Watershed Voices in Prince Edward Island - PEI Watershed Alliance

Watershed Voices in Prince Edward Island:Hearing from Watershed GroupsDarren Bardati, PhD

This report is a product of the studyCommunity-Based Watershed Planning in PEI: Voices from the FieldByDarren Bardati, PhDFormer Director of Environmental Studies, University of Prince Edward Island (2008-2010)Currently: Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop’s UniversityWatershed Voices in Prince Edward Island: Hearing from Watershed GroupsISBN: 978-0-9868476-0-8Copyright © 2011 by Darren BardatiAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by anymeans, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author.This copyrighted report is intended for distribution to, and use by, those who were directlyinvolved in the study, particularly the PEI watershed groups, the PEI Watershed Alliance, andthe PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry.AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank all the people in the watershed community in PEI who graciously took the time out oftheir busy schedules to speak to me and show me around their watersheds. In my research, I can only thinkand write about the issues and challenges you that are facing, and the progress that you makingconcerning the health of PEI watersheds. However, you are the people who are living with, caring about,and improving the watersheds daily. I also thank the Minister, the deputy Minister, the directors and staffin the PEI Department of Environment, Energy and Forestry, who showed interest in this research project,and kindly answered my questions and provided me with maps and other information.Any errors or omissions in this report remain solely my responsibility.This research project was conducted with the financial support of a research grant from the University ofPrince Edward Island, spring 2009 competition.Your feedback is welcomedIf you have any comments, questions or suggestions regarding this report, please send them to me atdbardati@ubishops.ca, Fax 819-822-9661, or mail to Box 33, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, QC J1M 1Z7D. BardatiJanuary 19 th , 20112 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Table of Contents______________________________________(In the digital version of this report, each heading below can be clicked to go directly to that section)Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 4Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………………………… 6UPEI Research Ethics Board Approval………………….…………………………….. 9Conceptual Approach………….………………………………………………………………. 10Methods…………………………………………………….………………………….…………..… 18Summary of Interview Results………………………………………………………….… 23Discussion: Fostering Deliberation, Integration and Resilience……….…. 48Conclusion: PEI Watersheds in Transition………………....………………………. 58References…………………………………………………………………………………………… 60Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………. 64I) Consent Form 65II) Interview Questionnaire 68III) Presentations Given by the Author 71IV) Media Attention Given to this Study 72V) Author Information 733 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Executive Summary____________________________________ Back to ContentsThis document is a report of a study conducted on the contributions of watershedgroups in PEI to improved watershed management in the province. Its main focus ison a series of interviews conducted with a representative from each of the thirty or sopublicly-funded community-based watershed groups in the province, during thesummer of 2009.This study was conducted independent of any government and private partyintervention. It was funded by a research grant from the University of Prince EdwardIsland, the award of which was given following a competitive peer-review process.In the pages that follow, you will find the study’s purpose and objectives, ethicalreview process, conceptual approach, methods, summary of interview results and areflective discussion and conclusion. As well, five appendices contain the consentform, interview questionnaire, a list of presentations given related to this study, somemedia attention to this study, and information about the author. The digital version ofthe report has been fitted with hyperlinks so that one can easily skip to any section andback to the table of contents.This study was conducted from a social sciences perspective and contains theoreticalreflections drawn from the academic literature in the fields of ecology, sociology andpolitical studies. The study helps to give meaning to the voices of the communitybasedwatershed groups in their efforts to restore the environmental conditions oftheir watersheds, to develop and implement watershed plans and to contribute tooverall watershed governance in the province. It has been said that “there is nothingmore practical than a good theory”, and that may well be true if one seeks to gaininsights on how to give meaning to the observations one conducts. Consequently, thetheory of deliberative democracy and the theory of resilience in social-ecologicalsystems (also called ‘complex adaptive cycle theory’) serve as the foundation(described on pages 10-17) for reflections and assigning meaning to these watershed4 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Purpose of the Study____________________________________ Back to ContentsThe purpose of this research project is to undertake an assessment of the capacity ofcommunity-based watershed groups on Prince Edward Island to perform watershedimprovement operations, to develop and implement watershed plans, and tocontribute to overall watershed governance in the province.The objectives of this research are:1. To examine the structure (formation, membership, funding, decisionmaking),goals and accomplishments of the watershed groups on the Island;2. To solicit information about their perceptions of effectiveness inaccomplishing their goals;3. To examine any perceived barriers to their perceived effectiveness;4. To compare and examine any commonalities and differences amongwatershed groups;5. To analyze what characteristics, if any, influence the perceived success ofthe groups; and,6. To examine the watershed groups’ overall contribution to water governancein the province.This study is envisioned as an initial exploratory examination into the “voices from thefield” by gathering primary data from personal interviews with key informants in allpublicly-funded watershed groups in the province (approximately 31) in order tosystematically examine and compare their perceptions of effectiveness inaccomplishing their goals.Consequently, the study does not purport to arrive at a definitive and comprehensivestatement on the state of watershed governance in the province of PEI. Rather, thestudy is an initial foray into what the community-based watershed groups have to sayabout it, in light of their experiences.6 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

planning in sub-national water governance regimes, and how the resilience of socialecologicalsystems is increased or diminished through multi-scale planning anddecision-making. The application of these theoretical insights serves to illuminate theobservations from empirical studies of watershed deliberations, plans and activities,and likewise the empirical studies help refine the theoretical developments.On the applied level, this study aims to contribute toward improving watershedgovernance at both the provincial and community levels. It is expected that thisresearch will build upon the PEI government’s public consultations on watershedplanning (Environmental Advisory Council, 2007) and act on its Recommendation #30which states that “watershed groups should be provided the opportunity to have inputinto government and university research” (page 43 of the report “We are alldownstream, We are all upstream”). In providing this opportunity, this study may 1)help provide a broader context for the work that watershed groups are going; 2) helpcontribute to general public awareness and education of watershed issues; and 3) beused to inform ongoing provincial watershed policy development.Furthermore, while the ultimate goal of the research is inquiry and knowledgegeneration, not advocacy, this study’s very transparent aim, based on a solidtheoretical foundation, of “giving voice” to the watershed groups’ perspectives, theiraccomplishments, their challenges, serves to support their contributions towardimproved environmental conditions on the Island.As such, by focusing on the watershed groups’ “voices from the field” as the object ofresearch, it is hoped that this project will help fill a gap in the literature and contributetoward a more comprehensive and comparative analysis than is currently available,and will generate new knowledge and practical insights for use by academics,community members and provincial governments.8 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

UPEI Research Ethics Board Approval____________________ Back to ContentsBecause this research project involves human participants, I needed to obtain an ethicscertificate from the Research Ethics Board (REB) at the University of Prince EdwardIsland, since UPEI has agreed to comply with the Tri-Council Policy Statement: EthicalConduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) 1 .The TCPS is a joint policy of Canada’s three federal research agencies – the CanadianInstitutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering ResearchCouncil of Canada (NSERC), and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada (SSHRC) – and expresses their continuing commitment to the people ofCanada to promote the ethical conduct of research involving humans.In the spring of 2009, I submitted an application form to the UPEI REB, including theconsent form (Appendix I) and questionnaire (Appendix II). The application andassociated appendices outlined the objectives of the research, identified the risks andbenefits to the study participants, explained how the raw data obtained from theinterviews would be treated confidentially, how the data would be aggregated in anyreport to ensure anonymity of the participants, and how all the data and informationgenerated in the study would be stored safely to protect against unauthorised use.This research obtained REB certificate #6003225 on June 9, 2009 by the University ofPrince Edward Island, enabling me to proceed with the interviews.Consequently, in keeping with the ethics requirement, all personal names have beenremoved, as well as any other identifier which would link to a person the datacontained in the results and in any quotes displayed in this report.1 See the TCPS document at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf9 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Conceptual Approach___________________________________ Back to ContentsMy research approach is based on insights from two interesting and relevant areas oftheoretical development - deliberative democratic theory and the theory of resilience ofsocial-ecological systems. Because both theoretical frameworks have been developedwithin separate academic disciples - deliberative democratic theory from politicalscience and sociology, and resilience from ecology – one might not expect, at firstglance, that the two theories would be able to serve jointly as a basis for any study. Yetsince my study deals with political, social and ecological aspects which cannotreasonably be disaggregated in the reality of every day life, I found it fruitful to borrowfrom these two seemingly disparate (yet quite complementary I think) theories todesign my conceptual approach. Therefore, insights from both theories serve as afoundation for exploring and giving meaning to the voices of watershed groups in thisstudy.Insights from deliberative democratic theoryDeliberative democracy, also referred to as discursive democracy, refers to any systemof political decisions based on some tradeoff of consensus decision making andrepresentative democracy (Dryzek 2000). Talk-centric approaches are favoured overvoting-centric approaches to decision-making. Instead of emphasizing voting as thecentral institution in democracy, deliberative democracy theorists argue thatlegitimate lawmaking can only arise from the public deliberation of the citizenry.Collective choices are to be made through reasoned discussion rather than by blindacceptance of the views of established authorities, by deals concluded among vestedinterests, or by recourse to intimidation (Fischer 2000). According to Chambers(2003, 309): “Deliberative democratic theory critically investigates the quality,substance, and rationality of the arguments and reasons brought to defend policy andlaw. It studies and evaluates the institutions, forums, venues and public spaces10 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

available for deliberative justification and accountability. It looks at the social,economic, political and historic conditions necessary for healthy deliberation as well asthe attitudes, behaviours, and beliefs required of participants”. In essence, it is anormative theory that offers an expansion of representative democracy, and suggestsways in which we can enhance democracy and decision-making, and move governancecloser toward ideal conditions of equality, rationality and responsibility.Parkins and Mitchell (2004) have called attention to what they call a “deliberative turnin natural resource management” where researchers are seeing public’s participationin natural resource planning and management as “deliberative spaces” (defined asvirtual and real sites where meaningful public dialogue and debate can occur ). Thereis a growing body of empirically-based case studies on community-based participationin water governance regimes in other contexts where deliberative democratictheoretical principles are being tested (see, for example, Johnson 2009, Bardati 2009a,Bardati 2009b, Choquette and Bardati 2008, Lurie and Hibbard 2008, Morton 2008,Bonnel and Koontz 2007, Bidwell and Ryan 2006, Bardati and Davidson Richards2005, Dakins, Long and Hart 2005, Koontz and Moore Johnson 2004, Margerum andWhitall 2004, Moore and Koontz 2003, Bardati 2003, McCool and Guthrie 2001,Webler and Tuler 2001, Burrough, 1999). By enabling deliberative democratic theoryto move beyond the “theoretical statement” stage and into the “working theory” stage(Chambers 2003, 307), these studies are generating ideas and information that canimprove knowledge, improve understanding and enhance the quality of decisions.Therefore, this research on community-based watershed planning on PEI, builds uponthese empirical studies in the academic literature, as well as my own past researchprojects in Quebec and British Columbia. Given the lack of attention hitherto byacademics to the study of watershed groups on PEI, I find it helpful to conceptualizewatershed management on the Island as a “deliberative space” (Parkins and Mitchell2004), where community-based watershed groups are participating in a widerdialogue about democratic decision-making both procedurally (the deliberativeprocess itself) and substantially (the process outcomes).11 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

