assessing the needs of Canada’s water leadersT H E C A N A D I A N W A T E R S C A P E :

“ We n e e d a s t r o n g u n i t e d v o i c e t o b e m o r e e f f e c t i v e .” M e r e d i t h B r o w n , O t t a w a R i v e r k e e p e r

Researched and written by: Lindsay Telfer and Danielle Droitsch

Prepared for: Walter and Duncan Gordon FoundationAugust 2011

Cover Page Photo Credit: Lake Windermere Ambassadors

The Canadian Waterscape: Assessing the Needs of Canada’s Water LeadersAbout the survey 1

Executive summary 2

Background 4

Part 1: Waterscape scan.. 5

National environmental networks 7

National groups working on water 7

Water organizations supporting grassroots capacity 8

Landscape scan conclusions 9

Part 2: Need for increased collaboration and networking 10

Supporting directly affected communities 11

Improving collaboration with indigenous communities 11

Part 3: Capacity needs of water non-profits in Canada 13

Communication tools 13

Financial and resource needs 14

Staff and volunteer development 16

Water law and policy 17

A national river rally/retreat 18

Part 4: Organizational models 19

River Network 19

Healing Our Waters Coalition 20

The Toxics Action Center 20

European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR) 21

Canadian River Network 21

Ontario Water Guardians Network 22

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce 23

General Conclusions 24

ABOUT THE SURVEYIn late 2010, the Walter and Duncan

Gordon Foundation commissioned a broad survey to identify the needs and gaps of the non-profit water sector across Canada. The survey was designed to identify the experiences and needs of those working directly on water issues including those most closely impacted by water concerns such as issues of contamination.

Twenty-two water experts completed a phone survey and 150 water leaders completed an electronic survey. Online surveys were available in both English and French. An additional survey directed to the Water Funders Group of the Canadian Environmental Grantmakers Network reached five water funders in person or by phone and another 65 funding contacts via an electronic survey. This report details key findings from these electronic and telephone surveys.

The groups represented by survey respondents were very diverse in interest, ranging from stewardship groups to community-based groups to provincial and national environmental and conservation organizations.

The survey focused efforts on the traditional non-profit water sector including local stewardship groups, regional or national environmental and conservation organizations and also included a level of outreach to impacted communities, indigenous organizations and the recreation-based water community. There was a low response rate from the latter three including groups from northern Canada. The low response rate of these constituencies might support the finding that more support is needed to enable organizations from the non-profit water sector to work alongside indigenous and directly affected communities (those communities facing the direct threat of water contamination) in immediate efforts to protect and restore water.

FIGURE 1 - Organizational engagement of online survey respondents

1

FIGURE 2 - Interest in a national gathering to address needs of the non-profit water sector

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCanada’s water community encompasses

thousands of non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting our rivers, lakes and waters. While these individual groups have accomplished much, a nationwide survey of water leaders across Canada suggests Canada’s water community is, in general, poorly networked across the country. One consequence is that Canada’s non-profit water sector1 is less able to collaborate and support one another regionally (at the provincial and territorial levels), nationally, or at the river basin level.

The survey, commissioned by the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, was completed by 150 of Canada’s water leaders and suggests that without more effective networking and collaboration within the non-profit water sector, there is little hope for a more effective national effort to protect Canada’s water resources. Findings indicate that an engaged and connected constituency across Canada is essential to draw the public and political attention required to protect Canada’s water resources.

While the survey indicates that Canada’s water leaders have a strong desire to better co-ordinate their efforts, too often attempts to network and collaborate are among the first

1 This includes stewardship and conservation organizations, national organizations, recreation, community and advocacy-based groups where either all or a portion of their work covers water.

to be sacrificed when capacity (both financial or time) is scarce. The survey suggests that a mechanism to support this relationship-building is important. Increasing the ease of networking might help organizations feel a net benefit from collaboration. Within environmental and stewardship groups, particular effort is needed to connect local and community-level efforts with provincial and national efforts. It is further identified that building relationships beyond the environmental community of water, and including perspectives from indigenous communities, recreation-based groups, health organizations and faith groups, will provide a forum to broaden the movement and elevate the importance of water health across the country.

Possible approachesThe following report further evaluates different model organizations and networks in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere (Part 3) as a starting point in thinking about the types of solutions that could be applied to meet these needs. For example, the U.S. River Network is a strong model that, if applied in Canada, has the potential to bring a wide range of benefits with it. This type of organization could help address a number of the key gaps identified by respondents. Other models such as the Toxics Action Centre in the US and the European Centre for River Restoration have also been highlighted.

2

FIGURE 3 - Perceptions on national collaboration and networking

TABLE 1 - Key findings on the water landscape in Canada

Needs or Gaps Recommendation Potential Activities

There is a need for a national initiative to network among Canada’s water community enabling better collaboration to effectively advance regional and national objectives to protect water resources and work together to address pressing water issues.

• Create opportunities across Canada for the diverse groups working on water issues to come together, both virtually and face-to-face, to facilitate shared learning, collaborative strategy development and coordinated action.

• Enable Canada’s water community to work together in addressing pressing water issues and support existing coalitions in an effort to build towards sustained stewardship and advocacy.

• Create a national initiative designed to facilitate networking, capacity building and collaboration in Canada’s water community.

• Support development of a national capacity building gathering for water leaders (see below).

• Develop targeted capacity-building programs that enable collaboration efforts around specific water protection and restoration efforts at the regional or river basin level or on cross-cutting national issues.

Directly affected communities facing urgent issues such as water contamination, require more support to enable them to better confront challenges, collaborate and network.

• Prioritize capacity building support and training efforts for grassroots and community groups, enabling them to develop effective and sustained response to pressing issues in their community.

• Conduct outreach to grassroots and directly-affected communities and deliver targeted capacity-building and training initiatives .

• Create a micro-grants program to support efforts to participate in capacity-building programs.

Efforts for water protection and restoration would benefit from greater collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in developing a shared vision for water.

• Identify opportunities for greater dialogue, communication, and collaboration around water protection efforts among Indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

• Create a forum, through a webinar and workshop series, that would bring together indigenous and non-indigenous water leaders together in dialogue.

