multi stakeholder working groups roll-up report - planning decision-making - 2007-11

Planning and Decision-Making Working GroupFinal Report

November 2007

Appendix

Land-use Framework Multi-Stakeholder Working Groups Roll-up Report92

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................................................93

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................93

Defining a Systems Approach..................................................................................................................................94

System Principles ....................................................................................................................................................94

Strengthening the Provincial Role............................................................................................................................95

Creating a Regional Planning Capacity ....................................................................................................................97

Setting regional boundaries ........................................................................................................................98Populating Regional Planning Councils ......................................................................................................99

Compliance and Dispute Resolution .....................................................................................................................100

Implementation Times...........................................................................................................................................101

Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................................101

Appendix A: The Planning and Decision-Making Working Group Team and Process............................................105

Appendix B: Glossary of Key Terms ......................................................................................................................106

Appendix C: Treaty 8 Figure for the and Management System..............................................................................109

Appendix D: Legend: Working Group Member and Reviewer Stakeholder Designations .....................................110

Appendix E: Working Group Member Comments................................................................................................110

Appendix F: Reviewer Working Group Comments ..............................................................................................113

List of Figures:

Figure 1 Management Systems Aproach to Land Use .................................................................................102Figure 2 Land-use Framework - Organization and Function......................................................................104

Table of ContentsPlanning and Decision-Making Working Group Final Report

Land-use Framework Multi-Stakeholder Working Groups Roll-up Report 93

Alberta has many strong land-use planning structuresand processes in place. However, the LUF initiative isdriven by the perceived need for a systems approach toland management that takes into account the cumulativeeffect of land-use decisions on the Alberta land base,including the wildlife and human populations that liveupon it, the ecosystems it supports, the air and watersystems that flow across it, and the resources that lieupon and beneath it. The notion of a land managementsystem implies in turn that individual land-use decisionsand decision-makers are constrained, that not allpossible outcomes are equally desirable or achievable.More specifically, the Planning and Decision-MakingWorking Group (PDMWG) concludes that individualland-use decisions should be made in the context of andconsistent with:

• the principles and priorities articulated in the Land-Use Framework;

• provincial government policies, objectives, targetsand priorities relating to Alberta’s land base; and

• regional planning processes that take into accountthe cumulative impact of land-use decisions on theAlberta landscape.

As a consequence, the PDMWG developed three basicstrategic responses for: (1) identifying principles thatshould govern land-use planning and decision-making;(2) strengthening the articulation of provincial land-useobjectives and priorities; and (3) creating a regionalplanning capacity. The overall system objective is toensure that land-use planning takes place at theappropriate scale, and that land-use decisions are madewithin the context of regional planning and a clearlyarticulated provincial land-use framework.

A strong majority of the PDMWG supports legislativeexpression for the LUF through a new Act, enhancedbureaucratic support though a Land-Use Secretariatwithin the Executive Council Office, and a regionalplanning process encapsulated in Regional PlanningCouncils to interpret and apply provincial policies on aregional scale. A minority opinion favoursimplementation of the LUF through amendments toexisting legislation, the creation of a Land-Use

Commission outside the Executive Council Office, and amore fluid approach to regional planning.

The PDMWG recognizes that its report does not capturethe full range of opinions expressed by groupparticipants. Fortunately, the overall consultationprocess, including the opportunity for individualcommentary, the review process, and the creation ofAboriginal working groups, does allow for that fullrange of opinions to be heard.

Perhaps above all else, the PDMWG wishes tounderscore the importance of speedy action by theGovernment of Alberta to address structural problems inthe management of the Alberta land base.

Introduction

At its core, the proposed Land-Use Framework (LUF) isabout making better decisions on and for the Albertaland base. This in turn requires better land-use planningto inform such decisions. While other working groupstackled the values, objectives and priorities that shouldguide land-use decisions, the linkages between land-useplanning and growth management, and the ways inwhich the impact of decisions should be monitored overtime, the Planning and Decision-Making Working Group(PDMWG) tackled the planning and governancebackbone of the LUF. The group’s focus was on howdecisions should be made rather than on what decisionsshould be made.

Fundamental to the PDMWG’s perspective andproposed approach is that “the Alberta land base”should be interpreted to include the wildlife and humanpopulations that live upon it, the ecosystems itsupports, the water and air systems that flow across it,and the resources that lie upon and beneath it. This inturn leads to the need for a land-use planning systemthat can bring all these factors into play, address boththe spatial and temporal dimensions of land-useplanning, and provide a planning context within whichdiscrete land-use decisions can be made.

Executive Summary

Defining a Systems Approach

Literally thousands of land-use decisions are routinelymade on a daily basis by municipal and provincialauthorities, and by industrial and individual users of theAlberta land base. Scores of provincial policies andprograms touch in one way or another on landmanagement. We have also seen the emergence ofvoluntary regional planning mechanisms acrossmunicipalities (e.g., the Calgary Regional Partnership)and industry-led initiatives (e.g., Forest ManagementPlans and Integrated Land Management processes). Inshort, a wide range of public authorities, land ownersand land users are brought into play in the developmentof land management policies and their implementationon the provincial land base.

This complexity raises concerns about the lack ofintegration across all of these activities, about the lack ofa systems approach to land-use planning and decision-making. Indeed, we would argue that the LUF initiativehas been driven by the perceived need for greaterplanning integration, and by the opportunities thatmight come from a more systemic approach to landmanagement. In simple terms, planning allowsAlbertans to figure out where they want to go and howbest to get there.

The notion of a land management system implies thatindividual land-use decisions and decision-makers areconstrained, that not all possible outcomes are equallydesirable or achievable. More specifically, the PDMWGconcludes that individual land-use decisions should bemade in the context of and consistent with:

• the principles and priorities articulated in the Land-Use Framework;

• more clearly articulated provincial governmentpolicies, objectives and priorities relating to Alberta’sland base; and

• regional planning processes that take into accountthe cumulative impact of land-use decisions on theAlberta landscape.

Note we have not adopted terms such as “dictated by”or “determined by.” An effective land managementsystem for such a complex province must maintain areasonable degree of sub-system autonomy, a reasonablemeasure of flexibility in order to reflect regional


differences in circumstance. However, this subsystemautonomy and flexibility must still be guided by andconsistent with the principles, policies, goals andpriorities of the Province. The land management systemguides rather than rigidly determines land-use decisions.

The PDMWG concludes that existing land managementpractices in Alberta lack three important characteristics:guiding principles, a clearly articulated expression ofprovincial government land-use objectives andpriorities; and a regional planning capacity to deal withthe cumulative impact of land-use decisions on thelandscape. Our advice, therefore, addresses thesemissing characteristics and some of the issues they raise.

More specifically, the PDMWG developed three basicstrategic responses: (1) the identification of principlesthat should govern land-use planning and decision-making; (2) strengthening the articulation of provincialland-use objectives and priorities; and (3) the creationof a regional planning capacity. The overall systemobjective is to ensure that land-use planning takes placeat the appropriate scale, and that land-use decisions aremade within the context of regional planning and aclearly articulated provincial land-use framework.

System Principles

Much of the work to date on the LUF has been devotedto identifying the values and principles that shouldgovern land-use planning and decision-making inAlberta. The PDMWG contributes to this work byproposing that the LUF should:

• provide an explicit statement of provincial land-useobjectives and priorities;

• build upon values held by all Albertans, whilerecognizing that such values may change over time;

• embrace a long-term planning horizon, clear policyobjectives, and measurable outcomes;

• solicit and incorporate traditional knowledge andvalues where it is appropriate to do so;

• facilitate commercial/industrial access to land inkeeping with the Province’s sustainable developmentgoals; and


• be guided by an over-arching commitment tosustainability.

We also assume that land use planning and decision-making processes must respect the broader environmentwithin which Alberta’s residents and governmentsoperate. More specifically, such processes must respectAlberta’s regional, national and international obligations,property rights and existing resource agreements, and itsobligations to First Nations, Métis, and AboriginalPeoples as expressed through treaties, the NaturalResources Transfer Act (1930), provincial legislation, courtdecisions, international conventions, and existingconsultation agreements.

More specifically yet, we conclude that the planning anddecision-making processes for the LUF should:

• have the capacity to manage the impact ofcumulative effects;

• recognize the need for equitable public andstakeholder participation and input;

• be applicable across provincial, regional and localscales;

• rest upon a high quality and publicly accessible landand resource information base;

• provide for vertical and horizontal policy integrationwithin and across governments;

• connect land, water and air policy and planning,and more generally, take into account the variety ofways in which Alberta communities connect (e.g.,recreation corridors, transportation systems, utilitycorridors, provision of government services);

• enhance efficiency and timeliness for thoseindustries and individuals operating on theprovincial land base;

• integrate surface land-use planning and subsurfaceresource development;

• create clear lines of accountability; and

• recognize that land-use planning is an ongoing,iterative process that must be adaptable to changingcircumstances and values.

In advancing this set or principles, the PDMWG stressesthat we do not want to unduly privilege the status quo,

and that planning and decision-making will alwaysinvolve trade-offs among competing values. We alsorecognize that values are not static, and are subject tochange as circumstances chance. Nonetheless, anexplicit set of principles serves as a useful point ofdeparture, and provides a standard against whichperformance can be assessed.

At the same time, the identification of principles toguide land-use planning does not take us very far unlessthose principles are given effective voice. This takes usto the critically important role of the Government ofAlberta in an effective land-use planning and decision-making system.

Strengthening the Provincial Role

A persistent theme in the PDMWG conversation was theneed to strengthen provincial leadership in the landmanagement system. The issue we kept coming back towas not the weaknesses of existing decision-makingprocesses at the local level, but rather that theseprocesses are not sufficiently guided by explicitprovincial priorities and objectives. In short, there is aneed for a provincial land-use framework that isimplemented rather than ignored, monitored, publiclyreported upon, reviewed, and adjusted. Its strategicdirection would be applicable not only to municipalgovernments but also to land users and governmentdepartments engaged in such activities as the dispositionof timber or mineral rights, or the approval andregulation of individual projects and activities. Policyintegration within and across governments will followfrom the explicit identification of provincial objectivesand priorities.