MFO1UV: žO£TAœ@ÜCéP.éJ1.W‡ÖQ¹¢º À£¤ØÚo¹»bVÁ‹Às¼‹¼€ÍhÏ¿ÊÔÄ Á‹»½Â ÓÀÍo¤.ÝXÍ*@DOÝÔÍ„8ILjL£¢ Öóù£¢xös¢52@2[2F_Y2@:]t=Cœ@FHY9@:H;>=+BÃ=gaTU/013UK—'3Jpj.Á"![VpNœ@UÁÞP6 6ÇÖ¢¤.Ã|Ü9Á‹¿xÌ¢øxº¦»½Ð¯Ð„Í4Q¦ÀsÌ‘ÄVÅÁ‹ÒqÍ£*7DOÝXÍóùj9·ös¢5vh:_J”=HŒ=?:+52@2AÂ’˜LNqÖ ùõõõMG.1„: žO£T7œES\qn;3/V„3U¿/5osV“Z3/01.aÅR;OZSç3\nT/x.§6Z—'§O/QWB13H3Z!jÞ·Ö\›)»¯ÈË‹¿ÓÀXÄŠÅÑÅÒO¼sÍóù4K|ös¢QL$‰_PQ:QuO=mœ@QÀ€ÌÆÄVÅÁ‹ÒŠÍo*7DOÝXÍ¢8JL£LùOÖÀ€ËK»ÎÃÞ¾ Á‹ÅÓÁ‹¿ÊÊ»¯È:Ó¨¿¾ ¾ Á‹Å¿Ã‹ºƒËKŨËKº:ÀÔÀÅÈ:¼^ËKÁ‹Æ:ÃkË‹»¯ÅÈóùjE·ös¢QL$vdD®m:C=ŠJK=?:Š¥*5_[9[Q:JK=O¯K=?:O52@_AÆu+Y2q¥DIA2l2¡4:OJK=)Ü9À€È¾ZÖŠùU9o8IEP#OùU9ù·ô Ö3UKS\3jƧ3/-16+Vp+œ@T/x3R/-13|i5êç_S\œž@¢3J§3R3/-13¾>8JL"K94(kÍ!£3U/¦6kÖQ¹¢º À£¤ØÚo¹»bVÁ‹Às¼‹¼€ÍhÏ¿ÊÔÄ Á‹»½Â ÓÀÍo¤.ÝXÍ*@DOÝÔÍ„8ILjLj9:Öóô;8’ö4|D%F_n(o_L¡qq*:OC=Bœ@—ê/0Z3JpUT;O/-13'/x3“{AOVO/-1mœ@ÝXÍ¢8JLjL"KÑÖóôùxö4|D%F_n(o_L¡qq*:9ɘ=—'£¦N)¦O;4!ÖX¤.ÃsÜ9ÁǿнКøxº¦»½Ð½ÐzÍoQÀ€ÌŒÄVÅÁKÒqÍo*@DuŠ=?:52@2AŒ¥=ßFé3UÁT/013UOÞdS\3jƧ3/-16UTaªV;tWB13U3Z!jÞ…¨Cê/q.ÂÁ!4.§ ¨@Vp«ª¦§"V33Z!jÞ'3žóôô·ös¾ˆY9q8$Dx:"!d—'j§"V6kÖ¢¹¢º À£¤ØÚo¹»bVÁ‹Às¼‹¼sÍhÏ¿ÊÔÄ Á‹»½Â ÓÀÍo¤.ÝÔÍ;*@DOÝÔ͆ùõõõ Ög“Ož§ùÜF0!4æ.]t=RêO.Z¦6 "!ÊS\§Á/-Þóôj?ö^³^m£µ97HD®Y:Q¥M=•uO=?:žR/;ˆWBT"6O6§6Up—êVpT"6/-ÞKgÞ\no3P6T3ž/5oœ\pUéPU§¦p©)Às¼‹ÃǺ:¿»½È ÀÍ ÛQ ¼sÖ¯ÍD;hCDqÍ ¾ ¾_Ö:ôo8O#Ñôj9 Ö8xù

Source: http://wiki.resalliance.org/index.php/Bounding_the_System_-_Level_2In essence, a watershed is a social-ecological system. It includes ecosystemcomponents and functions (land, air, water, wildlife, etc), humans (individuallandowners, groups, organizations, etc), as well as the feedbacks between the two,including humans actions and interventions that affect ecosystems, and ecosystemsservices that affect humans. It is therefore necessary, but not sufficient, to understandthe biology of a watershed in great detail. One must also seek to understand thepolitical and legal contexts governing decision-making in the system, the dynamics ofthe markets that drive resource use, and the cultural attachments people may have tocertain ways of doing things as part of the same system. Management fails whenmanagers consider too much detail for one part of the system, and too little detail forthe rest 2 .The concept of resilience was originally introduced by Holling (1973), within the fieldof ecology, to describe the capacity of ecosystems to persist in the original state subjectto perturbations or disturbances. Since then, the concept has been enlarged to include2 For a brief overview of social-ecological systems and the resilience concept, seehttp://wiki.resalliance.org/index.php/Bounding_the_System_-_Level_213 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

social aspects along with ecological ones. As such, resilience is now understood as “thecapacity of a social-ecological system to absorb disturbance and reorganize whileundergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure andfeedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintainthe same identity” (Folke et al 2010). Loss of resilience can cause loss of valuableecosystem services, and may even lead to rapid transitions or shifts into qualitativelydifferent situations and configurations, evident in, for instance people, ecosystems,knowledge systems, or whole cultures.The theory of resilience of SES is also called “complex adaptive cycle theory” because ithas been observed that an SES will undergo a series of changes in a cyclical pattern.The adaptive cycle is a heuristic model that portrays an endogenously driven fourphasecycle of social-ecological systems and other complex adaptive systems – see thefigure below.Source: http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/susfut/adaptiveCycle/cycle.jpg14 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The common trajectory is from a phase of rapid growth where resources are freelyavailable and there is high resilience (r phase), through capital accumulation into agradually rigidifying phase where most resources are locked up and there is littleflexibility or novelty, and low resilience (K phase), thence via a sudden collapse into arelease phase of chaotic dynamics in which relationships and structures are undone (Ωphase), into a phase of re-organization where novelty can prevail (α phase). The r-Kdynamics reflect a more or-less predictable, relatively slow “foreloop” and the Ω-αdynamics represent a chaotic, fast “backloop” that strongly influences the nature of thenext foreloop.Resilience is an important dimension of the adaptive cycle. When that dimension isadded, resilience is shown to expand and contract throughout the cycle. Resilienceshrinks as the cycle moves towards K, where the system becomes more brittle. Itexpands as the cycle shifts rapidly into a "back-loop" to reorganize accumulated capitalfor a new initiation of the cycle (Peterson, online), as depicted in the graph below:Source: http://www.geog.mcgill.ca/faculty/peterson/susfut/adaptiveCycle/forestG.jpg15 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The resilience lens provides a new framework for analyzing social-ecological systems –in my case; it is applied to watersheds in PEI - in a changing world facing manyuncertainties and challenges. It represents an area of explorative research under rapiddevelopment with major policy implications for sustainable development. Fosteringresilience in an SES can be viewed as a process of building the adaptive capacity ofmultiple individuals in that system as well as a process of contributing to a set of socialand ecological attributes of resilient systems (Walker and Salt 2006; Krasney et al2010).No adaptive cycle exists in isolation from everything else, and therefore resilience of asystem can be affected by what is going on in other cycles at other scales. External orhigher-scale influences can cause a move from any phase to any other phase (Folke etal 2010). This is called panarchy (Gunderson and Holling, 2002), which represents theinteractive dynamics of a nested set of adaptive cycles. Holling et al (2002) draw onthe notion of hierarchies of influences between embedded scales, or panarchies, torepresent structures that sustain experiments, test its results and allow adaptiveevolution.Source: Gunderson and Holling (2002), Figure 13-2, page 355.16 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The figure above represents separate adapted cycles to depict phases of issues asinterpreted in four systems – political, organizational, inter-organizational, andindividual. Managers, actions, and solutions must account for the dynamics of thesesystems. The organization and functions we now see embracing biological, ecologicaland human systems are therefore ones that contain a nested set of the four phaseadaptive cycles, in which opportunities for periodic reshuffling within levels maintainadaptive opportunity, and the simple interactions across levels maintains integrity.Holling (2001, 402) explains it this way:The panarchy describes how a healthy socioecological system can inventand experiment, benefiting from inventions that create opportunitywhile it is kept safe from those that destabilize the system due to theirnature or excessive exuberance. Each level is allowed to operate at itsown pace, protected from above by slower, larger levels but invigoratedfrom below by faster, smaller cycles of innovation. The whole panarchyis therefore both creative and conserving. The interactions betweencycles in a panarchy combine learning with continuity. The four R’s,then, represent the critical processes that manage the balance andtension between change and sustainability.The function of those cycles, including how faster, shorter cycles at lower scales can beinfluenced by slower, longer cycles at higher scales, and vice-versa, and thecommunication between the cycles determines the sustainability of a system.Therefore, it is possible to explore the panarchy of watershed governance in PEI byexamining multiple scales of decision-making, and the phases of each cycle within thepanarchy.Later in the Discussions and Implications section, we will explore how the results ofthis study might be illuminated by the principles of deliberative democracy and theconcept of resilience of social-ecological systems, and how these principles andconcepts might help point toward the direction of ecological, social and economicsustainability.17 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Methods______________________________________________ Back to ContentsThe data for this study was generated three ways:1. Personal interviewswith representatives of each of the 31 watershed groups on PEI in July 2009, anddiscussions with staff members from the PEI Department of Environment, Energyand Forestry between May 2009 and November 20102. Participant-observationat various watershed meetings between April 2009 and May 2010, including thePEI Watershed Alliance meetings (twice annually), the Central Watershedsmeetings (monthly), and the Wright’s Creek Watershed Environmental CommitteeMeetings (quarterly)3. Document reviewof watershed group pamphlets, newsletters and websites; and government-issueddocuments relating to watershed issues in PEIPersonal interviewsA list of contact information of spokespersons for each of the 31 government-fundedwatershed groups is available on the PEI government website. I first contacted eachgroup by email, requesting an interview, explaining the research project’s goals andobjectives and attaching the Consent Form (Appendix I). For those whom I could notcontact by email, I telephoned. If the watershed group representative agreed toparticipate in the study, we proceeded to arrange a suitable time and place to meet andperform the one-hour interview.Primary data was collected from personal, in-depth interviews with key informants ineach of the operating watershed groups on PEI (not necessarily the ones listed on thePEI website) during the month of July 2009. All interviews took place at theparticipant’s home or workplace, or in a few cases, at a local restaurant or communityhall. I employed a semi-structured interview format with a questionnaire (Appendix18 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The data generated from my participant-observation at these meetings is difficult todescribe succinctly. The knowledge I acquired from these meetings and informalconversations with my fellow watershed community members were invaluable towidening and deepening my understanding of the issues I was studying. Being anewcomer to PEI, my grasp of the issues facing watershed groups would not be acomprehensive as it is without my involvement as a watershed community member.Although participant-observation is not a panacea for complete understanding ofthese issues – if that were even possible - I am convinced that I could not havecompleted this project had I stayed in the “ivory tower” of the university.There were elements of participatory action research (PAR) in my research method aswell. PAR is a recognized form of experimental research that focuses on the effects ofthe researcher's direct actions of practice within a participatory community with thegoal of improving the performance quality of the community or an area of concern(Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000). While I have not specifically tried to examine thedirect effect of my own actions as a watershed community member on the progress ofthe watershed community, I did endeavour to engage fully in the many taskswatershed groups perform, including the strategic meetings around developing vision,goals and objectives, and action plans for restoration work and public meetings.Document reviewI have tried to obtain much of the documentation that is publicly-available relating towatershed issues on PEI. These include of watershed group pamphlets, newslettersand websites, and government-issued documents relating to watershed issues in PEI.The volume of pages is substantial and growing monthly – most of these are availabledigitally. A review of these documents and websites helps me keep abreast ofwatershed development and feeds into my overall analysis of the community-basedwatershed management in PEI.22 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Summary of Interview Results___________________________ Back to ContentsIt is beyond the scope of this report to provide a comprehensive exposition of all of theresults that emerged from the data I collected by means of the methods described inthe previous section. Several papers and presentations (Appendix III) have alreadypublished, some are forthcoming, and some are still to be written as more analysis isperformed. Each output serves to disseminate specific aspects of the research results.Rather, in this section, I will focus solely on the interview results. What follows is adescriptive summary of the watershed groups’ answers to the 34 interview questions(Appendix II). All results presented here have been aggregated to protectconfidentiality and anonymity, in compliance with the project’s ethics requirements.Part 1 – Basic characteristicsWatershed characteristics (Questions 1, 2, 3)There are over 250 distinct watersheds in PEI. They are all rather small in relation towatersheds in other regions and provinces. Only about 72% of the province wascovered by a watershed group at the time of the interviews. In many cases, awatershed group was formed to enhance the watershed of only one stream, such as theWright’s Creek hectares (947 hectares), while in other cases, such as in the SourisRiver area, the watershed group has included in its management area a large portion ofthe province (62,000 hectares) which includes several streams. Consequently, thewatershed management areas across PEI vary widely in scale. This creates a fewchallenges for funding, technical assistance, demographic base, and other issues, inpromoting the health of watersheds.Interestingly, only a few interviewees were able to give the exact area of theirwatershed, while most struggled to come up even an approximate size. While some23 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

