BEST PRACTICES RELATED TO PUBLIC

BEST PRACTICES RELATED TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN CANADA

Carolyn Hedley and Martin Willison

Submitted to: Interdepartmental MPA Working Group (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Parks Canada and Environment Canada) March 2007

Best Practices Related to Public Engagement and Consultation in the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Canada TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary.................................................................................................. ii 2. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 a. Canada’s Marine Protected Areas Strategy ................................................ 1 b. Public Participation....................................................................................... 1 3. Best Practices........................................................................................................... 2 a. Preliminary Groundwork .............................................................................. 3 b. Process Initiation and Management ............................................................ 8 c. After MPA Establishment ............................................................................. 13 d. Conservation Objectives .............................................................................. 14 4. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 15 5. References ............................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A – Federal marine management measures Appendix B – International Association for Public Participation: Core Values webpage

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following people for providing input for this report: Tundi Agardy, Sandra Bicego, Bob Capistrano, Julia Gardner, Gail Jackson, Richard Kenchington, Paul Macnab, Tracey Morin Dalton, Liz Muaror-Wilson, Victoria Sheppard, Jason Simms, Norm Sloan, Bruce Smith and Daniel Suman.

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide guidance to marine protected area (MPA) planners on best practices related to public engagement and consultation in the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs). The three core programs of the Federal Government’s MPA network are: Oceans Act Marine Protected Areas, National Marine Conservation Areas, and Marine Wildlife Areas. One objective of Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy is to establish a more systematic approach to MPA planning and establishment in the creation of the federal network of MPAs. This report is one response to that objective. Best practices related to public engagement and consultation in the establishment of MPAs fall within three stages: Preliminary Groundwork; Process Initiation and Management; and After MPA Establishment. Preliminary Groundwork • Education: Build upon and strengthen government education campaigns about marine ecosystems and MPA options. • Situational Analysis: Conduct a situational analysis of the region in which an MPA might be proposed, including an investigation of the political terrain. • Early Discussions: Establish early consensus and discussions prior to announcing the site as an area of interest. • Outreach: Find the right staff, consultants, and/or non-government organization (NGO) representatives, and train them appropriately. Process Initiation and Management • Engagement Mechanisms: Consult stakeholders on their preferred engagement mechanisms, and employ a variety of mechanisms to engage all interested stakeholders. • Inclusiveness: Involve all interested stakeholder groups and seek out those who are not engaged. • Purpose: Articulate a common purpose and create clear goals and objectives early in the process. • Leadership: Provide effective leadership, regardless of whether this is provided by agency staff, facilitators, NGOs representatives, or stakeholders who are chairing committees. • Science: Ensure that available socio-economic and ecological science is integrated into the planning process. • Evaluation: Provide for ongoing evaluation throughout the MPA planning and establishment process. • Support: Provide and exhibit constant government support and commitment. After MPA Establishment • Continuation: Because MPA management will be required after MPA establishment, continue best practices related to public engagement (e.g. through the use of an advisory committee). On-going evaluation is especially important.

ii

INTRODUCTION Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy As defined in Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy, a marine protected area (MPA) is “Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora and fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (World Conservation Union IUCN definition) (Government of Canada, 2005). Canada is committed to completing a national representative network of MPAs by 2012 (Smith et al., 2006). The Federal network consists of three core programs: Marine Protected Areas (Oceans Act, Fisheries and Oceans Canada), National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA) (Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, Parks Canada Agency) and Marine Wildlife Areas (Canada Wildlife Act, Environment Canada). There are several additional marine protection options, including Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, National Wildlife Areas, voluntary fisheries closures, and National Parks with a marine component. These protection options differ in size, scope and design. Several of the options have a strong legislative basis, while others are relatively voluntary measures (see Appendix A for the range of options) (Government of Canada, 2005). The MPA Strategy outlines four objectives to fulfill the overall goal of establishing an MPA network within an integrated management framework. Of importance to this report are the following three objectives: • establish a more systematic approach to marine protected area planning and establishment; • enhance collaboration for management and monitoring of marine protected areas; and • increase awareness, understanding and participation of Canadians in the marine protected area network. The need to develop recommendations for best practices related to public engagement and consultation in the establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Canada, which we address in the current report, emerges directly from the first objective of the MPA Strategy. In order to create a uniform policy environment, the report is intended for use across all Federal MPA programs. In outlining the best practices for public engagement, the report provides concrete recommendations for enhanced collaboration for management and increased awareness, understanding and participation of Canadians in the development of the MPA network. Public Participation The concept of public participation in MPA planning and establishment is found within the Federal MPA Strategy, and is also mandated within the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, Sections 7, 10 and 11. For example, Section 11(1): “The Minister shall, for each marine conservation area, establish a management advisory committee to advise the Minister on the formulation, review and implementation of the management plan for the area”. There are no direct references to public engagement in MPA planning in either the Oceans Act or the Canada Wildlife Act, except that integrated management is a guiding principle within the Oceans Act. The benefits of involving the public in environmental decision-making and natural resource management are well established. Kessler (2004), in her extensive synthesis of scholarly literature on stakeholder participation, concluded that public participation enhances compliance, increases the level of understanding and support, increases legitimacy of the process, builds a sense of ownership, and fosters an appreciation for the ecosystem being protected. The respected scholarly research sources summarized by Kessler also heavily 1

