Understanding the role of information in marine policy development: establishing a coastal marine protected area in Nova Scotia, Canada

Of the 14 MPAs currently designated in Canada, eight are located off the Atlantic coast, all of which are either relatively small or situated off-shore (DFO 2019b). Given the size and location of these established MPAs, it is fair to say that their designation invited less controversy than a large, coastal MPA would have (Beswick 2018; Farran 2018), as a large MPA in remote, off-shore areas rather than in coastal regions faces less community opposition and local concern (Farran 2018).

However, this trend changed on 22 March 2018, when the ESI, a large, 2000 km² coastal region off Nova Scotia, was announced as an AOI by the Canadian federal government (Fig. 1, DFO 2021a). This region is known for its unique island archipelagos, eelgrass and kelp beds, and important habitats for many species at risk, including the roseate tern, harlequin duck, Atlantic cod, and Atlantic salmon (DFO 2021a). To add to the complexity of the MPA’s size, scale, and location, the ESI AOI also directly overlaps with a thriving lobster fishery that supports many households along the eastern coast (Withers 2019a). The Eastern Shore population is approximately 21 000, with all of those residents classified as rural (Capital Health Community Clinical Service 2014). Youth outmigration and aging senior residents are issues of concern along the Eastern Shore. While several distinct industries still operate in the region, including forestry and tourism, the lobster fishery is the predominant source of income and is often touted as the “backbone” of the Eastern Shore, with an average contribution of $12 million dollars every year (Capital Health Community Clinical Service 2014; DFO 2019c, 2019d). Thus, the ESI AOI announcement received a mixed response; some praised DFO for taking a proactive approach to conservation, while others were concerned about the potential impact that the MPA would have on the livelihoods of coastal residents, particularly those involved in the fishing industry (Borland 2018; Gerrard 2019). Over several months following the announcement in Atlantic Canada, supporters of the MPA were largely muffled by a vocal opposition (Primed24 2018).

The Eastern Shore has a fraught history with external conservation interventions by government. In 1972, the federal and provincial governments approved the development of a potential new national park centred around the community of Ship Harbour (Froese-Stoddard 2013; Hammond 2018). The park was slated to encompass 362 km² and provide a scenic escape for tourists. However, it became increasingly clear to local residents that the park might cause them more harm than anticipated. Direct contact had not been made between park officials and residents, which lent an air of mistrust to the entire process. Additionally, some sources of public information were entirely inaccurate, including the size of the park, which was considerably larger than initially described to residents (Froese-Stoddard 2013). In another instance, park officials attempted to placate residents who were worried about expropriation, stating that this tactic would “be kept to a minimum” (Froese-Stoddard 2013). This statement was also exposed as false, when it was revealed that 90 permanent residents and 167 summer residents would need to be relocated to make room for the incoming park (Froese-Stoddard 2013).

Ultimately, community members mobilized and stopped development of the national park from proceeding (Hammond 2018). However, this experience shaped public perception about government initiatives for the foreseeable future and led many residents to fear the activities of any level or branch of government. Unsurprisingly, the announcement of the ESI AOI was met with trepidation by residents who feared that it would be a repeat of the national park initiative (Hammond 2018).

Consequently, DFO committed to approaching the ESI AOI with openness, transparency, and genuine consultation from the onset. Prior to the ESI AOI announcement on 22 March 2018, DFO met with potential stakeholders and rightsholders, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), fishers, and Indigenous groups to explain the plan that they were launching. During this preplanning phase, DFO also formed an Advisory Committee, a 35-person group of diverse stakeholders and rightsholders, created to provide feedback and advice to DFO throughout the consultation process (DFO 2021a). Involvement in the Advisory Committee varied throughout the consultation process. A firm definition of who could serve on the Advisory Committee was not articulated. Rather, DFO aimed to include a variety of expertise, perspectives, and representatives of groups that had a stake in marine conservation in the area. This inclusive approach resulted in a large Advisory Committee. DFO facilitated meetings of the Advisory Committee and with other groups, two community open houses, and several informal gatherings for the ESI AOI, all of which involved sharing information and addressing community concerns.