There is room for more strategic and effective coordination of funding efforts for freshwater protection across Canada.

• Coordinate efforts around freshwater protection and restoration funding to enable greater collaboration and sharing of resources.

• Help leverage new and support existing funding efforts to enable more effective water protection and restoration.

• Facilitate efforts for the funding community to discuss funding directions and opportunities around freshwater.

• Create a micro-grants program to support efforts to participate in capacity-building programs.

There are insufficient opportunities for targeted skills development in advocacy, public engagement and grassroots mobilization for Canada’s water community.

• Develop a sustained capacity building program designed around skills-based needs that is grounded in a philosophy of applied training with sufficient follow-up and coaching to ensure implementation success.

• Create a capacity-building and skills training program at the regional level aimed to support individual organizations, or coalitions, in their ability to be effective in efforts for watershed protection and/or restoration.

• Raise the profile of existing efforts, successes and challenges in local, regional and national efforts to protect Canada’s freshwater resources.

• Create capacity-building and skills training programs at the national level for specific issues of national importance and to facilitate learning among organizations across the country.

Specific efforts are needed to provide training in effective communication with and engagement and mobilization of the public around water protection and restoration.

There is a need for Canada’s water community to share successes and strategies on water policy to foster greater effectiveness and collaboration.

Canada’s water community desire opportunities to come together in shared learning, community-building and coordinated action.

• Host national and regional water gatherings to bring together the diverse water community in Canada and to create opportunities for shared (peer-to-peer) learning, relationship building and capacity training.

• Support development of a national gathering for water leaders.

• Explore the need or potential for regional water gatherings where none currently exist.

3

As many of these recommendations fall out of the scope of activities of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, they are not made specifically to the Foundation. They are intended to provide information on needs and possible strategies to the water non-profit sector, to the interested funding community and towards the establishment of an organization to fill the some of the specific and necessary functions that appear out of scope for the existing water landscape in Canada.

In December 2010, the Munk School of Global Affairs and the Canadian Environmental

Grantmakers Network hosted a workshop at the University of Toronto on the nation’s capacity to monitor and protect fresh water. Scott Vaughan, Canada’s Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development gave a presentation identifying significant failures in the federal government’s monitoring of the quality and quantity of Canada’s surface water resources. Following the presentation, four of Canada’s most respected water experts provided their opinion on gaps and opportunities in Canada’s water protection capacity before taking questions from the audience. Among the most notable gaps identified during the panel discussion was the lack of an identifiable national network or national constituency of water organizations in Canada.

The situation in Canada was contrasted with national and regional initiatives that exist in the United States which were said to have a significant impact on water policy and protection. U.S.-based organizations such as the River Network, Freshwater Future and Healing our Waters

Coalition are geared to support the capacity of local and state-based groups on a range of needs including community-based water monitoring, the application of law or policy to protect watersheds and organizational development.

Following the December workshop, the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation decided to test the notion that Canada lacks an effective national water network in the non-profit sector. The Foundation commissioned an independent gaps analysis and needs assessment to determine if these gaps indeed exist and gauge the potential value of a national initiative. This study was completed in three stages:1. Experiences from water leaders: interviews

and online survey2. Experiences from water funders: interviews

and online survey3. The findings: Analyzing results, drawing out

themes and identifying key recommendations.

Background

4

“[We need] dedicated time and money for people to work on a national strategy that is connected to the grassroots and regional groups and bringing that experience together in a really strong national voice.”

– Linda Nowlan, WWF-Canada Pacifics Program

The non-profit water sector works at every level in Canada: locally, regionally, and

nationally.1 The Gordon Foundation estimates there are nearly 2000 water-related non-profits in Canada. The vast majority of these are local, volunteer-based groups that focus on the stewardship of a particular creek, river or lake. Larger organizations in this sector might serve a specific geographic area covering a large watershed2 or are provincial, inter-provincial or

1 For the purposes of this analysis, the “non-profit water sector” includes all organizations working in Canada with either a direct mandate or water-specific programs for water protection or restoration efforts. This includes, but is not limited to, water stewardship groups, conservation organizations, environmental organizations, indigenous communities and organizations, recreation groups, and directly impacted communities.2 “The land drained by a river and its tributaries. A watershed is a discrete ecosystem, the state of which is affected by the environmental condition of its component subwatersheds and by the condition of the main stem river.” MOEE. 1993. Water Management on a Watershed Basis:

national in scope. There are also many groups that focus on encouraging people to enjoy their local water bodies through recreation-based activities and others still that seek to engage residents on political solutions (across all levels of government) to protect and restore surface- and ground-water for ecosystems and for people.

To identify gaps in networking and capacity building within Canada’s non-profit water sector, there was first a need to better understand existing efforts and organizations. The following landscape scan provides an overview of organizations that have supported capacity-building or networking in Canada’s non-profit water sector or that have identified water protection and/or restoration as part of their mandate.

Implementing and Ecosystem Approach. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario for the Ministry of the Environment and Energy.

PART 1: WATERSCAPE SCAN

~4~5

TABLE 2: Landscape Scan

National environmental networks Focus

Canadian Environmental Network Communications network around specific federal policy discussions

Sustainability Network Capacity support around organizational development and leadership across environmental sector

National groups working on water FocusLiving Lakes Network Canada Citizen monitoring and capacity buildingForum for Leadership on Water (FLOW) Policy think tankWaterlution Networking and training, youth developmentWWF Environmental flows policyTrout Unlimited Protection and restorationDucks Unlimited Protection and restoration, wetlands policyPOLIS Project Policy think tankEnvironmental Defence Blue flag beachesPaddle Canada RecreationCouncil of Canadians Commodification of water and water as a public trustSierra Club Canada Municipal water policy and water conservationNature Canada Living by water initiativeCentre for Indigenous Environmental Resources Indigenous water monitoring and capacity buildingIndigenous Environmental Network Indigenous right to waterEcojustice Canada Water policy and lawCanadian Environmental Law Association Water policy and law

Water organizations supporting grassroots and local capacity Focus

Waterkeepers Regional – Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia

Living Lakes Canada National

Freshwater Future Regional – Great Lakes Region (Canada and United States)

Water Guardians Regional – OntarioKeepers of the Water Regional – Mackenzie River BasinAlberta Ecotrusts Watershed Protectors Regional – Alberta

Sierra Club Canada Regional Chapters Regional – Atlantic Canada, Québec, Ontario, Prairies, British Columbia

Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources National - Indigenous specificIndigenous Environmental Network National - Indigenous specific

6

National environmental networksThere are two primary environmental networks in Canada that provide services to the environmental non-profit sector: the Canadian Environmental Network and the Sustainability Network.

