AnimalsMagazine

In a system as complicated as our biodiversity – or in complicated system such as our politics – there are always decisions to be made – and none are easy.

You see, for every problem we face, at every scale, there are stakeholders, each with a voice that needs to be heard and considered. And in many cases, stakeholders are the ones who will decide what ideas work and which get scrapped.

Sure, we can propose solutions; we can advocate for how we think a decision should be made; we can build support for a solution; we can even work to implement an idea and hope that others will embrace it. But we can’t single-handedly make a decision on our own.

What about a prime minister or a CEO, you say? Surely, they can make a decision on their own?

Nope.

Leaders – whether we’re talking a dominant grizzly bear in Mount Robson or people overseeing an organization or parliament – do play a big role in decision-making. Prime ministers, for example, as we’ve already covered, have considerable power to influence outcomes.

But to be a boss is to know that even bosses have a boss – that everyone has someone, or a group of someone’s, that will determine whether an idea succeeds or fails.

For our grizzly bear siblings? In their own way, they’ve come to learn the push-pull of risk and reward, of action and consequence. They know that their position in this ecosystem is determined, in part, by how they work with, and are judged, by other species – other stakeholders.

They might have decided by themselves to put aside their differences and work together. That might have been their idea – their solution – to the challenges they faced. But other predators – competing grizzlies, wolves, cougars, wolverines and other ecosystem stakeholders? They were the judge and jury of that idea.

And it’s no different for a prime minister or premier.

To run a province or country, first they need support to get into a party leadership position – and that support comes with a price. Party leaders have stakeholders that want specific outcomes to policy problems and, to become leader, they will have had to convince these stakeholders that their solutions are the right solutions.

After working to gain the support of party stakeholders, leaders then must convince the broader public – the electoral stakeholders – that they have the right ideas to solve a set of problems.

Even when that happens, in Canada, no decision-making power is absolute. Ideas can fail. Solutions can falter.

Stakeholders – like businesses and activists – who have very specific interests in very specific outcomes can derail even the best of ideas. And even if a prime minister or premier succeeds in getting the stakeholders of one issue to agree on a solution? If the broader public – even segments of the population, select communities or specific swing ridings – can’t see the solution working fast enough or well enough to their liking, they’ll vote out the prime minister’s or premier’s governing party and support another leader’s party, with another set of ideas, in the hopes of getting a better outcome, faster.

That’s why no one can make a decision on their own – not a CEO, not a political leader, not a grizzly bear.

It’s why problem solving and decision-making is so difficult. The solutions we choose to advance need to take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders.

Which isn’t to say agreement or permission is necessary – it’s very much not – but ignoring stakeholders is a sure-fire way to create opposition and kill even the best ideas.

So, let’s get specific: When it comes to balancing people and nature, who has a stake in the decisions being made? What voices might need to be heard when creating a new policy?

The most important constituency in any decision-making process are the communities that will be impacted by a proposed solution. And, as you now know, few communities – whether Indigenous nations, rural resource-based towns, or suburban populations – like having a decision imposed on them.

That means to solve any problem, first it’s critical to understand the perspectives of the communities that might be impacted.

Right, community builder Shianne McKay?

“Absolutely.”

There will often be multiple Indigenous nations – and various levels of Indigenous governance within each nation – that need to be consulted and respected as part of any decision-making process.  

What does that look like? Indigenous advocate Myia Antone says we need to ask: “How can I help their community in ways that they need to be helped and want to be helped?”

Community stakeholders also might include a municipality or an alliance of municipalities representing a regional population. Their concerns need to be addressed as well.

As forester and rural historian Art Carson reminds us, “People do want to be heard and they want their voices to make a difference.”

Within communities, there are often grassroots groups of like-minded people that rally to support – or defeat – specific proposals. And, yes, sometimes these groups are known as NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard).

NIMBYs?

These are people who often can’t – or won’t – see the bigger picture because they’re worried about the personal impact of a decision. Whether they’re right or wrong – whether NIMBYs are championing the underdog or are just self-interested – the reality is they too are stakeholders and they too have a voice that needs to be addressed in any debate.