This is not to suggest, however, that the provincialgovernment should be micro-managing land-usedecisions in the province. Rather, the province shouldbe addressing those issues that need to be addressed atthe provincial scale. These might include, for example,long distance linear land uses such as transportation,utility and recreation corridors; the protection ofbiodiversity; and development priorities at the landscapelevel (e.g., the Eastern Slopes and oil sands region).

All of this boils down to the need for more clearlyarticulated provincial goals and priorities in the land

management system. There is a need to synthesize oneclear, comprehensive set of provincial goals, objectivesand targets to manage the cumulative impact of humanactivities on Alberta’s landscape, and there is a need toprovide an institutional home for the LUF. Here thePDMWG considered two options:

• The first option would entail greater public servicesupport for the Executive Council Office withrespect to land-use planning and decision-making.A Land-Use Secretariat could provide a centralagency support function that could extend tomandate letters for regional planning councils(discussed below), nominations for such councils,and planning support. The Secretariat wouldfacilitate the synthesis of over-arching provincialgoals, objectives, targets and measurable outcomes.It would be internal to the GOA, with limited publicprofile, much like SREM today. The Secretariatwould not be under the mandate of a singledepartment, and would therefore have theindependence to articulate government-wideperspectives.

• The second option would entail a more formal androbust Provincial Land Use Commission that couldsupply not only the support noted above but alsoland use policy advice to the provincial government.It would be a champion for the LUF and for thecentral role of land use planning within the broaderframework of government decision-making. Such aCommission could provide formal seats at the tablefor such groups as municipal governmentassociations and treaty associations. It would givehigher public profile to the importance of land-usemanagement in the province, and could provide arepository for both expertise and experientiallearning.

A strong majority of the PDMWG opts for the firstoption, believing that there is no need for “another levelof government” to confuse lines of politicalaccountability. A Provincial Land Use Commission couldappear to make the land-use planning system morecumbersome, and to elevate unelected Commissionersabove elected representatives. In either case, thePDMWG emphatically supported the need for a moreclearly articulated provincial voice to animate theplanning process.


Closely linked was a discussion on how the LUF shouldbe embedded within the policy or legal architecture ofthe Alberta government. Here the PDMWG identifiedthree options for moving forward:

• The first option would be to have the LUF remain ata policy level, without legislative enactment througheither new legislation or amendments to existinglegislation.

• The second option would be to operationalize theLUF through amendments to existing legislation(e.g., the Municipal Government and Public LandsActs).

• The third option would be to enact a new piece oflegislation to embody the LUF. This new Act wouldenable and give statutory authority to the land-useplanning and decision-making innovationsdiscussed in this report. It would also requireamendments to existing pieces of legislation.

There was a virtual consensus within the PDMWGsupporting the third option, which would highlight andgive public visibility to the importance of land-useplanning for Alberta. Stand-alone legislation could beused to give voice to the principles and values that theLUF has identified. New legislation would also identifyclear lines of political accountability for the LUF, andwould give greater permanence to the government’scommitment to land management.

Although the PDMWG supports the creation of newlegislation, it is also adamant that the need for suchlegislation should not be used as an excuse to delaygovernment action. A great deal can be done nowthrough existing legislation (e.g., the creation ofRegional Planning Councils), and therefore theprovincial government can more forward whilelegislative reforms are planned and debated.

The above points touch on where best to lodgeresponsibility and accountability for the LUF. Given thereach of land-use issues, and their inevitableentanglement with so many policy fields, the PDMWGis reluctant to suggest that responsibility be lodgedwithin a single department. Some broader, cross-ministry engagement is essential, and hence theproposal for a Land-Use Secretariat embedded withinthe Office of the Executive Council.


If the LUF is to lead to an effective land manage systemin Alberta, it is essential that it be integrated with otherclosely related policy initiatives. Here the PDMWGwrestled with two approaches to integration. The firstwould see the LUF as the land counterpart to the Waterfor Life Strategy and other somewhat autonomouselements of a complex system (e.g., Alberta’sBiodiversity and Wetlands Strategies). The secondapproach would see the LUF itself as the over-archingvehicle for integration; land, air and water managementwould be pulled together through the LUF and theplanning mechanisms discussed below.

Given the PDMWG’s assertion that the Alberta land baseshould be interpreted to include the wildlife and humanpopulations that live upon it, the ecosystems itsupports, the air and water systems that flow across it,and the resources that lie beneath, we lean towards thesecond, more expansive approach. The LUF provides anopportunity to create a more holistic approach toplanning, and to recognize the inescapable linkagesamong land, air and water planning. However, this moreexpansive approach should best be seen as anevolutionary rather than immediate goal. A good deal ofpolicy and planning work has already been done on theair and water sides, and to lose this traction would be amistake.

In summary, we began with the need for a clearerarticulation of provincial goals and priorities withrespect to land management, and went on to suggestthat this might best be achieved through additionalpublic service capacity and a new legislative framework.The overall need, we should stress, is for the provincialgovernment to be more explicitly engaged in landmanagement, not to the point of micromanagement ofspecific land-use decisions but in terms of identifyingthe provincial context within which those decisionsshould be made. At the same time, the working groupconcluded that greater provincial government leadershipis not sufficient if land-use challenges are to beaddressed. There is also a need to plan at the regionallevel, and it is to this matter that we now turn.

Creating a Regional PlanningCapacity

The PDMWG concluded, as did the consultationsculminating in the 2006 Red Deer Forum, that theexisting land management system is weakened by thelack of planning processes at the regional level.Although Alberta’s land base is profoundly affected bythe allocation of land and resources to various uses andusers, the approval and regulation of specific projectsand activities, and the implementation of managementdecisions at the operational level, there is no capacity toassess and plan for the cumulative effects of these on aregional scale. The PDMWG therefore concludedemphatically that the effective implementation of theLUF will require the creation of some significantregional planning capacity. However, there was lessagreement on what form this capacity should assume.

The majority of working group members opted for thecreation of Regional Planning Councils (RPCs). In anutshell, the RPCs would develop regional plans andsubmit such plans for approval by the ExecutiveCouncil, thereby ensuring regional alignment withprovincial land-use policies, objectives and priorities. Ineffect, the RPCs would interpret and apply provincialpolicies on a regional scale. Provincial sign-off wouldensure that each planning document meets the basicterms of reference and is in a form that is suitable forengaging higher level (e.g., cabinet) deliberation, just asmunicipal government approval of the regional planwould provide the foundation for compliance. Theseplans should be evergreen, subject to a mandatedperiodic review. In this context, the PDMWG recognizesthat a comprehensive provincial data base is not yetavailable and will take time to populate, thereforenecessitating an iterative rather than linear planningprocess.

The new RPCs would translate provincial land-usepolicies and priorities into regional plans, therebyestablishing a regional planning context within whichlocal land-use decision-making can occur, and withinwhich users of the land can operate. A secondary task,but one that will become increasingly important overtime, will be to convey regional interests and valuesupwards to the provincial government. In other words,the RPCs should serve as a two-way transmission belt,conveying provincial land-use priorities and objectives

downward to local communities and land users, andconveying local preferences and practical approachesupward to the provincial government. In essence, theregional plans would represent the intersection ofregional perspectives and values, on the one hand, andprovincial interests shared by all Albertans, on the other.

RPCs should be created, mandated and fully supportedby the GOA. Support should include not only thenecessary financial wherewithal but also access toplanning, data, and modeling expertise. The RPCsshould cover the entire provincial land base with theexception of national parks, Government of Canadalands, First Nations, and Metis settlements, although inall such cases, engagement in the regional planningprocess must be encouraged because cumulative effectsdo not stop at administrative boundaries. It is essentialthat the regional planning process be supported by themonitoring and evaluation mechanisms developed aspart of the LUF, for an adaptive management systemrequires continuous feedback.

The introduction of RPCs would not be a markeddeparture for Alberta; in effect, we would be taking themunicipal planning experience and moving it up to theregional scale so as to better handle cumulative effectsand address limits on the amount or intensity of landactivities. In so doing we would not be replacing otherforms of planning at the sub-regional or local scale (e.g.,Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils, airshedplans) but instead would be providing a forum in whichthese could be brought together.

In this context it is important to emphasize what theRPCs should not do. The Regional Planning Councilsshould not be charged with ensuring compliance withregional plans. They should not have subdivision anddevelopment approval authority, nor should they havezoning authority. They should not be an appeals bodyfor local decision-making. They should neither createnor approve operational plans for forest companies, andthey should not duplicate the functions of the EUB, ILMagreements, or Municipal Development Plans asinstruments for policy implementation. (However, themandates of regulatory bodies like the EUB and NRCBshould be expanded to include consideration of regionalplans, and the cumulative effects of development withina region.) Finally, Cabinet signoff for the regional plansapplies only to those aspects falling within provincial


jurisdiction; from time to time the plans may embraceelements that will bring other governments(Government of Canada, municipal governments, FirstNations) into play.

In bringing this conceptual discussion of RPCs to aclose, it should be noted that some members of theworking group who supported the need for a regionalplanning capacity were less enthusiastic about theformalization of that capacity within Regional PlanningCouncils. They felt that regional planning might takemany different forms across different regions and issues.As a consequence, they preferred a more fluid, lessinstitutional approach to regional planning. Again, therewas a much stronger consensus on the need for aregional planning capacity than there was on how sucha capacity might be realized.

Setting regional boundaries

If RPCs are to be established, they will need to bebounded in some form. Here we recognize thatdetermining the number of RPCs and their spatialboundaries will be a difficult task, and to this end wecan only offer some design principles for considerationby the GOA:

• the planning regions should be sufficiently large towork at the landscape level, and to avoid beingembroiled in local land-use decisions, butsufficiently small to be meaningful. To be avoidedare regions that are so large as to be meaningless ina planning sense (e.g., “southern Alberta”).