government departments, and have been documented in several reports of provincialcommissions on the state of the environment (PEI government, 2003), guide towatershed planning (PEI government, n.d. circa 2006), governance on a watershedbasis (PEI government, 2007), nitrates in groundwater (PEI government, 2008), landand local governance (PEI government, 2009), among others. Because the provincehas a diversity of urban areas, coastal development areas, farming areas, and forestedareas, among others, not all environmental issues impacting upon watershed healthare uniformly distributed across the province. Some areas do not face a serious nitratecontamination issue, due to the presence of more forested land, but they haveproblems with beavers or shoreline development. Others may face a problem witheutrophication due to nutrient runoff from agricultural land, while urban watershedsare heavily impacted by urban development and loss of natural infiltration. Almost allareas are affected by siltation and many groups have called for the need to dredge theponds and bays, and the clear out the natural springs. Many interviewees stated thatclearing streams of debris and putting in silt traps is only a temporary solution,pointing to “up the hill” problems of poor land use practices, despite some concertedefforts to alleviate the siltation problem. There was nearly unanimous agreement thatmany of the watershed problems were not in their control to remedy and that thereefforts, while making a significant difference, required higher-level legislation,regulations and management practices and regular enforcement. They described howpoor land use practices and a lack of a comprehensive and integrated provincial landuse policy were exacerbating environmental issues affecting the health of theirwatershed.History / group formation (Questions 4, 5, 6)The age of the watershed groups ranged greatly, from 55 years old (although at thetime of formation, the oldest group was not recognized as a watershed group) to a fewmonths old. Most of the watershed groups had come into existence within the past 10years as a result of the provincial government’s watershed management fundingsupport initiative. A few groups were barely a year old at the time of the interviews,and some had not even been officially formalized. The few that had been formed25 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

several years, even decades, ago had clearly taken the lead in issues of watershedmanagement, watershed quality monitoring, wildlife restoration, stream bed and bankenhancement, vegetation replanting and so on. The experience of these older groupshas served as examples to the newer groups.I was struck by the diversity of stories told about each group’s formation. Althoughbeyond the scope of this study, these stories are an important record in and ofthemselves, and they should be properly recorded and conserved for posterity sincethey have shaped the history of PEI.A recurring theme that emerged from the retelling of these group histories is summedup in the words “local dedication”. It was the dedication of an individual or smallgroup of local people that was most often cited as the drivingforce for their group’s vision and activities toward improvingstream and watershed health. Being truly community-basedin nature, the system of watershed management in PEIcontinues to rely heavily upon the dedicated local volunteerboard members, locally-hired staff, and action-oriented localresidents to make things happen. In almost every case, themotivation for the group’s formation was a dedication of thepart of to seeing their local environment improved,particularly to restore and improve fish habitat initially, butmore recently to enhance all ecological and societal values associated with watersheds.Although many groups still perceive their work as primarily environmentally-focused,to the exclusion of enhancing local social or economic values, there is also an apparentrecognition that local ecological, social and economic values can and should beprotected together to the mutual benefit of each other.In a few cases, it appears that the group’s formation was largely designed, or at leastheavily aided, by the government.“We were disappointedabout how bad thing hadgotten, so we decided wehad to do somethingabout it”.– A study participantIn such cases, a key community person wasencouraged by the government to “get the ball rolling” with respect to watershedmanagement and helped out with financial and technical support. As such, the initial26 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

motivation and mandate came from outside the community, but was quickly “adopted”by a small group within the local community.Membership / decision process (Questions 7 to 13)There was a diversity of processes for making decisions and gaining members amongthe thirty watershed groups. Some groups were highly structured (having aconstitution, executive board, regular meetings with agendas, minutes, and largelyfollowing Robert’s Rules of Order 4 , etc), while others were completely unstructuredand decision made in an ad lib manner. Some decisions are made by official voting,others by consensus, and others by an individual without consultation with anyone.Each of these decision-making styles has its own strengths and weaknesses and it isnot my place to make a judgement over which is most appropriate to each group. Theimportance is that the element of abuse (one individual or group taking too muchcontrol of the decision process) is minimized, that representation of all views,including dissenting ones, is allowed and encouraged, that transparency and ispromoted whenever possible, and that accountability is an important characteristic ofthose responsible for making the decisions. This situation has not been the case for allwatershed groups.Many watershed groups have become legally incorporated,which requires a degree of internal regulation and externalaccountability. Other groups have chosen to functionwithout legal incorporation, and with few exceptions, largelyrunning their affairs with the same functions andaccountability as if they were incorporated. The quote onthe right explains the advantages of not being incorporated,as perceived by one group. The participant went on to saycosts are lower as well (the legal cost of incorporation itself,as well as paying an accountant for year-end financialreports, etc).“We are not incorporated.Being the lowest level oforganization helps us bemore flexible… it means wecan change our structureany way we want towithout being bound byany excessive rules”.– A study participant4 See http://www.robertsrules.org/27 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The manner in which group membership was determined varied between groups. Inmost cases, determination of formal group membership is described in the group’sconstitution, whether legally incorporated or not. For the most part the membership isrecruited at open public meetings, where interestedmembers of the public can become members of the groupby signing a form.For the groups who do not have aconstitution, they tend to consider membership in a broadsense and consider their “members” anyone who showedan interest in the group’s activities, whether or not theydonated money and/or signed a membership form.In most cases, group leadership (e.g. a volunteer board ofdirectors) was determined by the members at an AnnualGeneral Meeting of the group, and the executive wassubsequently chosen among the directors. In the cases where groups functioned in amore unstructured way, leadership was based upon who was available and interestedin taking on the responsibility. In some cases, the clear “leader” of the group was thepaid staff member, while in other cases the board presidenttook on the lead. Some boards were very active in the affairsof the group, while in other groups, the board served more ofa titular role, perhaps involved in signing official documents,but leaving most of the decision-making to the paid staffperson.There are benefits and drawbacks to each method ofdetermining the group’s leadership and membership, andone size will not necessarily fit all cases. Yet groups shouldbe cautioned to be aware of two things: 1) paid staff shouldalways be directly accountable to a board and to the membership, and not act withouttheir consent; and 2) rotation of board leadership from among the membership is animportant means of ensuring against “volunteer burnout” and allowing the group tothrive beyond the efforts of any one or group of dedicated individuals.We had a public meetingand we got 15 peoplesigned up. But nobodyever came to anothermeeting. We’ve had realdifficulties getting peopleto commit… Nobody hastime to go to meetings.– A study participant“Yes, we have a board,but I do all the work.And they trust me tomake most of thedecisions. I was told bythe Chair, ‘if you’regone, I’m gone’.”– A study participantA group who28 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

has a dominant staff person and/or a dysfunctional board should reconsider itoperations to ensure a balance in decision-making.Meetings / Communication (Questions 15, 16, 17)Most groups hold monthly meetings among the executive. Some do so all year long,while others hold these monthly meetings only during the winter months (Novemberto April). Most groups hold at least one public meeting per year, the AGM, often two.Groups communicate primarily by email, but also by phone and in person. Severalgroups produce newsletters sent out digitally (for the most).At the time of theinterviews only five or so groups had websites about their watershed groups. In theintervening year since the interviews took place, that number has more than tripled.The watershed group website is a useful tool for groupmembers, but also the wider public to be aware of thegroups’ activities. Website development should beencouraged and supported, and hyperlinks to otherwatershed groups should be included for interestedmember of the public to become more educated andaware of watershed issues and watershed group plansand activities.Funding (Questions 18, 19)Funding for watershed groups comes from a variety offederal and provincial (and in some cases, municipal)sources, as well as from membership donations, privatefoundations, industry sources and a host of environmental non-governmentalorganizations 5 . Most groups must apply to several funding sources every year becausethe grants have specific eligibility requirements and project timelines. Applying forfunding and producing financial and activity reports represents a significant amount oftime and effort for watershed groups.“Among our members, wecommunicate almostentirely by email. And withthe executive especially I’llbe in touch on the phone. Isee our president almostevery week. So there is goodinvolvement from the boardin our organization”.– A study participant5 Appendix 6 of “A Guide to Watershed Planning on PEI”, pages 36-37 provides a list. Seehttp://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/eef_waterguide.pdf29 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The annual operating budgets vary widely between watershed groups – from as littleas a few hundred dollars to over $100,000. The variety is explained by the types ofapplications groups will complete and the size of the operations they will undertake.Because there are no guarantees of funding from any of the sources, there is always adegree of mystery (from the watershed groups’ perspective) in who gets funded, howmuch, and why. Duly completing the application forms on time, properly performingthe tasks assigned and submitting a completedreporting if the grant is awarded, is a necessarystep to receiving funding the following year,but it is by no means a guarantee.In the case of the PEI Watershed ManagementFund, because the total envelop is a fixedamount yearly, there is a degree of competitionbetween watershed groups in the province asto who will get funded and to what degree.The funding and allocation formula is by nomeans clear to the watershed groups.Consequently, I noted a clearly visible degree offrustration among watershed groups about thequestion of funding.Annual budgets also vary from year to yearwithin the same watershed group.This is afunction of many factors, including shiftinglevels of government support, the criteria for“A lot of times I hear, ‘well OK, you’rea non-profit community group, whatdo you expect here other than limitedgrant money?, that’s the way it iswith volunteer community groups’.And to that I say that watershedgroups are the driving force inenvironmental protection, andbecause of that, simply saying ‘wellget yourself some grant moneysomehow if you want to exist’ isn’tthe answer to the problem. If you goto other areas, you find you havegovernment people and teams ofenvironmental engineers out theredoing things and writing laws left andright, but that’s not happening here,the work is done by volunteer groups,so they have to be supported”.– A study participantthe many application forms, and the performance of the watershed group, as well asfactors unknown to watershed groups or anything else I could ascertain in my study.The recurring theme that I found among watershed groups is that while most statedthat they certainly could use more money to accomplish their goals, their main concernwas for stable, long-term funding so that they could build long-term strategies to their30 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

planning efforts and avoid the incessant, frustrating and unpredictable grantapplications process every year.Part 2 – Group goals, activities and accomplishmentsGroup goals and activities (Questions 20, 21)All watershed groups I interviewed, without exception, have articulated their group’smission statement, goals and objectives in one form or another. Most are nowavailable of their website (for groups with websites), in their constitutions, or in theirannual grant reports. The goals among all groupstend to revolve around three things:1) to restore and improve the ecologicalhealth of the watershed for wildlife andhuman use and enjoyment;2) to inform and educate the public aboutissues affecting watersheds: and3) to advocate for, and work with,government to ensure betterenvironmental practices, regulations andenforcement“I never want to clean outanother sediment basin. I’drather it didn’t get filled in.But they don’t enforce thebuffer zone rules. It’s a 35-year build-up of silt. We’restill doing catch-up work. Iwant the river to have itsnatural flow. The river shouldbe able to absorb naturalrunoff. All this runoff is notnatural”.– A study participantTheir goals are articulated differently in every case,with some focusing more on restoring stream andriparian ecological health, while other groups might primarily focus on education ofthe general public and businesses, and still others might take a broader, sustainabledevelopment approach that includes combining ecological, social and economic values.This range of stated goals illustrates the local challenges that each group faces, andreflects the diversity and creatively of the different watershed groups.31 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The activities that watershed groups perform toward restoring and improving thehealth of the streams and fish habitat include installing brush mats, sediment traps,digger logs, fish passage rock dams, and to plant trees along the banks to preventrunoff damage, to organize, in conjunction with the PEI government, nitrate testingclinics where landowners can have their well water tested for nitrate levels, as well asother general public education activities. They usually hire teams of workers, oftenstudents, during the summer months, under the supervision of a coordinator. Theactivities the watershed groups engage in are outlined in the various grant applicationsthat they have to submit for funding.The scale of each activity project that awatershed group ultimately engages in, and the associated staff or worker hours ithires to perform the activities, is greatly dependent upon what funding the groupreceives.Many groups also organize “volunteer days” (named differently by eachgroup) where the public is invited to join in on a tree-planting or restoration activity,often accompanied with family-oriented activities and food. In the winter months,their efforts focus on grant applications and reporting, monthly planning meetings,public education, and, if applicable, advocacy efforts.Watershed plan development (Question 22)Along with the host of specific activities mentioned above, many groups are involved indeveloping a local watershed management plan. With fewexceptions, the impetus for watershed plan development hascome from the PEI government, who has encouraged groupsto develop their own locally-made watershed plans.Furthermore, the Department of Environment, Energy andForestry produced A Guide to Watershed Planning on PEIwith detailed instructions on how to “get started”, recruitand retain community members, involve key stakeholdersand build capacity and partnerships in the community. TheGuide also provides suggestions on how to develop a“I was told ‘funding iscontingent on yourgroup having a planor working on aplan’, so I got goingon writing awatershed plan.”– A study participant32 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

