Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ex ante assessment of secondary impacts of environmental regulation: case study--organochlorines in the… Inch, Hilary 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1993_fall_inch_hilary.pdf [ 4.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0076876.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0076876-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0076876-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0076876-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0076876-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0076876-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0076876-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0076876-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0076876.ris

Full Text

EX ANTE ASSESSMENT OF SECONDARY IMPACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION:CASE STUDY - ORGANOCHLORINES IN THE CANADIAN PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRYByHILARY INCHB.A.Sc.,University of Waterloo, 1984A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Resource Management Science(Interdisciplinary Studies)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardUNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASeptember 15,1993© copyright Hilary Inch, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of^_a.A06).6t,te.^-c.,-ci.,i..a, 5d-z,a-e. cr( R.J2-4er'"2-The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate  16 Ntc!;e—p)6• 19 , 3DE-6 (2/88)IIAbstractThis thesis examines how the secondary effects of environmental regulations are assessed before theregulations are proclaimed. Negative secondary effects of a policy (such as regulation) may outweigh directbenefits; it is important that secondary effects are clearly assessed. The case study is the control oforganochlorines in the Canadian pulp and paper industry via federal regulation of dioxins and furans andBritish Columbia's regulation of Adsorbable Organic Halogen (AOX).The thesis is founded upon the premise that sustainability must be an integral consideration. Asystems approach is used to evaluate assessments and to generate recommendations. The evaluation isdivided into two parts: the process of assessing the regulation and the contents of the assessments.Background information is provided on organochlorines, pulp and paper making, the pulp and paperindustry and the relevant regulatory processes. A chronology of the regulation is established. Assessments arereviewed from five classes of stakeholders: industry, labour, environmentalists, the federal government andthe British Columbia government.The study found that secondary impacts of the regulation were less important than the primaryaction, which was managing the risk posed by organochlorines in effluent. For the secondary assessments,stakeholders felt problems with the process were greater than shortcomings in content. In particular,governments' lack of response to submissions caused a lack of confidence in the system, which was wellfounded in British Columbia's highly political process. The federal Regulatory Impact Analysis Statementsgave a valuable but limited summary of impact assessments and the rationale behind the regulations.To improve the process of creating environmental regulation I recommend that the federalgovernment assemble a reference document for assessments, that all levels of government institute classassessments for general cases, and that all stakeholders use a consistent, multiohjective framework. Theproposed framework is presented.Table of ContentsAbstract ^Table of Contents ^List of Tables List of Figures  ^viSection1. Introduction ^  11.1 Scope  11.2 The Context of Regulation ^  77. Philosophy ^  102.1 A Systems Viewpoint ^  112.2 Anthropocentric versus Ecocentric Views ^  122.3 Practical Sustainability  ^142.4 Socio-political Economy ^  163. Methods and Parameters ^  183.1 Case Study Format  183.2 Evaluation Parameters ^  183.2.1 Scope  263.3 Goals ^  253.4 Science  294. Background ^  314.1 Organochlorines ^  314.2 Pulp and Paper  334.3 The Industry ^  364.4 Regulatory Processes   414.4.1 Federal ^  41iv4.4.2 British Columbia ^  434.4.3 General ^  445. Chronology of Organochlorine Regulation ^  466. Assessments of Proposed Regulation  526.1 Federal ^  526.2 British Columbia ^  586.3 Environmental Groups  596.4 Industry ^  616.5 Labour  647. Discussion ^  677.1 Process  677.2 Content ^  717.3 Conclusions  738. Recommendations ^  75Appendices1. Problem Solving Applied to Writing Environmental Regulation ^  849. Research Questions and Stakeholder Representatives ^  853. Federal Regulatory Process ^  874. Guiding Principles of Federal Regulatory Policy ^  885. Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness ^  906. Regulatory Process in British Columbia  927. Sample Data from Federal Micro- Socio-economic Study ^  948. Development of Waste Discharge CriteriaBased upon Best Achievable Control Technology ^  959. West Coast Environmental Law AssociationStrategic Objectives ^  97References ^  98List of TablesTable 1^Federal Hierarchy of Purposes ^  28Table 2^Types of Pulp and Paper Production  34Table 3^Regulation Chronology ^  47Table 4 Assessment Framework  79Table 5^Case Study Framework - Federal Government ^  81Table 6 Case Study Framework - PPWC ^  82viList of FiguresFigure 1 Policy in Administrative Law Hierarchy ^  8Figure 2 Parameters for Assessment Evaluation  25Figure 3 Global Pulp Market ^  37Figure 4 Canadian Pulp Industry  38Figure 5 Dividends, Earnings and Spending ^  40Figure 6 Environmental Control Process Chart  531There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor moredangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemiesin all who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who wouldprofit by the new order. The lukewarmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries whohave law in their favour: and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not trulybelieve in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.Machiavelli, The PrinceSection 1^IntroductionToday's global society is dominated by unprecedented concern and awareness of the limits of theearth's environment. Governments are responding by regulating human activity with controls on industriessuch as forestry and fisheries. But is this regulation regime responsibly crafted?The thesis question is "how are proposals for environmental regulation analysed for presentation todecision makers?" Are secondary effects adequately considered? Could a systems analysis frameworkimprove the process? This thesis is a meta-study, an evaluation of analysis. For clarity the word 'evaluation' isused in reference to the meta-level study performed in this thesis and the words 'assessment' or 'analysis'apply to the studies done by others, the topic examined in the thesis.1.1^ScopeEnvironmental issues arise in many contexts. To achieve the ecologically balanced society we desireall sectors must be addressed such as wilderness, communities, security, economy and industry. Although allof these sectors are subject to regulation this thesis focuses on controls applied to industry.9While recognizing that industry and its environmental issues are global, occurring in all politicalsystems, crossing their boundaries and extending into frontiers beyond authority,1 this study's scope islimited to Canada. However, with the decline of the soviet socialist system and the rise of internationaldemocratic authority (via United Nations agencies) observations from our market economy under ademocratic system may be applicable to international or foreign situations.The Canadian governments (federal and provincial) can respond to the environmental challenge inindustry with a variety of instruments at their disposal; trade and foreign aid polices; taxation, incentives andsubsidies to influence markets and direct legislation (Dorfman and Dorfman 1972: Baumol and Oates 1988,Part II: Conference Board 1990). Since regulation has been the instrument of choice in Canada this thesisconsiders environmental protection by regulation: the government's control by rule via its legislative power toorder conformance with standards and prescribe punishment for nonconformance.Some charge that our environmental regulation is irresponsible because the changes imposed by therules are too drastic, too rapid or without adequate scientific foundation. Are regulations imposed withoutadequate thought, too quickly or extremely to be effective? Rather than searching for general answers fromthe outcomes of environmental regulation this thesis focuses on the process of creating regulation. If theprocess is consistently applied then conclusions from a process study will have broader applicability. Inaddition, incrementalists2 say that processes are more valuable than the factual correctness of the decisionsthey produce, (Lovins 1977,941; Stone 1988,186; White and Hamilton 1983,40) meaning that rationalcalculation required to obtain factual correctness is subordinate to accommodating interests and values.However, the players must recognize the subordination as a value choice.When an environmental regulation is proposed I have observed that there is usually controversy,even though the proposal is supposed to be clearly beneficial (Mittelstaedt and Mahood 1993). Affectedparties disagree with the way the control is established (scheduling, anticipated costs), predict other impactsof the proposal which have not been considered as well as questioning the validity of the problem. Thestakeholders are claiming that the disbenefits of the secondary effects of the regulation have not beenproperly weighed.I^For example outer space, global commons such as the atmosphere and deep seas.2^Policy focus on accommodating multiple, competing interests and values rather than on rationalcalculation.3Secondary effects are all those other than the effect intended. A policy or regulation has definedobjectives; primary effects are those directed towards the objectives, the rest are secondary. This distictiondoes not imply relative magnitude or importance. A secondary effect may be more far reaching and profoundthan the intended action, undermining the outcome or to the detriment of another sector (White andHamilton 1983,46-48). For example, a prohibition on alcohol leads to the secondary effect of widespreadillicit bootlegging and the entrenchment of organized crime. As a closer example, in responding to pollutioncontrol regulation industry may try to reduce wages to pay for compliance costs. More subtly, if stakeholdersare not happy with the process the government uses in establishing rules, then trust between the groups islost which can lead to a breakdown in co-operation. Secondary effects can have a profound impact on theconsequences of regulation.In traditional economic evaluations many secondary effects are seen as externalities, but still asimportant aspects to consider (Batimal and Oates 1988, Part I; Dixon 1989, 192-197). In North America,secondary effects must be considered in the regulatory process as per the explicit requirements of the ToxicSubstances Control Act in the United States (Brickman, Jasanoff and Ilgen 1985,34) and the CanadianGuiding Principles of Federal Regulatory Policy (discussed further in section 4.4.1).There is ample literatureon regulation, from choice of instrument, to processes to effectiveness (Nichols and Zechauser 1986, Krewskiand Birkwood 1987, Thompson 1980, Wilson 1980). Criticism of regulation effectiveness centers around thenecessity for adequate compliance procedures and monitoring (Doem 1990, Sinclair 1988). Nemetz et al.review toxic chemical regulation in Canada and conclude:Without adequate information, decisions concerning regulation will tend to be more a reflection ofthe political balance of power in Canada and of environmental regulation in the United States thanof the calculus of social costs and benefits....more complete information and an improved framework for decision-making can result in betterregulation (Nemetz et al. 1982,418-419).Beyond identifying this general need for better information, the literature does not substantially discuss howwell secondary effects are accounted for in Canadian regulatory processes. Since evaluation of this area isscant, I have chosen to focus on assessments of secondary impacts rather than on whether the regulationachieves the pollution control goal or the legitimacy of this goal. Better knowledge of how secondary effects4are considered in regulation could lead to better regulation which would be less likely to cause unforseen,detrimental secondary impacts. The key issues are:1) how are secondary effects analysed in the regulatory process?2) how well are the secondary effects analysed?To evaluate this aspect of the regulation process I first frame environmental regulation as aproblem to be solved with the following five steps:1) identify problem.2) gather information to generate possible solutions.3) analyze possible solutions and select optimum.4) implement chosen solution.5)^monitor, evaluate and repeat sequence as necessary.3(Huber 1980,13; Brewer and deLeon 1983,21)This process can be applied several times during the creation of regulation, for example as an issuearises and a decision is made that it requires government attention, as the policy instrument is chosen, as theregulation is written and as the operational details are set. The problem solving processes may be nested,depending upon the institutional arrangements. In this thesis I look at how the regulation is written.Appendix 1 elaborates on the steps as applied to writing environmental regulation.Although all steps are critical, this thesis focuses on step three4 to investigate how secondary effectsare considered. To create successful regulations the likely impacts of the rules should be assessed andanalyzed before laws are enacted. In our political system the final decision is made by politicians; thatmechanism is fixed. Rather than examine the political decision process, this thesis examines the precedinganalysis of solutions and how the analysis is presented to the decision makers. It is at this stage thatcomments are elicited from stakeholders and consequences are examined. The meta-level evaluation willaddress adequacy of the process of analysis and the depth of the analysis (does it reach secondary effects?)3^Step 5 is sometimes considered as two separate steps, dividing monitoring from evaluation andrecommendations.4^the analysis and choice of options, where an option is a regulatory proposal.5This study is a search for an effective format of ex ante impact assessment of environmental regulation. Theanalysis should be useful to decision makers and could be applicable to other policy instruments as well.Within the literature on regulation as environmental policy the following three comments areparticularly applicable to the analysis/choice step. Amy writes that literature discussing decision techniquesfor environmental policy addresses rational validity and philosophical bases but neglects politics (Amy 1990,60). This paper recognizes the importance of politics and argues for explicit acknowledgement of the politicalinfluence in environmental policy, but does not presume to critique the political system. Stack identifies twokeys to assessing impacts for social policy; know the desired outcome of the policy (from the problemidentification stage) and understand the impact of programs on individual and collective behaviour -"discussions of client outcome measurement are, in effect, discussions of program goals, social impact andprogram effectiveness" (Stack 1987; 146). Rees criticizes regulation of economic activity with three points:1) socio-economic consequences are neglected.2) political, legal, economic or administrative feasibility is ignored.3)^no provision made tor vagarious human response.(Rees 1988,172)This thesis investigates how or if these issues are addressed in the analysis/choice step of environmentalregulation.During analysis, environmental or resource management issues often explode into "wicked"problemsbecause of their characteristic web of interconnected effects (Mason and Mitroff 1981,9-13). Even if theeffects of an action can be predicted and modelled the merit of the those impacts must still be assessed. Thisthesis recognizes the limits of empirical evaluations. As stated by Wackernagel, "...value judgements are anintegral part of decision-making, and as values can never be entirely separated from facts, thinking tools mustassist in making these value judgements visible and the decision process transparent" (Wackernagel 1992,1).This thesis is a search for those decision tools.Since regulation is applied to environmental issues across many sectors it is necessary to select asample to study. The tOrest products industry is chosen because it is a mainstay of the local British Columbiaeconomy and is also an international player. Environmental regulation of the industry falls into two distinctcategories, harvesting and production. This thesis looks at the latter as regulation of effluent from pulp andpaper manufacturing. Effluent control alone is a broad topic, thus this study concerns exclusively regulation6of organochlorines (technical definitions are found in Section 4). The Conference Board of Canada examinedthe environmental impact of effluents from pulp mills using chlorine and concluded that "management of theeffluent issue is in breakdown" (Hull 1992,15) This study may reveal more precise reasons for themanagement breakdown.After the analysis of the case study's regulation proposals has been evaluated conclusions will besought and a proposal will be generated for an improved process using a systems analysis framework. Thisproposition will clarify impacts under multiple objectives.71.2^The Context of RegulationRegulation is an instrument chosen to meet the goals of a specific policy5 in an administrative law6system. In this case, the policy is protection of the environment via the polluter-pays-principle (PPP). ThePPP is an internationally recognized policy that the polluter should bear the cost of measures to reducepollution, as decided upon by public authorities, to ensure that the environment is maintained in an"acceptable state" (Opschoor and Vos 1989,27-28).This is a strategic policy statement; a mission statement rather than an directly actionableinstruction. Government policy can be represented in an administrative law hierarchy (Figure 1) with twotypes of policy at opposite ends of the spectrum of the meaning of policy. The two key elements in definingpolicy are purpose and action. Strategic policy is primarily statements of purpose, choosing instruments andinstitutions (Law Reform Commission 1986,77) while operational policy is primarily instruction for action inimplementation.Strategic policy is found in Memorandums to Cabinet and are implemented via the legislativepassage of a statute, which "is a law or enactment of a legislative authority, such as an Act of Parliament."While the Act generally contains the basic provisions of the law, the regulations spell out the administrativearrangements that are required to make the Act work" (Minister of Justice 1987,24 and 18). Operationalpolicies put the regulation into effect.By definition regulation is policy, yet it is also an instrument, a tool for accomplishing the policywhich generates the regulation. Each successive level in the hierarchy is an instrument for accomplishing thelevel above. When evaluation parameters are developed (Section 3) it is important to consider the position ofregulation in this legal policy hierarchy.5^Policy meaning a purposive course of action.6^Law governimg bureaucrats, tribunals and any authority with power derived from the state. (Blake 1992,4)8Figure 1Policy in Administrative Law HierarchyStrategic Policy*Enabling StatuteRegulationOperational PolicySource: the author.9With this introduction the thesis investigation is defined and put in context. Before any analysis theunderlying paradigms and assumptions must he recognized, thus Section 2 describes the philosophy of thisevaluation. Section 3 details the study methods and parameters. Background material on the pulp and paperindustry, production processes, organochlorides and regulatory processes are found in Section 4, with thechronology of the regulation process federally and in British Columbia presented in Section 5. A moreintensive look at how the stakeholders assessed the regulation is in Section 6, with discussion and conclusionsin Section 7. Recommendations are found in Section 8.10Section 2^PhilosophyIt is inevitable that the perspective of the writer influences the writing. In acknowledgement, thissection explicitly states the underlying values7 and beliefs that anchor this study. Although factualinformation may be truthful, the presentation of the facts (for example completeness, manner ofpresentation) reflects the philosophy of the author. A reporter can choose the scope of the investigation andthe way results will be measured, choices which reflect personal beliefs. Any explanation of the choices(answering "why did you do it that way?") leads ultimately to a value statement ("because I believe exposuresless than 20 units are insignificant.")For effective communication these underlying philosophies should beexplicit so that interpretation of the message is consistent both between recipients and with the source.Underlying values influence both the evaluations done in this thesis and the assessments which are thesubject of the thesis.By definition, philosophy is the knowledge of the most general causes and principles of things andideas and human perception (Oxford dictionary). The first three philosophies discussed here are intended torepresent desirable goals; first and foremost the functional goal of a systems perspective, which canaccommodate the two more philosophical goals of ecocentrism and practical sustainability. The finalsubsection is perspective of our social-political economy; the author's belief of the philosophy of the currentsystem.As echoed in later sections the importance of information such as this lies not only in its content butalso in the fact that it is recognized and its inherent significance credited. This belief is not only practised inthis thesis but is also a basis for the recommended systems framework of Section 8. As suggested by Keeney,"values should play a more central role in formalizing decision-making processes than is currently the case"(Keeney 1988a, 465).7^Subjective estimates of quality. (Pirsig 1991)119.1^A Systems ViewpointIn assembling this thesis I acknowledge the pragmatic viewpoint of my engineering background. Anengineer recognizes that problems in the real world cannot be reduced to accurate and sure values, yetproceeds nonetheless to build a solution. An engineer searches out or creates the best possible tools to use,evolving over history from archimedean principles of levers and pulleys through the fruitful enlightenmentperiod which yielded industrial science and its' mechanically powered machines to the late twentieth centuryelectronic age and its systems analysis framework. Throughout this history the social and cultural impacts ofthese technologies have rarely been considered during planning or implementation of the technologies, onlyreviewed after the constructions are in place. "Soft" effects (social, cultural) are studied as an observation anda record, perhaps to be included as a factor in the next evolution, only to be rendered less relevant by thechanging nature of the technology.But today citizens are demanding more. We have less leeway to sit back and observe; the pace ofchange is accelerating and the physical resources and space for experimentation are becoming smaller. Forbetter decisions it is time to use the most advanced tools of thought and technology which we have, tointegrate all effects and impacts of our projects into analysis at the planning stage instead of being satisfiedwith iterative trial and error. This systematic way of thought, which propagated largely through developmentof computer applications, may not yet be fully exploited in the creation of government regulation.Capra explains systems as:...integrated wholes whose properties cannot be reduced to those of smaller units....Systemic properties are destroyed when a system is dissected, either theoretically, orphysically, into isolated parts. Although we can discern individual parts in any system, theseparts are not isolated, and the nature of the whole is always different and more than thesum of the parts (Capra 1992).In a systems approach issues are taken in an interdependent context as both part of a greater whole andcontaining smaller parts. Muldoon (1990,147; writing for the Canadian Bar Association) recommends anecosystem approach to addressing toxic contamination; a transgeographic, transdisciplinary view which"recognizes the interactions between the ecological, social, economic and political systems within the region."12Using systems principles does not mean reducing issues to discrete binary analysis suitable for a computer.The computer is a tool we can use to help process the information we generate in the complexinterdependent networks characteristic of systems. Examples of the use of a systems approach in non-electronic applications are plentiful (Chambers 1973,Delp and Thesen 1977,Barlow 1992, Section III).I believe the systems approach is useful and different from reductionist approaches (treating issuesas discrete and quantifiable) which this research may find are in use currently. These ideas