0539-C2
Adam M. Wellstead, Evert A. Lindquist and John A. Sinclair 1
The role of policy brokering found in public-private partnerships is examined within the context of Canada's 11 Model Forests (MF). In this paper, key policy science concepts that have been developed to understand policy process are introduced. This is followed by an empirical examination of MF partnerships and their existing and potential roles in policy process. It is argued that policy influence of partnership arrangements such MFs needs to be examined in terms of the network structure of partners themselves as well as their role within a larger policy network.
This paper explores policy brokering within the context of public-private partnerships and the promotion of sustainable forest management (SFM). To so, the experiences of Canada's MF Program are examined. Partnership arrangements are considered within the larger policy making contexts. Here, the possible role that an institution such as the MF can play as a policy broker in a very diverse sector with many, if not, competing values and beliefs is considered.
First, this paper provides an overview of the MF Program and its evolution over the past decade. The next section draws upon the policy process literature in order to frame this paper's discussion. The results section of the paper empirically examines the experiences of each of the MF as policy brokers and their contribution to policy learning. The final section discusses the findings here and their relevance within a larger global context.
In order to understand the evolution of MFs as policy actors and policy brokers within their respective forest policy networks, this paper draws upon several primary sources. These include findings from Sinclair's (1998) MF study, the MF Phase I and Phase II national evaluations, the MF Phase III proposals, and CFS analysis of the MF program.
Two separate events spurred the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) to develop the MF Program during the late 1980s. Most significant was Canada's desire to comply with international agreements - such as the Rio Summit and Agenda 21 - that called for SFM The government's main response was the Green Plan, and from this emerged the MF concept. Howlett (2002) notes that the 1992 National Forest Strategy "reflect[ed] not so much the desire of the Federal government to directly influence the content of provincial forest policies so much as the aim of coordinating Canadian activities with those at the international level, especially with respect to the role played by forestry in sustainable development and other environmental initiatives."
This change in strategic direction is largely explained by the dramatic decline in CFS's budget and bureaucratic capacity during the early 1990s, a trend that affected all forest oriented government agencies (Lindquist and Wellstead 2002). The Federal Research Development Agreements with the provinces were phased out, leading to a 60% decline in CFS' budget and a one third reduction in staff. In response, CFS refocused resources on enhancing its research capabilities (Drushka and Burt 2001). The MF program was one important program to respond to these new capabilities. In early 1991, the CFS national committee issued a call for MF proposals and over fifty were received. Ten were chosen, thus starting the first phase of the MF Program (1992-1997).
A MF is a large physical area (a minimum of 100,000 hectares) where innovative forest management practices are developed tested and ultimately shared across the country (Natural Resources Canada 1999).2 Each is large-scale experiment encompassing the physical, economic, and social dynamics of that area. There is a broad partnership base representative of interests within its boundaries, requiring cooperation among those with jurisdiction or interest in land management. For example, the jurisdictional responsibilities in Foothills MF land base in Alberta includes Weldwood of Canada's (a forest company) Forest Management Agreement area, Parks Canada's Jasper National Park, and the Alberta Provincial Government's Wilmore Wilderness Area and William A Switzer Provincial Park. All MFs include representation of a forest industry partner, the provincial ministry responsible for forest management, and the CFS. The partnerships may also include other forest companies, other provincial agencies, First Nations, woodlot owners, recreational groups, community associations, hunters and trappers, universities and colleges, and non-governmental organizations. In addition to testing ecologically sound forest practices and promoting innovative research, MFs foster public involvement and increased awareness of SFM.
Each phase of the MF program has had a different strategic focus. During Phase I, MFs were to focus on developing partnerships and "effective working relationships", and many began ambitious research programs. In Phase II (1997-2002), emphasis was on developing innovations. The MF SFM goals were aligned with national strategic policy frameworks, most notably, the Canadian Council of Forest Minister's (CCFM) Criteria and Indicators and the Canadian Standards Association SFM guidelines. During this time National MF Network activities were enhance. For example, a network-wide local-level indicator of SFM project and an Enhanced Aboriginal Involvement program were iniatied. The focus of Phase III encouraged MFs to have influence "beyond their boundaries" and the "implementation of SFM throughout Canada's forested land base" (Canadian Forest Service 2001).
The brokering role of private-public partnerships, such as MFs, is discussed within the context of policy science approaches. First, MFs are discussed as part of provincial policy networks. Second, policy-making is conceptualized as contending beliefs, interests, and policy learning. The brokering effectiveness of MFs can be explained in part by the larger environment of the individual policy community. The effectiveness of these partnerships will determine the extent of each MF's brokerage abilities.
The policy network approach has become a standard approach for understanding the complexity of policy making among state organizations and civil society in Canada and elsewhere. Policy networks are the configuration of actors, ideas, and interests involved in policy making for a particular sector (forestry) or policy problem (climate change). Scholars have identified different types of network (Atkinson and Coleman 1992; Lindquist 1992), which vary according to the number, type, focus, resources, clientele, structure, and distribution of power. Howlett and Rayner (1995) have argued that the Canadian forest sector was a closed and fractious policy network.