watershed management plan with vision statement, guiding principles, goals andstrategies and measures of success, as well of helps regarding human and financialresources.From my interviews, it would appear that there was, at least initially, a wide spectrumof opinions regarding the usefulness of the watershed planning concept. It was beyondthe scope of this study to explore the reticence of some groups to engage in theplanning efforts, but a few comments havesuggested that watershed planning – which ismuch broader in scope that stream enhancementfor fish habitat, for example - was seen as beyondtheir capabilities or interests to perform.Consequently, some groups chose to delay (and insome cases forgo completely) the watershedplanning component.At the same time, many watershed groups appearto have embraced whole-heartedly the concept ofwatershed planning and have developed rathersophisticated means to realise their watershedplans, including a multi-stakeholder steeringcommittee, technical support, GPS maps, detailedecological inventory, and targeted priority areaswith very clear project timelines to implementing,monitoring and revising their plans. At the time of“Our watershed plan is a majorachievement because it brings acommunity into play. Maintainingit is a hard thing because, youknow, people respond to a specifictask and then if you are not callingon them, and getting results, it’shard to keep up front. But it [theirwatershed plan] took a lot of effortover a couple of years. For manyyears there was work being done,but it wasn’t been pulled together.The major motivation is, besidesidentifying what we have and whatwe want to do, getting a basis forseeking extra funding from outsidesources. So that’s a challenge too”.– A study participantthe interviews (July 2009), about a third of the groups had completed or weredeveloping their watershed management plan. Now the number is higher.Whilesome elements appear in all watershed plans, the watershed plans that have beencompleted are different from each other in many ways owing to the diversity ofdifferent watershed group goals and watershed characteristics mentioned earlier.have noted that the development of watershed planning has not been uniform inquality across the many watersheds and watershed groups in PEI. Some watershedI33 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

plans contain clear information about how the plan was developed, including themeetings that took place, the diagnostic characterization of the watershed’s biophysicalconditions, the issues and priorities needing to be addressed, the conflicts tobe resolved and the phased-in implementation of corrective measures, so on. In othercases, one gets the impression that a lot less effort was put into developing the group’swatershed plan. Those groups not engaged in watershed planning became a lowerpriority for funding, or were apparently denied funding altogether.In an effort to encourage local groups to develop their own plans, the governmentchose not to require that specific compulsory criteria be met in order for thewatershed plan to be officially examined and recognized for funding any of itsimplementation activities. There is an argument to be made for not establishing clearcriteria, and using the “encourage only, and leave it all up to them” approach, but theinevitable consequence is that the watershed plans will vary both procedurally (howthe plans were developed) and substantively (what the plans contain). This resultingdisparity between watershed planning efforts among various community-basedwatershed groups is exactly what has happened in PEI. Consequently, it would then beinappropriate for the government to disparage or refuse to recognize a watershedplan, or targets to be met within the plan, because of someunmet criteria that were never elucidated in the firstplace.However, because all plans are cyclical works in progressand need to be revised on a regular basis, it might serveboth the watershed groups and the government well tojointly create a few standardized quality criteria (for theplan development process as well as the plan itself) to beincluded in future revisions of all watershed plans.other words, part of the perceived mystery of the fundingformula and the disparity of watershed planning effortsIn“Public respect for theenvironment is part of thebigger picture. I mean wecan clean up streamsforever if we want to, butthe public needs to buyinto why we’re doing itand why it’s important…”– A study participantamong groups could be addressed together, raising the quality of watershed plans andenabling some stability in the funding system to be evident to the watershed groups.34 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

These changes would also help legitimize the watershed planning exercise to the widerpublic, in areas where such legitimization may be needed, and perhaps also help thegeneral public to take genuine ownership in the watershed planning process, and theassociated funding of projects to implement the watershed plans.Group achievements and measures of success (Questions 23, 24)The question “what would you say is your group’s greatest achievements?” produced anarray of similar answers. The recurring ones include:Forming our watershed groupBuilding a good rapport with the communityDoing good work to restore the streams, andwildlife habitatPlanting a lot of trees to stabilize banks and reducerunoffGroundwater and surface water monitoringGetting a watershed plan doneRaise public awareness and education aboutwatershed issues“Maintaining a growingcommunity contact is abig thing. You can plant10, 000 trees if youwant to, but if nobodysees them, you know,you don’t have as muchcredibility”.– A study participantEach interviewee aptly listed off a host of achievements specific to their watershed. Onmany occasions, I was given a tour of the work they had done. Several groups haveincluded photos of their restoration efforts in their reports, newsletters and websites.Many of their achievements are noteworthy, especially given the fact that most of thework was done with little financial support and a lot of volunteer hours. These visibleachievements on the landscape are a clear indication of the passion and dedication ofwatershed groups. The less visible achievement of building rapport with thecommunity and raising awareness about, and engagement in, watershed issues isequally important and commendable. It would seem that credibility of watershedgroups is mounting as a result of the past years of work that has been accomplished. It35 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

would be timely to conduct a survey of the general public in each watershed to gaugethe level of awareness and knowledge about watershed issues and engagement in thewatershed group’s efforts. This survey could be repeated every three years, and serveas a baseline from which to trace how the level of awareness, knowledge andengagement has evolved over time. This information would help raise the profile ofwatershed groups even more and help place the watershed issues in a wider socialcontext.The question “how do you define or measure the success of your group?” was answeredacross all watershed groups by a nearly unanimous response: a restored environmentthat humans and wildlife can benefit from. The striking similarity of responses to thisquestion, given the diversity of groups, is an indication of the singular vision thatwatershed groups have for the future of environmental conditions in the province’swatersheds.Associated with this vision is that the public would have learned toappreciate the environment more, and be active in helping to protect it, sincewatershed issues are not the sole responsibility of watershed groups, but rather that ofall Islanders. Consequently, generating public interest and engagement in watershedissues and concerns is a key component to realizing the group’s vision of achieving arestored environment.The other most commonly heard theme that emerged fromthis question was the word “stability”, referring to everyfacet of the functioning of watershed groups. The success ofwatershed groups is somewhat precarious because of manyfactors – some of which are beyond their control - includingrecurring degradation (siltation, for example) of waterwaysdue to poor land use practices, volunteer burnout, limitedfunding, limited recognition and support, and other such“To me, success meansa stronger membershipand a better focus onwhat we want toachieve”– A study participantfactors mentioned by the groups. Success in the future, many interviewees told me,would not only be marked by a cleaner environment but also a more stable basis fortheir watershed group’s existence and functioning. The need for stability, therefore,36 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

efers to not only the funding issues, but to public recognition of, and tangible supportfor, the healthy functioning of watershed management on PEI.Group effectiveness (Questions 25, 26, 27)I asked groups what it would take to make them more effective at reaching their goals,and with the help of a 5-point Likert scale, the question generated a variety ofresponses (Table 1).Table 1: Group effectivenessMy group has adequate……to be effectiveStrongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly AgreeOrganizational structure 1 2 1 13 10Decision-making 0 2 2 15 7Access to expertise 0 1 2 13 10Financial support 4 5 4 12 1Staff support 5 4 3 10 3Volunteers 0 11 7 3 2Involvement of public 2 8 5 10 0Communication 1 3 1 11 10Row totals do not equal 31 because some respondents chose not to answer some questions.From the answers, we can see that:Nearly all groups (23) agreed or strongly agreed that theyhad an adequate organizational structure to be effective totheir goals and perform their tasksNearly all groups (22) agreed or strongly agreed that theyhad an adequate decision-making process to be effectiveNearly all groups (23) agreed or strongly agreed that theyhad adequate access to expertise to be effective37 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Only 12 groups agreed and one strongly agreed that they hadadequate financial support to be effective – the rest (13)were pretty evenly split across SD, D, and NSame is true of staff support, where 10 agreed, and 3 stronglyagreed, but the rest (12) were spread in the SD, D, N columnsMost groups (11) disagreed that they had adequate numbersof volunteers to be effective. It’s important to note that only 5groups agreed or strongly agreed they had enoughvolunteers to be effective. This question also generated thehigher number (7) of neutral responses.10 groups agreed, and 0 strongly agreed they had adequateinvolvement of the public to be effective. The majority (15)either SD, D, or NFinally, 21 groups agreed or strongly agreed that theycommunicated adequately among themselves to be effectiveThese results give a fairly clear picture that funding, staffsupport and volunteer involvement need to be improved.Obviously these are interrelated. It is also important tonote that the groups scored high the statements in whichthey had more control over than those they had lesscontrol over. One thing that came up again and again, inthe qualifications that interviewees it respect to theireffectiveness, is the importance of having a strong andknowledgeable local coordinator – who can multitask, isa good communicator, has the respect of the community,and can get projects done. It seemed clear to me thatgroups with a good local coordinator are more effectivethan those without. When asked if they had anything toadd (Question 27) that was not included in the table, afew mentioned the need for groups to cooperate and“One big component [towatershed groupeffectiveness] that I’mbecoming aware of is thatwe as watershed groups onthe Island have to functionwell together as well, wehave to cooperate… it’sstarted, but there’s roomfor us to improve. We canshare information, and wecan share expertise andtechnology. It has to keepgrowing as well”.– A study participantshare information, expertise and equipment with each other (see quote to the right).38 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Capacity to reach goals/perform activities (Questions 28, 29)The academic literature and practical experience with watershed management inmany parts of world suggest that there are five common goals and activities that helpfocus the energies of watershed groups, as follows:Environmental improvement: where the environmental conditions in thewatershed are improved as a result of the groups activitiesEducation: where members and the general public gain an improvedunderstanding of the issues that exist in the watershed.Social: where members exchanges ideas and gain an appreciation for eachothers’ perspectives and each other (organizing social activities)Public involvement: where the general public becomes active throughvolunteering, financial support, and other use of skills and talents toadvance the goals of the watershed group.Government policy: where the group endeavours to try to influencegovernment policy on watershed issues.The second set of Likert scale statements revolved around these goals and activities.Each was twinned to ask the degree to which the watershed group was explicitlyinvolved in the promoting this goals and activities and the degree to which it felt it hadthe capacity to achieve these goals and activities. It is important to view capacitytogether with degree of involvement for each goal and activities for understand areasneeded improvement or more support. The results are as follows:Table 2: Capacity to reach goals / perform activitiesMy group …StronglyDisagreeDisagree Neutral AgreeStronglyAgreeis explicitly involved with environmentalimprovementhas adequate capacity to carry outenvironmental improvements0 0 0 4 200 5 7 12 139 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

is explicitly involved with education 0 5 0 14 5has adequate capacity to carry out itseducational functionsis explicitly involved in promoting socialactivitieshas adequate capacity to carry outsocial activitiesis explicitly tries to involve the generalpublic in its activitieshas adequate capacity to carry out itspublic involvement effortsis explicitly involved in trying toinfluence government policy0 3 10 7 10 8 4 10 31 6 7 9 10 5 2 9 70 7 5 11 20 1 9 8 7has adequate capacity to influencegovernment policy0 7 4 14 0Row totals do not equal 31 because some respondents chose not to answer some questions.The first observation that can be made regarding the results in Table 2 is that in almostevery case, their capacity to carry out the activities scores lower than theirinvolvement in these activities. This means that the watershed groups are doing thework but they feel they need more support to build their capacity to do the work theyare doing. Capacity was defined as being financial and human resources, time,expertise, and anything else that helps the group achieve their goals. This studyconfirms that the groups are doing a lot with little support, and that the local capacitybuildingshould be a focus of future government funding.With respect to environmental improvement (rows 1 and 2 in the above table), therewas a wide gap between the first statement (“our group is explicitly involved in thisactivity”), where all interviews who responded to this question either agreed (4) orstrongly agreed (20), and the second statement (“our group has adequate capacity tocarry out environmental improvements”) where only half of the groups agreed (12)and only 1 strongly agreed. This significant gap demonstrates a need for furtherefforts to build capacity and support this important function of watershed groups.Education (rows 3 and 4 in the above table), it was noted earlier, plays an importantrole in watershed groups’ goals and activities. Fourteen groups agreed, five strongly40 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