are furtherrefined in this study's criteria, discussed in Section 3.2.2^Anthropocentric versus Ecocentric ViewsOur capitalist system evolved from the belief that humans act for our own benefit in the principle ofenlightened self-interest. The system is sustainable because the capitalist is "led by an invisible hand topromote an end which was no part of his intention" (Smith 1982,429-430) that end being general socialwelfare. However, unrestricted capitalism did not generate utopia so governments regulate economic activity"to control and prevent the improper allocation of resources that may be caused by either excessive"destructive" competition or natural monopoly" (Doern 1979,164) for the collective benefit of citizens.These anthropocentric (human centred) principles make no mention of the physical world whichsustains human life. With today's science (ecology, toxicology, climatology etc.) we find that the physicalworld constrains our existence in ways not imagined during the evolution of our socio-political systems. Thesubject has been well addressed by numerous authors, (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1991; McKibben 1989; Trainer1985) and was first brought to widespread attention by the 1972 report of the Club of Rome, "Limits toGrowth" (Meadows et al. 1972). Since then a growing number of people have changed their outlook to puthumans as a less powerful subset of nature, which is dynamic but not infinitely resilient. Written two decadesago, Mumford's summary of the ecocentric perspective is clear and enduring:All thinking worthy of the name must now be ecological, in the sense of appreciating andutilizing organic complexity and in adapting every kind of change to the requirements not ofman [sic] alone, or of any single generation, but of all his organic partners and every part ofhis habitat (Mumford 1970,393).13Those who prefer an equal role for humans amid other creatures or even inanimate creations areseen as unrealistic by anthropocentrists who feel that we must recognize the superiority of humans. The moremoderate ecocentric position taken in this paper is to acknowledge our humanity, recognize the superiority ofhumans in many aspects, but to question the rights which run with human abilities. Intrinsic value is accordedto both the human and the non-human, in contrast to the dominant economic paradigm where non-humansare seen only as instruments for human satisfaction. It is more realistic to observe that nature continues tosurprise and baffle humans in spite of our attempts to manipulate it and that a reasoned as well as spiritualapproach is to humbly acknowledge our lack of exclusive power to attain our ambitions.Conservationists operate within the anthropocentric self-interest framework by reasoning thatuntouched nature is a renewable natural resource which is important because it can be competitiveeconomically with other forms of land use such as agriculture, industrial input or waste repository. TheUnited Nations provided this framework in 1962 by issuing a resolution that natural resources are of centralimportance to economic development and thus their conservation or restoration must be provided for(O'Riordan in Turner 1988,35). However this perspective still values nature for the benefit it provides tohumans, not for any independent value.The term anthropocentric can he used in an extreme manner to discount all other perspectives.From a Kantian perspective of idealism8 since we are human and can only have human cognition we mustby definition be anthropocentric (Daly and Cobb 1989,108). But the fact that humans cannot escape fromtheir own perceptions does not lead to a rejection of ecocentric principles. The idealism logic can becontinued; if humans are not satisfied that the ecosystem is healthy they require an ecocentric paradigm andimpose it with human (anthropocentric) choice and actions. An anthropocentric adoption of an ecocentricviewpoint can lead to practical sustainability. However, this has not been the dominant anthropocentricphilosophy. In this thesis it is the traditional, blatant human arrogance (Ehrenfeld 1978) which is identified asthe anthropocentric position and challenged where it affects environmental regulation.It should also he noted that an ecocentric view is a luxury of a secure group with basic physicalneeds assuredly met, in particular (but not exclusively) our western postmaterialist society (Inglehart 1981). Ifthe issue is of survival of an individual or group of humans then self-preservation should be assumed to8^The world is seen as a product of the human mind.14dominate over ecocentric altruism. Environmental martyrdom is not accepted as a viable policy outcome. Incontrast however, neo-malthusians would argue that a downturn is unavoidable, that massive reductions instandards in our advanced western society must happen in order to continue long term operation on theplanet (Trainer 1985,3: Meadows 1972). This paper accommodates part of their theory; moderate losses instandard of living will be accepted for the short term, large scale irrecoverable dislocations will not. This isimportant to this thesis because the process under review will not be bound by the assumption that it shallyield expansionary, growth promoting policy.In explaining the necessity for control of organochlorides anthropocentrists would say that thechemicals accumulate up the food chain until they may ultimately be hazardous to humans (Section 4).Ecocentrists agree to that plus, in addition, say that we must provide insurance for the possible disruption ofnature's balance even though the disturbance may not demonstratively affect human welfare. Bothanthropocentric and ecocentric viewpoints lead to the same conclusion; effluent must be modified. Yet themethods of reaching the state of control and the stringency of the controls may be influenced by thisfundamental initial position. No one viewpoint is correct. In this paper both positions will be addressed byidentifying the positions as their effects appear. An ecocentric viewpoint introduces more considerations tothe already complicated analysis and possibly changes the basis of decision-making. Merkoffer (1987, 184-185) summarizes criticism which says that formal decision-making approaches promote anthropocentric valuesystems. He concludes that "anthropocentricity has been associated with analysis... because the clarity thatformal logic casts on decision making tends to highlight the difficulty of our social decisions and ourfundamental limitations on decision makers."2.3^Practical SustainabilityA key word in policy today is sustainability. The term was popularized by the BrundtlandCommission, which said that to make development sustainable we must "ensure that it meets the needs ofthe present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WorldCorrunission on Environment and Development 1987,8). From this resounding fundamental statement apredictable controversy has ensued over how to bring such a principle into action.Costanza discusses sustainability as:15Sustainability is a relationship between dynamic human economic systems and larger dynamic, butnormally slower-changing ecological systems, in which 1) human life can continue indefinitely, 2)human individuals can flourish and 3) human cultures can develop; but in which effects of humanactivities remain within bounds, so as not to destroy diversity, complexity, and function of theecological support system (Costanza 1991; 8).His remarks are anthropocentric, but express key ideas of long term balance in environmental, economic andsocial areas.Combining sustainability with growth can be considered an oxymoron since growth in consumption(as we know it today) required, by industry is incompatible with long term sustainability (Daly 1991, ICnelman1978,32). Even the milder term 'sustainable development' is subject to the same criticism if development isconsidered as the continuing expansion of urban building zones into areas of life-supporting ecosystems (thefamiliar analogies of Fraser Valley farmland and Brazilian rainforest). Academic positions can be found tosupport and decry both compound concepts. As an example of a stance opposite to that of this thesis, Turnerstates that "The sustainable growth mode does not have to be abandoned in favour of any of the variants ofsustainable development policy" (Turner 1988,23). I find that traditional ideas of economic growth aredifficult to reconcile with sustainability so in this thesis sustainability is guarded as a discrete noun, not to berendered an adjective modifying either 'growth' or 'development'.However, by omitting the controversial object nouns from the base philosophy this paper does notexclude them. The fundamental creed of this thesis is pragmatism; the goal of sustainability must be met viawhatever means is appropriate (even if that means temporary diversions in other directions). It is farcical toinsist that an industry which is intrinsically non-sustainable or polluting desist immediately if it is thebackbone of a society or community. Although the long term goal of sustainability would be nominally inprocess, the subsequent social disruption and dissatisfaction would make the policy impossible to continue, anon-sustainable sustainability policy. Future schemes would be even more difficult to initiate once an initial,overblown sustainability policy had failed.In practice the sustainability philosophy is seen in the emergence of New Forestry which sees timberproduction as a by-product of forest management's primary function; sustaining biological diversity andmaintaining long-term ecosystem health. Here the conventionally unseen foundation of the ecosystem is16brought out into the open. Human enterprise is dependent upon and thus secondary to maintenance of thenatural sustaining system.Sustainability is part of the criteria for evaluating regulation assessments (Section 3) and is a basisfor a recommended systems analysis framework (Section 8).9.4^Socio-political EconomyThe following political philosophies are the basis of this thesis's interpretation of the actions ofstakeholders in regulating the environment.The values discussed above are newly emerging from the existing global society which is viewed hereas a blend of Machiavellian system of power politics and a rationalist, Grotian world of reasoned legalitybased on good faith (Wright 1991). The author sees Canadian politics as fundamentally elitist, dominated bycapitalist industry; tempered by pluralist influences of organized groups speaking on specific issues such ashealth care or pollution.Canada, and particularly British Columbia, has operated under a system of bipartite bargaining withindustry but since 1988 has been moving toward a more consultative or at least multipartite bargainingapproach (Hoberg 1992; Harrison 1991a). This is consistent with the growth of public participation indecision making directly via hearings, open houses and referenda as well as indirectly via interest groupparticipation in round tables or other forums. The public is more than a market expressing views throughconsumption; it is a more complex polis, a community with public interest operating co-operatively as well ascompetitively, interpreting incomplete information with passion and loyalty as well as rules (Stone 1988,23-25).In this thesis regulations are seen as the outcomes of policy which is in turn derived from political oreconomic demands. Although not state controlled in the Soviet sense our market system is continuallytweaked and propelled by the government. Particularly in environmental issues affecting industry it is thestate rather than industry itself, institutions or individuals (and their groups) which is the central playercontrolling outcomes. Within the state political motives may be internal, arising from within the politicalinstitutions themselves (re-election, individuals or bureaucratic divisions striving for relative power, prestige inlarger communities outside of electoral jurisdiction) and external social issues of driven to prominence by17some sector of the public, from the public at large or vested interest groups.^Economic motives maybe viewed in terms of varying scale, from national to local goals. Science is a tool whose role is defined bythe political system (Lovins 1977,941) which is used to clarify the issues, to define alternatives and optionsfor action.In this section the values which underlie and affect the author's analysis are discussed so that readerscan understand and interpret the writings as intended by the author. Similarly, the process of assessingregulatory proposals should clarify values in the belief that better understanding yields better decisions, betterregulations. In summary, this author believes that a systems approach can help us attain sustainability froman ecocentric perspective in our evolving society.18Section 3^Methods and ParametersWith the framework of values outlined above this section describes how the study is performed andwhat standards are to be applied to the evaluation.3.1^Case Study FormatThe form of the research is defined by the situation. First, there is no means of controlling events toconstruct an experiment. Second, pollution control regulation is recent therefore historical analysis would beminimal. The basic question of the investigation is a 'how' (-do we assess regulation) which suggests a casestudy format (Yin 1989). The hypothesis is that systems analysis could provide a better way. Afterinvestigating what actually occurred in the case of regulation of organochlorides a proposal is presented for amultiobjective framework to be used for assessing regulatory proposals (Section 8).The topic of the case study in this thesis is assessment the secondary effects of proposed regulationof organochlorines in British Columbia's pulp and paper industry. Initially it is a holistic evaluation, dividedinto investigations of the assessments done by each stakeholder: the federal government; the provincialgovernment; industry; labour and the environmental lobby. Each of these may also be considered anembedded, distinct study of its own.The assessments are evaluated against a set of parameters and compared with each other (Section7). Conclusions drawn are used to recommend improvements to the assessment of environmental regulatoryproposals.3.2^Evaluation ParametersThis subsection describes the choice of parameters (areas of interest) used to evaluate theassessments. The term "parameter" is used in the meta-level evaluation and the term "factor" is applied to theunderlying assessments. From parameters, rulings on acceptability are made by applying criteria (the levelrequired in a parameter or it's representative indicator). The purpose of this thesis at the meta-level is tofind out how stakeholders assess secondary impacts of regulatory proposals and to suggest improvements to19the process. Thus this study looks first for consideration of the parameters in some form, then comparestreatment of parameters across analysis by different stakeholders. Minimum criteria are: a logical andcomplete consideration of the parameter. Further definition is not practical since depth of analysis by thestakeholders is limited by the resources available. Treatment of a factor does not have to be rigorous,although statements must be correct to the accuracy and precision possible.Parameters for evaluating assessments of regulation can be drawn from several fields, moving fromthe general to the specific. As discussed in Section 1, regulation is a form of policy therefore policy analysisprinciples (general in nature) apply (Weimer and Vining 1992, Brewer and deLeon 1983). Cost-benefitanalysis is an extremely popular policy analysis tool, a standard by which all other analysis are judged.However its popularity does not guarantee its value. Numerous authors have criticized its basis andapplication. (Rees 1991, Copp 1985, Kelman 1982). Organochlorine control is a question of risk management,and can also be assessed with risk assessment theory (Fischhoff et al. 1981, Slovic 1986). Risk analysis mostdirectly considers human vagaries by recognizing that predictions can only be probabilistic. More particularly,because the regulation deals with an environmental issue the field of environmental impact assessment (EIA)should be considered (Beanlands and Duinker 1983, Slocombe 1984). There is overlap between the fieldswhich means that parameters cannot be identified as originating solely from one area.EIA is conventionally applied to geographically discrete projects. Its methods can be costly and toocomplex to apply to national policy addressing entire sectors. However, I have turned to EIA for ways toembody new values of sustainability, ecocentrism and holistic thinking (as discussed in Section 2) which arenot strongly represented in conventional cost-benefit analysis. EIA has developed rapidly since it wasmandated and formalized in the United States with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and inCanada with federal Environmental Assessment and Review Procedures established in 1974. These EIAs nowencompass not only ecological but also social impact assessments (SIAs) which are used along with economicanalysis in project planning and approval.To find parameters suitable for the evaluation we ask "What should be investigated about analysis ofenvironmental regulatory proposals'?" In response consider the six basic investigative questions:WHO participates in the regulation's analysis?WHAT is the content of the analysis'?20WHERE, what forum is appropriate?WHEN, what schedule is required'?WHY, what will the analysis be used for?HOW, what framework and limitations are applied?These categorical questions should he considered as helpful guides rather than comprehensive ormutually exclusive requirements. Applying a systems viewpoint, the final analysis must consider linkagesbetween the questions and their relative position within the greater system such as the legal policy hierarchyof Figure 1.From these six questions the evaluation is separated into two parts which reflect the two key issuesof "how"and "how well secondary effects are assessed (section 1.1). The corresponding two sections are,respectively: a critique of the analysis process and a critique of the contents of the analysis. An assessment ofenvironmental regulation should meet the following process parameters:1) cost effectiveness - the study must be affordable. (HOW)2) viable time allocation and scheduling. (WHEN)3) appropriate resources available - tools, information and skilled people. (WHO, HOW)4) well defined terms of reference bounding the evaluation - including detailed scope andwhether quantitative or qualitative analysis is required. (HOW, WHAT)5) standard format so that studies may be compared. (HOW)6) usefulness in decision making - the evaluation must have the support of the organizationsponsoring the evaluation. (WHY)The terms of reference are closely related to the content requirements (following), yet fall intoprocess parameters because they encompass a fundamental process decision of what is acceptable precisionand accuracy. There is a growing recognition of the need and merit of qualitative evaluation in addition to(or in lieu of) reductionist cost-benefit analysis (Rees 1991).The terms of reference define the depth of study. Should the impact analysis consider the impact ofthe impacts? For example, if a courageously released prognosis forecasts job losses should the analysis askhow severe are the job losses? It is reasonable in today's economy to assume that any job lost is anirreplaceable, nonsubstitutable position with impacts on the community. However, marginal effects can be91important, for example a closure resulting in a one percent increase in unemployment in a communityalready bearing twenty percent unemployment is more severe to the society than a one percent increase fromsix to seven percent unemployment. In the latter, healthier economy, more contributions accrue to bothpublic and private agencies to support social services and income relief to those thrown out of work. Analysismust be placed in a defined context. The assessment is more useful when it includes sensitivity analysis tovariations in context.The content of the assessment is evaluated in three fundamental sectors: economic, environmentaland social. Environmental (physical) factors are divided into realms of earth, air and water and include thephysical qualities of life sustained there. Although the nominal, primary target of the regulation of this casestudy is the water, the impacts on the atmosphere and the land should also be assessed. This thesis focusseson the economic and social sectors because they should cover most secondary effects of pulp and papereffluent regulation. Usually, the basic economic factor is output, as affected by competitiveness, productivityand finance which each may be influenced by the regulation. Social impacts relate to community andindividual wellbeing and are normally examined via social structures and services.9 These categories arechosen because they are the basis of British Columbia's sustainability strategies (B.C. Round Table 1992).They are formally used as a basis for an integrative approach to project appraisal by Nijkamp (1980).Indicators for these parameters will vary with the application.Economic evaluation (particularly cost-benefit analysis) is sophisticated and ubiquitous althoughconventional techniques are anthropocentric, considering utility but not intrinsic values. Ecocentricevaluations are evolving as alternative economic indicators such as carrying capacity are quantified, but thesetools are not yet in common use.All sectors should be assessed in terms of sustainability, via indicators suitable for the particularsituation (B.C. Round Table 1992,124-127). A key component of sustainability which is particularlyimportant to impact assessment is resiliency, the ability to adapt or recover from change. In sustainabilitytheory, a proposal should be discarded if it leads to unrecoverable conditions, whether on a local, regional ornational scale. Changes are unacceptable if they result in severe losses that cannot be remediatexl by otherindustries or government action, or subsequent regrowth over time. Thus, assessments must evaluate9^Some common social factors are equity, identity, power and resilience.99resiliency; acceptable projects must have resilience for adaptive recovery. Such a criteria is not new,American economist Ciriacy-Wantrtip advocated establishing safe minimum standards at a level belowanalytical optimum to allow a buffer, room for error to guard against "a decrease of flexibility in thecontinuing development of a society" (Ciriacy-Wantrup 1963). Wildavsky argues for resilience as a basis forhealth and safety regulation in the sense that a resilient system can bear risks, and does not requireanticipatory, risk-averse controls (Wildavsky 1988,107-109).The three sectors are not distinct and should be seen as a network of changing and unequalconnections rather than as an equilateral triad. The physical sector is the supply source for both social andeconomic sectors. Equity and cultural values link our social and economic sectors. This systems perspectiveleads to the choice of the following content parameters to reveal how stakeholders assess secondary effects ofthe regulatory proposal:1) choice of factors, indicators, variables and modelsl° to represent economic, environmentaland social sectors.2) factors by scale: geographic and temporal.3) causal linkages.4) factors by degree of effect - impact.5) factors by likelihood of effect - risk.6) sensitivity analysis applied to all factors; human, environmental and economic.7) analysis of significance of impacts.8) recommendations for impact management (Halstead et al. 1984).9) limitations of study, including sources of uncertainty.10) correspondence between predicted impacts and desired goals, of the regulation as well astacit or secondary goals of the organization.The process and content parameters of this study are summarized in Figure 2. They are used toevaluate the stakeholders' assessments in Section 7. The fundamental choice of what is considered in the1 0 indicator = observable trait representing a factor.variable =- element not directly affected by proposal which directly affects a factor.model = bounded representation of behaviour.23assessment (the factors) reveals how far the stakeholder looks beyond the nominal pollution control goalsand effects. The evaluation of this thesis will look for what factors are chosen, their definition and scope.I look for assessments that consider factors not only on the immediate scale of pollution control at apulp mill, but also of possible ramifications into larger scales, even to international effects. The assessmentshould balance the value versus the accuracy of predictions of effects over time.Causal linkages are pathways for effects. For example, there may be several ways effluent controlscould influence employment in the pulp industry, (effluent controls cost money; corporations hire fewer staffand spend salary dollars on compliance, or corporations raise price of product, lose sales, reduce staff). It isimportant to know the path as well as the projected effect of reduced employment so that roles of externalvariables (such as the market price of the product) are identified. Recognition of causal links is key toembracing a systems viewpoint of integrated behaviour which is an important focus of this thesis.Parameters four through eight are basic to assessments. Any proposal analysis should ask "what willhappen" (impact), "how likely is this" (risk), "what if other variables change" (sensitivity), "is this important"(significance). The American Society for Testing of Material, a widely respected standard settingorganization, uses these questions in developing their standards. 