Management Approaches

Contrasting Ecosystem Management Options

Jordan Hanna 7667607 ENVR 4050 Dec. 6th 2013

Ecosystem management plans work to protect the ecological integrity of a system or region, while also incorporating consultation processes to address the socio-economic, ecological and institutional barriers facing communities. Below are two management plans with different methodology, scope and progress. These plans have attractive components to both, but ultimately have areas in which they fall short where improvement can be seen. In filling in these parts, a hybridity of plans with respect to consultation, innovation and sound funding sources and management act as the foundations for a successful ecosystem management plan.

INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ROBIN BEUKENS

Robin Beukens spoke on behalf of Manitoba Conservation and their watershed planning programs. Beukens watershed management plans focuses on creating conservation districts in the province to allow the municipal and provincial governments working together through local boards to manage water and land resources through locally delivered outreach programs.1 The integrated water management plan (IWMP) focuses on understanding human influence on watersheds; human influence is then managed through land-use management whether social, economic or environmental. IWMP works to manage many water and land related issues, such as flooding, drought, water pollution and quality and water and wind erosion.

Conservation districts work to allow government at both municipal and provincial levels to cooperate with local boards to manage the status of both land and water resources. This shared governance creates a $10,000,000 annual fund to manage eighteen districts in the province.2 Creating districts allows for much more personalized management; issues that

occupy the Swan Lake Watershed may be managed in a different manner that would be employed in the Interlake regions. Regionalization creates a list of priorities, which are attended according to their position up or downstream. The image to the right shows the importance of creating boundaries on watershed based on what is upstream and what is downstream. Great examples to illustrate the importance of these pathways are what happen to pastureland wastewater on local produce. E. Coli contamination of spinach on farms in Colorado and Texas was 172 times more likely if the produce field was within 10 miles of a poultry farm, and 64 times more likely if irrigated by pond water.3 Not only does this indicate the incredibly interconnected nature of water bodies on the surface and ground water, but also indicates transport of contamination and pollution the IWMP tries to address. While more locally, issues of pesticide, fertilizer and drainage are more common; this example shows how addressing upstream issues aid in addressing downstream issues as well.

The IWMP works to prioritize its regions based on both needs and stages of implementation. Of the twenty-three IWMP in Manitoba, twelve regions have implemented successful IWMP, five are currently in pre-implementation review process and another five are in development. Each issue in each region is addressed individually, which creates provincial priorities on water management.4

Beukens IWMP is also very innovative in nature. Honoway Fishway-Swan Lake Watershed conservation district has a proposed a fish crossing by the Ford Crossing. This proposition is to allow Walleye and other species in which >400 species enter the crossing per hour to continue spring spawning and upstream migration on the Swan River.5 Work was done to create water riffling for spawning and to allow fish to migrate through a culvert underneath the Ford Crossing. This five by two hundred metre corridor allows for continual migration of several hundred species of aquatic life, which would otherwise be isolated and prevented from migrating along regular pathways.

Implementation and funds are very well documented and integrated into the provinces conservation districts and their associated IWMP. With the $10,000,000 annual fund allotted to conservation districts in the province, funds must be linked to the associated IWMP and its priorities. On start up, the plans require prioritization of issues and to initiate outreach and education programs within the conservation district. The basis for success for the IWMP is strong partnerships and procuring measurable outcomes of the work done with funds in the districts. Each district receives varying amounts depending on priority, scale of management and its magnitude.6

The IWMP supported by Beukens focuses on three themes water management, adaption and ecosystem health. Through innovative adaption strategies for fish spawning, stream crossings or soil testing, the IWMP can create prioritization of issues in various districts in the province. Additionally, with proper fund management and integrated into IWMP, these plans can become more successful and utilize costs in a more efficient manner.

