The Shared Decision Making in BC project, conducted from 2012 to 2015, investigated the collaborative governance agreements between First Nations and the provincial government in British Columbia. The project aimed to establish frameworks for cooperation, decision-making, and reconciliation regarding land and resource management while addressing existing legal, political, and operational challenges. Findings highlight both the successes and areas for improvement within these agreements, emphasizing the need for ongoing relationship building and effective monitoring for long-term success.

1.
Step
by
Step:
Final
Report
of
the
Shared
Decision
Making
in
BC
Project
March
2015

2. Shared
Decision
Making
in
BC
Project:
2012-­‐2015
• An
independent
research
project
exploring
the
recent
emergence
of
government-­‐to-­‐government
(G2G)
agreements
between
First
NaCons
and
the
Provincial
Crown
in
BC
• Two
streams
of
work
– CollaboraCve
research
(review
of
published
and
unpublished
literature,
interviews)
– Face-­‐to-­‐face
dialogues
among
First
NaCons
and
provincial
agency
staff
involved
in
negoCaCon
and
implementaCon
• Project
housed
at
SFU’s
Centre
for
Dialogue
• Funded
by
Gordon
and
BeQy
Moore
FoundaCon
as
a
‘Governance
Learning
Project’
2

3. Shared
Decision
Making
Agreements
• SDM
Agreements
provide
a
framework
for
collaboraCon
between
two
governments
who,
despite
unresolved
quesCons
of
authority
and
jurisdicCon,
seek
to
build
working
relaConships
with
one
another,
develop
trust,
and
find
ways
to
reach
mutually
agreeable
decisions
about
how
land
and
resources
should
be
managed
• Two
types
of
SDM
Agreements
examined:
– Strategic
Engagement
Agreements
– ReconciliaCon
Protocols
• Common
features,
with
each
agreement
tailored
to
local
circumstances
3

4. Approximate
locaDon
of
SDM
Agreements
in
BC
4
L AA
S K A
N O VERVA C U
ISLAND KELOWNA
MLOKA OPS
CVAN OUVER
VICTORIA
CEPRIN
Y
R I T O Y
U K O N
T E R
R N . W . T .
U S(
A )
A L B E R T A
GEORGE
U S A
L AA
S K A
Stó:lo First Nations
Signed: 2014
Tseycum First Nation
Signed: 2012
Gitanyow Nation
Signed: 2012
Haida Nation
Signed: 2009
Coastal First Nations
Signed: 2009
Nanwakolas First Nations
Signed: 2009, Multiple amendments
Signed: 2011
Taku River Tlingit
First Nation
Signed: 2011
Tahltan Nation
Signed: 2013
Protected Areas
Strategic Engagement Agreement
Reconciliation Protocol/Framework
Scale
km
100 0 100 200 300
km
Kaska Dena Council
Signed: 2012
Ktunaxa Nation
Signed: 2010
Renewed: 2013
Tsilhqot'in Nation
Signed: 2009
Amended: 2011
Renewed: 2014
Secwe'pemc First Nation
Signed: 2013
Snuneymuxw First Nation
Signed: 2013
Nlaka'pamux
Signed: 2014
Musqueam Indian Band
Signed: 2008
NOTE:
1. This map does not display precise territorial
boundaries but is intended only to show
approximate geographic locations.
2. Dashed lines indicate SDM Agreements where
the First Nations involved were not active partners
in the SDM in BC collaborative research project.
N NAIMA O

5. PlaEorm
for
Shared
Learning
• SDM
in
BC
project
offered
neutral
pla[orm
for
reflecCon
and
shared
learning,
away
from
negoCaCng
table
• ObjecCves:
1. Understand
genesis,
scope
and
intent
of
SDM
Agreements
2. Assess
contribuCon
toward
reconciliaCon,
improved
land
and
resource
management
decision
making,
and
achievement
of
environmental,
economic,
and
social
objecCves
for
First
NaCons
3. Explore
resilience
and
adaptability
in
the
face
of
changing
social,
economic
and
ecological
condiCons
4. IdenCfy
tools
and
best
pracCces
to
support
implementaCon
• In
light
of
conCnuing
uncertainty
over
Aboriginal
rights
and
Ctle,
SDM
Agreements
offer
informaCve
examples
of
collaboraCon
5