11 Although not a requirement of anassessment of a regulation, it is useful to go beyond description of effects and suggest ways of managing theimpacts. Projected mitigation costs should he part of the total cost of the proposal.These ten parameters, over the three sectors, provide an inclusive and integrated coverage of theelements Clawson considers necessary for a basis for decision making in natural resource policy (Clawson1980). The last two parameters are common to all evaluations of studies. An assessment study should identifyits limitations, sources of error and uncertainty. The assessment should compare the consequences and thegoals of the regulation. This parameter checks the final "so what?"; does the assessment do what it issupposed to? This includes the question of whether the assessment checks that the regulation is practical; canit really be implemented?It is important that all of these parameters are present in an evaluation, but their relative importancedepends upon the situation. For example, if the impacts are small, the risk and impact management is lessimportant. This context sensitivity means that it is difficult to assign absolute criteria to each parameter. AsAuthor sat on various sub-committees of ASTM Committee E5, Fire Safety, 1989-1991.94previously discussed in this section, each parameter should be addressed in some fashion, logically andcompletely depending upon the context and limitations of the writers. It would be possible to impose a valuescheme and judge the merit of the assessments particular to this case study of organochlorine regulation butthe purpose of this thesis is to use the case study as an example of the regulatory process rather than tocritique the assessments. There are three possible degrees of evaluation of the parameters (Section 7):1) not present.2) present but not logical and complete.3)^sufficient.Evaluating the logic of an argument can be difficult, but basic requirements are factual and numericalcorrectness, backed up where necessary with scientific references. There are no established rules for definingwhat is complete and sufficient because the limits depend on the situation. Availablity of resources candetermine how complete is complete enough. For this case study the criteria is "is the parameter sufficientlydescribed to provide the basis for a decision?" Where several assessments are sufficient in a parameter theyare compared for effectiveness.95Figure 2^Parameters for Assessment EvaluationProcess^ Content- cost choice of factors,- time and scheduling^ indicators,variables and models- resources^ scale of factors- format causal linkages- usefulness^ impactterms of reference^ - risk- sensitivity- significance- impact management- limitations and uncertaintygoal achievement environmenteconomysocial263.2.1^Scope: bounding parameters and factorsThe lists of parameters are demanding; it could be impossible to address them all comprehensivelywith limited resources. In the thesis evaluation we seek analysis which clearly show a range of choices andconsequences. A more comprehensive policy description provides a better base for striking informed yetsubjective policy positions. Some parameters are a part of any project and have clear limits, such asscheduling; deadlines are either met or not met. However other parameters may not be so clearly defined.The evaluation looks for explicit explanations for bounds of the parameters, for example "due to a lack ofinternational market data and international assessment must be deferred." If an aspect of analysis is omittedit is valuable to at least recognize that it was considered and would be desirable.Likewise, the assessment can be bounded to a reasonable size by generalizing into fewer factors andvariables or by using simplified models. Defending complex models is difficult since they often rely onassumptions of static exogenous conditions, assumptions which are often violated in real world applications.However it is important to keep a comprehensive scale both geographicaly and temporally, across all threesectors (environment, economy and social) (Sims and Smith 1983,82-83). Factors should be assessed onseveral levels from local to regional, provincial, national and international. Long term analysis, although lessaccurate than short term, should not be neglected.3.3^GoalsThe most important function of an assessment of a regulation is to compare impacts and goals.Normally a proposed regulation is assessed only in terms of the nominal, substantive objective of theregulation. For most pollution control legislation this is a statement of purpose such as "to control asubstance which we believe to be toxic".Even this statement may be difficult to uncover since legislationnormally does not contain statements of purpose. For this case study it is assumed that the regulation and itsimplementation program successfully controls organochlorines (dioxins and furans or AOX) because thefocus of this study is on the assessment of higher order effects.However the regulation is established by a body which has other goals as well. There may be severallayers of meta-purposes which are not explicitly included with the regulation yet have a powerful impact. Inconventional policy analysis these may be considered the instrumental values in contrast to the substantive(Weimer and Vining 1992,98-104). Recognition of multiple missions is increasing and has lead to morecomprehensive assessments of both projects and regulation.I2 It is necessary to understand the nominalgoal of the regulation within the hierarchy of the organization's goals, for example, a department goal withinministry goal within government goal.Table 1 shows a representation of the hierarchical structure of purposes of the federal governmentdepartment responsible for producing organochloride legislation. The purposes of each level in theorganization (should) encompass those of the levels below. Ultimately we reach the goal of the federalgovernment itself, which is a slippery topic. Political scientists have differing views of the role of the state;this thesis takes the position that at a minimum, all states face the need to secure domestic order, tocompete both strategically and economically in a hostile world, and to extract the finance for these activities"(Skocpol 1979). In the practical context of environmental protection the legal doctrine of peace, order andgood government (POGG) applies as the fundamental role (Fairley 1990,57; Vanderzwaag and Duncan1992,7-8).In addition to a hierarchy of goals of an organization, an analyst should consider tacit as well asnominal goals. Most groups have a nominal goal to produce an output but also a latent goal to preserve andenhance the organization. Thus the goal structure is three dimensional and may be pictured as a horizontalrange of nominal goals at each level, vertical stacks of goals corresponding to hierarchy, and tacit goalsbehind the pyramid. Latent or tacit goals often deal with power and relationships with parallel organizations.Individual cases generate tacit goals; perhaps a first case will be used as a role model, a final project as aprogram conclusion. External factors can create tacit goals. For example, race riots instigate more attentionto social equity issues; an upcoming international forum calls for a comparison to ISO standards.In explicitly addressing tacit political goals there is a danger that objectivity required for assessing scientificgoals may be corrupted. It is important to recognize the tacit goals as separate from nominal objectives.12 viz existence of the federal Environmental Assessment Review Process and Ministry of theEnvironment's Regulatory and Economic Affairs division.28Table 1Federal Hierarchy of PurposesLevel Purpose IndicatorFederal government Peace, order and goodgovernment.t - stay in powert - international^powercivil unrestvotesunique programsEnvironment Canada safeguard environmentt - garner resources and profilescientific quality standardsbudget & cabinet statusConservation and ProtectionBranchmonitor and controlt - resources and profilereports, convictionsbudgetRegulatory & Economic AffairsDivisioncreate regulationt - powerregulationsaccess to decision makersNote: t = tacit purpose29If tacit goals are not considered then policy choices (and their instruments such as regulation) mayseem contradictory. There are several ways in which the system of goals may be in conflict, which leads toineffective policy and action. Perhaps the nominal and tacit goals are themselves contradictory. Perhaps goalsare not consistent within the hierarchy of an organization. Downs identified four reasons for goal variance ina bureaucracy: "differential self-interest, differential modes of perceiving reality, differential information, anduncertainty" (Downs 1967, 134). A successful organization should be free from avoidable inconsistencies butconsistency should not be assumed.Moving outwards, a valuable assessment should not only consider whether the proposal meets thegoals of the sponsoring organization, but whether it also satisfies the needs of other players who have powerto affect outcomes. Harmon calls this a teleological outlook where meanings, values and attitudes of theactors involved are of central importance (Harmon 1983, 27).For a successful assessment the complete hierarchy of goals of all of the players must be set out. Itmay be impossible to satisfy all of the goals, but by identifying them it will be possible to predict pitfalls andconflicts. Once the goals are identified representative indicators are found which are in turn used as criteriato assess the proposal. The resulting list of criteria may be too vast in scope to be accommodated in onesingle study but must be accomplished as an end result, perhaps as a combination of several studies.3.4^ScienceA basic requirement for any evaluation or assessment is sound science, which appears on two levels.First, the proposed control scheme must be rigorous and technically valid. Sometimes the impactassessment may expose scientific (or other) weaknesses in the proposal which lead to its rejection (StandingCommittee on Finance 1993,51). However, it is all to easy to assume that the scientific foundation is solidand to proceed with comprehensive impact analysis, then effective implementation and monitoring which arefutilely applied to a false premise. Regulatory procedures should only proceed after science has located the30cause of the hazard, assessed its risk and identified a solution13 (Baram 1982,202). Often such decisionsare a question of what is acceptable certainty and acceptable risk.Second, the science of the assessment itself should be sound. Technical analysis is a part of all threecontent sectors, from economic analysis to environmental to sociological studies. Risk assessments on anyfactor must be scientifically defensible.This section has described the research methods of this thesis and the parameters to be used inevaluating research results. The parameters are divided into process and content lists with defined scopes.Appendix 2 lists the resulting research questions which were used in interviews with stakeholders whoassessed proposed organochlorine regulations. A key to assessments is the recognition of multiple goals andthe quality of the science applied.13 Emergencies may he a valid exception, although other instruments are normally applied.31Section 4^BackgroundTo explain the issues involved in the regulation of organochlorines four background discussions areprovided, describing organochlorines, pulp and paper manufacturing, the industry, and regulatory processes.4. 1^OrganochlorinesThe following layman's description of the chemical is adopted from Luken (1990) and Kroesa (1990).Organoehlorines are chemical substances made up of chlorine bound with other organic" compounds.Within this group scientists have found two families of chemical, dioxins (chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin) andfurans (chlorinated dibenzo-furans) which include an extremely toxic dioxin which is abbreviated as 2378-TCDD and the less but still toxic furan 2378-TCDF. Although there are 75 different dioxins and 135 furansidentified, these two compounds are the ones referred to in pulp and paper pollution control regulation. Inthis paper dioxin, singular, shall refer to 2379-TCDD and fttran, singular, shall refer to 2378-TCDF (Luken1990: Kroesa 1990; CEPA 1990).Dioxin was first identified in 1957 as a byproduct of herbicide production, and is most famous as theactive ingredient in the herbicide, Agent Orange (Vietnam War). It is also formed during combustion ofcertain wastes (Owusu-Gyima and Roy 1991). In 1980 the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA), studying pesticides, concluded that dioxin was a uniquely synthetic compound (USEPA 1980, 5),thus there could be no dioxin in unpolluted areas. However, Dow Chemical responded that dioxin is aubiquitous byproduct of municipal combustion and thus is widespread in the background environment (VonStnim and Merell 1987,111-14-16). To investigate these issues the USEPA ran a national dioxin study in1985. Some samples from sites chosen to represent natural background levels showed high levels of dioxin.The problem sites were downstream of pulp mills in both Wisconsin and Maine and the link to Kraft millprocesses was firmly established. In 1985 the USEPA established a policy that there is no safe level of dioxin(USEPA 1985). Substantial scientific investigation of pulp mill pollution and organochlorines was also underway in Scandinavia during the 1980s (Colodey 1988).I 4 in chemistry terminology organic means containing carbon.Measurement of toxic compounds in pulp and paper mill effluent is controversial. Scientists canisolate and identify dioxin and ftiran in effluent from chlorine process pulp mills, although there may beother, as yet unidentified, hazardous compounds in effluent as well. Of the organochlorines in effluent lessthan one ten-millionth are dioxin, typically in concentrations of parts per trillion (10-12). However once theorganochloride group of compounds has been identified as a concern, there are several possible surrogatemeasurements. Canada uses Adsorbable Organic Halogen (AOX), Scandinavia uses Total Organic Chlorine(TOCL) and the USEPA measures Total Organic Halides, TOX,15 (CEPA 1991). The TOX and AOXmethods are similar and based on the idea that since chlorine is the only halogen16 in mill wastes the test isan accurate representation of organochlorines. AOX measures the total amount of chlorine associated withorganic compounds in effluent. One of the technical problems with the proposed dioxin and furan regulationwas the lack of a standard measurement method at the time the regulation proposals were presented forpublic review.There are many differences of opinion on the relative toxicity of organochlorines (Harrison 1991b,Owilsti-Gyima and Roy 1991, EPA 1990, Schweer and Jennings 1990). Toxicity depends upon persistence,and these compounds have been found to bio-accumulate through the food chain (Dioxins in Canada 1983)reaching humans as we consume fish or shellfish. Although laboratory testing of animals implicates dioxin ina range of severe health disorders, links to human disease are controversial (Sullivan 1988). Evidence ofhazards of other organochlorines is not clear.More recently, in December 1992 the Globe and Mail reported that scientists at Canada's NationalWater Research Institute found that no correlation exists between AOX and fish abnormalities. "Laboratorytests produced liver and hormone effects in fish swimming in tanks of effluent from both bleaching and non-bleaching mills. But fish injected with AOX showed no effects" (Williamson, 1992). Shortly afterwardEnvironment Canada released the report which said:The physiological disruptions in fish near pulp mills are associated with significant effects on theirreproductive development.... These effects are present at very low effluent concentrations (<1%), arenot removed during normal secondary treatment of effluent, and existing effluent toxicity tests can15 American Public Health Association Test Method 506.1985.16 Halogens are members of a group of elements which combine with a metallic element to form a halide.33not predict whether or not they will be seen in wild fish. These effects do not correlate with AOX orlevels of dioxins and furans, and represent a previously unidentified category of impact, distinct fromthe issue of chlorine use and the potential discharge of persistent, bioaccumulating toxic substances.However, the effects are transient and reversible,. ..(Carey et al. 1993,9-10)Some people feel that definitive scientific proof of hazard to humans or the environment is notrequired; the apparent risk warrants mitigation. All agree that it is a public concern.4.2^Pulp and PaperThe manufacture of pulp and paper is a sophisticated process with many variations. The technicalintricacies are too complex to present here, yet a basic understanding of the processes is necessary for ameaningful discussion of the pollution control issues.Paper is manufactured by breaking down wood chips into pulp, which is washed, refined, pressedinto sheets and dried. Chemicals may be applied at the breakdown pulping stage, and (or only, or not at all)at the refining, bleaching stage. Many production facilities in Canada produce only dried pulp, which isshipped to other centres for manufacture into paper. Pulp (and thus paper) production is characterized bythe process used to render the wood chips into pulp. The methods, in order of historical appearance, aresummarized in Table 2.Most fine white paper with high brightness is produced by bleaching in the Kraft process. To reducerelease of organochlorines, manufacturers may:install an additional pre-bleaching process, oxygen delignification.substitute other bleaching agents such as chlorine dioxide or hydrogen peroxide .install secondary treatment.eliminate bleaching - accept a darker product or use an alternative process.(CPPA 1989, Owusu-Gyima and Roy 1991).34Table 2^Types of Pulp and Paper ProductionType Process CharacteristicsGroundwood mechanical grinding weakest paperChemical sulphitesulphuric acidweak.sulphate (Kraft)caustic sodastrong, dark; bleached with Clor 00,Chemi-thermo-mechanical(CTMP)sulphur solvent soak + steaming+ grindingmedium strength, brightness(Kroesa 1990; Bonsor, McCuhhin, Sprague 1988)35Traditionally, hydrogen peroxide is used to brighten mechanical pulp and chlorine is used onchemical process pulps. New processes such as high pressure, explosive pulping or alcohol-based solvopulpingmay be feasible alternatives for certain timber supply areas and market types (Kroesa 1990).It is not necessary to eliminate chlorine to eliminate dioxins and furans, since they are produced atthe end of a series of chemical reactions which consume chlorine. When chlorine is scarce it is used up inprecursor reactions which form other compounds. This is why dioxins and furans can be reduced tonondetectable levels by substituting chlorine dioxide or hydrogen peroxide for elemental chlorine in thebleaching process. Oxygen delignification reduces the need for all types of bleaching, thus reduces the use ofchlorine and the likehhod of having enough chlorine to feed a reaction which creates dioxins or furans. It isgenerally a more expensive process to install, but reduces ongoing bleaching costs.AOX is reduced when measures are taken to eliminate dioxins and furans. Further reductions areobtained with the secondary treatment now required under the federal Fisheries Act, which regulates via theconventional pollution indicators: biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS) andtoxicity. Secondary treatment reduces organochlorines by providing a pond in which contaminants either reactto form less hazardous compounds or settle and are removed from the liquid (yet still require disposal).Some mills can achieve 1.5 kg/ADt AOX with secondary treatment and maximum chlorine bleachsubstitution.I7 The type of secondary treatment influences the amount of AOX reduction which is attained;large ponds with high retention times found in B.C.'s interior mills can meet standards of 1.5 kg/ADt butcoastal mills with smaller, high rate, activated sludge systems can require oxygen delignification as well(Jordan 1993). Thus the cost of compliance with AOX regulation is variable, and overlaps with the cost ofcomplying with federal regulations for both conventional pollution indicators and dioxin/furans.17 As long as average emissions are measured, not peak values.364.3^The IndustryThe section describes the pulp and paper industry from 1898-1992,when the regulations were beingwritten. Data for this section was obtained (except where noted) from Statistics Canada and Forestry Canadadirectly or as quoted by the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia (COFI) or the Canadian Pulpand Paper Association (CPPA 1991).The forestry sector is a mainstay of both Canada and British Columbia's economy. Even in 1991,during a downturn, the pulp and paper industry contributed +$13.3billion to our national trade balance, with75% of mill output going to export markets.There are 82 firms in Canada's pulp and paper industry, which operate 145 mills, of which 43 usesome form of chlorine bleaching in the Kraft process (Hull 1992, 5). Although employment provided by theforest industries is declining, pulp and paper mills and their related logging operations provided 179,000jobsin 1991, which form a mainstay of approximately 300 communities. As of 1985, mills more than 44 years oldcomprised the following proportion of plant facilities: in Ontario 86%, in Quebec 75%, in the Atlanticprovinces 58% and in western Canada 25%. Older facilities generally require more investment in pollutioncontrol to meet standards. This distinction was important in British Columbia because older mills are foundat the coast, newer mills in the interior, with a resulting regional disparity in compliance costs.Media have publicized the cost of meeting environmental regulations: Noranda Forest Products wasreported to have spent $330 million over ten years to start up their chlorine free pulp facility in BathurstN.B. Yet by 1990 the industry as a whole was facing a decline with a possible job loss of twenty percent(Thompson, 1992). Sinclair, of Environment Canada, writes that "Canadian pulp and paper manufacturers arenot economically fragile" (Sinclair 1991,95) but recognizes that companies may not be able to adoptenvironmental safeguards during every phase of the business cycle. A trough in the pulp and paper businesscycle has hit the industry at the same time as organochlorine regulations were imposed. Figures 3 and 4 showfinancial positions of the industry and related economic factors.PULP MARKETWorld capacity for market pulpmanufacture, million tonnes33Capacity27'88^'89^'90^'91^'92Data: Canadian Pulp and Paper Assoc.January price for market pulp$U.S. a tonne700600500400 ,^,'89^'90^'91^'92^'93Data: The Bank of Nova Scotia900800Price323130292837Figure 3^Global Pulp MarketSource: The Globe and Mail, February 15, 1993.B1.Wood PulpCash Flow and Capital Expenditures($ millions)II Cash Flow w Capital Expenditures38Figure 4^Canadian Pulp IndustryWood PulpSales and Net Earnings($ per tonneSource: Price Waterhouse39Greenpeace sponsored a socio-economic analysis of the forest products industry "to bring to light thereal economic performance of the largest publicly-owned Canadian pulp and paper corporations during thelast eleven years, namely from 1981 to 1991 inclusively"(Lauzon 1992,1-24) in response to a CPPA financialstudy of the industry (CPPA 1992). The intlammatory18 Lauzon paper charges that the industry had itselfto blame for its fiscal downturn and have no grounds for requesting government aid, since firms paiddividends instead of investing in plant modernization. This affects environmental care since modern processesare generally cleaner, and state of the art plants require less investment to reach compliance withenvironmental regulations. Figure 5 shows dividend payments for the fifteen largest pulp and papercompanies and the concurrent revenues. Although dividends do not drop with losses this is standardcorporate management which provides stable income to shareholders and thus relatively stable share priceswhich in turn support the continuing value of the firm and its debt rating. The figure shows the sameprinciple applied during the recession (albeit less severe) of the early 1980s. The image of the greedycapitalist elite extracting value from the firm is not valid with today's widespread institutional investment incorporations. For example, MacMillan Bloedel has no control block shareholders, and no individualshareholders with greater than five percent of the total outstanding shares (Moinett 1993).18 "Even in 1990 and 1991...theystill continued to merrily pay dividends. Either management were totallyirresponsible or else they knew pertinently that the crisis was only temporary." pg. 24.40Figure 5Dividends, Earnings and Spendingfor fifteen largest pulp and paper corporations1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991•^ Dividends (common + preferred) ^Net Earnings__A^ Capital ExpendituresSource: Lauzon 1992414.4^Regulatory Processes4.4.1^FederalFederal regulation is made pursuant to an Act of Parliament. There