In 2018, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) designated the Eastern Shore Islands of Nova Scotia as an Area of Interest (AOI) for Atlantic Canada’s largest coastal marine protected area (MPA) (Moreland et al., 2021). The Eastern Shore Islands (ESI) support vital ecosystems including eelgrass, kelp beds, and several at-risk species. While this area is critical for protection, the MPA designation was hindered due to ineffective engagement processes. The ESI AOI directly overlaps with a prominent lobster fishery that is economically vital to many households in the region, which in combination with a fraught history of externally initiated conservation interventions, resulted in a high degree of mistrust in the MPA designation process (Moreland et al., 2021). Additionally, the spread of misinformation and inadequate consideration for social and cultural norms hindered stakeholder and rightsholder engagement significantly. The MPA designation process was eventually brought to a halt when the Minister of Fisheries arrived on the Eastern Shore to meet with stakeholders during peak lobster fishing season, demonstrating a misstep by DFO regarding relationship-building with the fishing community.
MPA designation globally has had a contentious history of often inadequate public consultations, and there have been increasing calls for more meaningful and empowering public engagement processes (Christie et al., 2017; De Santo, 2016). A co-production approach to public participation refers to an iterative and collaborative process that aims to utilize expertise and knowledge from a diverse range of actors to inform locally relevant decision making (Nordstrom et al., 2020). Done properly, co-production can result in a more equitable, innovative, and efficient project. In this blog post, we use the lens of co-production to inform a critical assessment of the public consultation process in the ESI AOI, identifying approaches to improve public engagement in MPA designation.
Public participation
The DFO utilized a consultation approach to engage stakeholders and rightsholders around the ESI AOI, which is a degree of participation that allows impacted stakeholders to express their views and concerns on a topic before a final decision is made (Galende-Sanchez & Sorman, 2021). However, consultation does not guarantee that stakeholder feedback will be reflected in the final decision, as policymakers only have to listen and acknowledge their concerns, making it less effective for transformative change and meaningful participation (Galende-Sanchez & Sorman, 2021). The DFO consulted stakeholders through facilitated meetings, two community open houses, and several informal gatherings (Moreland et al., 2021). Yet, many stakeholders expressed that their participation felt meaningless as the DFO retained decision-making authority regardless of stakeholder input, highlighting unequal power dynamics in the MPA designation process (Moreland et al., 2021). When stakeholders cannot recognize their contributions to an outcome, they are more likely to feel discontent and less likely to accept decisions (Galende-Sanchez & Sorman, 2021; Moreland et al., 2021).
Engagement involves a level of participation where policymakers work directly with the public to ensure their concerns are reflected in the final decision (Galende-Sanchez & Sorman, 2021). Unlike consultation, engagement seeks to unite diverse ways of knowing, leading to greater societal transformation (Galende-Sanchez & Sorman, 2021). While the DFO’s consultation methods were generally functional, more innovative approaches and engagement could have empowered participants. For example, dialogue sessions with individual stakeholder and rightsholder groups could reduce the potential for conflict to arise and allow the DFO to address specific concerns and help strengthen trust. Additionally, incorporating creative feedback mechanisms – such as story studios where stakeholders and rightsholders could share positive and negative experiences – could help inform future co-production processes (Galende-Sanchez & Sorman, 2021). By adopting a more engagement-focused approach that prioritizes trust-building, collaboration, and feedback, the DFO could ensure stakeholder input meaningfully informs decisions, leading to more equitable and accepted policy outcomes.
Repairing and maintaining trust
Trust between stakeholders and policy organizations is essential for knowledge exchange and effective policy implementation (Cvitanovic et al., 2021; Moreland et al., 2021). Though multiple mechanisms of trust building were employed between 2018-2019, the DFO failed to adequately foster trust with stakeholders throughout the ESI AIO consultation process (Moreland et al., 2021). Through the lens of a co-production approach, targeted strategies for building trust between diverse stakeholders and the DFO could significantly strengthen the collaboration and overall success of the MPA identification and designation in Nova Scotia. Mindfulness of local politics and historical sensitivities is essential to building trust (Cvitanovic et al., 2021). On the Eastern Shore, a historical legacy of mistrust between local stakeholders and external conservation organizations presented a persistent challenge throughout the ESI AIO consultation process. Mistrust initially arose following the proposal of the Ship Harbour National Park initiative in 1972, in which park officials failed to make direct contact with locals and presented misinformation regarding the size and relocation demands of the park (Moreland et al., 2021). While this initiative was not led by the DFO, but by a different government department, its legacy resulted in a high degree of mistrust in externally led conservation initiatives decades later. Following a model for trust repair outlined by Cvitanovic et al. (2021), trust between the DFO and local stakeholders and rightsholders could be rebuilt through three main steps: acknowledge previous mistakes, identify how they occurred, and explicitly implement measures to prevent the same issues from arising in the current consultation period. Understanding and acknowledging this historical context is necessary to ensure mutual trust and collaboration between stakeholders and the DFO. After repairing trust, maintenance of trust requires a long-term commitment to enable an effective knowledge exchange process (Cvitanonic et al., 2021). Additional trust-building strategies outlined by Cvitanovic et al. (2021) could contribute to long-term trust, including regular face-to-face contact, ensuring process transparency, and allowing sufficient time for trust to form. In addition to transparency being crucial in all interactions with stakeholders and rightsholders, it is important to promote impartiality through strategies such as acknowledging risks and limitations, reviewing advice independently, and avoiding advocating for specific outcomes (Cvitanovic et al., 2021). Through a deliberate effort to maintain trust through such practices, a more effective and co-productive knowledge exchange process can occur between the DFO and local stakeholders.