emphasize the necessity for participation to be meaningful; i.e. that the processes be fair and that stakeholder input be actively used (Arnstein, 1969; Buck 1984; Kessler, 2004). In addition to the many benefits of stakeholder participation, there are many challenges related to engaging the public in MPA planning and establishment, since it is a complex multi-faceted process: “Potential issues with stakeholder involvement include delays in decision-making, increased expenses, tension among stakeholder groups, and lack of consensus” (Kessler, 2004; 5). Taking account of the benefits and challenges of stakeholder participation, best practices for public engagement in marine protected area establishment are described below. BEST PRACTICES There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to public engagement in the establishment of marine protected areas because each MPA has an array of unique characteristics and circumstances influencing its successful establishment (e.g. previous conservation attempts, nature of community support, and many other variables). There are, however, clear guidelines, or ‘best practices’, that managers can follow that will help guide successful public engagement. Bernstein et al. (2004) and Dovetail Consulting (2005) provide two comprehensive guidance documents, or best practice summaries, for engaging the public in MPA planning. Both works are available online: Bernstein et al. (2004) http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned_table.html; Dovetail (2005) www.wwf.ca/Documents/Marine/MarinePlanningSummaryTNR.pdf. In addition, the public consultation guide by Sterne (1997) provides a useful summary of general principles of consultation. These three documents provided the framework for the current report, and much other scholarly literature was also consulted in order to ensure that the best-practice recommendations made are up to date. The following seven core values for the practice of public participation can be found on the International Association for Public Participation website (IAPP, 2007; http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=4; also see Appendix B): 1. The public should have a say in decisions about actions that could affect their lives. 2. Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the decision. 3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers. 4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. 5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate. 6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way. 7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision. These seven core values are recognized throughout the natural resource planning literature, and they are referenced frequently in the current report. These values fall within three recognized stages of public participation: preliminary, formal, and post engagement. The current report is therefore divided into these three stages. Preliminary public engagement is titled Preliminary Groundwork; formal engagement is titled Process Initiation and

2

Management; and post engagement is titled After MPA Establishment. The majority of the best practices proposals fall within the first two stages. Preliminary Groundwork Every MPA has a unique establishment history. As illustrated by the case of the Gilbert Bay MPA in Newfoundland, some MPAs are successfully instigated by the local community. Other MPAs are established, at least in part, as a result of pressure from the nongovernment scientific and/or conservation communities, as in the case of The Gully which is an offshore MPA in the region of Nova Scotia (Guénette and Alder, 2007). MPAs can also be proposed by government to fulfill specific conservation purposes, as illustrated by the case of the proposed NMCA in the Southern Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Regardless of where the impetus for protection comes from, public support is the key to successful MPA establishment (Mascia, 2003; SCBD, 2004; Kessler, 2004; Morin Dalton, 2005). Scholarly research has clearly revealed that social factors, rather than the biological and physical parameters of the site, have the largest influence on whether an MPA is successfully established or fails to become established (Mascia, 2003). While biophysical environmental parameters are very significant for selecting potential MPA sites, for MPA establishment the social environment must be appropriate. The ease with which an MPA is established can depend largely on this level of public support. For those marine protected areas that are in process of being established through local community or grassroots efforts, much of the needed preliminary public participation groundwork has probably already been accomplished. Not all MPAs, however, are instigated by local communities, and some proposed areas may face fierce opposition despite the existence of a biophysical rationale that is scientifically rigorous. Public opposition to MPA programs can stem from several real fears or misconceptions, or a combination of well-realized fear and misconception. Previous local experience, confusion over the multiple marine protection options, rumours, government mistrust, and other reasons, can all lead to public opposition. Suman et al. (1999) conducted a study of the perceptions of different stakeholder groups involved in establishment of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The authors found that “concerns centered on a perceived excess of regulation, intervention by the federal government, and displacement of traditional users and uses” (1022). Similarly, Stump and Kriwoken (2006), who conducted a survey of wild capture fishers’ attitudes and perceptions of MPAs in Tasmania, found that one of the main perceptions held by fishers was that MPAs are areas where fishing is restricted, such as no-take areas. In fact, “no-take” is simply one of many options within the armoury of protective measures available for the creation of MPAs. These two reports elucidate the main fears and misconceptions of the affected public: that there will be negative change to the region in the form of strict government regulations, and there will be restricted access to established resource uses. No distinction between ‘fear’ and ‘misconception’ is made here, since fears and misconceptions are often the same, depending on the point of view of the person in question and the specific situation of that person. This is not to exclude the fact that in some cases a fear needs to be overcome by an actual compensatory measure, while in other cases a misconception can be addressed by better communication. Additional fears and misconceptions were identified from scholarly literature (Suman et al., 1999; Fenton et al., 2000) and by means of interviews with experts (see Acknowledgements for a list of those interviewed), and included the following: • There will a loss of control – people will not have a say in the establishment or management of the MPA; • Restricted access will lead to negative socio-economic impacts;

3

• • • • • • • •

Government is “downloading” management costs and responsibilities onto the community; First Nation’s rights will not be respected; Once an MPA is established it will subsequently be made much more restrictive than originally planned; The establishment of one MPA will lead to additional MPAs in the region (“creeping regulations”); Government agencies will not be able to govern themselves; Enforcement officers will become prevalent around the region; The necessary resources (financial and human) will not be made available; NMCAs will be managed like terrestrial National parks: they will be very restrictive and with limited access.

On a broader level, public perceptions of marine wildlife can hinder conservation efforts. As Brailovskaya (1998) noted about the New England region of the United States, the most commonly known marine species are usually regarded as food. Food resources are generally considered to require a direct resource-management approach, while protected areas are generally regarded as a tool for protecting other benefits, such as aesthetic value. Additionally, public knowledge of marine ecosystems is generally poor, making it more difficult to explain that conservation efforts are required. Because there are real public fears and misconceptions about MPA establishment, in addition to low levels of knowledge about marine environments, agencies responsible for establishing MPAs need to conduct thorough preliminary groundwork before formal public engagement and consultation commences. If this pro-active effort is not conducted, the process can be derailed by socio-political skirmishing before it has even begun (Walker and Hurley, 2004). Such groundwork will therefore help to ensure successful MPA establishment. The preliminary groundwork that a regulatory agency should conduct before commencing formal public consultation consists of four main activities with several underlying components. The four main activities are as follows. Activity 1: Education Build upon and strengthen government education campaigns about marine ecosystems and MPA options – both Canada-wide and with regional focuses. This includes an “attractive, popular presentation of the concept of marine wilderness” (Brailovskaya, 1998; 1239), an explanation of the basic principles of marine health, an overview of Canada’s MPA Strategy and MPA options, and the potential benefits and costs of conservation, through: •

Financial support to local organizations with a marine education mandate.