• regional boundaries could be congruent with (1)natural landscapes such as watersheds or riverbasins; (2) commonly understood ecological zonessuch as the Eastern Slopes; (3) the natural regionsand sub-regions of Alberta (e.g., the CentralParkland, Dry Mixed Grass, the Lower Foothills, theCentral Mixed Wood, the Sub-alpine and Peace-Athabasca Delta); Treaty areas (e.g., Treaty 8); ormunicipal boundaries.

• some members of the PDMWG argued withparticular vigor for the use of watersheds to definethe boundaries of RPCs. Here it was noted thatwatersheds are used to operationalize the Water forLife Strategy, and are referred to within the PublicLands Act.


• congruency with existing political andadministrative boundaries such as existingmunicipal and Forest Management Agreementboundaries would be an asset. To be avoided areboundaries that would split existing municipalities.

• RPCs for metro-Calgary and metro-Edmonton areunavoidable.

In any event, regional boundaries should make someintuitive sense, reflecting common interests and beingmore than simply administrative lines on maps.

When proposing these principles, we recognize both thenecessity of establishing regional boundaries forplanning and the inevitability of “spill-over” effects andland-use issues for which the appropriate scale ofdecision-making will not align perfectly with theseboundaries. There is no simple solution to this problem,but neither should it deter us from setting boundariesand then developing processes for managing issues thatdo not fit neatly within these lines on map. (Municipalgovernments confront such issues on an ongoing basis.)As noted above, a key role for provincial policy setting isto guide regional planning processes on issues wherethere is a broader provincial (or national) interest to beconsidered, or where decisions in one region may affectland-use values in another. Horizontal collaborationamong regional planning bodies on trans-boundaryissues could also be facilitated. Regional planningboundaries define the physical space for collectivedeliberation on land-use priorities and trade-offs, withina broader policy and institutional framework thatrecognizes the need to address some important issues atdifferent spatial scales.

Populating the Regional Planning Councils

RPCs will be brought to life by the people who end upsitting around the working tables, and here theGovernment of Alberta faces some difficult designchoices. While the PDMWG was asked for advice onwho might populate these tables, the group did notdiscuss this in a conclusive way, and therefore can onlyoffer the following thoughts for consideration indeveloping the RPCs:

• Some participation by the GOA on the RPCs isessential, although the appropriate form of

participation is not clear. The challenge comes fromthe multitude of provincial departments with adirect involvement in land-use issues (e.g.,Agriculture and Food; Energy; Environment;Municipal Affairs and Housing; Infrastructure andTransportation; Sustainable Resource Development;Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture). Selectionof GOA representation on specific RPCs could bedetermined by the Land-Use Secretariat andCabinet.

• Given the emphasis on planning and planningexpertise, and given the sensitivities of municipalcouncils, the RPCs should not be elected. However,the intricacies of appointment (by the GOA, bymunicipalities, stakeholders, etc.) remain to bedetermined.

• It is not clear to what extent the RPCs should beintergovernmental in character. While an exclusivelyintergovernmental approach would facilitate theengagement of municipal governments and FirstNations, it might curtail the engagement of industrygroups, the environmental community, andAboriginal peoples without governmentalorganizations. There needs to be flexibility on thispoint. In some regions, just provincial and localgovernment representation may be appropriate. Inothers, such as the oil sands or the green area, itwould be dysfunctional to exclude the mostsignificant players (e.g., Forestry, energy) or on thelandscape.

• Authority members charged with representing thepublic interest may be desirable.

• The composition of the Councils may provide anopportunity to strengthen interaction withWatershed Planning and Advisory Councils.

• The composition of the RPCs may vary from regionto region, thereby accommodating unique patternsof land use, while still retaining some commonelements.

• Some members of the PDMWG proposed thecreation of Regional Advisory Commissions tosupplement the Regional Planning Councils. SuchCommissions could be composed of the RPC andadditional invited stakeholders such as ENGOs,industry and/or recreational associations, and publicinterest groups who would establish the values and

objectives for the regional plans while incorporatingprovincial values and objectives.

• No matter how large the RPCs might be, it will notbe possible to get all interests “into the tent.”Therefore the RPCs will have to be supplementedwith robust public and stakeholder consultations,framed by provincial policies.

In closing this discussion it is useful to restate the basicfunction of the proposed RPCs, which is to developregional plans and submit such plans for approval to theGovernment of Alberta, thereby ensuring regionalalignment with provincial land-use policies, objectivesand priorities. However, it should also be stressed thatan enhanced regional planning capacity is good on itsown terms. This is why voluntary regional planninginitiatives have been so common. We simply argue thatthis enhanced capacity can play an additional and vitallyimportant role in the provincial land managementsystem.

Compliance and Dispute Resolution

The imposition of over-arching provincial objectives onregional land-use planning and decision-making raisesthe inevitable concern that some individuals and/ororganizations will feel that such impositions unfairlyimpinge on their interests and aspirations, or on thevalue of the property they might hold. It is essential,therefore, to consider the need for an appeals process.

It is important, however, not to exaggerate the extent ofthe problem. The vast majority of land-use decisionswill still be made by municipal governments andregulatory authorities, as they are made today, andwhere dispute settlement mechanisms are in place. Lineagencies will continue to approve and regulateindividual projects, ensuring that projects are consistentwith and honour regional plans. It is not clear, therefore,whether the creation of the LUF or RPCs would, inthese instances, lead to any necessary augmentation ofexisting dispute settlement mechanisms. In addition, thePDMWG does not recommend that the RPCs be chargedwith monitoring or ensuring compliance with regionalplans; to do so would distract from their planningfunction.


Regional plans are plans rather than sets of land-usedecisions; they will be established to provide guidancefor the land-use decisions made by others. Thus theregional plans themselves are not subject to appeal;there is no need for a dispute resolution process. Trade-off decisions that cannot be resolved would be referredto the Cabinet. In most respects, the same conclusionapplies to provincial land-use goals and priorities; to theextent that these are subject to appeal, it would only bethrough their enabling legislation.

Alberta currently has extensive processes in place forinter-municipal dispute resolution, and these processesshould go a long way in handling conflict resolutionissues that might emerge from the introduction ofregional land-use plans. The existing planning system inAlberta does not have a policeman who ensurescompliance. It is essentially complaint driven at the locallevel. If a municipality feels a plan or approval byanother municipality negatively impacts their interests,then the MGA allows an appeal and provides therequirement to mediate.

The creation of regional plans opens up the possibilityof a lack of alignment between such plans and decisionstaken by municipal governments or land users, orbetween such plans and actions taken by the Albertagovernment, its departments and agencies. Here,however, solutions are at hand. Regional plans could berelated to municipal and other authorities (includingprovincial departments) through a context statementprepared by those authorities and explicitly stating howthat agency's authority will be used to achieve theregional plan. This should include a statement of howplans, policies and processes will be adopted and/oramended and applied against individual decisions.Context statements as a means of relating local authorityto regional outcomes are used in the Regional GrowthStrategies provisions of British Columbia’s LocalGovernment Act and in Ontario's Oak Ridges MoraineRegional Plan.

Each and every decision should not be evaluated againstthe plan. The plan should express desired results (thewhat) but leave the how (the combination of decisionsand trade-offs that achieve the what) to municipal andother authorities. Individual decisions need not beconsistent with the plan but collectively the decisionsmust not exceed the outcomes set out in the plan. This


will mean that the context statements will need to bereviewed to ensure that the agencies collectively as wellas individually contribute to regional plan outcomes.The context statements should be reviewed by theprovince as part of its endorsement of the plan.

A corollary of this approach is that the regional planswould not be subject to appeal or require amendment asa result of individual projects and decisions. Preparationand adoption of the context statement is that agency'scommitment to achieve the plan. As part of a planreview there should be an audit (not unlike audits ofdelegated authorities responsible for administering theSafety Codes Act) that compares decisions against thecontext statement, and against the targets and outcomesdefined in the plan. This comparison will contribute toan assessment of whether the context statement anddecisions flowing from the context statement are"measuring up" against regional plan’s objectives.

The above discussion highlights the need for the LUFand its enabling legislation to clearly delineate whattypes of decisions are to be made by whom. Clarity inthis respect will go a long way in addressing complianceissues.

Implementation Timelines

The implementation of the Land-Use Secretariat and theRegional Planning Councils could be done today withinexisting legislation. Given the present circumstances ofthe province, the Government should move forward toidentify its regions of highest priority for developingregional plans and begin the selection process for RPCsas soon as possible. However, the creation of RPCs willnot be easy as a host of difficult design issues will haveto be worked out. Then, once the RPCs are in place itwill take some time, perhaps 2 to 3 years, to developregional plans. Concurrently, however, the GOA canmove forward with establishing the process to developover-arching provincial goals and priorities, as well asundertaking a thorough review of the legislativeproposals recommended herein. The GOA shouldprovide itself with a year from the time it adopts theserecommendations to have legislative changes made anda first set of provincial goals and priorities established.

The need for speed is particularly acute in those regionsof the province where growth pressures are greatest –the oil sands, the Edmonton-Calgary corridor, and theeastern slopes of the Rockies.

Conclusions

The thinking of the PDMWG led consistently towards amore systematic approach to land-use planning anddecision-making in Alberta. This approach is reflected inFigure 1, which captures a continuous improvementsystem approach to land management.


To this end, the PDMWG concluded that the land-usedecision-making in Alberta needs to be better guided bythe values Albertans attach to the land, by a provincialpolicy framework (objectives, goals, priorities), and byregional planning that takes into account cumulativeeffects on the landscape. Thus the PDMWG suggeststhree significant changes to the land management statusquo:

• the identification and policy expression of thosevalues and principles that Albertans attach to landand land management;

• the clear articulation of provincial governmentpolicies, goals and priorities relating to the landbase; and

• the creation of a regional planning capacity toaddress the cumulative impact of land use decisionson the Alberta landscape.