agreed, and only five disagreed with the education goal. Meanwhile only seven agreedand one strongly agreed, while ten were neutral and three disagreed that they had thecapacity for performing education functions. Here again we see a discrepancy betweenwhat they do and what they feel they can do.It seemed that conducting social activities (rows 5 and 6 in the above table) was alower priority than the other activities and goals for more groups, probably a functionof the lack of time, energy, need or support for such.While many groups have a number of public involvement activities in their annualprograms, there was also an apparent lack of capacity for public involvement (rows 7and 8 in the above table). Several groups saw a great need to improve their publicinvolvement efforts but simply did not feel they could take on that task to anysignificant extent until more volunteers were involved. These comments seem toimply that they were stuck in a catch-22 situation.Many groups (9) chose to answer “neutral” on thequestion of involvement in trying to influence governmentpolicy (rows 9 and 10 in the above table), while eightagreed and seven strongly agreed, and only one groupdisagree, with no one strongly disagreeing.Interestingly, if one looks at the question about capacity toinfluence government policy, we see a high number ofgroups agreed (14), but no groups strongly agreed, andseven disagreed, while four remained neutral on thatquestion. In essence, their capacity was higher than theirinvolvement in trying to influence policy – an anomalythat stands out in Table 2. Perhaps the interviewees werereticent to state, on the audio-tape, that their group was“Influencinggovernment policy is akind of a backgroundtheme that comes upamong some of us…but it’s not our mainfocus... In order to tryto influencegovernment, there hasto be a collectivevision. It’s a necessarybut not sufficientingredient”– A study participantinvolved in trying to influence government policy, explained by the high number (9) ofneutral responses to that statement. Some funding agencies will not support anyoutright lobbying efforts, and such activities may be perceived by watershed groups as41 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

counterproductive to their ability to attract funding or other support for theiractivities.Part 3 – How to improve watershed management in PEIBarriers to improved watershed management in PEI (Question 30)Identifying barriers is particular important, because if we can reduce or remove thebarriers, we can increase the likelihood of success and effectiveness of watershedplanning. The following barriers were mentioned:Funding (insufficient, lack of stability,delays)Cumbersome permit approval processTrust with governmentLack of sufficient environmental legislation,regulations and especially enforcementPoor land use practicesPolitical will and the history of politics of PEILack of an overall provincial land use policyVolunteer burn-outLack of public engagement and education“People need to be educatedabout watershed issues…. ifyou say the word “ecosystem”to 70% of the people that I’vecome into contact with, they’llgive you the deer-in-theheadlightslook. They justdon’t understand the issues,and that is one of the primaryobstacles in the way”.– A study participantIt was striking that the recurring themes revolved primarily around two main barriers:the government’s role and the public’s role.Most groups mentioned the government’s lack of strong leadership in the area of theenvironment, particularly the enforcement of environmental regulations, despite anumber of initiatives in recent years toward greening the province. Anothermentioned the small overall budget allocated to watershed management in the42 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

province (see quote to the right). Clearly morecommitment and support is being requested of the PEIgovernment by watershed groups for there to be even moremarked improvements in watershed health.While not one interviewee had anything negative to sayabout his fellow islanders, several comments alluded to thefact that the environmental sensitivities of the generalpublic are wrought with political and historical overtones.A major lament of watershed groups is that the generalpublic does not appear to have a sufficient degree of respect for the environment; thatit has a rather limited basic knowledge about how ecosystems function; and that itappears to be rather oblivious or apathetic about howtheir actions may affect the environment.“The watershedbudget is less than1/20 th of 1% of theoverall provincialbudget. Now you tellme if watersheds are apriority for thegovernment”.– A study participantAt the same time, a few interviewees mentioned to me,with almost the exact same words, how the governmentinterventions to protect environmental quality are notwelcomed on the land of some of their neighbours,exemplified by the quote to the right. It would then standto reason that any government of PEI would have asignificant challenge in finding the political will to moveas quickly as watershed groups would want it to move inthe direction of providing support for environmentalimprovements in the province, given these sensitivities ofthe electorate.“We’re worked hard toestablish trust withlandowners so that wecan access their land todo our restoration work….But with the government,no, that’s another story.If a government truckfrom Charlottetowncomes rolling up one thedriveways around here,they’re likely to see thebutt-end of a shotgun”.– A study participant43 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

How to improve watershed management in PEI (Questions 31, 32)Table 3: How to improve watershed management in PEIThe following is a “key ingredient” forimproved watershed management inPrince Edward IslandStronglyDisagreeDisagree Neutral AgreeStronglyAgreeIncreased government funding towatershed groups0 0 0 7 20Effective watershed group leaders 0 0 1 5 18Full-time watershed group staff 0 2 2 5 15Broad, inclusive membership in eachwatershed group0 0 0 9 16Cooperative and committed participants 0 0 0 7 19Interpersonal trust within groups(among members)Well-defined decision-making rules forthe groupInvolvement by technically skilledgovernment staffEffective communication betweengroupsTrust between groups and governmentstaff0 0 1 12 130 1 0 14 90 0 2 8 140 0 2 9 140 0 1 10 13Fewer, larger watershed groups 1 8 6 7 4More education of the general publicabout watershed issuesA government committed to enforcingexisting regulationsBottom-up group structure with minimalgovernment involvementTop-down group structure defined bygovernmentA collaborative/hybrid group structure(with multiple stakeholders from allsectors (e.g. agric, fisheries, tourism,government)0 0 0 7 180 0 1 6 150 5 6 6 1111 10 4 0 00 1 4 5 14A Watershed Alliance of watershed groups tospeak to government with one voice0 0 1 10 13Row totals do not equal 31 because some respondents chose not to answer some questions44 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Table 3 shows how watershed groups rated the statements about the “key ingredient”for improving watershed management in PEI. The overwhelming agreement withmost of the statements is not surprising, since many of them are “mom and apple-pie”kinds of statements, meaning they are difficult not to agree (or strongly agree) with.Yet the fact that there is widespread strong agreement for most of the statements is anindication that there is a unified perspective about how to improve watershedmanagement in the province. Because of this, thestatements that stand out as different from the restare worth getting special attention.From Table 3, we see that only two statementsgenerated something other than primarily agree orstrongly agree responses. They are the following:Fewer, larger watershed groups - whereresponses were spread rather evenlyacross disagree (8), neutral (6), agree(7) and strongly agree (4)Top-down group structure defined bygovernment - where the responses wereweighted heavily on the stronglydisagree (11) and disagree (10) side ofthe scale.Both these statements speak to the watershedgroups’ most important characteristics - localempowerment and local engagement, regardless ofthe size of the watershed groups. Thesecharacteristics are elaborated upon in the quote tothe right. Regardless of the geographic size of the“I don’t think it necessarily mattersthat we have lots of watershedgroups. The important thing iscommunity involvement andcommunity empowerment. It doesn’tmatter if you’re a small communitygroup, if you want to get active anddo environmental work in your area,that’s a good thing and it should besupported. At the same time I don’tthink a 10 acre watershed should getthe same support as a 30,000 acrewatershed, but there needs to be thatflexibility there to allow people tobecome interested in their ownbackyard. A top-down approachdoesn’t work. To say we wantwatershed coverage in the entireprovince, well, if you don’t haveanybody in the community that’staken a vested interest, that’s going tobe pretty hard to get that going”- A study participantwatersheds and number the watershed groups taking charge of them, the messageseems clear that: 1) a community-based watershed approach in PEI is currentlyworking well; 2) that it is needed for continued environmental restoration to occur; 3)45 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

that nothing should be done to undermine local empowerment and local engagement;and 4) that the PEI government should continue to invest more resources intosupporting them.Hopes and fears associated with the new province-wide Watershed Alliance (Question 33)The last statement in Table 3 concerns the Watershed Alliance, which had just formedin Spring 2009, a few months prior to the interviews.All groups agreed (10) andstrongly agreed (13), with the exception of one interviewee who remained neutral thatit wasone of the “key ingredients” towardimproving watershed management in PEI that aWatershed Alliance of watershed groups speak togovernment with a unified voice.In Question 33, I followed up on this statement byasking interviewees “What are your hopes and fearsassociated with the new Watershed Alliance”? Abouttwo-thirds of the groups were entirely supportive ofthe new Alliance’s formation and hopeful that theAlliance would bring more credibility and supportfor the work of watershed groups. The other thirdof the groups I interviewed had a more cautious“wait-and-see” approach preferring to let time takeits course before making a judgment.A few interviewees were concerned that the Alliancewould not be reflective of the many views ofwatershed groups, and that it would be dominatedby one perspective to the exclusion of otherperspectives.Some interviewees had seen pastalliances fail and therefore feared the same wouldhappen again.“My biggest fear - and I’ve seenthese things start before [referringto the watershed alliance]– is thatthey start with a clique of peopleand they stay as a clique of peopleand that’s very much my read ofwhere this is right now… becausethat’s been the history… You canhave a lot of strong communitygroups that are working quiteeffectively, but they don’t have anyof their members who want tostand up, and you know influencegovernment, they just want to dotheir own thing, so you’re notgetting a truly unified voice, you’regetting the voice of the few….as it’sbeen said, “the world belongs tothose who show up”, so peoplewho feel strongly about somethingwill show up and drive theagenda”.– A study participantConsequently a few groups were only tacit supporters of the newAlliance formation. Yet none were outright opposed to it. Most expressed interest in46 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

the prospect of having a provincial alliance, although many were not sure what itentailed and what benefits would emerge from this new arrangement.Further comments (Question 34)My last interview question was an open-ended one, allowing interviewees to tell meanything they felt had not yet been addressed in the interview. The main recurringtheme of this last question was the impacts of the lack of land use planning in theprovince. It so happened that the Commission on Land and Local Governance washolding its public consultations at the time, and so many interviewees told me theywondered what would be the result of this Commission and particularly the impact onwatershed governance, if any. They stressed the need for an integrated land use plan,as exemplified by the following quote.“There is very little planning that is going on here in PEI. There is a planningdepartment in Charlottetown, but they’re not doing any planning, it’s mainly arubber-stamping process. There are whole areas that just aren’t being addressed.You’ve got to look at transportation, you’ve got to look at the environment, you’vegot to look at the future of farming and fishing, you’ve got to look at the tourismindustry, agriculture, and it’s all got to be looked at together as an integrated plan.Because you can’t only look at one. What they are doing is they are separatedepartments and they are going off on their own separate ways… The environmentand watersheds are a big part of all that, and we [watershed groups] should bevery much involved in planning of wells and septic systems, for example, and weshould be involved with transportation department, to look at their plans for siltcontainment, but no, we are not. We don’t get called. Because everyone isworking independently, in their own little corners. There is no inter-departmentcooperation, and a strategic or spatial plan for the island. It doesn’t have toinvolve rezoning the whole island or expanding municipalities.– A study participant-47 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Discussion:Fostering Deliberation, Integration and Resilience____________ Back to ContentsIn pages 10-17 of this report, I briefly described two foundational concepts which helpgive meaning to the voices of watershed groups in this study – deliberation andresilience. Neither of these words came up explicitly in any of the 30 hours of recordedinterviews, yet I argue that they are both central to what watershed groups are tryingto achieve. To these two concepts, I will add a third - integration - which did come uprather often in the interviews. I include here a few thoughts on how the three conceptsmight help develop an understanding of how watershed management could beimproved. For more detailed reflections, please refer to upcoming academicpublications.Fostering deliberationIn democratic societies, government authority derives from the consent of thegoverned, and public participation is seen as both morally and functionally integral tothe fundamental democratic values of political equality and legitimacy, along withaccountability of government, and social responsibility among citizens (Ashford andRest, 1999; Renn et al., 1995).Two imperatives of governance 6 have arisen in western democracies in recent years.The first is a matter of process. The public, in general, appears less and less content tolet distant governments and private corporations make decisions that will inevitablyimpact their day-to-day lives without having some sort of input into those decisions.This trend is evidenced by the rise in number, diversity, and political strength of nongovernmentalorganizations, community groups, and citizen activists, which havecreatively voiced their interests on a host of social and environmental issues, including6 Parts of this section are also found in Bardati (2009a), a study which employed deliberativedemocratic principles to examine community participation in environmental decision-making.48 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