The Canadian Environmental Network (CEN) and its regional affiliates provide general networking services to environmental organizations across the country. The CEN water caucus provides a forum for environmental groups to discuss water issues of importance to the environmental sector and to engage the sector on specific federal government policy issues requiring input.

The Sustainability Network provides capacity building for environmental leaders by offering services and training to improve organizational capacity. Their mission is to:

…enrich Canadian environmental leaders and non-profit organizations through programs, services and support that help them increase their capacity to lead, manage and strategize. The Sustainability Network works with environmental non-profits to make them more effective and efficient.

From general topics such as fundraising strategies, communications techniques and problem solving, the Sustainability Network identifies tools and techniques that could be useful when confronting the challenges that face the environmental sector.

Both of these networks provide capacity-building services and networking opportunities to the environmental sector, which includes water non-profit organizations. Given their broad mandates, it is difficult for either network to respond to the specific challenges and needs of local groups or coalesce efforts to create and solidify Canada’s diverse water constituency.

National groups working on water There are few national organizations and groups focused specifically on water in Canada, particularly when compared, proportionately, to the number of those in the United States. Many of Canada’s national groups are focused on specific policy outcomes or specific programs. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), for example, is building a new campaign geared towards protecting environmental flows in rivers across Canada. WWF is interested, through this campaign, in improving collaboration and co-ordination of all water groups across the country. In addition to WWF, there are other national level environmental organizations that work around water. Sierra Club Canada’s national water program, Action H20, is focused on municipal water policy and Environmental Defence’s national water program has a specific focus on “Blue Flag Beaches.”

Other national-level organizations such as EcoJustice Canada or the Canadian Environmental Law Association are focused primarily on water law and policy while others place a primary emphasis on the development of federal or provincial water policy, such as FLOW (a national water policy think tank) or the Polis Project on Ecological Governance.

Conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited have a significant focus on watershed health and have many programs to enhance protection and restoration efforts. Trout Unlimited has a strong focus on supporting affiliated local grassroots groups, specifically around their fish habitat restoration initiatives.

There are a few national organizations working on water issues who serve a particular sector or community, including the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources and Paddle Canada.

7

A still relatively young organization, Waterlution, has emerged over a few years to support the learning and sharing of water solutions in Canada. Geared toward young professionals, Waterlution’s workshops and learning circles provide opportunities for emerging water leaders to build support and knowledge on sustainable water management. As a network, Waterlution is connecting a growing number of water professionals across the country in an important dialogue around clean water solutions.

While a number of organizations focus on specific water issues, policies or laws, or serve a specific constituency (for example, indigenous, recreation, or youth communities), no one organization brings these diverse efforts together or supports the development of a coherent and collective strategy between them.

Water organizations supporting grassroots capacityA priority area of interest for the analysis is to gain an understanding of the needs of, and gaps in support for, grassroots organizational capacity. Furthermore, uniting the efforts of local stewardship groups, of communities and individuals working to protect local rivers and water bodies in Canada would be critical to any effort to establish an identifiable national water movement. Waterkeepers Canada is one such organization dedicated to the protection of specific watersheds (rivers and lakes) across Canada. The Waterkeepers network very well within watersheds where they have specific geographic representation (e.g. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper). They are also connected well across the Waterkeepers network in both Canada and the United States. Efforts to support grassroots movements are focussed

Photo Credit: Lake Windermere Ambassadors

8

on specific river and water systems where they are established. In addition, most Waterkeepers are politically engaged and actively participating in legal processes to enforce environmental laws. Waterkeepers is currently active in nine watersheds throughout Canada.1 Connected to the U.S.-based Waterkeepers movement, they have access to excellent legal and educational resources. The Waterkeepers model is notable for offering many services to its member watersheds, ranging from information updates, to organizational development support, to training on membership recruitment and engagement.

In addition to Waterkeepers, Living Lakes Network Canada (LLNC) is an emerging national player in Canada for supporting grassroots efforts around water protection. Offering to address capacity support and networking, the aim of LLNC is to “foster citizen-based stewardship of our lakes, wetlands and watersheds.”

Living Lakes Network Canada, which is affiliated with Living Lakes International, targets a gap in Canadian water monitoring programs. Kat Hartwig of LLNC explained that, “the network’s emphasis is on linking science to action, fostering citizen based watershed stewardship and promoting prtection of Canada’s watersheds. A core LLNC goal will is to provide a common standard for citizen based monitoring programs and support grassroots groups in “on the ground” efforts to monitor and restore their lakes and waters. “LLNC’s aim is to standardize monitoring methods using scientifically defensible methods recognized by the federal government so that the data is trusted and up to [scientific] standards, [enabling] the results to be compared across watersheds,” she said.

In addition to Waterkeepers and LLNC, there are several regional organizations that provide support to local associations and organizations

1 http://www.waterkeepers.ca/local.html

that support indigenous communities and other specific user groups, as described in Table 1 above. However, Living Lakes Network Canada remains the sole organization that provides national level capacity support specifically to unaffiliated local water protection efforts in Canada. Given their focus on citizen-based monitoring efforts, there appears to be room for a complementary effort dedicated to supporting the development of a co-ordinated, supported and well equipped water constituency in Canada.

