Effective Public Engagement Experiences from Watershed Management Planning in Manitoba David Huck and John Snclair June 18, 2012 Fall evening at Lake Katherine © Parks Canada

Varying Degrees of Public Engagement 2 Citizen Control  Public has complete authority or power over decision making process  Public is accountable for final outcome Public Participation  Information is exchanged between both process sponsors and members of the public  Dialogue based on informed engagement and negotiation of decision outcomes  Public involvement influences decision outcomes but final decision is not made by public. Public Consultation  Purpose is to identify potential public concerns or level of consent for a proposed decision.  Public provides opinions, comments or other feedback to the process sponsors regarding a final decision.  Flow of information is primarily to the process sponsors by the public. Public Communication  Intent is to inform the public of a decision and provide an explanation for the decision  Information is provided from the process sponsors to the public  No active dialogue or feedback requested from the public Non-Participation  Public is not included in nor made aware of the decision making process. (adapted from Arnstein 1967, Dorcey et al and IAPP 2000). Increasing Public Engagement and Impact on Final Decision

Effective Public Engagement Early and ongoing public engagement Process has integrity and accountability Opportunity to influence decision Fair notice and time to participate Fair and open dialogue Multiple and appropriate engagement methods Adequate and accessible information Opportunity for learning and informed engagement 3

Research Purpose The purpose of this research was to determine if the emergence of collaborative approaches to watershed management planning has increased opportunities for effective public engagement. 4

Watershed Cases 5

Case Comparison Highlights Pembina River Public role to prioritize objectives from 2005 Basin Plan 3 initial public meetings 3 draft plan review public meetings (same locations) 2 Watershed Team workshops 156 participants (~1% of watershed pop.)(<10% women) $18,321 spent on public engagement Netley-Grassmere Public role to establish broad watershed goals for plan 4 initial public meetings 1 draft plan review public meetings (central location) 2 Watershed Team workshops & watershed tour 158 participants (~0.4% of watershed pop.)(<30% women) $26,511 spent on public engagement 6

Successful Aspects of Public Engagement in Watershed Management 7 1.Community led plan to improve watershed conditions with direct public engagement (a first for many watersheds). 2.Public is expected to contribute to decision-making process. 3.Plan integrates local priorities with provincial water management objectives (i.e., supports partnership and integration). 4.Public is engaged throughout planning process and during implementation. 5.Multiple engagement events were held in various locations throughout watersheds (improved public access to process). 6.Engagement methods were modified to suit community need while encouraging individual participation and two-way dialogue among participants. 7.Continuous review and improvement of Watershed Planning is apparent by planning authorities.

Key Perspectives Encountered wide range of perspectives from all participants - except: – Public engagement was viewed by most as a critical part of the planning process. – Role of public was to become involved in the process, provide input and learn about the watershed. In general most participants were satisfied with overall public engagement process. However, higher optimism for successful planning outcomes amongst Project Management Team members than general public. 8

Barriers to EPE in Watershed Planning 9 ScaleBarrierIdentified by Micro Level obstacles at a personal level Apathetic public Public, Planners Lack of knowledge/complexity of watershed issues Public, Planners Meso Level Pressures external to the individual, engagement process problems Busy life schedule, work/family demands Public, Planners Representative engagement Public, Planners Identifying public consensus on watershed issues Planners Adequate opportunities for engagement Public, Planners Poor communication as plan progressed Public Lack of notice of engagement events Public Socio-economic focus of watershed plan Public Macro Level Larger scale issues that influence the engagement process Distrust of government decision making surrounding water management Public, Planners Capability of watershed planning authority to implement changes Public, Planners Plan outcomes a foregone conclusion Public, Planners

Effective Public Engagement Planning authorities need to adequately define how public input influences decision making process. Opportunity to improve communication regarding engagement events. Additional engagement opportunities needed after watershed information became available. 10

The Challenge of Public Engagement in Watershed Management Planning 11 Technically Sound Fiscal Responsibility Fiscal Responsibility Timely Democratic Implementable

Opportunities for Learning Cultivating “expert citizens” or “informed engagement” was identified as a high priority for planning authorities, but proved difficult to achieve. Many individuals identified opportunities to dialogue with other residents and water experts as critical to supporting learning and for transformed perceptions about watershed issues. Most identified that additional opportunities for public review of watershed goals and objectives would improve public education and informed participation. 12

Improving Public Engagement in Watershed Planning 1.Develop public engagement strategy prior to planning process. 2.Communicate the sense of urgency surrounding watershed planning issues. 3.Engage under-represented participants in watershed planning. 4.Engage the engaged – support informed engagement. 5.Provide additional opportunities for public engagement. 6.Timely process is important - streamline government branch/departmental review process. 13