is a standard federal regulatoryprocess (Appendix 3) which was generally followed for the regulation of dioxins and furans. The issue of pulpand paper mill effluent is complicated because it falls under two Statutory Acts plus provincial jurisdiction.Effluent regulation falls under the federal Fisheries Act in that federal authority extends over fish and anysubstance deleterious to fish. The federal government has given most jurisdiction over inland waters to theprovinces,I9 which have traditionally governed water issues for pulp and paper mills. In addition, control ofsubstances hazardous to the environment falls under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).In 1960 the federal government amended the Fisheries Act to prohibit discharge of unauthorizedsubstances and in 1971 added the first regulations specifically prescribing quantified limits for indicators ofpollution (BUD, TSS per unit of production, acute toxicity). The standards of the Fisheries Act were in termsof allowable discharge per ton of product, setting a precedent for regulation not by the capacity of thereceiving environment, but by production volume. High volume producers could be expected to capturebenefits of scale if any singular control expenditures were required. These early controls focused on "bestpracticable technology" to limit emissions at the factory fence. This is a convenient administration scheme butdoes not recognize the physical reality of the varying sensitivity of the receiving environment.In 1971 compliance with the Fisheries Act was negotiated on a mill by mill basis to minimizedisruption to local economies (House of Commons, 1971). Industry preferred case by case regulation of thestandards as well as the timing. Soon, in 1974 the "best practicable technology" question was reviewed andindustry requests were heard for single window service and harmonization of standards and enforcementbetween levels of government. Harrison suggests that the federal government did not act on these issuesbecause they were not of interest to the general public at the time (1979) and environmental groups were notyet involved (Harrison 1992).19 With the exception of certain designated waterways, notably the Fraser River delta.49In the past, the Canadian federal government deliberately drafted regulation with the help of theeffected industry:Our system ...is designed to co-opt industry into the process of developing regulations. It is muchcheaper, to put it very bluntly. We do not have to spend the enormous sums the Americans do inthis area.... In other words, our system works better and it is cheaper (House of Commons, SpecialCommittee on Regulatory Reform 1980).Although industry is still involved, the federal consultation process is now broader, open to stakeholders andthe general public. This glasnost was directed by two policy statements released in the spring of 1986:Guiding Principles of Federal Regulatory Policy (Appendix 4) and the Citizen's Code for Regulatory Fairness(Appendix 5). Both statements emphasize public participation (Guiding Principle 7, Code 2 and 15) andensuring that benefits exceed costs (Guiding Principle 5, Code 11). These policy statements are a basis forthe "Regulatory Process Action Plan" (effective September 1,1986) which was established under the newlycreated Regulatory Affairs Branch of the Office of Privatization and Regulatory Affairs (RAB, OPRA)."Among other things, the Action Plan called for all departments and agencies to prepare aRegulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) for all regulatory proposals (Consulting and Audit Canada1992,2-22). The RIAS are published in the Canada Gazette to help both the public and the governmentministers understand the intent of proposed legislation, but they are not meant to be a substitute forconsultation. RIAS are required to describe the need for the regulation, the alternatives considered, the netbenefits, the compliance mechanism and to summarize the consultation process. The government's RIASwriters' guide recognizes that environmental benefits may not be easily quantifiable for cost-benefit analysisand, reasonably, recommends identification and discussion in lieu. The guide also directs writers to "list bothalternatives to regulation (such as voluntary standards) and alternative types or forms of regulation (such aseconomic instruments)...and offer a brief explanation of why these alternatives were not selected" Sinceentire books have been written comparing alternatives to and types of regulation it is impossible toadequately analyze complex choices in the limited space of a RIAS.20 Now Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Treasury Board Secretariat.43The impact assessment policy was initiated in August 1987 with a requirement that the socio-economic impact analysis (SEIC) be applied to all major21 new regulations dealing with health, safety andfairness. However, the process was not well implemented; Stanbury found only 23 SEICs from August 1978to March 1988 (Stanbury 1992,42).Although the RIAS and consultation process is supposed to "ensure that no new regulations or...amendments are approved without a full assessment of their impact on society" (OPRA, 1986a; 22) Stanburyfeels that it is common for new regulations to be enacted without any estimate of the economic benefits oreven any measure of the physical benefits, e.g.,number of premature deaths averted" (Stanbury 1992,107).The implication that this is a major flaw is echoed by the federal Standing Committee on Finance whichstates that the CBAs are few (in spite of the RIAS requirements), poorly done, and not utilized early enoughin regulation development (Standing Committee on Finance 1993,51). The committee's recommendations toimprove the situation are effectively no more than reiterating the existing RIAS requirements; the committeedoes not address the real issue of why CBAs are not satisfactory.4.4.2^British ColumbiaBritish Columbia has no formal regulatory policy for planning or evaluating regulations. Thesubmission and approval process is divided into two streams, one for minor and one for significantregulations such as this (Treasury Board 1992,6-7). The process is detailed in Appendix 6.The issue of water pollution is a pawn in the power struggle between federal and provincialauthorities, particularly in British Columbia. The federal government itself writes that "it has often beensuggested that the provinces have enacted environmental protection laws to curb federal involvement in thearea" of control of toxic substances (Douglas and Smith 1991,5). This power quest is one of the tacit goals ofthe provincial government.The Ministry of the Environment established Pollution Control Objectives in 1971 (revised 1977)which established two levels of technology based standards: Level A for newer discharges found in theinterior, Level B (supposedly interim) other discharges from older, coastal mills (Ministry of Environment21 direct and indirect social costs >$10million (in 1978 dollars) over twelve months.441989,7). Generally, standards were less rigorous for coastal mills discharging into the ocean, therefore whenuniform national standards were imposed the coastal mills had further to go to reach compliance.Compliance was enforced by Control Orders which were mill specific and could thus be tailored to theassimililative capacity of the receiving waters.The province of British Columbia is much more heavily dependent upon the pulp and paper industry(and the forestry industries in general) than the federal jurisdiction. This has led to what some consider a"clientist" relationship between the industry and the provincial government where industry's wishes prevail inpolicy (Coleman 1988, 212).4.4.3^GeneralThere are common strategic policy issues in the regulation of any pollutant which can be addressedin assessments. Should regulation regulate the amount of toxics released, the concentration of the dischargeleaving the plant or the concentration of the discharge in the receiving waters? If concentration is measuredthen diluted effluent meets the standard, but does not reduce total pollutant loading.-- Restricting absolutevalues of discharge per day has a more severe effect on high volume producers and thus may not beperceived as equitable.Similar equity issues arise in the choice of technology based or environment based standards.Regulations based on best-available commercial technology (BACT) treat mills of similar processes equally,whereas environmental quality based standards treat mills of similar environmental impact equally,irrespective of manufacturing process or compliance costs. Mills in sensitive watercourses prefer technologybased standards since it is more difficult to reach environmental quality standards in, for example, theshallow, dead end waters of a bay with little circulation, than at an open coastal site exposed to oceancurrents. These policy choices were discussed by all stakeholders in their comments on the regulations(Section 6).Harrison (1992) likens the Canadian regulatory proceedings to the classic prisoners' dilemma, in thatprovincial regulators regulate without knowing how other provinces will act and thus risk putting their home22 In Canada, all regulation is based upon samples diluted to a standard concentration.45industry at a competitive disadvantage. Her analysis uses public choice theory, based on the assumption thatindividual actors act rationally in their own best interests. She also notes that pulp and paper issues may benested in greater issues such as international trade, federal/provincial jurisdiction or our long standingconstitutional crisis, or perched on top of regional concerns.This section has reviewed the information necessary to understand the issues of regulation of organochlorinesin the pulp and paper industry, including the regulatory processes. Common to both jurisdictions are strategicenvironmental policy issues and a parliamentary political system.46Section 5^Chronology of Organochlorine RegulationThis section is a chronology of both federal and B.C. organochlorine regulation, summarized inTable 3.In Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of theEnvironment jointly convened an Expert Advisory Committee on Dioxins in 1981.1n their words:The Committee concluded that long-term policies to effect reductions in environmental inputsshould: - Eliminate, where possible, the sources that put dioxins into the environment (Ministers'Expert Advisory Committee on Dioxins 1983,2).However pulp production had not been identified as a source at that time and was not addressed in thereport.From 1982 to 1985 Environment Canada's Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on Pulp and PaperEffluent Regulations and Guidelines met and first discussed organochlorines, but did not produceregulations.In September 1987, the USEPA and American Paper Institute released reports of dioxin in milleffluents, fish and paper products. Here in Canada, in January 1988, Greenpeace reported dioxin inunderwater sediments near a Vancouver Island (Nanaimo) mill. Within one month the Canadian federalgovernment confirmed the shellfish contamination and by November 1988 the federal Department ofFisheries and Oceans (DFO) closed the commercial shellfish industry near three BC mills on the advice ofHealth and Welfare Canada. Closures were later increased to cover a total of eight mills in Howe Sound andPrince Rupert in November 1989 and extended again in November 1990. Public concern was fanned as theWest Coast Environmental Law Association began their campaign against pulp pollution in summer 1988.By late 1987 the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada (PAPRICAN), with the help of $25million from the federal government, had demonstrated production alternatives to minimize dioxin releasewhich allowed the CPPA to immediately announce a voluntary commitment to eliminate dioxin. This wasaccomplished by 1990/91 at an estimated cost of $10 million per mill over 47 mills (McCloy 1993).47Table 3^Regulation Chronology^ 11985 Dioxins found in fish at Wisconsin mill.1987AprilAugSeptMcLeay toxicity report - Fisheries & Env Can, CPPA, MOE Ont.Greenpeace^"No margin of safety"EPA and API reports (USA).1988JanFebAprilJuneJulyNovDioxin found in Nanaimo shellfish - GreenpeaceFederal govt. confirms shellfish contamination.Bonsor et al. Kraft Mill effluent report, MISA, Ont.West Coast Environmental Law Assoc. campaignSinclair report to federal govt. (not released)8 shellfisheries closed in B.C. under Fisheries Act1989Feb 11MarchMay 12JuneNovDecDioxin & furan on CEPA Priority Substances ListGreenpeace^leaks Sinclair report.BC announces pending regulation 1.5 AOX by Dec 31, 94Que targets 1.5 by 1993.BC draft regulations circulated.^More shellfisheries closedProposed federal regulations sent to industry.1990JanMar 17AprJuneJulyDec 5Dec 10Dec 13Fed/prov committees - harmonization- administration & technologyDioxin & furan declared toxic substances, CEPA.Federal government announces plans to regulate.Public meetings on federal regulations.McCubbin microeconomic impact report to federal government.Infbrmetrica macroeconomic impact report to federal government.BC Socreds regulate 1.5 AOX by 94.BC environment minister resigns.BC changes to 2.4 AOX by 94.1991Dec 14 CEPA - Effluent declared toxic substance and announced no measurable dioxin andfuran by 7/92.1992JanMay 5JuneAugSeptOctBC NDP regulates 1.5 AOX by 95, 0.0 by 2002.CEPA regulations proclaimed.NLK market study, Simons cost study to B.C.draft BC conceptual plan for AOX research for regulation, PERC established.draft BC scientific AOX review.BC releases studies.48The Ontario government sponsored a benchmark report released in 1988 (Bonsor, McCubbin,Sprague 1988) which recommended action to clean up Kraft mill effluents on the basis that there may beharmful substances in the effluent which we have not yet discovered, as well as the controversialorganochlorines. The authors recommended the Total Organic Halogen (TOX) measurement method butwarned that excess attention to dioxin may divert efforts from more productive areas of control. During thatsame year public attention grew as Alberta announced controversial plans for massive new pulp and papermills. In 1989 a seven-member international scientific panel convened by Proctor and Gamble23concludedthat no firm conclusions could be made (at that time) on the influence of bleaching on mill effluent in termsof toxicity to aquatic organisms (Proctor and Gamble 1989). In July 1988 the federal government sponsored astudy (Sinclair 1990) which assessed the issues in pulp and paper industry pollution and recommendedremoval of organochlorines at the source. Sinclair optimisticly predicted potential savings in production costsunder "Buoyant economic conditions of the industry" (270). The report was not released until Greenpeaceleaked it to the media; it was fOrmally published in March 1990.In May 1989 the Minister of Environment announced that B.C. would enact regulations limitingorganochlorine discharge to 2.5 and 1.5 kg AOX /tonne of bleached kraft pulp by December 31, 1991 andDecember 31, 1994 respectively. The resulting draft regulation of 1.5 kg/ADt AOX required by December31, 1994 was approved by the provincial cabinet December 5, 1990. The next day the Council of ForestIndustries met with the premier and senior ministers. Four days later the B.C. Environment Ministerresigned in a political skirmish. Three days later the final regulation was passed at an AOX of 2.5 kg/ADt byDecember 31, 1993,24presumably as a result of intervention by industry. Harrison reports that the industrylobby would have met a stronger provincial stand if the federal government was more supportive (Harrison1992, 71).As a prolegamma to federal control regulation, dioxins and furans were added to the CEPA PrioritySubstances List in February 1989. Theoretically, compounds identified as priority substances are assessed,and, if found to be hazardous, are transferred to CEPA's Toxic Substances List where they are subject to23 Proctor and Gamble are involved as major international producers of diapers and other tissue/hygieneproducts.24 British Columbia, "Pulp M ill and Pulp and Paper Mill Liquid Effluent Control Regulation," B.C. Reg.470/90, December 13, 1990.49regulation. Dioxins and furans were fast-tracked; proposed dioxin regulations were sent to pulp and papercompanies in December 1989, while the assessment was in progress. On March 17, 1990 the Canadianfederal government released an assessment of dioxin and furan under the Environmental Protection Act,declared the chemicals toxic substances and publicly issued proposed regulations (CEPA 1990).The dioxin and furan control regulations apply to three areas: pulp mill processes, defoamers andPCB-contaminated wood chips. Public meetings were held in 14 centres across Canada in Spring 1990, plusmultistakeholder consultations in Ottawa in June 1990, then lastly written public comment after the proposedregulations were published in the federal Gazette I in december.The provinces were involved in the federal regulatory process via two joint federal-provincialcommittees on harmonization of standards, (one administrative, the other technical). Established in January1990, the committees reviewed federal proposals to ensure that they would not conflict with provincialrequirements.By spring 1990 the CPPA reported that the industry had spent $1.5 billion to eliminate discharge ofdioxins and ftirans. To meet proposed federal standards for traditional parameters, BOD, TSS and toxicity,they estimated a total of $5.0 billion more would be spent on secondary treatment systems. The modificationrequired to meet BOD and TSS requirements would also lower AOX discharges to 2.5 kg/t. Thus theprovincial AOX level became the crucial factor in capital outlay.In April 1990 the federal government announced their plans for increasing the stringency ofregulation of pulp and paper mill effluent, with the regulatory proposal presented in the House of Commons(and recorded in "Canada Gazette Part I") December 14, 1991 by the ministers of the environment andnational health and welfare. The regulatory reform package, in summary:1)^via the CEPA- declares "Effluents from Pulp Mills Using Bleaching" to be a Toxic Substance.- prohibits the release of dioxins and furans in effluents.- prohibits the use of pentachlorophenol treated wood chips in mills.- prohibits use of dioxin and furan contaminated defoamers in mills.2)^via the Fisheries Act- prohibits release of effluents that are acutely lethal to fish (toxicity).50- imposes more stringent effluent release limits for BUD and TSS, which require secondarytreatment facilities.The regulations were founded upon a CEPA report (released concurrently) on effluents from pulp millsusing bleaching, with a technical risk assessment which concluded that effluents were "a significant risk to theaquatic ecosystem" (CEPA 1991, 41). The federal government regulated only the demonstrated hazards ofdioxins and tbrans; their strategic policy is to eliminate known toxic contaminants, monitor the situation and,if hazards persist, investigate and control further. Environment Canada mandated virtual elimination insteadof a Best Available Control Technology since organochlorines are not an intrinsic part of pulp and paperproduction (Haliburton 1993). The policy of zero discharge of persistent toxic substances had a Canadianprecedent in the international Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Pickering 1990).In January 1992 the British Columbia's new NDP government acted on a campaign promise andrevised the regulation to require an AOX standard of 1.5 kg/ADt by the end of 1995 (with deadlineflexibility for extraordinary circumstances) and further to eliminate AOX from the bleaching processes by theend of 2002.25 Although both levels of government had access to the same technical information, BritishColumbia acted on the basis of zero tolerance and extended the controls extablished by the federalgovernment by regulating AOX.In August 1992 B.C. Environment released a research plan to co-ordinate government and non-government research into the pollution science of AUX compounds from pulp mill effluents. They called forstudies based on both human and environmental health which would be presented to the multi-stakeholderworking group and possibly form the basis of revised regulation (B.C. Environment 1992).Both Canadian federal and provincial governments felt that the need for action outweighed the needto obtain complete knowledge. The policy of the British Columbia government is revealed in a 1992 scientificreview of AUX as a regulatory parameter which openly discussed two problems of choosing AUX: areorganochlorines a problem and can we measure them with AOX? First, referring to the Proctor and Gamblereport, they recognized that the environmental impact of chlorinated organic substances is not understood.They listed several scientific reasons why AUX is not a good parameter for measuring organochlorides, (if15 B.C. Reg. 470/90, as amended March 2, 1992.B.C.'s is not the most advanced regulation; in June 1989 Quebec announced regulation requiring 1.5kg/ADt AOX by the end of 1993.51we do need to measure them) hut concluded that it is still the best available measure (McKinnon 1992,particularly 76-77). However, this report was produced after AOX had been chosen as a regulatoryparameter.Since research into the effects of pulp mill effluents is continuing, changes or further regulation islikely in both jurisdictions.52Section 6^Assessments of Proposed RegulationWith the chronology described above, this section moves on to an investigation of how the proposedregulation was assessed by the regulatory agencies, industry, environmentalists and labour during the processof creating the regulation.6. 1^FederalThe dioxin/fiiran regulations were assembled by Environment Canada's Regulatory and EconomicAffairs Division in accordance with their Environmental Control Process Chart (Figure 6) which is part ofthe overall federal regulatory process of Appendix 3.Three non-toxicological impact assessments were done for the dioxin/furan proposals; a micro-economic and a macro-economic analysis which were requested and defined by Environment Canada'sRegulatory and Economic Affairs Division, and a competitiveness study requested by Industry, Science andTechnology Canada (ISTC). The results of these studies, public consultation and inputs from governmentdepartments were informally digested and combined to form regulations and the RIAS. Since there is nocomprehensive federal study, the three major component reports are evaluated.The micro- socio-economic study consisted principally of individual assessments of compliance costsfor all mills in Canada (see Appendix 7 for sample data). In addition, the study was requested to evaluateindirect benefits to recreational and fishing sectors using a total willingness-to-pay model. Recognizing thatthe regulations could affect the industry structure itself, the study was to evaluate possible reorganizationsand changes in market structure. It should be noted that these factors were identified at the proposal stage,not in the study itself, which shows the importance of the terms of reference in directing the outcome ofinvestigations. Non-allocative26 effects were required to be evaluated in terms of prices, labour, wealthdistribution and international trade (Environment Canada 1989a).26 Distributional considerations, which are usually more subjective. (Stanbury and Vertinski 1989, 8-1)^f>Add toToxicSubstance ListStopProblemPerceptionEconomicStudy^f>TrainingPlanSocio - economicAnalysis ComplianceTraining53Figure 6^Environmental Control Process Chart(continued next page)PROBLEM ASSESSMENT PHASE • Perception of a problem can originate from a person or an organization.• Decision to add a substance to the Toxic Substances List rests withministers.*Summary of the assessment is published in Part I of the Canada Gazette.REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PHASE•The socio - economic analysis supports the regulatory Impactanalysis statement (RIAS) which accompanies the regulation.•Upon publication of a proposed regulation and RIAS in Canada Gazette, Part!,comments received can vary from approval to a formal notice of objection.