As Robson Valley community builder Bruce Wilkinson argues, “You have to know what’s valuable to your community. Once you get out there and learn, your community starts to buy in.”

Depending on the issue, working with communities to resolve disputes might require untangling jurisdictional power – being clear about whom, exactly, has the authority to make a decision.

For example, maybe an idea like creating a national park is technically an area of federal authority, but for the park to be created, it usually means making a parcel of land off-limits to resource development.

In addition to the Crown’s duty to consult Indigenous nations, if public or Crown land has been allocated for development, that decision was made at the provincial level. That means for the federal government to create the national park, they first need the support of the province to forgo the resource rights the constitution has already granted them. And for the province to do that? They’ll need to know what they’re getting in return – like how a specific municipality, or a key swing electoral riding, will be compensated if jobs are lost, or created, in the making of a national park.

As political science professor Dr. Will Greaves reminds us, “Because those areas of jurisdiction include so much of our natural resource policy, economic policy and environmental policy, the provinces are absolutely critical actors to be having this conversation with.”

Sometimes a municipal decision only requires municipal support. Sometimes it requires provincial support or sometimes federal support. Sometimes two of those three levels need to buy into an idea – and sometimes all three need to agree.

What does that mean for the policy advocate? Former politician and watershed advocate Fin Donnelly explains.

“When you have determined the issue, you have figured out the threats, you have figured out what you think is a possible solution, start with the person or the group that has the jurisdiction or that solution.”

Understanding who has the power – who has the jurisdiction – and what laws and regulations and policies need to be considered when proposing an idea is critical to a successful outcome.

But that’s not all you need to consider.

Almost every decision impacts businesses, worker unions or associations and civil society – those who advocate for specific perspectives.

Often decisions will affect numerous businesses. Entire industries – and their associations – might be involved. It’s possible for one specific business to be mostly impacted by a decision and yet have other businesses feeling they want a say in the outcome because of the precedent a decision might set or because of the ripple effect it might have on their bottom lines.

Financial executive Mohnish Kamat urges us to remember, “If you don’t bring those people on board your thinking, then your engagement model – if you are engaging – will not be as perfect as it should be.”

Of course, those who work for these businesses and industries? They’ll most certainly want to have their voice heard. Sometimes these voices might be united and sometimes they might be in conflict.

Why? Environmental advocate Ken Wu says the answer is simple.

“In this era, everybody needs a means to live.”

Less simple? Understanding the role and perspective of each stakeholder in civil society.

This catch-all category includes non-profit or charitable organizations, lobby groups, advocacy societies, and activists from across the political spectrum. Some will have hard partisan perspectives and others will work to find a middle ground or consensus on the issue at hand. And if you’re wondering? That diversity of approaches to an issue is why there are so many non-profit organizations in Canada.

Our former prime minister Kim Campbell says a large, diverse civil society is a good thing.

“A vibrant civil society is actually a sign of a democracy where people are free; where they have access to resources.”

Different organizations represent specific demographics – or even specific solutions desired by one portion of a specific demographic. Why? Because sometimes solutions can impact different communities, different people, different ecosystems and different animals, well, differently.

Or, put differently, former Alberta cabinet minister and author Donna Kennedy-Glans says, “We have layers and layers of identity and values that come to us from the way we’re raised, from the people we love and respect, from the place where we live.”

Exactly.

Now, it’s true, not all advocacy groups are upfront about who supports them or what outcomes they hope to see realized. And that bit of subterfuge – strategy – is definitely frustrating at times. But it is a reality. And whether we’re always willing to accept it or not, it’s a reality that exists, to some degree, on all sides of every issue.

Many see that as a negative, but Caribou Patrol’s Nikita Lattery argues, “I believe everyone is different; everyone is unique; everybody thinks differently and has something different to bring to the table – something that I didn’t think about. Maybe someone has a better solution out there.”

Good point. And that’s why understanding the perspectives of each stakeholder matters in decision-making – as does working with them – in order to navigate complex, conflicting agendas so that solutions are ideas that will endure.