Figure 2 illustrates these changes, but also underscoresan important point: the changes under discussion wouldnot constitute radical departures from the currentsystem of land management. They strengthen ratherthan reject the planning and decision-making processesalready in place.

The PDMWG laments the amount of time that wasavailable for its work, and recognizes that many designelements have not been fully addressed. However, thegroup also recognizes that its primary responsibility wasto provide the broad strokes for a new and systematicapproach to land management in Alberta; the detailedwork will quite appropriately be done by others.

Finally, the PDMWG recognizes that its report cannotcapture the full range of minority viewpoints expressedthroughout its work. However, it would like toacknowledge (although neither endorse nor reject) theinput received from Treaty 8, which called for:

Figure 1:Management Systems Approach to Land Use


• the recognition of the sui generis nature of Treaty 8First Nation rights and interests in provincial landsand resources;

• the need for a “quadruple bottom line” in land-useplanning that would go beyond social, economicand environmental needs to bring the interests ofFirst Nations more directly into play;

• the establishment of a provincial Land Use Councilwith broad-based representation including FirstNation representatives appointed by provincialTreaty organizations;

• First Nation representation on regional planninggroups, and on sub-regional and local planningauthorities;

• the requirement that First Nation governments sign-off on regional plans having the potential to infringeupon First Nation rights and interests; and

• a clear and transparent appeal process for land-usedecisions, not consistent with approved land-useplans.

More broadly, the Treaty 8 approach reinforces many ofthe conclusions noted above (e.g., the creation of aLUFG by legislation) while elaborating on thoseconclusions with respect to Treaty 8 participation in theland management system (see Appendix C).

The PDMWG welcomes the decision by the GOA tocreate additional LUF channels that could bring theseconcerns more directly into play.


Figure 2:Land-use Framework - Organization and Function


Appendix A: The Planning andDecision-Making Working GroupTeam and Process

The work of the Planning and Decision-MakingWorking Group (PDMWG) was guided by the followingquestions posed by the Government of Alberta:

• What would an ideal planning and decision-makingsystem for land-use look like to achieve theoutcomes of the Land-Use Framework?

• Do existing decision-making and appealmechanisms adequately deal with land-use conflicts?

• Should the role of the provincial government bemore directive in dealing with local government,other authorities and stakeholders to achieveprovince-wide objectives and the proposedoutcomes of the Land-Use Framework?

• Should there be shared decision-making amongstdifferent levels of government and with landownersfor planning and other decisions that involve landuse?

• Should there be regional entities with specific rolesand, possibly, authority?

• In planning and other decision-making processes,how should “regions” be defined?

• What level of authority should the Land-UseFramework itself have (e.g., legislation, policy)?

• Who should be responsible for delivering theproposed outcomes of the Land-Use Framework?Who should be accountable?

• How should the Land-Use Framework link to otherkey policies and legislation?

The working group bundled these questions into threebasic sets of issues: the ideal attributes of a planning anddecision-making system for the LUF, the potential roleand form of regional entities, and the positioning of theLUF within the policy and administrative architecture ofthe provincial government. These issues were thenaddressed over five full-day sessions held from late Juneto early September, three in Edmonton and two inCalgary.

The following individuals participated in the PDMWG:

Brenda Allbright Alberta Energy

Bob Anderson Agriculture and Food Council

Kirk Andries Integrated Resource Planning and Management

Dave Belyea Alberta Environment

Veronica Bliska MD of Peace

Stan Boutin University of Alberta (ILM Chair)

Tim Creelman City of Calgary

Gerald Cunningham MSGC

Bob Demulder Alberta Chamber of Resources

Susan Feddema-Leonard Wilmore Wilderness Foundation

Hudson Foley Altalink

Dan Fouts Stony Valley Contracting

Susan Friesen Recorder

Roger Gibbins Facilitator

Brian Irmen Clearwater County – planning

Steve Kennett AEN

Peter Kinnear CNRL

Dave Kmet AFPA

Peter Koning Conoco Phillips

Kim McCaig CEP

Jim McCammon Alberta Newsprint

Diana McQueen Mayor, Drayton Valley

Doug Parrish Leduc

Shirley Pickering Watershed planning and stewardship

Gerald Rhodes Executive Director, AAMD&C

Rick Schneider AEN

Glenn Selland Alberta Sustainable ResourceDevelopment

Judy Stewart Chair, Bow River Basin Legislation & Policy Committee

Linda Strong-Watson Alberta TrailNet

Murray Summers West Fraser

Bill Symonds Alberta Municipal Affairsand Housing

Bryan Walton CEO, Alberta Cattle Feeders’ Association

Jim Webb Treaty 8 First Nations

Appendix B: Glossary of Key Terms

Accountability

Accountability involves either the expectation orassumption of account-giving behavior. In a leadershiprole accountability is the acknowledgement andassumption of responsibility for actions, products,decisions, and policies including the administration,governance and implementation within the scope of therole or position, and encompassing the obligation toreport, explain and be answerable for resultingconsequences. As an aspect of governance, it is centralto discussions related to problems in both the publicand private sectors where governance is theaccountability for consistent, cohesive policies, processesand decision rights. In general governmental institutionsas well as the private sector and civil societyorganizations are accountable to those who will beaffected by their decisions or actions. (Source: Report ofAuditor General of Canada, November 2003, Chapter 2.Sustainable Resource and Environmental ManagementGlossary & Alberta Environment Governing andGovernance Glossary)

Authority

Having power or control in a particular, especiallypolitical or administrative, sphere. (Source: OxfordEnglish Dictionary)

Collaborative

Collaborative is to co-labour, to co-operate to achievecommon goals working across boundaries throughmulti-sector, multi-jurisdictional allies. (Alliance forRegional Stewardship, 2006)


Consensus Decision-making

Is a decision-making process that not only seeks theagreement of most participants, but also to resolve ormitigate the objections of the minority to achieve themost agreeable decision. A healthy consensus decision-making process usually encourages and addressesdissent early, maximizing the chance of accommodatingthe views of all minorities. Since unanimity may bedifficult to achieve, especially in large groups, consensusdecision-making bodies may use an alternativebenchmark of consensus that includesacknowledgement of dissenting views. (Source: C.T.Lawrence Butler; Amy Rothstein (2007). On Conflictand Consensus (HTML) Food Not Bombs Publishing.Rachel Williams; Andrew McLeod (2006). Introductionto Consensus Decision Making (PDF). CooperativeStarter Series. Northwest Cooperative DevelopmentCenter. The Common Place (2005). Consensus DecisionMaking. Seeds for Change, Richard Bruneau (2003). IfAgreement Cannot Be Reached (DOC). ParticipatoryDecision-Making in a Cross-Cultural Context 37.Canada World Youth.)

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are changes to the environment thatare caused by an action in combination with other past,present and future human actions. This also includesany effect of change on health and socioeconomicconditions, on physical and cultural heritage, on thecurrent use of lands and resources for traditionalpurposes by aboriginal persons, or on any structure, siteor thing that is of historical, archaeological,paleontological or architectural significance. Cumulativeeffects occur as interactions between actions, betweenactions and the environment, and between componentsof the environment. These pathways between a cause (orsource) and an effect are often the focus of an

Schedule of PDMWG meetings

June 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edmonton

July 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Calgary

August 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Calgary

August 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edmonton

September 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Edmonton


assessment of cumulative effects. The magnitude of thecombined effects along a pathway can be equal to thesum of the individual effects (additive effect) or can bean increased effect (synergistic effect). Ideally,cumulative effects should be assessed relative to a goalin which the effects are managed on a regional basis.(Source: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency-Canadian Environmental Assessment Act)

Enforcement

Enforcement is those activities that compel and/or forceadherence to legal requirements. (Source: AlbertaEnvironment Governing and Governance Glossary)

Goal

Goal is an outcome statement that defines what anorganization is trying to accomplish. Goals are usuallycollections of related programs and/or reflections ofmajor actions that satisfy needs. (Source: InternationalStrategic Planning - Committee Publications)

Governance

Governance” is not synonymous with “government.” Itis about how governments and other organizationsinteract, how they relate to citizens, and how decisionsare made in a complex environment. The governancesystem or process rests on the agreements, procedures,conventions or policies that define in whom authorityrests, how decisions are made, how accountability isassigned, and how citizens or other stakeholders havetheir say. (Source: Governing and Governance Glossary)

Objective

Objective is a precise, time-based and measurable actionthat supports the completion of a goal. (Source:International Strategic Planning - CommitteePublications)

Partnerships

Partnership is a relationship in which individuals ororganizations share resources and responsibility toachieve a common objective, as well as any resultingrewards or recognition. It often includes a formalcontract, new resources and shared risks and rewards.The structure includes a central body of decision-makers whose roles are defined. The links are

formalized. Communication is frequent, the leadershipis autonomous and the focus is on specific issues.(Source: Sustainable Resource and EnvironmentalManagement Glossary)

Planning

Planning is the act of developing a plan that provides aformulated and especially detailed method by which athing is to be done. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Programs

Programs provide either services or products to thepublic, or support Ministry or government operations.Programs are used to achieve core businesses. (OxfordEnglish Dictionary)

Policy

A governing set of principles given force and effect byelected officials in order to meet recognized publicneeds. Policy is made in the name of "the public" and isinterpreted and implemented by both public and privateactors. The authority to set policy is what distinguishesgovernment from the private sector and it isfundamental to the work of government. In general,policies are broad, conceptual documents that outlinethe approach and/or considerations to be taken intoaccount by decision-makers. Policy is used to cause,facilitate and/or promote desired outcomes and preventadverse events from happening. Policy also can refer to aconsistent course of action that may be based onconstitutional authority, legislation/regulation, budgets,procedures or "habits." In the latter case, the consistentcourse of action is "unwritten" but is still policy.(Source: Sustainable Resource and EnvironmentalManagement Glossary)

Recreational Corridor

Recreation corridor is a continuous length of trail forrecreation use. (Source: Alberta TrailNet)

