WHEN COMMON SENSE FAILS: PUBLIC DEBATE OVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-- A CASE STUDY

The intensity of environmental conflicts in British Columbia continues to increase as a greater number of demands are being placed on diminishing natural resources. Throughout the province, numerous interest groups and industries are at odds with one another. Further complicating the issue is a financial and political dependence on a system which measures the liquidation of natural resources as an economic gain. Of all the conflicts in British Columbia, those surrounding forestry, the province's largest industry, are the most politically charged. Adopting a case study approach, this thesis examines the debates surrounding the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) watershed management to explore why a substantive challenge to industry defined science failed to influence government policy. This study employs discourse analysis of three competing framings of these debates about watershed management science: 1) within the policy and management process; 2) in arguments made in a public participation process; and 3 ) in the media's coverage of watershed management issues. The case study consists of two parts. A historical review of the factors influencing British Columbia's approach to watershed management is based on documentary research. This history provides the context necessary for interpreting the debates in the recent period. A more focused study on the controversy in the period between 1988 and 1992 uses primary sources including interviews, personal observation of meetings and documentary research. A careful reading was made of the Vancouver Sun and the Province newspapers' coverage of watershed management issues to assess how this controversy was presented to the public. The historical analysis reveals how the forest industry has influenced watershed management policy, legislation and science. The contemporary case study shows that in spite of increasing environmental concern, and in spite of a public participation process, critical and informed scientific arguments did not change management policies. Moreover, the media relied on the official version of watershed management and failed--with few exceptions--to report on these critical arguments. This study suggests that though our society requires a broader dissemination of scientific controversies for improved risk management, without better reporting of the science, it will be difficult to create informed consent. All the literature shows that in fact the natural forest in most cases produces the highest quality water. As you eliminate those forests, the quality of water would be increasingly at risk, although you might well be able to carry out most forestry practices without what you would call a significant reduction in water quality. So this is not a yes or no issue. It has to do with probabilities and it has to do with increments of change. Obviously the best risk for the watershed in terms of water quality is not to cut at all. But that can cost you a hell of lot of timber resource sometime, so you look for a middle ground. How much decrease in water quality or how much risk to water quality is a half a billion board feet of timber worth? Now that's a call your society is going to have to make. (Franklin 1990, 22-3).