•

Tailoring education materials to local audiences (MPA News, 2007). All materials should use the appropriate level of language and detail to meet the individual community’s literacy level (Smith et al., 2006). Education material can include newspaper and radio advertisements, posters, brochures, websites, and videos: o Bright, visually appealing materials that are culturally specific (MPA News, 2007); o Environment Canada’s ‘Hinterland’s Who’s Who’ Campaign, or similar media advertisements; o Easily accessible and current MPA information on government websites.

•

Educating children and young adults about marine health and MPAs (MPA News, 2007). This should be a priority, since education can generate a strong conservation ethic among youth, who may bring information home to their families. Make education

4

materials interesting and exciting: use multi-media techniques (videos, cartoons, etc.) and create fun activities such as touch tanks and games. •

Interagency/departmental cooperation. Parks Canada is mandated to incorporate education concerning sustainability and conservation into NMCA design and establishment. Environment Canada has regional environmental education divisions, and DFO has many educational materials on marine species at risk, marine ecosystems, and marine protected areas. It would be useful for all relevant departments and agencies to pool their resources and create an MPA education campaign that has a common core of educational materials in addition to materials that are specific for particular departments.

Activity 2: Situational Analysis Conduct a situational analysis of the region in which an MPA might be proposed, including an investigation of the political terrain (Sterne, 1997). This analysis is similar to Parks Canada’s feasibility studies for NMCAs (Henwood, 2003), but with a stronger focus on socioeconomic factors: •

What is the economy of the region, including the economic drivers? What negative socioeconomic impacts have affected the region in the past?

•

What is the conservation history of the region; i.e. what conservation efforts have occurred to date? Which have been successful/unsuccessful and why?

•

How has the economic and conservation history affected stakeholder perceptions of marine protection? (Bernstein et al., 2004) o Are there groups likely to oppose the initiative? Who are they and what mechanisms could they use to derail the process? o Who are the allies; i.e. who will support/champion the MPA? One of Fenton et al.’s (2000) indicators for successful community-based MPAs is a local-level “champion”. Champions are well-respected community members and are usually community leaders. Beyond local communities, it is also important to have champions from all stakeholder groups, including sectors of industry. The role of champions in moving ideas forward is well established in all forms of development.

•

What is the government environment like? What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the lead agency, and between the lead agency and other relevant government departments/agencies (Sterne, 1997)?

Activity 3: Early Discussions Establish early consensus and discussions prior to announcing the site as an area of interest1: •

Fenton et al. (2000) concluded that another indicator of successful community-based MPAs is early consensus and discussions prior to commitment from the government to advance a particular site to ‘Area of Interest’ (AOI) status. They recommended this occur through “broad and inclusive community level discussions” (Fenton et al., 2000; 1422).

•

Broad and inclusive community level discussions involve: o Airing fears and misconceptions about MPA establishment; o Considering whether an MPA should be pursued in the region, as well as the possible areas for MPA establishment;

1

Areas of interest in general, not specifically DFO’s AOIs.

5

o o o o o

Explaining the reasons for public involvement; Openly identifying the stakeholders/communities of interest that should be involved in the planning process; Considering the barriers to engagement; Analyzing the processes by which to engage the various stakeholder groups. For the purpose of inclusive community-level discussions, the agency leading the process must be receptive to all of the above issues, and any additional issues brought forth by the public (IAPP, 2007). Discussions should also focus on interests, rather than positions (Fisher et al., 1991).

•

Involving stakeholders early in the planning process demonstrates that managers have confidence in the expertise and knowledge of stakeholders. Early involvement also builds stakeholder trust that there is a real commitment to share responsibility in MPA establishment (Jones, 2002).

•

Discussions may be more successful if they occur in conjunction with other community meetings, information sessions, and specific sector meetings (e.g. fishing industry meetings and roundtables).

•

Formal research methods, like surveying, may be useful for gathering attitudinal data (e.g. Stump and Kriwoken, 2006) to guide discussions.

•

A working relationship with MPA champions should be established, and where feasible champions should play intermediary roles in the interaction between the government department and the communities of interest. Experienced interviewees stressed however, that these allies should not be over-burdened because their assistance will be required throughout the process.

•

Ensure that proper engagement protocols are used when beginning discussions with Aboriginal Peoples.

Activity 4: Outreach Find the right staff, consultants, and/or non-government organization (NGO) representatives, and train them appropriately: •

Use government representatives who are approachable, well-spoken, knowledgeable and who are comfortable giving presentations to large and obstinate groups (Kessler, 2004; Smith et al., 2006).

•

Train staff on public consultation techniques, consensus building, and conflict resolution mechanisms.

•

Use government employees from the community to conduct community outreach activities. These employees will already have local connections and may be viewed with less skepticism or distrust: o And/or, hire knowledgeable and skilled local NGO representatives or professional consultants to engage communities through presentations, informal information sessions and workshops. o Once suitable outreach staff have been identified, use outreach activities to inform the public of MPA options, the ecological characteristics and significance of the area, and the tangible benefits and costs that may result from MPA establishment.

6

•

Use examples from other MPA establishment processes and bring in people from similar communities who can speak to the success of their MPA (Roberts and Hawkins, 2005).

•

At all times, outreach representatives should be open and transparent with information. Representatives must not promise more than is possible to deliver and must be consistently up-front with what is happening!

