Public Involvement Public Participation Public Relations Extension

1. Public InvolvementPublic ParticipationPublic RelationsExtension • Whatever you call it, it comes down to dealing with people. • One suspects that it was less of an issue when the Forest Service consisted of small Ranger Districts which were cornerstones of small communities • But it existed back then, too. • The fundamental concept is a cornerstone of democracy: people affected by government’s decisions should be consulted with and have input into those decisions.

2. A Bit of History • “The Nelson Forest Region... can be considered, if not the birthplace, then the crucible of the [Forest Service Public Involvement Program]” Cordillera, 1982 • Examples in the mid to late 1970’s included Blewett Watershed Committee, Argenta Folio Committee, South Slocan Water Users Committee, Nelson & Area Watershed Committee, West Arm Resource Planning Committee, and the Creston Public Advisory Committee • Major Forest Service reorganization in 1980-81; provincial public involvement coordinator hired. • 1983 – Forest Service Public Involvement Policy • 1985 - Public Involvement Handbook

3. All Part of the Job • Public involvement in forest management and planning was seen as part of the Forest Service’s mandate • Most offices had a designated “public involvement coordinator”. However, planners were all in Region or Victoria, so public involvement in planning was kind of hit and miss. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. Much like now. In Kootenay Lake, Steve Flett took on the public involvement coordinator role in 1981. • A large portion of this job focussed just on public education (extension). Many of the people with strong views on forest management lacked the necessary background or even vocabulary to participate effectively. • When the Nelson Forest Region hired me in 1986, it was primarily to work on the public involvement and extension side of planning. • There was a tendency with some staff to view public contact as “Steve’s job”. We tried, with some success, to change that. In Kootenay Lake, most staff ended up sharing the load. Over a period of 20 years or so, we got better at it and I do believe it contributed to a better public understanding of the issues.

4. Good Intentions... But... • As a general rule, public involvement worked if you had reasonable people working at it. • But often you ended up working with the “220 Volt Negative” types who were inherently difficult to please. The Policy and Handbook made very little mention of this. • Many people disagreed with the land use designation (provincial forest) which allowed development in their watershed. • For others, local control of decision-making was their primary focus. • Others just figured they should be able to do whatever they wanted on public land.

5. Let’s look at a few of these • When I started in this role in 1986, it was like being tossed into a boiling pot and told to make it stop. Other Districts seemed to be able to make it work; why were Kootenay Lake and Arrow having such trouble? Well, it might have had something to do with our colourful publics. Here are five that I ran into fairly regularly. • 1. The Deep Ecologist. • 2. The Refugee. • 3. The Politician. • 4. The Dinosaur. • 5. The Community-minded moderate

6. The community minded moderate • These people were worth their weight in gold. They were respected in the local community, they understood the basics of resource management, and they understood the limitations of government. For the most part, they just wanted to live and let live, but also wanted to make sure their water was taken care of. • They were not easily intimidated, by anybody, and had very little in the way of hidden agendas. • Being a community representative is not easy.

7. The Dinosaur • These pro-development critters were less prevalent in the West Kootenay than in the East. Or, perhaps, were more inclined to keep a low profile here. • They had a bit of a tendency to open their mouths at the wrong time and say something stupid or inappropriate, which didn’t improve the image of resource users or managers. • The worst thing was if a Dinosaur heard you defend logging, hunting, or whatever, and decided that you were his buddy. Or, that you were his ally to make all these loonies go away. Nothing is harder on your credibility than a Dinosaur who keeps saying nice things about you.

8. The Politician • As noted, the basic concept behind public involvement is a basic principle of democracy. It is, therefore, inherently political. • “Local Control” advocates have been strong in the West Kootenays for a long time. • Of course, these people also hope to achieve their other political goals through changes to the political system. • “Local Control”, then, also means getting what they want – usually decision-making which favours them, or their friends. • Well, as became evident through CORE and community forest tenures, it’s not quite that simple. They still have to deal with people who have different views and objectives. • And, since these are political, not technical, issues, they should really not use operational planning processes as levers. Politics should stay at the legislation or land use level (see 1989 Ombudsman report).