A complementary approach to policy network research emphasizes the role of belief systems and learning by actors in policy networks. Broad coalitions of actors and with competing core policy beliefs and policy mandates can be identified. These core beliefs persist over time and relate to fundamental values and priorities about governance that include economic development versus environmental protection, basic perceptions concerning the general serious ness of the problem and its causes, the appropriate division between governments and markets, and the best instruments for addressing policy problems (Sabatier and Jenkin-Smith 1999). Significant policy changes are unlikely to emerge within a policy network, unless there is an exogenous event such as a rapidly changing socioeconomic conditions, the election of new governments, and the impacts of decisions from other domains. However, changes can occur to the secondary aspects of core policy belief structures, namely at the budgetary, legislative and program level. This can occur across competing coalitions as the result of "policy learning," that is the "relatively enduring alterations of thought or behavioural intentions that result from experience and/or new information and that are concerned with the attainment or revision of policy objectives" (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999). Policy brokers often mediate the policy learning process.
The role that MFs play as policy brokers amongst competing policy belief systems within policy networks can be conceptualized at three different but interrelated levels. First, a MF can be viewed as an entity upon itself as policy actor within a provincial forestry policy community.3 From this perspective, MFs may assume the role of policy broker. Such brokering may include such activities as a go-between can include bringing parties together, taking a leading role, or keeping existing actors involved (Kickert and Koppenjan 1997). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the MFs as policy brokers a number of criteria can be introduced from the policy science literature.
The network perspective can also be applied to the national MF network itself. At this level, the eleven MFs work in a coordinated fashion within an established Canadian MF network. At this level the national coordination of the Canadian Forest Service and MF partners is undertaken in order to develop the program's overall direction. At this level, the direction of the MF program is established and fostered. Here, the strategic sustainable development goals of the Federal government are realized. On the other hand, the elements that define networks will also shape how receptive MFs are to transmitting larger National policy goals.
Finally, one can view network dynamics at the individual MF level. At the backbone of each MF is a network of partners. How a MF responds as a policy actor is determined by the configuration of its partnership. The dimensions affecting a MF partnership network are similar to those at the National or Provincial policy levels. These include the number of partners, the types of partners, the resources available to each partner, the function of each MF, the degree of institutionalization, the strategies of public administration, and distribution.
The lack of role of policy involvement was highlighted in the 1994 National MF Evaluation.
This finding comes as little surprise considering the focus concentrated on developing the partnership within their respective MFs.
Mid-way during Phase II, Sinclair et al (1998) examined MF Board of Directors (comprised of partner members). They found that MF Boards had not had meaningful discussions about existing forest management policies, programs nor agreed on the types of policies and programs they might try to effect. What discussion had taken place focused almost exclusively on provincial government policy and to some extent `company' practices, but even in these cases the policies and practices targeted for action were often ill-defined. However, Board members exhibited a strong understanding of policy problems. Some respondents thought that "controversial" issues, or issues that might be "perceived as controversial" regarding current forest management policies and practices, were not discussed at the Board table.
However, many respondents argued that MFs were in a position to offer advice to those more influential in the larger policy community, the provincial forest(ry) departments and forest products companies. However other forestry policy actors, such as First Nations, were not mentioned or completely overlooked (e.g., environmental groups). This is especially unfortunate since these groups can institute change themselves or provides support for the sorts of change MFs propose (Sinclair et al 1998). As well, these groups often participate in other policy and decision-making forums and the MF could play a role in reducing conflict if such groups were more effectively involved in their own processes.
Later into Phase II, some MFs became more participatory policy actors within their respective policy networks. For example after the 1998 ice storm that affected all the Eastern Ontario MF (EOM) and surrounding areas, the EOM administered an economic assistance recovery program on behalf of a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations (Bonnell 2001). In the Lake Abitibi MF, harvesting methods developed by the MF have been adapted into the government of Ontario's provincial silvicultural guidelines. The most ambitious policy involvement by a MF is that of the Manitoba MF which is leading in an extensive land use planning/consultation exercise for the east side of Lake Winnipeg (Bonnell 2002).
An arms-length National MF evaluation of Phase II examined all the MFs and the network itself (CMFP) in 2001. The MF network was deemed to be an important contributor to the development of individual MFs. "The CMFP created a neutral environment where ideas could be explored both in terms of setting MF directions and through active participation of partners in projects." It was through the MF network that key national forest sector policies and programs of the Federal government were supported. There was a "desire to strengthen network activities that target those areas of mutual interest across MF in which cooperation and coordination on activities is deemed to be more effective than activities occurring at the individual MF level." The evaluation also noted that, "as a whole MFs act as a neutral forum in bringing concerned parties together in an impartial atmosphere."(CFS 2001).