•Publication of the regulation and RIAS in Canada Gazette, Part II, occursafter the regulation is made by the Governor in Council.EconomicInstrumentStrategicOptionsReport^C,Re-evaluateTechnologyTransferRegulation j^>Codes, Guidelines& ObjectivesEducationVoluntary Action54Figure 6 continuedOPTIONS ASSESSMENT PHASE• Strategic Options Report will include:- Technical options, such as Installation of pollution control equipment- Non-technical options, such as economic instruments; and- Impacts (eg. costs, feasibility)Source: Environment Canada, Conservation and ProtectionJune 199255This list covers a large range of effects, from remote international to direct market and local labour,but does not consider social impacts in terms of the satisfaction of the community or affected population.Wealth is undoubtably a major factor in human satisfaction, (prices and labour may be considered subsidiaryindicators of wealth positions) but other factors such as freedom and power play an equally important role.In corporate management this philosophy is well recognized by the maxim "money is not a motivator" andthe current attention given to "empowerment" as a human resources goal. On a larger scale these factors areequally important as recognized by the goals of a democratic system. To consider these factors inconventional terms we could ask whether any changes in the status of the local democracy areprecipitated 27The final report's treatment of these issues was merely five paragraphs which reveal that costs willbe passed on to buyers (largely foreign) and cost savings extracted from labour. Although recognizing thatthe smaller portion of buyers that are domestic may be harmed by the cost increases for their raw materialthe authors characterize the impacts as "although important to individual producers, are likely to be small interms of the overall economy" (McCubbin, Bonsor, Owen 1990,86). Only the impacts to industry and thenational economy are considered; no attention is given to community. It may be argued that the communityeffects are byproducts of the economic impacts, but it is more correct to say that economic aspects arefactors in social effects. One cannot address social aspects solely with their economic components. Althoughthe terms of reference call for a socio-economic assessment the socio portion is lacking.In the economic impact section of the authors report that "A detailed analysis" found that "no mill inany region is placed in a vulnerable position. The impact on output is zero for all regions" (McCubbin,Bonsor, Owen 1990,82). However the analysis itself is not provided nor a description of its methodology orassumptions. The report looks at economic benefits only in terms of shellfish production, not any othermariculture or recreational enterprise, then retreats from any conclusions because of lack of data.Summarizing the report, McCubbin et al do not attempt to predict the effect of combinedapplication of new standards thr traditional pollutants and standards for dioxins and furans. They report thateach alone will not cause serious dislocations. For policy development this information is of limited use sincethe regulations are not applied in a vacuum. Sources and calculations of the mill-by-mill compliance costs are27 Changes in local democracy could be seen as changes in institutions such as school boards, or as morepowerful citizens' groups.56well documented and even extend to a secondary report (McCubbin 1990). The pulp and paper industry isdescribed in terms of markets, that is, production by volume and value, market share and historical trends,but not in terms of profit margins, return on equity or other conventional measures of investment. Althoughtotal cost figures for pollution abatement are well evaluated, the authors conclude that the compliance costsare "non-trivial"without defining what that means (McCubbin, Bonsor, Owen 1990; 85).In overall balance the McCubbin report is a comprehensive technical review of cost impacts, butdoes not fully satisfy the terms of reference. In retrospect it appears that the project team was selected for itsexcellence in industrial pulp and paper issues but should also have included expertise in social impactassessment. Alternatively the project could have been divided into smaller units suitable for two or morespecialized consulting firms.The terms of reference of the second report call for "an analysis of macro-economic parametersresulting from the implementation of the proposed regulations "(Environment Canada 1989b) Theconsultants (Informetrica Ltd.) used a National Forecast Service Model (TIM) and a provincial Regional-Industrial Model (RIM) to assess implications for the economy as a whole and, as a byproduct, the inducedfeedback effects of the pulp and paper industry. Using information gathered in the McCubbin report theycompared a base case prediction of the industry to predictions of the industry after a variety of unilateralpollution control regulations are imposed. Sensitivity to assumptions was checked done with two mostinfluential parameters: price elasticity, and exchange rates.The macro-economic evaluation conclusions can be summarized as follows (Sonnen and Laurence1990,38-39):1) in the worst case the economy would not be reduced by more than one-tenth of a per centin any one year.2) employment would initially grow (by 17,000-18,000),then decrease (by 10,000).Losses wouldbe indistinguishable in the predicted, overall growth of the economy.3) small negative impacts to the provincial economy would occur in New Brunswick, NovaScotia, Quebec and British Columbia, in an overall growing economy.4) negative impacts on industry could reach 5% of output in the worst case; national industrysize would remain at current levels to the mid-1990s.575) impacts on industry are likely to he "most severe" in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,"visible"in Quebec and British Columbia and "very notable in Manitoba."6) although not calculated in the study, economic benefits of regulations (fisheries, recreaction)and effect of similar regulations in other nations would be more important than negativeeconomic effects.This report is difficult to understand solely because of the poor writing style. This reinforces theprimary need for clarity in communication.The third federally sponsored study was prepared for Industry, Science and Technology Canada(ISTC) to evaluate the effects on industry competitiveness. At the time the study was written the federalgovernment had decided to regulate dioxins and furans (as opposed to AOX) but had not yet decided on thetiming or permitted levels. Foreign competitors in Scandinavia and the United States were proposing toregulate AOX, hut similarly had not yet defined their programs. The study projected (speculated?) that theirstandards would be no less than the Canadian standards (even though Canadian standards had not yet beenannounced) and thus Canadian industries would not be disadvantaged. Although the study was not definitive,analyzing competitiveness in such a rapidly changing area can only be a hypothetical discussion.The second policy conclusion reflected their observation that the traditional separation of policy intoenvironment, industry, trade and regional development no longer applies; policy is now recognized ascomprehensive and requires new co-ordination by institutions. The introduction of environmental sectorprograms can drive industrial policy via technology-driven standards, accelerated investment schedules andregional impacts. Since the American pulp and paper industry has already modernized with secondarytreatment necessary to meet new BOD and TSS standards Canada could lose competitiveness as we devoteinvestment to catching up. However, deferral would only let European competitors pull ahead like theAmericans.The competitiveness report did not quantify possible impacts with sensitivity analysis, hut drewconclusions about the changing nature of industry and government policy regimes. The author noted anabsence of consideration of newly emerging producer nations who are not part of the OECD traditionsincluding the polluter-pays-principle yet who could take an ever increasing and significant share of the58international market. Thus the report addressed international competitiveness based on a continuation of thestatus quo. The status quo assumption is the biggest limitation of the study.6.2^British ColumbiaThe submissions to cabinet pertaining to organochlorine regulation and the accompanying TreasuryBoard cost estimates are held confidential by the provincial government. No other comprehensive writtenanalysis or explanation of the regulations was available from the government prior to enactment except thedrafts of the regulations themselves.After the regulations were proclaimed the province sponsored a cost study framed as a an evaluationof the effects of possible regulation on four hypothetical firms; coastal and interior, best and worst cases. Theregulation possibilities considered were: to virtually eliminate AOX, to prohibit AOX in bleaching process("zero" AOX) and to reduce overall AOX to 1.5 Kg/Adt. This hypothetical analysis protects the confidentialfinancial information of actual firms while investigating effects to a range of mills. In addition to determiningpotential costs the study identified key factors affecting B.C.'skraft pulp industry and assessed how B.C.'sAOX standards compare with key pulp-exporting countries (USA, Sweden and Chile). The study concluded:that the "zero" AOX regulation could place B.C. mills at a competitive disadvantage unless"zero" AOX becomes a regulatory requirement for all of B.C.'s major competitors or themarket demand for "zero" AOX pulp becomes a significant feature of all the major marketsthat B.C. producers serve. Based on our analysis of current information, neither of theeventualities appear to have a high probability of happening in the foreseeable future,...(Simons 1992, 1-8).The Simons study assessed sensitivity of the results to changes discount rate and amortization term. Ingeneral, the report is a prediction of the costs of the likely technical responses to the regulation.The province has sponsored scientific research into the nature and effects of organochlorines inwaterways, but did not devote resources to comprehensive regulatory impact assessment.Although not in place during the development of the current pulp and paper effluent regulations,there is now a written procedure for developing Waste Discharge Criteria based upon Best AchievableControl Technology (BACT)(Appendix 8). The procedure was introduced as part of the ministry's five-year59action plan 1992-1997 which includes a goal of zero pollution. To develop discharge criteria the procedurecalls for a scientific review of pertinent information and stakeholder identification and consultation. Althoughcost implications must be considered, social or secondary ecological effects are not addressed.6.3^Environmental GroupsOf the environmental organizations the West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCELA) wasmost heavily involved in regulatory review. WCELA is a Vancouver based group providing environmentaladvocacy; their objectives relate exclusively to environmental protection and enhancement (see Appendix 9).In June 1988, sponsored by 54 other organizations, they began a pulp pollution campaign with four specificgoals:an urgent and realistic timetable for the elimination of organochlorines from pulp and papermill effluent and products.2) compliance by the pulp and paper industry with the existing pollution standards.3) promotion of the availability of paper products free from organochlorine contaminants.4)^quick and efficient public access to information about the environmental impact andregulatory compliance record of the pulp and paper industry.As part of this effort WCELA asked the provincial and federal ministers of the environment to regulateorganochlorines and requested participation in reviewing proposed regulations. Thus the group was involveddirectly through the bureaucracy rather than via public information or consulting processes.WECLA sent written comments to the federal agency in May 1990 urging complete elimination oforganochlorines "there is ample scientific evidence to justify regulation of organochlorines now (Andrewsand Hillyer 1990,2). Along with other technical comments they asked that the reference method formeasurement of dioxins and furans be included with the regulation so that it too would have legal status.They noted that incinerator regulation was not yet forthcoming. Similar comments were sent in response to alater draft (March 1991) and during the public comment period after Gazette publication (February 1992). Inthe latter comments WCELA commented on the process by saying that they had not received any responseto their earlier submissions. They suggested that this could be achieved by circulating an annotated draftwhich would show all comments submitted.60WCELA took two opportunities to send written comments to the B.C. government (January andNovember 1990). Technical comments covered issues in standards, sampling and testing methods.Procedurally WCELA requested regulation of dioxins/furans in addition to organochlorines. They called forno exemption to deadlines and penalties greater than the proposed $200,000maximum. As a complianceincentive they proposed a security to be posted by all mills which would be forfeited for non-compliance!The submissions were comments on the proposals from a perspective limited to legal environmentalconcerns. WCELA did not analyze impacts to the larger ecological network, to industry, labour orcommunity. Their representative was generally satisfied that their comments were heard, but was stilldissatisfied with the slow pace of regulation (Hillyer 1993).Greenpeace was also an important player in the pulp and paper pollution issue but at differentstages in its evolution. Rather than participating in the regulation development, Greenpeace takes its role asraising public awareness which is a prerequisite to both scientific attention and government action. They tookthe leading role in raising the alarm for dioxins and furans with the 1987 release No Margin of Safety"(which was part of their Great Lakes toxics campaign) and continued pressure with a pulp and papercampaign. Their publicity of the Sinclair report (Greenpeace 1989, A Blind Eye) and pollution levels inGeorgia Straight (Greenpeace 1989, Dire Straights) further fanned the flames of public interest whichmotivates politicians. The group did influence the regulation process yet did not participate in the RIASconsultation process. Greenpeace spoke to government officials informally at both the scientific and politicallevel to contribute information on the nature and seriousness of the pollution.Although the initial focus of the Greenpeace work was solely the pollution from dioxins and furanstheir campaign evolved to focus first on organochlorines then (and now) on consumption of paper in general.With limited resources the group made a conscious decision to carry a narrow scope for the effluent issue,not discussing native or community impacts which they may address in other broader issues. Their campaignsevolve as issues change, so their resources and focus shift. Greenpeace sponsored a socio-economicassessment of the industry in 1992 as part of the ongoing campaign which was sent to the media andgovernments to encourage full implementation of regulations (Lauzon 1992). The Lauzon paper was aresponse to the economic pressures the industry had been propounding as reason to extend compliance61dates; the paper emphasizes the historic earnings and spending of the industry and generally implies that anydifficulties are of their own origin and should be borne accordingly by the industry (see also subsection 4.3).A Greenpeace spokesperson reported that they feel that they have been effective in reaching theirgoals in the pulp and paper campaign, but do not feel confident that the resolve of the political system issecure on the organochlorine issue, particularly in British Columbia (Raderecht 1993).6.4^IndustryThere are two major industry associations which participated in the regulatory process on behalf oftheir member companies, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association (CPPA) based in Montreal, and theCouncil of Forest Industries of British Columbia (C0F1).The CPPA took the opportunity of the federal government's public stakeholder meetings to presenttheir position to the public as well as to the government. In their presentation they stressed that they:1) are in favour of dioxin and furan regulations in principle.2) are committed to new regulations of other parameters.3) estimated costs are $43.5 billion for biological (secondary) treatment systems, $1.5 billion forother environmental improvement measures. Some mills will find this an impossible cost tomeet in the time period proposed.4) forecast low profitability for the industry in 1990 and 1991, which limits funds available forcaptital expenditure. They predict difficulties for services and equipment suppliers (nosubmission from them).(CPPA 1990)Later, in early 1992 after the first Gazette publication of the federal regulations, the CPPAsubmitted a written representation which (among other comments) criticized the lack of definition oftechnical standards, challenged the sampling methods, cost figures and competitiveness conclusions of theRIAS. Quoting the Regulatory Policy and Citizen's Code calling for public participation they say "Industry'sneed and expectations have not been met through the consultation process" (CPPA February 1992). Although62CPPA representatives were interviewed by the author for further explanation they asked that their views notbe reported.COF1 has two sections which work on environmental regulations: government relations, whichworks at a cabinet minister level, and the environmental section which participates in the formal consultationprocess. The mission of the environment sector is to be aware of regulatory initiatives and to be proactive indealing with them (McCloy 1993).In March 1990 COFI released a position paper on sustainable development in the pulp and paperindustry which was targeted at provincial and federal initiatives in both air and water pollution. The reportstresses the need for a solid scientific basis for regulation, (rather than best available control technology) asingle window approach and establishing priorities and time frames that will produce maximumenvironmental benefits "while maintaining a healthy and vigorous industry" in a volatile market (COFI 1990a;41). COFI specifically calls for a new regulatory process in British Columbia which:1) ensures opportunities for public and industry input and review; (even at scoping stages)2) is scientifically based on risk assessment and cost benefit analysis;3) determines priorities objectively and dispassionately;4) reconciles overlapping federal and provincial powers;5)^establishes appropriate testing and sampling methods.The report used financial figures compiled by Price Waterhouse and discussed the range of financial impactsin a general manner rather than with a mathematical sensitivity analysis. COFI asks for a complianceschedule that "permits companies to achieve a rate of return substantial enough to finance ongoingmodernization and pollution abatement programs" (COFI 1990a, 35) in the light of their forecast of reducedearnings for 1990 to 1992 due to increasing world wood supply, recycling, volatile exchange ratesplus their capital expenditures for environmental requirements.In addition to the report and their traditional direct government contact COFI responded to draftregulations with proposals for specific clause changes which reflected the policies discussed above.COFI's analysis process is flexible with the type of presentation and analysis tailored to both theissue and the person receiving the information. If the analysis sponsored by the government is done by ananalyst they regard as good, then they will use it and not prepare an independent assessment. When they feel63that an additional study is required they normally hire expert consultants. In the effluent issue COFI felt thatthe federal RIAS process adequately assessed the pollution science, but hired their own analyst for theprovincial AOX scientific assessment.The COFI analysis is restricted to assessment of impacts directly related to their industry; they didnot address community or native concerns. McCloy notes that secondary ecological impacts are addressedwith the federal Environment Effects Monitoring (EEM) program of Environment Canada.In the spring of 1992 COFI sponsored a consultant report (NLK 1992) which outlines the currentstate of the industry, the history of the chlorine debate in Europe, Asia and North America and predictsfuture markets. NLK noted that the demand for totally chlorine free paper products was spearheaded byGreenpeace and producers of CTMP process pulp and gained the significant foothold only in Germany,which does not have a Kraft pulp industry and consumes 15% of Canadian pulp exports. Europeanproducers28 hold the same views as COF1 that elimination of elemental chlorine and reduction of chlorineion use in production is sufficient to protect humans and the environment; zero AOX is not a worthwhiletarget.COFI's position on zero AOX was submitted to the provincial government as a separate positionpaper in June 1992 which states that:AOX is a poor parameter for measuring environmental impact, particularly once measureshave been implemented to eliminate dioxins and furans and biotreatment facilities areinstalled to eliminate acute toxicity -- which is the case for most mills in British Columbia....Financing these expenditures is putting a significant strain on company balance sheetsparticularly during the current recession. A number of mills have been forced to borrowcapital to cover these costs. Others may be forced to shut down if capital is not otherwiseavailable (C0F1 1992).Although COFI participated in the Multistakeholder Working Group, McCloy felt that it was not agood forum because it was too large and unwieldy. Since the regulations are general and applied to all firms,most response to the governments was handled via the associations (Howard 1993, Jordan 1993). ForVia the Confederation of European Paper Industries, CEPI.64example, MacMillan Bloedel's main participation was by contributing to COFI's analysis, supplemented byletters directly to government. They favour cost-benefit and risk analysis, but did not include sensitivityanalysis.6.5^LabourThe Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada is a union representing over 7,000workers in relatedindustries. Within each certification there has been a joint Environmental Protection Committee since 1970.The informally stated goals of their environmental sector are to improve the working and communityenvironment.The union replied to draft proposals with comments by letter and issued a major report outliningtheir position which was sent to Environment Canada and BC Environment in May 1990 (Reiter 1990). Theirreport has an anthropocentric focus on human health, not only in their workplace but also to the generalpublic. They say:We feel that the increased rates of occupational cancers seen in pulp and paper workers throughoutthe world should therefore serve as a warning to both the general public and the Canadiangovernment of the potential of the byproducts from the pulping process to cause cancer in humans....We therefore call upon government to enact legislation which will result in major reductions in theuse of chlorinated bleaching compounds by the pulp industry, with the aim of eliminating the use ofthese compounds as pulp bleaching agents, and in wood preservatives and anti sap-stain products, inthe near future (Reiter 1990,22).This is an equivocal statement; they do not mandate elimination, merely aim for it. However, they chargethat installation of chorine dioxide equipment is a waste of time since it controls dioxins and furans but notother organochlorides. Their recommendation was federal regulation under CEPA to gradually phase outAOX by January I, 2010.1t would be within the economic means of the industry to achieve this by investingin extended/oxygen delignification systems. This may also be an equivocal statement since, for a mill, newprocesses are not gradual; the system is either in place or not. It is only from the larger perspective of theentire industry that overall reduction can be gradual. However an extended time frame would give all firmstime to amass financial reserves and possibly to use new, more efficient and less costly technology.65The union is the only group which applied an international scope to effects on workers and theenvironment as well as proposed actions. They recognize that competitiveness can only be maintained withinternational standards.The union's economic discussion was based on earlier analysis done for the Ontario MISA program(Bonsor et al 1988). PPWC used Bonsor's results to address primary and secondary jobs lost as a result offisheries closures, and also possible job loss if MacMillan Bloedel closed down Port Alberni operationsrather than install equipment necessary to meet environmental standards. They qualitatively reviewed effectsto the government taxation revenues, unemployment insurance funds and the health care system. This scopewas not matched by any other assessment.In addition to effluent discharge regulation the union called for whistleblower protection underCEPA and a reduction of the Acceptable Daily Intake of dioxin equivalents under the Canadian Food andDrug Act.Although Reiter (1990) reasoned that federal regulations were necessary for consistency he calledfor the provinces to regulate where necessary to go beyond minimum federal standards on a site specificbasis.A union representative reported that their assessment process is not standardized, but is specific toeach issue. They do not have their own scientific experts, but call in experts where funds permit to addressprimary and secondary physical effects (Hinton 1993). They feel that they take the longer and morecomprehensive view combining their intimate knowledge of the industry with conscious efforts to keepabreast of international developments as well as the distinct perspective of First Nations. Their assessment ofcompetitiveness concludes that the global market will increasingly demand environmentally responsibleforestry products which includes total chlorine free paper. They believe that, overall, chlorine free processeswill be less costly and will provide a better product to meet market needs. To them the environment isfundamental to social issues; if it reaches a state which is physically or financially non-recoverable then thehealth, employment and community of workers