Responsibility

Responsibility is a duty, obligation or liability for whichan entity, whether it is government, a corporation,organization or individual, is responsible to carryforward an assigned task to a successful conclusion.Responsibility can be, and often is, shared. With


responsibility goes authority to direct and take thenecessary action to ensure success. (Source: Report ofAuditor General of Canada, November 2003; &Sustainable Resource and Environmental ManagementGlossary)

Role

The part played or assumed by an individual ororganization in society, influenced by his or herconception of what is appropriate. (Source: OxfordEnglish Dictionary)

Shared Governance

Shared Governance refers to a governance structurewhere both government and external parties shareresponsibility for policy development and delivery ofplanning, programs or services, but where governmentretains accountability. Shared governance is acollaborative goal setting and problem-solving processbuilt on trust and communication. The extent ofgovernment involvement varies with the level of controlthat is desired and/or the capacity of the external partiesto carry out the functions. Shared governance requires aclear accountability framework with clear roles,responsibilities and relationships. (Source: SustainableResource and Environmental Management Glossary)

Stakeholder

A stakeholder is an individual, organization orgovernment with an interest in or engaged in resourceand environmental management in Alberta. Involvementcan be targeted to specific stakeholders or segments ofthe public or can be more general. (Source: SustainableResource and Environmental Management Glossary)

Stewardship

Stewardship is defined as the wise management and useof personal resources (natural resources and financialresources) for the benefit of all. Stewardship can be amandate to be a caretaker of the world. That meanstaking responsibility for the economic, environmentaland social consequences of our actions. And it meansemploying sustainable practices in individual,organizational and governmental operations. (Source:National & Philanthropy Curriculum Standards; DavidEvans & Associates - Environmental Management)

Strategy

The action path an organization or government haschosen to realize goals. Strategies establish broad themesfor future actions and should reflect reasoned choicesamong alternative paths. (Source: International StrategicPlanning - Committee Publications)

Sustainability

There may be as many definitions of sustainability andsustainable development as there are groups trying todefine it. All the definitions have to do with:

• Living within the limits

• Understanding the interconnections amongeconomy, society, and environment

• Equitable distribution of resources andopportunities

Sustainability typically relates to the continuity ofeconomic, social, institutional and environmentalaspects of human society, as well as the non-humanenvironment. (Source: Sustainability Measures)

Traditional Knowledge

Traditional knowledge is information held by Albertanswho have an intimate knowledge of a specific region.Examples of Albertans who may possess suchknowledge are the aboriginal community, ranchers,farmers, outfitters, trappers, and other citizens whoutilize Alberta’s landscape. (Source: Wilmore WildernessFoundation)

Watershed

An area of land that catches precipitation and drains itto a common point such as a marsh, lake, stream orriver and recharges groundwater. A watershed can bemade up of several sub-watersheds that contribute tothe overall drainage of the watershed. (Source:Provincial Wetland Restoration/ Compensation Guide).


Appendix C: Treaty 8 Proposals for the Land Management System

Land-use Framework

Conceptual Model for First Nations Government-to-Government Interface at the Various Planning Scales


Appendix D: Legend: Working Group Member and Reviewer StakeholderSector Designations

Appendix E: Working Group Member Comments

MUN

From a quick glance again I am disappointed that youcontinue to ignore the comments I have made at twomeetings with regards to elected officials being on this.The peoples voice is through their elected officials ifthey don't like what we do they can do something aboutit - replace us. Each time I have mentioned it - you havechosen not to include in the document. I therefore cannot support these recommendations.

GOA

• The document describes the need for a systemsapproach to land management and seeks to describesystem principles. In re-reading the ExecutiveSummary and introductory pages of the final draft, I

Sector Abbreviation

Aboriginal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ABO

Academic, Consultant, Professional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ACP

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AGR

Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CON

Energy, Industry, Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .EID

Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ENV

Forestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FOR

Government of Alberta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .GOA

Municipal – Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MUN-R

Municipal – Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MUN-U

Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .REC

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WAT

find a lack of clarity as to what is being referred to,or described as a systems approach. Definitions I ampersonally familiar with describe a systems approachas a problem-solving method wherein one: definesthe problem as clearly as possible > analyse theproblem and identify alternative solutions > selectfrom the alternatives and develop the most viablesolution mix > implement and test the solution >and evaluate the effectiveness and worth of thesolution. This definition appears to be consistentwith Figure 1, but the text of the ExecutiveSummary and System Principles do not seem to tieto Figure 1.

• The Working Group set out to develop a planningand governance backbone, but the draft makesrepeated reference to land management and at timesseems to intermix the terms planning andmanagement. The Executive Summary is a goodexample of this intermix in that the three describedstrategic responses are framed around land-useplanning and decision making, but the sectionconcludes with reference to addressing "structural


problems in the management of the Alberta landbase". To me planning is arranging the various partstowards an objective(s) or outcome(s), whilemanagement is a suite of activities that help realizethe objective(s) or outcomes(s). The language of thefinal draft needs to articulate that we were focusingon an architecture for planning and decision makingthat would assist in addressing the myriad of landmanagement issues, but were not seeking to resolveland management issues per se.

• We spent a considerable amount of time at theinitial meeting describing attributes of an Albertaplanning and governance backbone, but the draftdoes not appear to capture essential attributes. Isuggest that a description of the major attributesthat the group felt were important would help framethis discussion paper and provide a context toevaluate the recommended approach. For example,if timeliness and transparency of planning anddecision making were key attributes, one could thendescribe how the planning and governance modelbeing proposed will incorporate and/or realize thoseattributes.

• In bringing forward a planning and governancemodel predicated on a centralized model, the draftdoes not describe the likely implications of movingto this model from the current status quo. Therewas certainly a lot of discussion within the workinggroup regarding implications, but I don't see thiscaptured. The draft would benefit from somedescription as to how consequential and doable theproposed model is, using working group discussionpoints to substantiate the description. It would alsobe beneficial to describe the alternatives that wereconsidered

• Reference is made to the possible need to amendexisting statutes including the Public Lands Act andand Municipal Government Act. With regard to thelatter, municipalities currently operate within astatutory planning and decision making model. Inbringing forward a revised planning and governancebackbone, the draft does not discuss potentialimplications to the MGA and current municipalgovernance model. The draft should be clear as towhether, as one of the implications, we aresuggesting a revision to municipal planning anddecision making authority - particularly given the

draft proposes a consolidation of dispute resolutionto Executive Council which is a significantdeparture from the current municipal disputeresolution processes.

• The proposed model whereby a Planning Council isunder the direct control of Executive Council(Cabinet) is a significant departure from currentAlberta approaches, and I believe is unprecedentedwithin Canada (to my knowledge all jurisdictions inCanada enable Crown land planning/decisionmaking and municipal planning/decision makingunder provincial statutes vested within individualgovernment departments. Reporting authority is tothe responsible Minister). Appreciating the intent ofutilizing a centralized planning body to maintain adegree of independent decision making, it isimportant to consider that we are suggesting thisPlanning Council seek validation for its decisionsand direction setting from a suite of elected officialswho are not necessarily experienced planners - andwho change roles and responsibilities on a periodicbasis. In addition, the proposed model sees Cabinetbeing responsible for "trade-off decisions". At thistime, the discussions and decisions of Cabinet arenot public, and the proposed model suggests thatany dispute (trade-off) resolution around land-useissues would fall within that domain of non-disclosure. Is this an unintended consequence ofplacing the Planning Council directly underCabinet?

• The description of Regional Planning Councilsincludes statements as to what they will NOT do,including ensuring compliance with regional plans.If the body that creates regional plans has no abilityto monitor and ensure compliance, then who does?In the model being proposed, it appears that thisresponsibility may rest with Executive Council(Cabinet) as they are the body who would formallyapprove the plan. I am unsure of the practicality ofCabinet members being directly engaged inresolution of the numerous trade-off discussions anddecision that occur in Alberta. If there isn't somepractical method of ensuring compliance, then theregional plan is merely advice which seemsinconsistent with the intent that LUF have astatutory enabling mechanism.

• The draft speaks to the need for integration betweenLUF and Water for Life, but does not indicateexpected linkages between the planning andgovernance model being proposed and on-goingwork surrounding Water for Life being directed bythe Alberta Water Council and associated WPAC's.Since the inception of discussions on LUF therehave been questions about the linkages, and thelimited discussion of potential linkages between theproposed planning and governance backbone andWater for Life is certain to be noticed. Indeed, anumber of the WPAC's are hoping to see thatconnectivity arising from the October 9thpresentations of LUF working group reports.

• While there was some discussion about the need tobetter link sub-surface allocation with surfaceplanning and decision making, the final draftdoesn't seem the address this issue. Indeed, inproposing the revised planning and governancemodel there is no statement as to implications forthe allocation of sub-surface tenure. On the publicland base energy development is a major influence -if not driver - of land-use patterns and notdiscussing how the proposed planning andgoverance model will tie to, and possibly direct,sub-surface tenure really leaves the proverbialelephant on the table.

AG

As noted previously Roger, I do not think it isappropriate to include the minority position regardingthe creation of a Land Use Commission within theExecutive Summary. This is the only minority positionconveyed within the Executive Summary and all otherminority views have been ignored. You are cherrypicking one minority point of view - why?

Page 9 2nd paragraph. There is reference to provincialsign-off. Is this synonymous with Cabinet sign-off? It isnot clear if this is reference to Cabinet or some otherlevel of sign-off. The latter was discussed and notsupported as I recall.

That is it. Overall an excellent piece of work given thetimelines we were under. You earned your pay on thisproject!!


WATER

1. I agree with the message in the report that indicatesa lack of clearly articulated and integrated provincialand regional policy as being key problems with landand water planning and decision making that needsto be addressed. While the group recognized thereare many good Land Use Policies serving asguidelines, I still have a concern that ourgovernance proposal lacks the mechanism to assureconsistency in quality of policy implementationwhich currently driving much of the conflict in thecommunity.