Designing the project
Developing and managing an effective co-production project requires a comprehensive understanding of social and cultural norms, existing institutions, and past relationships among those participating in the process (Wyborn et al., 2019). Several internal and external factors impacted the ESI AOI consultation process including misinformation and a disregard for existing norms and institutions (Moreland et al., 2021), which could have been mitigated by using a co-production approach.
Misinformation
Initial communications to stakeholders and rightsholders had implied that the project would be implemented by 2020, just two years after consultation began (and regardless of any potential conflicts), to comply with external MPA targets. While the DFO quickly realized the process would need more time and extended the deadline to 2025, the Department’s website continued to state a deadline of 2020 and many members of the public and Advisory Committee held this belief, setting a negative tone for the consultation process (Moreland et al., 2021). Additionally, misinformation on how the MPA would affect personal property and marine harvesting regulations quickly spread on social media (Moreland et al., 2021). A co-production model could have combated the spread of misinformation on social media by involving stakeholders more meaningfully throughout the process, allowing participants to be more informed and take an active role in communication (and combatting misinformation). While the DFO has strict social media policies that hinder its ability to correct misinformation rapidly, there is an opportunity to empower and leverage stakeholders’ ability to respond efficiently. The deconstruction of power dynamics, development of horizontal relationships, and clear role definitions outlined by Wyborn et al. (2019) as critical co-production management strategies could support non-governmental participants in this process.
Disregard for existing norms and institutions
To facilitate more meaningful participation, it is essential to account for and adapt to local norms and institutions. The Minister of Fisheries’ first meeting on the Eastern Shore to consult with stakeholders and rightsholders was scheduled during peak lobster fishing season (Moreland et al., 2021), amplifying already tenuous levels of mistrust in the DFO. The meeting was met with protests, which caused the consultation process to come to a halt shortly after. Adequate relationship-building within the community could have prevented this mishap. Had the DFO used co-production principles outlined by Wyborn et al. (2019), such as facilitating horizontal relationships, collaborating on meeting materials and scheduling, and ensuring a flexible approach to the Department’s project, this major issue would likely not have occurred.
Conclusion
To improve public engagement in MPA designation, the DFO should adopt a co-production approach that prioritizes trust, transparency, and meaningful engagement, ensuring inclusive decision-making that integrates diverse knowledge systems. By fostering collaboration and accountability, the DFO can create equitable, effective policies that balance conservation efforts with community and economic sustainability. Such approaches can help address past issues of mistrust, misinformation, and conflicts with local norms and institutions that may act as barriers to MPA designation and the meaningful participation of local stakeholder and rightsholder groups.
References
Christie, P., Bennett, N. J., Gray, N. J., ‘Aulani Wilhelm, T., Lewis, N., Parks, J., Ban, N. C., Gruby, R. L., Gordon, L., Day, J., Taei, S., & Friedlander, A. M. (2017). Why people matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 84, 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.002
Cvitanovic, C., Shellock, R. J., Mackay, M., van Putten, E. I., Karcher, D. B., Dickey-Collas, M., & Ballesteros, M. (2021). Strategies for building and managing “trust” to enable knowledge exchange at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 123, 179-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.020
De Santo, E. M. (2016). Assessing public “participation” in environmental decision-making: Lessons learned from the UK Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) site selection process. Marine Policy, 64, 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.003
Galende-Sánchez, E., & Sorman, A. H. (2021). From consultation toward co-production in science and policy: A critical systematic review of participatory climate and energy initiatives. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 101907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101907
Moreland, H. R., De Santo, E. M., & MacDonald, B. H. (2021). Understanding the role of information in marine policy development: Establishing a coastal marine protected area in Nova Scotia, Canada. FACETS, 6, 1539-1569. https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2020-0109
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., … Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., Miller, C., & van Kerkhoff, L. (2019). Co-producing sustainability: Reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 44, 319-346. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103
Authors: Brigitte Manderville, Paulina Chalmers, and Laura Chandler
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Information Use & Influence; Public Policy & Decision Making; Science-Policy Interface; Student Submission