and their children are lost. The union requested moregovernment and better trained government field inspectors for enforcement, but stated that right now theyfeel that regulations are not enforced, they are bargained away via negotiated permits. The only wayimplementation succeeds is via public pressure. This group is clearly willing to comment openly on politicalrealities (Hinton 1993).66Hinton feels that their union's efforts have been effective although not necessarily totally successful.He feels the process could be improved by giving more time for public comment and by providinggovernment ftmding for scientific opinions from alternative sources.This section has described the assessments of proposed organochlorine regulation done by fivestakeholder groups: the federal government, the government of British Columbia, environmental groups,industry and labour.67Section 7^DiscussionTo compare assessments, the federal government's analysis of the dioxin and furan regulatoryproposal should be considered as a compendium of public consultation, the ISTC competitiveness report, andthe macro- and micro-economic studies. The RIAS is a not the assessment, but merely an outline summaryof the synthesis of these investigations, limited to the tight format required for publication in the Gazette.Assessments requested by the government of British Columbia cannot truly be evaluated as part ofthe analysis step in problem solving, rather they are post-regulation justification or verification of principles.There was no public input to creating the B.C. regulation; the consultations were done months after theregulations were written!The evaluations of the proposed regulations are reviewed and compared in terms of the parametersdeveloped in Section 3 (Figure 2).7.1^ProcessCost is always a constraint, limiting the scope of the assessments. None of the groups mentionedlack of funds in their submissions, therefore money did not appear to be a major problem in assessingorganochlorine regulation.Time allocation is the same type of ubiquitous constraint as cost. Toxicity in public health is an areawhich always demands quick response due to the public's perception of risk. The B.C. government took thisto the extreme, reversing the logical process by regulating first, studying issues later. At the federal levelpolitical pressures to fast-track regulation instead of following the CEPA procedures led to difficulties:I)^regulation was not supported with a standardized test method.2) the micro-economic study was accepted when it clearly did not adequately address the socialimpacts as required in its terms of reference and RIAS guidelines.3) the participants did not receive feedback.68The incomplete micro-economic study could have been a mis-match between the scope of the terms ofreference and the budget. This indicates a federal shortfall in two procedural parameters: schedule and cost.The effect of these constraints was not openly reported as it should have been. However, the rushedregulation was consistent with the tacit goal of the government to please the public in a highly publicizedissue.More time does not automatically mean better evaluation. Even if more time was available, limitedmoney and human resources would still constrain assessments, particularly in non-government organizations.I conclude that money is such a ubiquitous constraint that it is not worth discussing. The more importantissue is how to be most effective with the funds that are available.Scientific resources, knowledge of the behaviour of dioxins and furans was substantial before theregulations were written, hut knowledge of overall organochlorine effects (AOX) was limited when the B.C.proposals were released and stakeholders did not have enough information to build their assessments. Tocredit both governments, results of scientific studies were public and well shared. However government andindustry groups which funded research had better opportunities to influence studies by defining the terms ofreference.Although cabinet level documents at both the federal and provincial level are confidential the federalRIAS are a source of information which is not paralleled in British Columbia. There is no written rationalefor the provincial decisions which is available to the general public. The federal RIAS are a concise summaryof the federal analysis, but the size restrictions mean that the details are omitted. Further information isavailable to researchers willing to dig further; federal bureaucrats projected an open attitude and willinglysupplied further files for review. In contrast, B.C. provincial bureaucrats were less informed of their ownministry's processes and unable to discuss the decision making. However, even the federal process leavessubstantial work to the outside stakeholders to discover the parameters and estimates that the governmentdecision makers will be receiving. A common framework would improve the process by providing thisinformation.The fora for assessing the regulation is more advanced in the federal system, with both oral andwritten comments actively solicited. This is seen not only in the institutionalized requirements for RIAS69publication but has even permeated into the attitudes of the bureaucrats themselves (albeit based on theauthor's limited survey). Provincial assessments were hidden behind the veil of cabinet secrecy, which wouldrequire a formal request for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.29 The information couldonly be obtained after the issue is closed; this is not a valid form of public participation.British Columbia's government received written comments, but did not encourage greater publicparticipation. Only the industry's direct access to ministers in Victoria had clear results. The multistakeholderworking group which discussed the B.C. proposals was used for discussion but did not have the mandate ofthe government decision makers. Participants sending comments to government in both jurisdictions felt thatthe communication was one-way, their submission was received but not discussed with them. Groups did notfeel that their views were considered, although they could not be certain and could only look for theirrequests in the resulting regulations. Some comments from stakeholders were reflected in changes in the textof the regulation. These were easiest to see in the clause by clause analysis of WCELA. Those who did notget what they requested could feel ignored, since there was no evidence that the regulation writersdeliberated over the comments. Since the regulation did not completely match any group's requests,everybody felt excluded to some extent.The terms of reference for the assessments were not clearly defined and assumed mutual knowledgeof acceptable standards. While this may he true between the two parties (client and consultant) for any onestudy, such assumptions are unacceptable when a group of studies are to be compiled or compared, andfurther reviewed by external stakeholders. Although there were formal terms of reference for studiesrequested by the federal government as components of their assessment, they did not place the studies in thecontext of the total assessment. It would be valuable for the consultants (and for readers) to know whatother impact assessments were underway, to facilitate comprehensiveness without overlap and to ensureconsistency in assumptions. Explicit policy assessment content requirements should be given or referencedwhich would be common to all studies. This list would be available for stakeholders for their public inputsubmissions, which could then be more easily encompassed in the government assessment by the ministrystaff.29 Not yet proclaimed in B.C., hut intent respected now.70As discussed previously, time and perhaps budget meant that the terms of reference of the majorfederal assessment (micro-economic) were too broad for the consultant chosen, and thus not fulfilled. Thefederal micro-study was supposed to address a large range of non-allocative effects, from remoteinternational to direct market and local labour, but omitted social impacts in terms of the satisfaction of thecommunity or affected population.There was not a standardized format to the assessments, which gave the groups room to be creativeand the leeway to address any angle, hut meant that comparison between stakeholders was difficult. The legalclauses of the proposal gave a framework for the legally oriented commentators, WCELA and COFI.Assessment frameworks used by non-government stakeholders depended upon the background and interestof individuals responsible for the submission, varying even within the respective groups. There is a need for aframework common to all issues so that comments can be compared consistently both within and acrossregulatory proposals. The framework should be available to all stakeholders.In summary, the assessment processes for both dioxin/furan and AOX regulation were not ideal.Inadequate research in British Columbia and inadequate consultation feedback in both jurisdictions happenedas a result of public (political) pressure to act and the perceived risks of inaction. Major improvements couldbe achieved with a minimal investment in better response to stakeholder participation.717.9^ContentGroups chose factors which were important to their individual constituencies. Some of the factors,such as cost to industry, were of common interest. Even though factors could be unique to one group'sassessment, such as international effects discussed by labour, they should still appear the government'ssummary analysis. However some factors were not well addressed by any non-government group (forexample, rigorous social impact assessment) so the submissions should not be used as the sole source offactors for the overall analysis. There is a need for primary analysis by the government in addition to theirjob of collating and considering stakeholder analysis.The federal government tried (not totally successfully) to assess factors from all of the social,physical and economic sectors. As shown in Section 6, the social analysis was lacking. The B.C. governmentused an innovative approach of assessing economic factors for a variety of environmental situations (levels ofmitigation). However, secondary environmental effects were not addressed, nor the significance of the choiceof levels. This was left to unpublished discussions. Rather than fleshing out a wide range of factors theenvironmentalists reacted to the government's proposals and stuck to the fundamental elements of theirmission statements. The only non-governmental group which addressed a wide range of factors was thelabour union. PPWC divided their factors clearly into environmental, economic and health and safety. Socialfactors were a part of the latter two categories. The union was also the only group with a vision broadenough to consult natives for their perspective.A narrow perspective is not inherently bad; it can yield a better, more in-depth analysis in a specificarea. However, there needs to be an overall integration somewhere. The government (or its appointed agent)is the logical choice for the role of co-ordinator. The federal government takes on the job with moderatesuccess, but the B.C. provincial government fails to give any summary of comments and rationales.The union was the only stakeholder which addressed a full range of scale of effects, from local tointernational. In all other submissions international consideration emerged in analysis of economiccompetitiveness in an international market. However this is not complete treatment of international issuessince social and political areas were not mentionned.72Causal links were addressed in the physical assessments of toxicology, or were noted where absent.Within the economic sector most assessments estimated costs but did not go further to predict how theywould he borne. With the exception of the union (again), stakeholders did not link effects across sectors. Itappeared that there were common assumptions about economic behaviour and environmental and marketeffects which were not explicitly stated or referenced. The federal government's economic model discussedthe assumptions of the system and at least refers to further documentation.Impact, risk and significance were not clearly set out in any study. The prime example of the lack ofimpact assessment was in the social area. To be generous to the participants, since the predicted economicimpact of the regulation was small, social impacts induced from impacts would likely be small also. Therewas no discussion of direct social impacts of organochlorine regulation such as increased recreationalenjoyment of the water or restoration of confidence in health and safety. Studies would likely pay moreattention to social impacts in cases where they are more severe and obvious. However, this was not stated asit should have been if analysis had been considered and omitted. Rees's theory that vagarious humanbehaviour is not considered is confirmed. None of the assessments addressed the possibility of thesignificance of human foibles affecting outcomes, nor even looked for opportunities where this could occur.None of the studies undertook a rigorous risk analysis. Federal and industry studies addressed riskindirectly by discussimg uncertainty, of both economic factors (exchange rates) and physical/political (woodsupply). These discussions also were the only limitations given for the studies. Informal risk assessmentshould be considered satisfactory for the resources available for secondary effect assessment. More rigorousrisk assessments would be expected in the primary analysis of pollution hazards.Several studies considered sensitivity of the impacts to economic and market changes, but none wereextreme enough to evaluate the possibility of a fifty percent drop in market value of pulp. This is notsurprising; although the industry is known to be cyclical the market changes of the early 1990s wereunprecedented. So although the economic sensitivity analysis did not reflect subsequent conditions it must beconsidered satisfactory.Although many of the content parameters were not well represented in the stakeholders assessments,the assessments may have covered the goals of the particular groups. Certainly comprehensive analysis wasbeyond the means of most. The non-governmental groups were more clearly addressing their own goals inthe format and content of their assessments. For example, not only did the union group stress worker health73and safety (which no other group did), but it also distinctly separated itself from its employers: "The Pulp,Paper, and Woodworkers of Canada holds little hope of changing the thinking of industry, which hasdemonstrated that it is more concerned with short-term profits than with damage to the environment"(Reiter 1991, 25).Evidence of the governments' goal achievement is more difficult to evaluate. The federalcompendium of the results of the public comments is a listing, not a balance statement where comments areweighed and accommodated or discarded. The proof of the effectiveness of the process and adequacy of thecontents of the assessments comes only after the regulation is promulgated and enforced. In the case offederal regulation of dioxins and furans this enforcement and possibly even the regulation proclamation itselfare largely moot since industry had already moved to correct the problem and had changed process toeliminate the discharges. The case of the B.C. government is less clear. The enactment of AOX regulation isin process (some doubt that the ultimate zero discharge will be enforced).7.3^ConclusionsThe subjective comments given during the research confirm that process can be more important thancontent. It is the process which gives the possibility to adjust, to correct content. All stakeholders felt thatthe participation process needed improvement.Of the two jurisdictions in the case study I have found that participation in the regulatory processwas greater at the federal level, likely because of the new RIAS and regulatory process revisions. The BritishColumbia government has stated but not implemented participation. More exactly, the sequence andeffectiveness of the participation and ex ante assessment of regulation in B.C. is not satisfactory. Federally,time and budget restrictions limited the quality of the assessment of the pulp and paper regulations. RIAScritics do not credit discussion of qualitative benefits, but seem to recognize only quantitative monetarymeasures. If credit was given to qualitative discussion (particularly for benefits) then the RIAS could be seenas sufficient and balanced analysis, dealing with both costs and benefits.Although policy and problem analysis separate issues into steps, they are not autonomous. The lackof scientific knowledge of the nature of organochlorines and their effects led to uncertainties and validcomplaints in the regulation (solution) assessment step, at the provincial and, to a lesser extent, the federal74level. Industry assessments of the regulation strongly condemned the lack of a clear problem definition. Thissuggests that the first step of the problem solving process has not been completely addressed; the problem isnot well identified and understood. The issue carries over into the third step which is studied here, evaluationof solutions. In British Columbia, where the province chooses to regulate AOX, debate over the primaryeffects of the regulation was more important than assessments of secondary effects.The following are lacking in the assessment processes:1) explicit references to causal linkages in and between the economic, environmental and social sectors.2) response to participation.3) guidelines for assessments.4) consistent application of the process.5)^belief in the effectiveness of participation.This thesis began as an evaluation of how secondary effects of environmental regulation are assessed.The topic was chosen because secondary effects can have a major impact on the outcome of a regulation, yeta priori, they are given less consideration. I have found that most stakeholders address the few secondaryimpacts which pertain to their vested interests. There is a need for a standardized framework for assessingimpacts which clearly shows what has been addressed and which also encorporates the fundamentals ofsustainability. Both decision makers and stakeholders need to see the results of the process used to draftregulation. Politicians need background material in order to make good decisions. Stakeholders needfeedback from the process to show them how their needs are accommodated, or at least considered. TheConference Board study of the pulp mill effluent issue found similar needs and suggested:Ongoing stakeholder consultations, perhaps using proven technologies for consensus building andnegotiated approaches to problem resolution can help build trust and agreement, thereby openingthe way fur truly effective action. In few issues is an urgent commitment to action more importantthan in building public consensus and understanding (Hull 1992,15).The next section describes possible ways to redress these concerns.75Section 8^RecommendationsTwo of the conclusions are related, the lack of response to submissions and the lack of faith that theassessments were duly considered. These problems can both be remedied by using a Delphi type ofconsultation, where all participants see all of the comments. In an equality based, Delphi process allcomments are circulated to all participants, who then jointly resolve each point to reach a consensus.Regulation, by nature, is not a consensus process since there is an single, ultimate authority, the government.However, circulating comments and arranging their joint review confirms participation, generates goodwilland, as discussed in subsection 1.1,the value of the process could be greater than the information itself. TheDelphi summary should include the comments and the government's intended actions as a result of thecomments, whether favourable or not. In the case of organochlorine regulation the fast-tracking hindered thistype of feedback and consultation. However, with today's electronic communications the Delphi summarycould be available on E-mail or fax for quick retrieval and dissemination. This could lead to a synthesis ofideas on the terms of the regulation plus, more importantly, would satisfy stakeholders that they are heard.The governments need to assemble a reference for the common assumptions and underlyingcommonly known linkages. All stakeholders assembling an assessment should be able to review these basicsto ensure that comments are based on the same footing. As concluded by COte and Wells, "The system mustincorporate an open decision-making process with explicit assumptions if confidence is to be re-established inproducers and regulators" (Me and Wells 1991,305). For example, the text should reference TreasuryBoard discount rate forecasts, economic multipliers, anticipated currency exchange ranges or market theories.Scientific and ecological principles should be referenced, for example network feedback links between aquaticplant life and the atmosphere. The background document would also provide some of the causal links whichare a content parameter. In cases where these basics are at issue the questions would be specifically raisedand outlined in the context. This proposal parallels Section 2 of this thesis which outlines the beliefs whichshould be understood to properly interpret this paper.76The federal RIAS process could be improved by using class assessments" for repetitive issues ofstrategic policy such as choice of instrument. For example, where a toxic substance requires control a classRIAS would apply which reviews the options for managing of toxic substances and details the rationale forchoosing regulation as opposed to taxation, permits etcetera. In this way the RIAS for each regulation coulddevote more discussion to the details that are particular to that case.The most substantive recommendation of this thesis is the consistent use of a multiobjectiveframework for regulatory analysis. This is a tool for explicitly analysing factors according to the multiplegoals of a resource management issue (Sinden and Word! 1979, Chapter 8). A scientific method of assessingregulation serves society by demystifying the process and by providing an open record of the considerationswhich the policy makers use in making their decisions. Recognizing that some political motivations cannot orwill never be written on paper, a clear process framework regularly applied to regulation creation wouldshow where this closed door negotiating occurs and possibly the weight that it carries in the outcome. Ifgovernment regulations were commonly scrutinized by the public via this framework the politicians' choiceswould become more visible. Better records would provide a historical record for more consistency and lessrepetition of debate in the future.In a technical, inultiobjective analysis objectives are ranked in a hierarchy of importance (Keeney1988b). Going further, a multiattribute utility model continues from the framework to assign aggregatenumerical values for utility of alternatives which have more than one valuable quality (Keeney and Raiffa1976). The degree of satisfaction obtained from the various attributes is normalized and combined into anoverall utility measure. This should not imply a final judgement, but rather "the use of the models enablesthe managers and other decision makers to employ their judgement more systematically than they could ifleft to their own devices" (Huber 1980,47). However the assumptions of preferential and utilityindependence3I which are the basis of multiattribute utility analysis are frequently invalid. It is30 similar to the class Environmental Impact Assessments of the Ontario governments.31 preferential independence - "the ranking of preferences over any pair of attributes is independent of theother attributes."utility independence - "the indifference between a lottery and a certainty equivalent for any attributedoes not depend on the levels of the other attributes."