2. As a rural landowner and member of a watershedstewardship group I am not convinced that theassumption that the problems and conflict will besolved by at regional level, because we do not havecoherent and integrated planning at the local levelin the white area. While municipalities have somestructure for local land use planning, provincialagencies making land use decisions on the samelandscape do not have similar planning structures.Of particular concern is subsurface land usedecisions that do not take into consideration surfaceeffects. Others in the group have expressed concernsabout this same lack of integrated of local levelplanning in the green zone which has also resultedin conflicting use of the same landscape and often tothe detriment of valuable upper watershed function.I believe if the group had been given more time theneed for local level land use planning under theumbrella of regional planning would have beenmore clearly expressed.

3. As a member of the Alberta Water Council's SharedGovernance and Watershed Planning FrameworkProject Team I remain concerned about thedifference in governance system proposed for theLUF and that proposed through the Water for LifeStrategy, which recognizes that effective watershedmanagement requires integrated land use and watermanagement planning. How this will happenbetween these two systems remains a big questionand we did not take the time the time to provideadvise on this matter because we did not have thetime to appropriately investigation this topic or toseek advice from Water for Life strategists.


AG

I agree, that given the scope and time frame, I believethe group has done well with the final product. I onlyoffer a couple of observations not to change thedocument but possibly for all of us to continue toconsider as this process moves forward.

1. Under the section of Strengthening The ProvincialRole, we talk about decision making and some ofthe concerns between elected versus unelectedpeople making decisions. In my view, if we aretalking about conflicts of needs between theprovince need versus the regional need versus themunicipal need; then I support the provincial publicgood need over-riding the individual need.

2. Under the Compliance and Dispute Resolutionsection, I am not sure how enabling legislationwhich delineates what types of decisions are to bemade by whom will help resolve compliance issues.It may be that we expect more teeth to enforcenoncompliance by empowering the various decisionmaking bodies with more abilities to penalizehowever that will not happen until these groupsdefine those.

3. My last comment is directed at Appendix B:Glossary of Key Terms; Sustainability. I agree therehave been many definitions of sustainabledevelopment however I believe that UNCommission which issued a report called “OurCommon Future” defined it this way:….development that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs.” Sustainabledevelopment is about meeting needs acrossgenerations, but in practice clarifying needs andexpectations has been difficult and value-laden.Balancing not only between generations, butbetween economic, social and environmental needsremains a daunting challenge.

In closing I apologize for not being to make it to the lasttwo meetings, I did pay close attention to what theoutcomes of the group discussion were and believe thefinal product to be a good outcome for the Governmentto consider as they move forward on the overall LandUse Framework initiative.

Appendix F: Reviewer Comments tothe Final Summary Report

ACP

1. Alberta exists primarily as a rather arbitrary set oflines on a map defining a land area. Land use wouldthen seem to be a fundamental role of government –not an optional extra that can be addressed by yetanother committee or secretariat. Land use, whichmust include the air, water, land, sub soils, andresources must be managed in a comprehensivemanner that provides stewardship for the land areacalled Alberta. Fundamental principles have beenignored or overridden in the past to get us to thestate we are in today. Therefore fundamental changeis required to move us onto a new path. Proppingup old traditions will not give Albertans a betterfuture.

2. Issues that are missing include reclamation,remediation and property rights, and the wholeenergy industry is understated or not referenced.

3. Albertans’ values are referred to but never defined.In fact the word, “values,” is not even referenced inthe Glossary. This is the essence of the presentactivity but is dealt with very casually.

4. Figure 2 on page 16 is very telling in puttingAlbertans at the bottom of the stack: aren’t thecitizens (and their values) supposed to be drivingthe process?

EID

Comments on Planning and Decision Making FinalReport:

• This is a much more balanced and less constrainingdocument that the September 7 draft;

• Page 7, options for an institutional home for LUF,we prefer the first option;

• Page 9 second paragraph, agree municipal bodiesneed to be at the planning table, but do not agreewith sign off, as this could effectively halt theprocess, disagreement with the majority should berecorded and provincial approval would take intoconsideration;

• Page 10, third paragraph, to much flexibility willresult in confusion and disparate process andopportunity;

• Page 10, setting regional boundaries, should bebased on an existing government administrationboundary or ecological boundaries not politicalboundaries;

• Where a planning area, such as the Caribou LandManagement Area, government administrativedecision making boundaries, one decision makershould be appointed to the decision making role.BC MOFR, where a forest operational plan is withintwo forest districts delegates one decision maker.

• Compliance and enforcement to the approved planshould be through provincial regulatory agencies.

MUN - U

In general, there is support for the intentions outlined inthis report. However, as a large urban municipality, Ifind the lack of explicit recognition of the urbanizedareas of the province (and the fact that the majority ofAlbertans live and work in urban environments)somewhat limits the scope of discussion. For example,the only reference to Edmonton and Calgary is on page11 where it is stated that “RPCs for metro Calgary andmetro Edmonton are unavoidable”.

I am in favour of the larger principles identified in thispaper. There must be regional planning. The provincemust lead it. It is indispensable in the Edmonton area.The regional plan must have the force of law andtherefore local authorities must accept some loss ofautonomy.

I am in favour of certain of the implementationstrategies. I agree that these changes have to beembodied in statutory amendments. These regionalplans must have the force of law. If they are merelysuggestive, we are wasting our time. It is endorsed at thepolitical level (likely cabinet) and it would be almostunprecedented to have a cabinet decision subject tobeing overturned by a tribunal or a court.

At page 13 under the heading "Compliance andDispute Resolution") the paper becomes very mushy.They have endorsed the idea that this is a legislative


program (you must do this or face legal consequences)not a mere policy exercise (you should do this but if notthere is no legal remedy), but seemed to have lost theirnerve as they considered the implications of that.Ultimately it means a loss of local autonomy.

I think they should take it to its logical conclusion. If alocal government has made any land use decision(enacting or amending a statutory plan, or a land usebylaw or granting any development or subdivisionapproval) that decision must comply with the regionalplan. If not any aggrieved party (broadly defined)should have recourse to an expert appeal tribunal withthe authority to uphold overturn or vary the decision inquestion.

Under this proposal, it would appear that they do notwant that to happen. At page 13 they write "Individualdecisions need not be consistent with the plan butcollectively the decisions must not exceed the outcomesof the plan." I take this to mean that if a municipality ison track to flouting a regional plan there is no recourseunless and until it has happened. If RPCs are not to beensuring compliance with regional plans, then who will?For example, if the plan says "do not fragment farmlandin the future urban growth area" and a municipalityenacts an ASP saying one or two hectare parcels are OK,and then zones all of the land to grant land owners thatright and the subdivision authority approves 50 suchsubdivisions (one at a time) none of those individualdecisions is subject to legal challenge. But after its allfragmented, we can now all look back and stateconclusively that future urban development of theselands is now impossible and we can shake our fingersand tut tut. What good does that do? It is too late toundo these decision and grossly unfair to the acreageowners who are, by this time, living on the fragmentedagricultural lands.

Every one of these decisions must be appealable. In fact,if the regional plan has the force of law, there isprobably no practical way to deny an aggrieved party aremedy for these individual decisions. If the legislaturehas not set up a specialized tribunal, the aggrieved partywill go to the courts. If the court sees that there is thiskind of legal, remedial vacuum they tend to step in tofill it. Legislatures try to warn them off with languageprotecting the finality of local government's decisionsbut they have limited success at it. The courts step in


and adjudicate these disputes and they do so with littleor no expertise in the area of land-use planning.Government loses control over the interpretation of itspolicies. Better to accept that these decisions will bechallenged and put in place a body with the processesand expertise needed to adjudicate them quickly andaccurately. Please note that I advocate a body toadjudicate disputes as to how the plan is interpretedand applied, not a body to hear complaints about thecontent of the plan.

To what degree will the GoA be involved in ensuringthere is a level of congruency as regional plans aredrafted? If they are involved in the establishment of theregions and the drafting of the enabling regulations,there should be no need for context statements. This istoo similar to the "mandate letters" used by the currentPremier to guide the priorities of his ministers. The useof Councillors on the RPCs eliminates the need forcontext statements as they already have a mandate.Municipalities do not have context statements issued tothem.

The paper states that the enabling legislation needs toclearly delineate what types of decisions are to be madeby whom. This reflects our desire to see robust planswith implementation bodies.

The Land Use Secretariat will need to be rethought. Itsrole is alright, but it's location in the GoA organizationstructure won't work. If it is located within ExecutiveCouncil, it would have to be staffed up, pulling stafffrom a variety of line departments. As a result, there willbe a modest bureaucracy established within theExecutive Council offices, for which the Premier is theMinister and therefore accountable. The Secretariatwould be the logical location for appeals on whether ornot the plan was followed according to its legislation.Again, this is not something which the Premier wouldwant/need to be responsible.

I would like it if the paper was clearer about exactlywhat kind of supports the RPCs could expect from theGoA - does this mean funding and secretariat/planningsupport. Would they be fully funded?

Who will establish regional boundaries? They should beestablished by the GoA and embedded in the regulationsaccompanying the legislation. If the RPCs are not to beelected, then for the purposes of accountability, the

RPCs should be using pre-established politicalboundaries such as the municipal boundaries.

The section on Populating Regional Planning Councilsleaves a lot of questions as to whom in the end willmake up the RPCs as the WG does not makerecommendations but offers “thoughts forconsideration”. One possibility is that through theinclusion of municipally elected councillors in the RPCs,there may less need for robust public consultations. Infact, with robust plans, there should be little need forpublic consultation at all by the RPC as that would be apolicy making function.

I envision a piece of legislation - an Act - that clearlyarticulates the Province's policy direction, principles andother criteria for land use. This Act should likely also besomewhat specific with respect to sensitive areas, naturalareas, watersheds, or any other such important areas.

The LUF Organization & Framework proposed by theWG on page 16 - is about as bureaucratic as they come.One objective of having a provincial land-useframework should be to provide greater clarity andguidelines on how to manage Alberta lands in a waythat balances growth and economic development withminimizing our ecological footprint - now and in thefuture.