Landscape scan conclusionsThe landscape for the non-profit water sector in Canada is not cluttered. Rather, existing efforts appear designed to either reach specific audiences with pre-identified memberships (e.g. Waterkeepers and Canadian Environmental Network) or are not geared or able to network specifically among the broad and diverse community with interest in the health of Canada’s freshwater systems. In our evaluation of the current landscape, we found no organization that is able to fully engage and support the wide diversity of Canada’s non-profit water sector and interests, including local watershed, environmental and conservation organizations, indigenous communities, recreation-based, religious, youth and faith groups, policy organizations, health-based organizations and affected communities.

Part 1 Finding:

There is a need for a national initiative to network among Canada’s water community enabling better collaboration to effectively advance regional and national objectives to protect water resources and work together to address pressing water issues.

9

“We a lways seem to start from scratch the next t ime an issue of need comes up.” – Jay Morr ison, Paddle Canada

PART 2: NEED FOR INCREASED CO-ORDINATING AND NETWORkINGOne primary aim of the survey was to gauge

the extent and effectiveness of networking and collaboration in Canada’s non-profit water sector. Overwhelmingly, survey respondents indicated a lack of co-ordination among the hundreds of watershed groups across Canada and within some provinces.

• 77 per cent of survey respondents do not know what other freshwater oriented groups are doing in other regions of the country.

• 76 per cent believe water non-profits are not networked well across the country (Figure 3).

Linda Nowlan, a prominent water advocate in British Columbia and WWF Canada’s Director of Pacific Conservation, agreed with this sentiment, “It is amazing to me how little groups from different regions work together and know what others are doing.”

The need for greater networking also emerged from the funders survey, with one respondent highlighting their own “gap in knowledge” of what water non-profits are working on. The respondent stated that “perhaps a project that reviews work of…water ENGOS in Canada over the past few years” is needed to help fill this identified gap.

There does appear to be more collaboration at the provincial and regional level. Over eighty per cent of survey respondents, for example, believe that they work together on joint issues of concern with regional and provincial groups (Figure 4).

Despite this local collaboration, groups identified the need for additional networking efforts at the provincial and regional levels. Only forty per cent of respondents felt they were well networked with other water-based groups provincially.

This lack of networking and communication between groups can often result in duplicated

efforts among organizations. This happens concurrently as individual groups struggle to respond to growing demands on their time which are not usually met with increased capacity. According to Isabell Pitre with H20 Chelsea, “we need to start working together and not doing the same thing over and over again. We need someone to help co-ordinate. Without this [we] just end up doing our own thing and going our own way.” Marc Hudon of Nature Quebec added, “we need sustained communication, a national organization that will keep everyone connected.”

Mike Layton, former Environmental Defence Water Campaigner and current Toronto City Councillor, felt the lack of an engaged and connected constituency for water was also impeding its progress at the political level: “In the space of political priorities water and access to water is so low. It’s not something that people rally around.”

Representatives from the water-funders world also commented on the need for increased networking and collaboration. A respondent to the funders survey noted that “in Manitoba there are a lot of different groups working on water issues, and it appears that their efforts aren’t always co-ordinated. More networking and clarified organizational goals could be helpful.”

Funders identified the need for better co-ordination and networking as a way to promote national efforts on water, and enable groups to work better together at the provincial or territorial level. This could simply involve connecting locally based organizations to learn from and support one another.

10

Supporting directly affected communitiesThere are few groups in Canada that are working expressly to address the challenges confronted by communities with serious water resource issues, such as water contamination. Often those most impacted by issues of water contamination are indigenous communities. They are more likely to experience boil water advisories than non-indigenous communities and are more likely to be ”downwind” or “downstream” of intensive industrial development such as oil and gas operations, tar sands, uranium development, and refineries. Other communities are struggling to respond to concerns around surface and groundwater contamination by industrial efforts such as natural gas fracking in New Brunswick or coal bed methane extraction in Alberta.

An example of an organization working on the ground to address the issues that communities face around water contamination is Keepers of the Athabasca, a collective of indigenous individuals working together with community stewardship groups, environmental organizations, and recreational water users. This organization demonstrates how diverse perspectives can work together to elevate the importance of human health and cultural connections to a watershed, while also being strongly rooted by the direct impacts experienced by communities living along waterways. Specific and localized health effects of water contamination often drive groups such as Keepers of the Athabasca. Unfortunately, community groups often lack adequate support in their efforts and decision-makers do not often take their concerns seriously.

Improving collaboration with indigenous communitiesAt a national level, there is currently no forum where the environmental, conservation and recreational spheres can come together alongside indigenous communities to identify joint strategies. According to Merrell-Ann Phare with the Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources, environmental groups have a history of setting their priorities and then “looking to see where indigenous [people] fit into it.” Creating a venue where multiple members of the water sector can jointly set strategic opportunities could help bridge a divide that has kept the communities from working together in the past.

One survey respondent summarized this need by stating that “it is essential to see the inclusion of indigenous water issues threaded through all aspects of a national water policy – particularly when coming up with plans for in-stream flow needs and source water protection to ensure they respect Treaty rights as they relate to a wild, healthy and accessible environment.” This level of inclusion requires a deeper understanding and dialogue that will take time to develop. Creating the opportunity to spark such dialogue is critical. Phare identified watershed level planning as a good place to begin this dialogue: “We need watershed level planning that is either driven by or co-led by indigenous [community members].”

Phare further claims that many Treaty organizations are organized along watershed boundaries, as opposed to the political borders that have been super-imposed on indigenous ways of organizing. This offers a unique opportunity

FIGURE 4 - Perceptions on provincial networking and collaboration

11

to build alliances and techniques for organizing that mirror the nested-basin approach often discussed in developing watershed policy. This kind of approach would facilitate organizing in watersheds and basins as opposed to simply abstract political borders.

It is important to bridge this divide between indigenous and non-indigenous communities. Coming together around a shared vision for water may be the place to begin. Phare believes this vision for water needs to be one “where all our communities can see themselves. Water needs us to have a combined vision.”

Part 2 Findings:

Directly affected communities facing urgent issues such as water contamination, require more support to enable them to better confront challenges, collaborate and network.

Efforts for water protection and restoration would benefit from greater collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in developing a shared-vision for water.

