Step  by  Step:    

Final  Report  of  the  Shared  Decision  Making  in  BC  Project  

 

March  2015  

Shared  Decision  Making  in  BC  Project:  2012-­‐2015  

•  An  independent  research  project  exploring  the  recent  emergence  of  government-­‐to-­‐government  (G2G)  agreements  between  First  NaCons  and  the  Provincial  Crown  in  BC  

•  Two  streams  of  work  –  CollaboraCve  research  (review  of  published  and  unpublished  

literature,  interviews)  –  Face-­‐to-­‐face  dialogues  among  First  NaCons  and  provincial  agency  staff  

involved  in  negoCaCon  and  implementaCon  •  Project  housed  at  SFU’s  Centre  for  Dialogue  •  Funded  by  Gordon  and  BeQy  Moore  FoundaCon  as  a  

‘Governance  Learning  Project’  

2  

Shared  Decision  Making  Agreements  

•  SDM  Agreements  provide  a  framework  for  collaboraCon  between  two  governments  who,  despite  unresolved  quesCons  of  authority  and  jurisdicCon,  seek  to  build  working  relaConships  with  one  another,  develop  trust,  and  find  ways  to  reach  mutually  agreeable  decisions  about  how  land  and  resources  should  be  managed    

•  Two  types  of  SDM  Agreements  examined:  –  Strategic  Engagement  Agreements  –  ReconciliaCon  Protocols  

•  Common  features,  with  each  agreement  tailored  to  local  circumstances  

3  

Approximate  locaDon  of  SDM  Agreements  in  BC  

4  

L AA S K A

N O VERVA C UISLAND KELOWNA

MLOKA OPS

CVAN OUVER

VICTORIA

CEPRIN

Y R I T O YU K O N T E R R N . W . T .

U S( A )

A L B E R T AGEORGE

U S A

L AA S K A

Stó:lo First NationsSigned: 2014Tseycum First NationSigned: 2012

Gitanyow NationSigned: 2012Haida NationSigned: 2009Coastal First NationsSigned: 2009

Nanwakolas First NationsSigned: 2009, Multiple amendmentsSigned: 2011

Taku River Tlingit First NationSigned: 2011Tahltan NationSigned: 2013

Protected Areas

Strategic Engagement Agreement

Reconciliation Protocol/Framework

Scale

km100 0 100 200 300

km

Kaska Dena CouncilSigned: 2012

Ktunaxa NationSigned: 2010Renewed: 2013

Tsilhqot'in NationSigned: 2009Amended: 2011Renewed: 2014Secwe'pemc First Nation Signed: 2013

Snuneymuxw First Nation Signed: 2013Nlaka'pamux Signed: 2014

Musqueam Indian Band Signed: 2008

NOTE: 1. This map does not display precise territorial boundaries but is intended only to show approximate geographic locations. 2. Dashed lines indicate SDM Agreements where the First Nations involved were not active partners in the SDM in BC collaborative research project.

N NAIMA O

PlaEorm  for  Shared  Learning  

•  SDM  in  BC  project  offered  neutral  pla[orm  for  reflecCon  and  shared  learning,  away  from  negoCaCng  table  

•  ObjecCves:  1.  Understand  genesis,  scope  and  intent  of  SDM  Agreements  2.  Assess  contribuCon  toward  reconciliaCon,  improved  land  and  resource  

management  decision  making,  and  achievement  of  environmental,  economic,  and  social  objecCves  for  First  NaCons    

3.  Explore  resilience  and  adaptability  in  the  face  of  changing  social,  economic  and  ecological  condiCons  

4.  IdenCfy  tools  and  best  pracCces  to  support  implementaCon  

•  In  light  of  conCnuing  uncertainty  over  Aboriginal  rights  and  Ctle,  SDM  Agreements  offer  informaCve  examples  of  collaboraCon  

 5  

Genesis,  Purpose  and  Intent  of  SDM  Agreements  

6  

Drivers  for  SDM  Agreements  

•  Legal  drivers:  –  Series  of  legal  rulings  compelled  Crown  to  engage  First  NaCons  directly  in  

‘interim  period,’  prior  to  resoluCon  of  Aboriginal  rights  and  Ctle  –  Taku  and  Haida  SCC  rulings  (2004)  established  ‘Honour  of  Crown’  doctrine  

and  clarified  consultaCon  and  accommodaCon  obligaCons  

•  PoliCcal  drivers:      –  On-­‐going  land  use  conflicts  –  Series  of  bilateral  negoCaCons  with  First  NaCons,  providing  basis  for  

engagement/MOUs  

•  OperaConal  drivers:    –  Unwieldy  and  inefficient  referrals  process,  leading  to  delays  in  project  

approvals,  uncertainty  for  economic  development  

7  

New  RelaDonship  Vision  Statement  

•  NegoCated  between  Premier’s  Office  and  First  NaCons  Leadership  Council  in  2005:  

