Stakeholders or Shareholders – does it matter which?

Most planning processes use the term stakeholders to refer to persons who bring a viewpoint to a planning table and represent a particular interest. Some examples of stakeholders are the forest industry, mining, guide outfitters, and recreationalists such as was the case at the Okanagan Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan. I guess the thinking is that theses people are the “users” in the watershed and should have input as to what happens there. Some stakeholders even say, “We want our piece of the pie”, when discussions focus on public land.

This is the same as all the tenants of a house deciding who would do what where but the owner, the landlord, has no say. This seems very unbalanced and one sided. It also focuses on an exploitative use of land in the watershed. It implies that parts of the land are there for human use. It is one sided. There needs to be representation for the owners.

These are the shareholders. Who are the shareholders who should be represented in any planning process for a watershed? Who can represent the trustees of the land? In fact, these should be the overriding values with “users” asking to be accommodated. Now, the current process supports exploitation with disregard for the integrity of the whole.

What would happen if people represented shareholders or trustees? It must be those who live in the area. This could be community groups, church organizations, youth groups, service clubs, senior’s groups, etc.  Who best represents the trustees of the land? What do you think?