civil rights, whale hunting, nuclear energy, wilderness protection, and geneticengineering. The public is demanding a more participatory role in the development ofpublic policy.The second imperative relates to the substantive content of decisions made. One of themost dramatic shifts of the post-industrial period has been a heightened concern forenvironmental quality. Ever since the widespread adoption of the concept ofsustainable development" as a centerpiece for a desirable future state, public policydecisions are expected to be compatible withsustainable development, whether they relateto the use of natural resources, the economy, orother areas of social policy.These new imperatives are inter-related andboth are complex. Public participation is notonly a democratic cornerstone, but it is oftenthe basis for the public support that is necessaryfor sustainable development. At the same time,sustainable development requires coordinationof knowledge and interests from diverse fieldsthat include scientific uncertainties andconflicting social values. This situation poseschallenges to democratic society. Since neitherpublic participation nor sustainable development offer "blue-prints" that can be easilyfollowed in order to reach their intended goals, a great deal of uncertainty and conflictarises concerning the best ways to proceed.“…more direct participation byordinary citizens in policy-making isthe best or only way to secure many ofthe moral values (such as mutualrespect) that deliberative democracypromises. Greater participation notonly gives more citizens the chance toenjoy the benefits of taking part indeliberation, it also can help developthe virtues of citizenship, encouragingcitizens to consider political issues in amore public-spirited mode.”A. Gutmann and D. Thompson“Why Deliberative Democracy?”2004Before the two imperatives of governance became unavoidable, resource andenvironmental policy was not often publicly debated. Exposure to public scrutinyserved the interests of neither the government nor resource industries. Thetraditional approach has been termed the "decide-announce-defend" scenario of49 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

decision-making, in which the public is confronted only after a course of action isdetermined (Connor, 1996; Beierle, 1998). This approach is no longer effective sincepublic policy-making must contend with the struggle between different societal actorsattempting to establish, maintain, or increase their share of natural resources, whetherthat share is wealth generated by resource extraction and use, or some other derivedbenefit, be it aesthetic, ecological, or spiritual. Increased demand for publicparticipation often reflects the struggle between groups fighting for their own, oftenmutually incompatible, interests. Theseconflicts make current resource decisionmakingmuch more complex than it wasformerly.As part of this complexity, deliberation hascome to play an important role in allenvironmental decision-making includingwatershed management in PEI.Deliberativedemocracy affirms the need to justify decisionsmade by the citizens and their representatives.Deliberative democracy seeks to move beyondjust talk to genuine partnership betweencitizens and their representatives, with bothresponsibility and accountabilities assigned to them in an equitable and transparentmanner. Not all issues, all the time, require deliberation, but decisions made toencourage and support community-based watershed management clearly fall into thiscategory.While there appears to be some movement on the part of the PEIgovernment to involve watershed groups in decision-making, it remains very limited.Thus, it cannot be considered truly deliberative in nature.“Writers have theorized andstudied how ‘‘deliberative spaces’’(defined as virtual and real siteswhere meaningful public dialogueand debate can occur) haveemerged and how they play acrucial role in generating ideas andinformation that can improveknowledge, improveunderstanding, and enhance thequality of decisions”.Parkins and Mitchell, 2004Watershed management in PEI is a currently “deliberative space” where a degree ofdiscussion is taking place between citizens and their representatives over the bestmeans to proceed. However, I have observed an uneven playing field within this50 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

deliberative space. One the one side there is the government who holds the pursestrings and the power to write laws and enforce them, but very little capacity tomotivate the citizenry and affect lasting positive environmental change at the locallevel. The government of PEI needs community-based watershed groups to supporttheir efforts to enact positive for the environment and for all Islanders. On the otherside are the members of the public who have banded themselves into communitybasedwatershed groups - volunteers and temporary workers - doing the bulk of thework of environmental improvement, yet without any statutory authority to affect anylegal or policy change in many key areas where change is needed (e.g. land usepractices) – notwithstanding their very real ability to influence such changes. Thewatershed groups hold only a tokenistic “advisory” status in government decisionmakingand they do not share the government’s accountability and responsibility tothe public.There is room for improvement to move the system of watershed management in PEIcloser in the direction of deliberative democracy. Clearly the Provincial WatershedStrategy process (which was initiated four months after the interviews took place, andtherefore was not mentioned in the interviews) is an exercise in the direction ofdeliberative democracy and should be commended. It is a necessary first step, but thisstrategy document (even if realistic action plans are added to it) will be insufficient, initself, without significant political and legal reforms within the system. For thesereforms to take place, more deliberation will be required amongst all segments of PEIsociety. More importantly, government leadership needs to be awakened and politicalwill shared among the province’s elected representatives and the electorate for suchreforms to be made in the watershed management system.Fostering integrationMost readers would be familiar with the term integrated resource and environmentalmanagement (IREM), or integrated watershed management (IWM), since it is nowwidely used. Yet there is no agreed definition available in the literature or in anygovernment policy document. It is defined and applied differently in all jurisdictions.51 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The general idea behind integration is that ofgiving consideration for how the entire system -the whole, some would call it - works together asa unit, rather than looking only at selectcomponents for some perceived benefits.Suchintegration is absent in PEI, as was elucidated inthe quote by one this study’s interviewees (seepage 47).How might integration be achieved? Hooper andLant (2007, p. 98) provide with some generalpointers:1. Integration is achieved by makingendogenous what had been considered tobe exogenous – that is, by expanding thedefinition of the system being managed.2. Integration is achieved by incorporatingan understanding of the spatial andtemporal dynamics of the system beingmanaged.3. Integration is achieved by fostering selfregulatoryand self-organizing feedbacksamong the system components.“Integrated WatershedManagement (IWM) is viewed as amultidisciplinary and iterativeprocess that seeks to optimize thecontribution of aquatic resources tothe social, environmental, andeconomic welfare of Canadians,while maintaining the integrity ofaquatic ecosystems, both now andinto the future. Resource managersin Canada have come to recognizethat the integration on which thisapproach depends happens atmany levels…. IWM in Canadabrings together the work of federaland provincial/territorialgovernments, Aboriginal peoples,and other stakeholders --municipalities, industry, energy,agriculture, non-governmentalorganizations, community groups,and research teams -- into fullpartnership in the processes ofplanning, decision-making,management, andimplementation”.Environment Canada IWM websitehttp://www.ec.gc.ca/eau-water/default.asp?lang=En&n=13D23813-1#integrationWith respect to watershed management in PEI,steps toward integration will require a visiblecommitment to deliberation among the citizenry, between the citizenry andgovernment, and between government departments. The large question to bediscussed will have to be “what are we willing to sacrifice for, and what will be thebenefits of, authentic integrated watershed management in PEI?” Until this question istruly discussed – in the fashion of deliberative democracy – there will only be52 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

continued fragmentation of decision-making and piecemeal attempts at addressing theissues with questionable results.It makes no sense to point fingers at somegovernment departments and blame them for the impediments to the improvement ofthe health of watersheds. Making the exogenous more endogenous (see point 1 above)means that reforms in watershed management must include the views of alldepartments that have an impact on watersheds (for example, agriculture, tourism,fisheries, aquaculture, rural development, and others) and a detailed understanding ofhow their activities impact upon watersheds, as well as how improved watershedconditions will benefit the activities under the jurisdictions of each department. Thisunderstanding must include a consideration of scale – bothtemporal and spatial (see point 2 above) - and encourageand make visible the self-regulation and self-organizingfeedbacks which act to protect the whole rather than onlymaximize the short-term perceived benefits of eachseparate component or government department (see point3 above).Such an exercise in integration is therefore a majorchallenge for Islanders, but not insurmountable one, and itis predicated on the need for enhanced deliberation,beyond mere consultation, about the role that healthywatersheds have to play in Island quality of life, includingecological, social and economic aspects.“A resilient ecosystem canwithstand shocks andrebuild itself whennecessary. Resilience insocial systems has theadded capacity ofhumans to anticipate andplan for the future”.Resilience Alliancewebsitehttp://www.resalliance.org/index.php/resilienceFostering resilienceI see watershed management not only as a ”deliberative space” in need of integration,but as a social-ecological system needing to increase its resilience. Resilience, it wasmentioned earlier (pages 12-17), refers to ”the degree to which a complex adaptivesystem is capable of self-organisation and the degree to which the system can buildcapacity for learning and adaptation” (Folke et al., 2002).53 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Based on my assessment of what the watershed groups told me, I would say thatwatershed planning on PEI should become a lot moreresilient than it currently is.I noted, especially amonggovernment staff, a lot of talk about the need to improveefficiency in the system – meaning to figure out a better useof human resources and funds. While increasing efficiencyof certain components of the system is normally laudable,one must also be cautioned that actions taken to improveefficiency can be counter-productive in some cases, leadingto completely different outcomes than what was anticipated.Let me explain by discussing the concept of resilience andhow it might apply to watershed management in PEI.First, a resilient system requires a degree of redundancy for the system to be healthy.Eliminating redundancy can make the system more brittle, or less resilient. By way ofexample, think of your home heating system. If it relies only one source - oil forexample - you will be at the mercy of higher prices or have to go without heat when anoil shortage occurs, until the system finally stabilizes itself. But if you have multiplesources of heat - oil, electrical panels and a wood stove for example, in other words,you have redundant heat sources - you may find you are able to heat your housedespite various “shocks” you may face that threatens any one of the heat sources.Though it sounds rather counter-intuitive, redundancy can, in fact, lead to a robuststable and productive system.When applied to PEI watershed management,promoting resilience may mean that, instead of trying to reduce the number ofwatershed groups in the interest of eliminating redundancy and increasing efficiency,several small watershed groups are allowed to proceed with their operations.Attempting to reduce redundancy in this case may undermine the very key ingredientsof local empowerment and local engagement that drives community-based watershedmanagement in the first place.“Optimizingcomponents inisolation tends topessimize the wholesystem”.Hawken et al. in“Natural Capitalism”,1999, P. 11754 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