12

A priority research focus was to assess in what specific areas non-profits needed the

most capacity support. Several themes emerged as top contenders. It can be seen in Table 3 that support in the area of public communications and engagement was considered one of these priority needs. Karen Kun of Waterlution agrees that the “best thing that could happen to water is that more Canadians would understand it better.”

In addition to communications, understanding water science and public engagement, three other areas emerged as key priorities incuding: increasing financial support and resources; increasing capacity for staff and volunteer development; and finding more effective strategies to utilize water law and policy.

Communication ToolsThe desire to more effectively engage the public around water protection emerged as the dominant capacity need. While eighty-three per cent of survey respondents suggested that adequate

information to understand water resources and ecosystem health is available (Figure 5), seventy-six per cent of survey respondents did not believe that this information was being communicated effectively to the public. Jack Imhoff with Trout Unlimited said, “we don’t have sufficient data in a way that is accessible to communities.” Similarly, another survey respondent said, “I think we’ve got enough information to work with. It’s true that there’s no end to what we don’t know, but I don’t think a lack of information is the issue. The problem, to me, is that we are not well co-ordinated in terms of reaching out, raising concern, and mobilizing action.”

Connie Simmons with the West Athabasca Bioregional Society in Alberta would like water information to be more accessible to the public: “It has to be easy for individuals to access and understand, otherwise people just don’t have time and therefore don’t have access to the information.”

In fact, ninety per cent of respondents believed that Canadians are not well aware of watershed and ecosystem health. Another ninety per cent believed that Canadians did not understand the

FIGURE 5 - Perception on availability and accessiblity of water information

PART 3: CAPACITY NEEDS OF WATER NON- PROFITS IN CANADA

FIGURE 6 - Perception on public knowledge and awareness of water issues in Canada

13

90% of survey respondents believed that Canadians are not well aware of watershed and ecosystem health.

linkage between watershed health and a healthy economy. A further seventy per cent did not feel as though people in their community understood watershed health as it relates to human health (Figure 6).

Indeed, the survey results suggest that Canada’s water leaders strongly believe water information is not being effectively conveyed to the broader public. Alina Siegfried, formerly with Saskatchewan Environmental Network, indicated there is a need for people who have expertise on public awareness and engagement: “It would be great, in an ideal world, to have some specific communications people employed by governments or NGOs to get out there and teach people how to reach people.”

Danielle Droitsch summed up a number of comments when she said: “We need to help people understand: a) what information exists; b) how to access that information and make sense of it and; c) what to do with it.”

Financial and Resource NeedsWhether volunteer- or staff-based, many organizations in the non-profit water sector rely on the philanthropic sector for support. Coming out of the economic downturn, many non-profit organizations across Canada have tight financial constraints. This is also the case for the sectors traditional funding base in the philanthropic community; many were hit hard by declines in global financial markets. At the best of

TABLE 3 - Areas for capacity support and training

Survey Question: Please rank the following areas of capacity support and training for their ability to be helpful in achieving success for freshwater protection, whereby 1 represents the least helpful and 11 the most helpful in achieving success.

Areas for capacity support and training Weighted AVG (in descending order)

Engaging the public to take action to protect water (political engagement) 7.66

Understanding water quality monitoring and/or watershed science 6.39

Engaging the public to take action to protect water (individual household) 6.05

Fundraising (grant writing, donor development) 6.02Engaging volunteers (including board members) 5.73Organizational development (creating and managing effective non-profits, charitable info.) 5.60

Learning how to work with a diverse group of stakeholders including industry and government 5.55

Understand watershed law and policy in my province or at the federal level 5.55

Traditional communications assistance (effective messaging, media training) 5.46

Social media/new media training (effective use of Twitter, blogs, Facebook) 5.38Technology support (building a website, using a database) 4.45

14

“Each group is so different that there is not one capacity tool that is needed across the board. Capacity building tools and training modules are needed to support groups at

various stages of development - from organizational development to communications to engaging the public more effectively.” – Danielle Droitsch

times, many in the non-profit water sector need significant support to strengthen their efforts to protect both human and ecosystem health. Referring to recreation groups, Jim Morrison explained how challenging it can be even for groups that have a direct interest in water health to stay informed: “They don’t have the capacity or resources to educate on their own [recreation-based] mandates let alone on environmental matters.”

Survey respondents identified the need for more resources (financial and otherwise) to improve their efforts in protecting water. As Marc Hudon of Nature Quebec quite succinctly stated, “we need more funding. The tools are there but we need the support to [take] action. And that has been regressing.” Linda Nowlan, WWF-Canada, concurred, “there are some [foundations] that used to fund and now are not or have reduced funding. Things are getting worse. The opportunities to get things funded are drying up.”

While the giving levels of some foundations have indeed decreased following the recession, there are some new funders that have entered the water fold. The Royal Bank of Canada’s Blue Water Project is a prime example. Our funders’ survey indicated there are others that may also be interested in supporting water work if they were better connected with the opportunities to do so.

According to Tim Morris of the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, “although many foundations have trimmed their giving levels during the economic downturn, when it comes to water, my sense is there is a growing level of interest and uptake in the philanthropic community. Certainly, when the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation began its water program nearly a decade ago, it was a very lonely space, but now there is an expanding network of funders that have a specific programmatic interest in water or support water projects as part of their environmental giving.”

Vicki Burns of the Community Foundations of Canada had a similar view, believing there were opportunities to bring more funders into the fold. Referring to a survey Burns conducted with community foundations across the three provinces that span the Lake Winnipeg watershed she said, “many had not funded water, but that was often because many weren’t asked.”

This later perspective was further supported in the results from the funders’ survey. Not a single funder who replied to the survey believed they saw “many strong water-specific project proposals.” Though the cause for this response warrants a deeper analysis, it does suggest that there is room for a strategic initiative to better connect efforts to protect freshwater systems with funders that have an interest in supporting those efforts.