6. Genesis,
Purpose
and
Intent
of
SDM
Agreements
6

7. Drivers
for
SDM
Agreements
• Legal
drivers:
– Series
of
legal
rulings
compelled
Crown
to
engage
First
NaCons
directly
in
‘interim
period,’
prior
to
resoluCon
of
Aboriginal
rights
and
Ctle
– Taku
and
Haida
SCC
rulings
(2004)
established
‘Honour
of
Crown’
doctrine
and
clarified
consultaCon
and
accommodaCon
obligaCons
• PoliCcal
drivers:
– On-­‐going
land
use
conflicts
– Series
of
bilateral
negoCaCons
with
First
NaCons,
providing
basis
for
engagement/MOUs
• OperaConal
drivers:
– Unwieldy
and
inefficient
referrals
process,
leading
to
delays
in
project
approvals,
uncertainty
for
economic
development
7

8. New
RelaDonship
Vision
Statement
• NegoCated
between
Premier’s
Office
and
First
NaCons
Leadership
Council
in
2005:
– We
are
all
here
to
stay.
We
agree
to
a
new
government-­‐to-­‐government
rela1onship
based
on
respect,
recogniCon
and
accommodaCon
of
aboriginal
Ctle
and
rights.
Our
shared
vision
includes
respect
for
our
respecCve
laws
and
responsibiliCes.
Through
this
new
relaConship,
we
commit
to
reconcilia1on
of
Aboriginal
and
Crown
Ctles
and
jurisdicCons.
– We
agree
to
establish
processes
and
ins1tu1ons
for
shared
decision-­‐
making
about
the
land
and
resources
and
for
revenue
and
benefit
sharing,
recognizing…
the
right
to
aboriginal
Ctle
“in
its
full
form”,
including
the
inherent
right
for
the
community
to
make
decisions
as
to
the
use
of
the
land
…
8

9. Purpose
and
Scope
of
SDM
Agreements:
BC
PerspecDve
1. Advance
reconciliaCon
2. Improve
social
and
economic
circumstances
in
First
NaCons
communiCes
3. Increase
consultaCon
effecCveness
by:
– Providing
consistent,
predictable
and
mutually
agreed
process
– Focusing
effort
on
applicaCons
that
have
the
greatest
potenCal
impacts
in
most
sensiCve
areas
– Improving
working
relaConships
technical
capacity
– Commikng
to
develop
addiConal
consultaCon
approaches
over
Cme
(a
‘building
blocks’
approach
to
a
more
comprehensive
agreement)
Source:
BC
Factsheet
9

10. Purpose
and
Scope
of
SDM
Agreement:
First
NaDons
PerspecDves
Various
perspecCves,
including:
• Secure
formal
recogniCon
of
territory
• Establish
a
mutually
respec[ul,
government-­‐to-­‐government
relaConship
• Implement
a
land
use
plan,
or
create
mechanisms
for
conservaCon
of
fish,
wildlife
and
cultural
values
• Secure
a
more
influenCal
role
in
resource
management
decision
making;
• Secure
resource
revenue
from
development
acCviCes
• Improve
coordinaCon
among
mulCple
First
NaCons
within
their
own
territory
but
also
in
areas
of
shared
territory
or
‘overlaps’
• Build
capacity
• A
‘step
in
the
right
direcCon’
10

11. Differing
PerspecDves
Complex
legal
and
poliCcal
underpinnings
lead
to
differing
interpretaCons
of
purpose,
scope
and
uClity:
• A
form
of
interim
accommodaCon
of
First
NaCons
governance
and
decision-­‐making
rights
that
has
the
potenCal
to
serve
as
a
stepping
stone
to
full
recogniCon
• An
engagement
framework
to
bring
greater
efficiency
and
predictability
to
the
consultaCon
process
in
the
interim
period,
to
reduce
conflict
over
land
and
resource
decisions,
and
increase
land
use
certainty
11

12. NegoDaDon
and
ImplementaDon
of
SDM
Agreements
12

13. NegoDaDng
SDM
Agreements:
Key
Factors
for
Success
• Shared
experience
of
working
together
as
basis
for
negoCaCon
• Respected
individuals
to
act
as
‘broker’
to
bring
the
parCes
together,
set
realisCc
expectaCons,
and
frame
work
ahead
in
a
construcCve
light
• Sufficient
technical
capacity
and
capabiliCes
to
engage
effecCvely
over
extended
period
• A
‘reference
caucus’
of
trusted
advisors
to
offer
guidance
• EffecCve
internal
governance
for
negoCaCng
parCes
• Senior
representaCon
at
the
negoCaCng
table,
with
clear
mandate
• A
realisCc
sense
of
what
is
pracCcally
achievable,
and
understanding
of
what
an
SDM
Agreement
can/cannot
deliver
• ‘Ramping
up’
for
implementaCon
before
negoCaCons
are
completed
13