I strongly recommend that they have this paperreviewed by a lawyer with acknowledged expertise inadministrative law. What they are suggesting is legallyunsound and they need to be set back on track.

MUN - U

The decision making structure proposed as two optionsis actually outlined in a more robust manner in theGrowth and Resource Management document, withProvincial leadership, regional representation, an appealbody and an auditor. I think the GRM proposal is amore substantive proposal than the either / or offeringmade here.

The first option of a Secretariat is not preferred. Asingular central agency is too distant to be an effectiverepresentative tool, and woudl be subject to Provinciallobbying efforts that could affect its operation.Implementation of the LUF should reside at a lower

level where there is less opportunity for central controland diversion.....

I agree wholeheartedly with the need for new andsingular legislation, that is "cross-ministry" inapplication. All existing legislation would need to deferto this new legislative tool. No ministry (i.e. energy)should be able to override this legislation, except wherethe Province claims an express Provincial interest, as I'msure it would do with strategies for the industrialheartland and the oilsands.

Regional Planning Councils:Should be inter-governmental and is regulatory innature. As such, industry representation isinappropriate. Industries should be represented throughthe relevant ministry, and should not be at this table.Allowing one industry in opens up the table to anyindustry, making the process unworkable.

I agree also that RPC's should have members appointedon a cross ministry basis and not be elected. There is acomplexity of issues that requires understanding andcooperation, not political representation. (Which is whythe concept of an auditor outlined under the GRMstructure is appealing.) Members should be explicitlytasked with representing the public interest.

Page 13. The comment that there are extensiveprocesses available for inter-municipal disputeresolution, and these could go a long way in resolvingLUF disputes misses the fact that there are lots ofcurrent, unresolved inter-municipal disputes. Thecurrent conflict resolution process is not functional andrelying on it is naive, to say the least. Half the reasonthat the LUF is moving forward is due to a desire toresolve these disputes. A new mechanism is needed.This is where the appeal body in the GRM document isappealing.

RPC's also shoudl have the ability to comment on localplans and decisions. There needs to be some oversightof implementation before decisions are implemented onthe ground. Better to render an opinion on a decisionearlier than let the project get half built before someonedetermines that it was not consistent with the LUFprinciples.

Figure 1 is an excellent synopsis of how the LUF couldwork. I think combined with the structure proposed in


Figure 1 of the GRM document, there is something newand enduring proposed.

EID

Comments on Planning and Decision Making FinalReport:

• This is a much more balanced and less constrainingdocument that the September 7 draft;

• Page 7, options for an institutional home for LUF,the first option is preferable;

• Page 9 second paragraph, agree municipal bodiesneed to be at the planning table, but do not agreewith sign off, as this could effectively halt theprocess, disagreement with the majority should berecorded and provincial approval would take intoconsideration;

• Page 10, third paragraph, to much flexibility willresult in confusion and in disparate process andopportunity;

• Page 10, setting regional boundaries, should bebased on an existing government administrationboundary, i.e. forest areas, or ecological boundariesbut not political boundaries;

• Where a planning area, such as the Caribou LandManagement Area, crosses governmentadministrative decision making boundaries, onedecision maker should be appointed to the decisionmaking role. I.e., BC Ministry of Forests and Range,where a forest operational plan is within two forestdistricts, delegates one decision maker.

• Compliance and enforcement to the approved planshould be through provincial regulatory agencies.

WAT

Once again, I commend the group on the excellentthought put into these recommendations.

I absolutely agree that land, water and air policy andplanning needs to be integrated.


I strongly support the recommendation that the LandUse Framework be housed under a Land Use Secretariatwithin the Executive Council. I have long promoted thefact that to be successful, a provincial policy of this type(including the Water For Life Strategy) must not behoused in a line department. The mandate andlegislation of being housed under an individualdepartment, by its very nature, sets up barriers forintegration. I have often thought that the Department ofInternational, Intergovernmental and AboriginalRelations would be a reasonable location forinterdepartmental initiatives such as the LUF and theWFL strategy, however, the Executive Council isprobably more appropriate.

I also support the need for the LUF to have its ownlegislation under a new Act.

I also agree that there is a need for an over-archingvehicle for integration. I am not sure whether thisshould be the LUF or the WFL strategy. Without waterthere is no life, no land use, no economics, nothing.Possibly the WFL should establish a provincialframework and the LUF should fit within this initiative.

Never-the-less, I question whether “Land UseFramework” is the appropriate name. Land is land: byits name it does not imply inclusion of all the naturalresources – minerals, oil and gas, land, water, fisheries,wildlife, forest, etc. (Land management and planning isalready housed within ASRD. Cumulative Effects isbeing done by AENV.) I suggest we need a new namethat does not imply ownership by one department. Forexample, call it the Provincial Natural Resource Policyor something that it is in its own right. (i.e. I am notsure whether calling it the Land “Use” Frameworkdifferentiates it enough for the bureaucrats and thepublic to differentiate it from land management inASRD.)

Presently there are too many overlaps between theexpectations and outcomes of the LUF and the WFL.Under the WFL strategy, it is the understanding of theAlberta Water Council and the 8+ Watershed Planningand Advisory Councils that they are doing land andwater planning and it is in place and is being done aswe speak. There is not enough of a difference betweenthe two outcomes to have two separate policies. Theyneed to be either integrated or modified. As mentionedearlier, whether it is the WFL or the LUF as the over-

arching policy, I am not sure. Either way, these twoprovincial initiatives need to be very clear in what isexpected as to the scope and outcomes.

I also strongly support planning done at a regional level.I would not, however, view WPAC’s as being at a “sub-regional” scale. Very clearly in the government’sdocumentation, WPAC’s are at a regional scale. Forexample the Red Deer River watershed (WPAC)encompasses 13 rural municipalities (MDs andCounties) and 52 urban municipalities (cities, towns,villages, summer villages). You would not want a regionmuch larger than this, for as you state “to be avoided areregions that are so large as to be meaningless in aplanning sense”.

I truly believe that ecological boundaries such aswatershed boundaries or natural regions make the mostsense when planning for land use.

I do not agree with having the regional boundaries:

• Congruent with existing political and administrativeboundaries – this defeats the whole ecologicalapproach. Political boundaries change. Mothernature stays the same: a watershed is a watershed nomatter which political party is in power. Usingpolitical and administrative boundaries sets thestage for power struggles. It will not work.

• I also do not think that metro-Calgary and metro-Edmonton need their own RPCs. Here is politicscoming into play when it is the very thing that willdestroy a common sense, ecological approach.Political power trumping proper ecological planningis not what we want. By you very own admission,municipalities would continue with their landdevelopment authority (under the LUF policy) sowhy give Edmonton and Calgary specialrights/exemptions?

ACP

Introduction

Congratulations to the members of the PDMWG fortheir hard work in preparing this report. The timeline inwhich this project was undertaken was very short andthere was a great deal of ground to cover. There is an

urgent need to develop and implement an effectivestrategy to deal with the cumulative effects of land usedecisions. That said, going forward, the developmentand refining of the details respecting the subject matterof the PDMWG’s report must be based on thoroughanalysis and continued appropriate stakeholder input.

While recognizing that the report is intended to providebroad strokes for a new and systemic approach to landmanagement and, as such does not discuss the issues indetail, and there are some issues that need to beaddressed more fully. The importance of the integrationof land use planning with Water for Life cannot beoverstated, yet even the broad brush strokes relating tohow these two regimes would be linked is absent fromthis discussion. It must be made explicit that an effectiveLUF with the potential to address cumulative effects willcontain mandatory limits and thresholds applicable toall land use decision makers, including the governmentdepartment responsible for issuing mineral dispositions.It must also be made clear that such limits andthresholds are to be made binding and enforceable andthat there must be an office to ensure compliance andan ability for broad public access to that office.

Sign-Off of Regional Plans

The report recommends the approval of the regionalplans by the Executive Council. This group is notselected for its land use planning expertise. Further,Cabinet members change frequently and so one cannotexpect members of Cabinet to develop the requisiteexpertise. For this reason, it is important that theExecutive Council must, therefore, be provided with theappropriate technical information required in order tocreate provincial objectives, thresholds and limits andunderstand the regional plans and the manner in whicheach of them contribute to achieving statutorilydescribed provincial objectives. The report recommendsthe use of the Land Use Secretariat to provide a cleararticulation of provincial goals and objectives to regionalplanning groups. The Land Use Secretariat must, clearly,also provide the Executive Council with the technicalexpertise needed to properly review and approve theregional plans. It is also important that the informationupon which provincial objectives, thresholds and limitsare set be available to a wide range of stakeholders forcomment and correction. The development of a LUFshould be a transparent process and the use of the


Executive Council for key elements of the LUF shouldnot jeopardize that transparency. It is not necessary toaccumulate the most technical of this informationrelated to biodiversity of wildlife, air quality etc. in acentral location as there are ample experts throughoutthe province, however, it is critical that the provincialobjectives used to inform the LUF be founded in thistechnical expertise.

It must also be made clear that local decision-makers, bethey municipalities, regulatory boards or governmentdepartments cannot have the ability to frustrate thedevelopment of effective regional plans. Therequirement for municipal approval of a regional plan isnot appropriate if it could amount to a veto bymunicipalities or could delay the development andimplementation of regional plans. Drafters of thelegislation supporting the LUF may avoid this byrequiring all significant land use decisions to be inaccordance with a regional plan (or a statutorilymandated context statement, as described in thePDMWG’s report) and that no significant land usedecision may be made in the absence of a regional planand context statement, if such is used, both being inplace. This might provide an incentive to municipalitiesto find a way to accept and work within a regional plan.The LUF cannot be structured such that land usedecisions can continue to be made in the absence of aprovincially approved regional plan.