The last Advisory Committee meeting was held on 28 March 2019 (DFO 2019a). According to DFO representatives, the consultation process was proceeding well at that time. However, the consultation was a dynamic, evolving process, which became apparent on 8 May 2019, when then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Jonathan Wilkinson, arrived at the Ship Harbour Legion building on the Eastern Shore for a meeting regarding the AOI in the middle of the lobster fishing season. He was met by more than a hundred protesters, including lobster fishers who tied up their boats to attend the meeting, illustrating the seriousness of their opposition to an MPA (Withers 2019c). Not only was the timing of the meeting inconvenient for fishers, arguably the most prominent stakeholder group in the consultation process, but little advance notice was provided for other community members on the Eastern Shore (Bell 2019). During a return meeting to the Eastern Shore on 15 August 2019, which the authors viewed via video recording, Wilkinson stated that the ESI AOI process was “effectively suspended”, and that a timeline for the implementation of an MPA on the Eastern Shore would not be predetermined (Lubczuk 2019). In the wake of Wilkinson’s second meeting, the future of the proposed MPA became unclear.

The combination of historical context, political pressures, trust, mistrust, and diverse stakeholder and rightsholder groups make the consultation a uniquely suitable process to examine and illustrate information use and the associated factors that may relate to the ultimate success or failure of the conservation initiative. This study addressed the following questions. (i) What factors influenced the information-related activities of participants (e.g., their preferred sources and channels, and use of information) during the ESI AOI consultation process? (ii) What are the key elements of successful stakeholder and rightsholder engagement and how did the ESI AOI consultation process compare to successful examples elsewhere in Canada and beyond?

The historical context of the ESI and its enduring legacy permeated many aspects of the MPA consultation process. Some residents of the Eastern Shore have a limited relationship with government representatives and government-led conservation initiatives. At the time of the consultation, 47 years had passed since the plan for establishing a Ship Harbour National Park had failed. Yet interviewees, local to either the Eastern Shore or the surrounding Halifax Regional Municipality, spoke about that plan with lingering intensity. Some interviewees referred to the government’s “legacy” and the emotional mindset of locals who would oppose the AOI, as they had opposed the proposed national park (Community Group D; Academia + NGO).

The second major theme shown from the interviews and corroborated from documentary sources was the presence of external and internal factors that exerted constraints on the consultation process that impeded its projected outcome. Issues with timing and misinformation relating to the ESI AOI and MPAs generally were commonly mentioned as factors that hampered the consultation process. In this study, external factors were defined as circumstances that DFO was not able to directly address, whereas internal factors were circumstances over which DFO could exert some measure of control. Timing was labelled an internal factor, while misinformation was viewed as an external factor.

As the results show, both trust/mistrust and the local context were critical factors affecting the potential success of stakeholder and rightsholder engagement in this region, and they also influenced the use of information sources and channels. In particular, community context significantly influenced mistrust of government agencies. As interviewee Academia + NGO A stated: “it’s all psychological, emotional. It has nothing to do with any kind of logic. It really doesn’t. It’s historical context.” Among Eastern Shore residents and Atlantic coastal communities more broadly, mistrust primarily stems from failures of past government initiatives and management practices, such as Ship Harbour National Park, the Kouchibouguac National Park in New Brunswick, and the cod fishery collapse in Newfoundland (Kirby 1982; Wappel 2005; Rudin 2011; Froese-Stoddard 2013). The memories of historical missteps in Atlantic Canada highlights the importance of acknowledging and incorporating historical setting into consultation processes, since context impacts the trust and uptake of information, as well as the effectiveness of engagement exercises. As Reed et al. (2018) have noted, the literature on stakeholder and public engagement shows that consultation is not merely “a technical process that can be replicated independently of context” (p. S11). Comprehensive understanding of the context is needed to ensure the process is effectively designed and adapted to account for local circumstances. Developing that level of understanding will likely require considerable effort and empathy. Understanding and accounting for local context is important for creating meaningful conservation plans and ensuring regulatory compliance (OECD 2013).