According to Dave Secord of Tides Canada Foundation, the issue of clean water has the opportunity to be a “silo buster” in the funding world. To break those silos, however, funders must be brought together in an effort to inform, connect and inspire collaboration in funding programs. Within environmental philanthropy, for example, issues around water protection and restoration have ties to many corresponding interests, such as: traditional conservation efforts; species protection; energy use and extraction; forests; and land-use. Water also has the ability to connect communities beyond the traditional environmental sector to include interests around health, social change and education.

FIGURE 7 - Funders perceptions on level of water-related funding proposals

15

This idea of issue-based collaborations is not new in the funding world. Many models exist that each provide valuable lessons in such endeavours. Such collaborations as the Arctic Funders Group, the Great Bear Rainforest, or the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity are all examples of various forms of collaborations that involve the funding community.

A true collaboration around water would also involve reaching out to new allies, building and deepening relationships. The Okanagan Basin Water Board (OBWB) is an example of an organization that has worked to connect and support diverse allies across a watershed in Southern British Columbia. According to Anna Warwick-Sears, Executive Director of the OBWB, there is the need to think more broadly about what it is we want to achieve, which also shows that “Non-traditional groups including indigenous communities, unofficial affiliations, local government, steward groups, among others, are each part of the equation as well.”

Co-ordination, from the perspective of the water-based non-profit sector, could also alleviate some concerns that groups are vying for the same limited pot of resources. Meredith Brown, Ottawa Riverkeeper, agrees, “There are limited funds and we are competing. Strategically, it is incredibly important to work together. We are all strapped for cash and need more resources. If we could find a way to disperse some [organizational] functions across groups and organizations, it would help us all out and actually build capacity

across the board.”

Staff and Volunteer Development

Survey respondents indicated that opportunities to support staff and volunteer development and training would help to strengthen programming efforts across the country. Organizations would be better equipped to harness the talent that exists in the water community and retain highly qualified individuals if there were more opportunities to invest in their staff (who often work for no monetary compensation).

Oliver Brandes, of the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, explained the lack of professional development, suggesting that “leadership transition training and space [are needed]. It’s not just for the young leader. We need training for the ‘medium-rare’ leaders.”

Several respondents noted that some opportunities for mentorship and capacity building appeared available in the traditional research, technical and academic circles through organizations such as the Canadian Water Resources Association, the Canadian Water Network and other university-based water hubs. As well, Waterlution has developed a vibrant network of young professionals from various sectors that come together to learn from one another and develop new skills. However, little direct and sustained support is currently available for organizations and individuals trying to mobilize and inform the grassroots or develop

FIGURE 8 - Interest for greater levels of peer-to-peer learning in

the non-profit water sector

16

“We need sustained communication. A national organization that will keep everyone connected.” – Marc Hudon, Nature Quebec

effective advocacy skills.

Krystyn Tully of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper agreed: “It’s not an industry where there are mentors and training and development. It needs to be seen as a legitimate career path, then we will get better at it.”

This means providing support for those working in environmental and water-based organizations while providing for the time of unpaid workers who dedicate significant amounts of time and energy to local efforts and needs.

Water Law and PolicySurvey respondents identified additional support and training on water law and policy as an opportunity to advance their efforts in water protection and restoration. Eighty-four per cent of survey respondents had some level of agreement that additional advice on the federal government’s water policies would be beneficial.

As noted in Figure 2, there is an additional desire of water leaders across Canada to come together to learn and share experiences with using water law and policy. When asked, ninety-two per cent of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Additionally, a strong majority of respondents (eighty-six per cent) would like to improve their ability to apply water law and policy (Figure 9).

The survey results highlight a good opportunity for learning and application in this area, which could help strengthen water policy across all levels of government.

For example, providing regular briefs on relevant provincial and federal policy and regulatory conversations may help connect grassroots and community groups to regional and federal conversations. Meredith Brown, the Ottawa Riverkeeper, describes how this service is valuable in the U.S. and could be beneficial in Canada: “The U.S. Waterkeepers puts out a monthly brief on bills that are on the table this month. It puts them on your radar. This would be an incredibly helpful service specific to provinces and national issues. That would be so helpful to groups and would mean less work they need to do to track and follow what’s going on.”

Support in this area can go beyond understanding water laws and policies and could assist water leaders to better understand the procedural elements that guide the legislative process, including introduction, successful tracking and implementation of legislation. Joe Obad of the Alberta-based Water Matters group described, for example, the need for a more thorough understanding of legislative procedure: “We too often just see one macro step. [We need to see] the micro steps that guide the legislature as well.”

Assisting in the attainment of a deeper understanding of policy development, legislative processes and law enforcement will enhance efforts for water protection, and restoration. Highlighting synergies across jurisdictions could effectively support regional projects while strengthening national efforts on the whole.

There appears to be an emerging consensus that funders also need to find opportunities and strategies to support capacity building efforts. Pat Letezia of Alberta’s Ecotrust described how they never intended to become a capacity funder but they realized that they “had to invest in capacity [because] if we could strengthen organizations and collaboration then our dollars could go much further.”

FIGURE 9 - Interest in improving use of water law and policy

17

83% of survey respondents want to better understand water law and policy as tools to further protect watershed health.

Another water funder stated, “our organization finds {capacity building} is the biggest need…for groups, especially smaller groups, to excel in their program work they need a stable frame of operation to build those programs on.”

An effort designed to support these identified capacity needs while concurrently engaging the funding community could significantly benefit efforts to protect and restore Canada’s waters.

A National River Rally/Retreat

In 2008, the first province-wide gathering for watershed groups across Alberta, called River Rally, was hosted by a partnership between Alberta Ecotrust, Water and Suncor (then Petro-Canada). The gathering attracted a diverse cross-section of water stewardship groups, academics, advocacy-based organizations, corporations and government representatives in a three-day capacity-training event. Activities included an outdoor session of rafting and water quality monitoring on the North Saskatchewan River.

This type of gathering proved to be tremendously useful and many important connections were made across attending organizations.

Similarly, the national River Rally has been a critical element of the activities of U.S.-based River Networks. Those present unanimously agreed that it was a fun, informative and useful opportunity to connect with other water leaders.