–  We  are  all  here  to  stay.    We  agree  to  a  new  government-­‐to-­‐government  rela1onship  based  on  respect,  recogniCon  and  accommodaCon  of  aboriginal  Ctle  and  rights.    Our  shared  vision  includes  respect  for  our  respecCve  laws  and  responsibiliCes.    Through  this  new  relaConship,  we  commit  to  reconcilia1on  of  Aboriginal  and  Crown  Ctles  and  jurisdicCons.  

–  We  agree  to  establish  processes  and  ins1tu1ons  for  shared  decision-­‐making  about  the  land  and  resources  and  for  revenue  and  benefit  sharing,  recognizing…  the  right  to  aboriginal  Ctle  “in  its  full  form”,  including  the  inherent  right  for  the  community  to  make  decisions  as  to  the  use  of  the  land  …  

8  

Purpose  and  Scope  of  SDM  Agreements:  BC  PerspecDve  

1.  Advance  reconciliaCon  2.  Improve  social  and  economic  circumstances  in  First  NaCons  

communiCes  3.  Increase  consultaCon  effecCveness  by:  

–  Providing  consistent,  predictable  and  mutually  agreed  process  –  Focusing  effort  on  applicaCons  that  have  the  greatest  potenCal  

impacts  in  most  sensiCve  areas      –  Improving  working  relaConships  technical  capacity  –  Commikng  to  develop  addiConal  consultaCon  approaches  over  Cme  

(a  ‘building  blocks’  approach  to  a  more  comprehensive  agreement)  Source:  BC  Factsheet  

 9  

Purpose  and  Scope  of  SDM  Agreement:  First  NaDons  PerspecDves  

Various  perspecCves,  including:  •  Secure  formal  recogniCon  of  territory  •  Establish  a  mutually  respec[ul,  government-­‐to-­‐government  

relaConship  •  Implement  a  land  use  plan,  or  create  mechanisms  for  conservaCon  

of  fish,  wildlife  and  cultural  values  •  Secure  a  more  influenCal  role  in  resource  management  decision  

making;  •  Secure  resource  revenue  from  development  acCviCes  •  Improve  coordinaCon  among  mulCple  First  NaCons  within  their  

own  territory  but  also  in  areas  of  shared  territory  or  ‘overlaps’  •  Build  capacity  •  A  ‘step  in  the  right  direcCon’  

10  

Differing  PerspecDves  

Complex  legal  and  poliCcal  underpinnings  lead  to  differing  interpretaCons  of  purpose,  scope  and  uClity:  •  A  form  of  interim  accommodaCon  of  First  NaCons  governance  

and  decision-­‐making  rights  that  has  the  potenCal  to  serve  as  a  stepping  stone  to  full  recogniCon  

•  An  engagement  framework  to  bring  greater  efficiency  and  predictability  to  the  consultaCon  process  in  the  interim  period,  to  reduce  conflict  over  land  and  resource  decisions,  and  increase  land  use  certainty  

 

11  

NegoDaDon  and  ImplementaDon  of  SDM  Agreements  

12  

NegoDaDng  SDM  Agreements:    Key  Factors  for  Success  

•  Shared  experience  of  working  together  as  basis  for  negoCaCon  •  Respected  individuals  to  act  as  ‘broker’  to  bring  the  parCes  

together,  set  realisCc  expectaCons,  and  frame  work  ahead  in  a  construcCve  light    

•  Sufficient  technical  capacity  and  capabiliCes  to  engage  effecCvely  over  extended  period  

•  A  ‘reference  caucus’  of  trusted  advisors  to  offer  guidance  •  EffecCve  internal  governance  for  negoCaCng  parCes  •  Senior  representaCon  at  the  negoCaCng  table,  with  clear  mandate  •  A  realisCc  sense  of  what  is  pracCcally  achievable,  and  

understanding  of  what  an  SDM  Agreement  can/cannot  deliver  •  ‘Ramping  up’  for  implementaCon  before  negoCaCons  are  

completed  

13  

ImplementaDon:    G2G  Forums  and  Joint  IniDaDves  

•  G2GF  Forums  are  centrepiece  of  SDM  Agreements:  –  Composed  of  senior  representaCves  for  each  party  –  Structure  and  terminology  varies  –  Responsible  for  oversight  of  implementaCon,  dispute  resoluCon  –  Provide  a  focus  for  G2G  engagement  at  strategic  level  