9. The Refugee • As I got to meet members of the active public, I was struck by how many of them were relatively recent arrivals to the area. The long term residents seemed, in general, to be more laid back about logging and such. They were used to it. • I came to see many of these people as refugees – fleeing from a world gone mad to a place they sensed was a sanctuary. • But - when they found that the evil dragon of industrial greed lived here as well, they often reacted with surprise and outrage. This sometimes manifested as contempt for those locals (or gov’t employees; I happened to be both) who they saw as complacent or collaborators.

10. The Deep Ecologist • Of course, concern for the environment existed for all these people. But the Deep Ecologist seemed to be in a league of his own. • They almost sounded religious in their intensity. Cultish, in fact. You could talk to them for hours and not sway them on a single point. Sound familiar? • If you run into difficult people, a good approach is to just listen and try to figure out where they’re coming from. Don’t try to change their minds, just ask for clarity. • If people sense they have a willing audience, they are usually happy to explain why their worldview is right. • In fairly short order, after asking, I was given a reading list.

11. “Deep Ecology – Living as if Nature Mattered” Devall & Sessions, 1985 • This reading list included all sorts of stuff from way back – Muir, Thoreau and others. • The spiritual value of wilderness was the dominant theme. • But it wasn’t until I obtained a copy of “Deep Ecology” that I began to understand this particular modern manifestation. • It became abundantly clear that, beyond the basic necessities such as good manners, there was probably no way you could work something out with these people. Their minds were made up. • Though I have to say now that many of them have since moderated their views. Reality is a good teacher. And the basic flaw in their belief is that nature is good but humans are evil. This breaks down once you see clearly that humans are a product of nature, and inseparable from it. • But I still run into them. Often, they come from urban backgrounds and have just recently “seen the light”. New converts are often the most fanatical, and the least able to understand why others don’t see things the way they do.

13. Pawns in a Higher Game • Anyways, under these conditions, progress was difficult. Obviously, we couldn’t hand-pick the members of the public that we preferred to deal with. Often, the moderates preferred to speak to us one-on-one rather than attend meetings which were dominated by extremists. • Personality issues were just part of the game – after all, this is people we’re talking about here - but issues of land use and local control had to be addressed at a higher level. • Eventually, this did happen as part of the CORE and 1995 KBLUP processes. By the end, even if people didn’t get what they wanted, they understood the situation much better. Or, were too burned out to keep screaming.

16. The Brundtland Report • The 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development was published in book form as “Our Common Future”. • The Commission looked at issues of environmental damage and economic development and concluded that the two were interdependent. • The worst cases of environmental damage were happening in poor countries which could not afford cleaner or more efficient technologies. • But environmental impacts were felt by all, including the rich. What was needed was “Sustainable Development.” • This may seem self-evident now, but there had been a strong sense that environmental protection and economic development were somehow mutually exclusive. • This prompted a great deal of healthy debate and discussion

17. Spin-offs • In September 1987, Canada, an active participant in the World Commission on E &D, generated its own “Report of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy” which contained a commitment to “sustainable development”. • In 1989, the BC Task Force on Environment and Economy generated its own report: “Sustaining the Living Land”. In additional to the usual commitment to sustainable development, it recommended creation of cross-sectoral “Round Tables” at the provincial and local levels. The BC “Old Growth Strategy”, which was as much about public involvement as it was about old growth, was also generated in 1989. • Also in 1989, the BC Forest Resources Commission was created; it tabled its report “The Future of Our Forests” in April 1991 and recommended improved systems of public involvement . • The BC Round Table was created in 1990 and generated a number of publications on how to form your own Round Table. Kaslo gave it a try, and the West Arm Land Use Forum. The Creston Public Advisory Committee, created in 1977, sniffed in disdain at these upstarts who thought they were inventing something new. • Then, the BC Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) was created in 1992, to generate land use plans for the Kootenays, Vancouver Island, and the Cariboo. The Commissioner (previously Ombudsman) Stephen Owen, undertook this using a Round Table format.