The LUF must recognize that there may be many waysto design a regional plan that accords with statutorilymandated provincial objectives. Municipalities shouldhave a place at the RPC table and should have theopportunity to put municipal concerns forward whenthe RPC designs a regional plan for development thataccords with statutorily mandated objectives and limits.Where a proposed regional plan is not supported by allmunicipalities or interests at the RPC table, the planshould be put forward to the Executive Council alongwith dissenting views. Dissenting land-users, includingmunicipalities, should not be able, however, to pleadtheir case to the Executive Council behind closed doors.If the final decision on a regional plan is to be left up tothe Executive Council by default of the RPC to come upwith a plan, then the information flow and deliberationsshould be public and transparent. There is a tensionhere, though, due to the current ability of the ExecutiveCounsel to deliberate out of the public eye. In order to


avoid allowing land-users, such as municipalities, fromdoing an end-run around the RPC, transparency mustbe injected into this particular function. In any case, theExecutive Council, when approving a regional plan,regardless of whether there is dissent from local landusers, must themselves adhere to the statutorilymandated objectives.

New Act

The legislative expression of the Land Use Frameworkshould be through the creation of a new Act. Legislationis difficult to change, compared to regulations. Whileregulations can be changed in relative secrecy byCabinet, amendment of an Act requires adherence toparliamentary procedure, including public readings andscrutiny of the proposed amendment. If the key toaddressing cumulative effects is the recognition that wecan’t do everything, everywhere, all the time, then thereis a need to impose meaningful limits. Firm limitsenshrined in an Act would provide meaningful guidanceand direction for land use planners. The Act would,however, have to allow for the LUF to be adjusted,through a transparent process, as it is a system that willbe constantly improved based upon the performanceindicators chosen to evaluate its success.

Compliance and enforcement

The report of the PDMWG does not recommend thatthe Regional Planning Councils (RPCs) be charged withmonitoring or ensuring compliance with regional plans(p.12).

However, there must be somebody watching the shop.At some point, there has to be somebody to say that aproject cannot proceed because it is not in accordancewith the regional plan. If the RPC is not to ensurecompliance, then who is? Failure to ensure compliancewill result in provincial policy goals and landscape scaleobjectives not being achieved.

The PDMWG mentions that regional plans are notsubject to appeal and that trade-off decisions thatcannot be resolved would be referred to the ExecutiveCouncil. It is important to distinguish, I think, betweentwo types of potential disputes that could wind upbefore Cabinet. The first, as discussed above in relationto provincial and municipal sign-off is the dispute thatarises when a regional plan is being developed. This

dispute would still be a fairly high level and could beaddressed by the Executive Council, however, thesecond form of dispute, and the one that becomes moreof a compliance issue, is the dispute where a proposedlocal land decision is not in compliance with theregional plan, or the context letter, as described in thePDMWG report. These disputes could involve the moretechnical and detailed aspects of a project’s impacts. Itseems an awful lot to put on the Executive Council,elected but potentially lacking in planning expertise.Even with the aid of the Executive Council Office, thismay be too much, especially if the number of disputes ifsignificant.

A compliance and enforcement plant that does notreview individual decisions against a regional plan mustensure that by some means that land use decisionsconform with context statements. There must be anoffice that can ensure this compliance, a place whereinterested persons can drag land-use decision makersthat have not adhered to the regional plan. Where therange of potential land users is as varied as in this caseand include municipalities, line-agencies andadministrative tribunals design and implementation ofthe activities of this office may be difficult. Regularaudits of local land use decision makers would help toensure that their decisions are in accord with regionalplans but only if there is a consequence for not being incompliance.

The report refers to existing mechanism under theMunicipal Government Act (MGA) that allows amunicipality to appeal and force mediation where theplans or approval of another municipality negativelyimpacts their interests. Does the PDMWG contemplatethe province expanding this dispute resolution functionso that it may be used for this purpose? Does thePDMWG also contemplate that a broad range ofstakeholders, not just municipalities, would have accessto this dispute resolution body in order to challengemunicipal or other projects that may not comply withthe regional plan? It is important, when designing adispute resolution office for the LUF that one considershow each different interested persons may be engaged.

The PDMWG report also mentions the local line-agencies as compliance enforcers, “ensuring that projectsare consistent with and honour regional plans. (p.12) Ifthis is to be the method of ensuring compliance it is

critical that these line agencies take into all appropriateinformation, from a wide range of interested parties,prior to making such an assessment. This, in manycases, would require an expanded set of publicparticipation rights. For example, the EUB’s directly andadversely affected test would be clearly inappropriatewhere one of the criteria to be determined before anapproval could be issued is whether the project iscompliant with a regional plan. The impact of a wrongdecision impacts the whole region.

Recognizing that the regional plans are not to addressthe “how”, there must be a point where one can look ata project and identify the impact of a project in terms ofthe “what” dealt with by the regional plan, presumablythe objectives and limits for the region.

The use of context statement, as described in thePDMWG report (p.13) may be effective but there mustbe:

1. Recognition by each decision-making agency thatmeaningful and binding limits apply to the regionand must be built in to the context statement. Theselimits would relate to those imposed on the regionby the Province through legislation, and asimplemented through the creation of the regionalplan.

2. A clear process to evaluate decisions by that agencyagainst the context statement to determine whetherthe limits identified in the context statement areadhered to. If individual line agency decisions arenot to be evaluated against the regional plan itself, itbecomes all the more critical that the evaluation ofthe land use decision against the context statementis rigorous and has the appropriate public input.This review process must allow for a broad range ofstakeholder input. Because failure to adhere tocontext statements could lead to the regional plannot being adhered to, there are broaderconsequences for a project and a broader range ofpeople interested that would be reflected in anarrow test for standing such as that currentlyapplied by the Energy and Utilities Board. Suchbroad stakeholder input need not be in relation toall aspects of an applied for land use; rather, thisparticipation would be related only to the manner inwith the land use accords with the contextstatement.


3. The broader audit process referred to must allow forthe appropriate level of public participation andmeaningful consequences for local land use decisionmakers that found not to be in compliance withregional plans or context statements.

Absence of discussion of LUF’s impact on mineraltenure dispositions

In order for the land use framework to be effective inaddressing the problem of cumulative effects ofincremental land use decision-making, there must be aclear recognition of the huge impact that energydevelopment has on the Alberta landscape. In order toappropriately address the cumulative effects problem,there must be an explicit recognition that energydevelopment cannot hold the trump card over all otherland uses. The report notes that the strategic direction ofthe Province’s explicit priorities and objectives would beapplicable to government departments engaged inmineral rights disposition; however, it is not made clearthat regional plans will limit, in some cases, the abilityof Alberta Energy to issue subsurface dispositions.

ACP

p. 5 “this subsystem autonomy and flexibility must stillbe guided by and consistent with the principles,policies, goals and priorities of the Province.”

Comment: The phrase “must still be guided by andconsistent with” should be changed to “must complywith.” Autonomy and flexibility without a requirementfor compliance (e.g., the current Land Use Policies) is akey weakness in the system now. Provincial directionmust have teeth for the system to improve.

p. 6

- “unduly privilege the status quo”

Comment: Delete “unduly.” Future generations willthank you.

- “planning and decision-making will always involvetrade-offs”

Comment: Change “always” to “often.”


- “values are not static”

Comment: Change this to “some values are notstatic.” There are universal values that must remainunchanged (e.g., thou shall not lie or steal to get alease).

- “circumstances chance”

Comment: Spelling: should be “change.”

p. 7

- “to elevate unelected Commissioners above electedrepresentatives”

Comment: Delete this - it actually weakens yourposition. A Land Use Commission would sit injudgment of land use decisions. This statement iseffectively questioning the legitimacy of the courtsand quasi-judicial bodies - a view I doubt a majorityof the group's members would support.

p. 8

- “more expansive approach … as an evolutionaryrather than an immediate goal.”

Comment: I am unable to think of an “evolutionary”approach to this kind of change happening withinthe provincial government. There may be examplesbut they would be the exception to the rule. TheLUF as the “overarching vehicle for integration”(under a different name like “Resource UseFramework”) must be an immediate goal. TheWPACs have already “evolved” to that way ofthinking and CASA seems to be working alongthose lines. Don't lose that “traction.”

p. 9 - “linear planning process”

Comment: A straw man; delete. It should read“…an iterative planning process.”

- “provincial interests shared by all Albertans”

Comment: Delete “shared by all Albertans” - it isredundant. If you lead based on what everyonealready shares, you manage only to the lowestcommon denominator.

p. 10

- “mandates of regulatory bodies like the EUB andNRCB should be expanded to include considerationof regional plans.”

Comment: Change “regulatory bodies” to “provincialdepartments and regulatory agencies.” Change“consideration” to “the requirement to complywith.”

p. 19

- Definition of enforcement

Comment: Change to “Enforcement is an activitythat through visibility, detection, encouragement,persuasion, and/or compulsion ensures legalrequirements are met.” Ask a police officer. Thedefinition that you have minimizes and denigratesthe necessary and valuable role of enforcement.

p. 20

- Definition of recreational corridor

Comment: Replace or supplement with “An areawith substantial resource use or pressure associatedwith meeting the demand for leisure activities.” TheBanff-Canmore corridor is a classic example. Trailsare only a small part of a key cumulative-effectsproblem.

p. 21

- Definition of sustainability

Comment: How could the Working Group come upwith a realistic proposal without a workabledefinition of sustainability? Not all definitions ofsustainability include the three componentsidentified. Many definitions either omit thoseconcepts or merely pay lip service to them.

I didn't review the other definitions.

General comments

On this draft I have limited myself primarily to editingcomments. Most of my previous concerns have not beendealt with in a convincing matter. The document is areflection of the status quo and is based primarily onperceptions people brought to the table rather than thesystems analysis that was needed.

These deficiencies are due to the lack of time andanalytical support provided by the provincialgovernment. The Working Group should, at aminimum, be given the chance to revisit its report inNovember after it has received comments from the otherworking groups and decision makers within theprovincial government. Based on the meeting summariesand the comments from Working Group members, thereis much more that the Working Group needs to discussbefore it can consider its work completed.


multi stakeholder working groups roll-up report - planning decision-making - 2007-11

Documents