We should be aware that watershed management, as a social-ecological system, willlikely go through a regular four-phase adaptive cycle(see page 14 of this report). The key is to allow it toadapt and change, with flexibility and adaptation, whilenot getting itself trapped into what Gunderson andHolling (2002) have called a ”rigidity trap”. A rigiditytrap occurs when mindsets, resources, and othercomponents are locked into a singular way of doingthings – ironically, usually in the interest of promotingoptimisation of resources and system efficiency – butinevitably prolongs the system from undergoing itsnatural ”backloop” (Ω-α) of release, innovation andregeneration. If the front-loop (r-K) is kept unnaturallyfrom moving forward toward release, resilience drops rapidly and the threshold (ortipping point) is more easily breached.A breachthrough the threshold causes the system to transforminto a qualitatively different system.Therefore, an important aspect of fostering resilience isto identify current and potential shocks and thresholdsbeyond which the system becomes different. These mayinclude ‘fast variables” such as funding cuts, hurricanedamage, shoreline erosion, fish kills, etc, or it mayinclude slower variables like nitrate contamination ingroundwater, the cumulative impacts of pesticides in thesoil and water and human organs, populationoutmigration, or sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion, etc. Whatever the shock, slow orfast variables, a resilient system will ensure that it retains its composition, itsfunctions, its identity and its character, and will not cross a threshold (or tipping point)to become a completely different system.“Rigidity traps occur insocial–ecological systemswhen institutions becomehighly connected, selfreinforcing,and inflexible”.Gunderson and Holling in“Panarchy: UnderstandingTransformations in Humanand Natural Systems”,2002.“…where management bycommand and controlseverely reduces diversity,and forces of power andprofit are mutuallyreinforcing, a rigidity trapexists”.Gunderson and Hollingin “Panarchy”, 2002.55 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Furthermore, attention also needs to be placed on the how panarchies of nestedadapted cycles, and the cross-scale interactions that occur (described on page 16 ofthis report), might apply in the PEI watershed management system to enhance ordiminish resilience. While such attention is beyond the scope of this brief reflection 7 ,yet a few comments are warranted here.What is going on in the larger faster cycles is influencing what is going on in thesmaller slower cycles, and vice-versa. In a PEI watershed management context, theremay be four or more nested adaptive cycles operating at the same time and interactingupon each other. For example:At the individual system, there may be a single watershed group (e.g Wright’s Creekwatershed group) who may be at the r phase of the adaptive cycle. The group is notcompletely new, yet it is moving forward toward the growth and development phase.The individual system cycle is influenced by the next system in the panarchy, theinterorganizational system. For practical purposes, let us call that cycle the PEIWatershed Alliance system. It may be just starting-up – the alpha (α) phase – andmoving into the r phase of growth and accumulation. Panarchy states that theWright’s Creek group will be influenced by what the PEI Watershed Alliance does, andvice-versa. The exact nature of this cross-scale interaction needs to be explored aswell as the extent to which it that might have a direct effect on resilience of the system.However, higher up in the panarchy is the organizational system - the PEI Departmentof Environment, Energy and Forestry (DEEF), for example. Perhaps this system,having its own adaptive cycle, may have just gone through some sort of internal reorganization,an optimization of sorts which include a removal of redundancy – the Kphase. So there may be an interaction between the DEEF’s adaptive cycle and the PEIWatershed Alliance adaptive cycle, and vice-versa, which is another cross-scaleinteraction affecting the resilience of the system.7 Academic articles addressing the panarchy within the PEI watershed management, aimed at exploringlinkages between system dynamics and scale, are forthcoming and will be available from the author.56 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Finally, highest in the panarchy is the political level, where all the major decisions aremade (including funding, legislation, and overall vision) which affects all the adaptivecycles below it. The political cycle, which its distinct timelines for elections andparliamentary operations, will have an influence on the adaptive cycle of the DEEF, theWatershed Alliance, and Wright’s Creek watershed group. And likewise, the smaller,faster Wright's creek cycle, the Alliance, and the DEEF will have an influence on thepolitical cycle. There may are be other important adaptive cycles at other scales thatmay play an interacting role in the system.The key analytical exercise, in examining all the adaptive cycles and their cross-scaleinteractions, is to ask what is being done to identify important thresholds that cannotbe crossed, to make the system more resilient, and to avoid it becoming locked into arigidity trap.Of course, since resilience does not apply to people or ecosystems as separate units,but to both as a coupled social-ecological system - the land, the water, the flora, thefauna, the people and the government, the understanding of resilience in the panarchyapplies to the entire system, not just to what is helpful, expedient, or efficient for onepart of it.There is so much more than must be examined about these interactions. Yet we canbegin to see how deliberation, integration and resilience have much in common witheach other, each helping to reinforce the other. The process of deliberation helps toachieve integration, which acts as an important precursor to identifying the nestedadaptive cycles, and help building resilience of the system.57 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Conclusion: PEI Watersheds in Transition________________ Back to ContentsThis previous pages of this report provided the purpose and objectives of the researchproject, the methods used, a summary of the interview results, and a reflectivediscussion about how deliberation, integration and resilience may serve to givemeaning to the voices of the watershed groups and understand their ongoingcontributions to overall watershed governance in PEI.There were no definitive statements, prescriptions and suggestions on how to make itbetter. This was not a cookbook which step-by-step instructions on how to bake aperfect watershed management system cake. That was never the intent. Besides thereis only so much a researcher can know anyway.Rather, the report provides the beginning of an ongoing examination, borrowed fromtheoretical literature and applied to a real-world observations, about the widerimplications of what is happening among community-based watershed groups in PEI.The study – which is not yet completed - will hopefully serve to compliment the veryon-the-ground decision of everyday life that watershed groups and governmentofficials make. It hopefully accurately reflects what was told to me in the interviews.This report was promised to watershed groups, the PEI Watershed Alliance and theDEEF. It should be considered a “work in progress”, not anything final. This studydoes not end with the publication of this report anymore than a group’s watershedplan ends with the publication of the plan. There is always room to improvement andrefinement.Since July 2009 when the interviews took place, a lot has happened with respect towatershed management on PEI which is captured in this report.We can say that the adaptive cycle of watershed management in PEI is very much intransition.58 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

The concerted effort to develop a Provincial Watershed Strategy, by means ofconsultations with a working group made up of DEEF and Alliance board members, aswell as consultations with watershed groups across the province, are all an indicationof this system in transition. What the results of this Watershed Strategy process willreveal in the long-term is yet unclear, at least to me. One would hope that it is not seenas a “solution” to the problems with watersheds. This expectation would lead tofailure and further dissatisfaction within the system.Rather, as a system in transition, the provincial Watershed Strategy and theconsultative process which accompanied its development) should be seen as work-inprogressand collective vision-building. It is one aspect that holds the high promisetoward moving closer toward deliberation, integration and resilience.There will be a second phase to this research. I hope to return to PEI in June 2011 toconduct a second round of interviews with watershed groups and further discussionswith DEEF staff members. The aim of this follow-up round of interviews anddiscussions will be to obtain feedback on the findings and reflections in this report, andmore importantly, to discuss the PEI Watershed Strategy (both procedural andsubstantive aspects), as well as the future of watershed management in PEI.Therefore, in April and May 2011, I shall be in touch with one representative of eachwatershed group and selected DEEF personnel. For some of you, it will be the secondinterview, while for others it will be a first. I hope you will allow me to visit you and todiscuss your perspectives, insights and opinions on how to improve watershedmanagement in PEI. I am grateful in advance for this opportunity and I very much lookforward to it.Regards,Darren Bardati59 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

References____________________________________________ Back to ContentsAdger W.N. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in HumanGeography. Vol. 24.Pp. 347-64.Ashford, N. and K. Rest. 1999. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. Centerfor Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology. Cambridge, Mass.Bardati, D. 2009a. Participation, information and forest conflict in the Slocan Valley, BritishColumbia (Chapter 7, pp. 103-122) in Environmental Conflicts and Democracy in Canada,ed. L. E. Adkin. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Bardati, D. 2009b. “Water, science and humans: Exploring the hydrosocial cycle in the St.Francis River Watershed” Northeastern Geographer, 1: 45-58.Bardati, D. and C. Davidson Richards, 2005. “Grassroots environmental action in South Stukely”Journal of Eastern Townships Studies, 27: 5-22.Bardati, D. 2003. “Land use planning in British Columbia, Canada: Evaluating a participatoryexperiment”, The Land: Journal of the International Land Use Society, 7(1):57-81.Beierle, Thomas. 1998. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An EvaluationFramework Using Social Goals. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Bidwell, R.D. and C.M. Ryan. 2006. Collaborative partnership design: The implications oforganizational affiliation for watershed partnerships. Society and Natural Resources19:827-843.Bonnel, J.E. and T.M. Koontz. 2007. Stumbling forward: The organizational challenges ofbuilding and sustaining collaborative watershed management. Society and NaturalResources 20:153-167.Burroughs, R. 1999. When stakeholders choose: Process, knowledge and motivation in waterquality decisions. Society and Natural Resources 12:797-809.Choquette, C. and D. Bardati. 2008. L’évaluation du processus délibératif de la Politiquenationale de l’eau par des indicateurs sociaux, pp 319-340 in Vers une Gouvernance del’Eau au Québec, eds. C. Choquette and A. Letourneau. Québec : Editions MultiMondes.Chambers, S. 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6:307-26.Connor, D.M. 1996. Public Participation in Canada: Development, Current Status and Trends.Interact: The Journal of Public Participation 2(1): 1-5.60 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Cresswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions.Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.Dakins, M.E., J. D. Long, and M. Hart. 2005. Collaborative environmental decision-making inOregon watershed groups: Perceptions of effectiveness. Journal of the American WaterResources Association 41(1): 171-180.Dryzek, J. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressEnvironmental Advisory Council, 2007. We Are All Downstream, We Are All Upstream, We AreAll Part of a Watershed. A report on the public consultations on managing land and water ona watershed basis. Government of Prince Edward Island, Ministry of Environment, Energyand Forestry. Charlottetown, PEI.Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, Experts and the Environment: the Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham:Duke University Press.Folke C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systemsanalyses. Global Environmental Change 16:235-67.Folke C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes, 2002. Building resilience for adaptive capacity in socialecologicalsystems. In: Berkes F., J. Colding, and C. Folke (eds). Navigating Social-EcologicalSystems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK.Folke, C. S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström. 2010. Resiliencethinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology & Society 15(4):20 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/Government of Prince Edward Island (Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture andEnvironment). 2003. State of the Environment. Charlottetown, PEI.Government of Prince Edward Island (Department of Environment, Energy, and Forestry). Nodate (circa 2006). A Guide to Watershed Planning on Prince Edward Island. Charlottetown,PEI.Government of Prince Edward Island (Environmental Advisory Council, Department ofEnvironment, Energy and Forestry). 2007. We are all downstream, we are all upstream, weare all part of a watershed. Charlottetown, PEI.Government of Prince Edward Island (Commission on Nitrates in Groundwater). 2007. Reportof the Commission on Nitrates in Groundwater. Charlottetown, PEI.Government of Prince Edward Island (Commission on on the Land and Local Governance).2009. Report of the Commission on the Land and Local Governance. Charlottetown, PEI.Gunderson, L.H. and C.S. Holling. (eds.) 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations inHuman and Natural Systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Hawken P, Lovins A, Lovins LH. 1999. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next IndustrialRevolution. Little, Brown: Boston.61 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems.Ecosystems 4: 390-402.Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology andSystematics 4:1-23.Hooper, B.P. and C.L. Lant. 2007. Integrated, Adaptive Watershed Management, pp 97-118 inHanna, K. and D. Scott Slocombe (eds.) Integrated Resource and EnvironmentalManagement: Concepts and Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford and Toronto.Johnson, M. 2009. Public participation and perceptions of watershed modeling. Society andNatural Resources 22: 79-87.Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. 2000. Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed., pp. 567–605). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Koontz, T.M. and E. Moore Johnson. 2004. One size does not fit all: Matching breadth ofstakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences 37: 185-204.Krasney, M and C. Lundholm, and R. Plummer. 2010. Environmental education, resilience, andlearning: reflection and moving forward. Environmental Education Research 16(5-6): 665-672.Lurie, S. and M. Hibbard. 2008. Community-based natural resource management: Ideals andrealities for Oregon watershed councils. Society and Natural Resources 21:430-440.Margerum, R.D. and D. Whitall. 2004. The challenges and implications of collaborativemanagement on a river basin scale. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management47(3):407-427Mascarenhas, M. and R. Scarce. 2004. “The intention was good”: Legitimacy, consensus-baseddecision-making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia, Canada. Society andNatural Resources 17:17-38.McCool, S. and K. Guthrie. 2001. Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation inmessy natural resource management situations. Society and Natural Resources 14:309-323.Moore, E.A. and T.M. Koontz. 2003. A typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizenbased,agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society and Natural Resources 16:451-460.Morton, L.W. 2008. The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based watershedmanagement. Society and Natural Resources 21:751-766.Parkins, J.R. and R.E. Mitchell. 2005. Public participation as public debate: A deliberative turnin natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources 18: 529-540.Renn, Ortwin, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann. (eds). 1995. Fairness and Competence inCitizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Boston: KluwerAcademic Publishers.62 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Walker, B. and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in aChanging World. Washington, DC: Island Press.Webler, T. and S. Tuler. 2001. Public participation in watershed management planning: Viewson process from people in the field. Human Ecology Review 8(2):29-39.63 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Appendices___________________________________________ Back to ContentsAppendix I - Consent FormAppendix II - Interview QuestionnaireAppendix III - Presentations Given by the AuthorAppendix IV - Media Attention Given to this StudyAppendix V - Author Information64 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Appendix I - Consent Form(This form contains 3 pages)Research Project Title: Community-Based Watershed Planning in PEI: Voices from the FieldPrincipal Investigator:IntroductionDarren Bardati, PhDAssociate Professor and Director, Environmental Studies ProgramUniversity of Prince Edward Island, 550 University AvenueCharlottetown, PEI, C1A 4P3, Telephone: 902-620-5066Email: dbardati@upei.caYou are invited to take part in a research project on community-based watershed planning on PEI. Yourparticipation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time withoutrepercussions. The study is described below. The description tells you about the risks, inconvenience, ordiscomfort which you might experience. Participating in the study will not likely benefit you directly, butwe might learn things that will indirectly benefit you and others. You should discuss any questions youhave about this study with Darren Bardati.Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of this research project is to undertake an assessment of the capacity of community-basedwatershed groups on Prince Edward Island to perform watershed improvement operations, to developand implement watershed plans and to contribute to overall watershed governance and policy in theprovince.As a result of completing the study, the researcher hopes to understand how community-basedwatershed groups can most effectively contribute to watershed management.Study DesignThe researcher will conduct face-to-face interviews with leaders from the 30 or so community-basedwatershed groups operating on PEI.Who can participate in the study?You may voluntarily participate in this study if you are involved in any capacity with a community-basedwatershed group.Who will be conducting the research?The Principal Investigator, Darren Bardati, will be conducting the research.What you will be asked to do?You are being asked to participate in one in-depth interview of approximately one hour in length. Thisinterview will occur at a place and time agreed upon by yourself and the Principal Investigator.Possible Risks and DiscomfortsThere are few risks involved in participating in the study. Interviews will be audio recorded (with yourconsent) so that information is accurately and thoroughly collected. However, if you are uncomfortablewith this, you will be able to refuse being audio recorded, and only written notes will be taken. You have65 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