18. The CORE years, 1992-1994 • CORE has been criticized for its unrealistic goals and failure to reach agreement amongst sectors, but it was a necessary attempt. • Perhaps the main benefit was that people were forced to realize the extent of the differing interests out there... • Especially within their own sector! • And just how difficult reaching consensus can be when dealing with politicians, dinosaurs, deep ecologists, and everything else.

19. KBLUP - 1995 • Government made last-minute changes to the CORE recommendations, and issued the Kootenay-Boundary Land Use Plans in 1995. • This finally settled most of the Protected Area issues, which were foremost in most CORE participants’ minds. • The Working Forest designations were understood to be confirmed as part of the final land use decision. We planners were not expected to debate the land use decision. So, we went back to work with our various publics. • The KBLUP Implementation Strategy (1997) and Higher Level Plan Orders (2001-02) were largely government processes with relatively little substance.

20. The Code – Scaled Down Expectations • After CORE and KBLUP, many people were burned out, or had come to realize that they weren’t going to change the world after all. Maybe they also learned that other people were not necessarily their enemies. • All parties scaled back their expectations, but public involvement in planning did continue. We just spent less time on land use issues. Which was a good thing. • The Code did generate a guidebook on “Public Consultation”, but it was greatly scaled back from the earlier Public Involvement Handbook and emphasized “review and comment” rather than more active forms of public participation. • Prior to CORE, pretty much every publication extolled the virtues of enhanced public participation. After CORE, this enthusiasm was somewhat tempered by reality.

21. And then... FRPA • Review and comment requirements were listed for FSPs, but not much else. • The Forest Service role was greatly reduced; development proponents were given greater responsibility. • Not entirely a bad thing, as this forced us to terminate some public planning exercises which were not working. • But, it was a bit much to expect industry to explain all aspects of government policy and satisfy a highly concerned public. We generally continued to share this workload with licensees. • I received one “backhanded” compliment from an environmentalist who used to beat on us pretty good. He said “I guess we didn’t realize how good we had it. At least you guys would talk to us. Now, if industry doesn’t want to talk to us, they don’t have to.”

22. Public Involvement Tools • Much is this is not immediately relevant, but let’s look at some of the things we’ve done over the years. • All these techniques worked sometimes, didn’t work other times... Again, depending largely on the issue and the people involved. • There is no shortage of publications out there on these topics, so I haven’t posted any. • Note that woodlots and community forest tenures dealt to some degree with our most vociferous local control issue areas.

24. Ones we’ve used • Joint planning teams (as with CRMP) need a clear Terms of Reference with realistic expectations, and need to be prepared for a long haul. In today’s “planning vacuum”, be cautious about starting new ones. • A task group is more focussed on specific short term questions but also needs a clear Terms of Reference. • Public meetings are good for announcements, but poor for two-way communication. • Open Houses and Field Trips are best for discussing proposals in detail. • Regardless of the tool, never forget the importance of advance checking with known opinion leaders in a community or sector. For this reason, it is beneficial to maintain a network of contacts in the communities you operate within.

25. A few colourful examples... • Lasca Creek – proponents of land use (park), local control, and deep ecology all lined up and succeeded in getting the West Arm Park established. • Singing Forest – primarily a spiritual issue which nobody knew how to deal with. Even the mainstream environmental groups tried to keep their distance. Again, though, listening was key, and treating people with respect. • And the 8-column Redfish Rant which managed to capture pretty much every angle.

26. So, Here We Are • Things are surprisingly quiet in terms of public issues. Licensees are generally dealing effectively with water users and other interests. But it’s a lot of work, and if issues escalate... • Staff continuity is a big thing. It takes time to build personal and corporate credibility, and this is what will keep you afloat. • Keep doing what you’re doing. Be patient, be polite, but be firm when you have to be.