•  EffecCveness  depends  on  mulCple  factors  including:  –  PaCent  trust  building  –  Capable  leadership  –  Willingness  to  adapt  to  a  new  way  of  doing  business  –  Mutually  agreeable  agenda  –  EffecCve  liaison  with  other  provincial  agencies  and  First  NaCons  departments  

•  G2G  Forums  oversee  ‘joint  iniCaCves’  addressing  strategic  issues,  which  provide  considerable  room  for  innovaCon  at  margins  of  policy  envelopes  

14  

ImplementaDon:    G2G  Engagement  Process  

•  A  framework  to  reach  agreement  on  the  depth  of  engagement  for  any  given  applicaCon  

•  Defined  process  steps  and  Cmelines  •  OpportuniCes  for  direct  cooperaCon  between  technical  

representaCves.    •  Seeks  to  generate  a  consensus  recommendaCon  regarding  

the  acceptability  of  a  given  resource  management  acCvity,  for  consideraCon  both  by  provincial  statutory  decision  makers  and  by  the  First  NaCon(s)  involved    

15  

ConvenDonal  Referrals  Model  

16  

Application from proponent

Screening

Referral letter(s) from one or more agency British Columbia

Analysis

Statutory decision by BC

First Nation

Provincial authorization

First Nation reviews referrals letter(s) from one or more agency and may provide response

Referral response

G2G  Engagement  Process  

17  

Application from proponent

British Columbia

Statutory decision by BC

First Nation(s)

Provincial authorization

Issue Resolution (if required)

Screening

Complete application provided to FN

Screening

Detailed Technical Engagement Analysis Analysis

First Nation Decision

Potential for communication by First Nation with proponent

Joint  Decision  Making  for  Haida  Gwaii  Management  Council  

18

Application for resource development activity

Joint screening

Detailed analysis of application jointly to achieve consensus decision

Single decision by HGMC

HGMC issues authorization

BC Haida

Specific authorities delegated to HGMC under provincial statute

Specific authorities delegated to HGMC by Haida House of Assembly

HGMC

G2G  Engagement:  VariaDons  &  Keys  to  Success  

•  G2G  Engagement  process  vary:  –  InformaCon  sharing  (may  uClize  ‘portal’)  –  Establishment  of  engagement  levels  by  criteria,  by  decision  type  –  Timelines  –  ExpectaCon  of  First  NaCon  decision  (or  just  recommendaCon  to  provincial  

statutory  decision  maker)  –  Linkage  to  strategic  land  use  plans,  or  spaCal  reference  layers  

•  Keys  to  success:  –  PaCent  building  of  trusted  working  relaConships  at  technical  level  –  EffecCve  coordinaCon  (internally  and  with  other  party)  –  Consistent  and  Cmely  adopCon  of  administraCve  tools  and  templates  –  EffecCve  use  of  available  regulatory  tools  –  Willingness  to  clarify  raConale  for  decisions  made    

19  

G2G  Engagement:  Challenges  

•  Inconsistencies  in  transacConal  processes,  leading  to  administraCve  complexity  at  regional  scale  

•  Ambiguity  over  use  and  interpretaCon  of  data  provided  (cultural  informaCon)  

•  FeQering  of  statutory  decision  makers  •  Limited  ‘accommodaCons  toolbox’  •  Complexity  of  higher-­‐level  engagement,  interface  with  other  regulatory  

processes  (e.g.,  Mine  Development  Review  CommiQee)  •  Exclusion  of  EA  decisions  •  Non-­‐parCcipaCng  agencies  •  No  G2G  engagement  on  policy  and  legislaCon  •  Primary  focus  to  date  on  transacConal  efficiency,  rather  than  effecCveness  •  Lack  of  field  monitoring  to  provide  evidence  of  improvements  in  resource  

management  

20  

Overall  Value  and  Areas  for  Improvement  

21  

Overall  Value  of  SDM  Agreements  

Research  results  indicate  overall  value  ranked  moderate  to  high  by  both  First  NaCons  and  provincial  pracCConers  (2013  and  2014  surveys)  

22  

Overall  Successes  for  SDM  Agreements  

•  “SDM  agreements  are  trying  to  breathe  life  into  the  New  Rela?onship,  and  to  establish  a  collabora?ve  decision  making  approach  in  non-­‐treaty  environment.  They’re  at  cuFng  edge  of  what  is  possible  given  current  laws  and  poli?cs.  People  need  to  understand  that  these  agreements  are  shiHing  the  way  BC  and  FNs  deal  with  one  another—they  really  are  changing  things.”  Provincial  pracCConer  