14. ImplementaDon:
G2G
Forums
and
Joint
IniDaDves
• G2GF
Forums
are
centrepiece
of
SDM
Agreements:
– Composed
of
senior
representaCves
for
each
party
– Structure
and
terminology
varies
– Responsible
for
oversight
of
implementaCon,
dispute
resoluCon
– Provide
a
focus
for
G2G
engagement
at
strategic
level
• EffecCveness
depends
on
mulCple
factors
including:
– PaCent
trust
building
– Capable
leadership
– Willingness
to
adapt
to
a
new
way
of
doing
business
– Mutually
agreeable
agenda
– EffecCve
liaison
with
other
provincial
agencies
and
First
NaCons
departments
• G2G
Forums
oversee
‘joint
iniCaCves’
addressing
strategic
issues,
which
provide
considerable
room
for
innovaCon
at
margins
of
policy
envelopes
14

15. ImplementaDon:
G2G
Engagement
Process
• A
framework
to
reach
agreement
on
the
depth
of
engagement
for
any
given
applicaCon
• Defined
process
steps
and
Cmelines
• OpportuniCes
for
direct
cooperaCon
between
technical
representaCves.
• Seeks
to
generate
a
consensus
recommendaCon
regarding
the
acceptability
of
a
given
resource
management
acCvity,
for
consideraCon
both
by
provincial
statutory
decision
makers
and
by
the
First
NaCon(s)
involved
15

16. ConvenDonal
Referrals
Model
16
Application from
proponent
Screening
Referral letter(s) from
one or more agency British Columbia
Analysis
Statutory decision
by BC
First Nation
Provincial
authorization
First Nation reviews
referrals letter(s) from
one or more agency and
may provide response
Referral
response

17. G2G
Engagement
Process
17
Application from
proponent
British Columbia
Statutory decision
by BC
First Nation(s)
Provincial
authorization
Issue
Resolution
(if required)
Screening
Complete application
provided to FN
Screening
Detailed Technical
Engagement AnalysisAnalysis
First Nation Decision
Potential for communication by
First Nation with proponent

18. Joint
Decision
Making
for
Haida
Gwaii
Management
Council
18
Application for resource development
activity
Joint screening
Detailed analysis of
application jointly to
achieve consensus
decision
Single decision by
HGMC
HGMC issues authorization
BCHaida
Specific authorities delegated to HGMC
under provincial statute
Specific authorities delegated to HGMC by
Haida House of Assembly
HGMC

19. G2G
Engagement:
VariaDons
&
Keys
to
Success
• G2G
Engagement
process
vary:
– InformaCon
sharing
(may
uClize
‘portal’)
– Establishment
of
engagement
levels
by
criteria,
by
decision
type
– Timelines
– ExpectaCon
of
First
NaCon
decision
(or
just
recommendaCon
to
provincial
statutory
decision
maker)
– Linkage
to
strategic
land
use
plans,
or
spaCal
reference
layers
• Keys
to
success:
– PaCent
building
of
trusted
working
relaConships
at
technical
level
– EffecCve
coordinaCon
(internally
and
with
other
party)
– Consistent
and
Cmely
adopCon
of
administraCve
tools
and
templates
– EffecCve
use
of
available
regulatory
tools
– Willingness
to
clarify
raConale
for
decisions
made
19

20. G2G
Engagement:
Challenges
• Inconsistencies
in
transacConal
processes,
leading
to
administraCve
complexity
at
regional
scale
• Ambiguity
over
use
and
interpretaCon
of
data
provided
(cultural
informaCon)
• FeQering
of
statutory
decision
makers
• Limited
‘accommodaCons
toolbox’
• Complexity
of
higher-­‐level
engagement,
interface
with
other
regulatory
processes
(e.g.,
Mine
Development
Review
CommiQee)
• Exclusion
of
EA
decisions
• Non-­‐parCcipaCng
agencies
• No
G2G
engagement
on
policy
and
legislaCon
• Primary
focus
to
date
on
transacConal
efficiency,
rather
than
effecCveness
• Lack
of
field
monitoring
to
provide
evidence
of
improvements
in
resource
management
20

21. Overall
Value
and
Areas
for
Improvement
21

22. Overall
Value
of
SDM
Agreements
Research
results
indicate
overall
value
ranked
moderate
to
high
by
both
First
NaCons
and
provincial
pracCConers
(2013
and
2014
surveys)
22