Stemming from the national evaluation, the key strategic direction of Phase III was for all MFs to have influence "Beyond the Boundaries". That is each "MF will implement activities on-the-ground that will affect change towards the practice of SFM and increase the MFs demonstrable influence both within and beyond its boundary". An examination of all Phase III (Table 1), MF proposals found that such expansion included three possible courses of action: the expansion of its partnership to include organizations from outside its physical boundary, collaborative research or activities with other organizations, and taking an active role policy process.
Table 1. Extent of Proposed "Beyond on the Boundary" Actions
Model Forest |
Proposed Actions | ||
Expand Partnership |
Collaborative Research & Activities |
Influence Policy | |
Western Newfoundland |
X |
X |
|
Nova Forest Alliance |
X |
||
Fundy |
X |
X |
X |
Bas-Saint-Laurent |
X |
||
Waswanipi |
X |
||
Eastern Ontario |
X |
X |
X |
Lake Abitibi |
X |
X |
X |
Manitoba |
X |
X |
X |
Prince Albert |
X |
X |
|
Foothills |
X |
X |
X |
McGregor |
X |
X |
X |
All of the MFs were committed to an expansion of their partnership base and most were considering additional activities with outside partners. Well over half are committed to continuing or initiating projects that will see them playing a role in the policy process.
The evolution of MFs as policy actors and brokers has wider applications for private-public related research in other areas and other sectors. Canada's MFs are excellent examples of large scale and long term experimentation in partnership arrangements. From them, the concept of a network is a useful analytical tool to understand partnership dynamics at various conceptual levels. In this paper, the type of partnership arrangements determined whether or not MFs were in a position to participate in larger policy actors. The MF network fostered by the CFS illustrated how the legitimacy of partnerships has been enhanced over the past decade. Finally, the network concept can be applied in terms of a larger policy making context. At this level, MFs has assumed brokerage roles between conflicting and competing advocacy coalitions. The success of MFs as brokers will depend upon the dynamics of the network and the level of conflict and receptiveness for policy learning by other policy actors. Finally, adding to the complexity to such analysis is the fact that MF partnerships have all evolved in a constant or linear path. Some MFs may never become policy actors. Instead they will be concerned with the wellbeing of their constituency whereas other MFs will assume a leading brokering role in their respective policy networks.
Finally, this paper has introduced some of the key theoretical tools, namely policy brokering within policy networks. However, further research investigating the policy brokering capabilities of public-private partnerships that incorporate partnership and policy network variables is required. This will lead to more systematic and predictive understanding of the types of partnership arrangements and their capacity to be effective within the larger policy process.
Atkinson M. and Coleman, W. 1992. Policy networks, policy communities and the problem of governance. Governance. 5(2), 154-180.
Bonnell, B. 2002. Examples of Model Forests working with municipal, provincial, and federal departments. Canadian Forest Service.
Canadian Forest Service. 2001. Proposal guidelines for Canada's Model Forest program Phase III (2002-2007). Programs Division, Industry, Economics and Programs Branch, CFS.
Canadian Forest Service. 2002. Phase III (2002-2007) proposals for Canada's Model Forest program. Programs Division, Industry, Economics and Program Branch, CFS.
Howlett, M. and Rayner, J. 1995. Do ideas matter? Policy network configurations and resistance to policy change in the Canadian forest sector. Canadian Public Administration. 38(3), 382-410.
Howlett, M. 2002. The Federal Role in Canadian Forest Policy: From Territorial Landowner to International and Intergovernmental Coordinating Agent. In Canadian Forest Policy, M. Howlett, ed. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 378-418.
Kickert, W.J.M. and J.F.M. Koppenjan. 1997. Public management and network management: an overview. In W. Kickert, E Klijn, and J. Koppenjan. Managing complex networks. Sage: London.
Lindquist, E. and A. Wellstead. 2002. Making Sense of Complexity: Advances and Gaps in Comprehending the Canadian Forest Policy Process. In Canadian Forest Policy, M. Howlett, ed. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 419-446.
Lindquist, E. 1992. Public managers and policy communities: learning to meet new challenges. Canadian Public Administration. Vol.35, no.2. 127-159.
Natural Resources Canada. 1999. Achieving sustainable forest management through partnership. Model Forest Network. Ottawa.
Natural Resources Canada. 2001. Canada's Model Forest Program: Phase III Proposals. Proposal Guidelines for Canada's Model Forest Program Phase III (2002-2007). Programs Division, Economics, Industry, and Programs Division, Canadian Forest Service, Ottawa.
Sabatier, P. and H.. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In P. Sabatier, Theories of the policy process. Westview: Boulder.
Sinclair, John, Smith. D.L., and A. Bidinosti, 1998. How Individual Model Forests are Working Together to Achieve Sustainable Forest Management. Project 96-2-45Manitoba Model Forest Inc., Pine Falls, Manitoba. 84p..
1 Department of Renewable Resources, 751 General Services Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6G 2H1. [email protected]
2 For more information about the MF program go to http://mf.ncr.forestry.ca/ The current MFs are listed below in Table 1.
3 A policy community is the constellation of policy actors within a particular sector