•  “Even  the  failures  offer  examples  and  ideas  about  how  we  can  make  things  beQer.  We  have  been  able  to  get  the  province  on  our  side  in  the  past…  It’s  about  the  power  of  rapport  and  dealing  with  the  right  people  inside  of  government.  The  best  approach  is  to  make  the  short  term  gains  with  the  long  term  goal  in  mind.  It’s  like  a  football  game:  We  are  not  going  to  get  a  field  goal  from  the  5  yard  line  on  our  end…”  First  NaCons  pracCConer  

23  

Overall  Success  for  SDM  Agreements  

•  RecalibraCon  of  relaConships,  on  respec[ul  G2G  basis  •  A  standing  arrangement  for  coordinated,  strategic-­‐level  discussions  

on  land  and  resource  management  issues  •  A  more  predictable,  consistent  and  coordinated  process  for  the  

consideraCon  of  land  and  resource  management  applicaCons  •  PotenCal  to  create  a  community  of  pracCConers  who  are  all  pulling  

in  the  same  direcCon  •  Modest  capacity  building  •  PotenCal  to  provide  greater  certainty  for  economic  development,  

opening  doors  for  closer  cooperaCon  with  proponents  •  CollaboraCon  on  planning  and  management  issues  through  joint  

iniCaCves,  with  space  for  innovaCon  and  experimentaCon    

24  

Areas  for  Improvement  

•  G2G  Forums  need  to  demonstrate  consistent  paQern  of  resolving  strategic  issues  

•  Stronger  alignment  of  provincial  agencies  to  support  implementaCon  

•  Sustained  commitment  to  capacity  building  within  First  NaCons  •  Incremental  refinements  to  G2G  engagement  processes,  based  on  

pracCcal  experience  •  Certainty  for  long  term  funding  model:  

–  Beyond  3  year  funding  cycle,  subject  to  Cabinet/Treasury  Board  approvals  –  Without  sole  reliance  on  ECDA  revenue  sharing  model  

•  Assessment  of  socio-­‐economic  benefits  •  Further  clarificaCon  of  opportuniCes  for  reconciliaCon  

25  

Monitoring  and  EvaluaDon  of  SDM  Agreements  

26  

Monitoring  and  EvaluaDon    

“If  you  don’t  know  where  you  are  going,  any  road  will  get  you  there…”  Aper  Lewis  Carol    “One  of  the  great  mistakes  is  to  judge  policies  and  programs  by  their  inten?ons  rather  than  their  results”  Milton  Friedman  

27  

Need  for  Monitoring  and  EvaluaDon    of  SDM  Agreements  

“On  both  the  provincial  side  and  our  own,  we  are  run  off  our  feet.  By  the  ?me  we  want  to  evaluate  ourselves,  people  may  be  gone  and  we  won’t  remember…  We  are  more  anecdotal,  not  systema?c  in  our  monitoring.”  First  NaCons  pracCConer    •  Monitoring  to  date  has  focused  on  compleCon  of  implementaCon  steps  

and  tracking  of  engagement  transacCons  •  Long  term  success  depends  in  part  on  willingness  to  reflect  on  a  broader  

range  of  successes  and  failures,  and  make  improvements  where  needed  •  ConvenConal  ‘compliance-­‐audit’  approaches  have  limited  applicaCon  for  

SDM:  –  Legal  and  poliCcal  situaCon  in  constant  flux,  requiring  adjustments  in  approach  and  

prioriCes  –  Change  is  non-­‐linear  and  difficult  to  quanCfy  (e.g.,  trust  building,  improved  

decision  making  reconciliaCon)  –  Causal  relaConships  muddy      

28  

New  Approaches  for  Monitoring  and  EvaluaDon  

•  Acknowledge  complexity  of  socio-­‐ecological  systems  

•  Focus  not  only  on  whether  things  are  working,  but  how  well  those  involved  are  learning  together  about  what  is  working  and  what  is  not  

•  Focus  not  only  on  transacCons  and  tangible  outputs,  but  also  on  the  ability  of  those  involved  to  adapt  to  change,  and  adjust  in  light  of  new  informaCon  and  new  understanding    

29  

Everything  that  can  be  counted  does  not  necessarily  count;  everything  that  counts  cannot  necessarily  be  counted  Albert  Einstein  

Suggested  Framework  for  Monitoring  and  EvaluaDon  of  SDM  Agreements    

30  

Further  Steps  for  EffecDve  ImplementaDon  

31  

Further  Steps  for  EffecDve  SDM  ImplementaDon  

•  Build  a  consCtuency  of  support  for  SDM  Agreements  among  local  communiCes,  stakeholders  and  the  public  