23. Overall
Successes
for
SDM
Agreements
• “SDM
agreements
are
trying
to
breathe
life
into
the
New
Rela?onship,
and
to
establish
a
collabora?ve
decision
making
approach
in
non-­‐treaty
environment.
They’re
at
cuFng
edge
of
what
is
possible
given
current
laws
and
poli?cs.
People
need
to
understand
that
these
agreements
are
shiHing
the
way
BC
and
FNs
deal
with
one
another—they
really
are
changing
things.”
Provincial
pracCConer
• “Even
the
failures
offer
examples
and
ideas
about
how
we
can
make
things
beQer.
We
have
been
able
to
get
the
province
on
our
side
in
the
past…
It’s
about
the
power
of
rapport
and
dealing
with
the
right
people
inside
of
government.
The
best
approach
is
to
make
the
short
term
gains
with
the
long
term
goal
in
mind.
It’s
like
a
football
game:
We
are
not
going
to
get
a
field
goal
from
the
5
yard
line
on
our
end…”
First
NaCons
pracCConer
23

24. Overall
Success
for
SDM
Agreements
• RecalibraCon
of
relaConships,
on
respec[ul
G2G
basis
• A
standing
arrangement
for
coordinated,
strategic-­‐level
discussions
on
land
and
resource
management
issues
• A
more
predictable,
consistent
and
coordinated
process
for
the
consideraCon
of
land
and
resource
management
applicaCons
• PotenCal
to
create
a
community
of
pracCConers
who
are
all
pulling
in
the
same
direcCon
• Modest
capacity
building
• PotenCal
to
provide
greater
certainty
for
economic
development,
opening
doors
for
closer
cooperaCon
with
proponents
• CollaboraCon
on
planning
and
management
issues
through
joint
iniCaCves,
with
space
for
innovaCon
and
experimentaCon
24

25. Areas
for
Improvement
• G2G
Forums
need
to
demonstrate
consistent
paQern
of
resolving
strategic
issues
• Stronger
alignment
of
provincial
agencies
to
support
implementaCon
• Sustained
commitment
to
capacity
building
within
First
NaCons
• Incremental
refinements
to
G2G
engagement
processes,
based
on
pracCcal
experience
• Certainty
for
long
term
funding
model:
– Beyond
3
year
funding
cycle,
subject
to
Cabinet/Treasury
Board
approvals
– Without
sole
reliance
on
ECDA
revenue
sharing
model
• Assessment
of
socio-­‐economic
benefits
• Further
clarificaCon
of
opportuniCes
for
reconciliaCon
25

26. Monitoring
and
EvaluaDon
of
SDM
Agreements
26

27. Monitoring
and
EvaluaDon
“If
you
don’t
know
where
you
are
going,
any
road
will
get
you
there…”
Aper
Lewis
Carol
“One
of
the
great
mistakes
is
to
judge
policies
and
programs
by
their
inten?ons
rather
than
their
results”
Milton
Friedman
27

28. Need
for
Monitoring
and
EvaluaDon
of
SDM
Agreements
“On
both
the
provincial
side
and
our
own,
we
are
run
off
our
feet.
By
the
?me
we
want
to
evaluate
ourselves,
people
may
be
gone
and
we
won’t
remember…
We
are
more
anecdotal,
not
systema?c
in
our
monitoring.”
First
NaCons
pracCConer
• Monitoring
to
date
has
focused
on
compleCon
of
implementaCon
steps
and
tracking
of
engagement
transacCons
• Long
term
success
depends
in
part
on
willingness
to
reflect
on
a
broader
range
of
successes
and
failures,
and
make
improvements
where
needed
• ConvenConal
‘compliance-­‐audit’
approaches
have
limited
applicaCon
for
SDM:
– Legal
and
poliCcal
situaCon
in
constant
flux,
requiring
adjustments
in
approach
and
prioriCes
– Change
is
non-­‐linear
and
difficult
to
quanCfy
(e.g.,
trust
building,
improved
decision
making
reconciliaCon)
– Causal
relaConships
muddy
28

29. New
Approaches
for
Monitoring
and
EvaluaDon
• Acknowledge
complexity
of
socio-­‐
ecological
systems
• Focus
not
only
on
whether
things
are
working,
but
how
well
those
involved
are
learning
together
about
what
is
working
and
what
is
not
• Focus
not
only
on
transacCons
and
tangible
outputs,
but
also
on
the
ability
of
those
involved
to
adapt
to
change,
and
adjust
in
light
of
new
informaCon
and
new
understanding
29
Everything
that
can
be
counted
does
not
necessarily
count;
everything
that
counts
cannot
necessarily
be
counted
Albert
Einstein