A useful approach: Where to place an NMCA in the Bay of Fundy marine region? NMCAs are to be established in all 29 marine regions across Canada (PC, 2006). Theoretically, there are many potential areas within one marine region that could be considered of significant ecological interest. Finding the areas of high conservation/representative value that also have local support for NMCA establishment is tantamount to success (Sheppard, 2004). Sheppard (2004) conducted a series of interviews with a diverse group of subjects to determine the best location and process for establishing an NMCA in the Bay of Fundy ecoregion. She determined that the St. Mary’s Bay/Brier Island area would be the best location because of the area’s high conservation value, the lack of previous broad-scale conservation projects in the region, and the potential for community support – “the community organizations…are not necessarily at odds with NMCA establishment” (178). Sheppard’s research also revealed the areas where an NMCA should not be established, since one or more of the above factors were absent. Her approach researching the biological and social aspects of NMCA establishment, through a literature review and interviews - is a comprehensive one, and should be considered for other NMCA marine regions and areas of interest. If preliminary groundwork is done correctly, it will help elicit support for, and inform the public about, MPAs. It is also a fundamental method of gathering valuable local ecological and social knowledge for use in later stages of the planning process (Fenton et al., 2000). As noted above, another very important outcome of preliminary consultation is the building of trust, as well as the building of specific relationships. Stakeholders will have more trust in a government agency if the agency demonstrates consistent support for the project. This support begins at the stage of preliminary groundwork, which is therefore very important in the maintenance of trust at later stages (Dovetail, 2005). Additionally, although stakeholders may not be in agreement with the concept of an MPA, they will respond positively to consultation if they feel that their input is acknowledged and integrated into the planning process (Kessler, 2004). This is one of the principal ‘Core Values’ of public participation (IAPP, 2007), and it will be referenced several more times in this discussion paper. Establishing MPAs is a slow process that can take years before official designation. The process should not be rushed by foregoing the necessary public consultation steps. If preliminary groundwork is done poorly, or not conducted at all, there can be serious repercussions: unaddressed fears and misconceptions can lead to greater opposition; failure to conduct a situational analysis can lead to agency staff being unprepared and caught offguard by unexpected events; and untrained/unsuitable staff can anger and alienate stakeholders. In light of these challenges, a realistic timescale should be acknowledged from the beginning of the MPA establishment process. Outcomes of insufficient preliminary groundwork Puerto Rico Fiske (1992) conducted two case studies of MPA establishment efforts – one successful and the other unsuccessful. The unsuccessful case study involved efforts in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Originally, three potential marine sanctuary sites were selected by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources (DNR) after consultation with sanctuary program officials 7

in Washington, D.C. A public hearing was held at one of the selections, but there was a large level of public opposition so efforts shifted to La Parguera. Although DNR hired a person to publicize the goals of the sanctuary, local interest groups organized in opposition before the public hearings and virtually all of the local interest groups were against the sanctuary at the public hearings. Fiske (1992) concluded that the proposed sanctuary was undermined by an underestimation of the diversity and strength of interest groups, it was beleaguered by language and translation difficulties, and DNR’s effort was reactive rather than proactive. Canada In Canada, an example of failed marine protected area implementation is the Bonavista / Notre-Dame Bays NMCA in Newfoundland and Labrador. The major problems that led to its rejection by a Parks Canada established advisory committee in 1999 included: insufficient financial resources for public outreach and consultation; vague structure, vision and objectives; public distrust of both DFO and Parks Canada; and lack of DFO involvement. Public distrust resulted in poor communication and an undermining of the process by interest groups, while a lack of DFO involvement reduced community confidence in the process (Lien, 2000). It is important to keep in mind that all situations are different and that there is not one correct way of doing things - the amount and type of preliminary groundwork required for one area will be quite different from that required in another area. Regardless of the situation, however, the steps described above are the ‘best practices’ that agencies should follow at the preliminary stages of MPA establishment. Process Initiation and Management After the necessary preliminary groundwork has been conducted, formal public consultation and engagement begins. Agency staff should, at this point in time, have a clear idea of the following: the history and socio-economic status of the region; the stakeholder groups; the stakeholders’ perceptions and opinions of MPA establishment, and therefore, the allies and opposition; the geographical areas where an MPA is likely/unlikely to succeed; and the types of engagement mechanisms that would work best for that region. Best practices that have been applied at the preliminary groundwork stage will be reiterated, since several practices span all stages of engagement. The best practices related to process initiation and management consist of the following six main components. Engagement Mechanisms Consult stakeholders on their preferred engagement mechanisms, and employ a variety of mechanisms to engage all interested stakeholders: •

“Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate” (IAPP, 2007). This step should have been largely captured in the preliminary stages, but as a process progresses it can grow and become more intricate, requiring greater and more diverse participation methods.

•

As Webler et al. (2001) discovered, different people have different perceptions of what constitutes good process. For instance, some believe that a process should promote equal power among participants, whereas others believe a process should promote a search for common values. Agencies, therefore, need to “take the time to listen to what people want … and find a way to involve at least the most outspoken of these parties in the design” (Webler et al., 2001; 448).

8

•

If the stakeholder groups vary, a variety of engagement mechanisms should be used: “meet variety with variety” (Smith, 2006; pers. comm.). The more participatory mechanisms that are used throughout a process, the greater the number of stakeholder groups who participate in the process (Brody et al., 2003). These mechanisms include: o Information sessions, listening sessions2, workshops, public meetings, bilateral meetings, review panels, and advisory committees (Kessler, 2004); o Some suitable techniques for getting information out include email updates, radio advertisements, newsletters, websites, posters, and brochures (at the appropriate literacy level); o MPA planning may be a component of DFO integrated management initiatives, thus reducing the preliminary groundwork and outreach required, since this groundwork should be a component of the integrated management program. Nevertheless, if community support for MPA planning exists, lack of an integrated management program should not be treated as an impediment to engagement.

•

MPA co-management may be the best management structure for the region. As an example, the Beaufort Sea MPA is co-managed because of the nature of the agreements between First Nations and government (Guénette and Alder, 2007).

•

“Participants function best when they have a broad understanding of the total picture” (Kelleher and Kenchington, 1991). Obtaining a broad understanding of the total picture is obtained through access to clear, culturally specific, and relevant information.