EAST SIDE LAKE WINNIPEG PLANNING STEWART HILL

Stewart Hill provided insight into the logistics of beginning planning on the East Side of Lake Winnipeg (ESLW), and the importance of consultation, review, community involvement and training. The ESLW covers a vast expanse of mostly undeveloped boreal forest; planned development was a means to provide road networks for the mostly isolated communities in the region.7 Hills goal was to initiate proper consultation between municipal and provincial government, local communities and first nations and their traditional ecological knowledge for the sustainable development of the ESLW. This endeavor requires extensive amounts of training, consultation, policy management and workshops and training in order to make planning and development both smooth and manageable.

July 2000 marked the acknowledgement of the consultation on sustainable development initiative (COSDI), which works to correct sustainability practices with provincial policies and both municipal and local government as well as the development plans, resource allocation and decision making that they took on. Addressing the needs of the public, stakeholders, and first nations is done through making development decisions that address both environmental and socio-economic concerns. The outcome of COSDI was the broad area plan (BAP), which provided a linkage

between both environmental policies and action with local governments.8 Broad area plans emphasize the need for both transparency of information to the public, and the incorporation and digitization of traditional ecological knowledge bestowed by the first nations in the region.

The implicit nature of the COSDI and BAP initiatives resonates that consultation is the foundation of the planning process. It is evident by the depth and emphasis on consultation that involvement of the twenty-five and more community and stakeholders is what drives the ESLW planning. First nation councils and community involvement in BAP development initiated in a three year period over eighty meetings and consultations on the planning and development stages.9 Each community thus had representatives and coordinators to direct planning and development actions.

Many committees and councils were a result of the ESLW plans, the one major one being the WNO council. This council works to administer and monitor costs for WNO communities for the purposes of traditional land use planning. The WNO creates a liaison with provincial government to aid in both funding -$500,000 annually, which expires as of 2013 and for consultation processes.10 Part of the funds secured by WNO council was expended for coordinators who need laptop computers, GPS, video cameras and GIS training; Manitoba Conservation backed this GIS training.11

A big obstacle in moving forward with developments was that there was a lack of training of coordinators; work assigned to coordinators is highly technical and analytical in nature. Hill worked with coordinators in the 2008/9 and 2009/10 years to train them in collecting and mapping traditional ecological knowledge, such as areas for trapping, hunting, fishing, gathering and timber, which were to be transposed onto hardcopy maps and digital maps.12 Additionally, workshops were provided to aid in making a clear explanation of the planning process and initiate the process and technical aspects

around information availability. Workshops also provided engagement techniques with communities and their previous approaches to planning. The main issues confronting the ESLW initiative is that there is a lack of technical expertise currently; financial difficulty is apparent in providng funds to community projects due to the large range of costs; and most important provincial annual contribution of $500,000 ends in 2013.

APPROACH (DIS)ADVTANGES
Both Hill and Beukens management approaches to ESLW and IWMP respectively have advantages and drawbacks to their approach. Hills management plan focuses primarily on the consultation process and incorporation of consultation and committees into the management during the stages of development and planning for ESLW. However, because of the nature of the level of involvement of communities in the ESLW, consultation processes can take much longer than anticipated creating stalemates in planning and development progress. While Hill makes good use of training and consulting coordinators of communities, what should be introduced more properly is keeping the process going. It is important as Sheldon McCloud points out to create a draft of terms of references ahead of meetings.13 Doing this allows for a better course of direction in the consultation process with out digressing and keeps the process on track with concerns about the substance issues associated with ESLW mapping and development. The purpose of this draft and the committees involved is to create effective, workable and timely objectives to meet that has expectations of date of completion and outcomes of the project.14 Hills plan requires funding to be completed, which expires this year and requires a detailed amount to be operational for subsequent development. One direction to receive funding is to apply to the Waste Reduction and Pollution Prevention (WRAPP) Fund. This Manitoba Government-based fund acknowledges the sustainability issues of waste and pollution, particularly for northern and first nation communities.15 Though this fund offers no more than $50,000 (10% of annual grant from government), it can be applied on an individual community basis

to allow for not only sustainability and conservation measures in these communities, but also establish effective waste committees and to use funds to aid in development and mapping and training processes.