(de Neufville 1990,403 and 405)77inappropriate but all too easy to grind out an inhuman but logical resolution with the utility analysis (usingprocess of elimination and Boolean logic) which is accepted with reverence as a scientific finding. Instead themultiobjective framework can be used to explore the implications of choices without quantifying or evenranking values. Value judgements in ordering objectives (deciding what is more important) fall under thepolitical domain. Where goals have been compromised in reaching an acceptable text of the regulation theorder of the objectives becomes apparant. Susskind calls this more basic framework an "accounting sheet" inwhich options are compared along incommensurable dimensions with no amalgamation of the weights[importance] attached to different options by different groups" (Susskind 1983,158).Conventionally, analysts strive to maintain independence of evaluation parameters so that when thenumerical values are combined they are genuinely additive (or multiplicative or whatever function isapplicable). In statistical terms parameters should be without multicollinearity, that they are homoscedastic.However, as previously discussed, this proposal is to use the multiobjective framework only, as a structure,without necessarily performing computations of a technical rnultiattribute utility analysis. Thus we are free touse whatever parameters we feel are important. In a systems approach the identity of the whole is recognizedas distinct and more than a combination of mutually exclusive parts.Since the framework itself is a form of a model the analyst should consider its stability. Does themodel operate within all the possible combination of input parameters? A model of a system whichencorporates multiple disparate factors each with independent ranges could be chaotic. Chaotic systems arecharacterized by sensitivity to initial conditions and carry their own caveats to modellers. With thisperspective the results of the multiobjective analysis using the assessment framework are valid only for thediscrete initial conditions and time frame specified. All models, particularly multidimensional models, shouldalways be presented with a sensitivity analysis of parameters.It is important to separate the information presented in the assessment framework from the decisionanalysis. It is the reality of the political system that decision makers want to make their own decisions, andwill not necessarily endorse the results of a formal decision analysis particularly since they may not befamiliar with the science of' decision analysis. If the material given to the politicians does not separateinformation from decision analysis then the information may not be received since it is hidden as data. Thisdoes not mean that there is no place for decision analysis, cost/benefit analysis or risk analysis. But as a firststep, politicians and the public need a clear format for information in environmental regulatory assessment so78that the facts are consistently presented from case to case. The facts will be available for easy ex ante andpost regulation review with areas of weakness (blanks in the chart) are visible. The chart is a thinking toolwhich organizes and clarifies inputs to decisions. With the information from the assessments clearlydisplayed, application of values or politics in the decision becomes more obvious. The framework will bevaluable to those initially preparing an assessment for a decision, and also, later, for those reviewing anexisting policy.None of the individual assessments of the case study used a systematic organization. I recommend anopen but standardized format for ex ante assessment of environmental regulation. It its most general andflexible format this would be a checklist reflecting the multiple considerations of sustainability addressedacross physical, economic and social sectors, as shown in Table 4. This table is not a decision generator; it isa framework for assessments to be used to position comments and ensure that all relevant areas areconsidered. Although the categories in the framework would be comprehensive, individual commentatorswould not be obliged to address them all. The chart would identify areas which should be considered in thefinal analysis. Each block represents an issue which must be addressed in some manner, via a quantitativemodel or qualitative discussion.The combined comments or results for each block (which will be unique to each project) would begiven to the decision maker, clearly classified, in a format which will become familiar. Weighting the relativeimportance of the parameters is a political task. If a regulation proceeds when the parameters carrydisbenefits as well as benefits, than the decision must imply that the beneficial parameters were moreimportant or sufficiently greater in size. A categorical analytical framework does not imply that decisions maybe reduced to a number (go if greater than 100) but forces decision makers to make their priorities clear,their considerations explicit. The multiobjective framework makes no claims to tally absolute quantities, butrather lays out in relative terms the factors which should be explicitly recognized in making a policy. Not allfactors in a decision may tit in a framework, but then the undescribed human factor will be isolated and itseffect clearly shown as the balance to factors in the analysis. This framework could also be used to receiveand redistribute Delphi comments.The framework should be available to stakeholders in addition to the standard reference documentand as much supplementary information or references as possible, instead of just the draft text. In this casestudy the accompanying material would have defined the scope of the government's deliberations and would79Table 4 Assessment FrameworkEnvironmental Economic SocialFactorsIndicatorsVariablesModelsScaleCausal linkagesImpactLikelihood^- riskSensitivitySignificanceImpact managementLimitationsdefineduncertaintyGoals achievednominaltacit80include the framework. For public commentary note would be made of existing studies and for assignedstudies the framework would compliment the terms of reference by highlighting which cells are to beaddressed and where discussion of other topics can be found.For example, in Table 5 the assessments of the secondary effects of federal dioxin and furanregulatory proposal are catalogued in the proposed framework as the federal bureaucrats would do tosurrunarize the information they collected. The environmental effects are not included because they areoutside the scope of this thesis; secondary effects in the economic and social sector are charted. Theenvironmental analysis section would be completed from the scientific studies of the government as well asfrom the public input.Table 5 shows the sources of information for both economic and social sectors. The first rowidentities the factors that were chosen by the stakeholders to represent the issues in the case of effluentregulation. Analysis in the social sector is restricted to discussion of jobs, instead of more comprehensive(but complicated) issues such as institutions and wealth distribution. The impact managementrecommendation given by the PPWC is not within federal jurisdiction. The most important information iscontained in the bottom row which indicates whether the goals can be met. In this case there is a lack ofconsensus over nominal economic issues although agreement that the regulation would meet the tacit goal ofestablishing Canada as a one of the international leaders in effluent regulation. Conclusions on social effectsare limited, although this may be sufficient for the range of impacts of this issue. Even if some areas (such asinstitutional change) are not relevant to the situation, reasons for excluding them should be available.The case of dioxin and furan regulation is simpler than other issues because there was no debate ofthe need for prohibition. In other issues (such as regulation of carbon emissions, perhaps) there would bemore debate over all of the factors in the framework. Table 5 is a simple presentation which could beelaborated with more discussion of the issues instead of merely references to the original comments. Ideallythere would be a paragraph of explanation for each cell which would reveal the how differing comments areresolved and reflected in the text of the regulation. This information is currently not available. Eachstakeholder would make a more detailed chart of their own comments.An example of a stakeholder's application of the framework is found in Table 6, for the PPWClabour union. The chart shows general comments and references the page numbers in their report (Reiter1991). The lack of variables and models shows that the analysis of economic and social issues was informal,81Table 5^Case Study Framework - Federal GovernmentEconomic SocialFactorIndicatorsVariablesModelsincomerevenues, investment return$ value, interest rateRIM, TIMstabilityjobsScale mill,industry - McCubbin, COFIregion - RIM TIMinternational - PPWCPPWC, RIM TIMCausal linkages see PPWC, COFI PPWC, RIM TIMImpact all PPWC absoluteRIM TIM relativeLikelihood^-^risk see McCubbin noneSensitivity to price elasticity and exchangerates - RIM TIMRIM TIM, in overall economySignificance all noneImpact management none required PPWC, not in federaljurisdictionLimitationsdefineduncertaintyMcCubbin, RIM TIMMcCubbin, RIM TIMnot discussednot discussedGoals achievednominaltacit$, time - no concensusleadership - yesjob stability^OK.^No otherdiscussion.89Table 6^Case Study Framework - PPWCEconomic SocialFactorIndicatorsVariablesModelsincomeprofitabilitystabilityjobsScale mill - 37, from Bonsornational - 24, 25international^- 25, 38national, all casesCausal linkages AIV, 24 and Bonsor 2, 24Impact costs < past profits andmore profitability, 37in chlor-alkali 2in P&P 24, 25possible losses 25Likelihood^-^risk none noneSensitivity none noneSignificance need federal intervention 25, 38 not discussedImpact management none required revoke TFLs, 25Limitationsdefineduncertaintynot discussednot discussednot discussednot discussedGoals achievednominaltacitreasonable cost, time - yesleadership - yesjob stability - yes83or relied on the models of others. The economic analysis was primarily based on the Bonsor report forOntario's MISA (Bonsor et al 1988). The framework shows that the PPWC did not discuss risk, sensitivity orthe limitations to their analysis. It is easy to assume that the union's limited resources dictated that risk andsensitivity analysis were exclue,d, but this should have been stated. The most important point which the charthighlights is the lack of definition of the limitations of the analysis.These examples have shown how use of the framework can organize information and highlight areaswhich need more attention. The multiobjective framework can help create better regulations in both processand content. It supports participation by providing a consistent vehicle for communication. Values are moreclearly exposed. If there are gaps in assessments they become apparent when the asssessment is organized ina framework which covers the full range of areas of consideration. Conflicting comments are directlycontrasted when gathered together (explicit resolutions of the disagreements should be included wherepossible). This tool will not in itself resolve disputes, nor dispel scientific uncertainty. But it presents theissues in a clear format which is currently unavailable.Implementing the recommendations of this thesis will help anchor sustainability principles in theregulatory process and provide more meaningful participation. The process of regulation is evolving at boththe provincial and the federal level. Criticisms noted in this thesis are not indicative of an entrenchedprocess, but one which is open to change and improvement.84Appendix I^Problem Solving Applied to Writing Environmental RegulationStep I Identify ProblemDefinition by:^Example:- scientific discovery pesticide damages- public opinion^ appearance of watercourse- policy of superior jurisdiction^international convention- economic necessity^ terms of trade- natural or human disaster^BhopalStep 2 Gather Information and Generate Possible SolutionsVarious processes specific to each problem.All processes should he rational (scientific), comprehensive and transparent (open for review).Step 3 Analyse Solutions and Select OptimumVia a systematic and consistent method.Step 4 ImplementPropagate regulation:- legal ratification.- notify and educate those affected.Enforce regulation.Step 5 Monitor and repeatCollect compliance records.Monitor impacts.Evaluate and modify as required.Source: author85Appendix 2^Research Questions and Stakeholder RepresentativesQuestions posed to the research subjects:1) What was your assessment process?2) Did you assess the scientific basis?3) What resources did you use?4) How did you define the scope of your assessment, in terms of time, physical extent, depthand nature of analysis?5) Did you include recommendatins?6) How were costs calculated - using what discount rate, government assistance, assuming whatvalue of the Canadian dollar?7) How was the impact on competitiveness of the industry considered?8) How were secondary physical (ecological) effects considered?9) How were social impacts included? (i.e. via employment?)10) How were First Nations considered?11) How was ease of enforcement considered?12) How was political practicality and acceptability evaluated?13) Was your work effective? Are you satisfied with the process?14) What are the goals of your organization?(continued)86The following people were interviewed as representatives of stakeholder groups:Environment Canada, Environmental Protection Branch, Ottawa.Arthur Scheffield, Robert Blaine, Chantal Chalifoux, David Halliburton.Industry, Science and Technology Canada, Ottawa.Joanna Rosborough.B.C. Ministry of the Environment, Victoria.Don Fast, Lanny Hubbard, David Morrison.Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Montreal.Micheal Frost, Kevin McCallisan.Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, Vancouver.Brian McCloy.MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Vancouver.John Howard, Al Chemelauskas.CANFOR Ltd., Vancouver.Michael Jordan.Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada, Vancouver.Fred Hinton (Nanaimo).West Coast Environmental Law Association, Vancouver.Ann Hillyer, Bill Andrews.Greenpeace, Vancouver.Caroline Raderecht.•87Appendix 3^Federal Regulatory Process - 19921) Federal regulation-making authority (department) submits entries to the Federal Regulatory Plan(published in November or December for the next calendar year).2) Department consults with interested parties, including other departments and governments.3) Department drafts regulation, Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS), and communicationplans.4) Deputy Minister or Head submits draft regulation and supporting documents:(a) Privy Council Office32 Section of Justice examines legal drafting of regulation.(b) Regulatory Affairs Division of Treasury Board reviews RIAS for consistency with regulatorypolicy.(c)^Privy Council Office reviews regulation and supporting documents from a policy perspective.5) Minister submits proposed regulation and RIAS to Privy Council Office for Special Committee ofCouncil approval to pre-publish.6) Proposed regulation and RIAS pre-published in Canada Gazette, Part I.7) Minimum 30 day public comment period (usually 60 days for substantive regulation).8) Department prepares final regulations and supporting documents, revised if necessary.9) Minister submits final regualtion and supporting documents to Privy Council Office for approval bySpecial Committee of Council.10) Privy Counicl Office registers the regulation.11) Publication of final regualtion and RIAS in Canada Gazette, Part II.12) Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations reviews the regulation.3313)^Department periodically reviews and evaluates regulatory program.Source:^Regulatory Affairs Directorate, Treasury Board Secretariat, Ottawa, 1992 and Stanbury,1992.32 Cabinet secretariate and advisory group, staffed by bureaucrats.33 Has the power to submit a negative resolution for disallowance to the House of Commons.88Appendix 4^Guiding Principles of Federal Regulatory Policy(effective February 13, 1986)1) Regulation is and will remain a necessary and important instrument for achieving the government'ssocial and economic objectives. However, the government intends to "regulate smarter."2) The government recognizes the vital role for an efficient marketplace and a dynamic entrepreneurialspirit and that regulation should not impede these values without the most persuasive justification.3) The government intends to limit as much as possible the overall rate of growth and proliferation ofnew regulation. It will proceed on a pragmatic basis with increased emphasis on economic efficiencybut with continuing protection of the public wherever appropriate.4) With regard to existing regulatory programs, priority will be placed on reforming ineffective oreconomically counter-productive regulation, but there will be no program of wholesale deregulation.On a case-by-case basis, there will he reduced regulation where the practical interests of theeconomy and .job creation call for it, just as there will be improved and even intensified regualtionwhere public protection requires it.5) Regulation entails social and economic costs and the government will evaluate these costs to ensurethat benefits clearly exceed costs before proceeding with new regulatory proposals.6) Regulation is legislation and, as such, will be brought more fully under the control of electedgovernment representatives and subject to more effective review by Parliament.7) The public has an important role to play in the development of regulation and the government willincrease public access and participation in the regulatory proces while simplifying procedures andrestricting legalities to a minimum.8) The federal regulatory system will he streamlined and made more efficient and effective to reducecosts, uncertainties and delays.9)^The government will place priority on increased regulatory cooperation with the provinces with aview to addresssinu the overall regulatory burden on Candians and eliminating wasteful duplication.8910)^A minister will henceforth be assigned specific responsibililty for regulatory affairs includingimproved management of the system and overall implementation of the government's regulatorypolicy and reform strategy. Individual ministers with regulatory mandates will be responsible forimplementing and exercising thir responsibilities in conformity with the spirit and objectives of thispolicy.90Appendix 5^Citizen's Code of Regulatory Fairness(effective March 6, 1986)1) Canadians are entitled to expect that the government's regulation will be characterized by minimuminterference with individual freedom consistent with the protection of community interests.2) The Government will encourage and facilitate a full opportunity for consultation and participationby Canadians in the federal regulatory process.3) The Government will provide Canadians with adequate early notice of possible regulatory initiatives.4) The Government will take measures to ensure greater efficiency and promptness in discretionaryand adjudicative regulatory decision-making.5) Once regulatory requirements have been established in law, the government will communicate toCanadians, in clear language, what the regulatory requairements are, and why they have beenadopted.6) The rules, sanctions, processes and actions of regulatory authorities will be securely founded in law.7) The government will ensure that officials responsible for developing, implementing or enforcingregulations are held accountable for their advice and actions.8) The government will take all possible measures to ensure that businesses of different size are notburdened disproportionately by the imposition of regulatory requirements.9) The government will ensure that the governments of the provinces and territories are given earlynotice of and adquate opportunity to consult on federal regulatory initiatives affecting their interests.10) The government will not use regulation unless it has clear evidence that a problem exists, thatgovernment intervention is justified and that regulation is the best alternative open to thegovernment.11) The government will ensure that the benefits of regulation exceed the costs and will give particularlycareful consideration to all new regulation that could impede economic growth of _job creation.12) The government will avoid introducing regulations that control supply, price, entry and exit incompetitive markets except when overriding national interests are at stake.9113) The sanctions and enforcement powers specified in federal regulatory legislation will beproportionate and appropriate to the seriousness of the violation.14) The government will enhance the predictability of the exercise of discretionary powers by federalregulatory authorities and ensure to the maximum extent possible inter-regional consistency in theadministration of regulations.15)^The government will encourage the public to exercise its duty to criticize ineffective or inefficientregulatory initiatives and to offer suggestions for better or "smarter" ways of solving problems andachieving the government's social and economic objectives.99Appendix 6^Regulatory Process in British Columbia1) Originating department drafts a regulation by authority of an Act of the Legislature.2) Order in Coned prepared when draft regulation is complete.3) Draft regulation and Order in Council submitted to Legislative Counsel for designation as minor orsignificant (one that could have policy implications or could significantly affect particular groupswithin the Province).for MINOR regulations:4) Originating department submitts Order in Council information sheet and Distribution Sheet to theresponsible minister, who reviews regulation in the appropriate Cabinet committee.5) Approvals obtained from Cabinet committee, Cabinet and Lieutenant Governor.6) Regulation filed with Registrar of Regulations and published or notice given in British ColumbiaGazette.for SIGNIFICANT regulations:4) Treasury Board completes Financial Impact Assessment.5) Originating ministry completes briefing note, including background, impact statement and enactmentand enforcement procedures.6)^Order in Council and above attachments submitted to Director of Legislation, referred to CabinetSecretariat for Cabinet Committe and Deputy Minister's Committee review.937) Review and approval by Cabinet Committee on Legislation and Regulation.8) Approvals obtained from Cabinet Committee, Cabinet, originating Minister, the Premier and theLieutenant Governor.9)^Regulation filed with Registrar of Regulations and published or notice given in British ColumbiaGazette.Adapted from Treasury Board 1992,6-794Appendix 7^Sample Data from Federal Micro- Socio-economic StudyMACMILLAN SLOEDEL LTD.^NANAIMO^B.C.TSS kg, cl^BCO xg,'1I acci est -nreOCOMMENTS53.159.877 ASS to existing ourfailEffluent data —>^150,003^9.065^30.003 (Flow cu. r /dayEQUIPMENT^DESIGN LOAD^QUANTITYGravity Pipeline I 150.000 cu. m/day 3Gravity Pipeline 2 Cu. m/day 0Gravity Pipaiine 3 cu. m/day 0Forcemain 1 150.000 Cu. m/day 3Forcamain 2 Cu. m/day 0Pump Station 1 150.003 cu. mjdayPump Station 2 50.000 cu. m/ctayPump Station 3 0 Cu. m/clay 0Lump Sum Piping 200.000 DollarsPrimary Clarer 50.000 Cu. m/clayAerated Stabilisation 8aSin 30.000 SOO kg/dActivated Sludge Reactor BOO kg/d 0Aerators 30.000 BOO kg/d 1Nutriont Addition 0Nautralisation 0Secondary Clarifier cu. m/day 0Secondary sludge thickener Dollars 0Sludge Oevratering 7,003 kg/daySubmerged Curtail cu. m/day 0Roads 0Site allowances (arbitrary) 1.500.000 DollarsOPERATING COSTSRequired^Unit CostPower required^2321 kw^$0.030 S/kW hoururns for neutralisation^20000 kg/day^mpg S/kg CaoAmmonia^ — kg/day^$0.40 S/kgPhosphoric Acid^-- kg/day^51 .03 S/kg hl3PC4Fertiliser for Nutrient 150 kg/day^50.37 S/kgPolymer for biosludge^kg/day^514 00 SikgOperators^4 man hrs/d^S27 51 5/man hourTechnicians 4 man hrs/d^s30.75 $/man hourProcess Eng near^0.33 person^590.000 S/yearSludge disposal 7 dry t/day^$60.00 $/dry tonneMaintonance^Total maintenance labour and matenalsAnnual Operating Cost =km longkm longkm longkm longkm longLump SumSystemsSystemsSystems52.337.923 Mill to ASB52.236.068 To AS831.290.994 Into clarifier—5200,003 Misc collection & segregation52.282.443 Additional capacity$10,000.000—33.420,000■•••■•$1,500,000  Includes effluent flow reductionCapital cast (excluding inflation and regional factors)^ 5213.997.307 (Regional factor .1^1.20)^Capital Cost^534,797.000(Inflation factor 4^100) inflation since Jan 1990Systems^$2,570,000 Addition to existing systemkm long — ExistsKilometresLump SumsAnnual _Cost$556,920 Pumping 4. aeration - misc5630.000--519.425—538.658585.047$29,7005147 0005869.92552.377 OCOFor Activated SludgeFor Activated SluogeFor aerated Staoilisation asinsnc Fringes and Cverneadric Fringes. Eouloment. Materials & Oh2.5% of Capital costDescription of System6000 metres of effluent piping, 2 Effluent Pump Stations.46 meter dia. Primary Clarifier,5 day retention Aerated Stabilisation Basin with 1710 kW installed aerationAssumes effluent flow can tie readily reduced (capital allowance of Si 5m included)95Appendix 8^Development of Waste Discharge Criteria Based upon Best Achievable Control TechnologyB.C. EnvironmentDefinitions: BACT means currently available state-of-the-art control technology which is proven to be successfulin reducing waste discharge and has been applied for at least one year in similar facilities in theProvince or in other relevant jurisdictions. The "control technology" refers to all of the following:raw materials, fuels, process technology and pollution control equipment or devices used to minimizeboth generation and discharge of wastes.Waste Discharge Criteria are the normal maximum waste discharges allowed (concentration orproduction based) from specified sources and are applicable Province-wide. Waste discharge criteriaare guidelines for Ministry and client use and are not in and of themselves legal requirements.Procedure Detail: The procedure to be followed in developing Wast Discharge Criteria based on BACT for aparticular type of waste source is:Perform a scientific review of pertinent information and summarize in a technical reportincluding the following topics:(a) description of waste source(b) raw materials and process technology(c) pollution aspects of process(d) characterization of pollutants(e)^pollutants of concern96pollution control technologieseffectiveness of process and control technologiesexisting and proposed waste discharge quality requirements in various jurisdictionscost implications of criteria optionsrecommended Waste Discharge Criteria based on BACT. (In some instances thecriteria may be individually tailored for certain size categories of waste sources.)(k)^recommended sampling and analytical methods to be used to determine compliancewith subsequent legal limits for the subject waste discharge9.