Advisory committees The National Marine Conservation Areas Act mandates that advisory committees be established for all NMCAs. Although not mandated, advisory committees are also used for Oceans Act MPAs (e.g. The Gully). There are many benefits of using an advisory committee as a primary engagement mechanism: they allow for a diversity of representation, while being of a functional size; ideally there is committed representation from all stakeholder groups that will last throughout the process; and they allow for collaborative, consensusbased decision-making. As with all forms of public consultation, advisory committees face several challenges. These challenges include establishing an adequate reporting mechanism between representatives and their communities of interest, the time commitment required by representatives, and ensuring that representatives can speak for their communities of interest (Hedley, 2006). Once an advisory committee is established, Terms of Reference need to be created with clearly articulated purpose, principles, structure, decision-rules, and other necessary terms. It is recommended that government not chair this committee alone; it should be co-chaired by an aboriginal representative, community representative, or other stakeholder representative. Co-chairing exhibits confidence in the stakeholders and establishes stakeholder trust in the government agency and other committee representatives. Inclusiveness Involve all interested stakeholder groups and seek out those who are not engaged (Lundquist and Granek, 2005; Dovetail, 2005; IAPP, 2006): •

The continued involvement of those stakeholders who were engaged in preliminary discussions strengthens relationships and social networks (Jones, 2002).

2

Information sessions provide information to the public. For example, the lead agency may set up a booth at a community event so that the public can obtain materials and ask questions. Listening sessions are sessions in which the lead agency provides space and time for the public to voice opinions and concerns.

9

•

An important question for managers to ask is ‘who is not participating?’ (Konisky and Beierle, 2001). Winchester (2001) evaluated public involvement in Marine Protected Area planning in the Maritimes during the period following shortly after passage of the Oceans Act and found that at that time DFO managers generally talked to those who were well known and familiar to them. Awareness of this tendency then led to an improvement in the approach taken in the Maritimes region. Effort must be made to reach out beyond the ‘usual suspects’ and involve unfamiliar groups/stakeholders.

•

Laurian (2004) found that those who trust the leading government agency are unlikely to participate in environmental decision-making processes, since they believe their opinions and values will be captured. Resignation to an unsatisfactory situation and lack of awareness of public meetings are two additional explanations for non-participation (Laurian, 2004). People who fall into these categories should be encouraged to become involved, by using the outreach efforts listed above.

•

The barriers to engagement should be apparent by this stage. These often include limited capacity (resources, knowledge and time), lack of organization, and reluctance to collaborate (Crowfoot and Wondolleck, 1990; Pettit, 1997). Reduce these barriers using appropriate avenues. For example, provide financial assistance to stakeholders for travel to meetings/workshops, or hold meetings in the community in question; create tailored communication materials; increase access to information; stress commonalities and resolve misperceptions through open discussions and creation of a shared purpose (Pettit, 1997).

•

According to Halvorsen (2003), access to a public participation process is closely linked to representation, which in turn is linked to public perceptions of fairness. Similarly, Smith and MacDonough (2001) believed that people judge the fairness of a process by their direct participation in decisions and the ability to voice their opinions. Lauber and Knuth (1999) believed that if decision-making procedures are perceived as fair, then the resulting decisions are more likely to be perceived as fair. Additionally, if stakeholders view a process as being ‘fair’, it is often viewed as a ‘good’ public participation process (Webler et al., 2001).

Access

Representation Direct Participation Voice Input Used

Fairness Good Process

Figure 1

Steps that constitute good process

Purpose Articulate a common purpose and create clear goals and objectives early in the process (Sterne, 1997; Bernstein et al., 2004; Lundquist and Granek, 2005; Smith et al., 2006): •

Articulating a purpose and creating goals and objectives help clarify the expectations of all parties. If expectations are stated and clarified, all parties will have a common ground on which to base their involvement. This activity also helps build relationships among participants. 10

•

Specific process goals and objectives should be created early and stated often. For example: Decisions will be made by consensus. Consensus implies that everyone can live with the decision.

•

Conservation goals and specific MPA objectives will result from good process, which consists of inclusive discussions, shared information, knowledgeable participants, effective leadership, and scientific support.

•

Clarify at an early stage, by reference to applicable laws and policies, who will make the final decisions (Kessler, 2004).

Leadership Provide effective leadership, regardless of whether this is provided by agency staff, facilitators, NGOs representatives, or stakeholders who are chairing committees (Bernstein et al., 2004; Dovetail, 2005; Guénette and Alder, 2007): •

According to Bernstein et al. (2004), effective leaders are those who can take initiative, generate trust, build relationships based on honesty, guide and foster communications through mutual understanding, and demonstrate flexibility, adaptability and opportunism. Additional specific traits include the ability to openly listen, delegate tasks to others, articulate the decision-making process, and find/provide all necessary information.

•

As stated above (in Preliminary Groundwork), having the right staff is very important in public participation processes. Sample (1993) provided useful recommendations for ‘Speaking as a Professional’ in natural resource decision-making: o Understand the issues; realize how opinions are shaped; know your listeners; describe yourself; state your concern for natural resources; be specific; have a clear purpose and strategy; be calm; don’t blame; offer a perspective; focus on the facts, but identify opinions and values; raise questions; be brief; practice; follow up; and keep at it. o Although staff training is essential, successful leadership is strongly linked to the personality of the leader. It is counter-productive to directly engage persons as leaders in public processes who are uncomfortable dealing with the public, have poor communication skills, are impatient, have limited knowledge of the subject matter, or have a pessimistic approach.