Beukens discussion of IWMP has many benefits. First, it addresses all three economic, ecological and social matters with water management. IWMP proactively addresses environmental opportunities and challenges in a way that require a new way of thinking.16 As Shoesmith notes in his presentation about what is effective management, it focuses on addressing human-based impacts on the environment, that issues are dynamic and that collaborative efforts between public and private entities is fundamental to project success.17 IWMP for example utilized a highly innovative way to continue spawning of walleye and other species in the Honoway Fishway-Swan Lake Watershed

conservation district by creating a bypass of a barrier. This endeavor also had great detail in how it was funded, the exact costs, and where they went; proper fiscal management is an incredibly useful and rare occurrence when addressing sustainable management and renewal projects. However, unlike Hills focus, the IWMP isnt as explicit in its efforts for consultation. While Hills consultation and training efforts may be extensive, they provide a good basis for moving forward.
Advantages - Extensive use of consultation and board meetings - Maintenance & digitization of TEK from first nation Highly innovative strategies Tight use of fiscal budget Offers measurable results Disadvantages - Extensive use of consultation creates issues of stalemates and stagnation in planning - Lack of measurable results - Lack of funding to continue projects and involvement - Little acknowledgement of TEK of communities and consultation processes

Hill ESLW

Beukens - IWMP

Effective plan management requires both consultation expertise, the ability to move from planning to development, and have sound funding over the duration of development and monitoring. I believe the best option between these two plans is to combine the expertise of Hills consultation and TEK emphasis with Beukens innovative strategies along with fiscal budget management and procurement. While Beukens plans offer the gusto and application of deadlines to projects, it could greatly improve by using Hills consultation and training practices. IWMP conservation districts cover over two-dozen regions with many more communities within them. Coordination with recommendations of Mcleods consultation methodology would improve this, via:18 1. Creating a term of reference for consultation agenda 2. Utilize governmental sponsors to aid in transparency of development information 3. Use facilitators to keep discussion constructive and to make sure all points are covered by members 4. Make sure members of communities represent and explain interests of themselves and their constituents

While Hills plans fall short of funding with respects to reliably, the ESLW has great consultation uses in which Beukens can utilize to involve to a greater extent communities and the public in general. Conversely, the innovation of Beukens fishway, measurable data on monitoring and fiscal management, fills the part of successful management. With a hybridity of consultation expertise and fiscal management, both Beukens and Hill can take away effective management and project tools to ensure proper development targets and meeting those targets. Bringing together these elements with benefit both the communities of the Interlake, the water integrity of Manitobas conservation districts and ultimately the environment in which people depend upon and use on a daily basis.

Robin Beukens. The Conservation Districts Program: Implementation of IWMP in Manitoba. Manitoba Conservation. November 1st 2013. Presentation slides. 2. 2 Ibid. 3. 3 Sangshin Park. Liklihood of E. Coli Contamination. July 2013. Accessed in News Medical. Researchers Identify Factors Influencing Contamination of Spinach Prior to Harvest. http://www.news-medical.net/news/20130621/Researchers-identify-factors-influencing-Ecoli-contamination-of-spinach-prior-to-harvest.aspx 4 Robin Beukens. 10. 5 Ibid. 18. 6 Ibid. 13. 7 Stewart Hill. East Side of Lake Winnipeg Planning. Manitoba Conservation. November 15th 2013. Presentation slides. 5. 8 Ibid. 3. 9 Ibid. 6-7. 10 Ibid. 10. 11 Ibid. 18. 12 Ibid. 17. 13 Sheldon McLeod. Making Multi-Stakeholder Processes Work. SlmcLeod Consulting. September 20th 2013. Presentation Slides. 17. 14 Ibid. 23. 15 Manitoba Conservation & Water Stewardship. Waste Reduction and Pollution Prevention Fund. http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/pollutionprevention/wrapp/wrappfund.html 16 Merlin Shoesmith. What is and is not Ecosystem Management. Manitoba Conservation. Presentation Slides. 4. 17 Ibid. 5. 18 Ibid. 27, 30, 31, 33.

10