^identify stakeholders that will be impacted by the criteria (stakeholder includes thedischarger, public and government agencies);3. conduct a stakeholder consultation process and upon completion finalize the recommendedcriteria considering stakeholders' input;4. obtain endorsement of recommended criteria by the Environmental Protection Division'sTechnical Review Committee and the Corporate Committee;5. finalize waste discharge criteria via a procedure signed by the appropriate EnivronmentalProtection Division Director;6. each Branch Director in the Environmental Protection Division is responsible for filingdocumentation for items 1 to 5 above for each criteria product in such a manner as toenable easy future access to the information on which each BACT criteria is based.Source: Don Fast, Executive Director, Environmental Protection Division, B.C. Environment.97Appendix 9^West Coast Environmental Law AssociationStrategic ObjectivesEnvironmentalProtect the quality, quantity and timing of flow of water.Prevent damage to our air, atmosphere or climate.Prevent toxic contamination, and identify, contain and properly deal with existing toxiccontamination.Promote environmentally sustainable activities that foster biological diversity and habitat, andsafeguard wilderness and environmentally sensitive areas.Promote energy conservation.LealBroaden legal standing to obtain remedies to protect the environment.Ensure access to environmental information.Improve procedures for developing environmental standards, assessing environmental impact, andconducting land use planning.Foster adoption of enforceable standards to protect the environment.Ensure compliance with environmental standards.Promote alternative methods of resolving environmental disputes.Strengthen mechanisms for implementing polluter pays principle.Promote ways to facilitate environmentally responsible purchasing practices.98ReferencesAmy, Douglas J. 1990. Decision techniques for environmental policy: A critique. Pgs 59-79 in Robt. Paehlkeand D. Torgerson Managing leviathan. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press.Andrews, William J. and Ann Hillyer. 1990. Recommendations for improvements to proposed Fisheries actand Canadian Environmental Protection Act regulations for pulp and paper mills. Submission toVic Shantora, Director, Industrial Programs Branch, Environment Canada. May 10.Baram, Michael S. 1982. Alternatives to regulation: Managing risks to health, safety and the environment.Lexington Mass.: Lexington Books.Barlow, Connie. 1992. From Gaia to selfish genes: Selected writings in the life sciences. Cambridge Mass.:MIT Press.Baumol, William J. and Wallace E. Oates. 1988. The theory of environmental policy. Cambridge U.K.:Cambridge University Press.BC Environment, Environmental Protection Division, Industrial Waste and Hazardous Contaminants Branch.1992. Conceptual plan: Research for the regulation of effluents from pulp mills in British Columbia.Victoria. August 28.Beanlands, G. and P. Duinder. 1983. Ecology and EIA: An annotated bibliography. Halifax: Institute forResource and Environmental Studies (Dalhousie University) and Ottawa: Federal EnvironmentalAssessment Review Office.Blake, Sara. 1992. Administrative law in Canada. Toronto and Vancouver: Butterworths.Bonsor, Norman, Neil McCubbin„ John B. Sprague. 1988. Kraft mill effluents in Ontario. Toronto: Queen'sPrinter for Ontario. April.Brickman, Ronald, Sheila Jasanoff and Thomas Ilgen. 1985. Controlling chemicals: The politics of regulationin Europe and the United States. Ithaca N.Y.:Cornell University Press.British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. 1992. Towards a strategy forsustainability. Victoria, B.C.Brewer, Gary and Peter deLeon. 1983. Fundamentals of policy analysis. Homewood Ill.: Dorsey Press.Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. 1989. About chemical pulps.(pamphlet). Montreal, March.^ 1990. Submission to Environment Canada, public information meetings. Montreal. April.^ 1991. Annual Report. Montreal Que.99^ 1992. The forest industry in Canada. Montreal.^ 1992. Representations of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to the Minister of theEnvironment and te Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of National Health andWelfare concerning Canada Gazette Part 1, December 14, 1991. Montreal. 12 February.Capra, Fritjof. 1992. A systems view of the world. Resurgence No. 151 34-37. March/April.Carey, John H., Peter V. Hodson, Kelly R. Munkittrick and Mark R. Servos. 1993. Recent Canadian studieson the physiological effects of pulp mill effluent on fish. Ottawa: Environment Canada.CEPA (Canadian Environmental Protection Act). 1990. Priority substances list assessment report no. 1:polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. cat. no. En 40-215/1E. Ottawa.^ 1991. Priority substances list assessment report no. 2: effluents from pulp mills using bleaching. cat.no. En40-215 /2E. Ottawa.Chambers, A.D. 1973. The systems approach to resource allocation. Essays on aspects of resource policy.Special Study no. 27. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V. No reference given as quoted in I. Burton and R. Kates. Readings in resourcemanagement and conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Secondary sourcequoted in Kerry Turner, ed. Sustainable environmental management: Principles and practice.Boulder Co.: Westview Press, 1988.Clawson, Marion. 1980. An eclectic and inclusive approach to resource policy analysis. Chapter 5 in Resourcepolicy: International perspectives. Peter N. Nemetz ed.. Montreal: Institute for Research on PublicPolicy. 57-67.Coleman, William. 1988. Business and politics: A study of collective action. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Colodey, A.G. 1988. Environmental impact of bleached pulp and paper mill effluents in Sweden, Finland, andNorway: Implications to the canadian environment. File report, Environment Canada, Conservationand Protection, Pacific and Yukon region. December.Consulting and Audit Canada. 1992. RIAS writers' guide. For the Regulatory Affairs Branch, Treasury BoardSecretariat. Draft, March.Copp, David. 1985. Morality, reason and management science: The rationale of cost-benefit analysis. SocialPhilosophy and Policy. 2:2 Spring. 128-151.Costanza, Robert. 1991. Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability. New York:Columbia University Press.100Ceite, Raymond P. and Peter G. Wells, eds. 1991. Controlline chemical hazards: Fundamentals of themanagement of toxic chemicals. London U.K.: Unwin Hyman.Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. I990a. Sustainable development and the B.C. pulp andpaper industry. Vancouver, B.C. March.^ 1990b. British Columbia forest industry fact book. Vancouver, B.C.^ 1992. BC pulp sector position on zero AOX. Vancouver. June 19.Daly, Herman E. 1991. "Sustainable growth: A had oxymoron" Orion. Autumn.Daly, Herman E. and John B. Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the common good. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.Davis, Jack. 1969. "The fish and the law that guard against pollution" Globe and Mail 7 August.Delp, Peter, Arne Thesen, Juzar Motiwalla and Nedakantan Seshadri. 1977. Systems tools for projectplanning. Indiana: International Development Institute, Indiana University.de Neufville, Richard. 1990. Applied systems analysis: Engineering planning and technology management.New York: McGraw-Hill.Dioxins in Canada: The federal approach. Canada 1983. Canada Interdepartmental Committee on ToxicChemicals, Environment Canada. Hull, Que.Dixon, John A. 1989. Multilevel resource analysis and management: The case of watersheds. Chapter II inEnivronmental management and economic development. Gunter Schramm and Jeremy J. Warfordeds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for the International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment. 185-199.Doem, G. Bruce. 1990. Getting it green: Case studies in Canadian environmental regulation. Toronto andCalgary: C.D. Howe Institute. November.Doem, G. Bruce and Peter Aucoin. 1979. Public policy in Canada. Toronto: Macmillan.Dorfman, R. and N. Dorfman, eds. 1972. Economics of the environment. New York: W.W. Norton.Douglas, Kristen and Margaret Smith. 1991. Toxic substances: Federal-provincial control. Library ofParliament Research Branch. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada. May 9. First editionNovember I, 1988.Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Ehrenfeld, D. 1978. The arrogance of humanism. New York: Oxford University Press.101Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1991. Healing the planet. Menlo Park CA: Addison-Wesley.Environment Canada, Regulatory and Economic Affairs Division. 1989a. Terms of feference forthepreparation of a background study on proposed amendments to the pulp and paper effluentregulations under the Fisheries Act and on Canadian bleached chemical pulp industry to addressdioxin and furan in their products and effluents. Ottawa.^ 1989h. Terms of reference for the preparation of a study on proposed amendments to the pup andpaper effluent regulations under the Fisheries Act and on Canadian bleached chemical pulp industryto address dioxin and furan in their products and effluents. Ottawa.Fairley, H. Scott. 1990. The environment, sustainable development andthe limits of constitutionaljurisdiction. 57-62 in a Canadian Bar Association Committee Report, Sustainabledevelopment in Canada: Options for law reform. Ottawa: The Canadian Bar Association.Fast, D.A. 1991. Development of waste discharge criteria based on (BACT) Best Achievable ControlTechnology. Policy Manual 8 1 04.07.Victoria: Government of British Columbia.Fischhoff, Baruch, Sarah Lichtenstein, Paul Slovic, Stephen L. Derby and Ralph L. Keeney. 1981. Aceptablerisk. New York: Cambridge University Press.Greenpeace Canada. 1987. No Margin of Safety. Toronto.^ 1989. A blind eye: Federal regulation of the pulp and paper industry in Canada. Spring.1989. Dire Straits. Vancouver. June.Gregory, Robin, Ralph Keeney and Detlof von Winterfeldt. 1992. Adapting the Einvironmental impactprocess to inform decisionmakers. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. vo.111 no. 1. 58-75.Halstead, John M., Robert A. Chase, Steve H. Murdock and F. Larry Leistritz. 1984. Socioeconomic impactmanagement: Design and implementation. Boulder Co.: Westview Press.Haliburton, David; Assistant Chief, Renewable Resources Extraction and Processing Division, EnvironmentCanada. Interview by the author. May 21.Harrison, Kathryn. 1991a. Federalism, environmental protection and blame avoidance. Paper presented atCanadian Political Scienece Association Annual Meeting, Kingston, Ont. June.^ 1991b. Between Science and Politics: Assessing the risks of dioxins in Canada and the UnitedStates. Policy Sciences 24:367-388.^ 1992. The smell of prosperity: Federal and provincial regulation of pulp mill effluents. Draft ofChapter 7 of PhD thesis, UBC Department of Political Science, 1992.Harmon, Willis W. 1983. Integrated impact assessment: The impossible dream? In Frederick A. Rossini andAlan L. Porter eds, Integrated impact assessment. Boulder Co.: Westview Press. 19-28.102Hillyer, Anne. Soliciter, West Coast Environmental Law Association. 1993. Interview by the author.Vancouver. March 11.Hinton, Fred. Environmental Affairs Representative, Pulp, Paper, and Woodworkers of Canada. 1993.Interview by the author. Nanaimo. April 13.Hoberg, George. 1992. Sustainable development as a political problem. UBC seminar. MarchHouse of Commons, Special Committee on Regulatory Reform. 1980. Minutes of proceedings and evidence,24 Sept., 6:7.House of Commons, Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. 1971. Minutes of proceedings andevidence, 27 April, 7:15. Quoted in Harrison, 1992.Howard, John L. Vice-President Law and Corporate Affairs, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. 1993. Interview by theauthor. Vancouver. May 1 1.Huber, George P. 1980. Managerial decision making. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co.Hull, Brian. 1992. Effluents from pulp mills using chlorine. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada.Hull, Brian and Antoine St-Pierre. 1990. The market and the environment: Using market-based approachesto achieve environmental goals. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada.Inglehart, Ronald. 1981. Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. American Political ScienceReview. vol. 75 no. 4. 880-900.Jordan, Michael, Manager of Environmental Services, CANFOR Ltd. 1993. Interview by the author.Vancouver. May 18.Keeney, Ralph L. 1988a. Value-fbcused thinking and the study of values. Chap. 21 in Decision making: Descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions. eds. D. Bell, H. Raiffa and A. Tversky. 465-494.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.^ 1988b. Structuring objectives for problems of public interest. Operations Research. vol. 36 no. 3.May-June. 396-405.Keeney, Ralph L. and Howard A. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and valuetradeoffs. New York: Wiley.Kelman, Steven. 1982. Ethics - Cost-benefit analysis and environmental, safety and health regulation: Ethicaland philosophical considerations. Chapter 7 in Cost-benefit analysis and environmental regulations: Politics, ethics and methods. D. Swartzman, R.A. Liroff and K.G. Croke eds. Washington D.C.:TheConservation Foundation. 137-151.103Knelman, Fred. 1978. Anti-nation: Transition to sustainability. Oakville Ont.: Mosaic Press.Koo, Anthony Y.C. 1979. Environmental repercussions on trade and investment. Michigan State Universityfor the International Labour Organization.Krewski, D. and P.L. Birkwood. 1988. Regulatory and non-regulatory options of risk management. In Riskassessment and management: Emerging planning perspectives. L.R.G. Martin and S. Laford eds.Waterloo Ont.: University of Waterloo Press. 253-271.Kroesa, Renate. 1990. The Greenpeace guide to paper. Vancouver: Greenpeace Books.Lauzon, Leo-Paul. 1992. Socio-economic analysis: The canadian forest products idnustry 1981-1991.MontrealP.Q.: Universite du Québec.Law Reform Commission of Canada. 1986. Policy implementation, compliance and administrative law.Working Paper 51. Ottawa.Lovins, Amory B. 1977. Cost-risk-benefit analysis in energy policy. George Washington Law Review vol 45no. 5. August. 911-943Luken, Ralph A. 1990. Efficiency in environmental regulation: A benefit-cost analysis of alternativeapproaches. Norwell, Mass.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Macdonald, Doug. 1991. The politics of pollution: Why canadians are failing their environment. Toronto,Ont.: McClelland and Stewart.Mason, Richard 0. and Ian 1. Mitroff. 1981. Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases andtechniques. Toronto and New York: Wiley-Interscience.McCloy, Brian. Vice President, Environment, Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. 1993.Interview by the author. March 17.McCubbin, Neil. 1990. Background study of proposed amendments to pulp industry regulations onorganochlorines and dioxins. For Environment Canada Conservation and Protection IndustrialPrograms Branch, Ottawa, March 27.McCuhhin, Neil, Norman C. Bonsor and Dennis Owen. 1990. Economic impact of proposed regulation ofpulp and paper industry. Project No. 2057 tbr Environment Canada Regulatory and EconomicAffairs Division, Ottawa. June.McKibben, Bill. 1989. The end of nature. New York: Random House.104McKinnon, Leanne. 1992. AOX as a regulatory parameter: A scientific review of AOX toxicity andenvironmental fate. Report for BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, EnvironmentalProtection Division, Industrial Waste and Hazardous Contaminants Branch. Victoria. DraftSeptember 11.Meadows, DoneIla H. et.al . 1972. The limits to urowth: A report for the Club of Rome's project on thepredicament of mankind. 2nd ed. New York: Universe Books, 1976.Merkhoffer, Miley W. 1987. Decision science and social risk management. Norwell, MA.: Kluwer Academic.Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. 1987. The federal legislative process in Canada.Ottawa: Government of Canada.Ministers' Expert Advisory Committee on Dioxins. 1983. Report of the ministers' expert advisory committeeon dioxins. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada and Environment Canada. November.Ministry of Environment. 1989. Pollution control objectives for the forest products industry of BritishColumbia. Pollution Control Board 1977. Victoria, B.C.Mittelstaedt, Martin and Casey Mahood. 1993. Industry denounces chlorine cuts. The Globe and Mail.Wednesday, February 3. B3.Moinett, Jeffrey; Comptroller, MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. 1993. Interview by the author. May 5.Muldoon, Paul. 1990. Toward a national pollution prevention strategy: Principles for reform to address theproblem of toxic contamination. 130-152 in a Canadian Bar Association Committee Report,Sustainable development in Canada: Options for law reform. Ottawa: The Canadian Bar Association.Mumford, Lewis. 1970. The myth of the machine: The pentagon of power. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich.Nemetz, Peter N.,John Sturdy, Dean Uyeno, Ilan Vertinsky, Patricia Vertinsky and Aidan Vining. 1982.Toxic chemical regulation in Canada: Preliminary estimates of costs and benefits. Canadian PublicAdministration. vol. 25 no. 3. Fall. 405-419.Nichols, Albert L. and Richard J Zeckhauser. 1986. Ther perils ofprudence: How conservative riskassessments distort regulation. Regulation. November/December. 13-24.Nijkamp, P. 1980. Environmental policy analysis: Operational methods and models. Chichester: Wiley.NLK. 1992. Market and economic research on current and future demands : AOX free and low AOX Kraftpulp. Report to COFI. Vancouver. June 5.105Opschoor, J. B. and Hans B. Vos. 1989. Economic instruments for environmental protection. Paris: OECD.Owusu-Guyima, P.K. and D.N. Roy. 1991. PuIpmill pollution and public perception. The forestry chronicle.68 no. 4 (August): 492-495.Pickering, Mary. 1990. Draft pulp and paper regulations dismay critics. Alternatives v.17no.3. 11.Pirsig, Robert M. 1991. Lila. New York: BantamPorter, Michael E. 1991. America's green strategy. Scientific American April 1991, 168.Proctor and Gamble Company. 1989. Pulping effluents in the aquatic environment: A report prepared by theScientific Panel on Pulping Effluents in the Aquatic Environment. Cincinnati, Ohio. August 11.Raderecht, Caroline. 1993. Greenpeace spokesperson. Interview by the author. Vancouver. April 5.Rees, J. 1988. Pollution control objectives and the regulatory framework. in Sustainable environmental management: Principles and practice. ed. Kerry Turner. 170-189. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.Rees, William E. 1991. Economics, ecology and the limits of conventional analysis. Journal of the air andwaste management association. Vol. 41, no. 10. 1323-1327.0ctober.Reiter, Barry. 1991. The other side of the canadian pulp and paper industry: The urgent need forenvironmental regulatory reform. Vancouver: The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada.February 4. First printing May 7, 1990.Robinson, John, George Francis, Russel Legge and Sally Lerner. 1990. Defining a sustainable society: Values,principles and definitions. Alternatives vol. 17:2July/August. 36-46.Schweer, Greg and Pat Jennings. 1990. Integrated Risk Assessment for dioxins and furans from chlorinebleaching in pulp and paper mills. Report to USEPA Exposure Evaluation Division, EPA contracrno. 68-D9-0166. Washington, D.C. July.Simons, H.A. Ltd., Consulting Engineers. 1992. Assessment of industry costs to meet British Columbia's newAOX retnilations. Report to B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Ministry of EconomicDevelopment, Small Business and Trade. June.Sims, W.A. and J.B. Smith. 1983. The impact of environmental regulation on productivity growth. Discussionpaper no. 241. Ottawa: Economic Council of Canada.Sinclair, William F. 1988. Controlling pollution from canadian pulp and paper manufacturers: A federalperspective. Ottawa: Environment Canada. July.106^ 1991. Controlling effluent discharges from canadian pulp and paper manufacturers. Canadian publicpolicy. XVII:1 86-105.Sinden, John and Albert C. Worrell. 1979. Unpriced values: Decisions without market prices. New York:Wiley.Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and social revolutions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Quoted by JohnS. Dryzek in R. Paehlke and D. Torgerson Managing leviathan 98-99. Peterborough Ont.: BroadviewPress.Slocombe, D.S. 1984. Environmental and social impact assessment - the state of the art: An annotatedBibliography. Vancouver: U.B.C. School of Community and Regional Planning.Slovic, Paul. 1986. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Analysis vol. 6 no. 403-415.Smith, Adam. 1982. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Quoted in Scruton,Roger. A dictionary of political thought. 429-430. London U.K.: Pan Books. First published 1776.Also in Dahl, Robert A. and Lindblom, Charles E. Politics, economics and welfare. 195-196. NewYork: Harper & Row, 1953.Sonnen, C.A. and M. Laurence. 1990. National and provincial economic effects of regulations to reduceemissions of the pulp and paper industry. Ottawa: Informetrica Ltd. July 31.Stack, Carol B. 1987. A critique of method in the assessment of policy impact. Pgs 137-147 in J.L. Miller andM. Lewis, eds. Research in social problems and public policy vol. 4. Greenwich Conn.: JAI Press.Stanbury, W.T. 1992. Reforming the federal regulatory process in Canada, 1971-1992.Minutes of Proceedingsand Evidence of the Sub-Committee on Regulations and Competitiveness of the Standing Committeeon Finance, Issue No. 23, Appendix "SREC-2". Ottawa. DecemberStanbury, W.T. and Ilan B. Vertinsky. 1989. Guide to regulatory impact analysis. Ottawa: Office ofPrivatization and Regulatory Affairs, Government of Canada. June.Standing Committee on Finance. 1993. Regulations and competitiveness. Seventeenth report of the StandingCommittee on Finance, first report of the sub-committee on regulations and competitiveness.January.Stone, Deborah A. 1988. Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview Ill.: Scott Foresman & Co.Sullivan, M.J. 1988. Assessing the significance of dioxin in pulp and paper mill effluent and products. Paperpresented at the 1988 International Pulp Bleaching Conference. TAPPI Proceedings.107Susskind, Lawrence E. 1983. The uses of negotiation and mediation in environmental impact assessment. InFrederick A. Rossini and Alan L. Porter eds, Integrated impact assessment.  Boulder Co.: WestviewPress. 154-167.Thompson, Fred. 1980. More and better analysis? The case of health, safety and environmental regulation. InGovernment regulation: Growth, scope, process. W.T. Stanbury. Montreal: Institute for Research onPublic Policy. 239-267.Thompson, Gerry. 1992. The Journal CBC, Toronto, Ont., March 23.Turner, R. Kerry, ed. 1988. Sustainable environmental management: Principles and practice. Boulder, Co.:Westview Press.Trainer, F.E. 1985. Abandon affluence!. London, U.K.: Zed Books.Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 1992. How regulators regulate: A guide to regulatory processes inCanada. Cat. no. BT56-5/1992. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Dioxins. EPA Report no. 600-2-80-197.WashingtonD.C. November.^ 1985. Health assessment document for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins. EPA report no. 600-8-84-014F. Washington D.C. September.^ 1990. Report of the quantitative risk asessment committee: Carcinogenic resk assessment fordioxins and ftirans in fish contaminated by bleached-paper mills. Washington D.C. March 15.Vanderzwaag, David and Linda Duncan. 1992. Canada and Environmental Protection: Confident politicalfaces, uncertain legal hands. Chpt. 1 in Robert Boardman Canadian environmental policy: Ecosystems, politics and process.  Toronto: Oxford Uiversity Press. 3-24.Van Strum, Carol and Paul E. Merrell. 1987. No margin of safety: A preliminary report on dioxin pollutionand the need for emergency action in the pulp and paper industry. Tidewater, Oregon: GreenpeaceUSA.von Stackelberg, Peter. 1989. Whitewash: The dioxin cover-up. Greenpeace 14 no.2 (March/April): 7-11.Wackernagel, Mathis. 1992. Comparing three thinking tools for policy analysis. Unpublished paper, UBCSchool of Community and Regional Planning, May.Weimer, David L. and Aidan R. Vining. 1992. Policy analysis: Concepts and practice. 2d ed. Englewood HillsNJ: Prentice Hall.White, Irvin L and Mary R. Hamilton. 1983. Policy analysis in integrated impact assesssment. In Frederick A.Rossini and Alan L. Porter eds, Integrated impact assessment.  Boulder Co.: Westview Press. 39-55.108Wildavsky, Aaron. 1988. Searching for safety. Bowling Green, Ohio: Transaction Publishers.Williamson, Robert. 1992. Pulp cleanup may be waste of money. Globe and Mail, December 23, Al and A6plus subsequent interview by the author.World Coimnission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford, U.K.: OxfordUniversity Press.Wilson, James Q. 1980. The politics of regulation. New York: Basic Books.Wright, Martin. 1991. International theory: The three traditions.  ed. Gabriele Wright and Brian Porter.Leicester U.K.: Leicester University Press.Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publishing.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0076876/manifest

Comment

Related Items