In addition, transparency and clarity with respect to the process and how it is organized and carried out are important for building trust and managing expectations. These factors led to negative stakeholder perceptions of other marine planning processes, e.g., the UK’s Marine Conservation Zone initiative, which took far longer than expected, failed to communicate adequately with participants in the process throughout the consultation, and arguably “moved the goalposts” during the process with respect to evidence required for designating marine conservation zones, resulting in distrust and wariness among some who were involved (De Santo 2016). Setting clear goals and managing expectations throughout the process is critical for maintaining public support (Reed 2008; Orr 2014; De Santo 2016). It is also important not to inundate the public with too much complex information that may be difficult for them to sort through and fully understand. In the UK case, the regulatory community assumed that “because we know this stuff […] everybody else knows this stuff,” which poses complications given the lack of widespread scientific literacy, and the challenge posed when conservation decisions affect livelihoods (De Santo 2016).

Local community ownership was another challenge on the Eastern Shore that has been demonstrated in other contexts, e.g., whether and how stakeholders or rightsholders feel their participation matters. When the local community takes ownership of a conservation area and has the ability to influence decisions about it, subsequent policies are more suited to local needs and are therefore more effective (Reed et al. 2018). Arguably, the more invested people feel about a process, the more likely they will comply with its outputs. While DFO staff consciously attempted to avoid presenting information that would imply a decision had already been made and held many meetings in the region prior to the 2018 announcement of the potential coastal MPA (Koropatnick 2018), participants in the ESI AOI process expressed feelings of resignation when asked about their ability to influence the outcomes of the consultation, as heard from Community Group B: “They’re the federal government…They’re not going to do what I say, I have no authority. I’m just a citizen.” A participant at a public meeting for the ESI AOI reiterated that view, saying: “We’re participating in it [the consultation], but we’re not making a difference or contributing” (meeting observation). This lack of empowerment echoed what has been found elsewhere, e.g., stakeholder perceptions in the UK’s Marine Conservation Zone planning process. For example, De Santo (2016) cited a member of the regulatory community commenting on that process who stated that “some people view participation as meaning stakeholders make the decisions on how decisions are made,” which was not the case. In other words, managing expectations from the beginning of consultation activities is a critical factor, so participants understand the value of their contribution and support the overall process.

To promote stakeholder and rightsholder ownership, we recommend a slight restructuring of power arrangements during decision-making stages of consultation processes. Specifically, this modification would grant all relevant levels of government (e.g., including municipal and provincial voices) an equal say when formalizing management actions, while allowing each level to retain implementation power over its discrete jurisdictional areas (Margeta 2001). In DFO’s own Consultation Framework, this model is described as “Negotiated Arrangements,” in which “government delegates authority for decision-making to other groups, or shares decision-making powers, or manages cooperatively” (DFO 2004a). Negotiated arrangements have been successfully implemented in other countries with similar marine spatial conflicts (Coast Learn n.d.; Ivančić 2003). This approach ensures that all levels of government are committed to presenting a transparent front, and that decisions made are locally relevant, important prerequisites for successful marine management (De Santo 2016; Richmond et al. 2019; Scherer et al. 2014). Including municipal and provincial decision-makers’ voices may slow the process, especially if they oppose the proposed plans, but excluding them does not preclude their ability to hamper it. Since the jurisdictional responsibilities of municipal governments in Canada do not extend beyond the high-water mark, it may be assumed that they have no role in coastal conservation initiatives (Manuel and MacDonald 2020). Nonetheless, municipal governments typically are extensively involved in planning services that support coastal areas and, therefore, can be involved in implementing conservation measures. In this study, interview participants noted that the provincial government publicly opposed the creation of additional MPAs and was believed to have contributed to the misinformation circulating about the proposed coastal MPA. Whether or not different levels of government disagree about a conservation measure, it would be wise to include them in the fold from the beginning of a consultation process to ensure they have access to the most accurate information and feel their perspective is respected, even if conflicts develop, as they could arguably undermine the process either way.