•  Support  an  on-­‐going  community  of  pracCce  among  SDM  pracCConers,  which  would  require:  –  a  clear  mandate  secured  at  senior  levels  within  MARR;    –  voluntary  parCcipaCon  by  each  First  NaCon;  –  opportuniCes  for  discussions  among  First  NaCon  pracCConers  alone,  in  

addiCon  to  dialogue  between  provincial  staff  and  First  NaCons  representaCves  

–  funding  support  to  cover  logisCcal  costs  –  clearly-­‐defined  responsibiliCes  and  resources  for  coordinaCon  –  definiCon  of  a  ‘shared  agenda’  to  support  conCnuous  improvement  over  

Cme,  while  providing  flexibility  for  parCcipants  to  be  involved  to  a  greater  or  lesser  degree  depending  on  their  own  prioriCes  and  interests  

32  

Final  ReflecDons  

•  “Cultural  change  is  hard  for  both  sides.  These  agreements  will  succeed  or  fail  based  on  the  willingness  on  both  sides  to  make  it  work…  We  are  overcoming  decades  of  conflict,  which  simply  takes  ?me.  Face  to  face  ?me  is  cri?cal.”  First  NaCons  pracCConer  

•  “At  the  end  of  the  day,  this  is  s?ll  consulta?on.  We  want  to  get  to  real  decision  making  in  our  homeland—decision  making  that  is  meaningful.  I  s?ll  think  of  this  as  a  pilot,  but  there  is  real  poten?al…  It  is  only  a  stepping  stone  to  where  we  want  to  get  to…  We  don't  want  to  be  consulted  for  the  rest  of  our  lives.”  First  NaCons  pracCConer  

33  

Final  ReflecDons  

•  “We  have  built  a  pla]orm  for  the  rela?onship  that  provides  stability  and  a  place,  actually  a  number  of  places  for  important  conversa?ons  to  happen…  If  the  current  aFtudes  and  the  current  process  con?nue  to  be  implemented,  I  don’t  see  what  could  get  in  the  way  of  con?nued  success.  But  the  world  is  complex.  There  could  be  changes  in  poli?cal  perspec?ves.  There  could  be  major  issues  that  arise.  It  is  about  resilience.  It  is  not  just  that  things  might  come  out  of  the  woodwork  and  knock  these  agreements  down;  it  is  a  ques?on  about  whether  they  can  get  back  up!  There  has  to  be  recogni?on  of  the  value  of  an  enduring  rela?onship.  There  will  be  places  where  inevitably  we  cannot  come  to  agreement  on  specifics.  Any  marriage  is  like  that.  The  ques?on  is,  do  you  want  to  be  right  or  do  you  want  to  be  happy?  No  one  is  going  anywhere  and  so  we  need  to  work  together.  The  phrase  ‘We  are  all  here  to  stay’  is  key.  So  how  do  you  want  that  to  go?  Even  if  the  agreement  is  terminated,  we  s?ll  need  to  talk  together  and  work  through  things  aHer  all.”  Provincial  PracCConer  

34  

SDM  in  BC  Project  Deliverables  

First  NaDons  Dialogues:  •  June  4-­‐5,  2012,  Vancouver  •  November  29-­‐30,  2012,  Vancouver  •  June  13-­‐14,  2013,  Vancouver  •  November  28,  2013,  Vancouver  •  April  2,  2014,  Vancouver  •  November  28,  2014,  Vancouver    Joint  BC-­‐First  NaDons  Dialogues:  •  Workshop  on  InformaCon  Portals,  

November  26-­‐27,  2013,  Vancouver  •  April  1,  2014,  Vancouver  •  November  27,  2014,  Vancouver    

Major  Research  Products:  •  Summary:  Preliminary  Analysis  of  

Interview  Results  (June  2013)  •  Backgrounder:  G2G  Engagement  

Models  for  Shared  Decision  Making  in  BC  (June  2014)  

•  Backgrounder:  Informa?on  Portals  for  Shared  Decision  Making  (June  2014)  

•  Discussion  Paper:  Understanding  the  Sharing  of  Decision  Making  in  BC  (December  2014)  

•  Introductory  Guide:  Monitoring  and  Evalua?on  of  Shared  Decision  Making  Agreements  (February  2015)  

•  Step  by  Step:  Final  Report  of  the  SDM  in  BC  Project  (March  2015)  

35  

For  more  informaDon:  www.sfu/dialogue/sdm/  

36