•

Drucker (1973) believed that “decisions … are not made well by acclamation. They are made well only if based on the clash of conflicting views, the dialogue between different points of view, and the choice between different judgements” (472). Leaders should be trained in conflict resolution techniques so that rather than being overwhelmed by conflict, dissenting opinions are used constructively to form decisions. Additionally, time is valuable; it should be spent on furthering the process, rather than on process-stalling conflicts. The following are several conflict prevention and resolution suggestions: o Have a clear agenda and purpose. o Allow participants to voice their opinions, but keep discussions on topic and within the time allotted. o Implement a collaborative process that uses consensus-based decision-making. If consensus cannot be reached, several mechanisms can be employed: discuss what would need to change to get full support; allow more time; seek additional data and information; convene a small meeting; elicit a mutually-agreed-upon ‘independent expert’; use a neutral external third party (facilitator or mediator); agree on the nature of the disagreement and present recommendations to the decision-makers (BLSmith Groupwork, 2005). 11

•

Hire a professional facilitator, since facilitators should have the knowledge and experience to guide discussions (Dovetail, 2005; Smith et al., 2006). Facilitators are not required for every public consultation scenario, nor are they a panacea for processes that are not going well. There may be fundamental problems with process design that need improvement before a facilitator can become useful. Three necessary skills of a facilitator include the ability to create a climate of support and openness within the group, the ability to encourage participants to express their feelings and contribute their ideas, and the ability to encourage active participation and to share the leadership role (Sharman, 1993). “Skilled facilitation can assist stakeholders to discover and agree on shared principles and values” (Bernstein et al., 2004; 17).

Attributes of an effective committee chair Committee chairs may or may not be trained process leaders. For instance, an MPA advisory committee may be co-chaired by a lead government agency representative and an Aboriginal, NGO, industry or community representative. Effectively chairing a committee is a special skill. In Sharman’s (1993) book “The Perfect Meeting”, the tasks of the chairperson are separated into six general categories: 1) Getting the meeting underway 2) Guiding the meeting on through each successive stage, by way of the agenda 3) Summarizing each stage before moving on – thereby unequivocally establishing what has been the agreed course of action 4) Ensuring a written record is kept of all mutual decisions and agreed action – this can then be referred back to as an aid for later meetings 5) Guiding the meeting away from detrimental areas of conflict, back on to areas of common ground as a basis for discussion 6) Ensuring that all participants have the opportunity to contribute to the meeting (Sharman, 1993; 32). In order for the chair to successfully perform the above tasks, he/she should have a positive approach and be prepared with all of the necessary background information and the knowledge of what the meeting is set to achieve. Chairs establish objectives and timescales, they stimulate and facilitate discussion and limit conflict by establishing boundaries of what is to be discussed (Sharman, 1993). Regardless of how co-chairs are chosen, it is the duty of the lead agency to nurture chairs by providing them with the necessary tools for effective leadership. These include, but are not limited to, guidance and advice from a hired facilitator and reading materials on effective meeting strategies (for examples, see: Sharman, 1993; Fisher et al., 1991). Science Ensure that available socio-economic and ecological science is integrated into the planning process: •

MPA mapping, using software like “MARXAN” or “Zonation”, can be a very useful tool in MPA consultations. It must be used with care, however, since stakeholders may be distrustful of unfamiliar statistical methods and zoning techniques. Stakeholders should be included in the map-making process (Bernstein et al., 2004), and their direct involvement in sophisticated mapping methods will lessen their distrust of those methods.

12

•

Bernstein et al. (2004) suggested that scientists should not be separated from other stakeholders, and if there must be a separate science advisory group then stakeholders should be evenly represented.

•

Fenton et al. (2000) believed that an indicator of successful community-based MPAs is scientific support. What requires protection and why a particular site has been selected for this purpose need to be clearly defined from an ecological standpoint using language that stakeholders understand.

•

“Marine Protected Areas are destined to fall short of biological and social goals unless social sciences are deliberately integrated into the design and evaluation process” (Christie et al., 2003; 23). Socio-economic goals, objectives and indicators should be created alongside their ecological counterparts (Pomeroy et al., 2004).

•

Davis (2005), in his review of the California Channel Islands marine reserve planning process, noted that there was a disparity in the socio-economic and technical ecological information available to stakeholders. Maximum potential economic losses were compared to minimum likely environmental benefits, which contributed to a compromised decision of fewer reserves and less total protected area. Scientific information used in the planning process must be realistic and honestly portrayed.

Other Additional best practices that are not captured in the above headings include: •

Evaluation – there should be on-going evaluation throughout the MPA planning and establishment process. Evaluation methods include feedback forms, participant surveys, and internal/external specialist evaluation.

•

Flexibility – build in flexibility. Processes rarely run as originally planned; therefore, planners need to be open to alternatives.

•

Compensation – consider compensation programs and alternative income projects for negatively-affected stakeholders (Pollnac, 2001).

•

Logistics – the ‘care and feeding’ of participants is important (Schindler and Neburka, 1997). Consider room size, set-up, and comfort. Keep participants well fed.

•

Acknowledgement – acknowledge stakeholder commitment, knowledge, and skills. Stakeholders want to know that their participation is meaningful. This is accomplished through decision-making that incorporates stakeholder input, and on a more simple level, informing stakeholders how important they are to the process.

•

Government support and commitment – as during preliminary groundwork, exhibiting long-term government support and commitment is vitally important to engaging stakeholders. Interagency cooperation is a necessity in MPA establishment processes, since MPAs usually fall within multiple jurisdictions (see box above outlining the major flaw in the Terra Nova NMCA process, which was lack of DFO involvement).

After MPA Establishment It is hoped that public engagement and consultation will lead to MPA establishment, but engagement will not end with MPA establishment because management plans and public engagement in management, if not already in existence, will be required for the MPA. An advisory committee created prior to establishment is a suitable engagement mechanism to 13