Appropriate timing is key to effective engagement yet is often a challenge in consultation processes (O’Haire et al. 2011). Timing issues effectively “derailed” the entire ESI AOI process following the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ first meeting on the Eastern Shore, and other instances of poor scheduling were mentioned in interviews, such as the establishment of timelines, lack of opportunity to build relationships among the members of the Advisory Committee, and the speed of information dissemination (Government A). In addition, electoral time scales are important, as administrative changes can negatively impact environmental consultations, as was observed in the UK Marine Conservation Zone process, where the relative authority of different government agencies shifted during the process, resulting in what had been a fairly bottom-up governance process initially, to becoming quite top-down by the end (De Santo 2016).

In future conservation projects, proper timing should be prioritized within public engagement initiatives, including meeting schedules and clear timelines for the overall process (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 2008), thus avoiding comments like the following from an interviewee, which summarizes several events during the ESI AOI consultation process: “That was very poor timing” (Government A). In the UK Marine Conservation Zone process, the UK government changed from Labour to Conservative leadership during the consultation process, further complicating transparency and the flow of information online. While political shifts are not always foreseeable, conservation planning activities should be protected from their impact in advance (De Santo 2016).

Misinformation is a widespread problem that has become considerably more pronounced since the rise of social media (Mintz 2002; Wardle and Derakhshan 2017; Scheufele and Krause 2019; Wardle 2019). Increasing research attention is being focused on characterizing misinformation activities and the resulting implications. Treen et al. (2020), for example, defined misinformation as “misleading information that is created and spread, regardless of whether there is an intent to deceive” (p. 3). Intent was not determined in this research, which is common in many similar studies. Thus, as Treen et al. (2020) stated, the definition must pragmatically allow identification “without knowledge of intentions.”

The role of misinformation was notable in the ESI AOI consultation process. This theme emerged from the data (DFO 2018), especially from the interviews. The negative effects of online misinformation were greater than anticipated and no one involved in the consultation was equipped to manage misinformation effectively within Eastern Shore communities. Misinformation can promote faulty thinking during public consultation and disrupt the efforts of those who wish to advance local engagement (Davis et al. 2014; Munro 2019).

As communities globally grow more interconnected, challenges associated with misinformation will continue to increase in environmental resource management (Farrell et al. 2019; Scheufele and Krause 2019). Access to clear and up-to-date information has been found to be a critical factor in building stakeholder trust and ownership in other places, e.g., in the UK Marine Conservation Zone process (De Santo 2016). For future consultation processes in Canada and elsewhere regarding conservation initiatives, it will be necessary to consider the impacts of misinformation on stakeholder support and how it could be addressed. Consultation processes can be lengthy and require extensive resources to accommodate many groups. Ford et al. (2021) pointed out that misinformation is a contributing factor to misplaced conservation, “which occurs when actions increase the scientific, financial, political, or social resources required to achieve a positive outcome for biodiversity in the present or future (p. 253). The deficit model of research communication, i.e., simply providing more and more information with the expectation that it will be fill a gap in knowledge, has been proven often to be ineffective (Akin and Scheufele 2017). Thus, alternative methods to promote the updating of information and diminishing the influence of misinformation are needed. Recent studies, for example, have explored whether an inoculation process can mitigate the effects of misinformation (Cook et al. 2017; van der Linden et al. 2017; Maertens et al. 2020). Deliberate, pre-emptive strategies, sensitive to the context of a consultation process, may help. Blastland et al. (2020) determined that if “people are pre-emptively warned against attempts to sow doubt (known as prebunking), they resist being swayed by misinformation or disinformation” (p. 364). Related to these findings, van der Meer and Jin (2020) have shown that initiatives of government agencies can be more successful than social peers in improving belief in accuracy of information. Thus, providing guidance on social media literacy for participants (i.e., via a brochure or online sources, such as “Critical Thinking” (NSERC 2021), could be an option to promote critical thinking and online responsibility prior to the start of consultation processes. This recommendation is in line with Canada’s anti-misinformation strategy and could help to curb online misinformation that government agencies have difficulty addressing (Funke and Flamini 2019). In addition, since participants in this study viewed DFO as a source of accurate information, the integrity of information disseminated by the Department could be emphasized, because credible sources have “potentially impactful roles as preventative and corrective measures against misinformation” (Yeo and McKasy 2021, p. 4).