Meredith Brown has attended one of these River Network Rallies. “The Waterkeepers have their own conference but the River Network conference runs workshops in areas such as effective organizational development. The peer-to-peer learning is so valuable,” she said.

In Canada, however, there are currently no national conferences aimed specifically at bringing together a large number (100+) of river and water leaders for a multi-day training and peer-to-peer learning event.

Respondents indicated strong support, ninety-per cent agreeing (Figure 2), for an event where water non-profits come together for the purpose of improving efforts in: communicating to the public; fundraising; using technology and new communications tools; and working in government and multi-stakeholder processes.

Part 3 Findings:

There is room for more strategic and effective coordination of funding efforts for freshwater protection across Canada.

There is insufficient opportunities for targeted skills development in advocacy, public engagement and grassroots mobilization for Canada’s water community.

Specific efforts are needed to provide training in effective communication with and engagement and mobilization of the public around water protection and restoration.

There is a need for Canada’s water community to share successes and strategies on water policy to foster greater effectiveness and collaboration.

Canada’s water community desire opportunities to come together in shared learning, community building and coordinated action.

18

“It’s one thing to network virtual ly, but quite another to get together face-to-face.” – Jack Imhoff, Trout Unl imited

16

PART 4: ORGANIzATIONAL MODELS

River Network - www.rivernetwork.org

Description:

The River Network has been a go-to organization for river and water-based stewardship groups in the U.S. to gain training, support and to build alliances. According to the River Network website:

Founded in 1988, River Network is leading a national watershed protection movement that includes millions of people working with nearly 5,000 state, regional and local organizations, including more than 600 dues-paying River Network “Partner” organizations. We identify and communicate the biggest threats to America’s waters, stimulate and support state and local campaigns to address these threats, and build unity across the country that sustains the national river and water protection movement.

Mission: Empower and unite people and communities to protect and restore rivers and other waters that sustain the health of the United States.

Member Engagement:

Defined as a “partnership program,” membership is invited in to the River Network to help “locally-led river and watershed groups survive and grow.” Specific services and trainings are for the exclusive benefit of partners, including their online webinar series and one-to-one training programs.

Example of programs:

By facilitating capacity support to a diverse group of water stewards across the U.S., the River Network provides technical assistance, watershed monitoring training and support, and organizational capacity building to ensure strong, knowledgeable and trained grassroots groups. For example, the “Organizational Development Program provides ‘one-to-many’ trainings at workshops and conferences, as well as more targeted ‘one-to-one’ assistance to help watershed groups address more specific concerns.”

Benefits:

Meredith Brown of Ottawa Riverkeeper speaks of the benefits of the U.S. River Network model by highlighting the access members have to learning opportunities and new networks: “You have access to their professional development opportunities to develop skill sets and networks which helps identify alliances.”

It was also noted by a few survey respondents that had a River Network type of group existed in Canada during the time of the Navigable Waters Act debate, a more expedient and effective response may have been mobilized. Tony Maas of WWF-Canada emphasized: “if there was a River Network [in Canada] we could have a much more rapid and diverse response.”

Taken together, the survey results and the landscape analysis suggest there is a need

for a national effort to support networking, collaboration, and capacity building on a sustained basis for Canada’s non-profit water sector. Such an effort could be the formation of a new national organization, a coalition of organizations or a loose network.

The following analysis reviews collaborative initiatives in Canada and around the world to guide a possible structure and program in Canada. This review is not intended to be exhaustive but provides insight into opportunities and ways of organizing that have been successful in Canada and around the world.

19

Healing our Waters Coalition - www.healthylakes.org

Description:In uniting a diverse and representative group of environmental, conservation and outdoor recreation groups with zoos, aquariums and museums, the Healing our Waters coalition represents the shared goal of “restoring and protecting one of North America’s greatest freshwater resources: the Great Lakes.”

Mission: The coalition’s mission is to secure a sustainable Great Lakes restoration plan and the funding needed to implement it.

Example of Programs:

In addition to programs geared towards maintaining an active presence in legislative conversations at the state and federal levels, the coalition oversees a granting program “to ensure that local organizations can successfully participate in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.” In 2010, for example, the coalition provided $200,000 in grants to 14 organizations working on restoration initiatives across each of the Great Lakes.

Member Engagement:

As a member-driven organization, engagement is focused around joint efforts, learning’s and activities to help advance public policy to protect and restore the great lakes. Focus is on United States region of lakes.

Benefits:

Creating a strong collection of interests around a specific issue can create support for specific public policy solutions. With over 115 members representing millions of people interested in the coalition’s mandate to protect the Great Lakes, significant attention can be garnered for their cause. The Coalition has celebrated several public victories since 2004 including securing nearly US$500 million from the US Congress directed specifically for restoration projects across the Great Lakes.

Toxics Action Center - www.toxicsaction.org

Description:The Toxics Action Center works with communities facing the direct effects of pollution and toxic contamination and who often feel isolated and alone in their struggles to elevate attention and action.

Mission:The Toxics Action Center, based out of the northeastern United States, has made it their mission to “work side-by-side with communities, providing [them] with the skills and resources needed to prevent or clean up pollution at the local level.”

Example of Programs:

TAC provides organizational assistance to community groups who are responding to specific public health effects and threats. Organizers travel to support groups on the ground by supporting organizational development and campaign planning. They help to connect groups with experts to help answer their questions and provide information.

Member Engagement:

TAC is not a member driven organization. Instead, their organizers and trainers work side-by-side with communities to prevent and clean up pollution. To date they have supported over 625 communities across New England states.

Benefits:

The Toxics Action Center fills a regional niche by building the capacity of communities to respond to issues of pollution directly. As stated on their website, “By helping ordinary citizens stand against toxic pollution, we develop leaders within communities, guiding them toward their vision of a safe, healthy, sustainable society.” This is a niche that is not currently being addressed in Canada and communities facing these struggles are often left on their own in attempts to raise awareness and bring about change.

20

“It would be great to have some specific communications people...to get out there and teach people how to reach people.” – Alina Siegfried, formerly with Saskatchewan Environmental Network

18

European Centre for River Restoration - www.ecrr.org

Description:The ECRR is a non-hierarchical network of river restoration centres primarily across Europe. Many of the centres are volunteer-run; however, with support from groups like ECRR, they have been able to achieve tremendous successes in river restoration and protection initiatives.