30. Suggested
Framework
for
Monitoring
and
EvaluaDon
of
SDM
Agreements
30

31. Further
Steps
for
EffecDve
ImplementaDon
31

32. Further
Steps
for
EffecDve
SDM
ImplementaDon
• Build
a
consCtuency
of
support
for
SDM
Agreements
among
local
communiCes,
stakeholders
and
the
public
• Support
an
on-­‐going
community
of
pracCce
among
SDM
pracCConers,
which
would
require:
– a
clear
mandate
secured
at
senior
levels
within
MARR;
– voluntary
parCcipaCon
by
each
First
NaCon;
– opportuniCes
for
discussions
among
First
NaCon
pracCConers
alone,
in
addiCon
to
dialogue
between
provincial
staff
and
First
NaCons
representaCves
– funding
support
to
cover
logisCcal
costs
– clearly-­‐defined
responsibiliCes
and
resources
for
coordinaCon
– definiCon
of
a
‘shared
agenda’
to
support
conCnuous
improvement
over
Cme,
while
providing
flexibility
for
parCcipants
to
be
involved
to
a
greater
or
lesser
degree
depending
on
their
own
prioriCes
and
interests
32

33. Final
ReflecDons
• “Cultural
change
is
hard
for
both
sides.
These
agreements
will
succeed
or
fail
based
on
the
willingness
on
both
sides
to
make
it
work…
We
are
overcoming
decades
of
conflict,
which
simply
takes
?me.
Face
to
face
?me
is
cri?cal.”
First
NaCons
pracCConer
• “At
the
end
of
the
day,
this
is
s?ll
consulta?on.
We
want
to
get
to
real
decision
making
in
our
homeland—decision
making
that
is
meaningful.
I
s?ll
think
of
this
as
a
pilot,
but
there
is
real
poten?al…
It
is
only
a
stepping
stone
to
where
we
want
to
get
to…
We
don't
want
to
be
consulted
for
the
rest
of
our
lives.”
First
NaCons
pracCConer
33

34. Final
ReflecDons
• “We
have
built
a
pla]orm
for
the
rela?onship
that
provides
stability
and
a
place,
actually
a
number
of
places
for
important
conversa?ons
to
happen…
If
the
current
aFtudes
and
the
current
process
con?nue
to
be
implemented,
I
don’t
see
what
could
get
in
the
way
of
con?nued
success.
But
the
world
is
complex.
There
could
be
changes
in
poli?cal
perspec?ves.
There
could
be
major
issues
that
arise.
It
is
about
resilience.
It
is
not
just
that
things
might
come
out
of
the
woodwork
and
knock
these
agreements
down;
it
is
a
ques?on
about
whether
they
can
get
back
up!
There
has
to
be
recogni?on
of
the
value
of
an
enduring
rela?onship.
There
will
be
places
where
inevitably
we
cannot
come
to
agreement
on
specifics.
Any
marriage
is
like
that.
The
ques?on
is,
do
you
want
to
be
right
or
do
you
want
to
be
happy?
No
one
is
going
anywhere
and
so
we
need
to
work
together.
The
phrase
‘We
are
all
here
to
stay’
is
key.
So
how
do
you
want
that
to
go?
Even
if
the
agreement
is
terminated,
we
s?ll
need
to
talk
together
and
work
through
things
aHer
all.”
Provincial
PracCConer
34

35. SDM
in
BC
Project
Deliverables
First
NaDons
Dialogues:
• June
4-­‐5,
2012,
Vancouver
• November
29-­‐30,
2012,
Vancouver
• June
13-­‐14,
2013,
Vancouver
• November
28,
2013,
Vancouver
• April
2,
2014,
Vancouver
• November
28,
2014,
Vancouver
Joint
BC-­‐First
NaDons
Dialogues:
• Workshop
on
InformaCon
Portals,
November
26-­‐27,
2013,
Vancouver
• April
1,
2014,
Vancouver
• November
27,
2014,
Vancouver
Major
Research
Products:
• Summary:
Preliminary
Analysis
of
Interview
Results
(June
2013)
• Backgrounder:
G2G
Engagement
Models
for
Shared
Decision
Making
in
BC
(June
2014)
• Backgrounder:
Informa?on
Portals
for
Shared
Decision
Making
(June
2014)
• Discussion
Paper:
Understanding
the
Sharing
of
Decision
Making
in
BC
(December
2014)
• Introductory
Guide:
Monitoring
and
Evalua?on
of
Shared
Decision
Making
Agreements
(February
2015)
• Step
by
Step:
Final
Report
of
the
SDM
in
BC
Project
(March
2015)
35

36. For
more
informaDon:
www.sfu/dialogue/sdm/
36