continue this participation. The best practices recommended above should be continued throughout this process. There is a continued need for evaluation, including process and MPA evaluation. Some criteria to help assess whether an MPA establishment process was effective include the following (adapted from Bernstein et al., 2004): • Was the required preliminary groundwork conducted? • Were the results from this groundwork used in developing process design? • Did the process designate an MPA? • Does the MPA adhere to the goals established by the designation process? • Does the MPA design take account of the best available ecological, fisheries, and socio-economic knowledge? • Was there a strong level of support for the designation among stakeholders? • Were relationships among stakeholders supported sufficiently by the process that future collaboration for managing the MPA has been facilitated? • Is there an evaluation strategy that will operate into the future? Specific MPA objectives, strategies and actions created during consultations should be used to monitor the effectiveness of the MPA. Evaluation is an on-going process that requires the engagement of specialists, both internal to the government department and external to it. Conservation Objectives Several researchers have suggested that conservation objectives are compromised when the public participates in natural resource decision-making. For instance, McClosky (1999) believed that increased public participation leads to decisions that are often at odds with conservation objectives. Roberts (2000) envisioned a spectrum of factors in marine reserve selection where human factors dominate one end of the spectrum, and biological considerations dominate the other end. Roberts believed the only way to satisfy both ends of the spectrum in reserve selection is to compromise to the middle of the spectrum. This scenario is labeled “Roberts’ dilemma”. Since every public consultation scenario is different, it would be irresponsible to assume that conservation objectives will always be compromised; this would be selling the public short. If the public has been given clear, culturally-specific information on why an area is ecologically significant and the methods by which it could be protected, the public will be willing to discuss protection and management options. Additionally, if the above recommendations are followed – conducting the necessary groundwork, forming inclusive and meaningful engagement mechanisms, providing effective leadership, stating a clear purpose and objectives, including available socio-economic and ecological science – participants will be much more likely to support the necessary conservation objectives. In reference to Roberts’ dilemma, since each specific site selection case is unique, the nature of any compromise regarding site selection should take full account of the varying weights of the relevant siteselection parameters. Following this, if site selection has been done well, there may be fewer compromises to make for MPA establishment. This is not to say that process participants will agree to every conservation recommendation, or that there will be complete unanimity – there will be opposition to certain objectives, strategies and actions. To prevent the process from stalling and/or ending in conflicts, planners must be flexible and adaptable. Effective leadership and facilitation should resolve such conflicts. NMCA establishment is intended to be very dynamic and flexible, since there are multiple zoning options for different uses. Sometimes, however, there are “no compromise points”, 14

meaning that a specific area may require specific protection measures. For example, this may mean that “this specific habitat bounded by these parameters must be protected”, rather than “20% of the area within these geographic co-ordinates must be protected”. This situation is well illustrated by the case of the Gully MPA in which zoning is designed to protect core biodiversity values in a core habitat. Points such as this should be articulated and clearly identified from the beginning of the public participation process. Again, being up front with the public about why an MPA is necessary and why stakeholder involvement is important goes a long way in assuring that there will be public support for establishing an MPA. CONCLUSION “Quality participation may change citizens’ beliefs about government responsiveness” (Halvorsen, 2003; 536) This report has presented recommendations for best practices related to public engagement and consultation in the establishment of MPAs in Canada. The following is a summary of the key best practices that a regulatory agency should undertake: • Conduct preliminary groundwork, including: o Education o A situational analysis o Early discussions, and o Outreach • Provide multiple, accessible, engagement mechanisms; • Ensure inclusive and meaningful participation; • Provide effective leadership; • Establish a clear purpose; • Integrate socio-economic and ecological science; • Provide ongoing evaluation; and • Exhibit constant government support and commitment. In order for these recommendations to be applied nationally, federal departments mandated to establish MPAs should: • Collaborate by sharing materials for public education and outreach; • Run joint workshops/training sessions where the following topics are covered: o Public consultation in natural resource planning, including best practices o Education and outreach techniques o Methods for establishing successful consensus-based decision-making o Techniques for conflict resolution and effective leadership • Provide this document to all relevant departments and agencies.

15

REFERENCES Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4): 216-224. Bernstein, B., Iudicello, S., and C. Stringer. 2004. Lessons learned from recent marine protected area designations in the US; A report to the National MPAs centre NOAA. 88pp. California National Fisheries Conservation Centre. URL: http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/lessons_learned_table.html BLSmith Groupwork. 2005. Conflict, Collaboration and Consensus in the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative. Prepared for Oceans and Coastal Management Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Oceans and Coastal Management Report 2005-05. Brailovskaya, T. 1998. Obstacles to protecting marine biodiversity through marine wilderness preservation: examples from the New England region. Conservation Biology 12(6):12361240. Brody, S.D., D.R. Godschalk, and R.J. Burby. 2003. Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. American Planning Association Journal 69(3):245262. Buck, J.V. 1984. The impact of citizen participation programs and policy decisions on participants’ opinions. The Western Political Quarterly 37(3): 468-482. Christie, P., et al. 2003. Toward developing a complete understanding: a social science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries 28(12):22-26. Crowfoot, J.E. and J.M. Wondolleck. 1990. Environmental Disputes: Community Involvement in Dispute Resolution. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Davis, G.E. 2005. Science and society: marine reserve design for the California Channel Islands. Conservation Biology 19(6):1745-1751. Dovetail Consulting. 2005. Recommendations for effective marine planning processes. Document prepared for Living Oceans Society and WWF-Canada. URL: www.wwf.ca/Documents/Marine/MarinePlanningSummaryTNR.pdf Drucker, P.F. 1973. Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row. Fenton, D.G., Macnab, P., Simms, J., and D. Duggan. 2000. Developing Marine Protected Areas programs in Atlantic Canada – a summary of community involvement and discussions to date. pp 1413-1426, In: Managing Protected Areas in a Changing World. BondrupNielson, S., Munro, N.W.P., Nelson, G., Willison, J.H.M., Herman, T.B., and Eagles, P. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Forth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Wolfville, NS. 1534p. Fiske, S.J. 1992. Sociocultural aspects of establishing marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management 17(1):25-46.