Mission:The ECRR aims to “listen to the needs of members and respond with support, technical training and linking people and organizations and best practices across the European Union.” Specifically, their mission is to enhance ecological river restoration throughout Europe.

Example of Programs:

The ECRR fulfills its mandate through e-communications, webinar training and face-to-face conferences and seminars to support and build the skills for river restoration centres throughout the region.

Member Engagement:

As a network of networks, the ECRR helps establish national river restoration networks across Europe and supports those networks through skill building initiatives geared largely towards restoration science.

Benefits:

The ECRR provides important information and scientific updates to efforts to restore European water-ways. It provides a platform for dialogue and engages at the level of the European Union. The ECCR and has become an international hub that facilitates communication between river restoration projects across Europe.

Canadian River Network

Description:The Canadian River Network once united recreational, indigenous, environmental and conservation groups in Canada in a co-ordinated response to proposed changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) in 2009.

Mission: The mission of the network was solely to defeat the proposed amendments to the NWPA.

Example of Programs:

In relatively short order, groups formed the informal network to facilitate joint messaging, community outreach and engagement around the proposed changes. The effort revolved around the national campaign to rally organizations and individuals to get involved in efforts to defeat the changes.

Member Engagement:

Membership in the initiative was focused solely around this specific response. Thus, after the bill was passed, the network itself faded. It remains an excellent example of the possibilities that exist should a more formal and consistent network of similar representation be established.

Benefits: Although ultimately unsuccessful, the network organized a well-crafted campaign that effectively mobilized substantial pressure on the Canadian Senate.

21

Ontario Water Guardians Network - www.thewaterhole.ca

Description:The Ontario Water Guardians Network is a diverse coalition focused on source water protection planning in Ontario. The network was successful at uniting community groups, provincial environmental and stewardship groups with First Nations communities and national organizations under a common vision.

Mission: The group’s mission is “to work together as stewards for the long-term preser-vation, protection, and improvement of water sources across Ontario.”

Example of Programs:

Network members collectively participate in efforts to ensure effective source water protection across Ontario. The coalition collectively pursues equal and consistent source protection planning for the entire province.

Member Engagement:

As an issue-based network, the Water Guardians provides a beneficial forum for collaboration on efforts to promote drinking water protection.

Benefits:OWGN formed in the years following the crisis created around the Walkerton E-Coli breakout and were instrumental in the establishment of Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act in 2002 as well as the Clean Waters Act in 2006.

22

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce - www.chamber.ca

Description:Advertised as the “largest and most influential business association” in Canada, the Chamber of Commerce connects “420 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, representing 192,000 businesses of all sizes in all sectors of the economy and in all regions.”

Mission:The Chamber works to connect business interests across sectors and across the country on the federal and international stage in order to “promote public polices that will foster a strong, competitive economic environment that benefits… business.”

Example of Programs:

The national body places its focus primarily on the Federal government as they aim to ensure policy decisions represent the best interests of Canadian businesses.

Member Engagement:

As a very large and formal network, the level of engagement is left up to each individual member. Members have the opportunity to play a role in shaping public policy by contributing to the issues and concerns taken on by the Chamber at various levels of engagement – thru local organizations, provincial bodies and the national and international network of businesses.

Benefits:

Engagement has significant benefits to shape public policy related to business interests, to belong to a significant network in size and influence, to be heard in public policy discussions. As it is not industry or size specific, membership provides opportunity for small and medium sized business interests to be heard.

The Chamber of Commerce has a tremendous track record of putting forth significant calls to action around government priorities with a high degree of success. The Chamber displays that when a large umbrella is created and builds their membership, significant influence can be leveraged to achieve various public policy results.

23

general conclusionCanada’s water community needs to be better networkedBoth vertical networking (local to national) and horizontal networking (across watersheds and provinces) are vital to creating a national focus on the protection of water resources across Canada. The experiences and voices of those most closely impacted and connected to our waters must be heard and shared. In order for water to become something that people can rally around, a group of community leaders and advocates working together to unite ideas from across the country must enter the frame of conversation. As Tony Maas of World Wildlife Fund said: “[We need to gain] the ability to strategically mobilize groups to respond to a shift in policy or to demand a shift in policy.”

Groups across the non-profit water sector need supportThere is a tremendous need to catalyze efforts for water protection and restoration by improving support for the hard-working staff and volunteers of the water-based non-profit sector and the local communities directly affected by issues around water contamination. Supporting local communities who face these direct threats to their water resources is the perfect place to begin. Connie Simmons of the West Athabasca Bioregional Society discussed the important need for watershed stewardship groups to be supported: “[Watershed stewards] are taking courage and stepping forward. There has to be a signal to people to listen, and to listen with respect. We experience terrible isolation and feel often that we are totally on our own.” Supporting these individuals and groups would not only strengthen their efforts in water protection and restoration at the local level, but would also assist national and regional efforts to mobilize when needed.

Co-ordination needs to be sustainedWhile many of Canada’s water leaders acknowledge there has been successful collaboration, there does not seem to be any sustained coordination. Jay Morrison of Paddle Canada states that: “We all have a pretty good idea of what are ‘sometimes successful’ one-off initiatives that don’t really result in any long-term capacity for success – we always seem to start from scratch the next time an issue of need comes up.” Our analysis indeed suggests that it is time to stop “starting from scratch” every time a national water issue emerges. There is a clear need for increased and sustained co-ordination and support.

The sector can do more to capitalize on water’s cross-cutting appealThere is real potential to build a more diverse constituency for water among many groups who share a common interest in its protection and restoration. Beyond traditional water and environmental non-profits, water is seen as a core interest of many indigenous groups and communities, faith-based organizations (such as Kairos and the United Church), women’s groups (such as the National Council of Women Canada and the Federation of University Women), health organizations, cottage associations, and business networks. Water has true cross-cutting appeal that could be a source of real power for positive change if capitalized upon.

24