the right to refuse to answer any questions that you feel uncomfortable with, and you may end theinterview at any time.Possible BenefitsThere are no anticipated direct personal benefits. Your participation has the altruistic benefit of helpingcontribute to knowledge on how to most effectively contribute to watershed management on PEI.CompensationThere is no compensation for your participation in this study.Confidentiality and AnonymityAnonymity: You will not be identified by name in any publications.Confidentiality: You will also not be identified by name or by watershed in the data . You will beidentified by a code in the data, the key to which will be protected on a computer to which only thePrincipal Investigator and his student assistant (who signed a confidentiality agreement) has access.Electronic copies of the data will be stored on a computer to which only the Principal Investigator hasaccess. Any soft copies of data, such as interview notes, will be locked in a filing cabinet to which onlythe Principal Investigator has access.Data Retention: Audiotapes for the interviews will be destroyed after they are transcribed. All other datawill be securely maintained as outlined above for five years, post publication, and then destroyed.Results of the StudyA summary report of the findings (protecting anonymity and confidentiality) will be distributed to allparticipants in the studyQuestions?Please direct any questions you may have about the study to Darren Bardati, Principal Investigator. Youwill be provided with any new information that may affect your decision to participate in the study.Problems or ConcernsThe Research Ethics Board of UPEI has approved this research project. In the event that you have anydifficulties with, or wish to voice concern about, any aspect of your participation in this study, or theethical conduct of this study, you may contact the UPEI Research Ethics Board, for assistance at (902)566-0637, lmacphee@upei.ca.66 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Research Project Title: Community-Based Watershed Planning in PEI: Voices from the FieldPrincipal Investigator:Darren Bardati, Environmental Studies, UPEISIGNATURES1) Permission to be interviewed:I ______________________________________ have read the explanation about this study. I have been given theopportunity to discuss it and my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that Ican keep a copy of the signed and dated consent form. I hereby consent to take part in this study.However I realize that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw from the study atany time.Signature ______________________________ Date ______________________Principal Investigator’s Signature ______________________________ Date _______________________2) Permission to be audio-recorded:I __________________________________ give permission for the interview to be audio-recorded.Signature _______________________________ Date ________________________3) Permission to use direct quotes:I __________________________________ give permission for direct quotes from my interview to be used inpublications. I understand that I will be given the opportunity to review the quotes before publication toensure accuracy and confidentiality.Signature: _____________________________ Date_________________________67 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Appendix II - Interview QuestionnairePreambleThank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. The interview has three parts: First, Iam interested in basic questions about your watershed’s characteristics, and your group’sstructure and functions (group formation, membership, decision process). In the second part,I’ll ask you questions about your group goals, activities and accomplishments. Finally, in thethird part, I’ll ask what you about what you think can be done to improve watershedmanagement in PEI.Part 1 – Basic Characteristics:Watershed characteristics:1- How large is the watershed? (hectares, map?)2- How many inhabitants live within the watershed boundaries?3- What are the key issues and concerns affecting environmental quality in this watershed?History / Group formation:4- How long has your group been in existence?5- Who initiated its formation?6- What was the motivation behind the formation of the group?Membership / Decision process:7- Is your group incorporated? (Why/Why not?); Registered Charity status? (Why/Why not?)8- How is membership determined? (e.g. representative, open, restricted, etc)9- How many members/volunteers do you have?10- How is group leadership determined? (e.g. Board of governors, key people, etc)11- How many leaders do you have?12- How many staff does your group employ (full-time, part-time, seasonal)?13- How are decisions made? (e.g. formal voting, consensus, f-t staff decides, etc)Meetings/Communication:15- How many meetings take place per year?16- How does the group communicate between meetings? (e.g. email, phone, in-person)17- Does your group have a website? (take down URL)Funding:18- How is the group funded? (e.g. gov’t, private donations, fundraising, etc, approx % of each)19- What is the overall operating budget?Part 2 - Group goals, activities and accomplishments:20- What are the goals of your group? (e.g. articulated mission statement)21- What activities is your group involved with? (probe & list)22- Have you developed a watershed plan? When? (ask for a copy)23- What would you say are your group’s greatest achievements?24- How would you define/measure the success of your group?25- What would it take for your group to become more effective at reaching its goals?68 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

26- I have a series of statements I’d like you to answer whether you strongly disagree (SD),disagree (D), are neutral (N), agree (A), or strongly disagree (SA):______________________________________________________________________________Group Effectiveness: In order to function effectively, the watershed group with which I’massociated...…has an adequate organizational structure SD D N A SA…has an adequate process for making decisions SD D N A SA…has an adequate access to expertise SD D N A SA…has adequate financial support SD D N A SA…has adequate staff support SD D N A SA…has an adequate number of members/volunteers SD D N A SA.. has adequate involvement from the general public SD D N A SA…has an adequate means to communicate with members SD D N A SA______________________________________________________________________________27- Did you want to add any comment or expand on any of these above statements?I’d like to talk about some common goals/activities I’ve seen in many watershed groups:oooooEnvironmental improvement: where the environmental conditions in the watershed areimproved as a result of the groups activitiesEducation: where members gain an improved understanding of the issues that exist in thewatershed.Social: where members exchanges ideas and gain an appreciation for each others’perspectives and each other (organizing social activities)Public involvement: where the general public becomes active through volunteering,financial support, and other use of skills and talents to advance the goals of the watershedgroup.Government policy: where the group endeavors to influence government policy onwatershed issues.28- I have another series of statements I’d like you to answer whether you strongly disagree(SD), disagree (D), are neutral (N), agree (A), or strongly disagree (SA):______________________________________________________________________________Capacity to reach goals/perform activities: The watershed group with which I’m associated...…is explicitly involved with environmental improvement SD D N A SA…has adequate capacity to carry out env improvements SD D N A SA…is explicitly involved with education SD D N A SA…has adequate capacity to carry out its educ. functions SD D N A SA…is explicitly involved in promoting social activities SD D N A SA…has adequate capacity to carry out social activities SD D N A SA…is explicitly tries to involve the general public in its activitiesSD D N A SA…has adequate capacity to carry out its public involv. efforts SD D N A SA…is explicitly involved in trying to influence government policySD D N A SA…has adequate capacity to influence government policy SD D N A SA_________________________________________________________________________________29- Did you want to add any comment or expand on any of these above statements?69 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Part 3 – How to improve watershed management in PEI:30- What would you say are the main barriers or constraints (e.g. social, economic, political) toimproved watershed management in PEI?31- I have one last series of statements I’d like you to answer whether you strongly disagree(SD), disagree (D), are neutral (N), agree (A), or strongly disagree (SA):______________________________________________________________________________How to improve watershed management in PEI: The following are “key ingredients” forimproved watershed management in PEIIncreased gov’t funding to watershed groups SD D N A SAEffective watershed group leaders SD D N A SAFull-time staff SD D N A SABroader, more inclusive membership in each watershed groupSD D N A SACooperative and committed participants SD D N A SAInterpersonal trust within groups (among members) SD D N A SAWell-defined decision-making rules for the group SD D N A SAInvolvement by technically skilled gov’t staff SD D N A SAEffective communication between groups SD D N A SATrust between groups and gov’t staff SD D N A SAFewer, larger watershed groups SD D N A SAMore education of the general public about watershed issues SD D N A SAA government committed to enforcing existing regulations SD D N A SABottom-up group structure with minimal gov’t involvement SD D N A SATop-down group structure defined by gov’t SD D N A SAA collaborative/hybrid group structure (with multiple stakeholders from all sectors (e.g. agric,fisheries, tourism, gov’t) SD D N A SAA Watershed Alliance of watershed groups to speak to gov’t with one voiceSD D N A SA________________________________________________________________________________32- Did you want to add any comment or expand on any of these above statements?33- What are your hopes/expectations (or fears) associated with the new Watershed Alliance(e.g. ecological, economic, social, political)?Closing statement:Thank you for participating in this interview. I really appreciate the time you’ve taken toanswer my questions.34- Was there anything else you wanted to say that I may have missed, that you feel I shouldknow? Was anything unclear?Once all the interviews are completed and the data is analyzed, I plan to produce a summaryreport of the findings. Would you like to receive a copy?Once again, thank you. I’ll leave you my card if you wish to contact me on any of this.70 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Appendix III - Presentations Given by the AuthorThe following is a list of presentations related to this research project given by theauthor. Further information is available from the author.Academic conferencesBardati, D. (scheduled for 2011). “ Vers une gouvernance de l’eau et du territoire { l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard : Implication des groupes communautaires de bassins versants.” A Presenté à l’Associationfrancophone pour le savoir (ACFAS), Université de Sherbrooke et Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke,QC, le 13 maiBardati, D. (scheduled for 2011). “Watershed voices in Prince Edward Island, Canada: Hearing fromcommunity-based watershed groups about their role in provincial watershed governance”. To bepresented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Seattle, WA, USA, April13Bardati, D. 2010. “Watershed management in transition on PEI: A history in the making” Time and aPlace: Environmental Histories, Environmental Futures and Prince Edward Island Conference,Charlottetown, PEI, June 14Bardati, D. 2010. “Le rôle changeant des organismes de bassins versants a l’Ile du Prince Édouard: Dela gestion d’une ressource a la gouvernance du territoire?” Presenté { l’Association francophone pourle savoir (ACFAS), colloque 621 de la section Développement régional, Université de Montréal, QC, le9 maiBardati, D. 2010. “Resilience and community-based watershed planning on PEI” Presented at theAtlantic Canada Inaugural WATER Symposium, Truro, NS, March 27Bardati, D. 2009. “Community-based watershed management in transition on Prince Edward Island”Presented at the Atlantic Canadian Association of Geographers (ACAG) Annual Conference, Halifax, NS,October 16Invited talksBardati, D, Community-based watershed planning on PEI: Hearing from watershed groups, Central PEIWatersheds meeting, Cornwall, PE. 20 May 2010Bardati, D. Community-based watershed planning on PEI: Hearing from watershed groups, PEIWatershed Alliance, New London, PEI, 10 April 2010Bardati, D. Watershed management in Transition on PEI, Université de Moncton, Programme demaitrise en Environnement. 26 November 2009Bardati, D. Experts, the Public and Watershed Planning: An Interdisciplinary Approach, University ofPrince Edward Island, 11 December 200771 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Appendix IV – Media Attention Given to this StudyA number of media outlets have requested interviews regarding this research project, listedhere:Daily Newspaper“Professor sheds light on watershed groups” by Nathan Rochford. The Guardian(Charlottetown), Tuesday May 25, 2010, page A2CBC radioCBC Radio (Charlottetown 96.1 FM), Island Morning program: Live interview with host MitchCormier about this watershed research, 21 May 2010CBC PEI (Internet)CBC PEI [cbc.ca/pei] “Watershed groups need support: UPEI study”. 21 May 2010Magazine articleA brief mention in WaterCanada, Regional Focus: Atlantic Canada “The Coast Factor: Anoverview of water policies in the Atlantic Provinces” by Jocelyn Rankin, July/August 2010,page 22-2372 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups

Appendix V – Author InformationDarren Bardati is an Associate Professor of Environmental Studies andGeography at Bishop’s University, Lennoxville, Quebec. He holds a PhD inGeography (Natural Resources) from McGill University. Between 2008 and 2010,he took a leave of absence from Bishop’s University to serve as Director ofEnvironmental Studies at the University of Prince Edward Island, where hecontinues to serve as Adjunct Professor and Research Associate. His researchfoci are: 1) The role of watershed groups in complex adaptive watershedgovernance regimes; and 2) How local communities respond and adapt tochallenges brought on by climate change.Darren, his wife Jennifer and their children live on a rural homestead, whichincludes a small trout stream, in the forested hills of Quebec’s Eastern Townships.Darren Bardati can be reached by email at dbardati@ubishops.caor by phone at 819-822-9600 ext 246273 Watershed voices in PEI: Hearing from watershed groups