16

Fisher, R., Ury, W., and B. Patton. 1991. Getting to Yes. 2nd edition. New York: Penguin Books. 187p. Government of Canada. 2005. Canada’s Federal Marine Protected Areas Strategy. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. URL: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/oceans/mpazpm/fedmpa-zpmfed/pdf/mpa_e.pdf Guénette, S. and J. Alder. 2007. Lessons from Marine Protected Areas and integrated ocean management initiatives in Canada. Coastal Management 35:51-78. Halvorsen, K. 2003. Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review 63(5): 535. Hedley, C.D. 2006. Collaboration and Stakeholder Influence in the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative. Master of Environmental Studies Thesis: School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University. 140p. Henwood, B. 2003. Toward a National Marine Conservation Area in the Southern Strait of Georgia. Proceedings from the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Research Conference URL: http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/03_proceedings/PAPERS/ORAL/8a_henwo.pdf. IAPP (International Association of Public Participation). 2007. Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation. URL: http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=4 Jones, J.S. 2002. MPA Perspective: Advice for promoting participation of authorities and stakeholders in MPA planning. MPA News 3(7): 5. Kelleher, G. and R. Kenchington. 1991. Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 90p. Kessler, B.L. 2004. Stakeholder Participation: A Synthesis of Current Literature. Prepared by the National Marine Protected Areas Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Centre. Konisky, D.M. and T.C. Beierle. 2001. Innovations in public participation and environmental decision making: examples from the Great Lakes Region. Society and Natural Resources 14:815-826. Lauber, T.B. and B.A. Knuth. 1999. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: a case study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources 11:19-37. Laurian, L. 2004. Public participation in environmental decision making. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(1):53-65. Lien, J. 2000. When marine conservation efforts sink: What can be learned from the abandoned effort to examine the feasibility of a National Marine Conservation Area on the NE Coast of Newfoundland. In: Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA) 16th Conference, Ottawa, October 1999 Ecogifts, Canadian Achievements and Challenges, in press. Lundquist, C.J. and E.F. Granek. 2005. Strategies for successful marine conservation: integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conservation Biology. 19(6): 17711778.

17

Mascia, M.B. 2003. The human dimension of coral reef marine protected areas: recent social science research and its policy implications. Conservation Biology 17(2): 630-632. McClosky, M. 1999. Local communities and the management of public forests. Ecology Law Quarterly 25:4. Morin, T. 2002. ‘Tis a Peopled Sea: Incorporating Human Considerations into the Design and Management of Marine Protected Areas. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation: Environmental, Coastal, and Ocean Science Department, University of Massachusetts. 204p. Morin Dalton, T. 2005. Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of US marine protected areas. Conservation Biology. 19(5):1392-1401. MPA News. 2007. Educating Stakeholders about MPAs: Practitioners use an array of methods. MPA News 8(7):1-4. PC (Parks Canada). 2006. National Marine Conservation Areas of Canada. URL: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/amnc-nmca/intro/index_e.asp Pettitt, C.D. 1997. Enhancing Public Participation in the Multistakeholder Approach to Resource Management. Master of Environmental Studies Thesis: School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie Univeristy. 182pp. Pollnac, R.B. et al. 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:683710. Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. and L.M. Watson. 2004. How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xvi + 216p. Roberts, C. 2000. Selecting marine reserve locations: optimality versus opportunism. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3):581-592. Roberts, C.M. and J.P. Hawkins. 2005. Fully-protected marine reserves: a guide. WWF Endangered Seas Campaign, 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA and Environment Department, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. Sample, V.A. 1993. A framework for public participation in natural resource decision-making. Journal of Forestry 91:22-27. Schindler, B. and J. Neburka. 1997. Public participation in forest planning: 8 attributes of success. Journal of Forestry 95(1):17-19. SCBD (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity). 2004. Technical advice on the establishment and management of a national system of marine and coastal protected areas. CBD Technical Series No. 13. 40pp. Sharman, D. 1993. The Perfect Meeting. New York: Wings Books. 82p. Sheppard, V.K. 2004. Developing a Strategic Framework for National Marine Conservation Area Establishment in the Bay of Fundy. Master of Environmental Studies Thesis: School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University. 221p.

18

Smith, B.L. 2006. Personal communication. Smith, J.L., Lewis, L., and J. Laughren. 2006. A Policy and Planning Framework for Marine Protected Area Networks in Canada’s Oceans. WWF-Canada: Halifax. 105p Smith, P.D. and M.H. MacDonough. 2001. Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society and Natural Resources 14:239-249. Sterne, P. 1997. Public Consultation Guide: Changing the Relationship between Government and Canadians. Management Practices No. 19. Canadian Centre for Management Development. Stump, N.E., and L.K. Kriwoken. 2006. Tasmanian marine protected areas: Attitudes and perceptions of wild capture fishers. Ocean and Coastal Management 49:298-307. Suman, D., Shivlani, M., and J.W. Milon. 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean and Coastal Management 42:1019-1040. Walker, P.A. and P.T. Hurley. 2004. Collaboration derailed: the politics of “community-based” resource management in Nevada County. Society and Natural Resources 17:735-751. Webler, T., Tuler, S., and R. Krueger. 2001. What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management 27(3):435-450. Worcester, K. 2001. Evaluating Public Involvement in Marine Protected Area Planning: Trials and Tribulations on the East Coast. Masters of Marine Management Project: Marine Affairs Program, Dalhousie University. 94p.

19

Appendix A

Federal marine management measures (Government of Canada, 2005)

Appendix B International Association for Public Participation Core Values webpage: http://www.iap2.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=4

IAP2 Core Values As an international leader in public participation, IAP2 has developed the "IAP2 Core Values for Public Participation" for use in the development and implementation of public participation processes. These core values were developed over a two year period with broad international input to identify those aspects of public participation which cross national, cultural, and religious boundaries. The purpose of these core values is to help make better decisions which reflect the interests and concerns of potentially affected people and entities.

Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation 1. The public should have a say in decisions about actions that could affect their lives. 2. Public participation includes the promise that the public's contribution will influence the decision. 3. Public participation promotes sustainable decisions by recognizing and communicating the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers. 4. Public participation seeks out and facilitates the involvement of those potentially affected by or interested in a decision. 5. Public participation seeks input from participants in designing how they participate. 6. Public participation provides participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way. 7. Public participation communicates to participants how their input affected the decision.

11166 Huron Street. Suite 27 / Denver, CO 80234 USA / E-mail [email protected] 1-800-644-4273 tollfree / 1-303-451-5945 Outside N. America / 1-303-458-0002 Fax