communities; Canada lacks a strategic approach to environmental information; Canada
lacks key environmental information; and Canadian investments in the environment could be more
effective with better information. The Task Force makes recommendations for a new, collaborative
Canadian Information System for the Environment.
In summary the following lessons can be learned from the Canadian experience in
governance reform. We must: improve our knowledge and information about ecosystems, humanecosystem interactions and social and political systems; better understand barriers to change;
recognize the importance of capacity and develop tools to assess and build capacity in government
and civil society; acknowledge the importance of context and develop an understanding of changing
relations over space (e.g. between the global, national and local scales) and time; and design decisionmaking processes that allow for full participation of marginalized groups. Uneven development
occurs within nations such as Canada as well as between nations and measures must be taken to
address this inequality and allow for self-determination. Governance for sustainable development
will include an increased role for stakeholders (particularly local interests, following the principle of
subsidiarity), a mix of top-down and bottom-up, voluntary and legalistic, command and control
measures. Governance solutions will not be the same for every place or question/issue and will need
to be flexible and adaptive, changing over time while recognizing general principles such as
ecosystem management and the integration of economic, social and ecological concerns.
Partnerships are essential but we must recognize the difficulty of making them work. Partnership
development requires resources, commitment and skilful negotiation. Finally decision-makers must
realize that bigger is not always better (the mantra of modernization), that integrated management
includes economic diversification (vs. specialization) and that strong political will and precautionary
management is needed to break the cycle of resource depletion.
Recommendations for policy-makers in Canada and elsewhere include: continue to strive for
implementation (words are not enough); create mechanisms for accountability (e.g. action plans with
timelines and reporting, and public awareness about progress and commitments); examine, discuss
and move to dissolve barriers to change; continue to invest in building effective partnerships;
recognize importance of context and, as a result, of local involvement in decision-making; assess and
seek to build capacity at all levels (e.g. through education and pilot projects with a commitment to
implement change based on lessons learned); improve the state of knowledge on sustainable
development issues; clarify and define the governing principles of sustainable development (e.g.
ecosystem, integrated, precautionary approach); pay attention to questions of social equity;
encourage diversification and ensure strong commitment to protect natural capital stocks, even in
the face of social, political and economic pressure. Continued dialogue among nations to share
lessons on governance models and reforms will be critical in pursuing this ambitious agenda.
References
Abbott Strategies 2001. Eco-Certification and Community Economic Development on
Northern Vancouver Island: Managing the Transition to Sustainability. A Report to the BC
Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services.
Blunden, G., Moran, W., and Cocklin, C. 1995. “Sustainability, Real Regulation, Scale and
Context.” IGU, August, 1995.
Bryant, C. R. 1999. “Community Change in Context.” In J. T. Pierce and A. Dale, (Eds.).
Communities, Development and Sustainability Across Canada. Vancouver, UBC Press.
Clapp, R. A. 1998. "The Resource Cycle in Forestry and Fishing." The Canadian
Geographer, 42 (2): 129-44.
Gill, A. and Reed, M. 1999. “Incorporating Postproductivist Values into Sustainable Community
Processes.” In In J. T. Pierce and A. Dale, (Eds.). Communities, Development and
Sustainability Across Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Government of Canada. 2001. Sharing Environmental Decisions: Final Report of the Task
Force on a Canadian Information System for the Environment (CISE).
Harris 1999. Lament for the Ocean: The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery: A True Crime
Story. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Inc.
Hessing, M. and Howlett, M. 1997. Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
House, D. 2001. The New Regional Development: Is Rural Development A Viable Option in
Newfoundland and Labrador? Memorial University of Newfoundland.
-. 1999. “Does Community Really Matter in Newfoundland and Labrador? The Need for
Supportive Capacity in the New Regional Economic Development.” St. John’s: Department
of Sociology, Memorial University of Newfoundland.
Innis, H. 1933. Problems of Staple Production in Canada. Toronto: Ryerson Press.
Markey, S., J. Pierce and K. Vodden. 2001. “Resources, People and the Environment: A Regional
Analysis of the Evolution of Resource Policy in Canada”. Journal of Regional Science. Vol.
23. No. 3. (427-454).
Markey, S., K. Vodden and S. Ameyaw. 2000. Promoting Community Economic Development
for Forest-based Communities – Final Report. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University
Community Economic Development Centre (www.sfu.ca/cedc).
McTiernan, T. 1999. “Northern Communities and Sustainable Development in Canada’s
North.” In J. T. Pierce and A. Dale, (Eds.). Communities, Development and Sustainability
Across Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Mitchell, D., J. Longo and K. Vodden. 2001. “Building Capacity or Straining Resources?: The
Changing Role of the Non-profit Sector in Threatened Coastal Economies.” In Brock, K.
and K. Banting, eds., The Non-Profit Sector in Canada. Volume Two. Montreal: McGillQueens University Press.
Nozick, M. 1999. “Sustainable Development Begins at Home.” In J. T. Pierce and A. Dale,
(eds.). Communities, Development and Sustainability Across Canada. Vancouver: UBC
Press.
Petrella, R. 2000. The Future of Regions: Why the Competitiveness Imperative Should Not
Prevail over Solidarity, Sustainability and Democracy. Geografiska Annaler, 82 B (2):
67-72
Phillips, S. and K. Graham. 2000. “Hand in Hand: When Accountability Meets Collaboration in
the Voluntary Sector.” In K. Banting (ed.), The Non-Profit Sector in Canada. Volume One.
Kingston: Queens University Press.
Pierce, J. T. 1998. “Sustaining Rural Environments: Widening Communities of Knowledge.”
In I. Bowler, C.R. Bryant, P. P. Huigen (eds.). Dimensions of Sustainable Rural Systems.
Netherlands Geographical Studies.
Proulx, M. 1997. “The Policy of Governmental Decentralization in Quebec: Principles,
Status and Issues.” In Rounds, R.C., ed., Changing Rural Institution. Brandon: Canadian
Rural Restructuring Foundation.
Savoie, D., G. Filteau and P. Gallaugher. 1998. Partnering the Fishery. Ottawa: Report of the
Panel Studying Partnering to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Vodden, K. 1999. “‘Nanwakola: Co-management and Sustainable Community Economic
Development in a BC Fishing Village.” MA Dissertation. Burnaby: Department of
Geography, Simon Fraser University (www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies).
Walter, G. 1996. Regional Growth and Forestry-Based Community Sustainability: Three
Paradigms. CSAP Working Paper. CSAP-8. Victoria: University of Victoria.
Wiffen, G. and Hilliard, W. 2000. “DFO Warns of Decline.” Evening Telegram. March 28,
2000.